Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: $60 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia

  1. #1
    Retired Sky Blocks Champion, Block Distraction Champion, Lock n Roll Champion, Flags Medium Champion, Flags Difficult Champion, Crazy Cube Champion Seraphima's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,276
    Thanks
    406

    $60 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia

    Here's an interesting article on what the weapons deal could mean for Israel and Iran.

    Israel’s silence over Saudi arms deal speaks volumes - The Globe and Mail

    The U.S. administration has confirmed a decision to sell up to $60-billion worth of military weapons to Saudi Arabia – officially an enemy of Israel – and Israel hasn’t uttered a peep of concern.

    In fact, Israel is welcoming the sale – all because of Iran and the threat that its nuclear-weapons program poses to both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    “Israel is content that this deal will not impinge on our strategic superiority,” said Emily Landau, senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, “and it sees it as a positive reinforcement of its own view of Iran.”

    ...

    Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain, said that such military co-operation “would be against the policy adopted and followed by the kingdom,” adding that it would be “illogical to allow the Israeli occupation force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace.”

    “Illogical” perhaps, but not if Saudi Arabia established relations with Israel, something that could result if Israel and the Palestinians sign a peace treaty. This may partly explain why Saudi Arabia has been such a determined supporter of the talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Winn's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    0

    We should not be selling arms to anyone.

    I think war is profitable for those in power and profitable for the corporations who have defense contracts. It's not so profitable for the rest of us that have to pay for it and fight it.

    The US is the largest military hardware dealer on the planet. We have no interest in peace. I'll believe we do have an interest in world peace when I see us stop all sales of military hardware.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,210
    Thanks
    17946

    From
    Mass and Florida
    All but ONE of the 9/11 murderers came from this man's country:

  4. #4
    ConspiratusUbiquitus Hollyw00d's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Thanks
    6

    From
    Bizzaro Werld
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphima View Post
    Here's an interesting article on what the weapons deal could mean for Israel and Iran.

    Israel’s silence over Saudi arms deal speaks volumes - The Globe and Mail



    What do you think?

    How could this surprise or shock anyone? This is America, #1 weapons exporter in the world. After all, "bidness is bidness" ans war is VERY good buisness.

  5. #5
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,333
    Thanks
    33182

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Winn View Post
    We should not be selling arms to anyone.

    I think war is profitable for those in power and profitable for the corporations who have defense contracts. It's not so profitable for the rest of us that have to pay for it and fight it.

    The US is the largest military hardware dealer on the planet. We have no interest in peace. I'll believe we do have an interest in world peace when I see us stop all sales of military hardware.
    If that move would actually reduce the amount of weapons available, I'd agree. But abandoning that market would only cause arms purchasers to pursue their deals with the runners up in the great arms market: Russia, UK, Germany, China, and France.

    According the UN, the overall trend in international political violence is down, significantly, in recent decades--so something is going right.

    The reason the US leads in this market is because our own domestic market is so large. Defense contractors create lots of sophisticated weaponry for the American military--which is bigger than all the others combined--so they end up with excess capacity they need to sell to others.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Winn's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,015
    Thanks
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    If that move would actually reduce the amount of weapons available, I'd agree. But abandoning that market would only cause arms purchasers to pursue their deals with the runners up in the great arms market: Russia, UK, Germany, China, and France.

    According the UN, the overall trend in international political violence is down, significantly, in recent decades--so something is going right.

    The reason the US leads in this market is because our own domestic market is so large. Defense contractors create lots of sophisticated weaponry for the American military--which is bigger than all the others combined--so they end up with excess capacity they need to sell to others.
    We sell weapons to almost everyone. Our politicians then turn around and tell us how dangerous the world is (selling fear) and that we need to keep military spending at high levels.

    Selling arms is socializing the cost, but privatizing the profits.

    If we stop selling weapons to everyone, and yes I agree with you, other nations will jump in and sell all of the weapons they can. But the blood is then on their hands, not ours. And my tax money is not being used to build weapons that eventually end up being sold to foreign nations.

    So the answer imo is to stop building so much weaponry, then we won't have the excess to sell. Of course that flies in the face of profit making for corporations so it'll never happen.

  7. #7
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,333
    Thanks
    33182

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Winn View Post
    We sell weapons to almost everyone. Our politicians then turn around and tell us how dangerous the world is (selling fear) and that we need to keep military spending at high levels.
    But the dangers our politicians are selling us at the moment have almost nothing to do with the arms we sell. They come from those "asymmetric" threats who do not use the kinds of sophisticated weaponry we're talking about. You don't need an arms dealer to sell you an IED, a pipe bomb or a belt loaded with dynamite. Small arms are not mostly purchased from the US--the preferred weapon is the AK47, which is produced by others. We're actually fairly selective about whom we allow defense contractors to sell to--in fact, cooperation with the US is one of the criteria for arms sales, so selling weapons actually gets us more cooperation from other governments on the diplomatic scene. Sadly, its one of the dwindling assets that can be used to further US policy.
    Selling arms is socializing the cost, but privatizing the profits.
    I agree there are lots of profits to be made from arms sales, but it's naive to think they won't be sold anyway.

    If we stop selling weapons to everyone, and yes I agree with you, other nations will jump in and sell all of the weapons they can. But the blood is then on their hands, not ours. And my tax money is not being used to build weapons that eventually end up being sold to foreign nations.
    How is our tax money used to build weapons for other people? They pay for the weapons, after all, and as with any other commerce, we end up reaping a tax benefit, not a cost.
    So the answer imo is to stop building so much weaponry, then we won't have the excess to sell. Of course that flies in the face of profit making for corporations so it'll never happen.
    It's not that we have so much weaponry but because our defense contractors have so much CAPACITY. It's not like Lockheed builds extra airplanes in the hopes someone will buy them, but they do develop really good weapons for use by the US military, and once they've developed them and are tooled up to produce them, it makes sense for them to use that expertise and capacity to sell more. The problem is less that such a policy prevents defense contractors from making money as that it preserves the US's military dominance over everyone--which helps lots of profit making unrelated to weapons.

    So long as the US maintains its huge footprint in the world via military dominance, we'll need arms sales (to other nations, at least) to accomplish foreign policy goals and reward our friends. Pretty much no one wants that, however, since it would mean managing a decline in American power and influence--and probably a hit to our relative standard of living. We won't stop that anymore than we'll stop driving big cars and eating too much.

  8. #8
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    29,683
    Thanks
    26

    From
    See you in a new existence!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphima View Post
    Here's an interesting article on what the weapons deal could mean for Israel and Iran.

    Israel’s silence over Saudi arms deal speaks volumes - The Globe and Mail



    What do you think?

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Similar Threads

  1. Saudi Arabia to Invest $100 Billion in Renewable Energy
    By HenryPorter in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10th April 2011, 10:09 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th November 2010, 12:19 PM
  3. Saudi Arabia pledges $1 billion to rebuild Gaza
    By big_lebowski in forum World Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 20th January 2009, 08:51 AM
  4. U.S. to offer huge arms deal to Saudi Arabia
    By Common Sense Craig in forum World Politics
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 14th August 2007, 11:33 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 29th July 2007, 08:32 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed