The Bush administation wants to do this under the rationale it will help keep Iran under control. But.....
1) Saudi Arabia hasn't been praticularly helpful in the Middle East for the U.S. yet.
2) Many of the "insurgents" that combat U.S. troops are from Saudi Arabia.
3) Saudi Arabia is an enemy to Israel (which of course is an ally to the U.S.)
4) 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.
5) There's good reason to believe that this sale could set off an arms race in the Middle East. Thus making the region even more unstable for American interests.
6) There have always been suspicions about the Bush family's ties with the Saudis.
Can you give any more good reasons why selling so much military equipment to Saudi Arabia is justified ? Or perhaps you would like to argue some of my points against the sale ? Do you have any thoughts at all that you would like to add to this discussion ?
2007-07-28
17:13:02
·
16 answers
·
asked by
?
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Warren I'm sorry I didn't realize this question was being asked every 18 minutes. I should have checked first.
2007-07-28
17:18:51 ·
update #1
Super Socialist, thank you for you in depth answer. Few people haave the intelligence to think on the level you do.
2007-07-28
17:28:40 ·
update #2
Please forgive my spelling and grammatical mistakes. I'm drunk again. I didn't put an "r" on you and I added an "a" to have. And I probably screwed up this additional detail too, but I'm too inebriated to realize it. Anyway...I digress.
2007-07-28
17:36:27 ·
update #3
Personally I would rahter see us bomb Saudi then give them weapons! The majority of the 911 attacklers were Saudi, Ben Laddin is Saudi, what are we thinking arming them?
2007-07-28 22:29:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
If $20 billion worth of arms is all it takes to control Iran, then hallelujah, the US have nothing to worry about.
US should insist on having a coalition of Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, Gulf States military presence in Iraq - it is in their collective interest to fight alongside US-UK troops against the proxies of Iran, Syria and to ensure a democratic Iraq.
Then the arms sales would be meaningful. As it is, it looks more like serving the personal agendas of selfish individuals and greedy corporations - all very effectively represented in the Washington lobby circus.
2007-07-28 17:45:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by erlish 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it's great for Dick Cheney and American arms contractors.
It's great for Russia/Iran - just added rationale for Iran buying bigger and better weapons from Russia.
Great for the loving bond between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family.
2007-07-29 19:33:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by mo mosh 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not a good idea. Not at all. But then, neither was starting the war in the first place. Or ignoring the destruction of New Orleans after Katrina. Or letting wounded veterans lie in their own poo at veterans hospitals. Or cutting taxes for billionaires and putting the country in debt to the Communists in China. Or...or...or...oh God make me stop!!!!!!
2007-07-28 17:18:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by jxt299 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's not a bad idea to keep those guys fighting each other.---Maybe they'll forget about us for a while.
If we do pull out, it would be wise to have a counterbalance to Iran, and another target for them to waste their weapons on.
Would you prefer that all the power will be in the hands of the Shia, if we pull back?---- We may need some Sunni power there
If a lot of terrorists happen to get killed in the turmoil, the fewer we will need to kill.
2007-07-28 17:29:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it quite is possibly by using fact the Bush administration think of its nicely well worth the threat. they're going to particularly see improve in Sunni power interior the region against ever turning out to be Shiite power catalyzed by potential of installment of Shiite gov in Iraq and influential human beings like Muqtada al Sadr. We have been given Shiite Iranians to Iraq to Palestine. All Shiites. Iran is likewise obtainable destiny nuclear anti US Shiite residing suitable next to Iraq with now Shiite majority gov by using United States led conflict. it quite is possibly the flow shows Bush administration's information of fixing political climate interior the region and experience uneasy approximately this so suggested as Shiite Crescent.
2016-10-09 12:25:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I really believe our nation's leaders are going for the tried and true tactic of raise hell so the peasants will beg you to put the fire out, provided they do not figure out you started the fire in the first place. In short, cause trouble in order to get people to hand you the power you want. I believe this is what it is all about.
2007-07-28 17:20:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Saudis are a large part of the Administration's 'base'.
Bush and Cheney work on behalf of Corporate Shareholders.
Period.
2007-07-28 17:20:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Ya, Jeremy is right. It's never a bad idea to keep those people fighting each other. Cause you know.....we will need to get over there and set up some bases....and you know....steal more oil.
2007-07-28 17:34:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by trevor22in 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Only one, that the Saudi Prince it Lil Bush's boyfriend.
2007-07-28 17:15:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dangerous 2
·
0⤊
1⤋