• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Critics Slam Obama Administration for 'Hiding' Massive Saudi Arms Deal

I have no problem with the sale. America should be willing to sell weapons to most countries and groups. Making advanced weapons systems is one of the only things Americans do well any more.

These weapons are less threatening in Saudi hands than we realize. The Saudi military is not based on competence. It's based on connections. It's like having new toys that one doesn't know how to operate to maximum efficiency.
 
It's very interesting the US cut aid as late as 2007.

And with the Saudis demanding foreign aid if global dependence on oil dries up, they prove to be just one more bunch of oily (pardon the pun) chancers wanting to dip their own hands in the West's heavy pockets.

Saudis want aid if world cuts oil dependence - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

You would have thought all the oil cash would buy a few piggy banks. But no, the average taxpayer will have to fund them, which they doubtles will.
 
Last edited:
Republic_Of_Public said:
It's very interesting the US cut aid as late as 2007.

And with the Saudis demanding foreign aid if global dependence on oil dries up, they prove to be just one more bunch of oily (pardon the pun) chancers wanting to dip their own hands in the West's heavy pockets.

Saudis want aid if world cuts oil dependence - U.S. news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

You would have thought all the oil cash would buy a few piggy banks. But no, the average taxpayer will have to fund them, which they doubtles will.
Click to expand...


Opps my mistake I missed the MASSIVE 2.5 million dollars in aid the US provided to Saudi Arabia. I am sure that Saudi Arabia missed that 0.01% or so addition to its economy



I am sure compared to the billions that Egypt, Israel and Jordan get, the Saudi's are truely upset at that loss of 2.5 million ( I think the various saudi royal family members spend far more then that each year when living in the US)
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Why would anyone ever question Obama's motives for selling $60 billion worth of modern arms to a potential enemy of our only true friend in the region?

Oh that's right Israel was our only friend until Obama came along.
Click to expand...

Yeah because Bush really hated those Saudis:

 
Jetboogieman said:
I was talking about his posts. Not Obama. Nice try though.

Wonder if you could actually address my original post apdst, would have been a better way to debate wouldn't it... since I posted facts and a commentary to support it.
Click to expand...

It would be a better debate, if you would stop claiming that everyone who isn't an Obamabot, is a racist.
 
jamesrage said:
We should not be selling weapons to any country regardless if they are a friend or foe. Friends can turn into enemies.
Click to expand...

If we created the weapons, we know the vulnerabilities.
 
apdst said:
The bright side of selling arms to potential enemies, is that we're the only ones they can get spare parts from when the weapons start wearing out. .
Click to expand...
What would stop them from starting a factory to make more parts or giving some weapons to a ally of theirs to mass produce the weapons and make parts?


Plus, we have a better knowledge of how to defend against our own weapons than we do weapons from another country.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't they as well after a while know how to defend against us?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
What would stop them from starting a factory to make more parts or giving some weapons to a ally of theirs to mass produce the weapons and make parts?



Wouldn't they as well after a while know how to defend against us?
Click to expand...

In all likely hood China has all the specs for the F15. F16 and apache already, from one of the various US allies. Most likely it has been able to do a tear down and rebuild on an F16, but not the F15 as fewer F15 have been exported. I expect that Pakistan has provided China with any info regarding US weapon systems that Pakistan has.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-...0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4&lng=en&id=52775

China's Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA) unveiled the latest addition to its rapidly modernizing air force on 5 January with the first public flight of Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation's Jian-10 fighter.

The flight has once again drawn unwanted attention to the alleged role of Israeli companies in the fabrication and arming of the plane, jeopardizing the recently repaired US-Israeli defense relationship.

The Jian-10 (J-10) - also known as the F-10 for export - is a single-engine, single-seat tactical fighter with an estimated combat radius of 1,000 kilometers. Despite Chinese claims that most of the plane's systems were domestically designed, many aerospace industry commentators believe that the plane was built with technological support from Russia and Israeli defense companies RAFAEL and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) - formerly Israel Aircraft Industries.

Resurrection
There has been recurring media speculation in recent years that the J-10 was constructed using information gleaned from a Pakistani-supplied US F-16 and technological details of Israel's scrapped Lavi fighter.

The Lavi program - also based on the F-16 - was started in 1983 to provide Israel with its own multi-task fighter. The program received US$1.3 billion in development funding from Washington before its demise under heavy US pressure in 1987
?
Click to expand...
The above provides an example of two allies providing weapons technology to a potential enemy
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
In all likely hood China has all the specs for the F15. F16 and apache already, from one of the various US allies. Most likely it has been able to do a tear down and rebuild on an F16, but not the F15 as fewer F15 have been exported. I expect that Pakistan has provided China with any info regarding US weapon systems that Pakistan has.
Click to expand...

Everything you've said is true. The Pakistanis even provided the Chinese with a complete F-16. The Chinese reverse engineered it and it became the basis for the J-10 or J-11.

Chinese espionage within America is also very effective. Many Chinese spies have infiltrated the American defense industry. People like Chi Mak and his family.

These are some of the reasons the Chinese military buildup has been so rapid and successful.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In all likely hood China has all the specs for the F15. F16 and apache already, from one of the various US allies. Most likely it has been able to do a tear down and rebuild on an F16, but not the F15 as fewer F15 have been exported. I expect that Pakistan has provided China with any info regarding US weapon systems that Pakistan has.

Israeli fighter allegedly reborn in China / ISN


The above provides an example of two allies providing weapons technology to a potential enemy
Click to expand...

This reaffirms why we should not sell weapons to other countries.
 
Vowing to change a region that has resisted the best efforts of presidents and prime ministers past, Barack Obama dove head first into the Middle East peace process on his second day in office.

He was supposed to be different. His personal identity, his momentum, his charisma and his promise of a fresh start would fundamentally alter America’s relations with the Muslim world and settle one of its bitterest grievances.

Two years later, he has managed to forge surprising unanimity on at least one topic: Barack Obama. A visit here finds both Israelis and Palestinians blame him for the current stalemate – just as they blame one another.

Instead of becoming a heady triumph of his diplomatic skill and special insight, Obama’s peace process is viewed almost universally in Israel as a mistake-riddled fantasy. And far from becoming the transcendent figure in a centuries-old drama, Obama has become just another frustrated player on a hardened Mideast landscape.

The political peace process to which Obama committed so much energy is considered a failure so far. And in the world’s most pro-American state, the public and its leaders have lost any faith in Obama and – increasingly — even in the notion of a politically negotiated peace.

Even those who still believe in the process that Obama has championed view his conduct as a deeply unfunny comedy of errors.

Some fret that not only has Obama failed to move the process forward, but that he and his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts may have dealt it a setback that will leave it worse off than when they began.
Click to expand...

View from Middle East: President Obama is a problem - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

the rub---the bonehead needs netanyahu to stop the settlements, but the chosen remain recalcitrant, chomping over his treatment of them the last 2 years

no one, either side, has a drop of hope, only pissed off pessimism and despair

the israelis are incensed over this saudi arms deal, eighty four f15's

oblivious obama is today trying to bribe bibi with a couple B's of bombers in return for a bare 90 day ban on building on the bank

a blueprint embrassingly bereft

and this is hillary's baby, don't forget, she's been all over this

none of them knows what he or she is doing

apparently, the stuff you learn in the faculty rooms at harvard simply doesn't travel well, just behind the ivy is a brick wall, all real

is politico spinning again?

or are roger simon's journo listers simply reporting on what can't be denied?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
It would be a better debate, if you would stop claiming that everyone who isn't an Obamabot, is a racist.
Click to expand...

Still don't wanna address my original post?

I wasn't calling him a racist towards Obama, I'm calling him out once again for trying to t urn every thread into a muslim bashing fest.
 
jamesrage said:
This reaffirms why we should not sell weapons to other countries.
Click to expand...

The problem is that making advanced weapons is the only thing America still does well. If we don't sell weapons to the world what do we have to sell? Cheeseburgers and annuities?
 
Since when are we actually short on weapons? We have an arsenal that would allow us to destroy the world dozens of times over. What difference are a few rockets and airplanes going to make? While I certainly can't support the proliferation of weapons and warfare anywhere in the world, it's not like we actually need a lot of the weapons we have. On one hand, I agree with Jamesrage. We don't need to be putting more weapons out into the world. That will only lead to more violence. On the other hand, we cry and moan about how the US needs more money.
 
Paschendale said:
Since when are we actually short on weapons? We have an arsenal that would allow us to destroy the world dozens of times over. What difference are a few rockets and airplanes going to make? While I certainly can't support the proliferation of weapons and warfare anywhere in the world, it's not like we actually need a lot of the weapons we have. On one hand, I agree with Jamesrage. We don't need to be putting more weapons out into the world. That will only lead to more violence. On the other hand, we cry and moan about how the US needs more money.
Click to expand...

If America doesn't sell weapons to the world other nations will. We only deprive ourselves of revenue and jobs. The importance of jobs for Americans cannot be overemphasized.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
The problem is that making advanced weapons is the only thing America still does well. If we don't sell weapons to the world what do we have to sell? Cheeseburgers and annuities?
Click to expand...

I guess we do not sell anything then. Giving arms to our enemies or our future enemies puts our troops in greater danger. We are going to ask young men to fight for our country after giving our enemies weapons in what sane world does that make sense. I find patriotism to be more important than making a quit buck.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I guess we do not sell anything then. Giving arms to our enemies or our future enemies puts our troops in greater danger. We are going to ask young men to fight for our country after giving our enemies weapons in what sane world does that make sense. I find patriotism to be more important than making a quit buck.
Click to expand...

What you say would be true if America could maintain it's empire. But America cannot maintain the empire. America must learn the lesson that the processes of history cannot be avoided.

America needs to come home, dominate the western hemisphere, and feel free to sell weapons to most groups in the eastern hemisphere. Hanbali Muslims will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the middle east. Instead, they will end up attacking others once we are no longer part of the battle royal. China isn't a problem as long as America stays out of East Asia and the Western Pacific.

No more wars outside this hemisphere. But there is a huge demand for our weapons from the eastern hemisphere. We can sell weapons to all sides and let them kill each other.
 
zimmer said:
Think if a Republican President did this!?
WHOA!!!

"Change you can believe in."
(face-palm)

.
Click to expand...

Republicans did do this. So did previous Democratic Presidents. Selling arms to the Saudis is nothing new. Typical conservative knee jerk reaction to attack anything Obama does even if their hero, Reagan, did the same fricking thing. Hypocritical bigots.

Carter and reagan - Arms Transfers and Trade
 
Jetboogieman said:
This is wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to start.

Ok. How is it being hid?

As I see it, this information has been around since september that it was taking place, plus how big it was ($60 Billion) So who's hiding what?

Saudi Arabia



Now I understand the sentiment about people in the middle east in general not liking the United States, and it seems like arming your enemy, but it's in your best interests to keep Saudi Arabia secure and prosperous (since you get quite a bit of your oil from them, so unless you change your ways, that's the way it's gonna be...)

You mention arming an enemy is Israel as well... do you honestly think the Saudi's are gonna use the military aid they just got, to try and attack Israel so you can come down there and kick their ass... because let me tell you something, an extra 60 billion dollars is not all of a sudden gonna make Saudi Arabia invincible, nor wanna pick a fight with your closest ally in the region using your money DERP!

You've given all the arms Israel could ever need to defend itself, plus your own pledge to help defend them if it was ever needed. I think the Israeli's will be fine.

By extension of allowing yourself to become hooked on foreign oil, every single president by extension that put America on this course, is guilty of arming Saudi Arabia. Think about that for a second.

Saudi Arabia



NOW!

In conclusion. There is some outrage here that is not misplaced. Why $60 Billion? Apperently the largest arms deal in US history, interesting that I must say.
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed. Had Bush done this, you would **** a 20" diameter log. Hypocritical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom