PDA

View Full Version : Bush proposal would sell Naval Warships and Satellite guided weapons to Saudi Arabia


Taco John
07-29-2007, 02:12 AM
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia

By DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: July 28, 2007


WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.

The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the terms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.

The officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who are to make a joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week, still intended to use the trip to press the Saudis to do more to help Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government.

“The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you,” a senior State Department official told reporters in a conference call on Friday. More specifically, the official said, the United States wants the gulf states to make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are “killing your future.”

In addition to promising an increase in American military aid to Israel, the Pentagon is seeking to ease Israel’s concerns over the proposed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, the officials said.

The package and the possible steps to allay Israel’s concerns were described to Congress this week, in an effort by the administration to test the reaction on Capitol Hill before entering into final negotiations on the package with Saudi officials. The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom.

In his visit with King Abdullah and other Saudi officials next week, Mr. Gates plans to describe “what the administration is willing to go forward with” in the arms package and “what we would recommend to the Hill and others,” according to a senior Pentagon official, who conducted a background briefing on the upcoming trip with reporters on Friday.

The official added that Mr. Gates would also reassure the Saudis that “regardless of what happens in the near term in Iraq that our commitment in the region remains firm, remains steadfast and that, in fact, we are looking to enhance and develop it.”

The $20 billion price tag on the package is more than double what officials originally estimated when details became public this spring. Even the higher figure is a rough estimate that could fluctuate depending on the final package, which would be carried out over a number of years, officials said.

Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same.

Ms. Rice is expected to announce Monday that the administration will open formal discussions with each country about the proposed packages, in hopes of reaching agreements by the fall.

Along with the announcement of formal talks with Persian Gulf allies on the arms package, Ms. Rice is planning to outline the new agreement to provide military aid to Israel, as well as a similar accord with Egypt.

The $30.4 billion being promised to Israel is $9.1 billion more than Israel has received over the past decade, an increase of nearly 43 percent.

A senior administration official said the sizable increase was a result of Israel’s need to replace equipment expended in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, as well as to maintain its advantage in advanced weaponry as other countries in the region modernize their forces.

In defending the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states, the officials noted that the Saudis and several of the other countries were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If the packages offered to them by the United States are blocked or come with too many conditions, the officials said, the Persian Gulf countries could turn elsewhere for similar equipment, reducing American influence in the region.

The United States has made few, if any, sales of satellite-guided munitions to Arab countries in the past, though Israel has received them since the mid-1990s as part of a United States policy of ensuring that Israel has a military edge over its regional rivals.

Israeli officials have made specific requests aimed at eliminating concerns that satellite-guided bombs sold to the Saudis could be used against its territory, administration officials said.

Their major concern is not a full-scale Saudi attack, but the possibility that a rogue pilot armed with one of the bombs could attack on his own or that the Saudi government could one day be overthrown and the weapons could fall into the hands of a more radical regime, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Taco John
07-29-2007, 02:12 AM
I can't wait for Chagrin to come in to tell me how on the fringe I am, when his stupid ass voted for this clown.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 02:30 AM
I can't wait for Chagrin to come in to tell me how on the fringe I am, when his stupid ass voted for this clown.

Ok, I'll tell you. You're so fringe you're not even worthy of being called a seat filler.

Fishpicker
07-29-2007, 02:30 AM
we sell weapons to S.A. and give them away to Israel :shake: Israel doesnt need aid, especially military aid. The whole purpose of the sale to S.A. might be to offset the cost of that $30 billion promised to Israel. they get $30 billion in aid and it only costs $25 billion. huzzah.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 02:33 AM
I'm guessing the sale would be an insurance policy in case Iran began threatening Saudi in the future.

Taco John
07-29-2007, 02:48 AM
Ok, I'll tell you. You're so fringe you're not even worthy of being called a seat filler.


That's ok with me. I don't want any part of the crowd that gets people like George Bush and like Hillary Clinton elected. I'll leave that to mainstream folks like you.

ClevelandBronco
07-29-2007, 03:09 AM
That's ok with me. I don't want any part of the crowd that gets people like George Bush and like Hillary Clinton elected. I'll leave that to mainstream folks like you.

And we appreciate it.

Really.

You can't imagine.

penchief
07-29-2007, 07:24 AM
This is part of the problem. We arm everybody (and their brother) in that region knowing that they all hate each other and then we instigate conflict by proxy (in addition to attacking and occupying a sovereign nation militarily).

The only logical conclusion a person can arrive at is that America's Mid East policy is one of destablization.

jAZ
07-29-2007, 08:47 AM
We are seeking to put pressure on Iran. Invading Iraq created a situation where every option on the table is bad. We almost have to do this because Iran is so much more powerful today than it was 5 years ago. Our allies are in jeapordy in ways they weren't prior to invasion.

But arming an unstable Saudi Arabia further is a bad option as well.

penchief is correct though. The NeoCons plans were very much "destabilization". Like it or not, Iraq was stable prior to the war. The NeoCons recognized that once you invade Iraq (for better or worse)... there is no stopping the plan if Iraq goes well (Iran is next) and there's no good way to stop the plan if it goes bad (the region is in chaos "and we can't leave now!").

It's ultimately why I'd like to see a few more of these neocon pinheads in prison.

mlyonsd
07-29-2007, 09:32 AM
This is part of the problem. We arm everybody (and their brother) in that region knowing that they all hate each other and then we instigate conflict by proxy (in addition to attacking and occupying a sovereign nation militarily).

The only logical conclusion a person can arrive at is that America's Mid East policy is one of destablization.

I don't agree. If we yanked all of the weapons we have given Israel over the years how stable would they be?

Bowser
07-29-2007, 09:37 AM
Can't wait for the terrorists to take over a couple of destroyers and a battleship! Then we'll have a GWoT in earnest!

chagrin
07-29-2007, 10:28 AM
I can't wait for Chagrin to come in to tell me how on the fringe I am, when his stupid ass voted for this clown.


You are so far out on the fringe...


actually I think it would be a great Idea to construct and place 2 new, huge Military bases on the map for us - one in Idaho and one in Mexico; you know, to take the threat away from Barksdale and Colorado Springs.

chagrin
07-29-2007, 10:32 AM
oh, and David Cloud is a liberal freak as well - and gives Journalism a bad name.

banyon
07-29-2007, 11:23 AM
I don't think the primary goal of this arms sale is about Iran. I think it is more to frighten the Wahabbists from trying to overthrow King Abdullah (which would really put a crimp in our gasoline budget).


Alternative fuels, anyone?

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/bush_hands.bmp

Bowser
07-29-2007, 11:41 AM
Alternative fuels, anyone?

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/bush_hands.bmp

Yes, please.

Ultra Peanut
07-29-2007, 04:53 PM
This is ****ing hilarious.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 05:06 PM
That's ok with me. I don't want any part of the crowd that gets people like George Bush and like Hillary Clinton elected. I'll leave that to mainstream folks like you.

Great. Now renounce your donkey loyalty and you can be my servant.

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 05:07 PM
Can't wait for the terrorists to take over a couple of destroyers and a battleship! Then we'll have a GWoT in earnest!

Umm, we don't build Battleships anymore.

Bowser
07-29-2007, 05:11 PM
Umm, we don't build Battleships anymore.

Do the Saudis know this?

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 05:15 PM
Do the Saudis know this?


I would think so. The USA hasn't built a Battleship since the end of WW2 and we retired the last refitted one in the 90's and it's now a museum at Pearl Harbor.

banyon
07-29-2007, 05:16 PM
Umm, we don't build Battleships anymore.

Did we melt them all down into Indian Jewelry?

Bowser
07-29-2007, 05:18 PM
I would think so. The USA hasn't built a Battleship since the end of WW2 and we retired the last refitted one in the 90's and it's now a museum at Pearl Harbor.

Well, shit. If I were the Saudis, I'd want a battleship!

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2007, 05:26 PM
Well, shit. If I were the Saudis, I'd want a battleship!

Silly Saudis. Lets give them a speedboat with a pellet gun mounted to it and pocket the extra cash.

Logical
07-29-2007, 07:41 PM
This is part of the problem. We arm everybody (and their brother) in that region knowing that they all hate each other and then we instigate conflict by proxy (in addition to attacking and occupying a sovereign nation militarily).

The only logical conclusion a person can arrive at is that America's Mid East policy is one of destablization.Yes, what a suprise.

Logical
07-30-2007, 12:31 AM
I would think so. The USA hasn't built a Battleship since the end of WW2 and we retired the last refitted one in the 90's and it's now a museum at Pearl Harbor.

USS Iowa was the last battleship built and USS Missouri was the last battleship decommisioned (after it was recommissioned).

StcChief
07-30-2007, 12:56 PM
Let 'em blow each other, they want to anyway.

go bowe
07-31-2007, 02:29 PM
USS Iowa was the last battleship built and USS Missouri was the last battleship decommisioned (after it was recommissioned).didn't the iowa(nian) shell lebanon?

afaik, those were the last shots fired in anger by a battleship...

Radar Chief
07-31-2007, 02:42 PM
didn't the iowa(nian) shell lebanon?

afaik, those were the last shots fired in anger by a battleship...

Don’t know about that, but the Missouri was used in GWI. It was part of Schwarzkopf’s plan to sell an amphibious invasion pulling Iraq forces towards the gulf.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2007, 03:31 PM
Let 'em blow each other, they want to anyway.
Yup! Without our ammunition though. I think if they can make home made bombs they'll be just fine at killing one another. At least there'd be a decisive victory.

go bowe
07-31-2007, 04:09 PM
Don’t know about that, but the Missouri was used in GWI. It was part of Schwarzkopf’s plan to sell an amphibious invasion pulling Iraq forces towards the gulf.oops...

i didn't think of that...

the missouri was all over tv news as a part of the news coverage of the war...

but did she fire the big guns there, or just launch cruise missiles?

i don't know (obviously i am a retarted moran, but i worked very hard to achieve this level of retarted moranism)...

Adept Havelock
07-31-2007, 04:11 PM
oops...

i didn't think of that...

the missouri was all over tv news as a part of the news coverage of the war...

but did she fire the big guns there, or just launch cruise missiles?

i don't know (obviously i am a retarted moran, but i worked very hard to achieve this level of retarted moranism)...


I think she fired her main guns at the Kuwaiti shorline a few times to make it look like they were preparing for a Marine landing.

Radar Chief
07-31-2007, 04:18 PM
oops...

i didn't think of that...

the missouri was all over tv news as a part of the news coverage of the war...

but did she fire the big guns there, or just launch cruise missiles?

i don't know (obviously i am a retarted moran, but i worked very hard to achieve this level of retarted moranism)...

I think she fired her main guns at the Kuwaiti shorline a few times to make it look like they were preparing for a Marine landing.

What AH said.

Mr. Laz
08-02-2007, 01:03 PM
i'm against selling military stuff to anybody ....... it almost always ends up being used against us eventually.

Israel can afford to buy their own stuff

Fishpicker
08-02-2007, 01:17 PM
there are 190,000 small arms that are unaccounted for in Iraq. Arms that we provided for Iraqi police. there's a good chance that anything we send over there will end up with the enemy.

Fishpicker
08-02-2007, 01:27 PM
$20 billion in aid for Israel (last decade)

$30 billion in aid for Israel (next decade)

$6 billion was spent on rebuilding New Orleans

beer bacon
08-03-2007, 12:10 AM
Let 'em blow each other, they want to anyway.

Yeah, then we will have the perfect excuse to invade again...and again. We need something to spend all this tax money on. Why spend our money on, say, keeping our bridges from collapsing, when we can go adventuring in foreign lands?