This Will Stop War in the Middle East!

[Vintage]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6920458.stm

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade.


Defence officials quoted by US media said the sales would include advanced weaponry, missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships.
It is said to be an attempt to counter the regional threat posed by Iran.
The officials said the secretaries of state and defence would discuss the deal on a visit to the Gulf next week.

However, discussions with Congress on the arms package have just begun, and no announcements are expected during the visit, the officials added.

Israeli 'concern'
On Saturday, the New York Times and the Washington Post quoted unnamed senior US officials as saying the Bush administration was preparing to an arms sale package for a number of US allies in the Gulf.
[View Full Quote]The proposed deal for Saudi Arabia reportedly includes air-to-air missiles, advanced precision-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels.

The role of the Sunni Arab neighbours is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbours are with you


US State Department official


To counter objections by Israel and its supporters in Congress, the officials said the Jewish state would be offered significantly increased military aid.
The White House is also said to be concerned that the package may prompt critics of the Saudi government in Congress to oppose it because of concerns about the kingdom's influence in Iraq.

Other US allies in the Gulf - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - could receive equipment and weaponry as part of the deal, the officials said

The officials said the arms deal aimed to bolster the militaries of the Sunni Arab states as part of a strategy to counter what it sees as a growing threat posed by Iran in the region.

"The role of the Sunni Arab neighbours is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbours are with you," a senior State Department official told the New York Times on Friday.
Defence Secretary Robert Gates is said to be planning to discuss the proposals in a visit to Saudi Arabia next week with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
Officials said Mr Gates would also reassure the Saudis that his country's commitment to the region remained steadfast regardless of what happens in Iraq in the short term.

[BrAinPaiNt]

And the beat goes on.

How many times in the past have we propped, supported, funded or given weapons to people in the middle east only for it to wind up biting us in the butt years later?

Will we ever learn?

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

And the beat goes on.

How many times in the past have we propped, supported, funded or given weapons to people in the middle east only for it to wind up biting us in the butt years later?

Will we ever learn?

Iran, Afganistan, Iraq (possibly in the future).....

No.

I'd say status quo remains.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

And the beat goes on.

How many times in the past have we propped, supported, funded or given weapons to people in the middle east only for it to wind up biting us in the butt years later?

Will we ever learn?

It's bidness, kid. No offense.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

It's bidness, kid. No offense.

As Gravel would say...follow the money.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

It's bidness, kid. No offense.

I understand. And while your short reply was, well, short, it does have true merit behind it.

However, at some point, you have to look at the business you are doing and realize what the true costs/benefits are.

We armed Afghanistan against the Soviets. Those same arms were used against us.

Yeah, we made a profit back then. But at what cost, today?

Was is truly worth it?

That's all brainpaint and I were getting at.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Vintage

I understand. And while your short reply was, well, short, it does have true merit behind it.

However, at some point, you have to look at the business you are doing and realize what the true costs/benefits are.

We armed Afghanistan against the Soviets. Those same arms were used against us.

Yeah, we made a profit back then. But at what cost, today?

Was is truly worth it?

That's all brainpaint and I were getting at.

I was being facetious with a mock mafioso voice.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

I was being facetious with a mock mafioso voice.

My bad. I thought you were being serious.

Though, even in jest, your counterpoint was valid and worthy of a response.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

And the beat goes on.

How many times in the past have we propped, supported, funded or given weapons to people in the middle east only for it to wind up biting us in the butt years later?

Will we ever learn?

i think we just need to walk away from that area for awhile. buy our oil and let them do whatever the hell they wanna do to each other.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by iceberg

i think we just need to walk away from that area for awhile. buy our oil and let them do whatever the hell they wanna do to each other.

Well, for starters, you'd have Iran probably invading Iraq. And then Saudi would invade Iraq and fight Iran.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Syria (which is nothing more than a puppet government of Iran) would probably mount something in the form of a terrorist type plot against Israel.

Funded by Iran.

Mass War in the Middle East is something I would not like to witness in my lifetime, preferably.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by Vintage

Well, for starters, you'd have Iran probably invading Iraq. And then Saudi would invade Iraq and fight Iran.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Syria (which is nothing more than a puppet government of Iran) would probably mount something in the form of a terrorist type plot against Israel.

Funded by Iran.

Mass War in the Middle East is something I would not like to witness in my lifetime, preferably.

they've been fighting since someone declared the land "holy" - we won't stop it if that's what they want to do. if a sector of people wish to declare "holy war" on each other why are we world police to stop them? when are we involved enough to protect our own interests (cheap oil) and when are we too involved? depends on who you talk to usually.

in any event, if they wanna have it out among theirselves, why is it up to us to stop them?

[Sasquatch]

An addendum to the original post:

US to ink 30 billion dollar arms deal with Israel

53 minutes ago

The United States will sign a pact this week providing 30 billion dollars in military aid to Israel over a decade, the State Department said Tuesday.
Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who will make a three-day visit to Israel from Wednesday, "will sign the memorandum of understanding on the new 30 billion dollar, 10-year military assistance package," the department said in a statement.


The package was unveiled by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on July 30 as part of a new military pact with US allies in the Middle East in a bid to "counter the negative influences" of militant groups Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah as well as arch enemies Iran and Syria.


They include a 20-billion-dollar weapons package for Saudi Arabia, a 13-billion-dollar package for Egypt, and reportedly arms deals worth at least 20 billion dollars for other Gulf states.


The military aid to Israel reflected an increase of more than 25 percent, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said, describing the package as a considerable improvement and very important element for national security.
"Other than the increase in aid, we received an explicit and detailed commitment to guarantee Israel's qualitative advantage over other Arab states," he had said following recent talks with US President George W. Bush.


With current US defense aid to Israel standing at 2.4 billion dollars a year, the new package will hike the value of assistance to the Jewish state by 600 million dollars a year on average, officials said.


The two countries are increasingly alarmed by Iran's nuclear ambitions, which have already incurred international economic sanctions. Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for peaceful, civilian energy purposes.


Burns will meet with Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and other Israeli officials during the visit in which "discussions on regional security, including the challenge posed by Iran" would be held, the State Department said.


Burns will also meet with Palestinian Authority leaders regarding "the development of a political horizon" and American humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.


The United States is striving to forge a deal for the establishment of a Palestinian state ahead of an international meeting called for by Bush in the fall.


Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said last week he had positive talks with Olmert in the West Bank city of Jericho, the first time in seven years that such a high-level meeting has taken place on Palestinian territory.

[Mavs Man]

Originally Posted by iceberg

they've been fighting since someone declared the land "holy" - we won't stop it if that's what they want to do. if a sector of people wish to declare "holy war" on each other why are we world police to stop them? when are we involved enough to protect our own interests (cheap oil) and when are we too involved? depends on who you talk to usually.

in any event, if they wanna have it out among theirselves, why is it up to us to stop them?

In the best case scenario, it is concentrated solely in the Middle East, but a region-wide war in the ME would cause the price of oil to skyrocket far beyond what we've experienced in recent years, doing serious damage to our economy and the overall global economy.

In the worst case scenario, various country alliances, ties between us and Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and similar ties for other nations (Russia and China, for example) with Iran and Syria could set events into motion for a global conflict.

I think this last scenario is very unlikely, but that's how World War I started.

[Vintage]

Nothing sends a positive, affirmative messaage moreso than a $20B weapons deal.

We are about freedom?

Yet, we continue to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia and their treatment of women. Saudi Arabia is about as Democratic as Iraq was under Hussein.

Nothing counters regional threats (from Iran) like supplying the other side with huge amounts of weaponry. Assuming Iran is a rational actor (which, would be assuming too much), this is going to go over like a Lead Zeppelin.

When we do finally pull out of Iraq, the Middle East is going to be VERY interesting in terms of the subsequent months after. Iran is positioning itself. Saudi Arabia is doing the same. And in the middle of this, Israel stands.

But I am an equal opportunity basher.

I fully believe the Democrats can **** this up more if they try.

[AtlCB]

This is a really bad idea! I don't think Iran is really a big threat. Who have they invaded?