And Al will think it more evidence of Bush's genius.

When I first heard the story this morning I thought "hmmm ... this sounds like a way to keep the trade deficit down a bit and boost domestic employment in the defense contracting industry".

Pat Lang agrees that this is mostly for show

"...the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion...but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington

I'm not particularly worried about whatever arms we sell to the Saudis.

I just think that to maintain consistency, we shouldn't do this sale. We insist that Syria and Iran must control their borders with Iraq, yet the largest source of anti-American fighters is Saudi Arabia. Oh, and the largest source of 9/11 hijackers was Saudi Arabia.

So I think the Congress should say, "No. Saudi Arabia is a terrorist breeding ground. We believe this is a result of the policies of the current oligarchy in charge of Saudi Arabia. We will not support this sale, or any other arms transfer, until we see Saudi Arabia support for terrorism decrease."

It's us or the French or the Russians. I'd rather have them dependent on us and take their money too.

Hey, as long as the Carlyle Group makes a good profit, who cares whether the deal makes America safer or less safe?

Anybody know how well Carlyle (and GW Bush's daddy) will make out if this deal goes forward?

I like very little about our relationship with the Saudis. The Saudi "Royal Family" is a group of gangsters who managed to gain control of a country with enormous oil riches. I hate the fact that these people are treated with such respect and deference.

However, I cannot agree with this point of Kevin's:

But most important, we will once again renew the cycle of American penetration into the heart of Islam, one of Osama bin Laden's original and most compelling rallying points. That's why the Saudi deal is so dangerous.

I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL or other Islamic terrorists. Their disapproval of our relationship with the Saudis is, if anything, a reason to do the deal. The US should set its own foreign policy. Islamic extremists can go **** themselves.

Incidentally, some might think that our struggle in Iraq would have radicalized the world's Muslims. Just the opposite is the case:

The Pew Global survey showed sharply reduced numbers of Muslims saying that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified as compared with 2002. That's still the view of 70 percent in the Palestinian territories. But that percentage has declined from 74 percent to 34 percent in Lebanon, from 43 percent to 23 percent in Jordan, and from 33 percent to 9 percent in Pakistan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/our_national_funk.html

The conservative meme that seems to make this okay in the bushco dead-enders' eyes, is that they believe we're selling the Saudis "crippled" versions of these planes - you know, with maybe a secret hidden black box, that, if they attack the US with them, we can just press a button, and they'll fall out of the sky.

They actually believe this. A conservative friend of mine does, and he heard it from one of his other friends.

The conservative meme that seems to make this okay in the bushco dead-enders' eyes, is that they believe we're selling the Saudis "crippled" versions of these planes - you know, with maybe a secret hidden black box, that, if they attack the US with them, we can just press a button, and they'll fall out of the sky.

LOL ... I'm sure it fits right in with their world view that none of those brown people are smart enough to figure our schemes out for themselves.

Personally, our arms deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia trouble me equally. There are 50 different sides to Middle Eastern disagreement, and each weapon we send over there gives one of those 50 sides reason to become the next al-Qaeda.

This is more evidence of Bush's genius. Oh, wait.

I'm with Wapiti. Use the sale as a motivator. The Bush connection with Saudi Arabia hasn't helped to pursuade them, so what's wrong with using this proposed sale?

Well, the ironic thing about the "black box" theory, is that well over 90% of the electronic components that go into those planes are manufactured by "brown skinned people" - let's hope that we are smart enough to figure out if any of those components from china have a secret de-activation black-box built in.

The DoD is already struggling with a policy to ban the purchase of Levano-branded laptops for fear that they've been manufactured with secret eavesdropping devices. (entirely possible. . .)

Too bad we don't manufacture any of this stuff domestically anymore. Those invisible-hand guys need to make their Lexus-payments though.

But most important, we will once again renew the cycle of American penetration into the heart of Islam, one of Osama bin Laden's original and most compelling rallying points. That's why the Saudi deal is so dangerous.

We won't meaningfully "renew the cycle of American penetration" into Saudistan unless we reestablish bases there. I doubt even this administration would be stupid enough to do that. What you will see is Saudis coming to the states to train, and small numbers of American technical advisers doing short-term training stints over there. I think it's a good move. It says to high-level Iranians who might be prone to want to see the mullahs reigned in: "See, you, too, could have this kind of relationship with Washington were it not for your hideously inept leadership."

Anyway, better to help the Saudis with fighters and such than make them think they'd best start building their own bomb, which is exactly what they will think they need to do vis a vis Tehran if the US leaves them in the lurch.

'But most important, we will once again renew the cycle of American penetration into the heart of Islam, one of Osama bin Laden's original and most compelling rallying points'

Please. They hate us for our freedoms. The fact that OBL is Saudi and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis only proves this. They hate our freedom to take over muslim lands.

"American penetration" indeed...

Now there's a deep thought.

h

Regardless of how many armaments the Saudis obtain, they will remain the weakest of the nation/states in the region because of its illegitiment monarchical government. Saudi Arabians will not fight to save their country, let alone fight to invade another, to enrich their despotic royal family. This deal is a pay off to the American defense contractors and a cover to avoid publicity for increasing military aid to Israel.

The conservative meme that seems to make this okay in the bushco dead-enders' eyes, is that they believe we're selling the Saudis "crippled" versions of these planes - you know, with maybe a secret hidden black box, that, if they attack the US with them, we can just press a button, and they'll fall out of the sky.

They actually believe this. A conservative friend of mine does, and he heard it from one of his other friends.
Posted by: osama_been_forgotten

Well, you need to stop hanging out with the stupid ones. (There, I've thrown you a softball over the middle of the plate). The ones we sell don't have all the hardware and software wizzbangs ours do, but more importantly it's the squishy-ware that they suck at. Ultimately it's the operator that matters, and they suck. They're mostly incompetent.

Anything to keep the money circulating. When the dollar juggling act falls apart, we are all up the creek, sans paddle.

"ex-liberal" wrote: I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL or other Islamic terrorists.

A pity your hero Bush doesn't feel the same.

you need to stop hanging out with the stupid ones.

But you keep showing up here, Mike.

Wapiti nailed it. Why are we providing a brutal, undemocratic dictatorship with sophisticated weaponry like this? This is the country that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers from the 9-11 tragedy with passports and student visas to come here and kill our citizens. Further, the largest number of foreign fighters killing our soldiers in Iraq are Saudi. And Bush is supposedly "tough on terrorism"?? Give me a f*ckin' break!

It is insanity to allow this to happen. Democrats in Congress should jump all over this with track shoes and pull the plug on Bush's never-ending war-profiteering, but being the gutless wonders they are, I'm sure that won't happen. This country is in deep, deep trouble and this arms deal is proof of that.

This is Bush's feeble attempt at mitigating what is probably the second most damaging backfires of the Iraq war: that the war has increased greatly Iran's regional influence (of course, the worst backfire is that the war has strengthened, not weakened, al Qaeda).

So Bush thinks he can counter-balance shiite Iran by bulking up the sunni Saudis. Just like we're beginning to arm the sunni militias in Iraq.

I'm beginning to think that our foreign policy is facilitate a regional civil war between the two, and to make sure they kill as many of each other as possible.

....I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL or other Islamic terrorists....ex-lax at 12:32 PM

Now that you allow it, what are you going to do about it, hotshot?

...They're mostly incompetent. RSM at 1:18 PM

It's a mistake to read news of this type as anything other than a quasi-press release from the corporations who will benefit. Village customs (of the "inside the beltway" variety) dictate that this be put before the public as if it's in their collective interests. It's not. It's in the *specific* interests of those corporations who will benefit, the people on all sides be damned. Where's the profit in bullets and bombs if the whole world is at peace? Don't kid yourself, there's a lot of profit in war. And if you don't have a war -- well, start one! There's money to be made!

I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL or other Islamic terrorists. Their disapproval of our relationship with the Saudis is, if anything, a reason to do the deal. The US should set its own foreign policy. Islamic extremists can go **** themselves.

Brilliant, fuckwit. So I guess your idea of a sound decision-making process is, if the bad guys say 'X', do anti-'X'. It'll be hard to outwit that sort of genius, fer sure.

This is a well-disguised plea for the Saudi's to open the oil spigots. Their output has declined over 5% over the last few years. The Bushies are getting desperate.

sglover: So I guess your idea of a sound decision-making process is, if the bad guys say 'X', do anti-'X'. It'll be hard to outwit that sort of genius, fer sure.

It worked for Rosa Parks. didn't it?

"I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL or other Islamic terrorists."

LOL... Except when it comes to decisions of whether or not to leave Iraq, where you are quite content to let "OBL or other Islamic terrorists" dictate that.

"It worked for Rosa Parks. didn't it?"

ROFL.... Wow, even for you, the intellectual dishonesty, not to mention rank stupidity, has reached a new high.

PaulB, glad to amuse you. Here's a serious re-statement of my argument.

Kevin suggested that we avoid penetration into Islam, because that's one of Osama bin Laden's original and most compelling rallying points. To me, that suggestion smacks of appeasement.

Appeasement didn't work against Hitler and it didn't work against Jim Crow. We defeated those two evils only when we directly opposed them. I believe we can best deal with radical Islam by directly opposing it, not by accomodating or appeasing it.

Here's a serious re-statement of my argument.

Well, no, it's just more of your bullshit, bad-faith neocon talking points.

Kevin suggested that we avoid penetration into Islam, because that's one of Osama bin Laden's original and most compelling rallying points.

No, not into Islam, you neocon fucktard, into Saudi Arabia. You really do get a sick thrill about posting insultingly bad-faith arguments here, don't you?

To me, that suggestion smacks of appeasement.

To you, anything other than the wholesale neocon agenda smacks of "appeasement," so why should your disnhonest, discredited opinion carry any weight now?

Appeasement didn't work against Hitler and it didn't work against Jim Crow. We defeated those two evils only when we directly opposed them. I believe we can best deal with radical Islam by directly opposing it, not by accomodating or appeasing it.

Who's this "we," kemo sabe? You've made perfectly clear that you aren't risking your own blood and treasure in Bush's disastrous adventurism in the Middle East.

Moreover, Sun Tzu, a muc, much wiser man than you, noted the folly of playing into your enemies' hands. Since sglover's formulation is correct -- a fact even you do not dispute -- your reflexive avoidance of what you imagine as "appeasement" plays right into the Islamists' hands, you fool.

If that's the best you can do for a "serious re-statement of my argument," jackass, you're stupider than I thought. But we both know you're only hear to piss on the floor and point fingers and mewl "appeasement" while others suffer and die for the policies you advocate. Why Kevin's moderators tolerate your bad faith is a mystery. Shame on you, "ex-liberal."

Ah, Kevin.

Kevin wrote:

"The Saudis will pledge to rein in extremists supporting the insurgency and terror in Iraq, then basicallly..."

"Basicallly?" Looks like Kevin needs to go back to spelling 101.

By the way, this thread is a classic example of the liberal impluse to appease.

"PaulB, glad to amuse you."

Trust me, dear, I'm quite happy to be amused by you, particularly when your "argument" is self-fisking, as most of your arguments are.

"Here's a serious re-statement of my argument."

Oh, I doubt it, dear; I really doubt it.

"Kevin suggested that we avoid penetration into Islam, because that's one of Osama bin Laden's original and most compelling rallying points. To me, that suggestion smacks of appeasement."

ROFL... Yup, you didn't disappoint. No, dear, it's not "appeasement," which is why you didn't even bother trying to defend or support that silly assertion.

"Appeasement didn't work against Hitler and it didn't work against Jim Crow."

Since your base assertion was false, dear, the rest of this is just further silliness, fit only to laugh at, not to take seriously.

"I believe we can best deal with radical Islam by directly opposing it, not by accomodating or appeasing it."

Dear heart, since the topic under discussion has nothing to do with "directly opposing" radical Islam, your final statement is even sillier than your opening statement, which I thought would be quite difficult for you. Congratulations!

This was awesome stuff, faux. You've really reached new lows of intellectual rigor and logic. I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

By the way, dear, you do realize that with the specific argument you proposed, you are indeed "let[ing] US policy be dictated ... by OBL or other Islamic terrorists," right? ROFL...

I know it's been said before, but you clowns bleating "Appeasement! Munich! Chamberlain!" every time somebody suggests a foreign policy idea that isn't centered on tons of napalm -- are you yahoos aware, even dimly, that there was history before 1938, history after 1938, and that pretty much the only epoch that was a close analogue to 1938 was.... 1938?

I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL

You mean the way Bush gave in to OBL's principal demand (U.S. troops out of SA) in 2002?

Despite congressional opposition, Saudi Arabia will get its arms: the money is just too much and the lobbying will just be too intense.

Or, to quote the Joe Pesci character from Casino: "Always the dollars. Always the fucking dollars."

"I refuse to let US policy be dictated in any way by OBL"

delusions of presidency? Who coulda guessed Dubya himself would post here?

This deal is a pay off to the American defense contractors and a cover to avoid publicity for increasing military aid to Israel.

Brojo nails it. If AIPAC really didn't want this deal to got through, it wouldn't go through.

You mean the way Bush gave in to OBL's principal demand (U.S. troops out of SA) in 2002?

Not to mention caved in to OBL most important demand -- to reinvigorate the war of civilizations between the West and Islam.

I was just sitting here on the couch saying to the missus, "You know what the Middle East needs? More weapons! That would be awesome!"

And as usual, we all ignore how Israel benefits. Israel will not only not object, they have already agreed to this deal with SA because ... they get more money.

From the AP yesterday:
In a break from historic Israeli opposition to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday his country understands Washington's plan to supply state-of-the-art weapons to Riyadh as a counterweight to Iranian influence.

He said that alongside the arms deal, the U.S. is offering a sharp increase in defense aid to Israel, assuring the Jewish state it will retain a fighting edge over its neighbors.

"We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Olmert told a weekly Cabinet meeting. The rare agreement reflects shared U.S. and Israeli concern with the potential threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons.

...

The proposed package comes with a serious sweetener for Israel: a 25 percent rise in U.S. military aid, from an annual $2.4 billion (euro1.76 billion) at present to $3 billion (euro2.2 billion) a year, guaranteed for 10 years, Olmert and U.S. officials said.

The Democratic House Whip considers good military news to be "a problem." I personally like to hear good news from Iraq. It means less chance of massive genocide there. It means more hope that the US may have a victory over Islamic terrorists rather than face a defeat at their hands. But, the focus of the House Whip is that positive news from Iraq is a problem for the Democrats.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war....

"I think there would be enough support in that group [the Blue Dog Democrats] to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said.

*

It's true, from all reports the Saudi military is highly incompetent. For instance, without American and British contractors, its huge collection of warplanes would stop functioning very quickly, as the Saudis can't do any maintenance work themselves. Furthermore, their pilot training is apparently woeful.

That incompetence is the only reason Israel puts up with the massive collection of Saudi armaments.

That statement, by the way, doesn't imply all Saudis, or Arabs for that matter, are stupid, any more than noting the failings of the Italian postal service implies Italians as a whole are dumb.

This is all Chicken-and-Egg to me.

Are we giving Israel weapons because we want to sell Kind Abdullah some? Or are we selling the Saudis weapons because we want to give Israel some? Which came first?

Forgive my tin-cap, but is it possible AIPAC/Likud got a sweetheart deal from the neo-cons, for no reason whatsoever. To divert attention, Bush pretends the sweetheart deal is in response to some other concocted deal to the Saudis?

I mean, don't we have to arm the Neo-cons there, so we don't have to arm them here?!

"ex-liberal" is working hard to build the Dolchstosslegende, I see.

Of course, those of us who have had to deal with the lame claims of "progress" in Iraq over the past four years -- including strangely familiar claims from those twits writing in the NYT today -- recognize that no amount of painted schools can disguise the deepening chaos in Iraq.

May I remind "ex-liberal" that you yourself have predicted that Betrayus's predictable report of "progress" in Iraq will provide political cover for those who want to punt the inevitable collapse of Bush's failed Iraq policy into the next Administration. And yet "ex-liberal" comes along and posts this bullshit.

You really do get a sick thrill out of posting the lamest, most disingenuous, bad-faith arguments you can, don't you? Newsbusters, indeed.

If Islam exists a thousand years from now, this generation's Muslim leaders will be remembered as the guys who took the oil out of the ground and spent the proceeds on American weapons.

As for George Bush, having put a theocracy in power in Iraq, he and sidekick Condi are spending their time arming the Sunni opponents of that theocracy.

Like, hunh?

.

RSM: They're mostly incompetent.

Yep. Just like them little Vietnamese folks. You f*cking pinhead.

RSM: They're mostly incompetent.

How incompetent can they be when a third world insurgency is kicking the butts of the world's strongest military? It makes a person wonder exactly who is incompetent.
Posted by: Mike

- and -

Yep. Just like them little Vietnamese folks. You f*cking pinhead.
Posted by: thersites

Apart from whether the point you two are trying to make is right, whatever that point may be since you both seem confused, I was talking about the SAUDI MILITARY.

I was talking about the SAUDI MILITARY.

And Red State Mike's assertions have such value...

And Red State Mike's assertions have such value...
Posted by: Gregory

Since I've served with Saudis and you haven't...yes. Thank you for pointing it out.

What Nicholas Beaudrot said -- this is partly a balance of trade issue -- the only thing we export anymore is big ticket sophisticated armaments

this thread is a classic example of the liberal impulse to appease.

The author and best-known proponent of the appeasement policy towards Nazi Germany was Neville Chamberlain, a conservative.

That is all.

"Olde Europe" Opinion on Bush's 'Gift' for Foreign Policy
Craig Johnson
.
By Bloomberg News
July 31, 2007

Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party said President Bush's plan to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and five other states in the Gulf is misguided and myopic.

Mr. Bush "is obviously gifted in the way that he always picks exactly the wrong approach in foreign policy and security matters," Hubertus Heil, general secretary of the Social Democrats, which is in coalition with Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democrats, told a news conference in Berlin yesterday. "It's short-sighted and irresponsible" to distribute weapons in the Gulf region.

Weapons of Messopotamia Destruction , WMD

It does send some messages, however:

* The Bush administration isn't really serious about democracy

* The Bush administration isn't really serious about fighting terrorism

* The Bush administration really isn't serious about quelling violence in the Middle East

* The Bush administration is serious about funneling tax dollars into GOP coffers, directly or indirectly, by whatever means possible and no matter the consequences to American national security