U.S. presidential candidate slams arms sales to Saudis

[Scurrilous]

Source: Haaretz

<snip>

"Democrat John Edwards said the Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion worth of weapons to friendly Arab states amounted to a foreign policy of convenience and he will take a tougher stance with Saudi Arabia if elected president.

Edwards said the United States should require the Saudi government to shut down the movement of terrorists across its borders, help stabilize the Iraqi government and participate more seriously in regional security before they are offered arms.

"Whether it's Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing," the 2004 vice presidential nominee told The Associated Press in a telephone call.

"And the Bush administration's response is to sell them $20 billion worth of arms, which is short term and convenient and not what the United States should be doing," he added.

Edwards is the first Democratic presidential candidate to speak out against the deal."




Read more: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/888407.html

[Botany]

1. I loves me some John Edwards

Get John!

[LSK]

21. what you said!

:hi:

[robinlynne]

2. me too. why not name the candidate in the title?

maybe because it's just obvious...

[Demeter]

3. Go Johnnie!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Edwards is the only candidate who would say that. Honest and upfront. nt

[Help me help Earth]

5. In the worst case Iraq scenario, the Saudis might need these weapons.

Saudi Arabia is a major buyer of US arms and relies heavily on US military support for its defense. While some in Saudi Arabia might be providing support to the insurgency, as far as I know no Iraqi Sunnis have been driving around in Abrams and Bradleys as of late. The likelihood of these weapons (which require something of a sophisticated infrastructure to use and maintain) ever being used against us is pretty low. The likelihood of the US pulling us out of Iraq and everything go to hell seems increasingly high, and faced with a potentially hostile Shia state on it's border the Saudis are going to want every advanced weapon they can get. Remember, our providing the Saudis with military support is the price we pay for their stabilizing oil markets.

Even if we were we to ever come into conflict with Saudi Arabia we would just cut off replacement parts and support. Within a few months most of these weapons would be worthless. That's what happened to the Iranians after the revolution. Within a few months their American provided air force could not fly.

[mia]

9. Planned obsolescence - it's the American way

"Saudi Arabia is a major buyer of US arms and relies heavily on US military support for its defense."

This could be said about Israel too and we're defending and supporting them both - they who supposedly hate each other because Abraham didn't recognize his son by Hagar or some such thing.


"Even if we were we to ever come into conflict with Saudi Arabia we would just cut off replacement parts and support. Within a few months most of these weapons would be worthless. That's what happened to the Iranians after the revolution. Within a few months their American provided air force could not fly."

You've got this right. All of our sales and A.I.D. to other countries come with strings.

[19jet54]

10. How about Iran & Al Queda?

Iran wishes to topple Saudi Arabia, and Al Queda wants to overthrow any government in favor of their religious ideology?

I think this is a great move - The Saudi government is our friend - Edwards should stick to local issues he actually knows something about!

[progressivebydesign]

13. Saudi govt is our friend? hmmm...

with friends like those... etc.

Sorry I have no affection SA. for Their human rights are abysmal, they are soft on terorrism, and last time I checked the 9/11 terrorists were 99% Saudi.

[madrchsod]

15. our friend?

the only thing the saudi`s care about is their self interest. they are not our friends

[19jet54]

31. By your definition, nobody is a friend...

... the world fits that description; in fact all peoples do!

[bvar22]

19. Saudis OUR friends?

Hardly. The Saudis are Bush*s friends....both in the Oil business.
Neither bush* nor the Saudis are friends of Americans who work for a living.
The Saudis restrict the export of oil to keep the price artificially HIGH, taking many Billions of dollars out of YOUR pocket.

AlQaeda is spawned and financed out of Saudi Arabia.

[LSK]

23. Iran has not invaded a country in over 200 years

There is nothing in their history that indicates they will suddenly march across Iraq and then on to Saudi Arabia.

[bvar22]

18. There is another scenario

where these weapons could easily be used against Israel. I guess that is why the US government felt it necessary to provide Israel an additional $30Billion in aid.

The champaigne must be flowing tonight at Armaments Industries, their lobbyists, and their puppet congress critters.
Too bad about all the people who will die for their profits.

[Help me help Earth]

20. The Saudis are militarily weak

(despite our weapons) and would get there ass handed to them by Israel, which is what happened to the token Saudi forces during the three Arab/Israeli wars. A Saudi/Israeli war would probably eliminate the Saudis one real defense, US military support, something I doubt the Saudis would be willing to lose. Besides, the likelihood of another Arab/Israeli war is pretty remote these days.

[bvar22]

24. You underestimate the rage in the Muslim World

when the US finally forces the Oil Law down the Iraqis' throats, and then begins pipelining Iraqi oil to the Israeli refineries at Haifa. There is currently the illusion of stability in Saudi Arabia due to the Royal family despots, but there is also much hostility toward the SA Royal Family among fundamentalists Muslim sects (Wahabis among others)....the ones that spawn the likes of Osama and Al Qaeda.
Who can predict what will really happen in Saudi over the next few years?

I personally feel it is unwise (not to mention immoral) for the US Armaments Industries to be dumping $Billions into this area of the World. The US doesn't have a very good record at predicting how these weapons will be used. Remember, it was these same people who armed Saddam and the Shah.

[yurbud]

34. nobody is attacking Israel now that they have NUKES

[Alcibiades]

26. Point by point:

"Saudi Arabia is a major buyer of US arms and relies heavily on US military support for its defense. "
It's also a state sponsor of terrorism that gave birth to bin Laden, 18 of 19 of the 9-11 hijackers, and is a repressive monarchy Thomas Paine would have loathed. The fact that they do rely on us does not make it right that they should.
"While some in Saudi Arabia might be providing support to the insurgency, as far as I know no Iraqi Sunnis have been driving around in Abrams and Bradleys as of late."
Which insurgency? Iraq has more than one. Anyway, it's not even a question of the insurgency, it's Al Queda. Saudi Arabia, and many Saudis, supports Al Queda. Just because Saudi nationals who are terrorists have not, as of yet, been able to turn our most lethal weapons against us is no reason to reward the bad behavior of their government by arming them.
"The likelihood of these weapons (which require something of a sophisticated infrastructure to use and maintain) ever being used against us is pretty low."
The likelihood of 9-11 was low. The likelihood of another 9-11 is even lower, but it's been used to justify all sorts of asinine things. Moreover, there is the possibility that Saudi Arabia could be taken over by pro-terrorist elements, which would give them all the sophisticated infrastructure they need.
"The likelihood of the US pulling us out of Iraq and everything go to hell seems increasingly high, and faced with a potentially hostile Shia state on it's border the Saudis are going to want every advanced weapon they can get."
Everything going to hell? Only if we pull out? The last I checked, things are already going to hell, and we have not pulled out. If things go to hell without us pulling out, there's little point in arguing that our pulling out will cause things to go to hell, because that's where things are headed anyway.
I'm sure the Saudis already do want every advanced weapon they can get, but that's no reason why we have to further destabilize the region by supplying them. Balance of power rationales are so tired, so obviously wrong. More arms equals more instability, it's pretty much that simple.
"Remember, our providing the Saudis with military support is the price we pay for their stabilizing oil markets."
Last I checked, gas was up around $3.00 a gallon, supposedly a function of domestic refining capacity, not anything to do with the rate at which the Saudis are pumping it. If you think anything this administration does is geared toward increasing stability in gas supply, you have not been paying attention. If we get $3.00 a gallon gas with there help, we might as well not sell them weapons of mass destruction and get $3.00 a gallon gas.

[Help me help Earth]

28. Point/counterpoint.

1. Agreed, but that does little to change the fact of the matter that they do rely on us and we rely on their oil.

2. Elements of the Sunni insurgency/militias. You expected that Mahdi Army?

3. We should use dumb patriot act rational to determine who we sell weapons to? The risk of these weapons being turned against us is virtually nonexistent. Even if Saudi Arabia became openly hostile to the US, these weapons would be obsolete through lack of support and parts long before they could threaten us. Radical changes like that don't happen overnight.

4. Iraq sucks now, but I have no reason to believe it won't suck worse when we pull out. I personally expect that the Iraqis will eventually pull it together and retain some level of democratic rule, but it's entirely possible (even likely) I'm wrong. In the worse case scenario for the Saudis, they end up with a fundamentalist Shia state on their border, which would present a threat to their security and our oil supply. Selling weapons to the Saudis gives them a little bit more leverage in that situation. They are still militarily weak, and unlikely to play the aggressor in any near future war.

5. Demand is rising, infrastructure is outdated, and Bush is in the White House. That doesn't change the fact that the Saudis traditionally play the role of petro-market stabilizers.

[Zenlitened]

6. Proud to give this a fifth rec!

:dem:

[AntiFascist]

7. Much of the Admin's relationship with Saudi Arabia is top-secret...

Edwards campaign needs to be careful, their phone calls and emails may get intercepted and used to prevent his campaign from gaining traction, lest a candidate who "aids the enemy" in such a way should gain power. The Royal Saudis are all powerful, controlling Cheney's 4th branch of government which Pelosi leaves unimpeachable.

[babylonsister]

8. Rec'd. It will be interesting to see/hear what the other candidates do now.

:D

[burrowowl]

11. Good on John and

I am sure DK is against this by principle!

[progressivebydesign]

12. John just won my support for the nomination.,

I'd been on the fence, really, but knew I liked John Edwards. His poverty work, his willingness to speak out, and his wife Elizabeth, were all great reasons to support him. But.. speaking out on this, and saying the very things I'd been thinking... that just won me over. He had a lot of guts to speak out, and I respect that. It's utterly insane to sell arms to the country that was home to the 9/11 terrorists, that continues to be weak on terrorism, that has horrrid human rights. If Al Gore refuses to run.. well.. I'll be supporting John Edwards.

[madrchsod]

14. about time someone shown some principals

nothing from anyone else about our friendship with these guys...ya hillary won`t talk to dictators but she`ll be right on the phone if they call...

[Hobbs]

16. I thought Edwards had to live with his decision

It is very likely Saudi would not want to buy $20 billion in defense weapons had the US not invaded Iraq and destabilized the region. It was Edwards' bill that authorized the mess.

Boston Globe:

Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.

[usregimechange]

17. k n r

[LSK]

22. K&R

[barb162]

25. I'd be very worried about our oil supply

if the Saudis get pissed. They have to worry about Iran. As the oil supply gets pricier and smaller and Iran gets stronger....

(Though I do like Edwards)

[w4rma]

27. An ethical Presidential candidate. (nt)

[Puppyjive]

29. John Edwards is right on the money

The Saudis don't want anything to go smoothly in the Iraq War. If Iraq ever became stabilized, it would lower the Saudi's control over mideast oil. I think it is a huge mistake to sell arms to the Saudi government. I also have a gut instinct that tells me Osama is hiding out in Saudi. Do ya think anyone is looking for him there? We are in a no win situation with these countries. They want our money, but they don't want our influence. We are having a heck of a time trying to bring democracy to Iraq. Why would we arm a country that has the least bit of interest in democracy? John Edwards is starting to clearly become the candidate for me. When you can't reason with insanity, you have to start thinking outside the box. It's time to get out of the region, put our minds together, and find alternative energy sources.

[David__77]

30. I thought the Democrats should play the anti-Saudi card.

But I seriously doubt that a Democratic administration would follow through and curtail relations with Riyadh. I don't see that happening.

[tabasco]

32. Boosh just tryin'to help his boyfriend.

[yurbud]

33. this is a way to go on the OFFENSE on defense issues--Bush gives weapons to 9/11 funders

The Joint Congressional Inquiry found that Saudi intel was supporting at least two of the hijackers and the bulk of their money came from Saudi. Bush's response? Attack Iraq.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-this-sen-bob-graham-said-two-911.html

Further, defense analysts say the Saudi regime is teetering on the edge of being overthrown, so Bush is essentially giving them weapons to fight us when we go in to relieve them of their oil fields.