$110bn arms deals agreed as Trump visits Saudi Arabia - Polidicks

Short article so posting it all. [URL="https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0520/876622-donald-trump/"]https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0520/876622-donald-trump/[/URL] [QUOTE]The US has agreed arms deals with Saudi Arabia worth almost $110 billion, a White House official said this afternoon, on the first day of President Donald Trump's visit to the traditional US ally. "This package of defence equipment and services support the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats," the official said. It will also bolster the kingdom's "ability to contribute to counter-terrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on the US military to conduct those operations," the official added. Mr Trump landed in Saudi Arabia's capital Riyadh early this morning for the start of his first foreign tour since taking office. A red carpet was rolled out and staircase rolled up to Air Force One minutes after it landed. Mr Trump and his wife Melania, who dressed conservatively in black but did not cover her hair, walked side-by-side to the tarmac, where they both shook hands with Saudi King Salman. Mr Trump will hold talks with leaders in the ultra-conservative kingdom later today and is to give a speech on "hopes for a peaceful vision of Islam" to 50 Arab and Muslim leaders tomorrow. The Republican president is to be accompanied by the first lady, First Daughter and presidential adviser Ivanka Trump and son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner on the first leg of his tour. Mr Trump will also visit Jerusalem and the Vatican on his tour.[/QUOTE] Ironic this comes as Iran votes in a moderate president, while Saudi Arabia is anything but. Remind Trump tired to ban people from several Muslim majority countries who have no funded terrorism. And did not ban Saudi Arabia, which has. :thinking:

Don't try and look for logic in anything that buffoon tries to do, dude. Trying to squeeze blood from a stone.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;52253851]Don't try and look for logic in anything that buffoon tries to do, dude. Trying to squeeze blood from a stone.[/QUOTE] I'm not looking for logic. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of his policies for others to see. I think it's an important point to be made to those who support him.

This is kinda like the plot of Iron Man where a fat old executive sells advanced weapons he knows will get into the hands of terrorist organizations.

Shitting on refugees while claiming they cause terrorism but then and funds the world's biggest exporter of terrorism. Fuck you if you defend this.

I'm slightly concerned that he still has the authority to bind us into these deals and throw money wherever he wants, when every decision he makes could be compromised.

Well theres the wall money

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52253950]I'm slightly concerned that he still has the authority to bind us into these deals and throw money wherever he wants, when every decision he makes could be compromised.[/QUOTE] Were not paying them. They're paying us. Specifically our defense companies like Lockheed and friends. It's a case of inward foreign investment.

I never understood why as one of our tenets of our state have a separation of church and state we would believe others should not have this. Guess I'm just crazy.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52253778] And did not ban Saudi Arabia, which has. :thinking:[/QUOTE] You do realize that for several presidents that a precarious relationship with Saudi Arabia has existed with deals like these? Doesn't make it right, but that is the problem when it is the de facto stable state in the middle east that is atleast willing to work with us and can still exert influence amongst its neighbors. I personally hope we just get them more involved into coalitions or anything that ties the repercussions of radicalization/fundamentalism to them. Sadly, there is no immediate fix unless you want to cut ties and watch them start working against us greatly. Don't forget that Trump did get the Saudis to agree to a safe zone finally near the start of his presidency.That is huge in itself to finally get Saudi Arabia as neighbor state more involved. [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-saudi-idUSKBN15D14L[/url]

Lmao, all that tech with shit training ain't gonna help Look at what happen in yemen, the rag tag houthis are fuckin them up

[QUOTE=Tudd;52253992]You do realize that for several presidents that a precarious relationship with Saudi Arabia has existed with deals like these? Doesn't make it right, but that is the problem when it is the de facto stable state in the middle east that is atleast willing to work with us and can still exert influence amongst its neighbors. I personally hope we just get them more involved into coalitions or anything that ties the repercussions of radicalization/fundamentalism to them. Sadly, there is no immediate fix unless you want to cut ties and watch them start working against us greatly. Don't forget that Trump did get the Saudis to agree to a safe zone finally near the start of his presidency.That is huge in itself to finally get Saudi Arabia as neighbor state more involved. [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-saudi-idUSKBN15D14L[/url][/QUOTE] Oh so it's okay when your guy chooses to go back on his word in relation to all this shit it's okay when your guy decides to do business with them but when Clinton decides to do it, it's beyond shady, beyond acceptable and you're okay to bust a gasket. Dude, you couldn't be more transparent than glass if you fucking tried.

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;52254059]There are better ways to keep good relations up than selling [I]$110bn[/I] worth of arms to a country that apparently are free to do whatever they wish[/QUOTE] Well the point of this shipment is to get Saudi Arabia more involved with counter-terrorism and military actions in the area so that U.S forces are relieved in the area. In this regard, I have to hope it truly does that goal and not get used against us in someway. Ofcourse, that is easily a possibility we see this deal mess up, and I don't mind calling it out when that happens. I agree it would be better for a more peaceful approach, although there really isn't many avenues for that, but at this point the only way Saudi Arabia to really see some repercussions for exporting Wahabism is to get them involved with the areas affected by such ideology that they have sheltered themselves from.

Watch those weapons be used against the US in ten years, having mysteriously fallen into the hands of Muslim extremists throughout the region, just like every other time.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52254096]Oh so it's okay when your guy chooses to go back on his word in relation to all this shit it's okay when your guy decides to do business with them but when Clinton decides to do it, it's beyond shady, beyond acceptable and you're okay to bust a gasket. Dude, you couldn't be more transparent than glass if you fucking tried.[/QUOTE] I really don't like the deal to begin with either way. But I mostly replied cause there seems to be some misconception that Trump has a special relationship with Saudia Arabia because of the temporary moratorium excluding them, when in reality that isn't extraordinary in US foreign politics itself. Now I really rather not have such a deal happen, but at the same time if you are going to get SA more involved into the region, then you do have to provide support at some point. I would say I wouldn't be surprised if this has consequences, but with the safe zones that Trump got created with Saudi Arabia, I can hope that this is a move towards coalition involvement. But yeah had Clinton done it I would have complained harsher, but it also depends if were moving towards coalition type relationships if I would out-right reject it like you imply.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254122] But yeah had Clinton done it I would have complained harsher, but it also depends if were moving towards coalition type relationships if I would out-right reject it like you imply.[/QUOTE] Wait, you can just accept that you would be more opposed to Clinton doing the exact same action as Trump for the exact same reason as Trump solely because of bias and that doesn't bother you? Accidental star

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254122]But yeah had Clinton done it I would have complained harsher[/QUOTE] And this is why nobody on FP can take Trump supporters seriously, because of elementary confirmation bias being held out openly like this. I thought Trump was elected on an isolationist, America First platform, and now he's selling $110 billion worth of weapons to a Muslim country that is known to support extremist groups in the region. I guess if you shout #MAGA enough you can convince people to say yes to anything you ask for without any consistency required.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254122] But yeah had Clinton done it I would have complained harsher, but it also depends if were moving towards coalition type relationships if I would out-right reject it like you imply.[/QUOTE] You really are the worst kind of hypocrite, you know that right? Why this [I]this[/I] any different from Clinton going through with what would undoubtedly be a very similar trade deal? Trump isn't doing it because ~his hand was forced~ or whatever, he's doing it because he likes SA, he has friends and clients in SA, he's admitted as much. If anything Trump would have given these guys a better deal because "he's a businessman" and with his friends over there, mates rates aren't exactly out of the question. He's already shown he doesn't know how to be impartial in the slightest.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52254148] If anything Trump would have given these guys a better deal because "he's a businessman" and with his friends over there, mates rates aren't exactly out of the question. He's already shown he doesn't know how to be impartial in the slightest.[/QUOTE] They actually did negotiate cheaper prices on the missiles, if I recall correctly. [editline]20th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52254144]I thought Trump was elected on an isolationist, America First platform, and now he's selling $110 billion worth of weapons to a Muslim country that is known to support extremist groups in the region.[/QUOTE] To be fair, US defense companies are getting loads of money, and we're likely to get more trade with SA in the future. If anything, arms deals with shady governments are the ultimate way to selfishly put your country first at the expense of the people those weapons are going to be used against. I'd expect more similar deals in the future. [editline]20th May 2017[/editline] Like, you think Russia sold AK's and Tanks to every El Presidente that wanted them out of altruistic concern for peace? Naw, they did it because the money.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52254148]You really are the worst kind of hypocrite, you know that right? Why this [I]this[/I] any different from Clinton going through with what would undoubtedly be a very similar trade deal? Trump isn't doing it because ~his hand was forced~ or whatever, he's doing it because he likes SA, he has friends and clients in SA, he's admitted as much. If anything Trump would have given these guys a better deal because "he's a businessman" and with his friends over there, mates rates aren't exactly out of the question. He's already shown he doesn't know how to be impartial in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Well I am more accepting of it considering Trump actually did help move Saudi Arabia into the geopolitical situation of Syria with the creation of safe zones. That is something I wouldn't expect from Hillary considering her time and performance in middle eastern politics. Again, that is a huge deal that Trump got Saudi Arabia to participate in a humanitarian effort. So hence why I look on this deal more favorably than usual, because Trump was able to get Saudia Arabia to do something Obama/Hillary and even Bush couldn't get them to do. Also they did negotiate a deal to work on the deal in dynamic ways like you imply he hasn't. I really have no idea what point you are trying to make there considering they are paying us.

Don't worry, the Saudis will put all this American hardware to good use bombing civilians in Yemen. At the moment they're up to around 10,000 Yemeni civilians killed by Saudi airstrikes.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254196]Well I am more accepting of it considering Trump actually did help move Saudi Arabia into the geopolitical situation of Syria with the creation of safe zones. That is something I wouldn't expect from Hillary considering her time and performance in middle eastern politics.[/QUOTE] Except one of her key Syria objectives was creating safe zones, to which the right reacted with "SHE'S GONNA START WW3!!!!".

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52254144]And this is why nobody on FP can take Trump supporters seriously, because of elementary confirmation bias being held out openly like this.[/quote] I get accused of being dishonest and then too openly biased all the time. Really seems to depend on the person. [quote] I thought Trump was elected on an isolationist, America First platform, and now he's selling $110 billion worth of weapons to a Muslim country that is known to support extremist groups in the region.[/quote] I didn't vote for Trump to be an isolationist like some people. Trump's strike in Syria after Chemical weapons being used was an exceptional amount of force used to discourage further use of such weapons for example. Him making a deal with Saudi Arabia is more of continuation of previous US policy which I don't like, but unfortunately is the reality of needing them as an ally. If Trump can get them more involved in the area in a coalition-type relationship, then I will be somewhat optimistic. [editline]20th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52254219]Except one of her key Syria objectives was creating safe zones, to which the right reacted with "SHE'S GONNA START WW3!!!!".[/QUOTE] Are you referring to a no fly zone over Syria? That is not the same thing at all as Saudi Arabia creating safe zones.

There's no point in arguing with a man who just admitted he'd criticise someone else more harshly for doing the same policy, because they like one more over the other. EDIT: like seriously. That's just fucking disgusting hypocrisy and dishonesty. And if there's a thing I hate in a person, it's dishonesty. Can't wait for net neutrality to disappear in the States and for Trump fans to say "Oh I hate this, but yeah had Clinton done it I would have complained harsher."

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52254226]There's no point in arguing with a man who just admitted he'd criticise someone else more harshly for doing the same policy, because they like one more over the other.[/QUOTE] Well I would criticize Hillary more since her foundation and family easily have more ties with Saudi Arabia that are way more underhanded and thus implicit on potential corruption. So yes same deal with two different people, I would focus on Hillary more considering the potential for what I see as corruption playing a role in the deal. It's not me saying that I am okay with the deal any more or less, but it really depended if she did the move towards possible coalition actions or just deal like the previous ones for money. Now saying that, had she also gotten a safe zone established before like Trump, then I probably would feel about the same right now though. The safe zone was undoubtedly a big step to getting Saudi Arabia involved and even I would have praised Hillary for that.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254239]Well I would criticize Hillary more since her foundation and family easily have more ties with Saudi Arabia that are way more underhanded and thus implicit on potential corruption. Had she also gotten a safe zone established before like Trump, then I probably would feel about the same right now though. The safe zone was undoubtedly a big step to getting Saudi Arabia involved and even I would have praised Hillary for that.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's not like Trump has a ton [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-911-business-deals-a7038991.html"]links[/URL] [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306990-trump-appeared-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia"]to[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-cold-war-iran-yemen-warning-middle-east-a7636026.html"]Saudi Arabia.[/URL] It's not like his immigration order didn't ban countries [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html"]he had business links.[/URL] It's not like he's criticising Iran and calling them a threat when they elected a moderate President who did a deal with the States [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN18D1W6"]that Trump renewed despite hating,[/URL] while praising a country of horrific human rights abuses that's engaged in an awful war with Yemen. A war a Facepuncher has updated us up on for a while. Trump is a blatant, lying hypocrite. Only in office to enrich himself. And you've fallen for his shit, hook, link and sinker. And yet you'll defend him every step of the way. You and him both are laughing stocks.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254220]I get accused of being dishonest and then too openly biased all the time. Really seems to depend on the person. [/QUOTE] That might continue to happen if you continue to support the most dishonest president in decades

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254220]Trump's strike in Syria after Chemical weapons being used was an exceptional amount of force used to discourage further use of such weapons for example.[/QUOTE] Had Hillary ordered the missile strikes, you'd be screeching "WORLD WAR III"

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52254331]Had Hillary ordered the missile strikes, you'd be screeching "WORLD WAR III"[/QUOTE] Actually I wouldn't. Intervention with chemical attacks are very justified and something I would hope any leader would do regardless of political standing. It is something that history has shown needs to be minimalized as much as possible.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254239]Well I would criticize Hillary more since her foundation and family easily have more ties with Saudi Arabia that are way more underhanded and thus implicit on potential corruption. So yes same deal with two different people, I would focus on Hillary more considering the potential for what I see as corruption playing a role in the deal. It's not me saying that I am okay with the deal any more or less, but it really depended if she did the move towards possible coalition actions or just deal like the previous ones for money. Now saying that, had she also gotten a safe zone established before like Trump, then I probably would feel about the same right now though. The safe zone was undoubtedly a big step to getting Saudi Arabia involved and even I would have praised Hillary for that.[/QUOTE] Maybe you shouldn't try to defend the indefensible for so long. This hypocrite, piece of shit garbage called Donald Trump has umpteen connections to Saudi Arabia both business and political, witness the fact that he still does business with them after blaming them for 9/11, blames and criticizes Iran and classes THEM as a threat, and got into this election in the first place to increase his brand presence, and nothing more. Even now, this blight on the Oval Office is enriching himself with the doubled rates at his many hotels because "they're owned by the President of the USA" after a token gesture of donating his salary to charity (and that's also being a hypocrite!) Why do you feel the need to defend this sad sack of human trash? out of loyalty? a sense of party before the country? I honestly want to know [i]why[/i] you feel the need to defend this guy Tudd, and I know for a fact you ought to be smart enough to drop him like a hot potato when news of his dealings began popping out.