$110bn arms deals agreed as Trump visits Saudi Arabia

[Raidyr]

I don't mind the deal so much as thr fact that the weapons are inevitably going to be used on Yemen, which is one of the countries Trump wants to restrict travel to. Sorta fucked up

[OvB]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52254659]I don't mind the deal so much as thr fact that the weapons are inevitably going to be used on Yemen, which is one of the countries Trump wants to restrict travel to. Sorta fucked up[/QUOTE]

I haven't been paying much attention to the Yemeni Civil War but aren't the sides basically terrorists, Saudi and Western backed government, and more terrorists? I understand that the Saudi campaign is less than careful with regards to civilian casualties? And our further support manifested in this deal will result in more civilian casualties?

[editline]20th May 2017[/editline]

If it were me making the deal, I would've stipulated that the agreement is subject to our oversight in minimizing civilian casualties.

[Crooky01]

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52254218]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]

I guess they got tired of using british bombs, which they put to use in murdering civvies

[Joey Skylynx]

[QUOTE=OvB;52254854]I haven't been paying much attention to the Yemeni Civil War but aren't the sides basically terrorists, Saudi and Western backed government, and more terrorists? I understand that the Saudi campaign is less than careful with regards to civilian casualties? And our further support manifested in this deal will result in more civilian casualties?

[editline]20th May 2017[/editline]

If it were me making the deal, I would've stipulated that the agreement is subject to our oversight in minimizing civilian casualties.[/QUOTE]
Eyup. One side is the Houthis, a terrorist group which has been around since I believe the late 50's.
The other is whatever the Saudis can throw enough dosh at to make them fight wars because their incompetent military might as well be a bunch of greenhorns playing airsoft.

It's also worth noting that the Houthis have actually sunk two or three warships belonging to the Saudi coalition. :v:

[Foogoowoman]

because dumping weapons into the middle east has always worked out great

[Tamschi]

[URL="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/newsblog-donald-trump-auf-reisen-a-1148420.html"]According to Spiegel[/URL][URL="http://archive.is/N4EKQ"],[/URL] this deal created 450 jobs for Americans - in Saudi Arabia because that's where the production will happen.
Normally I'd say he might as well ship the plans for free, but iirc the country's education system is maybe too broken for them to use those properly.

The whole account of the day reads like satire even if you ignore the SPON snark regarding trump's ego.

[Raidyr]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52253992]
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]
Did this actually pan out though? I googled for Saudi Arabia safe zones in Syria and only came up with stories about the phone call, then Trump saying a month later that Middle Eastern countries need to pay for them. [URL="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/01/31/Would-safe-zones-really-prevent-civilian-deaths-.html"]This source[/URL] says the UAE foreign minister tentatively supports it under an "international umbrella". If you just search for safe zones in general you get articles [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/05/russia-iran-and-turkey-agree-on-safe-zones-in-syria/525486/"]like this[/URL] talking about ones established by a union of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Nothing about Saudi Arabia or the UAE. It seems to me like Trump didn't get them to agree to anything.

As to why Obama or Bush (???) didn't establish safe zones in Syria, it could be that Trump is just a masterful dealmaker, or it could be that safe zones are [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/International/30000-troops-needed-syria-safe-zone-kerry/story?id=37173697"]really fucking hard and expensive[/URL] to implement.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52254220]
Are you referring to a no fly zone over Syria?

That is not the same thing at all as Saudi Arabia creating safe zones.[/QUOTE]

Safe zones require no fly zones.
[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[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Why does the Clinton Foundation existing mean that you would "focus" on Hillary more regarding "corruption"? Is the idea here that she would have sold the weapons for cheaper or something? I don't get it.

[Mr. Someguy]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52254220]Are you referring to a no fly zone over Syria?

That is not the same thing at all as Saudi Arabia creating safe zones.[/QUOTE]

Saudi Arabian safe zone? I'd trust the goddamn war zone more than that.

[Tudd Fudders]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52256093]Did this actually pan out though? I googled for Saudi Arabia safe zones in Syria and only came up with stories about the phone call, then Trump saying a month later that Middle Eastern countries need to pay for them. [URL="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/01/31/Would-safe-zones-really-prevent-civilian-deaths-.html"]This source[/URL] says the UAE foreign minister tentatively supports it under an "international umbrella". If you just search for safe zones in general you get articles [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/05/russia-iran-and-turkey-agree-on-safe-zones-in-syria/525486/"]like this[/URL] talking about ones established by a union of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Nothing about Saudi Arabia or the UAE. It seems to me like Trump didn't get them to agree to anything.[/quote]

Apparently this current SA meeting will further go over that and we could expect more news of this perhaps being part of the deal.

[quote]A major part of the agenda with Gulf leaders will be the
Syrian civil war amid calls for "de-escalation zones" in Syria
to provide a safe haven for Syrian refugees.

[url]http://www.nasdaq.com/article/rptus-nears-100-bln-arms-deal-for-saudi-arabia-white-house-official-20170513-00032[/url][/quote]

Also it does mention making parts of Yemen safe zones in the original reuters article since I saw you mention that.

[quote]As to why Obama or Bush (???) didn't establish safe zones in Syria, it could be that Trump is just a masterful dealmaker, or it could be that safe zones are [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/International/30000-troops-needed-syria-safe-zone-kerry/story?id=37173697"]really fucking hard and expensive[/URL] to implement. [/quote]
Then that should highlight how hard it is to negotiate that.

I forgot and should have elaborated on why I lumped Bush in there. Obviously it has nothing to do with Syria, but I was referring to the problems he had with getting Saudi Arabia involved during the other middle eastern conflicts.

[quote]
Safe zones require no fly zones. [/quote]
Thank you for this zinger, but I know that you are smart enough to realize that Clinton's No Fly Zone over Syria and a safe zone on Saudi Arabia's border are two completely different things.

[quote]I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Why does the Clinton Foundation existing mean that you would "focus" on Hillary more regarding "corruption"? Is the idea here that she would have sold the weapons for cheaper or something? I don't get it.[/QUOTE]
I think it is warranted to be more concerned when Clinton does actions with Saudi Arabia considering for example [url=https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000]how her foundation received 10 to 25 million dollars in donations[/url] by the government. Now you can tell me how harmless this donation might be, but I am of the opinion that the foundation doesn't receive such huge donations by foreign governments for altruistic sentiments. Either way, if she had done some certain similar maneuvers with Saudi Arabia like getting the Saudi King to agree to safe zones, I would praise her for it.

And yes, Blackmagemari, I read what you posted, and no, I don't think a international real estate business owner having properties and businesses in Saudi Arabia before being president is comparable to the Clintons' (or even Bush's) various odd ties to the middle east that has extended their whole political dynasty. It is a potential conflict of interest, but if you are so perturbed by that, then I thoroughly implore you to look at any of the previous presidents starting back with Bill Clinton or Bush and tell me if this is truly extraordinary.

And this isn't to excuse Trump, but it is to highlight how some people are freaking out over a guy having hotels and businesses in a foreign country when that is literally his main career, and yet this country has had far deeper ties with Saudi Arabia through someone like Bush that extremely disturbing.

[HumanAbyss]

Jesus you over look trumps numerous dealings with all sorts of shady figures but hold it against everyone else

You ignore Trumps ties to Russia and wave them off entirely, you ignore his dealings with Saudis and everyone else, you ignore the conflict of interest in the nature of them patronizing his hotels while he's president.

I mean I know you try to be eloquent but I can't believe you. Like I just don't believe the things you say correlate with any portion of our reality.

[Tudd Fudders]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52256506]Jesus you over look trumps numerous dealings with all sorts of shady figures but hold it against everyone else

You ignore Trumps ties to Russia and wave them off entirely, you ignore his dealings with Saudis and everyone else, you ignore the conflict of interest in the nature of them patronizing his hotels while he's president.

I mean I know you try to be eloquent but I can't believe you. Like I just don't believe the things you say correlate with any portion of our reality.[/QUOTE]

Well the key thing here is that I don't hold previous business ties to a foreign country as condemnable compared to political favors and dealings that happen with career politicians.

Not to mention when were talking about Trump/Russia, that is currently with some of his subordinates you can prove a connection with and even then it is a huge stretch to say that makes Trump guilty/complicit right now.

And yes, I really think him having hotels in Saudi Arabia doesn't make him guilty of collaboration. Even Blackmagemari forgot to mention that the countries selected for the temporary moratorium came from Obama's administration. So if people are wondering why Saudi Arabia wasn't listed, they should ask the DHS and president from then.

But I can get you a short answer, our relationship with Saudi Arabia is an unfortunate reality that has existed long before Trump was president, and there isn't much from any president going onwards that I would expect great change or even hold it against them much if nothing can be done on their end.

[Raidyr]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52256486]Apparently this current SA meeting will further go over that and we could expect more news of this perhaps being part of the deal.

Also it does mention making parts of Yemen safe zones in the original reuters article since I saw you mention that.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the optimism but maybe wait for things to actually happen before giving him credit? Your posts in this thread are somewhat misleading, insinuating that Saudi Arabia has already established safe zones thanks to Trump.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52256486]Then that should highlight how hard it is to negotiate that.[/QUOTE]
Trump isn't a very good negotiator.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52256486]I forgot and should have elaborated on why I lumped Bush in there. Obviously it has nothing to do with Syria, but I was referring to the problems he had with getting Saudi Arabia involved during the other middle eastern conflicts.[/QUOTE]
Apples and oranges.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52256486]Thank you for this zinger, but I know that you are smart enough to realize that Clinton's No Fly Zone over Syria and a safe zone on Saudi Arabia's border are two completely different things.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't a zinger. A safe zone in a traditional sense requires air cover. It's not a safe zone if an attack aircraft can drop bombs on it at any time. Also, it wasn't "Clintons no fly zone over Syria". It was a no fly zone over parts of Syria to create safe zones.
[QUOTE]“This would not be done just on the first day,” Clinton replied to a question about the military cost and human toll that imposing a no-fly zone would require. “This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

[/QUOTE]
Where would the safe zone be on Saudi Arabias border? It doesn't border Syria. Are we not talking about safe zones [B]inside[/B] Syria? If we are talking about ones on the border of Jordan or Iraq then those are called refugee centers. Do you actually have a source that provides anything specific?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52256486]I think it is warranted to be more concerned when Clinton does actions with Saudi Arabia considering for example [URL="https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000"]how her foundation received 10 to 25 million dollars in donations[/URL] by the government. Now you can tell me how harmless this donation might be, but I am of the opinion that the foundation doesn't receive such huge donations by foreign governments for altruistic sentiments. Either way, if she had done some certain similar maneuvers with Saudi Arabia like getting the Saudi King to agree to safe zones, I would praise her for it. [/QUOTE]
Many governments give money to the Clinton Foundation, it's a well known humanitarian organization that does a lot of good work. What I'm asking is how those donations would cause you to question this deal.

Namedropping the Clinton Foundation might get a visceral reaction on, say, t_d but here you need to bring something a little more to the table because I'm just confused.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52256486]And yes, Blackmagemari, I read what you posted, and no, I don't think a international real estate business owner having properties and businesses in Saudi Arabia before being president is comparable to the Clintons' (or even Bush's) various odd ties to the middle east that has extended their whole political dynasty. It is a potential conflict of interest, but if you are so perturbed by that, then I thoroughly implore you to look at any of the previous presidents starting back with Bill Clinton or Bush and tell me if this is truly extraordinary.

And this isn't to excuse Trump, but it is to highlight how some people are freaking out over a guy having hotels and businesses in a foreign country when that is literally his main career, and yet this country has had far deeper ties with Saudi Arabia through someone like Bush that extremely disturbing.[/QUOTE]

It's the difference between personal enrichment and being a state actor. The fact that Trump has a financial stake in Saudi Arabia can influence the decisions he makes about the country. You aren't going to convince anyone by using weasel words like "various odd ties to the middle east" when all they can do is see Trump bragging about the fact that he has a personal financial stake in making sure Saudi Arabia remains stable and economically prosperous, even if its to the detriment of the United States or its other allies.

[editline]21st May 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52256551]Well the key thing here is that I don't hold previous business ties to a foreign country as condemnable compared to political favors and dealings that happen with career politicians.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is you are turning a blind eye to financial leverage that is easily observable and that Trump brags about to worry over vague "political favors and dealings". That you make the distinction between Trump and "career politicians" tells me you think Trump is somehow immune to this.

[editline]21st May 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52256551]
And yes, I really think him having hotels in Saudi Arabia doesn't make him guilty of collaboration. [/QUOTE]

What? nobody said anything about collaboration. Are you sure you are replying to the right posts?

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52257225]SA and UAE just pledged 100 million to Ivanka's Women Entrenepuership Fund. Really makes you think[/QUOTE]
Lock her up

[OvB]

Trump's about to give a big speech to Arab leaders about Islam and peace. Someone should probably post a stream and make a thread for it because it might be important. Or give you source material. Whatever your view of Trump is.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=OvB;52257384]Trump's about to give a big speech to Arab leaders about Islam and peace. Someone should probably post a stream and make a thread for it because it might be important. Or give you source material. Whatever your view of Trump is.[/QUOTE]

It's going on right now
[video=youtube;JiI7ejy6Fsw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiI7ejy6Fsw[/video]

[C O Y O T E]

This face says it all

[t]http://i.imgur.com/gNfwDwv.jpg[/t]

[Untouch]

seeing trump's supporters defend saudi arabia (all while hating everything it stands for) because trump does is really funny to me

[OvB]

The sentiment of the speech was good, but I can't help but think it fell on deaf ears. Half the people there probably fund terrorism in some way.

[editline]21st May 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52257561]This face says it all

[t]http://i.imgur.com/gNfwDwv.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]

The guy looked like he was one beat away from a heart attack the past two days. Not sure if his health is great. They were dancing with swords yesterday and he had to have an aide raise his arm for him.

[Deathtrooper]

Tudd, your undying faith in Trump's ability scares me.

[Nahash]

[QUOTE]But we can only overcome this evil if the forces of good are united and strong-and if everyone in this room does their fair share and fulfills their part of the burden.

Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land.

America is prepared to stand with you-in pursuit of shared interests and common security.

But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

It is a choice between two futures-and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and

DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.

For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard those strategies that have not worked-and will apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopting a Principled Realism, rooted in common values and shared interests.[/QUOTE]

Sounds interesting. He's correct but a huge problem is that no Arab country will follow these commands

[soulharvester]

We have a long history of investment and our agreements with Saudi Arabia are mutually beneficial for both governments (though not necessarily their citizens, particularly in the case of the Arabians.)

They actually have a lot of leverage in terms of the stability of our currency, and selling arms to them reduces the need for us to waste money defending them and gives us a return on arms we've already produced and can now invest that money elsewhere, even if that just means updating our own equipment.

Selling them weapons is nothing new and expecting trump not to grab money he can spend where available to him would be naive, and these deals increase the Saudi confidence in their ability to use U.S. dollars, and allows them to spend them in a way that helps our economy instead of damaging it, while boosting their own military capability, which means they have a reason to keep trading oil for U.S. dollars (petrodollars).

I don't like this system and I don't like the Saudis but denying that it's beneficial to the U.S. (material wealth) as well as the Saudi royalty is foolish. If anything I'm surprised he basically went in their IRL shitposting about terrorism at them, though his message in this instance seems consistent with disabling ISIS with minimal intervention, even if his actions are not.

TL:DR this was to be expected, we have a long history of cooperation with Saudi Arabia regardless of party or ideology out of economic necessity.

[C O Y O T E]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52257813]Sounds interesting. He's correct but a huge problem is that no Arab country will follow these commands[/QUOTE]

He's only "correct" because someone else wrote the speech for him. Now imagine him saying this in his [I]own [/I]words.

[Tudd Fudders]

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52257225][URL="https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-u-a-e-pledge-100-million-to-world-banks-women-entrepreneurs-fund-1495339028"]SA and UAE just pledged[/URL] 100 million to Ivanka's Women Entrenepuership Fund. Really makes you think

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:[/QUOTE]

First: This fund is actually controlled by the World Bank and only advocated for by Ivanka. So it is disingenuous for you to act like this is similar to the Clinton's relationship to their own foundation when SA and the U.A.E are actually sending money to the World Bank, and thus a 3rd party in control, not Ivanka.

Second: Referring to the Clinton Foundation in general and replying to Raidyr on this note, there are several cases of the foundation being used for Political favors.

Such as;

[url=http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor]The Bangladesh PM admitting it pressured her to appoint an official.[/url]
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/20/abedin-implicated-clinton-in-foundation-trade-off-with-morocco-amid-12-million-commitment.html]A $12 million dollar payment from Morocco to give a 'speech' that she admitted she would not be able to give at the time defined.[/url]
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL]$1 million dollars as a birthday present to Bill Clinton for a 5 minute meeting that was never confirmed to have occured[/url]
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html[/url]The crown prince of Bahrain donating money to meet Clinton[/url]
There are more, but it is fairly obvious that people want to donate to the foundation to get access to what they saw and believed were influential people and possibly presidential connections.

And just for fun because were talking about weapon deals in this thread.
[url=http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187]"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term."[/url]

So if you want to continue arguing that a donation to the World Bank's (Not Ivanka's like you mislead and typed) handling an Entrenepuership fund is some how proving I am a hypocrite, please continue making yourself a fool.

[HumanAbyss]

It's still the "classic Clinton deflection" with you dude.

He's literally the same but you keep acting and ignoring all these different factors when they go against your bias.

[Netsui]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52258297]First: This fund is actually controlled by the World Bank and only advocated for by Ivanka. So it is disingenuous for you to act like this is similar to the Clinton's relationship to their own foundation when SA and the U.A.E are actually sending money to the World Bank, and thus a 3rd party in control, not Ivanka.

Second: Referring to the Clinton Foundation in general and replying to Raidyr on this note, there are several cases of the foundation being used for Political favors.

Such as;

[URL="http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor"]The Bangladesh PM admitting it pressured her to appoint an official.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/20/abedin-implicated-clinton-in-foundation-trade-off-with-morocco-amid-12-million-commitment.html"]A $12 million dollar payment from Morocco to give a 'speech' that she admitted she would not be able to give at the time defined.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL"]$1 million dollars as a birthday present to Bill Clinton for a 5 minute meeting that was never confirmed to have occured[/URL]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html[/url"]The crown prince of Bahrain donating money to meet Clinton[/URL]
There are more, but it is fairly obvious that people want to donate to the foundation to get access to what they saw and believed were influential people and possibly presidential connections.

And just for fun because were talking about weapon deals in this thread.
[URL="http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187"]"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term."[/URL]

So if you want to continue arguing that a donation to the World Bank's (Not Ivanka's like you mislead and typed) handling an Entrenepuership fund is some how proving I am a hypocrite, please continue making yourself a fool.[/QUOTE]

That's his first post and didn't even mention Clinton, what are you on about lmao trying to make the connection there just seems desperate

Just like you were such an advocate of criticism to Clinton while she was in obama's administration, try to do the same to the current administration, stop being so one-sided, being blind eyed for the Trumps and constantly bringing up buried shit that has nothing to do with the current people in charge

Overall, stop trying to change the subject to Clinton or Obama when the Trump administration does something.

[Tudd Fudders]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52256659]I appreciate the optimism but maybe wait for things to actually happen before giving him credit? Your posts in this thread are somewhat misleading, insinuating that Saudi Arabia has already established safe zones thanks to Trump. [/quote]
My bad on the insuitation on they were established. I forgot it was only talks that got him to agree to them and not establishment.

[quote]
Trump isn't a very good negotiator. [/quote]
Your opinion, but I think he has done well negotiating in alot of areas, and not the overall failure this forum likes to paint him.

[quote]
Apples and oranges. [/quote]
Still highlights even with Bush's connections how hard it is to get Saudi Arabia to align on foreign interests.

[quote]
That wasn't a zinger. A safe zone in a traditional sense requires air cover. It's not a safe zone if an attack aircraft can drop bombs on it at any time. Also, it wasn't "Clintons no fly zone over Syria". It was a no fly zone over parts of Syria to create safe zones. [/quote]
It came off as a zinger with the one sentence send off and lack of acknowledgement that the no fly over Syria is a geopolitical manuever to control a war zone, while a safe zone is to help harbor/process refugees and by [i]consequence[/i] needs things like air superiority to maintain its integrity. They are not similar in motivation or overall function. Just because one potentially creates/needs the other in parts doesn't mean they are the same.

[quote]
Where would the safe zone be on Saudi Arabias border? It doesn't border Syria. Are we not talking about safe zones [B]inside[/B] Syria? If we are talking about ones on the border of Jordan or Iraq then those are called refugee centers. Do you actually have a source that provides anything specific?[/quote]
I imagine the safe zones would function similarly to other safe zones created in non-border states like Greece, and thus functionally they would be located to their north most border towards Syria. Though I do know that the borders between Saudi Arabia and Iraq aren't as stringent as one imagines (from the Iraq side of it) and thus refugees probably would try to cross through Iraq as a buffer state.

[quote]
Many governments give money to the Clinton Foundation, it's a well known humanitarian organization that does a lot of good work. What I'm asking is how those donations would cause you to question this deal.

Namedropping the Clinton Foundation might get a visceral reaction on, say, t_d but here you need to bring something a little more to the table because I'm just confused. [/quote]
I have made an earlier post regarding this abit. Overall I think the Clinton Foundation is documented political vehicle to gain access to the Clintons in hopes for favors. Any benefits they make to the world through it is awesome, but it was undoubtedly used for pay-to-play interactions in the political realm.

[quote]
It's the difference between personal enrichment and being a state actor. The fact that Trump has a financial stake in Saudi Arabia can influence the decisions he makes about the country. You aren't going to convince anyone by using weasel words like "various odd ties to the middle east" when all they can do is see Trump bragging about the fact that he has a personal financial stake in making sure Saudi Arabia remains stable and economically prosperous, even if its to the detriment of the United States or its other allies. [/quote]
I think intrinsically everyone wants the relationship with Saudi Arabia to change, but not get worse. If Trump has motivation to keep Saudi Arabia stable because he is aware of the cost of a destabilized SA would have on his hotels he use to run, then I say that is more of a consequence of the world economy than a conflict of interest.

I think overall I am more interested in how he acts with this conflict of interest, than immediately condemn him for having pre-existing business in Saudi Arabia. And no, as already pointed out, Saudi Arabia not being on the DHS's Countries of Concern does not represent a clear conflict of interest issue with Trump and them.

[quote]
The problem is you are turning a blind eye to financial leverage that is easily observable and that Trump brags about to worry over vague "political favors and dealings". That you make the distinction between Trump and "career politicians" tells me you think Trump is somehow immune to this.[/quote]
No I don't think Trump is immune to any of this. I think it is fairly obvious a person who has a their main career in politics, and then a side business in a foreign country is more concerning than someone who was Global Business man before going into politics. The potential for a conflict of interest in politics intrinsically more concerning with the person who's main job is to hopefully be as transparent as possible for their constituents. I am observing Trump as politician now since he started as a canidate, because to speculate he might have been playing all his foreign business deals only to cash in for his future career in politics is quite extraordinary and requires grand evidence to connect all those dots.

[editline]21st May 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52258361]That's his first post and didn't even mention Clinton, what are you on about lmao trying to make the connection there just seems desperate

Just like you were such an advocate of criticism to Clinton while she was in obama's administration, try to do the same to the current administration, stop being so one-sided, being blind eyed for the Trumps and constantly bringing up buried shit that has nothing to do with the current people in charge

Overall, stop trying to change the subject to Clinton or Obama when the Trump administration does something.[/QUOTE]
I must implore you to reread what he was quoting. It doesn't seem you comprehended the full conversation, nor has HumanAbyss.

He is obviously linking the world bank article to imply I am a hypocrite for being critical of the Clinton Foundation, but maybe (hence the repeated use of the thinking emote) I am not critical of Saudi Arabia donating to the Women's Fund that Ivanka is connected to.

In my part of the quote, I was discussing the Clinton Foundation, hence why it is relevant and not a deflection.

Especially after our conversation on Discord regarding the topic confirms that.
[t]https://s3.postimg.org/688lquqkz/Screenshot_2017-05-21_14.51.50.png[/t]

Really, hopefully this isn't a SAT test on reading comprehension we have to go through.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52258297]First: This fund is actually controlled by the World Bank and only advocated for by Ivanka. So it is disingenuous for you to act like this is similar to the Clinton's relationship to their own foundation when SA and the U.A.E are actually sending money to the World Bank, and thus a 3rd party in control, not Ivanka.

Second: Referring to the Clinton Foundation in general and replying to Raidyr on this note, there are several cases of the foundation being used for Political favors.

Such as;

[URL="http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor"]The Bangladesh PM admitting it pressured her to appoint an official.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/20/abedin-implicated-clinton-in-foundation-trade-off-with-morocco-amid-12-million-commitment.html"]A $12 million dollar payment from Morocco to give a 'speech' that she admitted she would not be able to give at the time defined.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL"]$1 million dollars as a birthday present to Bill Clinton for a 5 minute meeting that was never confirmed to have occured[/URL]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html[/url"]The crown prince of Bahrain donating money to meet Clinton[/URL]
There are more, but it is fairly obvious that people want to donate to the foundation to get access to what they saw and believed were influential people and possibly presidential connections.

And just for fun because were talking about weapon deals in this thread.
[URL="http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187"]"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term."[/URL]

So if you want to continue arguing that a donation to the World Bank's (Not Ivanka's like you mislead and typed) handling an Entrenepuership fund is some how proving I am a hypocrite, please continue making yourself a fool.[/QUOTE]

Nobody in the Clinton family actually personally benefited from these donations so why is it so bad

[inaba]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52258430]Nobody in the Clinton family actually personally benefited from these donations so why is it so bad[/QUOTE]

Because it's Clinton and Clinton isn't Trump

[Tudd Fudders]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52258430]Nobody in the Clinton family actually personally benefited from these donations so why is it so bad[/QUOTE]

There is some concerns it has been.

One being the Chelsea's wedding where Band mentions she is using "foundation resources" which nobody can confirm what that means, but could be possible inurement of benefits.
[quote]I learned from the best

The investigation into her (Chelsea Clinton) getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents....

I hope that you will speak to her and end this
Once we go down this road....[/quote]
[url]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046[/url]

But even without that, you are flat out wrong. Interactions and donations with their foundation are entirely beneficial to themselves through connections and influence that can be seen as political capital.

I will link this article again so you can see a specific example of how there is a direct benefit in the form of calling favors and exerting influence.

[url]http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor[/url]

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52258483]There is some concerns it has been.

One being the Chelsea's wedding where Band mentions she is using "foundation resources" which nobody can confirm what that means, but could be possible inurement of benefits.

[url]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046[/url][/QUOTE]

I don't trust Wikileaks and neither should you.

[QUOTE]But even without that, you are flat out wrong. Interactions and donations with their foundation are entirely beneficial to themselves through connections and influence.[/QUOTE]
You have no way of proving this.