�24 billion of weapons for the middle east!

[Gromit]

Saudi Arabia will buy �12 billion of US arms.
Meanwhile, the US will give �12 billion military aid to Israel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jse ssionid=K3YXUUEHQDOTBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/ news/2007/07/30/wmeast130.xml

The two figures are remarkably similar.
That's �24 billion going into the US Economy.

Which of the following do you think is the best option?

1. It is wise to arm both sides so that no one has an advantage over the other
2. Niether side should be sold or given any arms because the situation is volatile
3. Only Israel should get military help because the Arabs would invade Israel if we didn't.
4. We should only sell to saudi Arabia because we need to protect our oil supplies.

Or do you have another option?

[China Doll]

1) I've no idea. I once read an article that said if every country had a nuclear weapon pointed at it from another country we'd certainly live more peacefully. Not sure I really subscribe to that idea. And this point sounds like a toned down version of that.

2) Either side will get hold of weapons anyway. (Didn't we sell weapons to Iraq as 'farm tools' ?) It's the getting them to not use the weapons we should concentrate on.

3) Don't think so.

4) Bush might prefer that option.

My option - I'm not sure I have one but arming volatile countries doesn't seem entirely practical to my way of thinking.

And I really keep coming back to the Palestinian and Israel situation and can't help thinking about the implications of Israel having more funding for the Palestinians. That can't be good surely? Or at least it doesn't sit right with me.

Unless Bush is thinking of pulling out of Iraq/Invading Iran (latter doesn't seem plausible), in which case maybe it's all part of a ploy for other countries to be forced to control the situation in the middle east.

I think there's probably a whole lot of other options/motives behind this funding. There usually is.

[jno]

I gather they're doing it on the basis that if they don't, Iran will, and they think they are more deserving of the money than Iran is. Whether the weapons are any better than Iranian ones remains to be seen. Hopefully they'll turn out to be rubbish.

I'm not sure that aid to Israel counts as money going into the US economy, though; on the face of it, it's an outflow, leaving the US where it was.

[beryllium]

I read it as this....

Saudi have just supplied Israel with weapons via the middle man (USA).

[ruby27]

1. Yes. If you want to continue to rake in the profits, perpetuate the conflict and ensure that escalation continues but in a way that you have a degree of control and the combatants have a degree of dependency. You wouldn't want the customers going else where.

2. But, how would that meet the needs of US, to be a powerful Arms dealer and have the right to interfere by calling it middle east peace negotiations.

3. That would only be half the profit.

4. As above, why settle for half when you can have a whole.

Countries, wealthy ones should come out and admit that they are arms dealers and in this for profit.
Or be open that peace negotiations etc are not some sort of disinterested altruistic benevolence, but a means where powerful countries will 'police' the activities of less powerful ones, to ensure that powerful ones remain powerful