Home | About | Donate

Obama May Be Preaching 'Tough Love' to Saudi – But Arms Sales Tell Another Story


Obama May Be Preaching 'Tough Love' to Saudi – But Arms Sales Tell Another Story

Mohamad Bazzi

When President Barack Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday for a meeting of Gulf leaders, he was greeted at the airport by the governor of Riyadh, instead of the Saudi king. Unlike his previous visits, Obama’s arrival was not broadcast on Saudi state television with its usual pomp and circumstance. It was one sign of how livid Saudi leaders are at Obama and his administration – the decades-long Saudi-US alliance has rarely been more tense.


It's good to know that God entrusted our oil to such good folks.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This is Obama's M.O. He says one thing and does another. So if we arm the Saudi's fully, as with other countries with human rights problems, we can be assured our mighty military will have someone to fight from now on.
The Saudi's have funded Bin Ladin and the Wahabism tradition from the beginning. But the boogie man is Iran. Ha The Saudi's and Israel are now cooperating against Iran and with all the weapons we are pushing to those two countries will be sure to bring perpetual war.
When Hillary was in office one of her top priorities was arms sales, a fact.
Stopping war is not something they really want, it's obvious.


When people owe money, they're prone to do stupid, immoral, and/or dangerous things.

Yesterday I was listening to a potent lecture by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts; and one of the most salient points taken from his material is that NO nation can be sovereign so long as it's indebted to another.

Citing John Perkins' book ("Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"), Dr. Roberts traced the pattern used to purposely put nations into debt. Payouts are made to top leadership, expensive infrastructure improvements (typically, dams) are sold; and when the nation can't meet its debt obligation, key assets are sold off and austerity is imposed on The People.

Mostly, Dr. Roberts used Greece as the key current example; yet these same trends are occurring in Venezuela, Brazil, Spain, and Portugal... among other lands.

When Bill Clinton (under Phil Grahm's direction) took down the important wall (Glass Steagall) put in place to separate Wall Street speculation from conventional banking, he unleashed a deadly beast.

So many trillions of printed money--as in unsecured collateral--are now circulating around the world. If the Saudis were to cash out their $750 billion in U.S. Treasuries while the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, China, and India) continue to develop investment and trade protocols that BYPASS the U.S. dollar, the entire house of cards built on thin air could and will collapse.

Many economists see this as inevitable. The question is not if, but when.

There's also PROOF that the money-changers' wish to retain the illusion that all is well prop up the stock market and use their own devious methods to artificially suppress the alleged value of gold and silver. (Both have ancient histories when it comes to use in trade.)

Since the U.S. corporations under NAFTA and other trade treaties found it profitable to ship their industrial bases to other nations (thereby gutting manufacturing here inside "the homeland"), there's little produced in the U.S.A apart from a thriving weapons' trade.

To shore up the weapons' producers who mean so much to the current war-based U.S. economy (in keeping with Mars rules), clients must be carefully cultivated (= Saudi Arabia).

After all, if there are no wars and peace should dare to break out, who could the MIC's weapons' contractors sell to? Who would need their atrocities?

War is big business and with the MIC (Mars rules) and the bankers (Mammon rules) at the wheel determining U.S .foreign and domestic policy, morality means zip. The sales of weapons are fresh blood to a Shock-Doctrine based, blood sucking economy.


The banking houses in Europe became predominant through the clever use of loans to Kings and Governments which had became indebted and financially destitute after the 30 years War.

The King or ruler of a given Country would borrow money from one of the banks to finance ongoing state expenses including the Military. The banks would make the same types of loans to Countries those Kings might be in conflict with. The two sides would fight and borrow yet more money and the banking houses would demand collateral in the way of conquered territory or assets seized from the other side . Wars were then fought or continued in the hope that a given country would win, seize the territory of another, and than use those revenues to pay off the bankers.

Thomas Jefferson advocated the very strategies referred to by Mr Perkins in his "Confessions of an Economic Hit man" to get control over the territories of the First nations peoples East of the Mississippi. In a letter he wrote how this strategy would play out wherein the First nations peoples would be encouraged to turn into farmers to grow food for profit. In order to do so they would be encouraged to borrow money from banks at interest and when they failed to repay the loan, their land seized as collateral.

That other video you linked to some time ago showed how American and British financiers funded Hitlers rise to power in the hopes he would go to war against Russia.


When your currency's solvency depends on people being willing to hold your worthless promissory paper and those people threaten to liquidate enough of it to crash your toilet paper currency if you pass a certain law allowing their officials to be sued in US courts, you can bet that the law will never pass or if it does it will be modified so as to not resemble its original intent.


I know all about the roots of the banking industries and their funding of both sides of war.

I always find it condescending AND patronizing when posters presume to tell me what I presumably don't know. Half the time (and I don't mean you in this castigation), I see my own comments lifted and placed before me as if I'd never stated them... and in many instances, INTRODUCED the premises to these forum opinion pages.

Lately, some of my material has been cut. As in, wiped off the C.D. message boards. The censorship has gotten heavy.


I was adding to your message and not lecturing you. You are far too defensive.