Iraq to Spend $5 Billion on U.S. Weapons: Deals

[rasmasyean]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3948720

Pretty small amount for starters, but hopefully global demand for oil would increase when the economy recovers and then they can sell more oil and/or trade it for rearming. :)

[és:]

Stop! I want to get off! It's like a big carousel.

Sell arms > fall out > fight > destroy > make friends> sell arms.

[mactastic]

Surely nothing bad will come of arming Iraq THIS time.

I wonder if we'll even sell them more WMDs so that in another 20 years we can claim that we know they have them, and invade all over again...

[Burnsey]

yay now they can sell their oil to the US for dirt cheap, and use the cash to buy american weapons!

[Dont Hurt Me]

Stop! I want to get off! It's like a big carousel.

Sell arms > fall out > fight > destroy > make friends> sell arms.Bingo, the U.S. tax payer gets screwed again, and again,and again.............

[mkrishnan]

Surely nothing bad will come of arming Iraq THIS time.

Seriously, I mean, come on. Their new government has no appearance of being a mere puppet government that will get overthrown in a few years months and will undoubtedly be superseded by a new government intent on either nuking Israel, nuking Iran, capturing the Arab Emirates, or sending terrorists to Manhattan. I couldn't see that possibly happening.

Maybe we should just give them fusion bombs and drone bombers while we're at it. :rolleyes:

[sushi]

Iraq is going to spend funds on re-arming itself.

Someone has to be the supplier.

I would say better from the US than Russia or China.

[és:]

Iraq is going to spend funds on re-arming itself.

Someone has to be the supplier.

I would say better from the US than Russia or China.

Why, might I ask, is that?

Genuine question, not sarcasm.

[sushi]

Why, might I ask, is that?

Genuine question, not sarcasm.
Iraq has neighbors such as Iran that it wants to be able to defend against.

[és:]

Iraq has neighbors such as Iran that it wants to be able to defend against.

The same Iran that has never initiated an attack on another country? I still don't get the 'better from us than from them' attitude, though.

[.Andy]

The same Iran that has never initiated an attack on another country? I still don't get the 'better from us than from them' attitude, though.
The United States is not a threat to Iraq's sovereignty unlike China, Russia, and Iran.

[Macky-Mac]

T......I still don't get the 'better from us than from them' attitude, though.

jobs for our workers instead of jobs for some other country's workers

[FX120]

Why, might I ask, is that?

Genuine question, not sarcasm.

5 Billion dollars that the US manufacturing sector will be recieving, putting US citizens to work, putting money in thier pockets and food on their tables.

More domestic production is always a good thing durring times like these.

[Burnsey]

Iraq has neighbors such as Iran that it wants to be able to defend against.

Why would the Iranians want to attack Iraq? They seem to understand the pointless-ness of attacking people, seeing as they haven't done so in over 2 centuries.

[sushi]

Why would the Iranians want to attack Iraq? They seem to understand the pointless-ness of attacking people, seeing as they haven't done so in over 2 centuries.
Possible retaliation from the Iran-Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War) war.

Possible concern over Ahmadinejad's various threats to other countries.

Note, nothing will happen now with the US and it's Allies in Iraq. But down the road when the US and it's Allies no longer have a presence. Build up of military does not occur over night. It takes time in years for things to happen.

[iShater]

It is funny how this defense minister guy said that American weapons are the best, when Iraqi officers used to complain that the gov't wanted to get M16s and M4s instead of AK-47 that they trusted, could fix, could find ammo for, get for really good prices, and can work better in the desert. :p

It was on the radio on NPR a while back, I will try to find the link.

Edit: link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9083510)

[Burnsey]

Possible retaliation from the Iran-Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War) war.

Possible concern over Ahmadinejad's various threats to other countries.

Note, nothing will happen now with the US and it's Allies in Iraq. But down the road when the US and it's Allies no longer have a presence. Build up of military does not occur over night. It takes time in years for things to happen.

Threats to what other countries? The Iranians suffered greatly and heavily condemned the Iran-Iraq war, why would they then want to inflict the same suffering in the same way on the Iraqis, who have already suffered immensely as a result of the US invasion (over a million killed I believe)? Why do you think "revenge" would be a valid motivator for the Iranians for war? Especially since the man who committed the atrocities during the Iran-Iraq war, i.e. Saddam, is no longer with us?

[és:]

The United States is not a threat to Iraq's sovereignty unlike China, Russia, and Iran.

Since when are China or Russia a threat to Iraq's 'sovereignty'?

[.Andy]

Since when are China or Russia a threat to Iraq's 'sovereignty'?
That was the lame joke. Out of all the countries that are cited to be a threat to the sovereignty of Iraq, it's the US that poses, and has proven to be, the greatest threat.

If I were a middle eastern country I'd be stockpiling weapons like mad and/or propagating the myth that I had nuclear capabilities to avoid invasion/increase my diplomatic weight.

[toontra]

5 Billion dollars that the US manufacturing sector will be recieving, putting US citizens to work, putting money in thier pockets and food on their tables.

More domestic production is always a good thing durring times like these.

I would have hoped that if we'd learnt anything in the last 10 years (more especially recently) then it was that putting short-term fiscal or political ideologies before medium/long term objectives is a bad idea.

The ship is broken - now is the time to sort out priorities. Let's try and fix it properly, rather than patch it up with short-term employment wheezes and arms dealing.

[és:]

That was the lame joke. Out of all the countries that are cited to be a threat to the sovereignty of Iraq, it's the US that poses, and has proven to be, the greatest threat.

If I were a middle eastern country I'd be stockpiling weapons like mad and/or propagating the myth that I had nuclear capabilities to avoid invasion/increase my diplomatic weight.

Sorry .Andy, I'm a bit slow this morning.

[oscillatewildly]

Trillions paid by the many, billions raked in by the few. Oh, and then there's the blood.

[rasmasyean]

Why would the Iranians want to attack Iraq? They seem to understand the pointless-ness of attacking people, seeing as they haven't done so in over 2 centuries.

Don't be fooled by the concept of the word “Defense”. It’s a euphemism for “Offense” too. Who’s to say that Iraq does not want to attack Iran? Who’s to say that the US doesn’t want to help this event? If you look at both distant and near past, there have been tensions between these 3 factions for a long time. I wouldn’t be surprised that the reason why Iran has been trying to de-stabilize the occupation and overthrow the current Iraqi regime is because they want to avoid this “team-up” against them. So if you think that Iraq’s peace means the end of war in the middle-east and it’s finally over and we can all become the United Earth Federation of the Milky Way…you prolly will be pretty upset in the future. As for the USA, they sank part of the Iranian fleet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis)back then and they only let some go because they felt sorry for them. This time there might not be such holding back. I don’t think the Iraqi’s would. ;)

[rasmasyean]

Seriously, I mean, come on. Their new government has no appearance of being a mere puppet government that will get overthrown in a few years months and will undoubtedly be superseded by a new government intent on either nuking Israel, nuking Iran, capturing the Arab Emirates, or sending terrorists to Manhattan. I couldn't see that possibly happening.

Maybe we should just give them fusion bombs and drone bombers while we're at it. :rolleyes:

Be patient. Small steps first...
Iraq Seeks F-16 Fighters (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122056503871901333.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

:D

[rasmasyean]

5 Billion dollars that the US manufacturing sector will be recieving, putting US citizens to work, putting money in thier pockets and food on their tables.

More domestic production is always a good thing durring times like these.

Remeber that Oil-for-Food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_food) program?

Now it's Oil-for-Arms! ;)

In 2008...
Iraq became one of the top current purchasers of U.S. military equipment with their army trading its AK-47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47) assault rifles for the more accurate U.S. M-16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle) and M-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine) rifles, among other equipment.[235] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#cite_note-234) This year alone, Iraq accounts for more than $12.5 billion of the $34 billion US weapon sales to foreign countries (not including the potential F-16 fighter planes.)[236] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#cite_note-235)
Iraq sought 36 F-16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)’s, the most sophisticated weapons system Iraq has attempted to purchase. The Pentagon notified Congress that it had approved the sale of 24 American attack helicopters to Iraq, valued at as much as $2.4 billion. Including the helicopters, Iraq announced plans to purchase at least $10 billion in U.S. tanks and armored vehicles, transport planes and other battlefield equipment and services. Over the summer, the Defense Department announced that the Iraqi government wanted to order more than 400 armored vehicles and other equipment worth up to $3 billion, and six C-130J transport planes, worth up to $1.5 billion.[237] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#cite_note-236)[238] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#cite_note-237)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Iraqi_security_forces_rearm

[mkrishnan]

Can I get an education on Iraq's budget? Do they really get that much oil money at the current prices? Their budget seems quite large given the size of their country. The fiscal budget of Jordan is about $6B USD for about 1/4th as many people (link (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1439192.php/Jordan_unveils_8.7-billion_dollar_budget_for_fiscal_2009_)) and the budget of Israel is $93B USD for about 1/4th as many people as well, although Israel is a pretty rich country. Even the budget of India is something like $190B USD in 2009 (link (http://exim.indiamart.com/budget-2009-10/bag1.html)).

Are we financing a large portion of this $80B revised to 60-ish billion dollar budget, or is it really coming from oil sales?

[mactastic]

Possible retaliation from the Iran-Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War) war.

Possible concern over Ahmadinejad's various threats to other countries.

Note, nothing will happen now with the US and it's Allies in Iraq. But down the road when the US and it's Allies no longer have a presence. Build up of military does not occur over night. It takes time in years for things to happen.
Why would Iran attack a nation that is now at least nominally aligned with it's own views?

Remember, one of the things George W. Bush did when he overthrew Saddam's minority Sunni government and propped up the majority Shi'ite government was to remove adversaries to Iran and replace them with allies.

One of the result of our actions in Iraq is that Iran is now LESS likely to attack Iraq now than they were when Saddam was in power.

Way to go Bush... way to boost the power and prestige of a nation you're actually trying to marginalize. Didn't think that one all the way through, did ya? :rolleyes:

[mkrishnan]

One of the result of our actions in Iraq is that Iran is now LESS likely to attack Iraq now than they were when Saddam was in power.

Yeah, I guess. Until our puppet government inevitably gets overthrown by hardliners....

[mactastic]

Yeah, I guess. Until our puppet government inevitably gets overthrown by hardliners....
But unless those happen to be Sunni hardliners, they will still likely be more ideologically in sync with Iran than anyone else. And considering that they are a significant minority, I'd say that it's far more likely the current Iraqi government will be overthrown by hardliners more aligned with Iran.

That doesn't mean sales of weapons to any Iraqi government isn't troubling. It just means the assertion that Iran would seek to get revenge against Iraq is not a likely scenario.

[mkrishnan]

That doesn't mean sales of weapons to any Iraqi government isn't troubling. It just means the assertion that Iran would seek to get revenge against Iraq is not a likely scenario.

This is a fair point, although history is on the side of groups in Iraq unfavorable to Iran coming to power. Obviously it happened before, right? The major things to prevent it from happening again are that some of their infrastructure has been destroyed by the occupation and that the current government is full of people unfavorable to them.

[mactastic]

This is a fair point, although history is on the side of groups in Iraq unfavorable to Iran coming to power. Obviously it happened before, right? The major things to prevent it from happening again are that some of their infrastructure has been destroyed by the occupation and that the current government is full of people unfavorable to them.
Sure it's happened before, but it's not like we've got a whole lot of Iraqi history to look at to make that judgement. The way Saddam came to power is not likely to re-occur. It is far more likely that the majority group will exert and maintain power.

[mkrishnan]

Sure it's happened before, but it's not like we've got a whole lot of Iraqi history to look at to make that judgement. The way Saddam came to power is not likely to re-occur. It is far more likely that the majority group will exert and maintain power.

Hmmm, I hope you're right, although... it hasn't really worked out in Afghanistan or, *cough*, Bosnia.

[rasmasyean]

Can I get an education on Iraq's budget? Do they really get that much oil money at the current prices? Their budget seems quite large given the size of their country. The fiscal budget of Jordan is about $6B USD for about 1/4th as many people (link (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1439192.php/Jordan_unveils_8.7-billion_dollar_budget_for_fiscal_2009_)) and the budget of Israel is $93B USD for about 1/4th as many people as well, although Israel is a pretty rich country. Even the budget of India is something like $190B USD in 2009 (link (http://exim.indiamart.com/budget-2009-10/bag1.html)).

Are we financing a large portion of this $80B revised to 60-ish billion dollar budget, or is it really coming from oil sales?

I found this...
Iraq's oil-fueled surplus could hit $80 billion, report says
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/05/iraq.oil/ (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/05/iraq.oil/)

I couldn't find this old article I read before, but it said that they were having trouble figuring out how to spend their money because they weren't used to having so much in such a long time. So they were asking for US financial consulting help (or maybe europeans) or something like that to train their treasurers.

[mkrishnan]

Wow, okay. It's still amazing that their 2009 budget is twice their 2007 budget. They might as well make infrastructure with it while they can, since we may not be seeing $100+ barrels of oil anytime soon. Seems like physical infrastructure would be better than consultants, though. And I still wonder that they need $5B in weapons right now....

[rasmasyean]

Wow, okay. It's still amazing that their 2009 budget is twice their 2007 budget. They might as well make infrastructure with it while they can, since we may not be seeing $100+ barrels of oil anytime soon. Seems like physical infrastructure would be better than consultants, though. And I still wonder that they need $5B in weapons right now....

The "consultants" are for helping allocate the money properly to spend it. But heck, if they just want to know how to spend money, all they need to do is ask any American who has ever had a credit card! :p

I wouldn’t be surprised if they don't actually have to use “hard cash” to buy some of those weapons. I would HOPE that they would trade some oil at a lower price in exchange for the arms in some accounting mashup deal. If I was a leader, that’s the sort of deal I would have made for keeping them in power…for “national interest” of course. I personally also think that there are already plans for conflict with Iran that have been made a while ago. Either they expect to be the aggressor, or they just find it will be inevitable, or the US had always wanted it. That would be my conspiracy theory I guess, but it looks like some recent events have been leading up to that. I could be wrong. But if this is the case, then yes…they would need tanks and attack helicopters (and of course F-16’s would help). Maybe it will be to “root out pockets of extremists”…or maybe as extreme as changing Iran’s leadership. But I guess only time will tell.

[mkrishnan]

And, here we have the reporting on the current situation....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/middleeast/26reconstruct.html?_r=1&hp

BAGHDAD — In few nations around the globe are the consequences of the financial crisis as potentially sobering as they are in Iraq. Both oil revenues and American financial support have plummeted just as the country has the chance to take advantage of its increasing stability to improve basic services and upgrade its ruined infrastructure.

Now, projects are being put off as Iraq struggles to pay for huge raises granted to government employees as well as the salaries and equipment for hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security troops.

Last summer, with oil prices above $100 a barrel, Iraq was so flush with cash that many in the United States were arguing that a country so rich should be paying for its own reconstruction and possibly even reimbursing American taxpayers.

Six months later, the question is whether a decline in Iraqi government revenues, which depend almost entirely on oil, could threaten the relative security and stability won here at the cost of so much American treasure and life. Indeed, political pressure is rising here, as more Iraqis demand precisely the services, like better electricity, water and education, that could now come more slowly.

[edesignuk]

Sell arms > fall out > fight > destroy > make friends> sell arms.If it weren't for all the people that have to pay financially and with their lives this ridiculous loop of events would be hysterical.

[barkmonster]

One of the things Comedian Bill Hicks said back in the early 90s about arming volatile countries, then fighting them for having weapons because they've got the receipts to prove it is just as true today.

I don't want to descend this topic into who voted for who etc... but I can't help noticing history repeating itself in the sense of there being a war in iraq during the presidency Bush in the early 90s and his son most recently. Not that the UK and america didn't go and help out in other volatile nations over the years too, it is simply co-incidence.

I've never seen the cowboy film "Shane" that Bill Hicks compares it to but this excellent animation that goes with his dialogue illustrates it perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKfFpi0qLgM

This is satire on a "South Park" level (as in very GOOD, not the toilet humour side of the show)

[mkrishnan]

And, here we have the reporting on the current situation....

They finally passed a budget just shy of $60B.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/05/world/AP-ML-Iraq-Budget.html

The article doesn't say how much spending in the revised budget is on weapons, though....

[Lesser Evets]

Iraq has neighbors such as Iran that it wants to be able to defend against.

That's a lie started by BUSH!

...ok, obviously not. It's a reality. If Iraq buys arms I would just hope they are made by the US. We need the biz.

[rasmasyean]

They finally passed a budget just shy of $60B.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/05/world/AP-ML-Iraq-Budget.html

The article doesn't say how much spending in the revised budget is on weapons, though....

I wonder if Iraq can be a "new China" for production of smokestack goods. They have the energy capacity right there. It's just a matter of getting people to start factories and the government subsidizing the investment in startups. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq DOES have a lot of educated people who may have been displaced. It's just a matter of making it worthwhile for them to "contribute" and quelling the pockets of rebellion so it's "safer".

Maybe that's one reason why China has opposed the occupation. They are afraid that Iraq may steal some of their business and reduce world dependence on themselves.