world

Trump seals $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia

75 Comments
By Jeff Mason and Steve Holland

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments
Login to comment

I'd rather like to hear the details of the deal than fetching statements about the President's previous misdemeanors. That said, I really worry the need for new arms deals. Does America offer any peaceful resolutions, ever?

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Well, world gives money to Saudi Arabia for oil, then returns by buying some stuff (for $110B+) minus a cut for the royals and entourage.

Who would put them on a ban list for sponsoring terrorism, right?

And from the Guardian:

First lady and Ivanka arrive in Riyadh with heads uncovered, despite Donald Trump saying Michelle Obama ‘insulted’ Saudis with same choice in 2015

10 ( +12 / -2 )

The US relationship with the first two nations on this trip is absolutely bipartisan and unconditional, no matter how much Yemeni blood is spilled, no matter how much Palestinian anguish results. All courtesy of US $ & arms, under Bushes or Clintons, 'Bamas or 'Rumps.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

The US relationship with the first two nations on this trip is absolutely bipartisan and unconditional, no matter how much Yemeni blood is spilled, no matter how much Palestinian anguish results. All courtesy of US $ & arms, under Bushes or Clintons, 'Bamas or 'Rumps.

Well said. I didn't expect Trump to be the great peace maker but I also didn't expect him to double down on the whole globalist agenda of Isreali/Suadi Arabia domination of the Middle East either. Partners in crime, bidness is bidness. Beam me the puck out of here.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Melania arrives with nothing on her head, Trump arrives with nothing in his head.

27 ( +29 / -2 )

Does America offer any peaceful resolutions, ever?

You've heard about the proverbial man with a hammer, and how he sees problems?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

America's diplomacy skills are unmatched in the world. The assumption is that since other countries don't sell as many weapons then it means they are less warlike...but actually we best you on both sides of the coin.

That being said, I think we found the reason why the Saudis didn't make the banned list. If you give us enough money then for some (Republicans) it means your aren't dangerous as a Muslim country.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Peace through strength.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

We are still working on getting Pres Trump to speak softly. I'm not hopeful.

But at least someone else will have the arms, not him.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It was Obama (Democrat) who also made the deal. Trump is only sighing it. A fact left out of this wonderful unbiased "no conspiracy theory here!" MSM globalist news, yet had no problem throwing in the "Putin/Russia" invention/distraction to keep their readers happy.

Bingo!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Remember that time Michelle Obama went to Saudi Arabia without a head covering, and Trump criticized her?

And remember that time Trump then brought his own wife to Saudi Arabia without covering her head?

And remember that time the Republicans talked about draining the swamp, only to have their president to go to the Middle East and sell a bunch of weapons to Saudi Arabia?

Remember all the hypocrisy?

9 ( +13 / -4 )

I'd say this is more legal than selling Yellow Cake Uranium to the Russians.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Remember that time Michelle Obama went to Saudi Arabia without a head covering, and Trump criticized her?

And remember that time Trump then brought his own wife to Saudi Arabia without covering her head?

I agree. Hypocrisy falls on both sides of the political spectrum.

And remember that time the Republicans talked about draining the swamp, only to have their president to go to the Middle East and sell a bunch of weapons to Saudi Arabia?

Well, it's a little different in that the Saudis (like them or not) are a key ally in the region and have always been instrumental in helping us with radical Islam, that relationship hasn't always been perfect and there were bumps in the road, but nevertheless, they are a key ally and if you want to drain the swamp, you need competent, knowledgeable and powerful individuals with the proven skills and background that can achieve this goal, if the Dems can pull back a bit and let his cabinet acclimate themselves, they'll be just fine.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

It was Obama (Democrat) who also made the deal. Trump is only sighing it. A fact left out of this wonderful unbiased "no conspiracy theory here!" MSM globalist news, yet had no problem throwing in the "Putin/Russia" invention/distraction to keep their readers happy.

It was just as wrong when Obama did it as it is now that Trump is doing it.

I'd say this is more legal than selling Yellow Cake Uranium to the Russians.

Good thing no Democrat in the US has ever done that.

... or are you believing fake news? You wouldn't be one of those fake-news believers, would you?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I agree. Hypocrisy falls on both sides of the political spectrum.

How exactly does Trump's hypocrisy show it being on both sides of the system? I don't see the left criticizing Melania for not wearing head covering, I see the left pointing out Trump's hypocrisy in criticizing Michelle, then doing on and doing the same thing with his wife.

Well, it's a little different in that the Saudis (like them or not) are a key ally in the region and have always been instrumental in helping us with radical Islam

Yeah, remember that time they helped in New York? Remember? It was on the 11th of some month...

13 ( +16 / -3 )

@bass Well, it's a little different in that the Saudis (like them or not) are a key ally in the region and have always been instrumental in helping us with radical Islam...they are radical Islam...

6 ( +6 / -0 )

How exactly does Trump's hypocrisy show it being on both sides of the system?

From what you just said, conservatives complained about Michelle not wearing the headscarf and now the Dems are doing the same thing to Melanie. Hey, I was agreeing with you on that point.

I don't see the left criticizing Melania for not wearing head covering, I see the left pointing out Trump's hypocrisy in criticizing Michelle, then doing on and doing the same thing with his wife.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/melania-trump-headscarf-saudi-arabia-draws-attention-article-1.3180897

It's just warming up. It's Sunday morning....give it a bit....

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

have always been instrumental in helping us with radical Islam, that relationship hasn't always been perfect and there were bumps in the road, but nevertheless, they are a key ally and if you want to drain the swamp

The Saudis create swamps all over the world by funding people to preach appalling, murederous religious filth.

Their swamps stink even worse than Trump's.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

 and have always been instrumental in helping us with radical Islam

Nice spin. Have you heard of the madras? Face it. america is saudis bitch.there's no ways around that glaring fact.disgusting!!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

From what you just said, conservatives complained about Michelle not wearing the headscarf and now the Dems are doing the same thing to Melanie.

I assume you mean Melania. We aren't criticizing her actions, we are criticizing Trump's hypocrisy on her actions.

I guess you didn't read the article you linked, or you would have seen there isn't a single criticism of Melania's decision. It simply pointed out how Trump had criticized Michelle for the same thing.

So once again, how does pointing out Trump's hypocrisy show hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle? Seems you're just wishing it was that way, so that Dear Leader doesn't stand as a hypocrite by himself.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Good thing no Democrat in the US has ever done that.

As secretary of state she “approved” a deal to sell Uranium One, a company that controlled a fifth of U.S. uranium production, to the Russian atomic agency Rosatom.

In return she and Bill received vast amounts of payoffs from the Kremlin and related interests — most notably a $500,000 speaker fee for Bill from a Moscow-based investment bank, which works out at about $250,000 net of tax.

(Money also went to the Clinton Foundation charity, from which the Clintons personally steal money through a channel so clever and cynical that it remains hidden).

GOP Congressional Ads Focus on Checking a Clinton Presidency 

The deal is a perfect example of “Clinton Corruption,” says Donald Trump. “As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton signed off on a deal allowing Russians to take… control of about 20% of America’s uranium supply to the Russians.”

It shows the “long and lucrative history of financial deals with the Russians, particularly with the Russian government,” says Peter Schweizer, author of the book “Clinton Cash,” director of the film of the same name, and an editor at large for the always-reliable Breitbart website. Uranium is “a fundamental issue of national security,” Schweizer told Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business. “It’s not like oil and gas that you can find all sorts of places. They are precious few places you can mine for uranium, in the United States is one of those areas.” 

Even the New York Times — a wholly owned subsidiary of the Worldwide Clinton-Illuminati-Spectre Cabal — was critical. “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” it reported in a big expose published earlier this year, in which it even floated the prospect of a Putin “monopoly” of uranium down the road.

The Saudis create swamps all over the world by funding people to preach appalling, murederous religious filth. 

Oh, I agree with you on that, but they are an ally and like a lot of French cheese, sometimes you need to hold your breath and take a bite.

Nice spin. Have you heard of the madras? Face it. america is saudis bitch.there's no ways around that glaring fact.disgusting!!

And they are equally ours as well. One hand washes the other.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

As secretary of state she “approved” a deal to sell Uranium One, a company that controlled a fifth of U.S. uranium production, to the Russian atomic agency Rosatom.

In return she and Bill received vast amounts of payoffs from the Kremlin and related interests — most notably a $500,000 speaker fee for Bill from a Moscow-based investment bank, which works out at about $250,000 net of tax.

Sorry, I forgot you guys live in the bubble and believe fake news.

Already been well debunked: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/30/donald-trump/nuclear-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/

Let us know when you have real news.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

It seems "The Art Of The Deal" worked. Well done.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ozzie was right.

"Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at Black Masses.........

Politicians hide themselves away,

they only started the War.

Why should they go out and fight?

They leave that role to the poor................."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Ozzie was right.

I concur

0 ( +3 / -3 )

 but they are an ally and like a lot of French cheese

Hold on a sec. Are you seriously equating global terrorism to French cheese? Its ok to defend a just cause but even you have to call a spade a spade. The saudis are far from allies. Try telling that to the families of those who lost loved ones on that day in September. Or the families affected by the global export of fundamentalist garbage!!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Remember 9/11 - the majority of the hijackers were Saudi.

But due to Saudi Arabia helping prop up the US economy; it was easier to lash out at Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump makes with the crocodile tears over Syria chemical attacks but I haven't heard him say squat about Saudi Arabia's appalling human rights record.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Has America forgotton the nightmare of her relation with 'Imperial Iran' during the 1970s? The Iranian F14 jet became a potent adversary in the region after their Islamic revolution. The Saudi Kingdom is crumbling like the Shah........but I doubt Mr Trump wont cares those consequences!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Has America forgotton the nightmare of her

doing the dirty work for British Petroleum and US oil-igarchs (sic) by putting the Shah of Iran in power?

Trump'ss in Saudi Arabia selling weapons to further enrich his supporters in the the big war industries and protect his supporters in big ebergy, doing what he can to ensure his faction of globalists maintain their control.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Sorry, I forgot you guys live in the bubble and believe fake news.

No, I don't traffic in that, besides, even if Comey, strangely enough, didn't convict her, he at least threw a grenade in already helping a doubtful America decide to give her a curtain call, so I'm not complaining. LOL

Has America forgotten the nightmare of her relation with 'Imperial Iran' during the 1970s? The Iranian F14 jet became a potent adversary in the region after their Islamic revolution. The Saudi Kingdom is crumbling like the Shah........but I doubt Mr. Trump won't cares those consequences!

It's not about caring, he can't do anything about that, but if the Saudis can point us in the direction of possible threats coming from countries that or individuals that engage in radical Jihadism, it's a relationship worth having. Even among the Saudis, they're trying to root out elements of radical Islam that are also pervasive in their country as well as some within that support and sponsor radical Islam. Again, hate the medicine, but sometimes you have to take it if you want to get well.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

So this guy wanted to ban Muslims on the grounds of extremism & on his first visit abroad he's arming extremists. Wow.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

So this guy wanted to ban Muslims on the grounds of extremism & on his first visit abroad he's arming extremists. Wow.

And his worshipers even support it!

12 ( +13 / -1 )

@bass Saudis, they're trying to root out elements of radical Islam that are also pervasive in their country 

The Saudi rulers are trying to root out threat's to their control of their country, its oil reserves as well as their control over Mecca and Medinah (huge money makers), while at the same time some in the royal family and those who've been made rich by supporting them are financing radical elements including terrorists worldwide.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

And his worshipers even support it!

Ah, the double standards of the far right. Terrorist enablers, the lot of them.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The Saudi rulers are trying to root out threat's to their control of their country, its oil reserves as well as their control over Mecca and Medinah (huge money makers), while at the same time some in the royal family and those who've been made rich by supporting them are financing radical elements including terrorists worldwide.

I was just stating that sometimes you have to swallow that nasty medicine. Anyway, until we can eradicate radical Islam and come up with a REAL and viable energy source to completely and ultimately replace fossil fuel, that relationship will continue, like it or not.

Ah, the double standards of the far right. Terrorist enablers, the lot of them.

And the Iran deal that was done under the radical left with radical terrorists that want to build nukes?

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

And the Iran deal that was done under the radical left with radical terrorists that want to build nukes?

The Obama admin was hardly radical left. The US radical left are a tiny minority with little representation, the Democrats and Repulicans are just two sides of the mainstream coin.

Iran is a country that is making progressive strides to normalising relations with the West and Obama recognised this. Whereas Saudi Arabia is the number one sponsor of international terrorism.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

And the Iran deal that was done under the radical left with radical terrorists that want to build nukes?

The deal was not done under the left, it was a multi-national deal between the US and six (if I recall correctly) other nations that had a vested interest in Iran not having nukes. So they put together a deal to ensure it doesn't happen.

I know they don't tell you that in the bubble though, as it destroys their narrative.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Well, it's a little different in that the Saudis (like them or not) are a key ally in the region and have always been instrumental in helping us with radical Islam

Every article on Saudi Arabia makes a point of saying that they are our "allies", yet their behaviour is anything but. Leaving aside the despotic government that murders its opponents, how can a country that teaches its children that we are infidels who must be killed possibly be an ally?

As for "helping with radical islam", the Saudis are the main financial source for radical islamic groups. Saudi money funds Wahabbi mosques around the world, mosques which preach intolerance and hatred of us. People who attend those mosques regularly kill us. Need I remind you that nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian citizens? There's a reason for that: their country has taught them to hate and despise us and they were just putting that into practice.

The first step to eradicating radical islam is to get rid of the dictators running Saudi Arabia. The next is to ban Saudi money from funding overseas mosques. I would have nothing to do with the country until it reforms and becomes civilised.

I wonder if Trump has raised the topic of his Saudi "allies" bombing and killing innocent children in Yemen? When Assad does it it's an outrage that gets him bombed; when the Saudis do it ... sell them more bombs!

Also, by not wearing Abayas in public, Ivanka and Melania were breaking Saudi law. We all know how much Trump complains about foreigners breaking US laws, and his vows to deport them. By his logic his wife and daughter should be deported from Saudi Arabia. I think the Saudi laws are ridiculous and another demonstration of their intolerance and bigotry, but I'm not the one who slagged off Michelle Obama for not covering her head. That would be double-standards Donald.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Um, like, so, you know, why are we selling arms to the very people who carried out the 9/11 massacre?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

radical Jihadism

What a strange term. Jihadis look to impose Islamic ideas by any means including violent actions.

Are there any non-radical forms of Jihadism?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The deal was not done under the left, it was a multi-national deal between the US and six (if I recall correctly) other nations that had a vested interest in Iran not having nukes.

But Obama pushed for it, he didn't have to and was advised not to.

So they put together a deal to ensure it doesn't happen.*

Boy did they do a Pinocchio!

I know they don't tell you that in the bubble though, as it destroys their narrative.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

I wonder what that coo cool Alex Jones and his viewers think about this? I wonder if he'll at least label Trump as "President Jihadi" or something. That's the absolute least he could do, considering that things he says about Chobani and all.

Are there any non-radical forms of Jihadism?

Yes, it's the thing that the US is selling weapons to......oh wait a minute.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

So Trump just sold the Saudi's, one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism, billions worth of weapons and equipment... I wonder how many innocent civilians- men, women and children, including US soldiers will die because of this.

While his wife and daughter wear nothing on their heads, but condems Mrs Obama when she arrived with no scarf around hers.

And Trump denies the nuclear deal with Iran is a good thing, even though it is working. (Just to put it into perspective, out of the nineteen hijackers from 9/11, fifteen were Saudi and ZERO were from Iran.) Is Trump purposely trying to start another war so he can sell more arms to our terrorist friends? Is that what he meant by making America great again!? Turns my stomach.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

When Trump said he'd win so much we'd get sick of winning, I guess this deal is what he meant. He won the deal. And it makes me sick.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Obama administration makes a deal to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, making the region safer; Republicans freak out.

Trump signs deal to provide the Saudis with over 100 billion dollars worth of weapons, making the region more dangerous; Republicans rejoice.

I guess we can see where Republican priorities lie.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

I guess we can see where Republican priorities lie.

The highest priority of the Republican Party is protecting its wealthiest members' fortunes. Among the wealthiest in the US are those leading big war and big energy industries. Among the largest contributors to Republican elected officials are those in big war and big energy industries. The Republican Party is ensuring the US stays in a state of perpetual war, thereby ensuring the wealth of Party members. Trump'ss the leader of the Republican Party; get ready for more military actions, proxy and otherwise.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Um, like, so, you know, why are we selling arms to the very people who carried out the 9/11 massacre? because big oil and big arms deals basically is a "get out of jail free" card

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Saudi relationship with the US is rock solid and will remain so. Because money trumps (yeah, yeah) everything. It can be used to smooth ruffled feathers, buy off opposition, stifle the press and snuff out dissent.

Big business will always protect its interests. The impeachment of Trump will only be a minor setback to the real enemy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

America: Bringing weapons of death and destruction to a location near you.

This is disgusting. The US peddle their machines of war, and then proceed to posture and tell everyone how wonderful it is, what a great deal it is.

It's truly a country with no conscience in my opinion, with no real sense of global responsibility.

Just what the old needs - more arms.

Disgusting.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

smithinjapan: Remember that time Michelle Obama went to Saudi Arabia without a head covering, and Trump criticized her?

I think we're kinda past the point where mentioning Trump's 180 on topics will have any kind of impact. His supporters know he talks about of both sides of his mouth to them, and they're fine with it. No reason for him to change.

As for the Iran deal, the West is in an infinitely better position than we were under Bush and the GOP. Remember that his position was to sit on the sidelines and refuse to talk to Iran, so our influence was muted. Now their production of materials and equipment is severely curtailed. We don't have perfect monitoring but we have much better access than under the GOP.

Additionally, containing Iran is a group effort. That means you don't write the rules you want, you write the rules that everyone agrees on. This is a big weak spot for the GOP overall since they believe the US can act unilaterally and still be just as effective, which is obviously dumb. We need China, Russia, and Europe on board as well. Obviously.

Oh, and feel feel to thank Obama (and the Israelis) for Stuxnet. Only a billion times more effective than all GOP efforts combined, ever.

Republicans are doing their usual garbage tough talk about backing out of the deal, but when one of theirs actually got into power (Trump) and had the option of pulling out, he decided to stay. That should tell you something. A lot, actually. By now we should be used to the GOP's "outrage" positions that fall flat when they get into the driver's seat. They just like to make their base pissed off and afraid so they will turn out at the polls (and it works).

As for the Saudis and their position regarding Iran, it can mostly be ignored. They have one position only: regime change in Iran. Nothing less. Any talk from them about Iran should be looked at with that in mind. They might nice it up with, "we need to do more to contain the threat from Iran" but they're always saying, "unless you attack right now then we'll always say you aren't doing enough." They want to make each other extinct.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

As long as you buy our weapons and allow us to steal your oil, we do not care about democracy, dictatorship, human rights, extremism and terrorism. These American hypocrites today walking on the red carpet with a tyrant and a dictator and the western media deliberately ignoring this hypocrisy and double standards.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Melanie doesn't wear a scarf, republicans admit it with the same ole, "Yeah, hypocrisy on both sides." What a joke!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

These American hypocrites today walking on the red carpet with a tyrant and a dictator and the western media deliberately ignoring this hypocrisy and double standards.

Because it doesn't sell papers, or generate clicks. Because it's big money. Millions have been conditioned not to question the hypocrisy and double standards. And those that do, are troublemakers, the loony left, possibly in cahoots with terrorists etc.

You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so damn tragic.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

As long as you buy our weapons and allow us to steal your oil, we do not care about democracy, dictatorship, human rights, extremism and terrorism.

I fully agree but you have to be brutally honest and say that these problems are rife across the Muslim world and in other countries, not just in Saudi Arabia although it is an extreme form of it.

I'm certainly not defending the repulsive Saudi regime, but youd have a long list of countries to blacklist on those values.

Sponsoring terrorism has to be the step too far.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is where you get into realpolitik vs. idealism. I hop over both sides of the fence regularly based on which side poses the greatest danger.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While his wife and daughter wear nothing on their heads but condems ....

Sorry, John - I'd overlooked that comma you appropriately included. Without it, the meaning of your sentence is quite different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic

Millions have been conditioned not to question the hypocrisy and double standards.

Beautifully put. To the point where they can flaunt it as fragrantly as this, and it gets lauded by the media and blinkered masses who simply cannot see the forest for the trees. It's quite astonishing, really.

It's simply hard to believe that they get away with it.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And it makes me sick.

LOL.

The highest priority of the Republican Party is protecting its wealthiest members' fortunes.

Now wait a durn minute, the DNP have officially become the party of the wealthy and libs are whining (again...sigh) that the job creators are hopfully and very soon will get a much-needed tax break to help hire and rebuild the country? Tell you what, you guys solicit Barbara Steisand, Tom Hanks and Alec Baldwin to give more and stop shoveling cash down their pants. I resent the fact that the Rock makes $40 million a picture, why is Hollyweird protecting that and allowing them to make so much, it's not fair, even if the movie sucks, they shouldn't get that much.

Among the wealthiest in the US are those leading big war and big energy industries. 

So if that's true, what do you want to be done about it?

Among the largest contributors to Republican elected officials are those in a big war and big energy industries. 

What a fallacy, you think conservatives sit in their homes drinking bourbon and contemplate who can they wage war against next? If you think that, Unicorns fly KLM first class.

The Republican Party is ensuring the US stays in a state of perpetual war, thereby ensuring the wealth of Party members. Trump'ss the leader of the Republican Party; get ready for more military actions, proxy and otherwise.

Wow, dude, just wow!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Among the largest contributors to Republican elected officials are those in a big war and big energy industries. 

What a fallacy, you think conservatives sit in their homes drinking bourbon and contemplate who can they wage war against next? If you think that, Unicorns fly KLM first class.

There is a difference between those who profit from war and regular conservatives. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think the war profiteers get a bit of a tingle when warmongers start thumping their chests.

I read a non-partisan historian who claimed that KLM made a fortune from rich unicorns in the past. I can't provide a name but you'll just have to take my word for it.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think the war profiteers get a bit of a tingle when warmongers start thumping their chests.

Maybe 1 or 2 could be.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Maybe 1 or 2 could be.

Why only one or two?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Looks like the Big Bang theory is Right this much money on War equipment will create a massive bang and loss of lots of lives

If the money was invested in people for Survival and employment also the peaceful ending of all conflicts would be great but this is one hell of a lot of missiles etc

How about throwing in a few hospitals and schools in with it for recovery later.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Humans are still the same murderous, blood thirsty mobs as they were thousands of years ago, just with more lethal weapons.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Humans are still the same murderous, blood thirsty mobs as they were thousands of years ago, just with more lethal weapons.

Yup. Always finding new and exciting ways to obliterate each other. Hopefully, humanity's successors (if the planet can still sustain life) will learn by the mistakes mankind made.

Damn, Toasted Heretic, where the heck's that coming from?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"While his wife and daughter wear nothing on their heads but condems ...."

"Sorry, John - I'd overlooked that comma you appropriately included. Without it, the meaning of your sentence is quite different."

For a moment there you had me double checking how to spell (latex) condoms. Ha!

Seriously though, Republicans (or anyone for that matter) not caring anymore that Trump flip flops all the time, especially when it is generally for the worse, shows lack of integrity (and those others who choose to ignore and allow it) of the party and dangerous lack of good consciousness. (depending on the severity of course)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If the US does not sell arms to Saudi Arabia some other country will; that is the world we live in. But I do have problems with the fake news that is so rampant in the media nowadays. This story says $110 billion, another said $230 billion, another said over $300 billion. Where do they get their info, or do they just make it up?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The arms deal would add fuel to the fire of terrorism and no Islamic nation would come forward to crush terrorism and seal the accounts of those who aide and support terrorism. Strangely the Champions of human rights forgot about women rights, human rights and religious freedom immediately after landing in Saudi Arabia. Is it necessary to have arms deal more than 100 million, that too with Saudi Arabia.? America First and it is not new. It always took care of its interests while dealing with other countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is great for the American arms business but bad for everyone else. Some of these arms will probably end up with ISIS, which America is trying to destroy. To destroy ISIS the US military will need more expensive weapons from the arms industry. Dropping bombs on ISIS (or civilians by mistake) drops money into the pockets of the arms industry.

This is a killer deal.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama made the deal in August 2016, congress approved in September,bat rump tweaked and signed it. There are no good guys in DC.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama made the deal in August 2016, congress approved in September,bat rump tweaked and signed it. There are no good guys in DC.

Oh, well that makes it all ok then. Yay!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama made the deal in August 2016, congress approved in September,bat rump tweaked and signed it. There are no good guys in DC.

Yeah, the president is just a figurehead. The real power does not change hands...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Apparently Jared Kushner had a big hand in tweaking the deal, Also Kushner has been heavy involved behind the scene brokering a peace deal between Israeli and Palestine. This would be very good if Trump can pull that off. I notice today he did not mention Jared Kushner, I don't think that because of his self promoted style but because of his early Alzimers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bat rump tweaked and signed it.

Finally woke up, huh? Better late than never.

There are no good guys in DC.

There are some, and you can usually tell by following the money. There's also a lot of shades of gray that the good guys have to work with to beat the bad guys. For future reference though, known scammers are usually bad guys.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Finally woke up, huh? Better late than never.

woke up?

OK, I'll give that one to you just this once, even though it's a bit condescending. By the way, how did your Jill Stein vote go? Well, at least you voted your conscience. Me, I just couldn't let Hillary get in.

Maybe it's a good thing she didn't win. Imagine the DNC attack and screams of "impeach!"on her instead of Trump:

Stein's 2016 campaign was heavily promoted by RT. She hasn't spoken much about the RT dinner, but in an interview with NBC News last fall, she deflected questions about her appearance, instead chastising the U.S. media for not paying attention to her campaign while RT gave it a lot more attention. 

"And my own connection to RT, you know ironically, it takes a Russian television station to actually be open to independent candidates in this country and that is a shame. A shameful commentary on our own media," she told NBC's Alex Seitz-Wald.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

By the way, how did your Jill Stein vote go?

I'm registered to vote in California, a non-swing-state. I voted for Jill Stein as a warning to Clinton to be more progressive because I fully expected Clinton to take California, and she did.

IF Stein won, the DNC wouldn't have attacked or impeached her, certainly not over a few appearances and loose associations with RT (I mean Noam Chomsky appears on RT regularly). The Neo-Libs in the DNC would've gritted their teeth and at least tried to appear to work with Stein, because they're vying for the same voter base.

Either way, I thought Bernie was the best candidate, and I hope he and true progressive politicians in his camp have better luck in future elections.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

and I hope he and true progressive politicians in his camp have better luck in future elections.

I hope so too.

(I mean Noam Chomsky appears on RT regularly

LOL. That's about the only place he gets TV airtime.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites