Rice unveils plan to send $billions in military aid to Middle East

[fatty]

http://voanews.com/english/2007-07-31-voa5.cfm


In a talk with reporters traveling with her, Rice defended the plan as a continuation of a long-standing American commitment to regional allies, while assuring supporters of Israel in the U.S. Congress that the military balance in the region will not change.

Under the plan, Israel would receive three billion dollars a year in U.S. aid - a 25 percent increase - with a commitment that funding would continue at that level for 10 years - for a $30 billion total.

Egypt would get $13 billion over the same 10-year period along with additional security-related economic aid to be announced later. Meanwhile Rice and Gates, in their unusual joint mission to the area, will begin talks this week with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies on arms sales to them that could exceed $20 billion.

Now, I am no expert in Middle East relations, but this is not a region exactly famous for its stability; good Arab guys have spontaneously turned into bad Arab guys on more than one occasion. Is this a good idea?

[SUBMAN1]

It is a great idea. The stability out there is a little off since there is a vacuum left by the demise of Iraq. So Iran is running aorund like no one can challenge them. This aid package will sort of bring the scales of power back in line.

-S

[Skybird]

Deliver HiTech weapons to your worst enemy - Saudi-Arabia - is a folly that cannot be topped. Not always the enemy of my enemy automatically is my friend - more often he remains to be my enemy as well. Over the half of Islamic terrorist going to Iraq - are coming from Saudi Arabia. SA is the exact oppposite of all and everything these American projects of democracy in the ME, and fighting the axis of evil, were about. Now a memeber of the axis of evil, a real rogue state, is getting armed up. This deal could be understood as the confession that all these ideas failed and have been given up. SA invests massively into international Islamic terrorism, and massively funds aggressive cultural expansion projects. The ME in general is not suffering from a lack of weaponry, but a lack of stability. The WH displays total helplessness in strategic imagination, has failed to create alternative options, and thus falls back to the block-thinking of the cold war. Reasonable strategy has nothing to do with this "aid package", it is the exact opposite of reasonable strategy. The real reason is pressure to do business from the Amerian arms industry, for Saudi Arabia is traditionally the best paying of all it's international customers. Mind you that the new Saudi king is openly hostile to the US, and the irritations between both sides, to put it this way, are mounting since a longer time now.

Greed wins over reason - that is what this deal is about. Strategy has nothing to do with it - it's better characterized by the the total absence of any reason.

Americans should ask themselves if the greed for profits by their defense industries really could be brought into conformity with the interests of the American people.

Arming up Saudi Arabia... typical stupid Bush&Gang logic. Who was it who said that capitalism does not know national loyalty and national pride?

[mbthegreat]

Keep the house of Sau sweet, lest they turn off the oil, can't figure out why you would want to give egypt money though, probably in an effort to help them clamp down on radicals.

Giving Israel even more money is just silly, perhaps they're hoping that they'll take the initiative and nuke Iran

[SUBMAN1]

Keep the house of Sau sweet, lest they turn off the oil, can't figure out why you would want to give egypt money though, probably in an effort to help them clamp down on radicals.

Giving Israel even more money is just silly, perhaps they're hoping that they'll take the initiative and nuke Iran

You must make Isreal capable of standing up to other countries in the region who also have US weapons.

[Iceman]

Deliver HiTech weapons to your worst enemy - Saudi-Arabia - is a folly that cannot be topped. Not always the enemy of my enemy automatically is my friend - more often he remains to be my enemy as well. Over the half of Islamic terrorist going to Iraq - are coming from Saudi Arabia. SA is the exact oppposite of all and everything these American projects of democracy in the ME, and fighting the axis of evil, were about. Now a memeber of the axis of evil, a real rogue state, is getting armed up. This deal could be understood as the confession that all these ideas failed and have been given up. SA invests massively into international Islamic terrorism, and massively funds aggressive cultural expansion projects. The ME in general is not suffering from a lack of weaponry, but a lack of stability. The WH displays total helplessness in strategic imagination, has failed to create alternative options, and thus falls back to the block-thinking of the cold war. Reasonable strategy has nothing to do with this "aid package", it is the exact opposite of reasonable strategy. The real reason is pressure to do business from the Amerian arms industry, for Saudi Arabia is traditionally the best paying of all it's international customers. Mind you that the new Saudi king is openly hostile to the US, and the irritations between both sides, to put it this way, are mounting since a longer time now.

Greed wins over reason - that is what this deal is about. Strategy has nothing to do with it - it's better characterized by the the total absence of any reason.

Americans should ask themselves if the greed for profits by their defense industries really could be brought into conformity with the interests of the American people.

Arming up Saudi Arabia... typical stupid Bush&Gang logic. Who was it who said that capitalism does not know national loyalty and national pride?
I have to agree with you hear Skybird....sending arms to any Muslim nation is just insane and makes me want to actually slap Bush but alas...the War Pigs have the power ...for now.

[caspofungin]

er, al qaeda is just as much a threat to the saudi royal family as it is to the us, and there's a long history of tension between the wahhabi sects and the royals.

in addition, the sunni gulf states (including saudi) are already twitchy about the prospect of a shiite iran with a military that's only second to israel's in the region.

giving the saudi's weapons/training seems a pragmatic move -- and it's been us policy since the 1930's. there's nothing new here.

[Skybird]

er, al qaeda is just as much a threat to the saudi royal family as it is to the us, and there's a long history of tension between the wahhabi sects and the royals.

in addition, the sunni gulf states (including saudi) are already twitchy about the prospect of a shiite iran with a military that's only second to israel's in the region.

giving the saudi's weapons/training seems a pragmatic move -- and it's been us policy since the 1930's. there's nothing new here.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Iran is funding terrorism in the region. the Saudis are even more funding terrorism in the West and the whole world. that their motives make them different to al Quaeda does not change that BOTH are hostile to us. the top funder of international terrorism- is Saudi Arabia. Most 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Saudi money is onvolved wherever you lokk at global Islamic terrorism. And such a regime now gets weapons from the US that claims to fight against terrorism - that is totally absurd. That is as silly as French nuclear reactors for Lybia. The raised potency of SA of course also needs to restore the "balance" - by giving according quatities of goods to Israel as well. If you arm Israel, you need to serve Egypt as well. Oh, military industries must love this way of circular thinking - plenty of profits from that "logic" of searching for the balance!

The West is not forced to behave that silly, and it will pay for follies like this - only a question of time. It's fate then will be well-deserved, and nobody will have the right to complain. Those who are responisble for these crimes against the interests of their own nations never will be held responsible for their unscrupelousness to help the enemy, of course.

It all stinks. "Homo Sapiens" - a contradiction in itself.

[Skybird]

German newspaper Die Welt, quoted by Der Spiegel:

"
"With its plans for weapons shipments worth billions to the Gulf states, Washington has now made it official: The democratization of the Middle East is no longer the focus of American foreign policy. In the name of limiting Iran's influence and restoring stability in the region, the US is returning to a Cold War strategy: The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
"But doubts about whether this strategy is prudent in the case of Saudi Arabia can be heard beyond Israel and Europe. Many within the US administration are also convinced that international Islamic terrorism is something akin to the Saudis' exported civil war. Why else would half the foreign fighters traveling to Iraq be Saudis? And of the 19 men responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks, 15 were from Saudi Arabia. From Cologne to Karachi, Saudi embassies very openly operate Wahhabite Koran schools -- the most rigid, backward and dangerous form of Islam."
"The strategy's effectiveness is very doubtful. In the 1980s, people placed their bets on Osama bin Ladin, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein when it came to dealing with the Soviets and Iran. Today we are struggling with the bloody consequences of those strategies. Courting Saudi Arabia is unwise and dangerous."


German newspaper "Süddeutsche Zeitung":

"No other country in the Middle East is further from the democratic ideals preached by the US than Saudi Arabia. Mildly put, the human rights situation doesn't meet Western standards."
"And beyond political realism, the (current) king is far less pro-American than his brother, who ruled before him ... The cooling of relations was most obvious when Abdallah described the US presence in Iraq at the last Arab Summit in Riyadh as an 'illegal foreign occupation.' Last fall, the king warned he would attack in Iraq if a civil war were to ensue after a withdrawal of US troops. But that's not the only point of irritation. Washington is also displeased about the Saudis' desire to create a nuclear partnership with Pakistan even if, as the Saudi's claim, it would be limited to the exchange of information."

German newspaper Die Tageszeitung

"The only thing the Bush administration has left to offer after six and a half years in power is a mixture of fear, helplessness and panic. Out of acute desperation, the US government now wants to provide help and weapons deals over the next 10 years to the countries that are best able to launch a new arms race in the region. No one can seriously believe that the already weapons-satiated Mideast can be satisfied or held in check by yet more weapons."
"If Congress approves the plan, the Bush government's already appalling foreign policy record will only get worse. The only clearly identifiable victor would be the US defense industry -- which, incidentally, has considerable influence in Washington." "

All quoted by Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,497428,00.html

[Gorduz]

I agree with Skybird, this is meaningless. Before you know it thos weapons will end up killing U.S soldiers. And there is no doubt in my mind that this idea has been strongly lobbied by the arms industry.

The only "good" reason for doing this from a US perspective is that you hope for a big war down there after the US has pulled out, thereby giving the terrorist organistations other things to occupy their minds. But of course this will send the oilprices skyrocketing, and in the long term that may be worse.. I don't know

[caspofungin]

Most 9/11 terrorists were Saudis

and as far as i'm aware, none of them were from the royal family. the saudi government has been vigourously clamping down on the wahhabi threat to their rule -- that includes actively fighting against al qaeda in saudi. you think the region is stable now? pull the rug out from the saudi government and in a couple of years you'll have a country run by the taleban mk 2.

Last fall, the king warned he would attack in Iraq if a civil war were to ensue after a withdrawal of US troops.

yeah, because he doesn't want a shiite state on his doorstep.

money talks. the saudi's have it, they want weapons and training to protect their (the royal family's) interests -- a regional cold war against the iranian/shiite influence, and an internal threat from the wahhabi's/al qaeda. if the us doesn't sell them stuff, they'll buy it somewhere else.

us foreign policy is not about democracy or freedom, it never has been -- it's about protecting us interests. or, more accurately, the interests of the ruling elite. and it's certainly never been far-sighted -- this is an attempt to shore up the sorry situation that is the middle east. it's nothing new -- witness rumsfeld and cheney selling weapons to saddam hussein to counter iran. before that, they were selling equipment to the iranian shah. before that, they deposed rashid ali to protect their oil supply in ww2.

skybird, it's business as usual -- why's everyone so surprised or shocked?

[Konovalov]

pull the rug out from the saudi government and in a couple of years you'll have a country run by the taleban mk 2.

Exactly. :yep:

Oh yeah, welcome back. :up:

[Steel_Tomb]

*sigh*, when will the yanks learn? They did the same thing in Africa during the Cold War to keep them on side, and look what happened. Constant war with countless unecessary deaths. They gave F-14's to Iran and look what happened. I think they are doing this so that if the **** hits the fan with Iran they might have someone on side. Although its more likely to end up biteing the yanks in the ass, as do most of their administrations policies :doh:

[Konovalov]

They gave F-14's to Iran and look what happened.

But it's not quite on the scale of the US and UK involvement in Operation Ajax which resulted in a coup d' etat with the overthrow of a democratic government to be replaced by a corrupt regime headed by the Shah (Pahlavī dynasty).

[Skybird]

skybird, it's business as usual -- why's everyone so surprised or shocked?

I'm neither the one, nor the other, its just aboiut this endless chain of disappointments, and the lack of reason in supporting state-funded international terrorism.

There is nothing new under the sun - except what has previously been forgotten. Since ancient times we do the same mistakes over and over and over again, but each time the stakes are a bit higher, the clubs are bigger, and the swords are sharper. Guess where it is leading.

[mbthegreat]

most IRA terrorists came from Ireland, most IRA money came from the USA, does that make Ireland and the US members of the axel of evil?

[Skybird]

most IRA terrorists came from Ireland, most IRA money came from the USA, does that make Ireland and the US members of the axel of evil?
If the Irish would have waged a holy terror war in several different nations and their government secretly promoted a hidden agenda to culturally overtake other nations, and if the money would have been come from members of the US government and the political dynasties like for example the Bushs and Kennedys - yes.

[mbthegreat]

Well, it was a "holy war" I suppose, the route of the problem is religion, so there is that count, the IRA was the militarised arm of Sinn Féin, the repbulican political party, although they didn't make a secret of it, so I don't know if that counts. Its stated aim was to overthrow northen Ireland and set up a unified state, so yeah it was using violence to take over other nations (or in this case a part of another nation).

Money did come from big people within the states, and the American government has never recognised it as a terrorist organisation, which could be seen as tantamount to supporting it.


Therefore the USA and EIRE are now members or mbthegreat's "Axel of evil doesers"

[Heibges]

When the United States initially deployed the M1A2, the only bought enough to equip on battalion. They sold hundreds to the Saudis, Egyptians, and Kuwaitis just ot keep the factories open.

[Skybird]

Well, it was a "holy war" I suppose, the route of the problem is religion, so there is that count, the IRA was the militarised arm of Sinn Féin, the repbulican political party, although they didn't make a secret of it, so I don't know if that counts. Its stated aim was to overthrow northen Ireland and set up a unified state, so yeah it was using violence to take over other nations (or in this case a part of another nation).

Money did come from big people within the states, and the American government has never recognised it as a terrorist organisation, which could be seen as tantamount to supporting it.


Therefore the USA and EIRE are now members or mbthegreat's "Axel of evil doesers"
No it does not compare. The US government never supported openly or hiddenly the IRA, and never helped them by money or information to blow up British soldiers and Irish civilians. Also, the IRA never followed the cause of turning Europe and America Irish, and they never were a threat to do so to Germany or France or Asia or you name it. Also, the IRA had a political goal concenring the British and Ireland, they did not follow a way to establish their relgion in other parts of the world, nor did they base on a religious figure that had told them they must subjugate other nations that had nothing to do with Ireland at all. It was a local conflict along the break lines of an old religious rivalry of the local residents in that region.

You try too hard to construct a parallel so that you can use it for the comparison you want to give here, but your constr,ruction is bent, and not tight, so that it does not hold together.

[Hakahura]

So in the 80's the IRA never operated and carried sucessful attacks in Germany or Holland? What short memories some people have!

The IRA certainly was and to some extent still is a terrorist organisation.
Lets not forget since the start of the recent troubles back at the end of the 60's early 70's the IRA has been reponsible for more deaths than took place on September 11th.

[Chock]

I think you might be mixing up some other paramilitary organisations that exist in Ireland, most of whom have added to that figure.

Over 3,650 people have been killed as a result of the (stupidly named) 'troubles'. But of that figure, many were not as a result of IRA action. You have to factor in numerous other groups, splinter groups, plus the British Army (who've shot quite a few people themselves). Just off the top of my head you have the Ulster Volunteer Force, Loyalist Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Freedom Fighters, Red Hand Defenders, Red Hand Commandos, The Orange Volunteers, The Irish National Liberation Army, The Provisional IRA, The Continuity Irish Republican Army, The Real IRA. And probably The I Can't Believe It's Not The Real IRA and the People's Front of Judea too.

The IRA have indeed killed a lot of people, but to suggest that only the IRA are responsible for the death toll in the troubles is misleading.

The troubles in Ireland are not a simple affair. Much of it, for example, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the religion and the nationalist desires it often hides under, and is more about a drug-dealing turf war in many areas.

:D Chock

[Tchocky]

Spot on, Chock.

As for the topic - Oh, great. I suppose soon we'll be hearing about how volatile the region is, with many heavily armed states......etc
This is a great idea, arm everyone to the teeth to restore a balance. hooray.

[mbthegreat]

it's the Merican way! Freemenmoxy at any price

[Fish]

Greed wins over reason -

Indeed. :shifty:

[TteFAboB]

That's just enough money to hire Chuck Norris for one hour, which should suffice for him to go from country to country fixing each and every one of them, from top to bottom, in every aspect.

[Lurchi]

The secular government of Saudi Arabia is probably next to be overthrown by radical islamic elements. At least this will happen when there is no oil anymore and the resulting poverty of the masses will lead to a radicalization. Selling actual weapons to them looks like a great risk - especially regarding Israel.

Is this what Eisenhower warned of in his farewell address: America's politics in the iron gripe of the Military-Industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex)? Maybe the whole Iraq war was also motivated by them? At least the MIC is probably the only one who profits from this disaster every single day, with rising stocks ...

Reminds me of Krupp - war is certainly a big business:down:

[AntEater]

Secular government?
In Saudi Arabia?
This country is ruled by a medieval style monarchy! Every minister is a member of the ruling family, while the King styles himself protector of Mekka and Medina.
Women have practically no rights, Christian religion is publically banned and until recently, it was forbidden to take pictures of people (now you can if they consent).
Not to mention rather cruel punishments like beheading, stoning and chopping off hands. And of course they use their fellow muslims from poorer countries as quasi slave labour.
The Quran is the Saudi constitution, nothing else.
There is absolutely NOTHING secular about the current government of Saudi Arabia. The one thing why there won't be a fundamentalist turnover in Saudi Arabia is that the country is allready as islamic as it gets. Osama bin Laden can be regarded as a social revolutionary for his own country :D
The country may be friendly to the US, but that is foreign politics. Internally, Saudi is far worse than Iran, comparable to Taliban Afghanistan.
But sale of advanced weapons to SA perhaps won't do much harm, as the ineptitude of the SA military is legendary. Not so much the ineptitude but rather the lazyness of the genuine Arabs to do the more dirty aspects of soldiering like maintenance or digging. Without western maintenance specialists, the air force would be grounded within weeks, for example. Also recently I read a story about german NBC troops training Saudis. For the night, the Saudi unit was to dig in in the desert. The german instructors dug themselves in but the Saudis did not move: "Arabs don't dig"; they declared, pulled out their cellphones and after a few hours, some busloads of Filipinos, Indonesians and Pakistanis came and started digging....
:rotfl::damn:

[Lurchi]

Mmmh, looks that you are right. I was probably blinded by the excessive (western) lifestyle of the leading caste.

On the other hand i still think that the Saudi government is regarded as secular by islamic extremists: It's connection to the west and the presence of U.S. troops within its borders makes them to traitors as it profanes the holy sites - Bin Laden used this "argument" to justify the Sept. 11 attacks.

[Skybird]

SA - secular? That the Saudi kind of Islamism (Wahabitism) is of a slightly different colour does not mean that they are less extreme and dangerous than al quaeda from whose perspective they are looking non-Islamic and Westernized indeed. and the new king is far more anti-West than the previous one was.

The point is - both AQ und SA are dangerous, and both are aggressive concerning the spreading of Islam, and fight against us. Saudi "culture centres" and first of all the King Fahd-academy in Germany are under close observation by the Bundesverfassungsschutz who rates the activities of these centres as highly dangerous and hostile to the constitution and recommends to shut them down, since years. Of course, no politicians has the guts to follow that advice. It is also no secret that you find plenty of Saudi money in the financing in international Islamic terrorism. They are probably the top financier of international terrorism, even before Iran. AQ is hostile to SA (and Bin laden has been since long, too) for from there reölatoive position, like Lurchi said just above, looks too western-style, and too secular, and concerning Islamic laws and rules: too corrupt (offedning the responsibility of guarding the holy places Mekka and Medina by that), and too soft and un-islamic.

If somebody thinks this is just to finance that kind of terror organizations that are fighting Iran-funded terror groups, then the real scope of the challenge so far has not been correctly identified by him.

[peterloo]

Mmm... Arms support ... What I can imagine is the military balance being broken and the radical Islams retribute - by terrorist attacks (of course)

Futhermore, oil is a key factor for prosperity in America in long term. If America provides the arms to her allies, she must be demanding something in return. "There's no free lunch", right?

Motives (just some wild guesses, but reason-based)
(1) Secure oil bases in Middle-East
(2) Use them as the main force in combating those terrorists and cut American casualities (thus leaving less troubles for Bush, who is "almost" abondoned by his people)
(3) use up the bulk of out-dated arms (remember, the F-14 are now scapped like a paper in a shredder, for the fear of Iran acquiration of these arms. Should they be sent to allies, Iran will not be able to get access to them)
(4) Making friends and remaining a good relation don't hurt / backfire, do it?

[SUBMAN1]

Most ideas present in this thread are crack smoking ideas with little thought or basis behind them.

Arming a friendly nation has nothing to do with terrorism. To do so is to say that giving or buying American product is to fund Islamic radicals. Yes - there are some sympathizers in this country as well as any other country and buying their product might ultimately end up in the hands of fundamentalists. We give these very same people the oppurtunity to buy weapons, which may end up in fundamantalists hands. And the point is?

Not sure what you guys are thinking here but the Suadies have criminal elements in their society like ours - that is not a debate. To say that the government funds those ideologies is very much another thing. It is similar to putting blinders on a horse. The country has money flowing out of it that is and can be used by people who may do us harm - but this is by the civilian population. However, the weapons the US is supplying cannot 'ever' be used by these same terrorists organizations. The type of weapons? And example is JDAM bombs. Hello people? When does a terrorists steal a state owned Saudi aircraft and use it to bomb some mosque and incite civil war? The answer is a clear 100% 0 chance this can happen unless the state of Saudi Arabia turns against the western world. I gues you forget that the US can simply disable these bombs given a moments notice? Guess no one here thought of that.

I'm having a hard time buying any argument presented here on the state of this weapons transfer.

-S

[P_Funk]

Most ideas present in this thread are crack smoking ideas with little thought or basis behind them.

Arming a friendly nation has nothing to do with terrorism.
Well if that nation uses forms of terrorism to prosecute their policies then yea it is, and we all know how insanely corrupt and fickle middle eastern governments are whether that involves clandestine anti-West activity or just opportunistic ideologues in their midst diverting support to other causes. A terrorist is still a terrorist if its fighting for "our" side. The US has routinely supported terrorist organizations over the decades as well and often times they become our new enemies. American military hardware always shows up in the oddest places and its no wonder why.

We keep talking about changing the middle east and yet we keep feeding the status quo.

[caspofungin]

That the Saudi kind of Islamism (Wahabitism) is of a slightly different colour does not mean that they are less extreme and dangerous than al quaeda

the wahabis and the saudi royal family are not one and the same -- the wahabis command the support of a significant section of the population, and the government has to perform the juggling act of keeping them happy so as not to foment a revolution, but at the same time trying to limit their influence.

i'm afraid you're wrong trying to equate wahabism with the saudi royal family - the 2 are not 1 and the same.

the country is already as islamic as it gets

yeah, well there's different degrees of how islamic a country can get -- believe me, if the saudi royal family falls, sa will turn into a country so fundamentalist the u.s. will be courting iran to stop the saudi influence. :o the king isn't anti-west, he's anti -us foreign policy. he's much more of a realist and pragmatist than the former king, and he realizes that his country needs to be intimately involved with the west, from an economic as well as a security point of view. and he's actively taking steps against al qaeda.

The answer is a clear 100% 0 chance this can happen unless the state of Saudi Arabia turns against the western world

and that's exactly the point -- the arms sale is to help prop up a friendly government, and try and shift the balance of power in the region as a whole.

[Skybird]

But such arms deals have a long tradition in Washington. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was a maxim of several US governments during the Cold War. Washington's foreign policy often sanctioned selling weapons to questionable regimes promising to help contain the communist threat regardless of the potential consequences.
The deals frequently ended as debacles: US soldiers have all too often stared down the barrels of guns their own government sold to the armies of countries that used to be their supposed allies. The convoluted US-Iranian relationship is a textbook example of such policies.
After the Shah of Iran consolidated his power with CIA help in 1953 in what is known as Operation Ajax, the country became America's most important ally in the Middle East after Israel. In return for access to Iran's bountiful oil fields, Washington sold the Shah an arsenal of modern weapons. With state-of-the-art fighter jets, new rockets and powerful tanks, Iran became a leading military power in the Persian Gulf. Some 40,000 US military advisors taught Iranians how to use the weapons.
After the Islamic fundamentalist regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini toppled the Shah in 1979 and sparked a crisis by taking 52 Americans hostage, it became painfully clear to Washington that its weapons were now in the wrong hands. And so the US government quickly turned to the biggest enemy of the religious fundamentalists -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
For eight years -- until 1988 -- Hussein waged a brutal war with his eastern neighbors, supported with weapons and know-how from American sources. Even Donald Rumsfeld, who would go on to plan the current war in Iraq as defense secretary under US President George W. Bush, visited Hussein in 1983.
As a sweetener, the Americans offered Baghdad classified aerial photographs that allowed Hussein's generals to inflict great damage on Iranian forces -- sometimes using chemical weapons. Only a few years later, of course, US soldiers would wage a war with the very Iraqi military that Washington had so meticulously helped build.

Land Wars in Asia, and Elsewhere
The United States also supplied Afghan freedom fighters in the 1980s with money and arms for their struggle against occupying Soviet troops. One of the best customers for the CIA back then was Saudi millionaire Osama Bin Laden. Two decades later, US commandos are hunting for the world's most notorious terrorist and his Taliban helpers. Military and civilian aircraft flying over Afghanistan are still forced to make evasive maneuvers to avoid Stinger missiles fired at them which were originally supplied by the United States to fight the Communists.

Washington protected and supported Panamanian dictator Gen. Manuel Noriega for years. Despite all the cash and weapons from America, he also was deeply involved in the drug trade. That led the father of the current US president, George Bush senior, to depose the strongman by sending troops to the Central American country in Operation Just Cause. Noriega was sent to jail in Miami.

The Americans also had little luck with their strategy in the Philippines. As Ferdinand Marcos came to power in Manila in 1965, it appeared as if both sides would benefit. The new president sent Filipino troops to bolster Washington's flagging war effort in Vietnam. In return, the United States supported the regime in Manila both politically and militarily -- even though it was clear that Marcos' henchmen were using US weaponry to oppress the country's opposition. The instability that continues to plague the Philippines today is part of that legacy.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the latest string of weapons deals during her recent diplomatic tour of the Middle East. "We are determined to maintain the balances -- the military and strategic balances -- within the region," she said. But American weapons have a way of outlasting the shifting goals of American foreign policy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-498421,00.html

And this:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119953