A kinder, gentler machine gun hand?
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
fellow americans, how does it feel to be the worlds largest weapons dealer? if we are so worried about "homeland security", then why the fuck do we continue to flood the planet with weapons? sometimes my goverment and their corporate masters make me sick!
and for those people out there that believe our government gives a shit about "democracy" and "freedom" here is a quick blip from the article.
"Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms - 13 of the 25 - were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articl...ales_list/
US Is Top Purveyor on Weapons Sales List
By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe
Monday 13 November 2006
Shipments grow to unstable areas.
Washington - The United States last year provided nearly half of the weapons sold to militaries in the developing world, as major arms sales to the most unstable regions - many already engaged in conflict - grew to the highest level in eight years, new US government figures show.
According to the annual assessment, the United States supplied $8.1 billion worth of weapons to developing countries in 2005 - 45.8 percent of the total and far more than second-ranked Russia with 15 percent and Britain with a little more than 13 percent.
Arms control specialists said the figures underscore how the largely unchecked arms trade to the developing world has become a major staple of the American weapons industry, even though introducing many of the weapons risks fueling conflicts rather than aiding long-term US interests.
The report was compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
"We are at a point in history where many of these sales are not essential for the self-defense of these countries and the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas," said Daryl G. Kimball , executive director of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association in Washington. "It doesn't make much sense over the long term."
The United States, for instance, also signed an estimated $6.2 billion worth of new deals last year to sell attack helicopters, missiles, and other armaments to developing nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Developing nations are designated as all those except in North America, Western Europe, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand.
In addition to weapons already delivered, new contracts for future weapons deliveries topped $44 billion last year - the highest overall since 1998, according to the report. Nearly 70 percent of them were designated for developing nations.
Many of the US sales are justified by American officials as critical to the war on terrorism or other foreign policy goals such as checking an emerging China. One such example is the recent decision to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.
The United States has long relied on arms sales to prop up allies or enhance collective defense arrangements.
"For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventional weapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and its allies," according to the report, titled "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations."
"This was equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies," the report said.
Yet there is growing evidence that the sales are increasingly more about dollars and cents for the US military-industrial complex and other major military economies. The trend began after the end of the Cold War, when American, European, Russian, and other defense industries were forced to consolidate and competition for foreign sales heated up.
"Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economic considerations as those of foreign policy or national security policy," said the congressional report, which detailed both arms deliveries, or weapons actually delivered to customers, and arms agreements, or contracts signed for future deliveries.
Washington's desire to maintain the status quo was on display at a meeting at the United Nations on Oct. 26, when a UN panel voted to study whether a new treaty might be possible to regulate the sale of conventional arms. The United States was the only country out of 166 to vote no, though China and Russia were among a handful of countries to abstain.
With that lone dissent, the UN's Disarmament and International Security Committee approved a British proposal to draw up uniform standards that might block arms sales considered destabilizing, including those that might fuel ongoing conflicts, violate embargoes, undermine democratic institutions, or contribute to human rights abuses. A UN task force is set to make its recommendations to the General Assembly next year.
But powerful interests in the global arms industry have long stood in the way of controlling the arms flow to the developing world.
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for example, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the United States, Russia, France, Britain, and China - pledged to limit the sale of arms to the volatile Middle East, attributing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the region having been awash in high-tech arsenals.
More than a decade later, those pledges have gone unfulfilled. The United States is not the only culprit.
For the first time in eight years, Russia outpaced the United States last year in the value of new arms transfer agreements reached with developing nations, according to the Congressional Research Service report, authored by Richard F. Grimmett.
Moscow inked major deals to sell missiles, warships, and other hardware to such potential trouble spots as Iran and China, according to the report, which is considered the most authoritative breakdown of the global arms trade. China also agreed to provide weapons to trouble spots such as Iran and North Korea, while major Western European suppliers, such as Britain and France, also concluded large orders with developing countries.
But it is the United States that by far remains the top purveyor of high-tech arms to areas where analysts believe the likelihood of armed conflict remains highest. A study last year by the progressive World Policy Institute found that the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in an ongoing war.
"From Angola, Chad, and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest US arms sales programs [Foreign Military sales and Commercial Sales] to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003," the report found.
Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms - 13 of the 25 - were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan.
The agreement last year to sell F-16s to Pakistan underscores the larger trend, according to Wade Bouse, research director at the Arms Control Association.
"F-16s with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles are not for fighting Al Qaeda," Bouse said. "They are for fighting India."
And India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan, is considering a US offer to sell the country F-16s. "We are creating our own market by selling to both sides of regional conflicts," Bouse said.
With more such lucrative deals in the offing, there is little sign that the United States - or other major suppliers - wants a treaty to control the sales.
"The US would be significantly affected if there was an arms treaty that took into account human rights abuses and conflict areas," added William Hartung , director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute in New York. "The US government still wants to be able to do covert and semi-covert arms transfers. And a certain amount of it is simply keeping factories running in certain congressional districts."
and for those people out there that believe our government gives a shit about "democracy" and "freedom" here is a quick blip from the article.
"Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms - 13 of the 25 - were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articl...ales_list/
US Is Top Purveyor on Weapons Sales List
By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe
Monday 13 November 2006
Shipments grow to unstable areas.
Washington - The United States last year provided nearly half of the weapons sold to militaries in the developing world, as major arms sales to the most unstable regions - many already engaged in conflict - grew to the highest level in eight years, new US government figures show.
According to the annual assessment, the United States supplied $8.1 billion worth of weapons to developing countries in 2005 - 45.8 percent of the total and far more than second-ranked Russia with 15 percent and Britain with a little more than 13 percent.
Arms control specialists said the figures underscore how the largely unchecked arms trade to the developing world has become a major staple of the American weapons industry, even though introducing many of the weapons risks fueling conflicts rather than aiding long-term US interests.
The report was compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
"We are at a point in history where many of these sales are not essential for the self-defense of these countries and the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas," said Daryl G. Kimball , executive director of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association in Washington. "It doesn't make much sense over the long term."
The United States, for instance, also signed an estimated $6.2 billion worth of new deals last year to sell attack helicopters, missiles, and other armaments to developing nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Developing nations are designated as all those except in North America, Western Europe, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand.
In addition to weapons already delivered, new contracts for future weapons deliveries topped $44 billion last year - the highest overall since 1998, according to the report. Nearly 70 percent of them were designated for developing nations.
Many of the US sales are justified by American officials as critical to the war on terrorism or other foreign policy goals such as checking an emerging China. One such example is the recent decision to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.
The United States has long relied on arms sales to prop up allies or enhance collective defense arrangements.
"For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventional weapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and its allies," according to the report, titled "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations."
"This was equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies," the report said.
Yet there is growing evidence that the sales are increasingly more about dollars and cents for the US military-industrial complex and other major military economies. The trend began after the end of the Cold War, when American, European, Russian, and other defense industries were forced to consolidate and competition for foreign sales heated up.
"Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economic considerations as those of foreign policy or national security policy," said the congressional report, which detailed both arms deliveries, or weapons actually delivered to customers, and arms agreements, or contracts signed for future deliveries.
Washington's desire to maintain the status quo was on display at a meeting at the United Nations on Oct. 26, when a UN panel voted to study whether a new treaty might be possible to regulate the sale of conventional arms. The United States was the only country out of 166 to vote no, though China and Russia were among a handful of countries to abstain.
With that lone dissent, the UN's Disarmament and International Security Committee approved a British proposal to draw up uniform standards that might block arms sales considered destabilizing, including those that might fuel ongoing conflicts, violate embargoes, undermine democratic institutions, or contribute to human rights abuses. A UN task force is set to make its recommendations to the General Assembly next year.
But powerful interests in the global arms industry have long stood in the way of controlling the arms flow to the developing world.
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for example, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the United States, Russia, France, Britain, and China - pledged to limit the sale of arms to the volatile Middle East, attributing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the region having been awash in high-tech arsenals.
More than a decade later, those pledges have gone unfulfilled. The United States is not the only culprit.
For the first time in eight years, Russia outpaced the United States last year in the value of new arms transfer agreements reached with developing nations, according to the Congressional Research Service report, authored by Richard F. Grimmett.
Moscow inked major deals to sell missiles, warships, and other hardware to such potential trouble spots as Iran and China, according to the report, which is considered the most authoritative breakdown of the global arms trade. China also agreed to provide weapons to trouble spots such as Iran and North Korea, while major Western European suppliers, such as Britain and France, also concluded large orders with developing countries.
But it is the United States that by far remains the top purveyor of high-tech arms to areas where analysts believe the likelihood of armed conflict remains highest. A study last year by the progressive World Policy Institute found that the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in an ongoing war.
"From Angola, Chad, and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest US arms sales programs [Foreign Military sales and Commercial Sales] to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003," the report found.
Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms - 13 of the 25 - were defined as undemocratic by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan.
The agreement last year to sell F-16s to Pakistan underscores the larger trend, according to Wade Bouse, research director at the Arms Control Association.
"F-16s with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles are not for fighting Al Qaeda," Bouse said. "They are for fighting India."
And India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan, is considering a US offer to sell the country F-16s. "We are creating our own market by selling to both sides of regional conflicts," Bouse said.
With more such lucrative deals in the offing, there is little sign that the United States - or other major suppliers - wants a treaty to control the sales.
"The US would be significantly affected if there was an arms treaty that took into account human rights abuses and conflict areas," added William Hartung , director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute in New York. "The US government still wants to be able to do covert and semi-covert arms transfers. And a certain amount of it is simply keeping factories running in certain congressional districts."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia?
no we were not
please read this part again and maybe you will realize the hypocricy of the american government and their holy quest to spread democracy and freedom
"Meanwhile, more than half of the countries buying US arms - 13 of the 25 - were defined as UNDEMOCRATIC by the State Department's annual Human Rights Report, including top recipients Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan."
i am just assuming, but based on our prior debates i am guessing you have completely bought the "Iraq freedom and democracy" bullshit that has been spoon fed to you, so hopefully this will help you realize it is all BLATANT BULLSHIT AND LIES, and will also help you realize our government has never been interested in "spreading democracy", they are only concerned with spreading the empire and its corporate tentacles
i am confident in your intelligence to see through the illusion eventually
I cant even reply because I am under your spell of supreme intelligence. but I'll try.
I havent been spoon fed anything.
none of the countries mentioned have attempted to invade another country or have been a direct threat to the US.
spreading freedom and democracy is a great thing. sadly there are many countries who do not allow it. doesnt mean we cut off relations with those countries. the world is a complicated place, but I'm sure you knew that.
Let's see...
India vs. Pakistan... both bases covered.
Israel vs. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Pakistan... check.
...
I guess it's nice to see M-16 vs. M-16, rather than M-16 vs. AK-74.
Hail, Hail!!!
it would seem we are at war with the people of these countries, as we have repeatedly armed their very undemocratic rulers.
yes to defend themselves against those same people. some, if not all of those countries have made steps to stop terrorism. MUCH more needs to be done. saudi has definately done some cracking down, Kuiwait has always been a friend, Egypt not sure about them, Pakistan is one big cluster fuck but at least the prime minister appears to be on our side, as much as he can without having at least assiasination attempt per day, and India is always a friend.
I even read today that pakistan and India have returned to peace talks regarding the Kashmir region.
The US is arming corrupt gov'ts that are ruling populations against their will. Since freedom and democracy are supposed to be values and ideas the United States upholds, this seems to contradict that, a very important point.
Take terrorism out of the picture for a second and think about the people of the country, not just the ruling class.
yea it sucks, like I said, this is a global problem with SEVERAL countries around the world. we cant break relations with all these countries.
fuck if I know what to do. I do know many countries have many the swtich throughtout the years. hopefully that trend continues.
Don't kid yourself. The arms industry wants to keep the world at war. There are no boundaries to this desire. Consider the recent military purchases of Chavez in Venelzuela from the "Russians". Iraq and future military endevours are heavily (if not completely) influenced by such men, and that perverse desire to rule the world. It isn't an American problem, it is a world problem.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
great point.
but i think we would agree that the country I live in happens to be the #1 force behind the militarization of the planet and space? so my attention is naturally going to gravitate towards America's role, and hence my role as a citizen of America
some of these countries see us as a nice scapegoat...to deflect anger towards the saudi kingdom and their conditions they allow, royals even fund and hold telethons for 'martyrs' as well as other 'organizations' that peach hatred of the us. kuwait sees us as hired thugs in a way. it goes both ways, they don't care b/c they get what they want, like support for their oppressive, murderous ways...weapons, training, protection at the un, aid packages...we get a good client state that follows orders. we could care less how their ppl are treated, if our weapons are used to murder innocent civillians to keep them in line...not until they cross us. we didn't give a fuck about noriega, we even helped him get into power...we didn't care until he stopped following washington's orders and started speaking loudly about the us/cia role in the region...we didn't give a fuck about any rape rooms or mass graves in iraq until kuwait proved a safer partner than saddam.
same reason why thousands of ppl 'disappear' in colombia, why we don't care about their mountains of rape cases against their military <armed by us>...us oil comapnies are allowed to drain the countries resources and the government is happy just as long as they get a cut and can do almost whatever they want as long as the oil keeps pumping.
for some fun, one day look up our 'allies' and who gets 'aid' from us and then look up a site like amnesty international and read the annual reports on these places....some have no free press, avg ppl have no rights, human rights workers, journalists, clergy, teachers...just 'disappear' or are detained w/o ever being charged, rapes by the government/military that are just ignored, one even banned ballet for fuck's sake!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yeah, Chavez is buying weapons for the Russians, and the US sells or provides weapons to Colombia. Nothing good can come of that.
They could both kill off each other's leaders. That would be a good thing no?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
thanks for posting the article, my2hands. good read.
that may be so but these other countries aren't the worlds only superpower. we should set the example, not lead the arms race.
not sure what its at now but when clinton was president the us was responsable for more than 50% of the arms sales to the 3rd world...more than 1/2 of the weapons were sold by a single country...so, while russia and france and germany and whoever else sells arms, and that is bad, it's not nearly on the scale as what we do. it's a world problem but we're the leading cause of the problem
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
No, and you weren't at war with Iraq when you sold them chemical weapons with which to gas kurds. And you weren't at war with Indonesia when you sold them weapons with which to wipe out a quarter of the poulation of East Timor. You are also not directly at war with the Palestinians. Although if you think that giving Israel $4 billion worth of funding every year and supplying them with Caterpillar bulldozers which are designed with the sole purpose of demolishing Palestinian homes, along with F16 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, tanks and guns e.t.c, isn't a factor in making the U.S a target for terrorists, then think again.
Capitalism has nothing to do with this. This would happen under socialism or communism. Come up with another argument against capitalism.