Options
Banking On War
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
i believe this is dead on
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206Z.shtml
Banking on War
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 02 August 2006
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Only the dead, said Plato, have seen the end of war. As true as this may be, it does beg the question: why? Why is there so much conflict in the world? Why are there so many wars? Ethnic and religious tensions have been casus belli since time out of mind, to be sure. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ruptured a framework that held for almost fifty years, bringing about a series of conflicts that are understandable in hindsight.
There is a simpler answer, however, one that lands right in our back yard here in America. Why so much war? Because war is a profitable enterprise. George W. Bush and his people can hold forth about the wonders of democracy and peace, and can condemn worldwide violence in solemn tones. Until the United States stops being the world's largest arms dealer, these words from our government absolutely reek of hypocrisy.
Mr. Bush and his people did not invent this phenomenon, of course. The United States has been selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to the world for decades. In the aftermath of September 11, however, American arms dealing kicked into an even higher gear. The Bush administration, in 2003, delivered arms to 18 of 25 nations now engaged in active conflicts. 13 of those nations have been defined as "undemocratic" by the State Department, but still received $2.7 billion in American weaponry.
One example is Uzbekistan, a nation with an astonishingly deplorable record of human rights violations. Thousands of people have been imprisoned and tortured for purely political reasons, and hundreds more have been killed. Still, that nation received $37 million in weapons from the United States between 2001 and 2003.
In 2002, the United States sold almost $50 million in missile technologies to Bahrain. In the same year, the United States sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of missile technology, rocket launchers, tank ammunition, fighter jets and attack helicopters to Egypt. The United States has sold millions of dollars worth of weapons to both India and Pakistan, two nations that have been on the brink of war for years. This list goes on and on.
Analyze the list of the top twenty companies that profit most from global arms sales, and you will see American companies taking up thirteen of those spots, including the top three: Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. These arms dealers act in concert with the Department of Defense; they exist as a sixth ring of the Pentagon.
The Associated Press reported last week that business for the arms industry is, to make a bad pun, booming. "Northrop Grumman, the world's largest shipbuilder and America's third-largest military contractor," reported the AP, "said second-quarter earnings rose 17 per cent, as operating profit at its systems and information technology units overcame a decline at the company's ships division. Raytheon Co., the fifth-largest defense contractor, reported second-quarter net income jumped 54 per cent, buoyed by strong military equipment sales."
Beyond the missiles and the tanks and the warplanes, there is the small-arms industry. This is, comprehensively, far more deadly than the large-arms sales being made. A report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences describes the deadly situation:
Since the end of the cold war, from the Balkans to East Timor and throughout Africa, the world has witnessed an outbreak of ethnic, religious and sectarian conflict characterized by routine massacre of civilians. More than 100 conflicts have erupted since 1990, about twice the number for previous decades. These wars have killed more than five million people, devastated entire geographic regions, and left tens of millions of refugees and orphans. Little of the destruction was inflicted by the tanks, artillery or aircraft usually associated with modern warfare; rather most was carried out with pistols, machine guns and grenades. However beneficial the end of the cold war has been in other respects, it has let loose a global deluge of surplus weapons into a setting in which the risk of local conflict appears to have grown markedly.
The Federation of American Scientists prepared a report some years ago detailing the vast amounts of small arms delivered to the world by the United States. "In addition to sales of newly-manufactured weapons," read the report, "the Pentagon gives away or sells at deep discount the vast oversupply of small/light weapons that it has in its post cold-war inventory. Most of this surplus is dispensed through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. Originally only the southern-tier members of NATO were cleared to receive EDA, but following the 1991 Gulf war, many Middle Eastern and North African states were added; anti-narcotics aid provisions expanded EDA eligibility to include South American and Caribbean countries; and the "Partnership for Peace" program made most Central and Eastern European governments eligible for free surplus arms."
"Around 1995," continued the report, "large-scale grants and sales of small/light arms began occurring. In the past few years (1995 - early 1998), over 300,000 rifles, pistols, machine guns and grenade launchers have been offered up, including: 158,000 M16A1 assault rifles (principally to Bosnia, Israel, Philippines); 124,815 M14 rifles (principally to the Baltics and Taiwan); 26,780 pistols (principally to Philippines, Morocco, Chile, Bahrain; 1,740 machine guns (principally to Morocco, Bosnia); and 10,570 grenade launchers (principally to Bahrain, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Morocco)."
We hear so often that this is a dangerous world. It is arguable that the world might be significantly less dangerous if the United States chose to stop lathering the planet with weapons. Much has been made, especially recently, about the billions of dollars in weapons sales offered to Israel by America. This is but the tip of the iceberg.
It is, at bottom, all about profit. We sell the weapons, which create warfare, which justifies our incredibly expensive war-making capabilities when we have to go in and fight against the people who bought our weapons or procured them from a third party. This does not make the world safer, but only reinforces the permanent state of peril we find ourselves in. Meanwhile, a few people get paid handsomely.
In the end, it is worthwhile to remember that whenever you see George W. Bush talking about winning the "War on Terror," you are looking at the largest arms dealer on the planet. We can pursue cease-fire agreements, we can topple violent regimes, but until we stop loading up the planet with the means to kill, only the dead will see the end of war.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206Z.shtml
Banking on War
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 02 August 2006
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Only the dead, said Plato, have seen the end of war. As true as this may be, it does beg the question: why? Why is there so much conflict in the world? Why are there so many wars? Ethnic and religious tensions have been casus belli since time out of mind, to be sure. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ruptured a framework that held for almost fifty years, bringing about a series of conflicts that are understandable in hindsight.
There is a simpler answer, however, one that lands right in our back yard here in America. Why so much war? Because war is a profitable enterprise. George W. Bush and his people can hold forth about the wonders of democracy and peace, and can condemn worldwide violence in solemn tones. Until the United States stops being the world's largest arms dealer, these words from our government absolutely reek of hypocrisy.
Mr. Bush and his people did not invent this phenomenon, of course. The United States has been selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to the world for decades. In the aftermath of September 11, however, American arms dealing kicked into an even higher gear. The Bush administration, in 2003, delivered arms to 18 of 25 nations now engaged in active conflicts. 13 of those nations have been defined as "undemocratic" by the State Department, but still received $2.7 billion in American weaponry.
One example is Uzbekistan, a nation with an astonishingly deplorable record of human rights violations. Thousands of people have been imprisoned and tortured for purely political reasons, and hundreds more have been killed. Still, that nation received $37 million in weapons from the United States between 2001 and 2003.
In 2002, the United States sold almost $50 million in missile technologies to Bahrain. In the same year, the United States sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of missile technology, rocket launchers, tank ammunition, fighter jets and attack helicopters to Egypt. The United States has sold millions of dollars worth of weapons to both India and Pakistan, two nations that have been on the brink of war for years. This list goes on and on.
Analyze the list of the top twenty companies that profit most from global arms sales, and you will see American companies taking up thirteen of those spots, including the top three: Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. These arms dealers act in concert with the Department of Defense; they exist as a sixth ring of the Pentagon.
The Associated Press reported last week that business for the arms industry is, to make a bad pun, booming. "Northrop Grumman, the world's largest shipbuilder and America's third-largest military contractor," reported the AP, "said second-quarter earnings rose 17 per cent, as operating profit at its systems and information technology units overcame a decline at the company's ships division. Raytheon Co., the fifth-largest defense contractor, reported second-quarter net income jumped 54 per cent, buoyed by strong military equipment sales."
Beyond the missiles and the tanks and the warplanes, there is the small-arms industry. This is, comprehensively, far more deadly than the large-arms sales being made. A report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences describes the deadly situation:
Since the end of the cold war, from the Balkans to East Timor and throughout Africa, the world has witnessed an outbreak of ethnic, religious and sectarian conflict characterized by routine massacre of civilians. More than 100 conflicts have erupted since 1990, about twice the number for previous decades. These wars have killed more than five million people, devastated entire geographic regions, and left tens of millions of refugees and orphans. Little of the destruction was inflicted by the tanks, artillery or aircraft usually associated with modern warfare; rather most was carried out with pistols, machine guns and grenades. However beneficial the end of the cold war has been in other respects, it has let loose a global deluge of surplus weapons into a setting in which the risk of local conflict appears to have grown markedly.
The Federation of American Scientists prepared a report some years ago detailing the vast amounts of small arms delivered to the world by the United States. "In addition to sales of newly-manufactured weapons," read the report, "the Pentagon gives away or sells at deep discount the vast oversupply of small/light weapons that it has in its post cold-war inventory. Most of this surplus is dispensed through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. Originally only the southern-tier members of NATO were cleared to receive EDA, but following the 1991 Gulf war, many Middle Eastern and North African states were added; anti-narcotics aid provisions expanded EDA eligibility to include South American and Caribbean countries; and the "Partnership for Peace" program made most Central and Eastern European governments eligible for free surplus arms."
"Around 1995," continued the report, "large-scale grants and sales of small/light arms began occurring. In the past few years (1995 - early 1998), over 300,000 rifles, pistols, machine guns and grenade launchers have been offered up, including: 158,000 M16A1 assault rifles (principally to Bosnia, Israel, Philippines); 124,815 M14 rifles (principally to the Baltics and Taiwan); 26,780 pistols (principally to Philippines, Morocco, Chile, Bahrain; 1,740 machine guns (principally to Morocco, Bosnia); and 10,570 grenade launchers (principally to Bahrain, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Morocco)."
We hear so often that this is a dangerous world. It is arguable that the world might be significantly less dangerous if the United States chose to stop lathering the planet with weapons. Much has been made, especially recently, about the billions of dollars in weapons sales offered to Israel by America. This is but the tip of the iceberg.
It is, at bottom, all about profit. We sell the weapons, which create warfare, which justifies our incredibly expensive war-making capabilities when we have to go in and fight against the people who bought our weapons or procured them from a third party. This does not make the world safer, but only reinforces the permanent state of peril we find ourselves in. Meanwhile, a few people get paid handsomely.
In the end, it is worthwhile to remember that whenever you see George W. Bush talking about winning the "War on Terror," you are looking at the largest arms dealer on the planet. We can pursue cease-fire agreements, we can topple violent regimes, but until we stop loading up the planet with the means to kill, only the dead will see the end of war.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
As the saying goes.....Guns don't kill people, People kill people
wow, i didnt even think about that
Proof?
Where did Hezbollah get their missiles?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
walmart...?
The US is the only nation who sells weapons???
www.myspace.com/jensvad
We all want peace, it's just that not all of us believe every situation is one that can be rectified without the use of force. Are we suppossed to stand idly by while the "Hitler's" and "Milosovich's" of the world exterminate those they don't like?
Let me ask you this…
In your opinion, what IS worth going to war for?
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
well it makes me smile when we sell weapons to israel and they blow some scumbuckets up...
It would have been better said that he was creating the demand for weapons, so we can make more.
Other than that, good article. And vary valid. With all those weapons sittin around somebodies surely wants to buy them. Seems like it would have been a really good idea to make it illegal for our nation to sell weapons to ANY other foreign entity w/o a declaration of war, and the sale then could only be to nations deemed directly involved in the conflict and our allies (of course). That might be a good idea for an ammendment to the Constitution.
Of course then, you would need to actually have a Declaration of War :(
Israel sells weapons
Russia just sold a buttload of weapons to Chavez
China sells weapons
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Does it make you smile when American troops are killed with American weapons?
When was the last time you saw any militant Islamist carrying an M-16, driving an M1A1 tank, or flying an F-16?
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Hey HHKC..........What was any different from what Milosovich did as to what the Jews are doing? Trying to keep "scum" from their borders and their land.
*scum - term I have read on the board and not my opinion.
Funny, I didn't know that you only fight "militant Islamists".
Milosovich was trying to commit genocide…the Jews are fighting terrorists who are attacking them with rockets and suicide bombs. I don't see the Jews rounding up a bunch of people based upon ethnicity, and then "cleansing" them.
There's a big difference between fighting your enemey, and then trying to eliminate them via genocidal tactics. Your question should read…"What was any different from what Milosovich did as to what Iran wishes would be done with the Jews?"
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Answer the question. When was the last time you saw a militant Islamist carrrying an M-16, as opposed to an AK-47?
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
or how israel likes having missiles fired at them that they sold to iran?
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
I don't have to answer that. It isn't like they are the only people in history to kill American troops. I think you are smart enough to know that?
some from iran...i wonder if any of them are the thousands of missiles and rockets israel sold them for us?
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
As we see with a few pro-Jewish people. We can call it what we see it as. Kosovo was a squatting ground for people and Milo and company wanted nothing to do with it. That is what happens when one power has weapons and the other isn't. Starts as a fight and soon turns into "genocide" depending on if you are the target or not.
but according to the 'militaries are the same as terrorists' thread militaries ONLY protect it's citizens and don't do bad things!
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
if we all wanted peace - then there wouldn't be the hitler's of the world ... he clearly falls on the side of those that don't ...
but in this day and age - rarely are wars so one-sided ... they are saddled with complex histories and in that complexity - there are forces that benefit ... they prey on this clouded picture to sell arms and profit from death ...
sure - war is worth fighting oppression and to defend your sovereignty ... but i'm pretty sure you are not in favour of iran or north korea arming themselves are ya?? ...
at the end of the day - those who truly want peace can achieve if they deal with others who want peace ... why is that there are so many countries out there that have lived peaceful existences for so long yet we see the same few countries associated with all the wars??
There aren't too many countries that have lived peaceful existences for so long. Here's all the countries invovled in ww2 it was only 60 years. Look at the countries on the list on both sides. War will always be around, it has been from the beginning of time. In the world we all want to live in, there is peace; however, in reality that world doesn't exist. I wish it could though, don't get me wrong.
countries involved in ww2
Axis - 15
Germany, Italy, Japan, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia
The following are sometimes also included: Iraq (Gailani government), Burma, Thailand, The Philippines (Laurel government), Republic of China at Nanking and Manchukuo.
Allies - 51
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia SSR, Canada, Chile, China (Republic of..), Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatamala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq (post-Gailini government), Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, The Philippines (Osmena government), Poland, Russia USSR, Saudia Arabia, South Africa, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine SSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.
neutral - 8
Argentina, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and Vatican City
and most of those have been in other conflicts before or since then.
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_countries_were_involved_in_World_War_2
so ... 66 out of how many countries?? ... and how many of those countries have been in a conflict since then? ...
now - look at the ones that have been in a conflict since then and look for the common denominator ...
out of 193 UN countries. That was 66 back then, some of which have split or renamed. My point is, is that most of those countries have been at war since then. Here's a list of the wars / conflicts in Africa since 1945. MOst of these countries weren't included in the WW2 list. If you think all countries want peace except for the US, iraq, israel you are gravely mistaken. I'll concede that some countries do want peace and can live in peace...but they are the exception NOT the rule.
wars and armed conflicts since 1945 - AFRICA
x ALGERIA 1954-1962 war of independence
1992- civil war and civilian unrest
x ANGOLA 1961-1975 war of independence
1975- 2002 civil war, power struggle for natural resources
x BURUNDI 1972 massacre
1988- ethnic conflict continuing despite peace process
CAMEROON 1955-1960 war of independence
CHAD 1980-1987, 1990-1995 civil war and factional struggles
x CONGO-Brazzaville 1993-1995, 1997- ethnic violence and
aftermath
x CONGO DR 1960 - 65 political and ethnic violence
1998 - civil war, some moves towards peace
DJIBUTI 1991 regional civil war
x ERITREA 1998-2002 interstate war
x ETHIOPIA 1998-2002 interstate war
ETHIOPIA and ERITREA 1998-2002 interstate war
GHANA 1981, 1994 ethnic disputes
GUINEA-BISSAU 1962-1974 war of independence
1998-1999 civil war and aftermath
IVORY COAST 2002 civil war
KENYA 1952-1963 war of independence
1990- ethnic violence
LIBERIA 1985-1988 coup reprisal killings
1990-1996 civil war and aftermath
2000- rebel insurgency and cross-border conflicts
LIBYA 1996 civil war
MADAGASCAR 1947-1948 war of independence
MALI 1990-1995 regional civil war
MOROCCO 1953-1956 war of independence
MOZAMBIQUE 1965-1975 war of independence
1981-1992 famine and civil war
x NAMIBIA
NIGER 1991- regional civil war
x NIGERIA 1997 - recurrent ethnic, religious and political conflict
x RWANDA 1956-1965, 1992,
ethnic conflict and aftermath
1994-1995 ethnic conflict and aftermath
x SENEGAL 1960-2001 separatist conflict
x SIERRA LEONE 1991-1996, 1997- 2001 civil war and aftermath
x SOMALIA 1988- civil war and factional struggles
SOUTH AFRICA 1976 civilian uprising
1983-1994 political violence
SUDAN 1963-1972, 1984 - civil war
TOGO 1991
TUNISIA 1952-1954 war of independence
x UGANDA 1966 ethnic unrest
1971-1979 brutal dictatorship
1981-1987 civil war
1990- rebel/ethnic violence
WESTERN SAHARA 1975-87 unresolved war of independence
ZAMBIA 1964 ethnic and political conflict
ZIMBABWE 1972-1979 political conflict
1983 - 1984 political and ethnic violence
where do they get their weapons from? don't we arm over 50% of the 3rd world?
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
so those wouldn't have occurred if they didn't have guns?
and the common denominator? ... poor countries held hostage by world powers ... if there was a classic example of people preying on complex histories - this is it ...
who do you thnk funds these wars?