Close Topic Options

Us Sells Weapons To Middle East - Page 4

Yes, as the above stats show... the US continues to sell weapons to everyone including those whom they consider enemies later. I understand the immediate economic benefits but not the long term practical thinking behind it. I guess they do so confident of retain nukes and superior fire power over those to whom they sell.

East Middle Weapons Sells Us

We have established that the United States is the LARGEST exporter of arms. But that is a little simplistic. As a percent of GDP (comparing 2005 to 2006 for ease of sources for the numbers), the largest arms exporters as a percent of GDP are as follows:

* U.K. - .161%
* Russia - .160%
* U.S.A. - .087%
* France - .085%
* Germany - .023%
* China - .008%

Sources: CIA Facts and Boston News

So in essence, the United States is on par with France, in looking at what percent of its resources that each is putting online for the export of arms. Just looking at the gross numbers (without an analysis) means a person ignores that the United States is creating a lot of other goods/services, and the larger size of the American economy as compared to other countries.

And the number for Russia has changed greatly this last year, with Russian arms exports increasing 285%, making Russia at .458%. That's huge. That means Russia is devoting 4x it's GDP to exporting arms than any other country (8x the U.S. rate).

Source: Russia Breaks Records

So keep the numbers in perspective.

What is the "code of conduct" and what countries is the United States in violation with? I'd be interested in seeing the percent of contrary "code of conduct" arms. Just stating a number of countries might not tell us much of anything, e.g., one gun sent to Cuba.

Iraq, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all deeply involved in fighting terrorists. Is it a surprise that we are helping these countries fight terrorism?

South Korea is at war (legally) with North Korea. And North Korea has violated numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions in connection with the transfer of ballistic missiles and nuclear technology/WMD development. It's hardly shocking that South Korea is seeking arms to maintain a strategic balance with its enemy. And I am curious as to a source listing South Korea as a gross violator of human rights.

Which means it really sucks when there is upheaval in a country, right? Panama was run by a dictator, and the United States removed him (no other country helped). The world mostly ignored Haiti, and still does. Somalia is considered al-Qaeda'a first major attack against U.S. forces. And I'm curious as to how U.S. forces trained Somalian troops or provided arms to Somalia. That's news to me. Same with Haiti. Afghanistan? We aren't fighting those that we supported against Russia. The United States did NOT work with the Arab forces. And the United States did NOT fund or arm the Arab forces. That's urban legend, and has been debunked.

In short, I'm not sure the conclusions really hold up. And again, I ask what is the other option? If we do not help Saudi Arabia built up its military to counter the Iranian buildup, then what do you think Saudi Arabia will do? Merely roll over and capitulate to Iran? Stand by and do nothing?

Perhaps most important, we must consider WHAT arms are being transferred and to WHOM. Your argument does that in connection with countries violating human rights, but what about the export of arms to terrorist states? Is that important to consider?

Edited: tortdog on 14th Aug, 2007 - 8:00pm

Us Sells Weapons To Middle East History & Civil Business Politics

Tortdog:

In the end does not matter really, we can get technical if you want, but the "meat"..the "essence" still the same, which is: Selling weapons to mostly undeveloped countries is a huge and profitable business for the US. You brought up other countries such as Russia but is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the topic is about the US selling weapons, not Russia, no France, no Germany but the US. Let's keep that focus.

The code of conduct is an international agreement (that the US is part of) where they agree to sell weapons following this criteria:

* democratic form of government
* respect for basic human rights of citizens
* non-aggression (against other states)
* full participation in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms

https://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm#USArmsExports

Let me add to that Indonesia and the example I gave in my previous post. You may justify or ignore this information but is common knowledge.

But that's just the point, they are not only selling weapons to shady countries where the rights of its citizens are abused but in the end the US has NO WAY neither CONTROL over where those weapons end. Look at the example of Iraq recently and how many weapons the US cannot give account for. It is obvious that fell in the wrong hands so if you are selling weapons to a country that already oppresses its people (and the US ignores it to make a buck out of it) and then those weapons end up in the wrong hands, they are indeed indirectly supporting terrorism. It is an issue of greed, the US is making so much money out of it, they do not really care at all.

Rather off topic, but... Tortdog, a lot of your points go a bit offtopic. I would just entertain a couple: QUOTE Panama was run by a dictator, and the United States removed him (no other country helped). Which dictator? General Manuel Noriega? The same guy that transported drugs for years with CIA's knowledge? Anyhow...I dont't wish to go offtopic. QUOTE The world mostly ignored Haiti, and still does. Like you do not have all your facts straights. In the late 50's the USA helped "Papa Doc" Duvalier become a dictator in Haitui, who terrorized its citizens with machetes and is the responsible for more than 100,000 deaths during the time he was in power. Like Haiti, we can mention Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and the list goes on. The US speaks now about human rights when they never cared about it in the first place otherwise they should not have supported these terrorists.By selling guns to countries where abuse is happening to its citizens is a way of supporting terrorism. Full stop.

Which dictator? General Manuel Noriega? The same guy that transported drugs for years with CIA's knowledge? Anyhow...I dont't wish to go offtopic.

Like you do not have all your facts straights. In the late 50's the USA helped "Papa Doc" Duvalier become a dictator in Haitui, who terrorized its citizens with machetes and is the responsible for more than 100,000 deaths during the time he was in power. Like Haiti, we can mention Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and the list goes on. The US speaks now about human rights when they never cared about it in the first place otherwise they should not have supported these terrorists.By selling guns to countries where abuse is happening to its citizens is a way of supporting terrorism. Full stop.

I agree and since the US does not have a way to know where those weapons end up, they continue playing the game of "I want to make a buck, I don't give a darn".

Page 4 East Middle Weapons Sells Us

Rather off topic, but... First, you keep mentioning profit. What's the big deal in making profit? Isn't that what businesses do? Without profit, you have nothing to invest in and produce better goods. And it removes incentives. I only mention this because you seem to be using "profit" as though it were evil.

It's not merely getting "technical." It's fully describing the situation/environment so that we do not discuss an issue in a vacuum. You opine that Russia is irrelevant. But you don't explain why. I argue that understanding why America engages in the acts that you wish to discuss mandates understanding the other countries' activities, including Russia and China.

Rather off topic, but... But by declaring that these countries are "off topic," you have drawn a little sandbox and demanded that we discuss within the confines of that sandbox (with anything outside YOUR boundaries off limits). That limitation on your part (and JB's, apparently) restricts the discussion so much that we will never be able to understand the whys and discuss/debate them. In essence, it is like this: * Sally: Why is crime so prevalent in black communities? Doesn't America understand that if you treat blacks different than other races, and let this crime continue, that all America will be worse off? * John: To understand why crime is so prevalent in black communities, you need to look at several factors, including why it is less prevalent in other communities (e.g., white), economic factors, and we need to focus on the family. *Sally: We are NOT talking about money or family. We are talking about why blacks are treated different than whites. You are off topic. But you go beyond that. YOU bring up Panama and when I address YOUR point, you declare ME off topic again!? So in essence, unless you are willing to FULLY engage the discussion, without declaring relevant parts as "off topic," then I cannot discuss. Just because YOU believe something is off topic, does not make it so. And continuing to entertain you, as you bring up examples (e.g., Panama) while refusing to let me respond to those examples is patently absurd.

Message Edited... LDS_forever: Tortdog, you still not understand how this forum works. Instead of getting emotional, please take the time to read and familiarize yourself with the community and its rules and policies. I am not asking whether you find it absurd or not, does not matter, our policies are enforced fully and there are not exceptions. I will reply to your offtopics in your intro thread in a little while, check for my reply. Thanks.

East Middle Weapons Sells Us

Interesting discussion! The US sure has had its share of debacles as far as sending support and allowing weapon sales to some countries. They have been expertly chronicled by the media. In reading the thread, one question really comes to mind...has the US ever had a example of where supporting one group to take over a government resulted in good? You will have to look hard to actually find connections, because they aren't juicy stories, but they are there. These rarely get discussed... However, find any idiot dictator and the media looks for ties back to the US.

The code of conduct, if you read it in its entirety, is pretty broad and is basically a document full of holes so wide I am sure we could interpret a way to get weapons into the hands of Bin Laden if we worked at it for a hour or two. It is also the reason that you end up discussing a bunch of other countries weapons sales that are supposedly on board with this agreement.

Rather off topic, but... It was kind of funny. If I read that agreement in a certain way, it would actually be illegal for the US to sell weapons to itself. It all depends on how you interpreted the requirements.

Honestly, unless the US government is going to just take over the its defense industry (allowing it to become a part of the government - and that would only make the cost of it skyrocket), they need to be allowed to make sales. This provides the profits to drive the price of the equipment down. Otherwise, they will only sell what the US can utilize (because we really shouldn't allow the sales of weapons to another country that just might act as a wholesaler of US technology). Also, the fact that there are multiple defense companies creates competition between them. If it were just one company, which would happen if government run or sales outside were stopped, the quality and the price would suffer. So, yes, it is a economic and actually technological innovation reason that weapons are sold abroad. Without it, we would not have the quality or the new weapons to maintain a edge.

There is also one other thing that really needs to be brought up. Most of these weapons needs replacement or spare parts. Sure, guns and RPG's don't need a whole lot of spare parts, but other pieces of equipment do. It is kind of like buying a Ford car, cutting all relations and communications with Ford and their dealers and trying to find spare parts for a Ford without going through a dealer. So for the bigger ticket items, we better be buddies for a long time or if your equipment breaks it will just sit there. A lot of Iran's military equipment (immediately post-Shah) was reduced to rust due to a lack of replacement parts and a reluctance of the US government to sell the parts.

Should the government do a better job understanding the countries and situations in countries they deal with. With all the bad examples in this thread, the answer is obviously, yes. Should the US just leave the defense export market? Doesn't really make any sense to just give the business to the French, Russian, Brittish or German vendors and who knows...maybe we will get some preferential treatment.

Us Sells Weapons To Middle East

Vincenzo, I answered your post but the answer was declared off topic and deleted. If you'd like to start another discussion to address your points (including other countries that America has helped to overturn and whether that action ended up good or bad), I would love to join in.

Edited: tortdog on 16th Aug, 2007 - 2:12pm

Us Sells Weapons Middle East - Page 4

I hope this will not be too off topic but here it goes.

It is in my nature to want to support the actions of my country because I love it. Sometimes this support tends to cloud my judgement of its foibles and misdeeds. Its like having a Family member who is doing something wrong and you are trying to show support and love while also admonishing him or her.

I think that what the United States is doing by selling weapons to dictators who I believe to be somewhat lax in their human rights record (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) is counterproductive and dangerous. I also think that that at this point it may be necessary.

Ok that seems like a contradiction but these states are also fighting their own terrorists in their country and they need some support in doing this.

The U.S. State Department annual report
By Ambassador Cofer Black
Coordinator for Counterterrorism

Further in the Report

I believe the Kingdom, regardless of some of its other misdeeds needs some support in its fight against its muslim extremists. It may not be necessary to send weapons support but it may be necessary to help the Monarchy in some way in its fight against individuals who want to kill them and eventually destroy the west.

Us Sells Weapons Middle East Politics Business Civil & History - Page 4

U.S. OFFERS ISRAEL $30-BILLION BOOST IN MILITARY AID

The United States offered Israel on Thursday an unprecedented $30-billion US military aid package, bolstering its closest Mideast ally.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ilitaryaid.html