<strong>And Scott is 100% correct about the bias built into what is being discussed. One hypocritically speaks of wanting to speak to a world issue and then, when looking towards the problem, cries bloody murder when others try to expand the discussion of this "world problem" to other (significant) parts of this perceived problem. People will call this out as blatant U.S.-bashing because it is. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're wrong. The thread wasn't started about a "world issue", it was about US foreign policy. Seeing as how the US as one player is apparently a larger part of this "world issue" than all of the EU combined, it makes sense to isolate them.
Just the same, it makes no sense to talk of the EU when there are individual countries within the EU that are varying degrees of problems. Germany is a big problem, but is Ireland?
So isolating the US in this discussion makes perfect sense. Denying that is hypocritical. It's a typical republican reaction. Kill first and ask questions later.
<strong>When my small, poor excuse of a country is being pressured into one war after another by the US, it is certainly my right to bitch about it, and discuss it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You should be bitching about/at your own government. If the U.S. is using illegal means to coerce your government have them take it up with the U.N.
"It's not my fault, it's the drug dealer's!"
--
Of course we supply deadly weapons to all manner of buyers. It's because we have the good stuff that they want. We're the big player and if we weren't someone else would be.
I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of each nations GNP is military hardware export.
The U.S. is the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world, OF COURSE we ship more military hardware than anyone else.
Do we want to see all sides of the issue or do we want to follow the safe and tested route of "it's the U.S., don't look anywhere else!"? Apparently we do.
Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
It's a world problem, to look at one player is just stupid.
Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Is it wise to only look at the U.S. (and angrily demand that all analysis be directed at the U.S.)? Only if real analysis isn't your goal.
If the interest is really analyzing the human impact of global arms trade not only do you have to look at everyone selling, you have to examine the real impact of WHAT they're selling. Small-arms are the big killers. (The real-world effects of a $1.6 billion frigate deal (France to Singapore) are very small, as are, relatively, the very politically popular landmines).
So who sells <a href="http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/small-arms/"; target="_blank">small-arms </a>and in what quantity? Who sells what to who and why is that bad? Specifics, please.
BIIIIIG ROOOOUUUND percentages and empty rhetoric ("Dubya and "evil" Saddam blah blah blah") are both very entertaining, but would you folks care to provide real issues to discuss?
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>You're wrong. The thread wasn't started about a "world issue", it was about US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wasn't?
Hmm, odd then, that the first post says:
Well, it's not about that at all. It's about being concerned about the State of this world. Think of it more as being together in the same small boat.
Sorry, bunge, try again later.
A Nader-voting Republican. Your deductive powers rock.
<strong>You should be bitching about/at your own government. If the U.S. is using illegal means to coerce your government have them take it up with the U.N.
"It's not my fault, it's the drug dealer's!"
Of course we supply deadly weapons to all manner of buyers. It's because we have the good stuff that they want. We're the big player and if we weren't someone else would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, consider me the smoker suing the tobacco industry... (anyway it's more a nato issue than a UN issue, since it is the Nato mutual defence treaty the US called upon after 9/11.
[quote]I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of each nations GNP is military hardware export.<hr></blockquote>
You still win... by far...
[quote]The U.S. is the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world, OF COURSE we ship more military hardware than anyone else.<hr></blockquote>
but you ship more than ever! with no real enemies left?
[quote]Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Do 50% of the UK's small-arms shipments go to places with political violence and unrest? As of 1995-1998, yeah. (Apparently 90% of civilian casualties are caused by small-arms). <hr></blockquote>
Ok, I'll bitch about them when I'm finished with you...
[quote]Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Is it wise to only look at the U.S. (and angrily demand that all analysis be directed at the U.S.)? Only if real analysis isn't your goal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]If the interest is really analyzing the human impact of global arms trade not only do you have to look at everyone selling, you have to examine the real impact of WHAT they're selling. Small-arms are the big killers. (The real-world effects of a $1.6 billion frigate deal (France to Singapore) are very small, as are, relatively, the very politically popular landmines). <hr></blockquote>
landmines? Are you sure you want to get into that issue?
[quote]BIIIIIG ROOOOUUUND percentages and empty rhetoric ("Dubya and "evil" Saddam blah blah blah") are both very entertaining, but would you folks care to provide real issues to discuss?<hr></blockquote>
If you don't consider this a real issue, then feel free to buugerof... (or go read the link.)
Alan Dershowitz is one of the most annoying men alive, but in the Jerusalem Post he makes an excellent point concerning the debate about anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel:
A good working definition of anti-Semitism is to take a characteristic that is universal and to single out only the Jews for exhibiting it.
For example, in the 1920s Harvard's racist president, A. Lawrence Lowell, tried to impose a quota on Jews admitted to Harvard because, as he put it, "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus reminded him that non-Jews also cheat, he replied, "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Jews."
Can anyone doubt that Lowell's statements were anti-Semitic? So, too, is the singling out of the Jewish state for faults that are far worse among other states.
<hr></blockquote>
I think the current anti-Americanism falls under the same premise. No one go changing the subject.
I think the current anti-Americanism falls under the same premise. No one go changing the subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, that doesn't excuse our actions because other people do it. It doesn't excuse our actions because only we are singled out in one thread. Our actions have been deplorable no matter how you look at it, and regardless of who brings it up or in what context it is brought up, our actions do not change nor are they justifiable.
Thanks very much for always align critisism of US with antisemitism.
The difference being two aspects:
1) We are talking about an entity here. ONE country. US. Not about the guilt or the action of all american citizents. We are not making blank statements about a number of countries. So you can´t compare it to someone speaking about jewS. You CAN however compare it to a courtroom where a defendant basing his defence on the fact that others are doing the same so he can´t see why someone is making a big fuzz out of him killing one person.
2) That my statement (which is totally honest and frank):
[quote] I would really like to know about it because nobody is perfect and I would work to change such a policy. <hr></blockquote>
is nowhere close to this:
[quote] You're changing the subject. We're talking about Jews. <hr></blockquote>
If you really mean what you write here Scott then we could never discuss any IR issues could we?
Let me limit it for you as much as I can: Do you think it was a good idea to support the dictatorship in Tajikistan for access to their bases in the war in Afghanistan? Do you think its a strategic sound policy to support a dictator that opress his people and how do you think they (most of them muslims) will react when they get rid of the now US backed government someday? Will they be with us or against us? And finally is it morally right to support a opressive dictator as a mean to another end?
Well, it's not about that at all. It's about being concerned about the State of this world. Think of it more as being together in the same small boat. </strong><hr></blockquote>
OK...let's all be as simple minded as we can....
"Taking on US foreign policy"
That's the point of the thread. In this thread it doesn't matter what Azerbaijan does.
<strong>Well, consider me the smoker suing the tobacco industry... (anyway it's more a nato issue than a UN issue, since it is the Nato mutual defence treaty the US called upon after 9/11.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How that makes any difference I don't know. You're still blaming someone else for your own problem.
You're just fine with that kind of logic? You don't mind giving your own government a free pass (on this topic in this forum) and instead blame the U.S.?
[quote]<strong>You still win... by far...</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>but you ship more than ever! with no real enemies left?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. having enemies has nothing to do with exports. The issue isn't production, it's selling and distribution throughout the world. Once again, you seem more interested in things that aren't the real issue.
One issue as a springboard for another, whether or not there's a connection, eh?
"The U.S. exports lots of guns when they don't have enemies and they log away forests and we're going to drown from the melted polar icecaps from global warming and Bush looks like a monkey and... uh... what was I saying?"
Others have enemies, that's why we export them. Either that or they like to have lots of nice weapons just in case enemies come along. Whatever.
Can you please stay on topic?
[quote]<strong>Ok, I'll bitch about them when I'm finished with you...</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you won't, at least not here. That's the problem here. It's evidenced by your myopic way of dealing with this. It's evidenced by your placing blame on the U.S. for your own nation's actions.
If the goal is to analyze U.S. foreign policy then what use is the percentage of their share in global arms shipments?
If the goal is to analyze U.S. foreign policy one would use more U.S.-specific information and would most certainly not bring in issues that involved more than the U.S. (which you eagerly did). It's basic logic.
But you've made this about the world, so the world is the issue. The U.S. is not the entire world, as much as you would like to make it the devil in your quasi-religious portrayal of global politics.
[quote]<strong>landmines? Are you sure you want to get into that issue?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said that they aren't even close to being as important to the issue of arms hurting people as small-arms. Care to refute that?
They are bad and naughty and such, yes.
[quote]<strong>If you don't consider this a real issue, then feel free to buugerof... (or go read the link.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it's an issue, which is why it requires more intelligent discussion.
--
BR:
[quote]<strong>However, that doesn't excuse our actions because other people do it. It doesn't excuse our actions because only we are singled out in one thread. Our actions have been deplorable no matter how you look at it, and regardless of who brings it up or in what context it is brought up, our actions do not change nor are they justifiable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
point = missed
The reason you see justification in someone wanting to discuss the entire scope of the arms trade is because your goal is not analysis, but attack on one specific player.
I read all of what Scott said, and as much as I do not like the way Scott handles his points or puts out his arguments, he did not, in any way, attempt to say the United States selling arms to dangerous folks was a good thing. So for you to act as if he is is simply ignoring his real argument.
Analysis is one thing. What one does with that analysis is different entirely. Ideally anyway.
I read all of what Scott said, and as much as I do not like the way Scott handles his points or puts out his arguments, he did not, in any way, attempt to say the United States selling arms to dangerous folks was a good thing. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe not, but what he is saying is that it's not worth talking about. That's a crock. If the US has the worst track record, then it deserves the most criticism. If no conservatives can come into this thread and defend the military aid the US gives then have the courage to admit that the US deserves strong criticism.
I suggest that the subject will become Great powers foreign policy.
We will deal of these question of arms trades , including all the countries important in that aera : US , Russia, GB, France ...
The big question will be : who have a good moral policy with weapons trade ? .
Frankly i have no answer, many countries are ready to sell weapons to everyone, expecting to their ennemies.
Sometimes those weapons selled may hurt our own allies, like in the war between Argentina and Great britain, where a french built exocet missile destroy a british ship.
Weapons trade has nothing to do with moral. It show the hypocrasia of our beloved democratia, avenger at the service of the human rights unless their money and interest are concerned.
[quote] You're still blaming someone else for your own problem.
You're just fine with that kind of logic? You don't mind giving your own government a free pass (on this topic in this forum) and instead blame the U.S.? <hr></blockquote>
No, I'm blaming someone (the US) for many of the worlds problems. And I'm not only criticizing the sheer volume and distribution of the exported weaponry, but also the billions of dollars of military aid, which can't be excused by commercial interests. And I'm criticizing the the US governments choice of new allies, which includes supporting some pretty nasty dictatorships.
Frankly I think we should be able to discuss this issue. With the consequences it has for the Allies of the US and the rest of the world.
I started this topic by saying that this is worrying me. The weapon export of France, UK etc. probably sucks to. But it does not worry me as much right now. Sellafield worries me. "Hey brits! go stick Sellafield up your colonial asses!" But this is not a related issue.
I really haven't seen France or the UK set any real political world agenda lately. I don't see the same kind of warmongering going on with these nations. What shitty stuff France does in its old colonial backyard doesn't make me feel insecure, or drag my country of into one war after another.
I present the numbers of US weapons export and aid, newly published, for you to read and discuss. If anyone had any interesting european figures to add to this, it would clearly have been relevant, either to lessen or strengthen the criticism put forward. I'm not seeing any of this.
With the way the US is behaving I would certainly like my own government to reconsider the alliance it has made with the US. I know recent polls in Sweden (not a Nato member) suggests that the swedes are more negative to joining Nato than they have been in a long time. I think this should worry you.
This is an American report. by American scientists, on an american site. It is interesting (and disturbing) enough to be quoted in newspapers here in Norway.
Am I in someway disqualified from discussing this issue?
I even tried to prevent this kind of an argument by specifically addressing it in my post. Maybe that backfired.
If you want a more intelligent discussion then contribution is the way to go. And remember, its not just about export, its about Aid, training, alliances. The foreign policy of the only superpower left. And my country's most important ally.
[quote]<strong>No, I'm blaming someone (the US) for many of the worlds problems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'm telling you that's short-sighted and ignorant. I'm telling you that's looking at world politics like a fundamentalist looks at his religion. Good sides, evil sides, etc...
There's more to the story, and anyone who says differently is either brainwashed or unable to deal with the complexities of global politics.
[quote]<strong>And I'm not only criticizing the sheer volume and distribution of the exported weaponry, but also the billions of dollars of military aid, which can't be excused by commercial interests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Be more specific about this "military aid".
And before you say "read that entire website" remember that it's you responsibility to make your arguments.
[quote]<strong>And I'm criticizing the the US governments choice of new allies, which includes supporting some pretty nasty dictatorships.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Be specific and on-topic.
[quote]<strong>Frankly I think we should be able to discuss this issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can, who is stopping you?
Do you mean to say "Frankly, I think everyone should love everything I say?"? I think that's your bitch, you're just pissed that someone will criticize your criticism.
[quote]<strong>I really haven't seen France or the UK set any real political world agenda lately.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't been paying much attention to the EU now have you?
[quote]<strong>I don't see the same kind of warmongering going on with these nations. What shitty stuff France does in its old colonial backyard doesn't make me feel insecure, or drag my country of into one war after another.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So it's about your "feelings" and perceptions, eh? I'm afraid that's not grounds for real discussion, as you are the only person living in your neurotic skin.
We, as a collective, can deal with facts, but when it comes to the whims of your fickle mind I'm afraid no one but yourself can be helpful.
[quote]<strong>I present the numbers of US weapons export and aid, newly published, for you to read and discuss. If anyone had any interesting european figures to add to this, it would clearly have been relevant, either to lessen or strengthen the criticism put forward. I'm not seeing any of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn't see where I posted that 50% of UK's small-arms exports go to politically tumultuous nations and how small-arms account for 90% of civilian casualties around the world? Did you not want to see it?
[quote]<strong>With the way the US is behaving I would certainly like my own government to reconsider the alliance it has made with the US. I know recent polls in Sweden (not a Nato member) suggests that the swedes are more negative to joining Nato than they have been in a long time. I think this should worry you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't worry me at all. Sweden isn't important. I'm more worried about Palestinians throwing rocks than Sweden. Is that part of what makes you angry? That your nation is so small and powerless yet you feel like you have such a big mind and voice?
The mouse is the mouse. The cat is the cat. That's the way it is.
Smaller European nations, in case you're blind, are very eagerly attempting to shove their way into global politics through the EU. Just listen at Belgium's Louis Michel discuss how the EU should take control of the global agenda. Listen to Gerhard Schroder promote expanding the EU's global power, "We are ready to make Europe into an international player with global influence." Pardon me if I don't cower before the moral indictments of a continent with a very bloody and violent recent past that makes the U.S. look like Boy Scouts looking to expand its spheres of influence around the world.
Sorry, friend, but you've got quite a large cancer right under your own feet you might want to look into. The nationalism of the European makes the nationalism of the American look like mini-me versus Yao Ming in the powerbook ad.
There's more to the story, and anyone who says differently is either brainwashed or unable to deal with the complexities of global politics</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you really saying that the US is not at least partially to blame for many of the world's problems? If you don't even see that...you are in no position to talk about brainwashing.
<strong>The mouse is the mouse. The cat is the cat. That's the way it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By this are you agreeing with new or disagreeing with him? I mean apart from personally attacking him.
I would think that cats in general have a poor record of foreign policy when it comes to mice. Certainly not one the mice would want to emulate or applaud.
---------
Also slightly off topic but here's a couple of quotes from your oxfam link:
[quote]
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the Government and the arms industry went to extraordinary lengths to promote British arms sales.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]
Oxfam applauds the current initiative by the British Government for an EU Code of Conduct on the export of arms, one which aims to set 'high common standards' across EU member states.
<hr></blockquote>
Any astute observers of the UK political scene want to guess what changed between these two quotes? Give in?
Are you really saying that the US is not at least partially to blame for many of the world's problems? If you don't even see that...you are in no position to talk about brainwashing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spoken like a brainwashed AI member. The US is always to blame. Either for doing something or for not doing something. Either say the anti-US crowd have something to bitch about.
Spoken like a brainwashed AI member. The US is always to blame. Either for doing something or for not doing something. Either say the anti-US crowed have something to bitch about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is IGNORANT to believe that the actions or inactions of the US can't have global ramifications.
Spoken like a brainwashed AI member. The US is always to blame. Either for doing something or for not doing something. Either say the anti-US crowd have something to bitch about. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's so funny how conservatives bitch and moan about personal liability and lawsuits, but when it comes to our beloved country everything is so hands off. No one is responsible...not even the government itself! It's like a split personality it's so unreal.
No, I'm blaming someone (the US) for many of the worlds problems.
----
And I'm telling you that's short-sighted and ignorant. I'm telling you that's looking at world politics like a fundamentalist looks at his religion. Good sides, evil sides, etc...
There's more to the story, and anyone who says differently is either brainwashed or unable to deal with the complexities of global politics.<hr></blockquote>
I never said anything about good or bad sides. As far as I can tell all sides are at least somewhat bad. Last time I checked we were on the same side, but lately this concept seems to have become a bit blured, and I can't figure out how these lame central-asian dictatorships became our friends.
[quote]Be more specific about this "military aid"<hr></blockquote>
Djibouti $ 6.400.000 (in military AID after 9/11)
Indonesia $ 76.900.000
Kyrgyzstan $ 87.800.000
Nepal $ 29.500.000
Pakistan $ 1.293.500.000 (wow!)
Phillippines $ 82.900.000
Tajikistan $ 70.400.000
Uzbekistan $ 19.200.000
Yemen $ 38.600.000
[quote]Frankly I think we should be able to discuss this issue.
---
You can, who is stopping you?
Do you mean to say "Frankly, I think everyone should love everything I say?"? I think that's your bitch, you're just pissed that someone will criticize your criticism. <hr></blockquote>Err? You criticizing me instead of addressing the issue is what's derailing this thread right now... You still haven't addressed any of the issues I but forward. Instead you seem to want to hold me responsible for Europe's wrongdoings.
[quote]You haven't been paying much attention to the EU now have you? <hr></blockquote>
Be specific and on-topic.
[quote] You didn't see where I posted that 50% of UK's small-arms exports go to politically tumultuous nations and how small-arms account for 90% of civilian casualties around the world? Did you not want to see it? <hr></blockquote>
This is disturbing, yes, but doesn't say anything about how many weapons the UK is exporting. I really can't comment before I know if the UK sells small arms for 50 cents a year or 50 million dollars. I need to be able to compare it to something.
[quote]It doesn't worry me at all. Sweden isn't important. I'm more worried about Palestinians throwing rocks than Sweden. Is that part of what makes you angry? That your nation is so small and powerless yet you feel like you have such a big mind and voice? <hr></blockquote>
No, what worries me is US made Apache Helicopters being used to liquidate people inside civilian buildings. But that export isn't even covered in my original post, since I only focused on the countries criticized by the US State Department.
I'm actually quite happy that my nation is small and powerless. makes tragedies like 9/11 so much less likely to happen here. This doesn't mean I'm a big fan of my current government, but luckily that remains a local issue.
If your not worried about how your traditional democratic allies are loosing faith in your, then fine. Go backpacking in Tajikistan next year.
You seem to be grabbing desperately for arguments here. We're not discussing nationalism. Nor the EU's aspiring ambitions in international politics (certainly worth a thread of its own).
Your arguments are clubing each other to death here, european nationalism is one of the factors slowing down EU progress right now.
And for the Belgians, boy, do they have a nasty history in foreign policy... worth a whole thread that to. I read some bad stuff about Leopold and the Congo. But I'm not belgian now, am I?
Comments
<strong>And Scott is 100% correct about the bias built into what is being discussed. One hypocritically speaks of wanting to speak to a world issue and then, when looking towards the problem, cries bloody murder when others try to expand the discussion of this "world problem" to other (significant) parts of this perceived problem. People will call this out as blatant U.S.-bashing because it is. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're wrong. The thread wasn't started about a "world issue", it was about US foreign policy. Seeing as how the US as one player is apparently a larger part of this "world issue" than all of the EU combined, it makes sense to isolate them.
Just the same, it makes no sense to talk of the EU when there are individual countries within the EU that are varying degrees of problems. Germany is a big problem, but is Ireland?
So isolating the US in this discussion makes perfect sense. Denying that is hypocritical. It's a typical republican reaction. Kill first and ask questions later.
<a href="http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg</a>;
Just checking.
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: Not Unlike Myself ]</p>
<strong>When my small, poor excuse of a country is being pressured into one war after another by the US, it is certainly my right to bitch about it, and discuss it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You should be bitching about/at your own government. If the U.S. is using illegal means to coerce your government have them take it up with the U.N.
"It's not my fault, it's the drug dealer's!"
--
Of course we supply deadly weapons to all manner of buyers. It's because we have the good stuff that they want. We're the big player and if we weren't someone else would be.
I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of each nations GNP is military hardware export.
The U.S. is the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world, OF COURSE we ship more military hardware than anyone else.
Do we want to see all sides of the issue or do we want to follow the safe and tested route of "it's the U.S., don't look anywhere else!"? Apparently we do.
Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Do 50% of the UK's small-arms shipments go to places with political violence and unrest? <a href="http://www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/smarms/exec.htm"; target="_blank">As of 1995-1998, yeah.</a> (Apparently <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/SmallArms.asp"; target="_blank">90%</a> of civilian casualties are caused by small-arms).
It's a world problem, to look at one player is just stupid.
Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Is it wise to only look at the U.S. (and angrily demand that all analysis be directed at the U.S.)? Only if real analysis isn't your goal.
If the interest is really analyzing the human impact of global arms trade not only do you have to look at everyone selling, you have to examine the real impact of WHAT they're selling. Small-arms are the big killers. (The real-world effects of a $1.6 billion frigate deal (France to Singapore) are very small, as are, relatively, the very politically popular landmines).
So who sells <a href="http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/small-arms/"; target="_blank">small-arms </a>and in what quantity? Who sells what to who and why is that bad? Specifics, please.
BIIIIIG ROOOOUUUND percentages and empty rhetoric ("Dubya and "evil" Saddam blah blah blah") are both very entertaining, but would you folks care to provide real issues to discuss?
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>You're wrong. The thread wasn't started about a "world issue", it was about US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wasn't?
Hmm, odd then, that the first post says:
Well, it's not about that at all. It's about being concerned about the State of this world. Think of it more as being together in the same small boat.
Sorry, bunge, try again later.
A Nader-voting Republican. Your deductive powers rock.
<strong>You do know that "again again" is a teletubbies thing right?
<a href="http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www.teletubbies.com/teletubbies.jpg</a>;
Just checking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My try my very best to fill my posts with stuff like that. Sometimes people notice but its not very often.
<strong>You should be bitching about/at your own government. If the U.S. is using illegal means to coerce your government have them take it up with the U.N.
"It's not my fault, it's the drug dealer's!"
Of course we supply deadly weapons to all manner of buyers. It's because we have the good stuff that they want. We're the big player and if we weren't someone else would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, consider me the smoker suing the tobacco industry... (anyway it's more a nato issue than a UN issue, since it is the Nato mutual defence treaty the US called upon after 9/11.
[quote]I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of each nations GNP is military hardware export.<hr></blockquote>
You still win... by far...
[quote]The U.S. is the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world, OF COURSE we ship more military hardware than anyone else.<hr></blockquote>
but you ship more than ever! with no real enemies left?
[quote]Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Do 50% of the UK's small-arms shipments go to places with political violence and unrest? As of 1995-1998, yeah. (Apparently 90% of civilian casualties are caused by small-arms). <hr></blockquote>
Ok, I'll bitch about them when I'm finished with you...
[quote]Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Is it wise to only look at the U.S. (and angrily demand that all analysis be directed at the U.S.)? Only if real analysis isn't your goal.<hr></blockquote>
Well, if real analysis of the US foreign policy is my goal, then yes, wise(©) it is.
[quote]If the interest is really analyzing the human impact of global arms trade not only do you have to look at everyone selling, you have to examine the real impact of WHAT they're selling. Small-arms are the big killers. (The real-world effects of a $1.6 billion frigate deal (France to Singapore) are very small, as are, relatively, the very politically popular landmines). <hr></blockquote>
landmines? Are you sure you want to get into that issue?
[quote]BIIIIIG ROOOOUUUND percentages and empty rhetoric ("Dubya and "evil" Saddam blah blah blah") are both very entertaining, but would you folks care to provide real issues to discuss?<hr></blockquote>
If you don't consider this a real issue, then feel free to buugerof... (or go read the link.)
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002514"; target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>
[quote]<a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1035348763380"; target="_blank">'Changing the Subject'</a>
Alan Dershowitz is one of the most annoying men alive, but in the Jerusalem Post he makes an excellent point concerning the debate about anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel:
A good working definition of anti-Semitism is to take a characteristic that is universal and to single out only the Jews for exhibiting it.
For example, in the 1920s Harvard's racist president, A. Lawrence Lowell, tried to impose a quota on Jews admitted to Harvard because, as he put it, "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus reminded him that non-Jews also cheat, he replied, "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Jews."
Can anyone doubt that Lowell's statements were anti-Semitic? So, too, is the singling out of the Jewish state for faults that are far worse among other states.
<hr></blockquote>
I think the current anti-Americanism falls under the same premise. No one go changing the subject.
<strong>This thread reminds me of a great quote that Alan Dershowitz brought back to life recently.
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002514"; target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>
I think the current anti-Americanism falls under the same premise. No one go changing the subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, that doesn't excuse our actions because other people do it. It doesn't excuse our actions because only we are singled out in one thread. Our actions have been deplorable no matter how you look at it, and regardless of who brings it up or in what context it is brought up, our actions do not change nor are they justifiable.
The difference being two aspects:
1) We are talking about an entity here. ONE country. US. Not about the guilt or the action of all american citizents. We are not making blank statements about a number of countries. So you can´t compare it to someone speaking about jewS. You CAN however compare it to a courtroom where a defendant basing his defence on the fact that others are doing the same so he can´t see why someone is making a big fuzz out of him killing one person.
2) That my statement (which is totally honest and frank):
[quote] I would really like to know about it because nobody is perfect and I would work to change such a policy. <hr></blockquote>
is nowhere close to this:
[quote] You're changing the subject. We're talking about Jews. <hr></blockquote>
If you really mean what you write here Scott then we could never discuss any IR issues could we?
Let me limit it for you as much as I can: Do you think it was a good idea to support the dictatorship in Tajikistan for access to their bases in the war in Afghanistan? Do you think its a strategic sound policy to support a dictator that opress his people and how do you think they (most of them muslims) will react when they get rid of the now US backed government someday? Will they be with us or against us? And finally is it morally right to support a opressive dictator as a mean to another end?
<strong>
It wasn't?
Hmm, odd then, that the first post says:
Well, it's not about that at all. It's about being concerned about the State of this world. Think of it more as being together in the same small boat. </strong><hr></blockquote>
OK...let's all be as simple minded as we can....
"Taking on US foreign policy"
That's the point of the thread. In this thread it doesn't matter what Azerbaijan does.
<strong>Well, consider me the smoker suing the tobacco industry... (anyway it's more a nato issue than a UN issue, since it is the Nato mutual defence treaty the US called upon after 9/11.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How that makes any difference I don't know. You're still blaming someone else for your own problem.
You're just fine with that kind of logic? You don't mind giving your own government a free pass (on this topic in this forum) and instead blame the U.S.?
[quote]<strong>You still win... by far...</strong><hr></blockquote>
#s?
[quote]<strong>but you ship more than ever! with no real enemies left?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. having enemies has nothing to do with exports. The issue isn't production, it's selling and distribution throughout the world. Once again, you seem more interested in things that aren't the real issue.
One issue as a springboard for another, whether or not there's a connection, eh?
"The U.S. exports lots of guns when they don't have enemies and they log away forests and we're going to drown from the melted polar icecaps from global warming and Bush looks like a monkey and... uh... what was I saying?"
Others have enemies, that's why we export them. Either that or they like to have lots of nice weapons just in case enemies come along. Whatever.
Can you please stay on topic?
[quote]<strong>Ok, I'll bitch about them when I'm finished with you...</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you won't, at least not here. That's the problem here. It's evidenced by your myopic way of dealing with this. It's evidenced by your placing blame on the U.S. for your own nation's actions.
[quote]<strong>Well, if real analysis of the US foreign policy is my goal, then yes, wise(©) it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the goal is to analyze U.S. foreign policy then what use is the percentage of their share in global arms shipments?
If the goal is to analyze U.S. foreign policy one would use more U.S.-specific information and would most certainly not bring in issues that involved more than the U.S. (which you eagerly did). It's basic logic.
But you've made this about the world, so the world is the issue. The U.S. is not the entire world, as much as you would like to make it the devil in your quasi-religious portrayal of global politics.
[quote]<strong>landmines? Are you sure you want to get into that issue?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said that they aren't even close to being as important to the issue of arms hurting people as small-arms. Care to refute that?
They are bad and naughty and such, yes.
[quote]<strong>If you don't consider this a real issue, then feel free to buugerof... (or go read the link.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it's an issue, which is why it requires more intelligent discussion.
--
BR:
[quote]<strong>However, that doesn't excuse our actions because other people do it. It doesn't excuse our actions because only we are singled out in one thread. Our actions have been deplorable no matter how you look at it, and regardless of who brings it up or in what context it is brought up, our actions do not change nor are they justifiable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
point = missed
The reason you see justification in someone wanting to discuss the entire scope of the arms trade is because your goal is not analysis, but attack on one specific player.
I read all of what Scott said, and as much as I do not like the way Scott handles his points or puts out his arguments, he did not, in any way, attempt to say the United States selling arms to dangerous folks was a good thing. So for you to act as if he is is simply ignoring his real argument.
Analysis is one thing. What one does with that analysis is different entirely. Ideally anyway.
<strong>
I read all of what Scott said, and as much as I do not like the way Scott handles his points or puts out his arguments, he did not, in any way, attempt to say the United States selling arms to dangerous folks was a good thing. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe not, but what he is saying is that it's not worth talking about. That's a crock. If the US has the worst track record, then it deserves the most criticism. If no conservatives can come into this thread and defend the military aid the US gives then have the courage to admit that the US deserves strong criticism.
We will deal of these question of arms trades , including all the countries important in that aera : US , Russia, GB, France ...
The big question will be : who have a good moral policy with weapons trade ? .
Frankly i have no answer, many countries are ready to sell weapons to everyone, expecting to their ennemies.
Sometimes those weapons selled may hurt our own allies, like in the war between Argentina and Great britain, where a french built exocet missile destroy a british ship.
Weapons trade has nothing to do with moral. It show the hypocrasia of our beloved democratia, avenger at the service of the human rights unless their money and interest are concerned.
You're just fine with that kind of logic? You don't mind giving your own government a free pass (on this topic in this forum) and instead blame the U.S.? <hr></blockquote>
No, I'm blaming someone (the US) for many of the worlds problems. And I'm not only criticizing the sheer volume and distribution of the exported weaponry, but also the billions of dollars of military aid, which can't be excused by commercial interests. And I'm criticizing the the US governments choice of new allies, which includes supporting some pretty nasty dictatorships.
Frankly I think we should be able to discuss this issue. With the consequences it has for the Allies of the US and the rest of the world.
I started this topic by saying that this is worrying me. The weapon export of France, UK etc. probably sucks to. But it does not worry me as much right now. Sellafield worries me. "Hey brits! go stick Sellafield up your colonial asses!" But this is not a related issue.
I really haven't seen France or the UK set any real political world agenda lately. I don't see the same kind of warmongering going on with these nations. What shitty stuff France does in its old colonial backyard doesn't make me feel insecure, or drag my country of into one war after another.
I present the numbers of US weapons export and aid, newly published, for you to read and discuss. If anyone had any interesting european figures to add to this, it would clearly have been relevant, either to lessen or strengthen the criticism put forward. I'm not seeing any of this.
With the way the US is behaving I would certainly like my own government to reconsider the alliance it has made with the US. I know recent polls in Sweden (not a Nato member) suggests that the swedes are more negative to joining Nato than they have been in a long time. I think this should worry you.
This is an American report. by American scientists, on an american site. It is interesting (and disturbing) enough to be quoted in newspapers here in Norway.
Am I in someway disqualified from discussing this issue?
I even tried to prevent this kind of an argument by specifically addressing it in my post. Maybe that backfired.
If you want a more intelligent discussion then contribution is the way to go. And remember, its not just about export, its about Aid, training, alliances. The foreign policy of the only superpower left. And my country's most important ally.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
[quote]<strong>No, I'm blaming someone (the US) for many of the worlds problems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'm telling you that's short-sighted and ignorant. I'm telling you that's looking at world politics like a fundamentalist looks at his religion. Good sides, evil sides, etc...
There's more to the story, and anyone who says differently is either brainwashed or unable to deal with the complexities of global politics.
[quote]<strong>And I'm not only criticizing the sheer volume and distribution of the exported weaponry, but also the billions of dollars of military aid, which can't be excused by commercial interests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Be more specific about this "military aid".
And before you say "read that entire website" remember that it's you responsibility to make your arguments.
[quote]<strong>And I'm criticizing the the US governments choice of new allies, which includes supporting some pretty nasty dictatorships.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Be specific and on-topic.
[quote]<strong>Frankly I think we should be able to discuss this issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can, who is stopping you?
Do you mean to say "Frankly, I think everyone should love everything I say?"? I think that's your bitch, you're just pissed that someone will criticize your criticism.
[quote]<strong>I really haven't seen France or the UK set any real political world agenda lately.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't been paying much attention to the EU now have you?
[quote]<strong>I don't see the same kind of warmongering going on with these nations. What shitty stuff France does in its old colonial backyard doesn't make me feel insecure, or drag my country of into one war after another.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So it's about your "feelings" and perceptions, eh? I'm afraid that's not grounds for real discussion, as you are the only person living in your neurotic skin.
We, as a collective, can deal with facts, but when it comes to the whims of your fickle mind I'm afraid no one but yourself can be helpful.
[quote]<strong>I present the numbers of US weapons export and aid, newly published, for you to read and discuss. If anyone had any interesting european figures to add to this, it would clearly have been relevant, either to lessen or strengthen the criticism put forward. I'm not seeing any of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn't see where I posted that 50% of UK's small-arms exports go to politically tumultuous nations and how small-arms account for 90% of civilian casualties around the world? Did you not want to see it?
[quote]<strong>With the way the US is behaving I would certainly like my own government to reconsider the alliance it has made with the US. I know recent polls in Sweden (not a Nato member) suggests that the swedes are more negative to joining Nato than they have been in a long time. I think this should worry you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't worry me at all. Sweden isn't important. I'm more worried about Palestinians throwing rocks than Sweden. Is that part of what makes you angry? That your nation is so small and powerless yet you feel like you have such a big mind and voice?
The mouse is the mouse. The cat is the cat. That's the way it is.
Smaller European nations, in case you're blind, are very eagerly attempting to shove their way into global politics through the EU. Just listen at Belgium's Louis Michel discuss how the EU should take control of the global agenda. Listen to Gerhard Schroder promote expanding the EU's global power, "We are ready to make Europe into an international player with global influence." Pardon me if I don't cower before the moral indictments of a continent with a very bloody and violent recent past that makes the U.S. look like Boy Scouts looking to expand its spheres of influence around the world.
Sorry, friend, but you've got quite a large cancer right under your own feet you might want to look into. The nationalism of the European makes the nationalism of the American look like mini-me versus Yao Ming in the powerbook ad.
<strong>
There's more to the story, and anyone who says differently is either brainwashed or unable to deal with the complexities of global politics</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you really saying that the US is not at least partially to blame for many of the world's problems? If you don't even see that...you are in no position to talk about brainwashing.
<strong>The mouse is the mouse. The cat is the cat. That's the way it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By this are you agreeing with new or disagreeing with him? I mean apart from personally attacking him.
I would think that cats in general have a poor record of foreign policy when it comes to mice. Certainly not one the mice would want to emulate or applaud.
---------
Also slightly off topic but here's a couple of quotes from your oxfam link:
[quote]
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the Government and the arms industry went to extraordinary lengths to promote British arms sales.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]
Oxfam applauds the current initiative by the British Government for an EU Code of Conduct on the export of arms, one which aims to set 'high common standards' across EU member states.
<hr></blockquote>
Any astute observers of the UK political scene want to guess what changed between these two quotes? Give in?
The right wingers got put out of power.
Thank ****.
<strong>
Are you really saying that the US is not at least partially to blame for many of the world's problems? If you don't even see that...you are in no position to talk about brainwashing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spoken like a brainwashed AI member. The US is always to blame. Either for doing something or for not doing something. Either say the anti-US crowd have something to bitch about.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
Spoken like a brainwashed AI member. The US is always to blame. Either for doing something or for not doing something. Either say the anti-US crowed have something to bitch about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is IGNORANT to believe that the actions or inactions of the US can't have global ramifications.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
Spoken like a brainwashed AI member. The US is always to blame. Either for doing something or for not doing something. Either say the anti-US crowd have something to bitch about. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's so funny how conservatives bitch and moan about personal liability and lawsuits, but when it comes to our beloved country everything is so hands off. No one is responsible...not even the government itself! It's like a split personality it's so unreal.
No, I'm blaming someone (the US) for many of the worlds problems.
----
And I'm telling you that's short-sighted and ignorant. I'm telling you that's looking at world politics like a fundamentalist looks at his religion. Good sides, evil sides, etc...
There's more to the story, and anyone who says differently is either brainwashed or unable to deal with the complexities of global politics.<hr></blockquote>
I never said anything about good or bad sides. As far as I can tell all sides are at least somewhat bad. Last time I checked we were on the same side, but lately this concept seems to have become a bit blured, and I can't figure out how these lame central-asian dictatorships became our friends.
[quote]Be more specific about this "military aid"<hr></blockquote>
Djibouti $ 6.400.000 (in military AID after 9/11)
Indonesia $ 76.900.000
Kyrgyzstan $ 87.800.000
Nepal $ 29.500.000
Pakistan $ 1.293.500.000 (wow!)
Phillippines $ 82.900.000
Tajikistan $ 70.400.000
Uzbekistan $ 19.200.000
Yemen $ 38.600.000
[quote]Frankly I think we should be able to discuss this issue.
---
You can, who is stopping you?
Do you mean to say "Frankly, I think everyone should love everything I say?"? I think that's your bitch, you're just pissed that someone will criticize your criticism. <hr></blockquote>Err? You criticizing me instead of addressing the issue is what's derailing this thread right now... You still haven't addressed any of the issues I but forward. Instead you seem to want to hold me responsible for Europe's wrongdoings.
[quote]You haven't been paying much attention to the EU now have you? <hr></blockquote>
Be specific and on-topic.
[quote] You didn't see where I posted that 50% of UK's small-arms exports go to politically tumultuous nations and how small-arms account for 90% of civilian casualties around the world? Did you not want to see it? <hr></blockquote>
This is disturbing, yes, but doesn't say anything about how many weapons the UK is exporting. I really can't comment before I know if the UK sells small arms for 50 cents a year or 50 million dollars. I need to be able to compare it to something.
[quote]It doesn't worry me at all. Sweden isn't important. I'm more worried about Palestinians throwing rocks than Sweden. Is that part of what makes you angry? That your nation is so small and powerless yet you feel like you have such a big mind and voice? <hr></blockquote>
No, what worries me is US made Apache Helicopters being used to liquidate people inside civilian buildings. But that export isn't even covered in my original post, since I only focused on the countries criticized by the US State Department.
I'm actually quite happy that my nation is small and powerless. makes tragedies like 9/11 so much less likely to happen here. This doesn't mean I'm a big fan of my current government, but luckily that remains a local issue.
If your not worried about how your traditional democratic allies are loosing faith in your, then fine. Go backpacking in Tajikistan next year.
You seem to be grabbing desperately for arguments here. We're not discussing nationalism. Nor the EU's aspiring ambitions in international politics (certainly worth a thread of its own).
Your arguments are clubing each other to death here, european nationalism is one of the factors slowing down EU progress right now.
And for the Belgians, boy, do they have a nasty history in foreign policy... worth a whole thread that to. I read some bad stuff about Leopold and the Congo. But I'm not belgian now, am I?
And the topic was?
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>