<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>
Once again, learn to read before participating. Do you even try to actually participate in a discussion or are you just trolling?
Sez me:
Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Do you want to see that? Can you read those words and understand what they mean or will you continue to ignore it because it forces you out of your tired and trite "Oh, you're just a blind 'patriot'" mindset?
The U.S. does very very naughty things, yes. We have shipped guns to some very very naughty people, yes. How many times do I say it before you see that I have said it.
*circle begins again*
stupider:
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ever heard stories about what a number of mice will do to a baby left in its crib?
No side is pretty. I know many of us like to have our black/white good/evil view of the world, but that ain't so.
New:
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're on the same side? And you are mad at your government for following the U.S.?
Pick an argument and stick with it.
[quote]<strong>Djibouti $ 6.400.000 (in military AID after 9/11) ... Yemen $ 38.600.000</strong><hr></blockquote>
And...?
I notice the (wow) next to Pakistan and that's certainly a very interesting study of the U.S. past in dealing with nasty folk to get rid of what it considers nastier folk (and when I say "U.S." I mean the administration leading the U.S., not necessarily the citizens).
Pakistan is, of course, a military dictatorship in a democracy skin. Much like Iraq was/is when Saddam was our friendly ally against the Iranians. I find Pakistan to be less worrying, however, because even though they have nuclear capabilities Musharraf is a long ways from Hussein.
Do I like it? Nope.
Was there a point? Yep.
Sometimes you have to make deals with people you'd rather not. We felt like we needed Pakistan's support, and this is how we bought that support.
[quote]<strong>Instead you seem to want to hold me responsible for Europe's wrongdoings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you sure it doesn't say anything at all?
Oxfam research shows that the UK has exported small arms to over 100 countries since 1995. The report also reveals for the first time that at least 120 UK companies are involved in the small arms trade.
Nothing? Hmm.
Let's take two fact sets:
The U.S. made $13 billion in military sales agreements in 2000.
The U.K. has shipped light-arms (the cause of 90% of civilian casualties worldwide) to over 100 countries since 1995, at least 120 U.K. companies make small-arms.
No ideas about the volume? Which one means more than the other in terms of real volume or, more importantly, real human impact?
$13 billion is a lot. A hell of a chunk of change. Since we're looking at dollar figures let's look at the France deal with Singapore I mentioned earlier. $1.6 billion for a handful of frigates. Safe to assume that the large portion of U.S. arms sales are very large ticket items? The U.S. is essentially the main player in big military hardware... would you agree?
Data on U.S. military exports are relatively easy to find. And when I say that I mean relative to info on the UK's dealings.
The United States continues, as during the cold war, to be a major exporter of light weaponry around the world, and by all available evidence, legal exports of shotguns, small arms and ammunition have been increasing in recent past years. Because other governments are not open about their light weapons shipments, it is not possible to rank the United States' place in the global small arms trade - (<a href="http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/AAAS.html"; target="_blank">clicky</a>)
Damn!
U.S. is naughty when it comes to small-arms (the real problem in arms trade), but just how naughty we can't really know until our friendlies fess up to how many boomsticks they ship out each year. Why wouldn't they? Politics? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if Apaches weren't being flown, other helis would be flown. If the U.S. were to take a moral stand and say "no more fighters!" that one of the relatively few European/Russian alternatives wouldn't take their place?
The U.S. isn't providing anything that wouldn't otherwise be there. So it's naughty, yes, but let's not blow it our of proportion.
I don't think anyone in this world will argue the fact that the U.S. ships out arms to nasty folks, which raises the question: What's the purpose of discussing a universally-recognize truth?
[quote]We're on the same side? And you are mad at your government for following the U.S.? <hr></blockquote>
Yes we are, and no, I'm not to comfortable about it.
Nice to see how you've modified yourself out of a corner and onto the issue.
[quote]Sometimes you have to make deals with people you'd rather not. We felt like we needed Pakistan's support, and this is how we bought that support.<hr></blockquote>
Like you did with the mujahedin...
The disturbing thing about Pakistan is that we really don't know who will be running the show over there in the near future. It could very well be someone who makes Musharraf look like Barney the Purple Dinosaur. How smart can it be to pump that rotten country full of a billion dollars worth of military aid is beyond me. a country just recently at the verge of war with India (another recipient of almost a 100 million dollars of US millitary Aid since 9/11).
[quote] The U.S. isn't providing anything that wouldn't otherwise be there. So it's naughty, yes, but let's not blow it our of proportion. <hr></blockquote>
Proportions? I'm being criticized for describing the proportions. 45,8 % of the 12,1 billion $ global arms market, plus aid making it a 13,1 billion $ total. And both trade and aid is growing.
What you're saying about the UK small-arms shipment is interesting and disturbing. But I don't see why it should lessen my criticism of the US foreign policy. The fact is that the UK is the closest ally of the US, and much of the blame I put on your foreign policy is shared by the UK. Like the ridiculous "no-fly" zone over about 50% of Iraqi territory, enforced by said governments.
[quote] I don't think anyone in this world will argue the fact that the U.S. ships out arms to nasty folks, which raises the question: What's the purpose of discussing a universally-recognize truth? <hr></blockquote>
<strong>Like you did with the mujahedin...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep.
[quote]<strong>The disturbing thing about Pakistan is that we really don't know who will be running the show over there in the near future. It could very well be someone who makes Musharraf look like Barney the Purple Dinosaur. How smart can it be to pump that rotten country full of a billion dollars worth of military aid is beyond me. a country just recently at the verge of war with India (another recipient of almost a 100 million dollars of US millitary Aid since 9/11).</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's smart for now because we got the support we needed to complete our objectives. I don't think anyone is saying it was a good thing (and if you'd bother to read I said myself I didn't like it).
while: horse==dead
beat();
[quote]<strong>What you're saying about the UK small-arms shipment is interesting and disturbing. But I don't see why it should lessen my criticism of the US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It should certainly put it in perspective, and in my opinion that very much lessens the impact of the U.S.'s military exports. For decades people in Eastern Europe and Africa have been killing each other with light-arms made not in the U.S., but in Russia and Europe. Last I checked there aren't AK-47 factories in Kentucky.
To be fair you've only pointed out one recent set of U.S.-provided arms doing bad things: stingers in Afghanistan.
Landmines throughout Eastern Europe? Not made in the U.S.
Light-arms used in Kosovo and Chechnya? Not made in the U.S.
Terrorist light-arms in the Middle East? Not made in the U.S. (for the most part).
(Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.)
Like you said, we all live in the same boat, and as long as myopic critics moan about one passenger and ignore the others it isn't going to be a happy boat.
Specific examples of U.S.-provided arms doing very bad things would be great. I can give you a lot from the 80s in South America, but that's a while back.
Specific examples of U.S.-provided arms doing very bad things would be great. I can give you a lot from the 80s in South America, but that's a while back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are we counting the stuff the US used to kill people or just the use by bad people that the US sells stuff to?
<strong>Once again, learn to read before participating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Way to promote civil discussion moderator man.
[quote]<strong>Do you even try to actually participate in a discussion or are you just trolling?
Sez me:
Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Do you want to see that? Can you read those words and understand what they mean or will you continue to ignore it because it forces
you out of your tired and trite "Oh, you're just a blind 'patriot'" mindset?
The U.S. does very very naughty things, yes. We have shipped guns to some very very naughty people, yes. How many times do I say it before you see that I have said it.
*circle begins again*</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you said this:
[quote]Groverat the angry and uncivil moderator:
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.<hr></blockquote>
There is nothing wrong with taking a moment and simply looking at what the US does wrong and what we can do to fix it. That doesn't mean we can't go looking at other countries as well, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with focusing on one to discuss. Do we have to talk about every single country that violates human rights every single time we bring up China? Why can't we have a focused discussion?
Your flames are really unnecessary and you are supposed to be a moderator to set the example. Cut it out please.
<strong>There is nothing wrong with taking a moment and simply looking at what the US does wrong and what we can do to fix it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you post some specifics already in relation to the topic? I've been asking since the first page.
[quote]<strong>Do we have to talk about every single country that violates human rights every single time we bring up China? Why can't we have a focused discussion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's a world issue you discuss the world impact. If you don't want to discuss the world then pick a topic that doesn't have so many international implications.
Human rights violations can essentially occur in a vaccuum in regards to involved parties, that analogy is beyond flawed.
<strong>You aren't one to lecture on flames, friend.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That ties in nicely with my rant about judge the message and not the messenger. The fact is you have been on a flaming rampage lately and you are a moderator who I thought wasn't supposed to act that way. My message was good. You just decided to ignore it because you don't like the messenger.
Ooh, I love it when everything ties together so nicely.
<strong>If it's a world issue you discuss the world impact. If you don't want to discuss the world then pick a topic that doesn't have so many international implications.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
US foreign policy has a direct impact on how we are viewed throughout the world. Giving military support to dictators that oppress their people hurts us in the long run. Did we learn nothing from our successes in Japan and Germany? Did we learn nothing from our failure in Iraq (hell, we PUT saddam in there...more specifically...RUMSFELD put him there)? There is NOTHING WRONG with looking at individual US policies without bringing up everyone other damn country's policies as well. I can't believe you don't understand that.
If it's a world issue you discuss the world impact. If you don't want to discuss the world then pick a topic that doesn't have so many international implications.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just dumb. The United States has a tremendous impact on the world's arms trade. As an 'Merican that bothers me. I don't actually care about Bhutan's arms sales.
<strong>There is NOTHING WRONG with looking at individual US policies without bringing up everyone other damn country's policies as well. I can't believe you don't understand that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hijacking someone's topic is not very nice at all. The topic was not about nation-building or dictator-support. It was about arms exports.
Hijacking someone's topic is not very nice at all. The topic was not about nation-building or dictator-support. It was about arms exports. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Providing military support to dictatorships via arms exports to said dictatorships has nothing to do with supporting said dictatorships. Jesus-Allah-Buddha dude grow up.
Comments
<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>
Once again, learn to read before participating. Do you even try to actually participate in a discussion or are you just trolling?
Sez me:
Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Do you want to see that? Can you read those words and understand what they mean or will you continue to ignore it because it forces you out of your tired and trite "Oh, you're just a blind 'patriot'" mindset?
The U.S. does very very naughty things, yes. We have shipped guns to some very very naughty people, yes. How many times do I say it before you see that I have said it.
*circle begins again*
stupider:
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ever heard stories about what a number of mice will do to a baby left in its crib?
No side is pretty. I know many of us like to have our black/white good/evil view of the world, but that ain't so.
New:
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're on the same side? And you are mad at your government for following the U.S.?
Pick an argument and stick with it.
[quote]<strong>Djibouti $ 6.400.000 (in military AID after 9/11) ... Yemen $ 38.600.000</strong><hr></blockquote>
And...?
I notice the (wow) next to Pakistan and that's certainly a very interesting study of the U.S. past in dealing with nasty folk to get rid of what it considers nastier folk (and when I say "U.S." I mean the administration leading the U.S., not necessarily the citizens).
Pakistan is, of course, a military dictatorship in a democracy skin. Much like Iraq was/is when Saddam was our friendly ally against the Iranians. I find Pakistan to be less worrying, however, because even though they have nuclear capabilities Musharraf is a long ways from Hussein.
Do I like it? Nope.
Was there a point? Yep.
Sometimes you have to make deals with people you'd rather not. We felt like we needed Pakistan's support, and this is how we bought that support.
[quote]<strong>Instead you seem to want to hold me responsible for Europe's wrongdoings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That's beautiful. I hope you see the irony.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you sure it doesn't say anything at all?
Oxfam research shows that the UK has exported small arms to over 100 countries since 1995. The report also reveals for the first time that at least 120 UK companies are involved in the small arms trade.
Nothing? Hmm.
Let's take two fact sets:
The U.S. made $13 billion in military sales agreements in 2000.
The U.K. has shipped light-arms (the cause of 90% of civilian casualties worldwide) to over 100 countries since 1995, at least 120 U.K. companies make small-arms.
No ideas about the volume? Which one means more than the other in terms of real volume or, more importantly, real human impact?
$13 billion is a lot. A hell of a chunk of change. Since we're looking at dollar figures let's look at the France deal with Singapore I mentioned earlier. $1.6 billion for a handful of frigates. Safe to assume that the large portion of U.S. arms sales are very large ticket items? The U.S. is essentially the main player in big military hardware... would you agree?
Data on U.S. military exports are relatively easy to find. And when I say that I mean relative to info on the UK's dealings.
The United States continues, as during the cold war, to be a major exporter of light weaponry around the world, and by all available evidence, legal exports of shotguns, small arms and ammunition have been increasing in recent past years. Because other governments are not open about their light weapons shipments, it is not possible to rank the United States' place in the global small arms trade - (<a href="http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/AAAS.html"; target="_blank">clicky</a>)
Damn!
U.S. is naughty when it comes to small-arms (the real problem in arms trade), but just how naughty we can't really know until our friendlies fess up to how many boomsticks they ship out each year. Why wouldn't they? Politics? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if Apaches weren't being flown, other helis would be flown. If the U.S. were to take a moral stand and say "no more fighters!" that one of the relatively few European/Russian alternatives wouldn't take their place?
The U.S. isn't providing anything that wouldn't otherwise be there. So it's naughty, yes, but let's not blow it our of proportion.
I don't think anyone in this world will argue the fact that the U.S. ships out arms to nasty folks, which raises the question: What's the purpose of discussing a universally-recognize truth?
Yes we are, and no, I'm not to comfortable about it.
Nice to see how you've modified yourself out of a corner and onto the issue.
[quote]Sometimes you have to make deals with people you'd rather not. We felt like we needed Pakistan's support, and this is how we bought that support.<hr></blockquote>
Like you did with the mujahedin...
The disturbing thing about Pakistan is that we really don't know who will be running the show over there in the near future. It could very well be someone who makes Musharraf look like Barney the Purple Dinosaur. How smart can it be to pump that rotten country full of a billion dollars worth of military aid is beyond me. a country just recently at the verge of war with India (another recipient of almost a 100 million dollars of US millitary Aid since 9/11).
[quote] The U.S. isn't providing anything that wouldn't otherwise be there. So it's naughty, yes, but let's not blow it our of proportion. <hr></blockquote>
Proportions? I'm being criticized for describing the proportions.
What you're saying about the UK small-arms shipment is interesting and disturbing. But I don't see why it should lessen my criticism of the US foreign policy. The fact is that the UK is the closest ally of the US, and much of the blame I put on your foreign policy is shared by the UK. Like the ridiculous "no-fly" zone over about 50% of Iraqi territory, enforced by said governments.
[quote] I don't think anyone in this world will argue the fact that the U.S. ships out arms to nasty folks, which raises the question: What's the purpose of discussing a universally-recognize truth? <hr></blockquote>
Change man, change...
<strong>Like you did with the mujahedin...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep.
[quote]<strong>The disturbing thing about Pakistan is that we really don't know who will be running the show over there in the near future. It could very well be someone who makes Musharraf look like Barney the Purple Dinosaur. How smart can it be to pump that rotten country full of a billion dollars worth of military aid is beyond me. a country just recently at the verge of war with India (another recipient of almost a 100 million dollars of US millitary Aid since 9/11).</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's smart for now because we got the support we needed to complete our objectives. I don't think anyone is saying it was a good thing (and if you'd bother to read I said myself I didn't like it).
while: horse==dead
beat();
[quote]<strong>What you're saying about the UK small-arms shipment is interesting and disturbing. But I don't see why it should lessen my criticism of the US foreign policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It should certainly put it in perspective, and in my opinion that very much lessens the impact of the U.S.'s military exports. For decades people in Eastern Europe and Africa have been killing each other with light-arms made not in the U.S., but in Russia and Europe. Last I checked there aren't AK-47 factories in Kentucky.
To be fair you've only pointed out one recent set of U.S.-provided arms doing bad things: stingers in Afghanistan.
Landmines throughout Eastern Europe? Not made in the U.S.
Light-arms used in Kosovo and Chechnya? Not made in the U.S.
Terrorist light-arms in the Middle East? Not made in the U.S. (for the most part).
(Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.)
Like you said, we all live in the same boat, and as long as myopic critics moan about one passenger and ignore the others it isn't going to be a happy boat.
Specific examples of U.S.-provided arms doing very bad things would be great. I can give you a lot from the 80s in South America, but that's a while back.
<strong>
Specific examples of U.S.-provided arms doing very bad things would be great. I can give you a lot from the 80s in South America, but that's a while back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are we counting the stuff the US used to kill people or just the use by bad people that the US sells stuff to?
<strong>Once again, learn to read before participating.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Way to promote civil discussion moderator man.
[quote]<strong>Do you even try to actually participate in a discussion or are you just trolling?
Sez me:
Are U.S. arms used for naughty purposes? Bet your ass.
Is the U.S. naughty sometimes? Surely.
Do you want to see that? Can you read those words and understand what they mean or will you continue to ignore it because it forces
you out of your tired and trite "Oh, you're just a blind 'patriot'" mindset?
The U.S. does very very naughty things, yes. We have shipped guns to some very very naughty people, yes. How many times do I say it before you see that I have said it.
*circle begins again*</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you said this:
[quote]Groverat the angry and uncivil moderator:
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.<hr></blockquote>
There is nothing wrong with taking a moment and simply looking at what the US does wrong and what we can do to fix it. That doesn't mean we can't go looking at other countries as well, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with focusing on one to discuss. Do we have to talk about every single country that violates human rights every single time we bring up China? Why can't we have a focused discussion?
Your flames are really unnecessary and you are supposed to be a moderator to set the example. Cut it out please.
<strong>anybody got the stats on Bhutan?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well we can't talk about the EU until we have the stats on Bhutan.
<strong>There is nothing wrong with taking a moment and simply looking at what the US does wrong and what we can do to fix it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you post some specifics already in relation to the topic? I've been asking since the first page.
[quote]<strong>Do we have to talk about every single country that violates human rights every single time we bring up China? Why can't we have a focused discussion?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's a world issue you discuss the world impact. If you don't want to discuss the world then pick a topic that doesn't have so many international implications.
Human rights violations can essentially occur in a vaccuum in regards to involved parties, that analogy is beyond flawed.
You aren't one to lecture on flames, friend.
<strong>You aren't one to lecture on flames, friend.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That ties in nicely with my rant about judge the message and not the messenger. The fact is you have been on a flaming rampage lately and you are a moderator who I thought wasn't supposed to act that way. My message was good. You just decided to ignore it because you don't like the messenger.
Ooh, I love it when everything ties together so nicely.
<strong>If it's a world issue you discuss the world impact. If you don't want to discuss the world then pick a topic that doesn't have so many international implications.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
US foreign policy has a direct impact on how we are viewed throughout the world. Giving military support to dictators that oppress their people hurts us in the long run. Did we learn nothing from our successes in Japan and Germany? Did we learn nothing from our failure in Iraq (hell, we PUT saddam in there...more specifically...RUMSFELD put him there)? There is NOTHING WRONG with looking at individual US policies without bringing up everyone other damn country's policies as well. I can't believe you don't understand that.
<strong>
If it's a world issue you discuss the world impact. If you don't want to discuss the world then pick a topic that doesn't have so many international implications.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just dumb. The United States has a tremendous impact on the world's arms trade. As an 'Merican that bothers me. I don't actually care about Bhutan's arms sales.
<strong>There is NOTHING WRONG with looking at individual US policies without bringing up everyone other damn country's policies as well. I can't believe you don't understand that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hijacking someone's topic is not very nice at all. The topic was not about nation-building or dictator-support. It was about arms exports.
Perhaps you could start your own thread?
--
Anyone want to discuss the topic?
Anyone have anything to add that relates?
Answers to my on-topic questions?
<strong>
Hijacking someone's topic is not very nice at all. The topic was not about nation-building or dictator-support. It was about arms exports. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Providing military support to dictatorships via arms exports to said dictatorships has nothing to do with supporting said dictatorships. Jesus-Allah-Buddha dude grow up.
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>