dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
The Arms Trade
-
I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to say… :-?
-
No we disagree over a hypothetical situation. You believe giving a third world nation about to be overrun 1,000 machine guns or a platoon of M1s helpful.
If China was going to invade Mogolia, what good would selling Mongolia some F-16s do?
The only way we can stop that kind of aggression is by getting into the middle of it. We sold S. Korea a bunch of guns, and if N. Korea wants to invade S. Korea, and we weren’t there, S. Korea would be screwed. With us there, even if S. Korea had no army, they would not invade.
The U.S. using it’s dominance to countermand aggression in this modern world of ours is what we intellectuals like to call a global unipolar creating regional balances of power via it’s unique ability to project power.
-
If China was secretly sponsoring a group of rebels in Mongolia, then what would be our option?
-
The only way we can stop that kind of aggression is by getting into the middle of it. We sold S. Korea a bunch of guns, and if N. Korea wants to invade S. Korea, and we weren’t there, S. Korea would be screwed. With us there, even if S. Korea had no army, they would not invade.
But if the nation has the capability to defend themselves just not the means, ie has men but no weapons. Should the US’s only solution be to throw US soldiers into the middle?
And how would we deal with other nations that would capitalize on the US being out of the arms bussiness? That’s 7.8 billion out of the US economy and into someone elses.
As for your resolution I think the penalties should be tougher against the individual. I would increase the max jail time to 5 years, its’s easier to get off with probation on a 6 month sentence.
Also I weary of the corporate penalty. In a billion dollar company getting a 100 million dollar fine could lead to a couple factories shutting down. Thus leaving thousands unemployed while the execs suffer only a stock drop. I’m not certain how best to state it but should be rethinked. -
The U.S. using it’s dominance to countermand aggression in this modern world of ours is what we intellectuals like to call a global unipolar creating regional balances of power via it’s unique ability to project power.
America can’t afford to be everywhere at once, just stationing US troops somewhere excites hate a lot of times… :-?
No we disagree over a hypothetical situation. You believe giving a third world nation about to be overrun 1,000 machine guns or a platoon of M1s helpful.
If China was going to invade Mogolia, what good would selling Mongolia some F-16s do?
Notice how I said domestic and foreign insurgents… :-?
What about the equopment US provided for Finland when they were attacked by Russians? It sure helped a lot… -
Did selling weapons to S. Vietnam help?
I did not advocate getting in the middle of civil wars, I advocated using our ability to destroy any country to scare off aggressors.
If their is a civil war, economic aid will do much more to help the government win than assault rifles.
To reiterate my points, arms sales to third world nations decreases and retards development, and lines the pockets of corporate fatcats without adding to our economy.
One added point, the Europeans are worse than the U.S. on this. With a bill like this we would have an area where we would hold a tremendous high ground.
-
Did selling weapons to S. Vietnam help?
Did stationing more troops in Vietnam to stablize the region help? (in response to your support of a US build-up in S. Korea :-?)
I did not advocate getting in the middle of civil wars, I advocated using our ability to destroy any country to scare off aggressors.
Then you would disagree with what Clinton did during the Kosovo Civil War. And what does using your ability to “destroy” other countries result in? Destabilization? Innocent Civilian Deaths? Widespread Famine? Economic Disaster? :-?
If their is a civil war, economic aid will do much more to help the government win than assault rifles
Once again you have misunderstood me… :-? I never said that economic aid was bad. In fact, I prefer economic aid in addition to military aid.
To reiterate my points, arms sales to third world nations decreases and retards development, and lines the pockets of corporate fatcats without adding to our economy.
Your Bill never specifies if the arms have to be sold at “market price.” What if I were to sell 1000 M16s for the price of $1.00 (very similar to what Americans did to help UK out before entering WWII)? :-?
-
@TG:
Did stationing more troops in Vietnam to stablize the region help? (in response to your support of a US build-up in S. Korea :-?)
Moses, pay attention, I am for removing ALL of our troops from S. Korea.
I am against us sending in U.S. troops into civil wars, also, like VIetnam. Korea was valid, but Vietnam was a civil war.
What I said was that these weapons retard the development of infrastructure and education, in addition to eating up budgets. Proliferation of these weapons NEVER ends well.
If we want to stabilize a country, economic aid/U.N. peacekeepers are the way to go.
Moses, if you want to know about the effect the arms trade has on Developing countries, read “The No-Nonsense guide to the Arms Trade” Or similiar material. Otherwise, you just don’t have all the facts.
-
MOses, we can scare off belligerent countries with our ability to project force. We don’t have to do anything violent. Just frighten.
-
I am against us sending in U.S. troops into civil wars, also, like VIetnam. Korea was valid, but Vietnam was a civil war.
The Afghan invasion can also be looked at as a civil war…
Moses, pay attention, I am for removing ALL of our troops from S. Korea.
Hmmmm….
The only way we can stop that kind of aggression is by getting into the middle of it. We sold S. Korea a bunch of guns, and if N. Korea wants to invade S. Korea, and we weren’t there, S. Korea would be screwed. With us there, even if S. Korea had no army, they would not invade.
Right… :-?
MOses, we can scare off belligerent countries with our ability to project force. We don’t have to do anything violent. Just frighten.
What I said was that these weapons retard the development of infrastructure and education, in addition to eating up budgets. Proliferation of these weapons NEVER ends well.
Fractions foreign and domestic coming in the invade the country retard development and infrastructure and education… :-?
Moses, if you want to know about the effect the arms trade has on Developing countries, read “The No-Nonsense guide to the Arms Trade” Or similiar material. Otherwise, you just don’t have all the facts.
If you’ve read it, then I wouldn’t already be so impressed by it… :-?
If we want to stabilize a country, economic aid/U.N. peacekeepers are the way to go.
Great job it did to the warlords in Africa… :-?
-
Moses, with the two quotes about our forces in Korea, one is about what happened/is happening, and the other is what I want.
Moses, give me an example of selling weapons to a third world country that ended well. WE often have these weapons turned against us.
Moses, about Afganistan, I didn’t say we should become involved in it. As much as it may surprise you, attacking the Taliban was not my decision.
Moses, I could give you details about studies showing that the more weapons sold to 3rd world countries the lower the quality of life, quality of education, more killing, etc. But you have never disputed the fact that selling these weapons to 3rd world countries causes terrible damage.
Moses, your reasoning is the same as that of POliticians in the pocket of arms companies. Politicians like former President Bill CLinton.
YOu know, if the peacekeepers hadn’t pulled out of Rwanda there wouldn’t have been that great massacre.
-
Moses, if you want to check my sources check out
or
-
MOses, we can scare off belligerent countries with our ability to project force. We don’t have to do anything violent. Just frighten.
If you would only stick to that…
but at the moment it seems like frightening Saddam Hussein is not enough for the US government… -
Problem is, US and other countries pull out of peacekeeping missions when people start dieing, even in small numbers. Case in point, Sierra Leon and Somalia.
-
I think rarely that is the reason for the pull out. But the answer is that the U.S. could police the world, but other countries and the U.S. don’t want to.
-
Are you crazy? No way in hell we could “police” the world.
Would you allow Chineese “Policemen” (Lets call them Special Forces anti-Terrorist people) into our country?
The power to “police” the world does not stand in one country. Do you even believe in the concept of Democracy? Or are you an Imperialist? Britain, France, Spain, and Japan have all given up Imperialism. They saw it was wrong. Imperialism was the greatest evil the world had seen in thousands of years, maybe the greatest evil ever. Do you want the United States to become the next greatest evil?
-
I hate to interrupt what used to be wonderful “lovefest,” but I will anyway. First, I like your proposal YB. Second, if I post my term paper on this forum, will I get some feedback? It’s a debate term paper I did for my Government class. The topic is disarmament. It includes industry, military, and political inefficiency and waste, but also why keeping arms is good. I just want to try it.
-
Go ahead, I got an A on the paper I posted here a few months back :) Thanks CC!
-
Go ahead, I got an A on the paper I posted here a few months back :) Thanks CC!
Groovy.
I’d take a look at your paper, but not right now - too busy. If i decide to, i’d look at it in word doc if you liked. -
What I mean by "policing’ is interceding into genocides, that kind of thing.
Suggested Topics
