Flame of the day (FotD)

Skordopordonikos · Post by **Skordopordonikos** » January 24, 2003, 5:31 pm

[quote="Fallanthas
Bullshit, sir.

Now, tell me the last time you saw any photograph of a terrorist holding an M-16.....
[/quote]

Falla, you make me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Anyone in South America or gee... Afghanistan want to field this? It's just in our papers they're usually referred to as 'freedom fighters'. gaaaa...

I swear the biggest single problem with the American education is the concept of scale. I'm going to paste a link, please read it. He has taken the time to collect and collate quite a bit of data that is pertinent to this topic.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sm ... useeds.htm

Here are a few paras for those that don't wish to go there:

... now that some pesky arms export controls had been lifted by the Bush administration. Bush wanted to reward Pakistan for its cooperation in the hunt for Osama bin Laden by lifting an arms export ban on Pakistan. To maintain the balance of power in the region, he had to do the same for India. Now some analysts worry that the two nuclear powers are on the verge of a potentially costly and destabilizing arms race, if not outright war.

America's defense industry is clearly big business at home the 2003 budget of $360 billion represents nearly half the total of all world military procurement spending. While such a sizable outlay naturally draws its share of critics, it is America's comparatively smaller arms-for-export industry that can generate even more controversy.

.... as much as $2 billion in direct arms shipments from the United States flooded into Afghanistan and Pakistan during the 1980s, arming the Taliban and arguably contributing to this previously obscure group of Islamic radicals seizing power in 1994.

This is likely to be good news for U.S. arms manufacturers. At approximately $800 billion annually, the military procurement industry is, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, perhaps the world's single largest market; the $400 billion global trade in illicit drugs is a distant second. In recent years, U.S. arms manufacturers have reached a market dominance that would be the envy of other manufacturing sector leaders. Twelve of the world's top 20 arms-producing companies are located in the United States.

In 1989, the then Soviet Union was the planet's major weapons supplier, exporting nearly $20 billion in arms to Warsaw Pact and other client states most in the developing world. That year, the United States delivered just $17.3 billion in arms exports. The lion share of its exports$12.2 billion went to its NATO allies in the economically developed world. But with the collapse of the Iron Curtain, a noisy queue of new customers, no longer required to hand over company script for inferior weaponry at the Soviet Union's threadbare commissary, has been lining up at "Arms 'R U.S." to purchase more sophisticated and expensive American-made weapons packages.

By 1999, according to the most recent data released by the U.S. State Department's World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) report, the arms-export market experienced a sharp reversal. Economically beleaguered Russia exported only $3.1 billion in arms while the U.S. shipped $33 billion in weaponry-half of the world exports of supersonic combat fighters, more than one third of all land armaments. The U.S. in 1999 managed to control an eye-popping 64 percent of the global total of $51.6 billion in arms exports.

the State Department and the Pentagon have actually taken a very active role in promoting arms sales. The syndrome became acute during the Clinton administration when arms exports doubled but shows no sign of diminishing now.

Though the arms-export trade can mean billions of dollars in sales to specific companies... the entire arms-export industry represents only a tiny fraction of total U.S. export trade some $30 billion in annual sales out of a total export volume that typically approaches or exceeds $1 trillion each year. She adds that in terms of creating new jobs or an overall multiplier effect throughout the economy, federal dollars invested in the arms industry which has become synonymous with waste and redundancy realize fewer gains than they would if directed at propping up or energizing virtually any other U.S. manufacturing sector.

One of the most troubling aspects of the arms-export industry is the impact it has on particularly vulnerable societies in the developing world. Between 1993 and 2000, arms deliveries to developing nations comprised 68 percent of all such deliveries worldwide. In 2000, the United States ranked first in arms exports to developing nations, accounting for almost half of all such deliveries.

Currently the U.S. Is not engaged in an ongoing export-controls negotiation being conducted among the world's other arms manufacturing heavyweights: Germany, Great Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, and Spain.

In 1999, 80 percent of the arms exports out of Great Britain and France went to developing nations.

Sigh.... I get so angry at this crap, I literally start shaking and have to close my web browser for a while. But please, if you REALLY want to know, follow this link for more about the topic.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sm ... lwindx.htm

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 5:49 pm

Nice, use the numbers for our exported arms to allied countries. Make no distinction between sales of fighters to Britan and rifles to the Afghanis.

Very nice... and misleading as hell.

The U.S has every right, even the strategic responsibility, to evaluate the social conditions in other countries

Well fuck me running. Here the U.S. is being lambasted on a daily basis for sticking our noses into other countries affairs, but now we are supposed to evaluate whether or not a country should be spending it's monies on armaments? WTF!!

Make up your mind. You either want us to play big brother or you don't. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 24, 2003, 5:53 pm

Of course you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that a majority of the U.S. "arms" that are sold are defense systems. About half of the $30 billion in "arms" sales were on air to air missile defense systems alone. Other huge chunks of this were in sales of F-16 and other fighter jets. Selling defense does NOT equate to "arming the world" with weapons to destroy others.

It also occurs to me that Iraq's air farce was powered mostly by Mig fighters. Seems that with all the support we threw at Iraq to get Saddam in power that we somehow missed equipping them with tanks, planes, rifles, or missiles.

Keep spouting your skewed facts Mr. Anon.

Skordopordonikos · Post by **Skordopordonikos** » January 24, 2003, 5:56 pm

Falla...

Here, let me pull one, just ONE sentence from the web site I extensively quoted:

In 2000, the United States ranked first in arms exports to developing nations, accounting for almost half of all such deliveries.

BTW, the web site is from the UN.... you'll have to decide whether that is a good thing or not. Their data seems to be fairly accurate, but it seems to touch off quite a few people one way or another regarding their politics.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 24, 2003, 6:04 pm

And what is the definition of a "developing nation?" Can you name examples? You're still skewing your facts to make your opinion seem like it has some basis.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 24, 2003, 6:05 pm

I haven't questsioned the source at all.

Now, put a number on that, and define "developing nations". I want to know who qualifies under that moniker. The only numbers your source gives is for total US arms exports. Makes a nice scare tactic.

I also want to hear exactly how much US involvement you think is appropriate in foreign government. Your source obviously thinks we should be policing the expenditures of one hell of a big percentage of the worlds governments.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » January 24, 2003, 6:06 pm

I don't think that site is "from" the U.N. I believe it is a non profit organization that follows world affairs. I could be wrong...but that's what I got out of it.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » January 24, 2003, 6:08 pm

What with arl this US stuffs, lets tark about Nagy and Vox. Those two are cruel and unjustice I terl yoo~

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 24, 2003, 6:15 pm

Sukadonkyoff: Learn to close your brackets. The unfinished tags just make you look like a super-tard.

Skordopordonikos · Post by **Skordopordonikos** » January 24, 2003, 6:42 pm

masteen wrote:Sukadonkyoff: Learn to close your brackets. The unfinished tags just make you look like a super-tard.

LOL I AM a tard, and proud of it

Do you know anyone that worked as an Intel weenie that wasn't one? Wooooo.

For the rest of ya all bent out of shape over the term 'developing nations'... Heh, that's like arguing about 'tard'. You know one when you see them, but... well, um it's THAT guy/girl over there.

Here's the link to the US WMEAT report itself that breaks down who bought the weaps and for how much.
http://state.gov/t/vc/rls/rpt/wmeat/99_00/

LoL amazingly we're back to selling a buttload of weaps to the Iranians again.

As for the UN comment. DOH. ya got me. What I should have said is it was UN information as reported and posted by a lobby group. If you read about them - GPF, they're housed at the UN in a relationship sort of like OXFAM, Feed the Children and other heh, leeches from the underbelly of that org. Not saying these fine orginizations aren't doing useful things, mind you; just the nature of the beast. My brother (I'm the idiot of the family) has done environmental research all over the world, and has given addresses to WHO and the UN, and I would estimate that easily 50% of his time was spent begging for money.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 24, 2003, 7:48 pm

I didn't see anywhere in there proof to back up your claim that the US is exporting to "developing nations." The only amount I could find of US arms exports was a total figure of 33 billion over a 10 year period. It doesn't have a breakdown of where those arms were going.

I'm still scanning to make sure I didn't miss it.

Edit: Ok, here's the breakdown:

In 1997, the main recipients of US arms exports were (in billions of current dollars):

Saudia Arabia 14.1
China - Taiwan 10.0
Japan 7.9
United Kingdom 6.6
Turkey 4.9
Israel 4.9
South Korea 4.2
Egypt 2.8
Greece 2.4
Kuwait 2.3
Germany 2.3
Singapore 1.9
Netherlands 1.7
Canada 1.6
Switzerland 1.5
Spain 1.4
Italy 1.4
France 1.2
Finland 1.1

Where is the developing nation? The only two even close to developing nations are Kuwait and South Korea, both allies.

Skordopordonikos · Post by **Skordopordonikos** » January 24, 2003, 8:32 pm

Just from the Brief Highlights section:

• Over 70% of U.S. deliveries were made to
developed nations in 1999. Western Europe
was the largest importing region for U.S. arms,
receiving 38%, East Asia was the second largest,
with 27%, and the Middle East, third, with 21%.

Help me with the math here.... the US sold over $30 billion in arms exports, almost 30% of which went to - their term - developing (as opposed to the over 70% that went to the developed) countries. So say roughly $10 billion to countries, many of which have not even the wherewithal to freaking care for their own people? Ack!

See you REALLY want me to go off on a rant. This 'President' - and in his case, that is about as much respect as I can use - shot down a deal that would have allowed developing countries to make cheap(er) AIDS medication to help deal with the epidemic that is waaaay beyond their economic means to handle. His argument: they might decide to make other medicines and cut the market of US pharmaceutical companies.

Number of other countries in the entire world who thought the program was a bad idea? Zero.

He effectively signed the death warrants of millions.. MILLIONS !@
But hey, It's okay to buy fucking guns and ammo to shoot your citizens, just don't expect to medicate them.

• North America (essentially the U.S. and
Canada) accounted for 65% of world arms
exports in 1999, and 60% in 1997-1999.

Sorry Canada, you got lumped in on this one.

Okay, real slow: 65% of world arms exports. So, maybe you want to argue the $20+ billion of this percentage that went to developed countries was a good thing. I don't happen to agree, but fine. Pumping the other third into the rest of the world is a 'stabilizing action'? Give me a fucking break.

• Western Europe was the second largest
arms exporting region in 1999, accounting for
23% of the world total. The United Kingdom,
France, and Germany accounted for 10%, 6%,
and 4% of total world arms exports respectively.
• Over 80% of UK and French arms exports
went to developing countries, with the Middle
East being the largest recipient. In contrast,
almost 80% of German deliveries went to
developed nations, mainly in Western Europe.

It's a SCALE issue people. England can buy 1000 cases of guns and it's no big deal. It doesn't affect them economically and last I checked their army doesn't round up the locals and shoot them for calling the royals a bad name. Some crazy asshole in a small country buys 1000 cases of guns in a small country and it's a very big deal. To them that is real money. And the US is now selling to places where their army really does go and round up the locals to play 'hide the bullet'.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 24, 2003, 8:36 pm

their term - developing

I'm still looking for a definition of developing. Which countries are developing?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 24, 2003, 8:37 pm

This thread is teh suck!

Skordopordonikos · Post by **Skordopordonikos** » January 24, 2003, 9:17 pm

Vetiria wrote:I'm still looking for a definition of developing. Which countries are developing?

Hhhhhm, not certain on the exact definition; it's sort of a PC term for haves and have-nots.

Does this help? It's a list of developing countries in alpha from the OEDC:

http://www1.oecd.org/dac/htm/ldc-alfa.htm

Members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
The 22 countries that provide assistance to the others, and the breakdown of this aid.

Notice on the US table here:
http://www1.oecd.org/dac/htm/agusa.htm

That the US donated a little over $9 billion, (about a $1 billion of which went to Israel btw)

Bah, I'm sure you are going to rant now that the US gives and gives - not just through the OEDC - but the biggest complaint I heard from people overseas is that the US ONLY gives if there is a hook in it for them.

I'm not talking about some euphemistic 'pie in the sky' give 'cause' we have it bullshit. But one of the primary needs of a free market economy is to develop consumers, and selling guns - while there is an immediate payoff, sort of - is incredibly short sighted.

The rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WW II was not a solely noble act; The US was not only concerned about political stability, but their economy needed foreign consumers to buy stuff (Which I - as a Smith_thumping Capitalist - thought was a great idea. A friend once said: 'Humanitarinism is great, even better if you can make a buck'). I'm not some bleeding 'help the needy' ass whining because the US doesn't help others. What I am saying is the US and the rest of the developed nations need to stop exporting weapons, and help establish the developing nations' economy (eg Marshall Plan) to broaden the world economic market.

The tremendous expansion of small arms sales to developing countries the past ten years has gone largely unnoticed in the US press.... Why is that?

Laliana · Post by **Laliana** » January 25, 2003, 2:31 am

I have read this whole thread, and you seem to really believe what you are trying to say..so why be anon? That whole crap about worrying what people in-game will think about you is old now.

As you can see, most of people who post here with their game names are not afraid to state their feelings about this, so maybe it's time for you to show yours....

Just an idea.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 25, 2003, 2:33 am

many of which have not even the wherewithal to freaking care for their own people? Ack!

I still want an answer here. Do you (as your source apparently does) want the United States to decide what countries ought to be spending their funds on or not?

You bitch that Americans get involved. Then you turn around and cite a source that says we should be responsible for making sure those purchasing armaments aren't taking from the mouths of their own to do so.

So which is it? Do you want the United States to make funding decisions for the rest of the planet or don't you?