| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Mugabe was engaged in the vicious second congo war at the time. |
At that time Zimbabwean troops played a positive role protecting the democratically elected government of Kabila (who overthrew the notorious dictator Mobutu). It was not a sordid engagement- Mugabe was still not a bad boy at that stage although he was trying to bolster his standing and prestige by contributing troops: many countries also assisted Kabila.
| Quote: |
| They aren't the first major world government to sell arms to brutal dictators. |
I didn't say they were, but i did say that at the moment they certainly have the worst reputation for doing so. And I gave examples- their beneficiaries read like a whos-who of psycopathic headcases. The west has never been so consistently and dangerously irresponsible.
| Quote: |
(Julius)And none of those countries mentioned, at that time, were at war or running violent campaigns.
(JMO)-I don't see the relevance. If you are selling arms to a country, you know what they will be used for. |
Plenty of peaceful countries need to update their national armies from time to time. And? The american military has plenty of modern weapons. Are they ethnically cleansing New york?
| Quote: |
| This was in the middle of Sierra Leone's civil war. |
Sure, and Britain played a leading and responsible role in restoring peace to that country. The weapons they supplied went to restore a democratically elected government and train a new national army. It was an honorable mission, and that country is far better off now, for their involvement. The worry at the time was that pro-government forces may have included child soldiers- however I don't think this fear was realised.
The fact that such a scandal errupted over this possibility is once again evidence of Britains sense of responsibility. Do you see a public outcry in Beijing by Chinese people concerned that their arms sales might bbe used to kill innocent civilians? I don't think so. Because china doesn't care about anything except China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
At that time Zimbabwean troops played a positive role protecting the democratically elected government of Kabila (who overthrew the notorious dictator Mobutu). It was not a sordid engagement- Mugabe was still not a bad boy at that stage although he was trying to bolster his standing and prestige by contributing troops: many countries also assisted Kabila. |
Are you serious? Mugabe suddenly lost his mind later? They supplied arms to a madman.
| Quote: |
I didn't say they were, but i did say that at the moment they certainly have the worst reputation for doing so. And I gave examples- their beneficiaries read like a whos-who of psycopathic headcases. The west has never been so consistently and dangerously irresponsible.
|
Well they are carrying on a fine tradition. The only difference I can see, is that China supplies weapons during the war, whilst Britain and the US do it before and act all surprised when it kicks off.
| Quote: |
Plenty of peaceful countries need to update their national armies from time to time. And? The american military has plenty of modern weapons. Are they ethnically cleansing New york?
|
You are the most naive person I have ever encountered. You sell arms to African countries and you know how it will end. Sorry, but that is how it works.
| Quote: |
| Sure, and Britain played a leading and responsible role in restoring peace to that country. |
They broke UN sanctions to promote peace?
[quote]
| Quote: |
| Do you see a public outcry in Beijing by Chinese people concerned that their arms sales might bbe used to kill innocent civilians? I don't think so. Because china doesn't care about anything except China. |
i know you like to think other wise, but everyone else is the same. they just aren't so obvious about it.
I think we can leave it. You agree that Britain and America also supply arms irresponsibly(just not as irresponsibly as china). Thats all i was saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Are you serious? Mugabe suddenly lost his mind later? They supplied arms to a madman. |
He's a madman now, yes, but back then he was still keeping good relations with Britain and his country was in good shape. Its his desperate tactics later that has caused Uk to implement sanctions. China happily steps into the vacuum now to hand weapons to a dictator that is condemned worldwide, showing their total lack of ethics.
| Quote: |
| The only difference I can see, is that China supplies weapons during the war, whilst Britain and the US do it before and act all surprised when it kicks off. |
Thats a little weak I think. They supply weapons to governments not in violation of human rights. Unlike China.
| Quote: |
| You are the most naive person I have ever encountered. You sell arms to African countries and you know how it will end. |
The African nations listed are all stable and peaceful members of the commonwealth. If anything, weapons are sold with the aim of shoring up such stable govts. Ghana is not a violent war-torn hole. Its a success story in Africa.
| Quote: |
| They broke UN sanctions to promote peace? |
Wether they broke sanctions or no is a grey area. The ultimate result was good.
| Quote: |
| i know you like to think other wise, but everyone else is the same. they just aren't so obvious about it. |
I asked for examples...
| Quote: |
| I think we can leave it. You agree that Britain and America also supply arms irresponsibly(just not as irresponsibly as china). Thats all i was saying. |
Sure, we'll leave it if you want...
As Chinas dire need for resources continues I think we'll be seeing a lot more such examples from them in any case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
He's a madman now, yes, but back then he was still keeping good relations with Britain and his country was in good shape. Its his desperate tactics later that has caused Uk to implement sanctions. China happily steps into the vacuum now to hand weapons to a dictator that is condemned worldwide, showing their total lack of ethics.
|
As I said. Britain supplies before, China during.
| Quote: |
The African nations listed are all stable and peaceful members of the commonwealth. If anything, weapons are sold with the aim of shoring up such stable govts. Ghana is not a violent war-torn hole. Its a success story in Africa.
|
Yea, for now. I guess I'm cynical but I'm sure at least one of those countries on that list will be violent war-torn hole in the next ten years.
| Quote: |
| Wether they broke sanctions or no is a grey area. The ultimate result was good. |
How is it a grey area?
| Quote: |
| I asked for examples... |
I've given lots of examples of Britain dealing arms but apparently they are humanitarian arms dealers, with no ulterior motives at all.
Britain conducts massive arms deals with commonwealth countries, that can ill afford its goods and don't even need them. That is irresponsible in itself.
| Quote: |
| Thats a little weak I think. |
I don't think so. They supplied arms to the Iranians in the seventies before the Iran-Iraq war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/page/0,,2095222,00.html
The Hawk 53 was made especially for the Indonesian air force and was sold from the 70s thru the 90s. You know Indonesia whose
| Quote: |
| rule in East Timor was often marked by extreme violence and brutality; estimates of the number of East Timorese who died during the occupation vary from 60,000 to 200,000 |
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor
Does that count as an example of irresponsible arm dealing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Jimmy Carter, during his first year in office, authorized 112 million dollars worth of military arms to Indonesia, which allowed an expansion of the war on land as well as air, with overwhelming consequences, resulting in the deaths as many as 200,000 East Timorese, more than one third of the island nation�s population.
From the beginning of the invasion in 1975, the widespread amount of killing that occurred was staggering, with hundreds being executed on docks in Dili and being thrown into the sea (Charny,Israel W. Encyclopedia of Genocide Volume I. Denver: Abc Clio), as many as 60,000 being slaughtered within the first few months of the invasion. From 1975 until 1993, attacks on civilian populations were only nominally reported in the Western press."
Indeed, Carter supplied weapons to Indonesia after they had already begun their mass slaughter of the Timorese.
Everything I have read about the Carter administration makes him and his policies look completely foolish.
If you want to suddenly introduce that apples are good for health i won't argue either.
But your switching of the debate to an irrelevant side point, cannot disguise your loss of the main argument: China has been, and is today, the most irresponsible supplier of weaponry in the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zolt
Joined: 18 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, so other countries have supplied brutal dictators in the past, so what?
Does than mean we should turn a blind eye on china or anyone doing the same now? The only thing I can say for them is at least they don't pretend they do it to foster democracy, or anything but their own interests. It's still gross. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that if one of the wrongs was done by America, then two wrongs make an OK.
Anyways. What is disgusting about this shipment in particular is not that China is selling Zimbabwe these weapons but when it is selling these weapons. If it were the UK/USA selling these weapons to Zimbabwe at this specific time I'm sure the whole world would be throwing a tantrum now. And a global tantrum is the exact proper response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wait. Let's recap.
In response to this
| Quote: |
| More I hear of the Chinese govt, the more I hate them. |
I said this...
| Quote: |
| Julius, you should grow up and realise there is no such thing as a responsible world power. |
as well as saying this before
| Quote: |
| I think its akay to condemn a government for selling arms to Mugabe |
I agree they should be condemned, you will note here.
You said this..
| Quote: |
| The US and Britain do not export masses of weapons to such obvious tyrants. |
This was the point I disagreed with. I showed alot of examples. Most of which you disagreed with or defended showing how in your opinion those arms deals were responsible. Once I showed an arms deal that was obviously and inarguably irresponsible by Britain(Indonesia)
you said this
| Quote: |
If you want to suddenly introduce that apples are good for health i won't argue either.
But your switching of the debate to an irrelevant side point, cannot disguise your loss of the main argument: China has been, and is today, the most irresponsible supplier of weaponry in the world. |
note, that I was arguing with this
| Quote: |
| The US and Britain do not export masses of weapons to such obvious tyrants. |
I don't think it is fair to say I lost a main argument as you never presented that argument before. China may be the most irresponsible. I was just making the point that world powers with massive armament industries(such as the US and UK) will sell them irresponsibly.
In no way am I condoning what china are doing by the way. I however did at no point, 'switch the debate'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zolt wrote: |
OK, so other countries have supplied brutal dictators in the past, so what?
. |
If someone claimed otherwise I would argue with them as above. Otherwise they should be condemned.
| Quote: |
| Does than mean we should turn a blind eye on china or anyone doing the same now? |
No. Although i don't know what you could do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
It seems that if one of the wrongs was done by America, then two wrongs make an OK.
|
I didn't actually give any American examples. They were all British. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
It seems that if one of the wrongs was done by America, then two wrongs make an OK.
|
I didn't actually give any American examples. They were all British. |
I should have used USA/UK in the first sentence as well. Or just UK. In Zimbabwe the boogie man is the UK not US, so your point is more relevant.
But this is an issue that touches on quite a lot of global chitchat about arms policy and the "well, America (or UK) did it" retort. I don't think it is a valid retort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Morality does not belong in discussions on international relations. Carter tried it and it flopped in his face. See Jeane J. Kirkpatrick's famous attack, "Dictatorships and Double Standards." Or better yet hear Stalin and Mao: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" and "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
It seems that if one of the wrongs was done by America, then two wrongs make an OK.
|
I didn't actually give any American examples. They were all British. |
I should have used USA/UK in the first sentence as well. Or just UK. In Zimbabwe the boogie man is the UK not US, so your point is more relevant.
But this is an issue that touches on quite a lot of global chitchat about arms policy and the "well, America (or UK) did it" retort. I don't think it is a valid retort. |
Well that is a lame retort but i was arguing with the assertion that America and the UK don't do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Morality does not belong in discussions on international relations. " |
It does not belong at all? We can't condemn a country or government's actions on moral grounds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Honestly, I didn't read your exchange with the other poster. I skimmed and made an assumption. ass/u/me etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
