|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: USA no longer #1 arms seller |
 |
|
Nice to see the US is no longer the #1 seller of the deadliest industry out there: weapons.
Russia, France overtake US
| Quote: |
he United States ceded to Russia and France last year its role of the top arms supplier to the developing world as it failed to take full advantage of emerging markets and opportunities created by booming oil prices, according to a new congressional study.
The annual report by the Congressional Research Service showed the US share of the arms transfer market dropped from 35.4 percent to 20.5 percent between 2004 and 2005.
In monetary terms, the value of these deals fell from 9.4 billion dollars to about 6.2 billion.
By contrast, Russia made last year seven billion dollars selling weaponry to Asia, Africa and Latin America, a notable increase from 5.4 billion the year before. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Facts like these are good for debunking the U.S.-centric model for explaining/blaming all global conflict and violence on the U.S.
I've always said here that there are others out there -- and, in some cases, not even with half of the scruples we have, which are far from perfect, of course -- and I especially approve of the author of this article's Realist and not Idealist way of explaining the arms industry...
| Quote: |
| [The United States] failed to take full advantage of emerging markets and opportunities... |
If we do not sell to them, then, someone else will. In fact, sellers are already in line. This is because Third-Worlders are conflict-ridden -- with or without U.S. arms deals or interventions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even when America was the #1 supplier, these were rarely used anywhere there was trouble. That is because most things supplied by the US were high end equipment. Look around to where there was trouble. What do you find? AKs and RPGs. These are not US made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| ...these were rarely used anywhere there was trouble. |
There were some major charlie-foxtrots, though.
When the U.S. was pulling out of South Vietnam, for example, it armed Saigon to the teeth. By 1975, it was the fourth-ranking military (that is worldwide). When Hanoi took the country, it also took possession of these arms. And in 1979, when there was much internecine conflict in Southeast Asia, Hanoi overran Cambodia in something like two weeks.
Ditto in Iran, where we had to deal with a potential conflict against a very hostile nation armed with F-14s in late 1979.
Hard to believe that Chavez, by the way, is complaining that we don't want to sell him arms these days... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Ditto in Iran, where we had to deal with a potential conflict against a very hostile nation armed with F-14s in late 1979.
|
The down side is entering a shooting war with the nation that makes the F14s and won't sell you replacement parts.
I remember the Argies bought all these bombs from France but had yet to take possession of the low altitude detonators previous to their invasion of the Falklands.
Naturally France wasn't about to send detonators to a nation at war with a NATO partner. The bomb's default detonators were designed for high altitude bombing. The only hope the Argie air force had of bombing the British Navy was coming in very low. Of course when they dropped their bombs on the ships, most of the bombs didn't go off. The war might have been very very different if they had the proper detonators.
Theoretically, the USA does have some standards in terms of who they will sell to and rules as regards how those weapons might be employed once a nation takes possession of. Of course there's no guarantees in life and the USA sure does bend those rules. For example, it sells cluster bombs to Israel with certain rules about not dropping them on civilians etc. But hey.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this a halloween joke ????
As I've verified, pointed out, documented on countless threads here.....the U.S. has been off loading its arms "manufacturing", just like it did its clothing , electronics and other "industries". Countless sister and subsidiary companies all in other countries.
Further Gopher, a congressional report???? Come on! And further, this is only in regards to verified, legitimate and stamped, approved arms contracts -- to developed nations. This is a small proportion of what actually comes into the hands of those who do the damage. Let's not make the U.S. of A ., the govt and arms industry into a bunch of legit peacniks.
They are even much worse than tabacco and that is saying something. Atleast tabacco pays a wack of taxes and doesn't get trillions of govt dollars in subsidizes, support payments....
I'll send you some links and articles as soon as I come up for air. It's halloween after all....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| As I've verified, pointed out, [and] documented on countless threads here: the U.S. has been [outsourcing] its "arms manufacturing" [capabilities] [for years? decades?], just like it [outsourced] its clothing, electronics and other "industries" [earlier]. Countless sister [sic; "sister corporations" would be too transparent for what you are suggesting; you are alluding to subsidiaries and long chains of anonymous owners designed to conceal true ownership] and subsidiary companies [pervade? dominate? the global arms marketplace...or perhaps, "secure U.S. dominance"?]... |
Ddeubel, in order to address your "post," I did try to clean up your vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation, which are, as usual, attrocious and nearly unintelligible.
And I still cannot understand what you mean when you put the word "industries" in quotation marks, above. Do you mean to suggest that U.S. textiles and electronics industries, in places like Central America and China are a cover for something other than private-sector-driven commercial activity? If so, please be specific and tell us exactly what you mean. Innuendo is not enough.
Also, it is "tobacco" and not "tabacco."
Finally, whatever this is supposed to mean...
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Let's not make the U.S. of A ., the govt and arms industry into a bunch of legit peacniks. |
...I do not believe anyone here has suggested that "the U.S. of A., the govt and arms industry...[are] a bunch of legit peacniks."
These might help you, too, for future reference...
http://www.m-w.com/
http://dictionary.msn.com/
In any case, my response is this: ROFL.
Yet another variation on your Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon routine. Now Russian and French arms sales to the Third-World are our fault... 
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:02 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Is this a halloween joke ????
As I've verified, pointed out, documented on countless threads here.....the U.S. has been off loading its arms "manufacturing", just like it did its clothing , electronics and other "industries". Countless sister and subsidiary companies all in other countries.
Further Gopher, a congressional report???? Come on! And further, this is only in regards to verified, legitimate and stamped, approved arms contracts -- to developed nations. This is a small proportion of what actually comes into the hands of those who do the damage. Let's not make the U.S. of A ., the govt and arms industry into a bunch of legit peacniks.
They are even much worse than tabacco and that is saying something. Atleast tabacco pays a wack of taxes and doesn't get trillions of govt dollars in subsidizes, support payments....
I'll send you some links and articles as soon as I come up for air. It's halloween after all....
DD |
So I was reading the thread and thinking, "cool, I'm learning some stuff here. good posts." Then I came to yours and thought, "uggh, here we go again. that evil usa strikes again!"
At least you'll have some links and articles in your next post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks -- you are very skilled in condescension. Bravo. Pat yourself on the back.
However I feel that I don't have to apologize for my spelling nor punctuation in a form like this, ESPECIALLY after having said, I was in a hurry but felt the thread deserved a round house shout in regards to believing that the U.S. of A. does not make A LOT of money off of arms, does not promote their use in ALL parts of the globe through its industry and IS NOT the world leader (in terms of REAL production and profit).
I think it very illuminating to speak on this subject. The subject of sooooo much of America's economic might, so much of America's well being, soooo much of her fabric. Take that as you will. I disagree with economies built not just on consumption and debt but also on violence.
I will reply further later. Got to teach. Check my site, I'll upload a few powerpoints for you, also, to learn how to use a comma......
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I think it very illuminating to speak on this subject. The subject of sooooo much of America's economic might, so much of America's well being, soooo much of her fabric |
But not as much as Russia's and France's! HAHA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But not as much as Russia's and France's! HAHA. |
thanks for giving me an appropriate introduction [and before beginning I warn all those, cross your ts mongers and dot your i bongers that I might upset your overly anal antiseptic altimetres.....]
I wrote my previous retort precisely because of disilluminati like yourself that would begin thinking that the U. S. of A. has little responsibility towards the poverty and violence of this world because of its production of armnaments. Also, to point out, point blank, the title of the thread is a lie and is misleading.
First, for the social costs of arms production, legal and more and more (and more and more profitable), please see numerous reports, very well put together on the subject. It is indeed a world of arms or butter. Don't think it ain't. And countries like the U.S. are indeed rich because of their arms production in small town America across the nation.
Here is one good read on the subject,
http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/government/G8-briefing.pdf
Here are a few examples
| Quote: |
Opportunity costs of a few major arms deals
The purchase by Tanzania of a US$40m radar system from the UK in 2001 was, according to experts, vastly too expensive and inappropriate for its use. US$40m could have provided health care for 3.5 million people.
In 1999, South Africa agreed to purchase armaments from European suppliers that by 2003 cost US$6bn. This sum could have purchased treatment for all five million AIDS sufferers for two years. The South Africa government actually spent only US$54m combating HIV/AIDS at this time.
When India signed a contract to buy a US$1bn military radar system in 2003, foreign aid agencies were searching for US$50m in donations to defeat the country�s polio epidemic.
The same year, Pakistan�s armed forces were updating their multibillion-dollar shopping list, including a request for US F16 fighter jets, while aid groups fighting a tuberculosis epidemic struggled to fill a lethal funding gap. Tuberculosis, like polio, could be eradicated with adequate funding. Tuberculosis infects 250,000 Pakistanis per year and kills more than 50,000. |
As a past U.S. president finally came around to saying/realizing;
| Quote: |
�Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children��
Former US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953 |
I'd also recommend the movie Why We Fight....thought most here have probably watched it. If anything, it details my arguement of why the U.S. is dangerously linked to war/violence profiteering and should abruptly change course (which it appears to have NO interest in doing, see below and its constant thwarting of all treaties/agreements).
But I don't want to talk about this, let's just expose why I think the title.......
U.S. NO LONGER # 1 ARMS SELLER -- is totally misleading and fictitious.
First, The report is from the Congressional Research Service. Namely, I do not go to a Tabacco conference for statistics on how badly smoking effects health. Nor do I go to such committee which is lobbied by the most powerful lobby in the U.S. (led by Lockhead Martin with some 25 mil "official" dollars of donations last year). You can read about the arms industry and Washington here
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Corruption/LobbyingMerchantsDeath.html
......let me also mention about the Northrop Grunnman , B2 fiasco and how they bled this goose.....
good read here also....
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/papirel.html
Also let's not forget the millions in subsidies the arms industry continues to receive and even how the Pentagon has got legislation passed which refunds money to companies when they lose a contract (full price!!!!) called the defense export loan guarantee....
Nor should I mention this doosy.... nor should I mention the 500,000 arms missing in Iraq and how as many arms control agencies find, many made in U.S.A. bullets and hardware are found in war zones the world over....
| Quote: |
| It's hard to see how exporting weapons can possibly enhance U.S. or international security. A large share of American exports go to countries at war and soon end up on the battlefield. U.S. troops based abroad are also endangered by American exports. As a CIA report from 1995 noted, "the acquisition of advanced conventional weapons and technologies by hostile countries could result in significant casualties being inflicted on U.S. forced or regional allies." In fact, U.S. troops deployed to Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait and Panama have confronted foreign forces armed with weapons that were made in America. |
Let me also remind the world how, by far, the U.S. is the major source of death in the world through guns - specifically small arms (the legal kind, with certificates quoted in the OPs article are killers of a different kind, killers of a countries soul not her people.) . Produced, made in America. Let me also remind the world how the U.S. just months ago, was responsible for the failure of agreement and treaty and control of said, small arms at the U.N. conference on this matter.
http://www.controlarms.org/latest_news/outcomerevcon-pr070706.htm
| Quote: |
The conference, which ended on Friday 7 July, collapsed after a small number of states, most prominently the United States, blocked key issues so consistently that no agreement was possible.
During the conference, moves to agree global controls on the small arms trade were blocked by Cuba, India, Iran, Israel and Pakistan.
" The world has been held hostage by a tiny minority of countries. At the current rate, up to 12,000 people will have been killed by small arms during this two-week conference. They have been betrayed." said Anna Macdonald, Oxfam International?fs Control Arms Campaign manager. |
also see this graph of recent figures.
| Quote: |
TOP SMALL ARMS EXPORTERS
(Shown in USD Value - Represents Authorized Reported Arms Sales)
Data Up Through 2005
$NR = Not Reported
United States of America
$533,000,000
Italy
$250,000,000
Germany
$159,000,000
Russia
$130,000,000
China
$100,000,000
Great Britain
$92,000,000
Japan
$65,000,000
Norway
$45,000,000
Turkey
$30,000,000
Sweden
$24,000,000
Israel
$22,000,000
South Korea
$14,000,000
Spain
$12,900,000
Canada
$12,400,000 |
Here's a great arguement why the U.S. should have signed and also why they did not.
http://www.controlarms.org/documents/Arms%20Without%20Borders_Final_21Sept06.pdf
Now, let me address the more substantive issue. That somehow the United States only sells arms legally and through appropriate controls and certificates.
One. The major arms buyer in the world today is Israel. Israel buys a very large portion of her arms from private sources. These sources almost invariably can be traced back to Made in America. How? Well, since the Cold War, much of the arms regulations have been torn to shreds and companies routinely and without punishment, transgress local, national and international transfer laws.
The arms industry is very diversified and with production throughout the world. It is impossible now to really know WHO is profiting from arms sales directly. Many companies make parts in many other countries and the final production in another "legal" country. The profit runs back to mother, more often than not, America.
The above quoted article makes that clear as well as the very extensive U.N. report chastising U.S. companies. Arms without Borders AI report.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/americas/document.do?id=ENGUSA20061002001
The preamble states;
| Quote: |
The report reveals that U.S., EU and Canadian companies are among those able to circumvent arms regulations by selling weapon components and subcontracting arms manufacturing overseas. The report details how weapons, including attack helicopters and combat trucks, are being assembled from foreign components and manufactured under license in countries including China, Egypt, India, Israel and Turkey.
The report shows how these or similar weapons have ended up in destinations such as Colombia, Sudan and Uzbekistan where they have reportedly been used for the killing and displacement of civilians, highlighting the urgent need for global rules to regulate an increasingly globalized industry.
"This report reveals a litany of loopholes and destroyed lives. Arms companies are global, yet arms regulations are not, and the result is the arming of abusive regimes. Europe and North America are fast becoming the IKEA of the arms industry, supplying parts for human rights abusers to assemble at home, with the morals not included. It is time for an Arms Trade Treaty," said Jeremy Hobbs, Director of Oxfam International.
The report exposes two major loopholes that allow arms companies to legally circumvent arms regulations, including arms embargoes: |
The U.S. ranks lower on the Congressional report simply because
A) outsourcing
B) a wish that lobbyists portrait the U.S. as decreasing spending so they need to increase it....and so they can once again spit out the "jobs in my state " card
C) Iraq has siphoned off much of the "export ' side of large arms..
But the fact of the matter remains, the U.S. should be held into account for
A) wasting money on guns not butter and even beer or baloney
B) wasting tax payers money (repeat, necessary)
C) selling arms to the developing world (see below, how the U.S. sells to soooo many human rights violators, in the name of "my" profit, not even that of a govt.)
D) pretending to be a bastion of morality while pushing products that kill directly, the most of anything, in the world other than life itself.
Do I think that other countries should not also be held in contempt and be criticized???? (beat you to the punch dear friend). YES. In fact, I started getting educated about 15 years ago when in the former USSR and writing about arms smugglers and the illicit trade there. It still goes on but now , instead of old Volgas , they drive Mercedes Jeeps and wear suits and ties and shake the hands of Schroeder, Blair and Bush.....
There is just a lot more to be disgusted at and to say regarding this. Please also look at U.S. figures on a per capita basis in terms of expenditure on weapons. By far (and away) the highest , leader, in the world.
Further, lets just call the OPs article terribly misleading. This report is for the industry and has its own agenda, which ain't the truth. As it says,
| Quote: |
The CRS usually delivers its reports to interested lawmakers rather than the public.
The arms trade study was sent to legislators last week and obtained by AFP late Saturday |
Others can believe such cold remedy salesmen but I think it is just another one of the many articles which parades, "half way" thinking. That very prevalent mindset these days -- a mindset which looks at any one fact without background, intelligence or just plain common sense and comes to the conclusion IT wants.....a new kind of rocket science.
Okay, time to go to bed. I think it just a shame that so many from Omaha to Orange county, ordinary Joes and Jennifers, have to work their asses off , for a little money -- so others in far away places can die and others so close to home can eat at lavish banquet tables. Doesn't seem the American way to me . Or is it???
DD
| Quote: |
RANK
COUNTRY
U.S. ARMS SALES
FMS and commercial exports (2003)
State Department Report
1
Saudi Arabia
$1,169,436,000
The Government's human rights record remained poor.
Citizens do not have the right to change their Government.
2
Egypt
$1,046,709,000
The Government respected human rights in some areas; however, its record was poor, and in many areas serious problems remained.
Citizens did not have the meaningful ability to change their government.
3
Israel
$845,562,000
The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas.
The law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully.
4
Taiwan
$646,775,000
The authorities generally respected the human rights of citizens; however, there were problems in some areas.
Citizens have the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right in practice.
5
Turkey
$523,488,000
The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; although there were significant improvements in a number of areas, serious problems remained.
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully� however, the Government restricted the activities of some political parties and leaders.
6
Singapore
$169,014,000
The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were significant problems in some areas.
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully. [But] the Government has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to handicap political opposition.
7
Kuwait
$153,236,000
The Government's human rights record remained poor, and serious problems remained.
Citizens do not have the right to change their government.
8
Thailand
$139,576,000
The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were significant problems in some areas.
The Constitution provides for the right of citizens to choose or change their government peacefully� The country is a democratically governed constitutional monarchy.
9
United Arab Emirates
$110,130,000
Problems remained in the Government's respect for human rights.
Citizens do not have the right to change their government.
10
Bahrain
$97,052,000
Problems remained in the Government's respect for human rights.
Citizens did not have the right to change their government.
11
Jordan
$70,556,000
Although the Government respected human rights in some areas, its overall record continued to reflect many problems.
Citizens do not have the right to change their government.
11
Venezuela
$34,819,000
The Government's human rights record remained poor; despite attempts at improvement in a few areas, its performance deteriorated in other areas.
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully.
13
Uzbekistan
$33,971,000
The Government's human rights record remained very poor; although there were some improvements, it continued to commit numerous serious abuses.
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government; however, in practice, citizens could not change their government through peaceful and democratic means.
14
Philippines
$26,416,000
The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were serious problems in some areas.
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully.
15
India
$26,158,000
The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained.
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| When the U.S. was pulling out of South Vietnam, for example, it armed Saigon to the teeth. By 1975, it was the fourth-ranking military (that is worldwide). When Hanoi took the country, it also took possession of these arms. And in 1979, when there was much internecine conflict in Southeast Asia, Hanoi overran Cambodia in something like two weeks. |
I'd be pretty loathe to call a Viet-Khmer (or sino-Vietnamese) conflict 'internecine' Gopher - apart from trivialising the wars, that term won't make you popular with any of the parties involved. I'd also say that the swift capture of Phnom Penh in 1979 can mostly be accounted for by the tactical superiority of PAVN troops over the Khmer Rouge much more than the use of captured US equipment. If US equipment was such an important advantage in and of itself one would have to ask how Saigon fell in the first place, plus there's the issue of maintenance etc in the almost 4 years between the falls of Saigon and Phnom Pehn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
to the developing world?
f that.
the u.s. military is where the arms deals are at.
and they're making a killing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| precisely because of disilluminati like yourself |
bwahahaha, DISILLUMINATI! Does that mean I am a conspiracy theorist, hellbent on exposing the illuminati for what they truly are, or that I am secretly NOT controlling the world's governments behind the scenes, or that I am most definitely out of cahoots with the alien overlords poisoning our bodily fluids?
Dude, if you're going to make a 10 page long post, you need to make it coherent and easy to read. Like a powerpoint presentation. This is a pile of garbage. Thanks for the disilluminati tho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a couple articles of interest.
One about the Pentagon's annual "Going out of Business" sale. These arms also do not "formally" go on any list of arms accounted as transfers. One more example of how the U.S. economy is fueled by production of military items and destruction and how it spreads such good cheer around the world.
Another example, as I mentioned in my last post, the some, 500,000 arms missing in Iraq. (this according to many sources is an underestimate). Many of these arms have been used to kill U.S. soldiers and make profit for those in control who can sell / give / spread good cheer without regulation. Why? Well it is complicated but part of it is because "inventory" must be cleared. Same idea as the previous Pentagon sale. Clean out inventory so we can get $$$ for more production.....unfortunately this economic model kills and creates destruction --- in lands swept under the carpet, far away.
| Quote: |
A bargain basement of arms and vehicles
Pentagon sells cheap to reward friends
By Leslie Wayne / The New York TimesPublished: October 31, 2006
NEW YORK: Across the world, the Pentagon has thousands of garages, hangars and sprawling lots to store all its jets, tanks and other weaponry.
But like most households, it suffers from the clutter of old, unused and unwanted things.
And so the Pentagon runs a little-publicized tag sale and giveaway program to clean out its overstuffed storage areas, which are bulging with the result of the greatest weapons buildup since the Reagan era. The Pentagon also uses the Excess Defense Articles program, as it is called, to reward friends and allies across the globe with equipment that the Pentagon says it no longer needs.
There are deals galore, available for cents on the dollar of their original cost, or even free to the right customer. And there are lots of deal hunters. |
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/31/news/tagsale.php
| Quote: |
The untracked guns of Iraq
About the last thing the United States ought to be doing in Iraq is funneling weapons into black-market weapons bazaars, as sectarian militias arm themselves for civil war. Yet, that is just what Washington may have been doing for the past several years, thanks to an inexplicable decision that standard Pentagon regulations for registering weapons transfers did not apply to the Iraq war.
Of more than 500,000 weapons turned over to the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior since the American invasion - including rocket- propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles - the serial numbers of only 12,128 were properly recorded. Some 370,000 of these weapons, some of which are undoubtedly being used to kill American troops, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers, under the Orwellian-titled Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
This chilling information comes to us from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which has distinguished itself as the most vigilant agency monitoring the money spent on the Iraq conflict.
It turns out that the Pentagon not only failed to register the huge quantities of arms that Washington has been turning over to the Iraqi security ministries, but also failed to provide the spare parts, repair manuals and provide maintenance technicians needed to keep them in working order. The agency found that Iraqi security forces are still heavily dependent on Washington's support for the most basic military functions. And with America planning to scale back much of that support over the next year, it is far from clear whether Baghdad is preparing to pick up the slack. |
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/31/opinion/ediraq.php
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
