|
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 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
ddeubel:
Quote:
The military hardware in her hands. Also too many places in the world. Iraq -- most of the deaths there, at the hands of U.S. manufactured weaponry. Even Kalashnikofs, now made through American companies in their new nests of Nato. In fact, today's Herald Tribune has a U.S. company's gun in the hands of a Somali Islamist. How ironic?
link?
As far as i can tell, the US is not a manufacturer of the AK47.
Here is its history in the U.S: |
I don't think that is a proper history at all. You aren't the only one under a cloud when it comes to small arms proliferation / production. U.S. is the world leader by far and in fact and to the disgust of many, stymied the recent UN. attempt at regulating this most nefarious industry. I have posted on this before....won't rehash all this.
or this rifle
To address your questions about the Kalisnikov. The weapon struck me immediately as one that I've come across before in research. Assembled in Las Vegas. But Most likely though, this weapon in the picture isn't their SA. S-7 classic though it could be. Probably the prototype issued by the same company in Bulgaria, (produced in their military city of Kazanluk) the most prolific producer other than Israel (which makes the Galili) I used to be very interested in the "arms trade" and esp. its relation to E. Europe. Most parts that Arsenal Inc. (see www.arsenalinc.com ) uses for the AK are tooled in Bulgaria. But this weapon could also be Czech, by the look of the gas chamber.
Anyways, go to www.ak-47.us for more info.
When we talk of small arms production in other countries, please don't think the U.S. hasn't any fingers in the soup.
Many U.S. companies control an empire of small arms producers throughout E. Europe. But also Belgian, Swiss and Italian companies, have their hands in the pot - not to mention the Russian state and some other states. But the fact of the matter is -- small arms manufacturing is a mature industry. Developed, advanced nations feed the frenzy of killing and it isn't the weapons systems that kill the majority of people in armed conflict, it is the small arms that do. It is the democratization of war, at its most basic level. Like giving out crack in the neighbourhood and then coming back again and again once they are addicted, for the spoils.
Oh yeah, people will say it is regulated, controlled. Not at all. I do know abit about this through having a roomate in Toronto, Bulgarian who among other things dealt in arms. Nasko, quite the character and I am sure now he is either living high on the hog or 6 ft under. Small arms can be disassembled, shipped, and reassemblied in the blink of an eye. Very lucrative, not controlled at all. Let's not even get into the issue of military "flea market" sales and gifts which drive the blackmarket.
Here's the case in Iraq where the U.S. supplies Kalashnifovs
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/weapons.php
| Quote: |
But three types of American-issued weapons are now readily visible in shops and bazaars here as well: Glock and Walther nine-milimeter pistols, and pristine, unused Kalashnikovs from post-Soviet Eastern European countries. These are three of the principal types of the 370,000 weapons purchased by the United States for Iraqi security forces, a program that was criticized by a special inspector general this fall for, among other things, failing to properly account for the arms.
The weapons are easy to find, in teahouses, the backrooms of grocery kiosks, cosmetics stores and rug shops, or from the trunks of cars. Proprietors show samples for immediate purchase and offer to take orders � 10 guns can be had in two hours, they say, and 100 or more the next day. The forces propelling the trade can be seen in the price fluctuations of the country's most abundant firearm, the Kalashnikov
"In the south, if the Americans give the Iraqis weapons, the next day you can buy them here," said one dealer, who sold groceries in the front of his kiosk and offered weapons in the back. "The Iraqi army, the Iraqi police � they all sell them right away." |
Breaking down worldwide numbers [ NOTE: not small arms }
Arms Sales By Supplier Nations
Arms sales (agreements) ranked by Supplier, 1998-2005 (in constant 2005 million US Dollars and percentage of world sales). Supplier Total
Source: Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005 , Report for Congress, U.S. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, October 23, 2006. (Dollar values are constant 2005 dollars)
Each country shown as follows:
United States out of 97,144 36%
Russia out of 41,600 16%
France out of 30,000 11%
Germany out of 17,000 6%
United Kingdom out of 14,900 6%
China out of 9,100 3%
Italy out of 5,600 2%
Other European out of 33,800 13%
Others out of 17,300
Lots more I could say. This will do this morning.
DD
PS. Gopher, please deal with your control issues (as one person has already put it.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ddeubel: since the Soviet Union collapsed former Soviet arms and other Cold War paraphernalia have become hot selling items in the United States. I myself once played around with a Makarov.
It is news to me that we have acquired licenses to produce them in the U.S. But, given the above-described popularity and the demise of the assault weapons ban, I guess it should not come as a surprise.
What you have still failed to establish is a credible link between post-Cold War U.S. production of Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 for American gun enthusiasts and this, apparently African or Middle Eastern woman and her AK in your undated photograph...
And how, praytell, are you so expert in recognizing small arms that you can make positive identification without respect to serial numbers, bills of lading, or port of entry data, etc.?
You can come up with all the nice graphs and Google links you want, you can even continue with the Canuckistan/Nowhere Man line of pseudorefutatious attack against my views. But if you cannot answer these questions then you are simply slopily bending facts or outright fabricating them as you go along (again). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia summarizes the AK's military-capable variant, which is Cold War-era-derived and -proliferated...
| Quote: |
Albania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, North Korea, China, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia...
Certainly more have been produced elsewhere, but the above list represents major producers and variants. An updated AKM design is still produced in Russia.
The basic design of the AK-47 has been used as the basis for other successful rifle designs such as the Finnish Valmet 62/76 and Sako Rk 95 TP, the Israeli Galil, the Indian INSAS and the Yugoslav Zastava M76 and M77/82 (not to be confused with the Barrett M82) rifles. Several bullpup designs have surfaced, although none have been produced in quantity. Bullpup conversions are also available commercially. For a complete list, see the List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design...
Throughout the world, the AK-47 and variants are among the plethora of commonly smuggled small arms that are sold to governments, rebels, criminals and civilians alike, with little international oversight. This trade ensures a ready supply of inexpensive weapons to a number of conflicts, including (but certainly not limited to) the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. In some countries that are recovering from war or that are at war, prices for AKs are very low. In Somalia, Rwanda, Mozambique, Congo and Ethiopia, among others, prices are between $30�$125.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union, China and the United States supplied arms and technical knowledge to numerous client-state countries and rebel forces to promote their interests. This period saw the proliferation, sometimes free of charge, of AK-47s by the Soviet Union and China to pro-communist countries and groups such as the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Viet-Cong. The AK-47 design was spread to a total of 55 national armies.
The proliferation of this weapon is reflected by more than just numbers. The AK-47 is included in the flag of Mozambique and its coat of arms. It is also found in the revolution era coat of arms of Burkina Faso, the flag of Hezbollah, and logo of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. "Kalash", a shortened form of "Kalashnikov", is used as a name for boys in some African countries... |
How you can look at one pic, Ddeubel, and see through all of this proliferation and blame the United States simply amazes me. You must be a genius-level, indeed, god-like analyst.
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ariellowen wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Oh please. How is it that inaction over darfur does not even show on your radar scale? |
I tend to agree. On reading the OP, for some subtle reason a big "anti-semite" siren went off in my head on just the same line of reason.
...
Of course it isn't fair to say that anyone who draws attention to the plight of Palestine is therefore an anti-semite, but of all the suffering in the world to bring attention too, one has to at least ask why some particular case is brought up? |
This article will be right up Junior and Ariellowen's alley:
To read entire article click on: Gaza and Darfur
| Quote: |
As a zone of ongoing, large-scale bloodletting Darfur in the western Sudan has big appeal for US news editors. Americans are not doing the killing, or paying for others to do it. So there's no need to minimize the vast slaughter with the usual drizzle of "allegations." There's no political risk here in sounding off about genocide in Darfur. The crisis in Darfur is also very photogenic.
|
| Quote: |
Since March 1 the New York Times has run seventy news stories on Darfur (including sixteen pieces from wire services), fifteen editorials and twenty-one signed columns, all but one by Nicholas Kristof. Darfur is primarily a "feel good" subject for people here who want to agonize publicly about injustices in the world but who don't really want to do anything about them. After all, it's Arabs who are the perpetrators and there is ultimately little that people in this country can do to effect real change in the policy of the government in Khartoum.
Now, Gaza is an entirely different story. The American public as well as the US government have a great deal of control over what is happening there. And it is Israel, America's prime ally in the Middle East that is, on a day-to-day basis, with America's full support, inflicting appalling brutalities on a civilian population. To report in any detail on what's going on in Gaza means accusing the United States of active complicity in terrible crimes wrought by Israel, as it methodically lays waste a society of 1.5 million Palestinians. Of course the death rate is a fraction of what's alleged about Darfur, but all the same, we are talking here about a determined bid by Israel, backed by the U.S. and E.U. to destroy an entire society.
I wan't at all surprised there was a sharp swerve in emphasis towards Darfur at about the time of the Kerem Shalom attack and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit in Gaza in June of this year. By the time Israel's campaign of destroying Lebanon got under way this summer (a campaign intricately linked to the Palestine issue), Darfur was hotter still as a distracting topic.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The American public as well as the US government have a great deal of control over what is happening [in Gaza, the West Bank, the Middle East, or, indeed elsewhere in the Third-World]. |
This is misunderstanding, myth, fiction.
We have some influence. We sometimes attempt to indirectly or directly influence events in the Middle East and elswhere in the Third-World. While this influence is oftentimes disproportionate, it is rarely, indeed almost never, if ever, decisive.
Things have rarely gone our way. When they did, it was because our intervention coincided with favorable local conditions and interests (e.g., driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan). When our intervention failed to coincide with these variables, one can clearly see which ones were the decisive decisions.
This is especially important to keep in mind even with respect to U.S.-Israeli relations. Tel Aviv has ignored Washington on several occassions.
So we really need to decentralize our understanding of world affairs on this board. Too many posters (and the materials they read and cite here) suffer from "the-world-according-to-Washington" syndrome.
And this is an issue I would like to explore, but no one here seems to want to play ball on this: many in the U.S. have been concerned with documenting U.S. complicity in this or that event in world affairs. Many U.S. actors -- Congressional Committees, academics, and investigative journalists, for example -- have concerned themselves with this in the context of asking such questions as "should our govt have involved itself in this or that affair?" or "Should Congress check the executive branch's authority on this or that activity?" They have rarely concerned themselves with comprehensive historical reconstruction -- and I do not fault them for this, as they mostly have special perspectives and interests, and Congressional Committees, for example, should focus on such U.S.-centric issues.
Consequent to this, however, and to our openly publishing such information, many in the U.S and indeed the world have tended to take all of this (esp. quite a lot of White House hubris and/or oppositionist hyperbole) at face value, and particularly given the absence of such information coming out of the Third-World "victims" themselves, everyone seems to have been hypnotized by this U.S.-centric rhythm.
But, I ask, is understanding U.S. involvement, or documenting U.S. complicity in this or that affair sufficient to wholly or at least decisively explain what happened on the ground in country X, Y, or Z?
This is a particularly important problem to grasp with respect to comprehensively and thoroughly evaluating Middle Eastern affairs, I should think.
As far as my own answer to this...I recently heard a leftist professor excoriate the Reagan Administration for arguing that Soviet Russia was an "Evil Empire" and that a Soviet-sponsored conspiracy accounted for all of Central America's instability and insurgencies in the 1980s. The Reagan Administration, if you recall, suggested that, without Soviet intervention, the region would have been at peace, Somoza would not have fallen, and there would have been no insurgency in El Salvador.
Most of us Latin American and Caribbean area specialists, of course, know better. And this professor correctly said it was not even necessary to put together an argument because we have strong indicators that fully show Reagan was way off base: the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, but much instability remains -- not only Central America, but in the rest of the Third-World as well, particularly Africa.
Interesting, though, how the far left cannot (will not!) appreciate that that sword cuts both ways, especially concerning the United States and the Middle East...
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
What you have still failed to establish is a credible link between post-Cold War U.S. production of Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 for American gun enthusiasts and this, apparently African or Middle Eastern woman and her AK in your undated photograph... |
I have seen no credible link yet showing that the U.S manufactures the AK47.
The US is not listed as a manufacturer.
Ddeubels link refers to US gun shops that stock kalshnikoves imported from other countries.
The nearest he gets is claiming that they get assembled in Las vegas. Direct link please?
Even if so, all parts are made in other countries and the guns are for enthusiasts only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
[b]Now, Gaza is an entirely different story. The American public as well as the US government have a great deal of control over what is happening there. |
You don't get it yet do you?
Islam is extending its territory by exterminating non-muslims in Sudan. "Islam is on the march, we are expanding our power in the world" as the Hamas leader explained yesterday. This is all it is about for them: increasing the geographical hold of Islam on the world. Soon all of Sudan will be under islamic "government". And then, Nigeria. and so on and on until all of Africa is forced to bow to mecca every morning. Then the elimination of all black muslims will commence. When that is over, the extermination of all sunnis can start. The master plan is a monotoned world where every person is a subservient member of a single unified interpretation of Islam.
The same plan is underway everywhere. Do you honestly think that if Israel made any more attempts at peace than they already have, the muslims would then sit back and say OK lets all be friends and behave nicely? No, they would be galvanised to push even harder for the total destruction of Israel. Can you make peace with a column of army ants or a pool of piranhas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| ...manufacturer. |
Mere words to our friend. "Merchandise," "buy/sell," "assemble," "produce" or "manufacture." It's all Greek -- or should I say "American?" -- to him...LOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You can come up with all the nice graphs and Google links you want, you can even continue with the Canuckistan/Nowhere Man line of pseudorefutatious attack against my views. But if you cannot answer these questions then you are simply slopily bending facts or outright fabricating them as you go along (again).
|
...and we all know one CANNOT have an opinion in the CE forum Gopher disagrees with WITHOUT having to read Gopher's insults about it.
Gopher is the kind of know-it-all bossyboots American that produces all those negative stereotypes about Americans.
A diplomatic and cutural disaster on 2 legs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Canuckistan, please back up whatever you say with facts or at least be able to explain how and why you conclude that which you assert. Your "back-story" and overly-cynical dismissal of professional historical research, for example. How do you know this? How did you reach this conclusion? You assert it does not derive from an overly-cynical worldview. Well, then, from where does it derive, then? Facts? Gossip? People Magazine? Guardian Op-Eds? Counterpunch? What?
And as you are here siding with Ddeubel, please explain how you know that that particular AK was produced in Las Vegas, hmm? And while you are at it, who took that photo, when did they take it, and where is it and what does it show? How does it, in-and-of itself, indict the United States? All I see is an African or Middle Eastern woman armed with an AK, no time, date, or place indicated. I do not see how the United States is involved in that photo in any way whatsoever. All I ask is that you show me how you see what you see.
If you cannot do that then it is you and not I who is the joke, particularly where you equate "legitimate opinion" with "bent facts" and outright "fabrication." "Well, that's your opinion" fallacy. "Everyone is entitled to an opinion."
Sure they are. But if they are going to exchange views in a forum where not everyone shares their hostile-to-America viewpoint, particularly with posters like R.S. Refugee and their fabricated-photo propaganda campaigns lurking about, then they should probably be prepared to explain their opinions, how they formed them. I do not understand why you find that so unreasonable. But there it is.
One problem may be that you and they simply lack self-awareness and have never reflected on such questions.
Am I a "know-it-all?" Hard to say. Probably depends on your perspective. But, however that may be, I am confident that I do indeed know more than you on foreign affairs. And, whatever it is that I think I know, at least I can and usually do explain to others how I got there.
P.S. I am pleased that the mods' heavy-handed "civility" campaign, backed-up by all manner of threats, has shown such good results, particularly with respect to personal attacks...at least you do not call me "idiot" anymore. Thanks for that.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
Gopher is the kind of know-it-all bossyboots American that produces all those negative stereotypes about Americans.
|
replace Gopher with Canuckistan, replace American(s) with Canadian and voila: you have a statement that many would agree with 100%.
pot-kettle-black. life is grand.
Way to ignore his argument and focus on his one little dig at you. True professional you are. And I would care less but you carry yourself as holier-than-thou. Nice try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can only speak for myself--I would be much more inclined to respond to Gopher's queries about any opinion I may hold if he weren't so consistently rude and condescending right out of the gates about it. Rude and condescending tends to piss people off--not the greatest form of grease for conversation. Why make the effort when it most likely will be met with yet more rudeness, condescension, and boorishness to the point of bullying?
I also don't always have the time to devote to expanding on any opinion I may hold--Gopher should simply take whatever quip (amongst many on a thread) I've made for what it is and let it go. Move on. But he seems incapable of doing so in any kind of good-natured way when it's clear that what I've said is all I'm going to say. This is only a discussion board, not the National Security Council.
Hence Gopher's being lovingly bestowed with the label of "having control issues."
You obviously didn't get my little anti-American joke vis a vis Gopher. I thought this time I'd give him just cause to label me anti-American like he usually does when he doesn't succeed in being able to (rudely) push me around.
High entertainment indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| ...Gopher should simply take whatever quip (amongst many on a thread) I've made for what it is and let it go. Move on. But... |
I cannot speak for "high entertainment." But these words represent either the height of sarcasm or the height of hypocrisy. I cannot tell which. One might ask why you did not apply the same "good-natured" discipline that you accuse me of lacking when you intervened on this thread with your own insulting commentary.
And I do find it revealing that you use the passive voice to conceal your own agency in personal attack, as in I am "being lovingly bestowed with the label of 'having control issues.'"
You are the one who says this, Canuckistan. You and Ddeubel now, who is seconding what you initiated. Very well. Call me whatever you like. But let's dispense with the fiction that the mods do not get involved or take sides with respect to this board's politics.
Also, you say that I do not accept your comments as "all that you are going to say on an issue?" This is "not the NSC?" LOL. Indeed it is not.
But I take the above post as admission that you say markedly anti-U.S. things off-the-cuff and cannot back them up. And that, moreover, you resort to complaining that I "push you around" when calling you on this. But, Canuckistan, is your position truly so weak that it cannot withstand my or anyone else's questions? That you want to reserve the right to say anything here and then complain when someone does not merely accept "whatever quip" you feel like making at the moment and move on...?
Who do you think you are?
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:14 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will ignore the reasons as to why we arrived in the present situation. I just find it sad that we now have two groups of people stuck in this situation, both with extremists on their side who want to continue further down the path of destruction.
When I express disgust at the way Israel is treating the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, who they have much power over, I am branded anti-semite. I think this would be less defensible if the Israeli government was more separated from the church.
I think it a bad indication that the Palistinian people would elect their current government. It tells me they are losing any hope. Their youth have stupidly high unemployment levels, and the educational base is being eroded.
Some appear to see "suicide bomber" or armed militant as viable career options.
I think many Israelis consider the concentration camp approach as being the only viable option to protect themselves from the attacks.
Of course one feeds off the other in a positive feedback loop that is already a disaster that appears to be getting worse.
I had dinner in Leh, in Northern India with a young Israeli girl a couple of years ago. We started talking about the situation. She told me, with tears in her eyes, that the previous year the number one song in Israel was "You Promised Us". The song complained that the present young adults had been promised the situation would be solved but wasnt.
I spent a little time, a couple of years later, with three young guys who had just finished their service. Two were rank and file, the other a commander who had to continue to serve. The had all just met in the guesthouse where I was staying. One thing they agreed on was their dislike of the settlers. Most settlers, for religious reasons, do not have to serve. They are the most militant about expansion into the occupied terrotories. Protectiong them costs the most lives of soldiers.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| I will ignore the reasons as to why we arrived in the present situation. I just find it sad that we now have two groups of people stuck in this situation, both with extremists on their side who want to continue further down the path of destruction. |
You mean gopher & canuckistan? or the palestinians? |
|
| 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
