Close Topic Options

Us Sells Weapons To Middle East - Page 3

Does it matter what they were called back then, same region, same people and mostly same feeling about how things should be done. It is not so distinct like Germans and Africans. When the weapon lands... it lands in a region, to be used by the people in that region as they choose.

Sources...? Seriously? Why not take the time to Search our Discussions. Visit some of the Threads in the News Board, I believe I have already given you one link in another Thread for which you have not ignited yet.

So funny, I believe Dbackers brought up something similar earlier, we are talking about the US selling to the Middle East, if you want to start a Thread about other nations doing it, then start a new Thread: 'Russia Sells To China' and then rant on. In the mean time - again - stay on Topic.

Points of Discussion are often brought up to do as you said... further the main stream of Discussion. It is fine to defend that point and also continue the actual subject of Discussion: The US sells weapons to the Middle East. What is not fine is to change the subject to one aspect of something in the past. There are many Threads here about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and those folk, look for them - I will follow you there - do not be afraid.

I believe the point here is and Siddharth said it well is this:

East Middle Weapons Sells Us

So if this thread should not discuss Osama, then fine. But please recall that I was not the one who brought it up. I merely responded to the original proponent of the idea, and then I responded to your argument that the proponent was correct.

But the proponent wasn't correct.

And moving on (gladly), I would heartily take issue with this comment:

If that opinion is that selling arms to U.S. allies harms America, then it completely ignores the fact that Iran (a terrorist state) is being armed by China and Russia. And then you tell me to go off and discuss this issue elsewhere? It's pertinent to THIS discussion because of that person's opinion (sale of U.S. arms to allies hurts America). To understand WHY this opinion is incorrect, we have to get into the details of the situation. Like it or not, that involves Iran, China and Russia. (I certainly hope you are not suggesting that if YOU do not see the link that YOUR view must govern. But perhaps I err, as I am new here.)

With Iran building up its arms, even as it stands in explicit violation of U.S. Security Council resolutions prohibiting its nuclear buildup, it presents a huge security risk to the non-Iranian states. And I am ignoring the export of illegal arms from Iran to Iraq, which result in killing Iraqi civilians and allied forces. Most of these non-Iranian states are America's allies (to China and Russia's chagrin). America would be harming its allies by ignoring their desires to defend themselves against Iran's arms build up.

Further, I would argue that America HAS learned much from 9/11, including the view that what we do DOES matter, and that it doesn't help to support an evil dictator just because he sides with America, I.e., Saddam Hussein. Rather, evil comes home to roost, and you WILL harm your reputation by ignoring the rights of the people being trampled by a dictator, while also creating incentives for terrorism against established society. Thus current U.S. foreign policy is that America foster democratic societies, to the maximum extent permitted, while limiting whole scale upheavals of the government/society. This contrasts with former U.S. foreign policy that focused on short-term solutions.

I would say that's an improvement. But many disagree, and even argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam. Wow. I will never understand that. It is as though people never read the accounts of what Saddam's Iraq was really like. And to those who ignore the real threat of Islamic militant extremism, they just have not read enough to know that threat is very real.

All in all, I wonder why we are discussing what does or does not belong in this discussion, as opposed to merely discussing it. I've explained the context of my points in each post. And yet for some reason that seems to be ignored (or disbelieved?).

Message Edited... Persephone: Offtopic remarks removed.

Us Sells Weapons To Middle East History & Civil Business Politics

I brought it up as an example, not as a subject. One important part about Discussion is to know that not everyone is going to agree with you.

Yes, you are indeed new. It is a usual argumentative tactic that when the heat is on one will try to show others doing it. If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar then you will immediately say - "John took one too!". I am not interested in if John took one, I am talking about you - you took one!

I'm not sure what you are saying... you made some points so we must all believe you?

Page 3 East Middle Weapons Sells Us

Rather off topic, but... I do wish we could discuss, rather then waste bandwidth on harping on why one's viewpoint is not relevant to the issue, or trying to slap down one poster while ignoring others. It's not a "tactic" I am using to say someone else has a hand in a cookie jar. My point is that if Person A brings up a point, I ought to be able to react to Person A's point (whether or not that person's point was the topic being discussed). If YOU do not want me do discuss Person A's point, then I do not believe it to be TOO bold to suggest that you slap down the person who brought UP the point you believe to be off point, rather than the responder).

It's not an argument of "He did it too!" It is an argument that I am RESPONDING to a point by someone else. And that RESPONSE is directly on point to the issue that was being discussed.

When I wrote this:

You responded with this:

That was not my point at all. What I as stating (I had hoped rather clearly) was that each time I brought up a point, I directly addressed WHY I was making that point. And yet somehow you missed that and found my points to be irrelevant.

Why?

Either you ignored what I wrote, or you do not believe my explanation of why they were relevant. I give an example. You put forward a quote by another person which was particularly noteworthy in YOUR opinion, being,

While I directly addressed this head on, YOUR response was to complain that I was demanding that everyone believe me?

Huh?

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? Please, can we DISCUSS the issue, as opposed to this eternal bickering over whether my points are relevant or not in your opinion?

Thanks.

Message Edited... Persephone: Please use the Offtopic Tags so that the Thread maintains the same subject matter and does not develop into another Topic.

East Middle Weapons Sells Us

Rather off topic, but... For a person so concerned with the Topic moving on you sure do like to direct people how they must converse. I am interested to see how long you last here, and that is not a Threat, it is all the opposite I actually welcome your fight - it brings fire, but I often find that those who Discuss like you do not last long, I do hope you can prove me wrong. Maybe someone else will rant on with you... I have sites to build... all I ask is that you please use our tags properly: Offtopic and Quote. You will see how we keep people on Topic here all the time it is very Easy to lose focus - we do not allow that to happen, even for those who think they are right.

The Topic: US Sells Weapons to Middle East

The Proposal: The US seems to be selling to those who will later use these same weapons against them.

The Pattern: The US has done it before and is continuing to do it.

Thread: Someone who understands where I am coming from feel free to continue without trying to go into why other countries do the above.

Us Sells Weapons To Middle East

The Proposal: The US seems to be selling to those who will later use these same weapons against them.

The United States is selling arms to its allies in the Middle East. Seems coherent to me.

The Pattern: The US has done it before and is continuing to do it.

Obviously. Allies need to trust each other. What is the alternative to selling arms to allies? Selling them to terrorists or our enemies?

Edited: tortdog on 13th Aug, 2007 - 10:34pm

Us Sells Weapons Middle East - Page 3

U.S. Foreign Military Assistance data from 2001 to 2007 and proposals for 2008 can be found via FAS.org. U.S. Arms Transfers: Government Data can be found here.

Us Sells Weapons Middle East Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

From the early 90's to early 2000, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world, is not only a great and profitable business for the USA but they have sold these weapons to many anti-democratic nations who committed horrible abuses against its citizens but again who cares if I am making a buck, no?

There was supposed to be a code of conduct but in the 90's, 80% or more of the countries the US sold weapons to did not fit the criteria so let's not be naive to think the US only sold weapons to "good" countries.

Iraq, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, South Korea, Saudi Arabia to just name a few countries where the human rights of people were jeopardized or non-existent according to Human Rights organizations.

https://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm

This was the main point of the thread, the US supplying weapons and training certain countries to THEN have to fight them back when they turn against them, so silly! Greed can be a dangerous thing but again, greedy people don't learn their lesson.

Some interesting facts about the US and its "profitable business" of selling weapons and WHY they did/do supported terrorism indirectly:

https://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm