U.S.A no1

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So yes, I geddit. It's all Bush's fault again, right?

Are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States doesn't have any input on who the US gives military aid to and who the US sells military weaponary to?

According to the article, companies that sell arms are following the law. Are you suggesting Bush has the power to change the law without congressional input?

-

[billvon 2,991]

>Are you seriously suggesting that the President of the United States
> doesn't have any input on who the US gives military aid to and who the
> US sells military weaponary to?

From my experience, he only has input when the results are good. When the results are determined to be bad he had nothing to do with it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

No, merely that if he didn't like the law he could easily make a stink about it and try to get it changed. Guess he must like the law.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

No, merely that if he didn't like the law he could easily make a stink about it and try to get it changed. Guess he must like the law.

Oh, what great logic. Guess it's back to it all being Bushs fault.

-

[mr2mk1g 10]

It's pefectly valid logic. The same logic is even the basis of an perfectly valid legal doctorine called "laches".

He's been in power fighting worldwide tyrany and an axis of evil for years now. If there's something about his country that runs completely counter to that desire it's a bit rich to say there's nothing he could have tried to do about it already.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It's pefectly valid logic. The same logic is even the basis of an perfectly valid legal doctorine called "laches".

He's been in power fighting worldwide tyrany and an axis of evil for years now. If there's something about his country that runs completely counter to that desire it's a bit rich to say there's nothing he could have tried to do about it already.

So you seriously believe a persons inaction infers approval? Does this standard only apply to Bush, or do you apply it to everyone?

-

[mr2mk1g 10]

It applies to everyone. It's a perfectly bona fide legal principal. You should keep an eye on it – if you don't believe it exists maybe you'll find yourself on the wrong end of legal argument based on it one day and lose your shirt.

While you're laughing you can try googling it - here's the I'm feeling lucky version: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It applies to everyone. It's a perfectly bona fide legal principal. You should keep an eye on it – if you don't believe it exists maybe you'll find yourself on the wrong end of legal argument based on it one day and lose your shirt.

While you're laughing you can try googling it - here's the I'm feeling lucky version: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

Well there you have it. All you need to do is file a lawsuit against Bush and he will change the law. I guess you will have to file a suit against all members of Congress to since they are by definition complicit. Please let us know how your suit works out because to not file one, by definition means you approve.

In fact the entire ABA is also guilty since they have allowed this to continue for many, many years. Please PM me after you win the suit.

-

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

It applies to everyone. It's a perfectly bona fide legal principal. You should keep an eye on it – if you don't believe it exists maybe you'll find yourself on the wrong end of legal argument based on it one day and lose your shirt.

While you're laughing you can try googling it - here's the I'm feeling lucky version: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

Well there you have it. All you need to do is file a lawsuit against Bush and he will change the law. I guess you will have to file a suit against all members of Congress to since they are by definition complicit. Please let us know how your suit works out because to not file one, by definition means you approve.

In fact the entire ABA is also guilty since they have allowed this to continue for many, many years. Please PM me after you win the suit.

-

my problem has nothing to do with selling of arms. We have done it, are doing it, and will do it for years. It is big business and that is how we roll.

No, my problem is that Bush EXPLICITELY states that we are fighting tyranny and evil while this goes on. He takes a high moral road that we have no right to really walk. And I think that is a fundamental issue to many people. Bush often expounds upon (or I should say, repeats one idea over and over) one ideal: that we are right and GOOD. And that good is touted as the "absolute" good, not as a relative good as it would apply to America's interests.

There is a distinct disparity between the way we act in the world and the way he portrays us. I think that disparity is a great cause of problem.

Is he the only politician to do this? Hell no. Does he take it to a greater extreme? In my opinion, yes.

regardless of that, as I have said, arms dealing is not Bush's fault. He did not start it and he is not going to stop it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I'm not filing a suit - I have no right to nor do I care much. I'm not even a US citizen. I'm just posting for the sake of it. Remember you have to have a right to exercise in order to be guilty of laches in failing to exercise it.

Yes you could easily argue that Congress is also culpable for not changing the laws to prevent the US giving military aid to tyrannical despots. The US people though would be a bit of a stretch - that would probably be too remote (kingdom for a horse etc).

Bush and Congress though - this stuff is their job. A lot of people in Washington have made it their business to take on world tyranny - it's certainly valid to question why they've not wanted to do anything about something like this which goes right to the very heart of their self selected crusade.

I’m sure there are other arguments out there against such questions though (I've even thought up a couple myself). But I don't think this is really one of them.

Open question for all on here (as I honestly don't know the answer). Who decides which countries get military aid and in what quantity? Who signs off on that order? (Note I'm asking about aid not sales).

[Gravitymaster 0]

THE ABCs OF MILITARY AID

Foreign Military Financing: Congress appropriates grants to finance foreign nations’ purchases of American-made weapons, services and training. Between 1950 and 2005, the U.S. government has provided over $121 billion in FMF to militaries around the world.

Economic Support Fund: These grants are designed to promote “economic and political foreign policy interests of the United States” by “providing assistance to allies,” with the aim of “mitigating the root causes of terrorism.” While U.S. law makes clear that ESF is not intended for military expenditure, the grants are frequently used as a de facto military aid, with foreign governments using the funds to free up their own resources for military programs.

International Military Education and Training IMET grants are given to foreign governments to pay for military training provided by U.S. military officials and with U.S. weapons. In 2004, $91 million was allocated to train 11,000 solider/students from more than 100 countries.

The U.S. government also provides military aid in the form of Counter-Narcotics Assistance (CNA).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE ABCs OF ARMS SALES

There are two major channels through which American arms manufacturers sell weaponry to foreign countries. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are government-to-government agreements negotiated by the Pentagon and the purchasing country. Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) are agreements negotiated between the manufacturing company and the purchasing country and then licensed by the State Department.

Congressional approval must be sought for weapons sales of $14 million or more, and defense services and technical assistance valued at $50 million or more. In recent years, these requirements have changed for NATO allies, Australia, Japan and New Zealand, and now these countries can bypass the Congressional approval process for weaponry valued less than $25 million or technical assistance valued at less than $100 million.

Within the State Department, the Office of Defense Trade Controls maintains the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a list of all the categories of goods that are considered munitions. ITAR also names those states ineligible to receive U.S. armaments.

The U.S. government transfers weapons from its stocks for free or at greatly reduced prices through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. Through the Emergency Drawdown program, allied governments can receive fast track grants of weapons to address crisis situations. Both programs are managed through the Defense Department.



-

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

America does not always fight a good/evil battle. Often, we fight a "what is good for America" battle. Not everything is split so easily into good vs evil, no matter what politicians like to say..

I would say we always fight for what is good for american corporations ;)

just look at guatemala and the United Fruit Compnay (now absorbed by DOle Fruit) and how many assasinations we had a hand in...oh wait we paid those guys in cash ;) ( I met a few of them when in Guatemala, some scary dudes)

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Right - cheers for that.

Perhaps some of the anger some are showing here ought to be directed towards those below, as well as to those who they think ought to have changed who you give and sell arms to given their stance on world tyreny:

Congress ("Congress appropriates grants to finance foreign nations’ purchases of American-made weapons")

and

Whoever allocates these ESF grants ("ESF is not intended for military expenditure, the grants are frequently used as a de facto military aid").

and

The Pentagon [who do they report to?] ("FMS) are government-to-government agreements negotiated by the Pentagon and the purchasing country.")

and

Congress again [at least in part] ("Congressional approval must be sought for weapons sales of $14 million or more").

and

The State Department [who do they report to?] ("(ITAR), a list of all the categories of goods that are considered munitions. ITAR also names those states ineligible to receive U.S. armaments.") [it seems this quite an important one as if the receiving country isn't on the ITAR list it's not allowed any arms]

and

The US Government [by which definition?] ("U.S. government transfers weapons from its stocks for free or at greatly reduced prices through the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program.")

[Amazon 7]

Its all Col. Oliver Southerns fault ( from the credits in Lord of War)

That way the fearless leader has plausible deniability.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Russia attacking germany?

During the Cold War, that threat was very real.

Quote

How many Tutsis were supplied weapons while they were systematically slaughtered by Hutus? Ohh, how about all the people in Darfur getting slaughtered and killed by the Janjaweeb, how many of those are you supplying arms to?

None. And that's why the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is happening. What do you suppose would happen if those victims could fight back with small arms, against those who attack them with machetes?

Since you are against anyone providing arms to people under attack, we can only presume that you prefer to sit back and do nothing, and watch these people be slaughtered, all the while, feeling smugly good about yourself for not fanning the "arms race".

Quote

The holier than thou and we do it for the good of the world attitude is both dilusional and sickening.

The "America is evil" crowd is delusional and sickening.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I dunno, maybe you really can't see the hypocrisy of spouting crap like "ending tyranny in our world" whilst at the same time selling shitloads of weapons to questionable regimes, but it seems pretty fucking obvious to me.

Yeah, we shoulda stayed the heck out of WWII. It wasn't our darn problem. To heck with the lend-lease of military goods to England and France. To heck with American involvement with troops and equipment. Let Hitler take over and rule Europe for eternity. Who gives a shit about them! American arms are evil!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

I dunno, maybe you really can't see the hypocrisy of spouting crap like "ending tyranny in our world" whilst at the same time selling shitloads of weapons to questionable regimes, but it seems pretty fucking obvious to me.

Yeah, we shoulda stayed the heck out of WWII. It wasn't our darn problem. To heck with the lend-lease of military goods to England and France. To heck with American involvement with troops and equipment. Let Hitler take over and rule Europe for eternity. Who gives a shit about them! American arms are evil!!!

That made absolutely no sense in the context of what he said.

Military aid != arms exporting - get that straight.

WWII != selling arms to morally questionable countries.

Nor does WWII have to do with ANYTHING Bush says today.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[christelsabine 1]

Let Hitler take over and rule Europe for eternity. Who gives a shit about them! American arms are evil!!!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

It wasn't our darn problem.

This is a list of US shipping sunk by Hitler's forces before the attack on Pearl Harbour... in which another 20 ships were damaged or sunk and 2395 were killed. How on earth do you conclude that WWII wasn't America's problem?

Date Ship Type Cause Result Location Deaths
10/09/39 SS City of Flint Hog Island freighter Capture by pocket battleship Deutchland Released NAtlantic None
2/18/40 El Sonador Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk Shetland Islands Crew Approx 17
06/12/40 Exochorda Freighter Shelled Slight damage Med-Black Sea None
11/09/40 City of Rayville Freighter German mine Sunk Australian coast Crew 1
12/21/40 Charles Pratt Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk SAtlantic Crew 2
05/21/41 Robin Moor Hog Islander Torpedo & Shelled Sunk Caribbean None
08/11/41 Iberville Freighter Aerial mine from German aircraft Damaged Red Sea None
08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24 (3 survivors)
09/05/41 Steel Seafarer Freighter Bombed by German aircraft Sunk Gulf of Suez None
09/11/41 Arkansan Freighter Shelled Damaged Indian-Red Sea None
09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 26
09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 13
09/27/41 I. C. White Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk South Atlantic Crew 3
10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 17, (17 survivors)
10/19/41 Lehigh Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed None
11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown North Atlantic Unknown
11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx. 38
11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx 33; German POW 1
11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk North Atlantic Crew 9
11/19/41 Del Pidio Unknown (Philippines) Mine Unknown Philippines Crew 6
11/19/41 Edridio Mindoro (67 ton) Mine Sunk Philippines Unknown
12/02/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 37
12/03/41 Sagadahoc Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed Crew 1
12/07/41 Cynthia Olson Steam Schooner Torpedo Sunk Pacific Crew 33; US Army 2

[GTAVercetti 0]

Dude,

I think he was being sarcastic.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

oh well.

In that case the his post simply made no sense in context.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Yeah, we shoulda stayed the heck out of WWII. It wasn't our darn problem.

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot. Your ancestors involvement in a war over half a century ago gives your present day president carte blanche to do anything to anybody. Silly me for not remembering that.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot. Your ancestors involvement in a war over half a century ago gives your present day president carte blanche to do anything to anybody. Silly me for not remembering that.

Well, you got the "silly me" part correct.

Your "conclusion" has nothing to do with my point. My point was that some American military involvement is unquestionably a good thing. Which is contrary to the message that started this thread, implying that all American military involvement is bad.

And I suppose the critics would, unlike U.S. Presidents, have the divine wisdom to know in advance how things are going to turn out.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot. Your ancestors involvement in a war over half a century ago gives your present day president carte blanche to do anything to anybody. Silly me for not remembering that.

Well, you got the "silly me" part correct.

Your "conclusion" has nothing to do with my point. My point was that some American military involvement is unquestionably a good thing. Which is contrary to the message that started this thread, implying that all American military involvement is bad.

And I suppose the critics would, unlike U.S. Presidents, have the divine wisdom to know in advance how things are going to turn out.

No. You are wrong.

This thread was not started about MILITARY AID.

It was started about ARMS DEALING. they are different. And so, your POINT is irrelevent to the topic. Helping in WWII is not dealing in arms. We did not just sell Europe weapons.

I don't even know why I am posting this again. You will probably just ignore it again.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The United States transfers more weapons and military services than any other country in the world
thank you again for making the world a safer place

News:

Smith & Wesson has secured an order from the U.S. Army to provide 12,000 pistols for shipment to the Afghanistan Border Patrol. The order is valued at approximately $3.4 million...

Full Story

So, Mr. busaunit, what is evil about this arms transaction? Don't the Afghanii's have a right to secure their border from those that would infiltrate and do their people harm? Or would they be more safe with no border security at all, or with border guards armed with sticks? What say you?