May 27, 2005 U.S. Has Loosened Rules for Arms Sales, Study Says By LESLIE WAYNE The sale of military weapons to other countries, including many that were once barred from making such purchases, has increased sharply since the attacks on Sept. 11, according to a study by a New York research group. As the United States is trying to secure new allies in its fight against terrorism, the study by the World Policy Institute - a research group based at the New School University - says that the nation has expanded the sales of weapons to countries that were once prohibited from receiving American-made goods because of their poor human rights records. Among the countries are Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as Algeria and Uzbekistan. Some two dozen countries have either become first-time recipients since Sept. 11 or have been readmitted to the program after long absences. The study found that the largest aid program, Foreign Military Financing, increased 68 percent from 2001 to 2003, to reach $6 billion - a peak amount - before trending back to a current $4.5 billion. More than half of the top 25 recipients in 2003, either through the commercial sales program or through foreign military sales, were countries that the State Department has defined as undemocratic. They included Saudi Arabia (purchases of $1.1 billion); Egypt ($1 billion); Kuwait ($153 million); and the United Arab Emirates ($110 million). In other cases, weapons were sold to countries having internal conflicts, including Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, or where the human rights record was "poor," according to the State Department; this category included Nigeria, Tunisia and Nepal. Policy makers in Washington have said that the aid is necessary to secure overseas military bases or reward allies. But the author of the report, William Hartung, said the equipment could end up "fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries." Charles Pena, a military specialist at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that promotes free-market policies, said that while arms transfers were preferable to sending troops, there are risks. "If a regime can use these arms to subdue their own population," Mr. Pena said, "this could come back to haunt us. We need to be more mindful of the long-term implications, especially in the Muslim world." While the overall increase in these military sales may make for some good strategic policy, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military specialist at the Brookings Institution, the approach could be a "missed opportunity" if not accompanied by other forms of aid. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/business/27arms.html?pagewanted=print
Possibly by not arming their governments so they could rise up for freedom. How would arming Saddam Hussein make Iraqis any less free? You understand that is the kind of question you are asking, right?
Nope, I'm not saying that. I am saying that it is morally reprehensible to arm govts. that brutalize and murder their own civilians. Just because another nation might arm that govt. isn't an excuse for the U.S. to do so.
Was it wrong when we helped the Soviets during WWII? Which of the nations that received American arms should not have?
You're comparing helping to arm the Soviet Union to fight Hitler's conquest of the world to this? OK. Keep D&D Civil!!
Nope, never said that. I am just curious whether we should have helped a governement that "brutalize(s) and murder(s) it own citizens"? Is the answer : a) absolutely not, or b) it depends on the circumstances?
They had their own weapons, and they were part of an alliance. It wasn't as if they directly asked us for help and we started selling them arms. The case in many of these nations is that they are doing this to their own civilians, and aren't fighting dictators bent on world domination.
So, if they are threatened by an outside force, it might be OK to arm them? How do you stand on aid to Israel? That was one of the primary complaints in this report.
I'm not totally opposed to aid of Israel. They do face a real threat, and an even bigger potential threat. However, they also engage in apartheid like tactics based not on making them safer but solely on nationality.(water rights, palestinians not allowed to drill new wells, etc.) Some of their tough measures are a matter of self defense others are plain bigotry, and oppressive. As long as they continue that, continue to expand their settlements in the west bank, have different laws depending on where a person was born, etc. they need to face the threat of reduction in arms sales from the U.S. So far Israel carries out these unjust policies under the protection of the U.S. We should not shield them for the wrongs they do.
And if these threats do not work, are you willing to carry out those threats? By the way, have you noticed that peace is breaking out all over?
Yes I would be willing not to continue to supply Israel if they didn't stop or least make great progress towards reform. I am encouraged by much of what has been happening in regards with the Palestinians and Israelis. I'm still cautious because I don't think it is wise to count chickens before they are hatched, but I do have hope. Some good things have happened. I hope it continues. I have some problems with the campaign and elections in Lebeannon, but it is a marked improvement over the Syrians being there.
[The following opinion piece is a libertarian's view on the Iraqi War. Guess Fox News is not yet pervaded with Neocon's ideology. You start to feel the uneasiness from the "Right".] U.S. Has Long History of Waging Wrong Wars Wednesday, June 01, 2005 By Jim Powell George W. Bush, according to author and columnist Max Boot, is a "hard Wilsonian" -- a president who "successfully wields power in the service of a higher purpose." This label means using our armed forces not just to defend the United States but to solve the problems of the world. How did Woodrow Wilson become an inspiration for U.S. foreign policy? In 1913, Wilson proclaimed, "I am going to teach the Latin American republics to elect good men," and he dispatched soldiers to Mexico, where one president had been overthrown and another assassinated. Wilson failed to install a good government, he failed to catch the bandit Pancho Villa who had raided U.S. border towns, and he made enemies throughout the hemisphere. In 1917, Wilson persuaded Congress to declare war against Germany, so that the U.S. could make the world "safe for democracy." By entering World War I on the side of France and Great Britain, Wilson enabled them to win a decisive victory and impose vindictive surrender terms on Germany. This move triggered a bitter nationalist reaction, generating political support for Hitler. Meanwhile, Wilson pressured and bribed the Russian Provisional Government to stay in the war. But staying in the war accelerated the collapse of the Russian army, and by the fall of 1917, when Lenin made his fourth coup attempt, there was hardly any Russian army left to defend the government. Lenin established secret police, concentration camps and a reign of terror, and the result was seven decades of Soviet communism. Even though the United States defeated Hitler in World War II, within five years more people lived under totalitarian regimes than before the war, as communists came to power in Eastern Europe and China. Millions ended up exchanging a Nazi tyranny for a communist tyranny. In 1950, President Harry Truman entered the Korean War on the assumption that China would stay out. He guessed wrong, and hordes of Chinese soldiers forced the U.S. to accept a stalemate that cost over 33,000 American lives. Americans were disillusioned with Truman's misadventures, and he decided not to run for re-election. Confident about America's overwhelming firepower, President Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War during the 1960s. But the North Vietnamese adopted guerrilla tactics to elude most of the bombs, and American soldiers were at a disadvantage in strange jungles. More than 58,000 Americans were killed. The quagmire forced Johnson to give up the idea of seeking re-election in 1968. For a while, there was a reluctance to enter foreign wars, which neoconservatives denounced as the "Vietnam syndrome." Supposedly, all would be well only if a president entered wars more energetically, with more determination to persist till victory. But U.S. experience suggests that success requires more than a higher purpose. Any country does better defending itself than fighting other people's wars. Problems arise when invading a foreign country, such as fighting on unfamiliar terrain and dealing with people who speak different languages and have very different values. A foreign country's actions are hard for the U.S. to predict. Moreover, because the U.S. is fighting in somebody else's country, its adversaries know that eventually the troops are going home, and if they hold out long enough, they could prevail. Demands to go home generally increase as casualties rise when Americans don't believe the sacrifices are for their vital interests. Imagine how Americans will feel if their loved ones lose their lives trying to establish democracy in Iraq, and the outcome is an anti-American, Iranian-style, Shiite theocracy. If, in the name of fighting terrorism and reforming the world, the U.S. embarks on a policy of perpetual war, its ability to fight as effectively as possible when it really counts will be undermined. Already, the armed forces have had difficulty conducting operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There's much concern about enlistment rates for a volunteer army because of the Pentagon's "stop loss" orders forcing tens of thousands of soldiers to remain on active duty perhaps a year longer than they had bargained for. In addition, the U.S. invasion of nuke-free Iraq and its restraint with nuke-armed North Korea send a signal that other nations should secretly accelerate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons since they deter U.S. intervention. U.S. actions encourage the nuclear proliferation it is intended to prevent. Woodrow Wilson left a legacy of trouble. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157960,00.html
Hey, all of a sudden Fox News is at the anti-war forefront? Or is it merely anti-establishment? Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S. Wednesday, June 01, 2005 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos FOX NEWS WASHINGTON -- A British government memo that critics say proves the Bush administration manipulated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein (search) has received little attention in the mainstream media, frustrating opponents of the Iraq war. The "Downing Street Memo" -- first published by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 -- summarizes a high-level meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) and his senior national security team on July 23, 2002, months before the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq. The memo suggests that British intelligence analysts were concerned that the Bush administration was marching to war on wobbly evidence that Saddam posed a serious threat to the world. Click here to read the memo. In the memo, written by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft (search), Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated in the meeting that it "seemed clear" Bush had already decided to take military action. "But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable." "Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions. "The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The memo, which received sporadic reporting in major newspapers in the United States throughout May, has sparked an outcry from more than 88 Democratic members of Congress who have signed two letters to President Bush demanding a response. Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied. Dante Zappala does not agree. For Zappala, the Downing Street Memo strikes a critical and personal chord. His brother, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, 30, a soldier in the Pennsylvania National Guard, was killed in Baghdad 13 months ago on what Zappala said was a mission to find weapons there. "My family knows the consequences of the decision they made to go to war," said Zappala, 29, of Philadelphia. He is a member of Military Families Speak Out, a group that opposes the war and, according to Zappala, now has more than 2,000 members. "I can't speak for what the TV news decides to focus their attention on," Zappala said. "They seem to have a willful deference to all relevant information. I think they've really just dropped the ball on this." But not everyone believes the Downing Street Memo represents a "smoking gun" and deserves more attention. "As a smoking gun it leaves a lot to be desired," said Kevin Aylward, a northern Virginia-based technology consultant who runs the conservative-leaning blog, Wizbangblog.com. "It's interesting, but it's probably fourth- or fifth-hand information." Aylward added: "I suspect the more interesting story at this point, seeing it three weeks later, is who is behind the letter-writing campaign to push it in the media." Several popular left-leaning blogs have taken up the cause to keep the story alive, encouraging readers to contact media outlets. A Web site, DowningStreetMemo.com, tells readers to contact the White House directly with complaints. "This is a test of the left-wing blogosphere," said Jim Pinkerton, syndicated columnist and regular contributor to FOX News Watch, who pointed out that The Sunday Times article came out just before the British election and apparently had little effect on voters' decisions. "In many ways that memo might prove all of the arguments the critics of the war have made," he added. "But the bulk of Americans don't agree, or don't seem that alarmed, so it is a power test to see if they can drive it back on the agenda." Ellis Henican, a columnist for New York Newsday and a FOX News contributor, said the allegations of evidence-fixing had been made before the 2004 election by former senior administration officials Richard Clarke (search) and Paul O'Neill (search), and while many people believe they were right, it had little impact on the re-election of Bush in November. "It's a little late," he said of the memo story, adding that people are resigned to the fact that the United States is in Iraq for the long term, regardless of what events led to the war. "We're kind of stuck." That's no excuse, said Zappala, who argues someone has to be made accountable for the lives lost on false pretenses. "The goal was always to invade Iraq whatever obstacles, legal and moral, were in our way," he said. "I feel that we deserve an amount of accountability by our officials for the decisions they make."
Good Intentions Gone Bad NEWSWEEK's Baghdad bureau chief, departing after two years of war and American occupation, has a few final thoughts. Hard roads: Marines search for mines and IEDs on a remote desert track near the Syrian border with Iraq By Rod Nordland Newsweek June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence." The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. That's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of--and make sure it doesn't happen. Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent. The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost--which only deepens Iraqis' resentment. The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers--to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours--and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family. I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process. Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and equipped. But Iraqis have such a long way to go, and there are so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of those who think America should pull out immediately. There's no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come. The question isn't "When will America pull out?"; it's "How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?" All I can say is this: last one out, please turn on the lights. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/
From UPI/Washington Times (link) Is CIA or Mossad involved in Iraqi insurgency? U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
