The U.S. Continues To Sell Weapons to Human Rigths Violators and Monarchies

[The Informant]

I didn't say it was "only horrible" for Russia to sell weapons to Lyberia because they don't try to promote human rights. And I didn't say it was o.k. for Russia and China to attack anyone. It is horrible for any country to sell weapons to individuals who destroy human rights.

I was stating that one of my reasons for focusing on the U.S. was because they proclaim to defend human rights and democracy, which to me makes it worse.

It's the hypocracy that pisses me off and was one of the main reasons I choose to single out the U.S.

[freakray]

Originally posted by The Informant

I was stating that one of my reasons for focusing on the U.S. was because they proclaim to defend human rights and democracy, which to me makes it worse.

It's the hypocracy that pisses me off and was one of the main reasons I choose to single out the U.S.

You must not be from the USA originally, most Americans I have met are too fiercely patriotic to actually criticise their own government, yet you say you are from the USA.....weird....

No matter what country you live in, the government is involved in some level of hypocrisy, it is called politics.....

Take a look at Zimbabwe, a 'democratic' country where the leader of the opposition party is neing tried for treason because he stood against the government.

It is noble of you to attempt to single out the USA with your fabricated article, but there is a global picture to look at too.

[The Informant]

I am original from the U.S. born and raised here. I am patriotic, I believe in democracy and human rights. You mistake patriotitism for nationalism.

I see your point about hypocracy running rampet in every country.
I agree that there is a global picture to look at, but I am just one person. I can't spend my life trying to report on every country in the world. It is our responsibility as citizens of our nations to make sure our nations are acting appropriotely and inform people if it is not.

As far as your Zimbabwe example. It is a good one. Now we have to make sure our governments don't support that activity. As I stated another reason for my singling out the U.S. is because I live here and yes I do believe that people can influence the government, but we have to be informed first.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by The Informant


How does the self proclaimed defender of Human Rights and Democracy justify selling weapons to Human Rights Violators and Monarchies.

Two Words: They Can't

Two words Bull Shit.


Britain is a monarchy.Are you suggesting that the USA stop supplying its closest ally?


And it's appalling manners to present a website as supporting evidence without disclosing straight away that it's your own website.As to the question of the ethics of who to sell military harware to - we are talking about firearms manufacturers here.They make a damn good living out of providing people with the means to kill each other in ever greater numbers.What makes you think they have any ethics?

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

like i said everyone makes weapons

every government has weapons
every government is testing weapons.

I don't see any difference other than you've singled out the US and who it supplies to

[The Informant]

Yes I am saying that we should not supply to any Monarchies. Or are you suggesting that when the U.S. attacks a country we don't do it because they are human rights violators or non democratic, the U.s. attacks them because they are not allies. Because if they were allies we would let shit slide, kinda like we do to Saudi Arabia.

And o.k. NSX everyone else does it so it's ok for the U.S. to, nice logic. I guess it would be ok to have slavery in the U.S. if everyone else did it too.

and taraniki you are correct about weapons manufacturers having no ethics, but all sales have to be approved by the U.S. government, which IS supposed to have ethics.

[freakray]

Originally posted by The Informant
Yes I am saying that we should not supply to any Monarchies.

Does that include any countries that are part of a Commonwealth governed by a Monarchy? If that is the case I have a whole list of countries in the British Commonwealth that the USA could stop supplying (that is if anyone took any of your opinions seriously).

Originally posted by The Informant
And o.k. NSX everyone else does it so it's ok for the U.S. to, nice logic. I guess it would be ok to have slavery in the U.S. if everyone else did it too.

I think it is more a case of the USA is doing it so why can't we.
What has slavery got to do with it? A bad example on your part?

Originally posted by The Informant
and taraniki you are correct about weapons manufacturers having no ethics, but all sales have to be approved by the U.S. government, which IS supposed to have ethics.

Do you consider a government that goes to war under false pretenses against an under-powered country ethical?

[The Informant]

It includes any country that is not democratic ruled and does not attempt to defend human rights. I am not saying a countries have to be perfect, every country is going to have problems, but the government has to take active steps to make sure it does not promote or condone those problems.

Slavery was used as an example of something horrible that under the logic of everyone else does it, so why can't we attitude would be allowed if every country allowed the owner ship of slaves. Sort of the "if everyone jumped of a bridge would you"

I didn't say the U.S. government was ethical. what i was saying is that I don't expect companies who are out to make a profit to give a shit about who they sell weapons to, but I do expect the U.s. government, when approving weapon sales, to do so with the idea that it needs to defend human rights and democracy.

[freakray]

Originally posted by The Informant
It includes any country that is not democratic ruled and does not attempt to defend human rights.

Flawed theory...

Britain is both a Monarchy and democracy, the Monarch is a figure head but the country is run by the Prime Minister who is elected democratically.....now what?

I can tell you of several African "democracies" that are anything but a democracy, but that is how they present themselves to the world, not only that, but these democracies repeatedly commit human right violations. Now what?
We have a democracy not defending human rights....ouch

[The Informant]

If they don't defend human rights then they are listed under human rights violaters and should not be sold weapons to, even if they call themselves a democracy

If britian is run by a democratically elected official then it is not a true monarchy, they are listed under the monarchy section of the paper because that is what the u.s. lists them as. So then they are a democracy and if the defend human rights the u.s. can do business with them with a clear conscience.

that is the reason I included everyone in the paper, so you could see how everyone fairs, but I based the catagories on what the U.S. catagorizes the countries as to avoid being labeled bias for using anti-american sources.

[The Informant]

If britian want's to continue to consider itself a monarchy then it will continue to be listed as a Monarchy and thus the U.S. should not sell weapons to them. If they want to get rid of the monarchy system and become a true democracy, then the U.S. would be clear to sell them weapons.

[freakray]

Originally posted by The Informant
If britian want's to continue to consider itself a monarchy then it will continue to be listed as a Monarchy and thus the U.S. should not sell weapons to them. If they want to get rid of the monarchy system and become a true democracy, then the U.S. would be clear to sell them weapons.

What?
What the hell has being a monarchy or not got to do with whether or not the USA should sell them weapons?
It's not like you have any say in the matter regardless, so why do you keep harping on it?
Not only that, but first you were saying they shouldn't sell arms to countries that violate human rights, now you say whether or not a country is a Monarchy should be a determining factor too?

Personally I think the world is at greater risk due to the fact that just about any moron can go out and buy a PC right now, than whether or not Britain is a Monarchy or Democracy and whether the USA should sell them weapons.

Your argument is as dumb as me saying people should not sell food to certain demographic groups or something equally ridiculous.

God help us if somebody with your kind of logic would ever get into a position with any influence.

EDIT: Isn't that your fabricated document that lists them as a Monarchy anyway, amongst other things?

[taranaki]

Informant,if you are going to start threads in this forum,will you please stick to topics that you have at least got a vague understanding of?Your arguments don't hold water.In fact,I'd be willing to wager that Icould hold more water in a sieve.
A lot of companies based in a lot of countries sell weapons to a lot of other nations and organisations absolutely no concern as to whether the weapons will be used to breach human rights.

Your title implies that the U.S.Government has a hand in these sales.I'd be one of the first to say that is not the case.You can't seem to get your head around the concept that monarchies can also be democracies.I think the term you are groping blindly for would be'dictatorships'.

Please,if you are going to contribute to this forum,have at least a vague idea of what it is that you are talking about.

[phalanx]

alright I need to jump in here. The US governments first duty is to its OWN PEOPLE, not anyone else.

Now what possible reason could the US have for selling weapons to dictators?

How about fighting terrorism, a lot of terrorists comes from countries with dictatorships, and if the US wants help u bet there gonna want stuff.

Heres a great example, Pakistan. No doubt Musharaff is a dictator, they held elections and someone else got elected so he made a new law so he could stay in power and the elected PM now has pretty much no power. However the PM that was elected is radical muslim, ya know anti-american terrorist supporter. Now would you rather have a democratic Pakistan with a crazy terrorist supporter or a Dictator like Musharaff who is helping us hunt down al-queda and has become one of our most important allies in this new war. For instance we just gave Pakistan some weapons and we are gonna repair their F-16 fighter jets. Why? well they have nukes and they don't like India very much who. They both claim rights on a region called Kashmir. Now India has one of the largest airforces in the world. If war ever breaks out between them, Pakistan might decide to push the big red button and nuke India, figuring its their only option against India's mighty Airforce, but by giving Pakistan some very formitable fighter jets to somewhat level the playing field, Pakistan won't be so quick to create a new sun over India.

[The Informant]

So the U.S. does what it does to promote it's own interest. The U.S. could give a shit less about who they arm and who they hurt.

Agreed, now will you please tell people, especially Bush, to shut the hell up about Human Rights and Democracy because the U.S. government does not care about either, which was my original point if you read the introduction to the document.