America cashes in on arms sales to developing world

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

America cashes in on arms sales to developing world | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

The United States has consolidated its position as the world's leading arms dealer to the developing world, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a new congressional report published in Washington yesterday. The report, produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), found the arms trade cooled slightly in 2006, shrinking from nearly $46bn in 2005 to nearer $40bn. Sales to developing countries accounted for 80% of the market. The CRS suggested that some buyers - squeezed by higher fuel prices - opted to upgrade weapons they already had rather than buy new gear. Furthermore, Russia appears to have held back some sales to Iran, one of its biggest customers, while sanctions on the Tehran government were debated in the UN security council. American weapons sales accounted for 42% of the global market, a total of nearly $17bn in sales, up $3.4bn from the previous year. The boom in US sales appears to have been partly fuelled by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have made neighbouring countries nervous. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the biggest buyers. Russia is the world's second biggest dealer with sales of $8.7bn in 2006, nearly 22% of the market. Britain is third on list, with $3.1bn in sales. Those sales figures are almost certain to be boosted this year with Saudi Arabia's confirmation of a purchase of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters, worth £4.3bn, part of a sales and maintenance package worth up to £20bn.

The rite to bear arms is a good revenue to many of us "peaceful" nations

[Osborn F Enready]

Funny how England, who limits its own citizens access to arms, is the third largest supplier.

Funny how so many nations like to talk about moving toward peace, but don't mind making money off war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Funny how England, who limits its own citizens access to arms, is the third largest supplier. Funny how so many nations like to talk about moving toward peace, but don't mind making money off war.

Good point. To militarists, arms trades to corrupt nations are just "goods and services," little bribes to more peacefully buy off foreign governments and help keep their populations down.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think all people in all nations who are legal citizens, should be able to purchase arms from the market, unihibited by law.

Self-defense is a right, and if the "rebels" in Myanmar(Burma) had arms at their protests, they would be celebrating victory today, instead of weeping over the many protesters lost, with no gain to show for it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Funny how England, who limits its own citizens access to arms, is the third largest supplier. Funny how so many nations like to talk about moving toward peace, but don't mind making money off war.

That is funny. But what was that old expression? "Peace through superior fire power."

[Osborn F Enready]

I want to know why a nation that FORBIDS its citizens to own arms, is supplying OTHER NATIONS CITIZENS WITH ARMS, and under what ridicuous pretense?

Where is Chris the Cheese?

[Gaius]

Quote by: Chancellor That is funny. But what was that old expression? "Peace through superior fire power."

Hows that working out in Iraq for ya ?

[Osborn F Enready]

Watch what you ask for Gaius.....

Our superior firepower could evaporate Iraq if we actually used it.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I want to know why a nation that FORBIDS its citizens to own arms, is supplying OTHER NATIONS CITIZENS WITH ARMS, and under what ridicuous pretense?

1.
Those guys take any junk.
2.
Those guys pay more, for any junk :-)

[Gaius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Watch what you ask for Gaius..... Our superior firepower could evaporate Iraq if we actually used it.

Are you talking about Nuking Iraq?

Seriously?

Are you under the impression that anything other than a rogue status for the US would follow if this happened?

Terrorism today would be fireworks compared to the world after Iraq is nuked. Not to mention economic boycotts.

Youll be competing with illegal immigrants for that 50 cents an hour job before you can say "im a libertarian"

[thx1138]

Were are the U.S.A . is the "Good Guys" group on this topic? It's not so fun with out their ignorance is bliss defence of the red, white, and blue?

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Gaius Are you talking about Nuking Iraq? Seriously? Are you under the impression that anything other than a rogue status for the US would follow if this happened? Terrorism today would be fireworks compared to the world after Iraq is nuked. Not to mention economic boycotts. Youll be competing with illegal immigrants for that 50 cents an hour job before you can say "im a libertarian"

We could do it without nukes, just like Israel could destroy lebanon and syria without nukes.

On topic: So we sell weapons to alied regiemes and governments. so what?

[Gaius]

Quote by: notworthabean We could do it without nukes, just like Israel could destroy lebanon and syria without nukes.

Lots of good thats doing you. I see lots of hot air, we were promised shock and awe and got a lot of that from the insurgents bogging us down.

As for israel, they killed 1000 lebanese civilians and still couldnt stop those missiles from hitting israeli targets. Not impressed.

On topic: So we sell weapons to alied regiemes and governments. so what?

[/quote]

i guess only a human being would see a problem with selling weapons to certain countries

[ruksak]

Quote by: Gaius Lots of good thats doing you. I see lots of hot air, we were promised shock and awe and got a lot of that from the insurgents bogging us down.

We brought down a regime and a federal army in a matter of hours. Without a single American casualty.

The issue now is sympathy for the people. Something that the world seems to think we have none of. Fact is, we could suppress them (insurgents) almost entirely were it not for caring over civilian casualties.

As for israel, they killed 1000 lebanese civilians and still couldnt stop those missiles from hitting israeli targets. Not impressed.

Same deal. They held back. In both instances your talking about maybe 2% of their military power being utilized. Probably not even that much.

Be honest, Gaius.

[thx1138]

These jockstraps that are for invading every country in the world should be the first ones in line.

The issue now is sympathy for the people. Something that the world seems to think we have none of. Fact is, we could suppress them (insurgents) almost entirely were it not for caring over civilian casualties.

WHOORAAH... we killed them good!! Hea hea hee hee!! (banjos playing in the background)

[ruksak]

Quote by: thx1138 These jockstraps that are for invading every country in the world should be the first ones in line. WHOORAAH... we killed them good!! Hea hea hee hee!! (banjos playing in the background)

Personal insult? Again? You are transparent.

[Gaius]

Quote by: ruksak We brought down a regime and a federal army in a matter of hours. Without a single American casualty. The issue now is sympathy for the people. Something that the world seems to think we have none of. Fact is, we could suppress them (insurgents) almost entirely were it not for caring over civilian casualties. Same deal. They held back. In both instances your talking about maybe 2% of their military power being utilized. Probably not even that much. Be honest, Gaius.

Be honest? Youre telling me the state terrorist apartied regime of israel utilized 2 % of its military power? I think youre utilizing 2 % of your brain with a statement like that.

I love how the gung ho scum talk about defeating the iraqi army within hours, wow, i wonder who the heck is killing all those troops? Keanu Reeves perhaps?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Gaius Be honest? Youre telling me the state terrorist apartied regime of israel utilized 2 % of its military power? I think youre utilizing 2 % of your brain with a statement like that. I love how the gung ho scum talk about defeating the iraqi army within hours, wow, i wonder who the heck is killing all those troops? Keanu Reeves perhaps?

I'm "Gung ho scum"?

I'm not really "for" the Iraq war. I'm just pointing out factual information. Our soldiers aren't being killed by other soldiers. They are being killed by what are essentially, civilians.
If we didn't care we would fall back on the "gung ho" mantra of Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Gaius Lots of good thats doing you. I see lots of hot air, we were promised shock and awe and got a lot of that from the insurgents bogging us down. As for israel, they killed 1000 lebanese civilians and still couldnt stop those missiles from hitting israeli targets. Not impressed.

i guess only a human being would see a problem with selling weapons to certain countries[/quote]

1) well shock and awe was very limited. We weren't just bombing the whole city of bagdahd

2) They kill 1000 people in lebanon including about 500 Hezbollah shmucks. And all those rockets (about 3k-4k) killed a wopping 43 people.

Who's the really effective one?

3) What countries do you have a problem selling it too? Saudi Arabia isn't realy my favorite country, but there better then a lot of their neighbors.

Be honest? Youre telling me the state terrorist apartied regime of israel utilized 2 % of its military power? I think youre utilizing 2 % of your brain with a statement like that.

I have no idea about the terrorist apartied regieme of israel, but i know the government of Israel that invaded lebanon wasn't using its full strength.

p.s. can you show me on the map where the terrorist apartied regieme of israel is? I didn't know there were two israels

[Osborn F Enready]

Gaius said: Are you talking about Nuking Iraq?

No, I said be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Gaius said: Seriously?

Can you read, seriously?

I think my point was quite clear, and Ruksak cleared up the point even further. If the American Military was given the order, they could evaporate Iraq in entireity. That does NOT mean I would support that order.

I thought I had already made that point abundantly clear over my posting history, in this thread, and this entire site.

Gaius said: Are you under the impression that anything other than a rogue status for the US would follow if this happened?

You seem to be railing, as if I support the move, when I was simply stating the fact that if we sought to do so, Iraq could resemble a fire-pit.

Gaius said: Terrorism today would be fireworks compared to the world after Iraq is nuked. Not to mention economic boycotts. Youll be competing with illegal immigrants for that 50 cents an hour job before you can say "im a libertarian"

What in thehell are you talking about.... I ALREADY AM, thanks to the idiocy of our trade policy WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.