Does the Bush administration really see tanks, fighter jets, missiles and warships as peacemakers? “The Department of Defense has agreed so far this fiscal year to sell or transfer more than $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments, compared with $12 billion in 2005,” reported the New York Times, naming Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Romania, Poland and Morocco among recent customers, including some that use U.S. aid to buy the weapons.
Bruce Lemkin, an Air Force deputy undersecretary, said the dealing “is about building a more secure world” and asked: “Would you rather they bought the weapons and aircraft from other countries? Because they will.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- LonnythePlumber on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- LonnythePlumber on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- DavidB on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
25 Comments
Just gearing up for the next major war predicted 2000 years ago, 1/3rd of mankind dead – http://www.endtime.com/EndtimeVidWin.aspx?id=2Billion-01 – time to make peace with your maker
also don’t forget our old buddy Hal – http://www.hallindsey.org/
Hey, you know when you’re good at what you do, you keep on doing it.
Blacksmiths of old, made armor and weapons for warriors.
Arms trade is a profitable business and a necessary ends to provide protection for a country.
Let the Libs argue about protecting the country or other countries protecting themselves with ‘marshmallow’ cheese-eating surrender-monkey tactics and see how long that lasts.
http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-industry-1
Yea, not like there’s a history of this or anything.
No wonder rags like this continue to lose subscribers and lay off employees. Errr…offered early retirement.
A most recent example from the link above:
In the mid-1990s, for example, the United States arranged major new arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates in order to enhance their capacity to resist attack by Iran or Iraq. And as China proceeded with a substantial buildup of its forces, the United States supplied Taiwan with increasingly sophisticated weapons.
MIlitary aircraft/weapons, about our last big export, and mccain’s trying to derail even that.
They should take a lesson from Iraq, after we arm them to the teeth, we go in and destroy their military.
Dadman–
You know why the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages?
Because people rejected classical learning and science and embraced irrationality and superstition.
Just like you wack-os.
You are truly scary.
We spend more money on our military than the rest of the world combined.
Because we need this much spending to protect ourselves?
Hell, no.
It’s because “defense spending” sounds better than what it is–welfare for the rich, taxpayer money funneled to big special interests.
CapnAmerica – critisize the people who stood on the platform at the end of WWI, 8.5 million dead [ the war that was to end all wars ] 35 years later, WWII, 60 million dead globally. Are you telling me that 2 billion dead is impossible given todays armaments ?
I correct myself, 25 years later
Since we have rejected the sermon on the mount and have accepted the technology of the atom, we now have a society of nuclear giants and ethical infants [ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7278951069225366106&hl=en ] enjoy
So quit putting the ethical infants in charge, time for the adults to take over.
In other obviously newsworthy stories of equal value….
The Bush legacy will include the fact that he had the White House lawn mowed regulary.
Duh.
The Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc., etc., Legacy will include arms dealing.
Yawn!
Happiness is a warm gun.
RFL
Posted September 17, 2008 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
The Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc., etc., Legacy will include arms dealing.
Yawn!
—————————————————-
Check my link above RFL. The policy is as old are our nation!
And somehow this is part of the Bush “legacy”.
What a joke.
I guess I’m the liberal who has to step forward and say — for not particular reason, mind you — “YES! We should sell the most sophisticated weapons in the world to potential enemies!!!”
That might be the only way to get the Bushevics to attack me, call me names, and accuse me of treason.
Shrub’s giving people weapons that just might come in handy for them should America happen to piss them off.
Yeah. That’s a good plan.
Oops, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was bombed today. 16 people died. Looks like Bush will have to invade Mongolia now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
“The Bush legacy will include the fact that he had the White House lawn mowed regulary.
Duh.”
Yep – “lawn-order”
Shrub’s giving people weapons that just might come in handy for them should America happen to piss them off.
———–
Override codes.
Same rationale that if you give more people guns, gun violence will go down. Morons.
Happiness is a warm gun – BANG BANG SHOOT SHOOT
“Would you rather they bought the weapons and aircraft from other countries? Because they will.”
Why, yes, I would.
That is the same argument that was used against Wilberforce’s plan to end the British Slave Trade. It was a stupid argument then, and it’s a stupid argument today.
Weapons do not make the world safer. _Diplomacy_ makes the world safer.
What is really stupid is letting these countries use our US aid to buy these weapons. Isn’t that the same as giving them these weapons for free? Oh no, I forgot, the military defense contractor gets their 30 pieces of silver for their trouble.
xwkfdcln fljadhp wsnxzmv gzbjdp zufq atlg eklfrq