[quote]Not really. The US is not objecting simply to the sale of arms.
The US is objecting to the sale of arms by the US’ supposed allies to a nation that could pose the greatest threat to the US.[/quote]
Rascal, you sound like Ronald Reagan! 
Which US arms sales have had such potential?
Can you show me which US arms sales have gone to regimes that … attack / threaten others, possibly including US allies?
Not really. The US is not objecting simply to the sale of arms.
The US is objecting to the sale of arms by the US’ supposed allies to a nation that could pose the greatest threat to the US.
The US would not be objecting to the sale if such sale were to be made to Canada, rather than to China.[/quote]
Faulty logic, TM. The US sells about $15 billion in weapons per year, by far leading the world in weapons sales. Weapons kill indiscriminately, without regard for whether the target is a friend of Dubya. We sell billions of $ of weapons to Israel, which then sells them to China, Iraq and Iran. When the US spy plane went down on Hainan it noticed Israeli missiles on the Chinese fighter’s wings. A few years back it was reported that Iraq was shooting Israeli-developed Chinese missiles at US planes in the no-fly zones. So we sell plenty of weapons that are used against our own soldiers, not to mention being used to commit atrocious human rights violations against others.
Moreover, US allegiances shift from year to year. One year we support Iraq, the next year we oppose it. One year we support Mobutu, Duvalier, Noriega, Saddam, the Shah, the next year we oppose them. But the weapons we sold to them don’t cease to exist along with our friendly relations. Thus, the vast quantities of arms that the US sells will invariably be used against not just our latest political strategy, but against our own people.
We have no moral ground to criticize any other nation that seeks to profit from death. The sale of instruments of death is big business (and politics) in the US; other countries just want a piece of the action that US companies profit from. We are no better than them.
[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]
A bit drastic, no?[/quote]
I would see it more as poetic justice 
Actually I missed out …anbody selling arms [color=red]to China[/color].
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Faulty logic, TM. The US sells about $15 billion in weapons per year, by far leading the world in weapons sales…
We have no moral ground to criticize any other nation that seeks to profit from death. The sale of instruments of death is big business (and politics) in the US; other countries just want a piece of the action that US companies profit from. We are no better than them.[/quote]
OK MT, I see your point (I don’t entirely agree, but I see).
But, even if I did entirely agree, that is a seperate issue. fred smith’s original post, and the title of this thread, indicate that the complaint is that the Europeans, specifically the two loudest screamers (aka France and Germany) are now proposing an action of potential global consequence without consulting their allies re the same.
This is the issue I’d like to see addressed.
Any weapon.
Are you limiting that question to the last part or are you asking in general?
You’re right. Any weapon would have that potential. But, if you worry too much about that, you agree with MT, and that would mean that you oppose the sale of any weapon to any party. Do you oppose the sale of any weapon to any party?
I just want to know if the US has (recently) sold weapons to regimes that attack / threaten US allies, particularly Germany and France.
No. But I do oppose the hypocrisy of the US.
I did not say that allies means Germany and France in particular.
Europe doesn’t consult the U.S.?
Boo Fucking Hoo.
No. But I do oppose the hypocrisy of the US.
I did not say that allies means Germany and France in particular.[/quote]
It isn’t hypocrisy until you show me which sales of US waepons went directly to the enemies of our allies (any allies).
My argument was not limited to the sales by the US to enemies of their allies, so there still can be hypocrisy based on the other part I mentioned, that is human rights abuses or atrocities committed - which is one of the reasons why the US objects arms sales to China
As the US itself does carry out arms sales to such countries it is hypocritical to tell others they should not.
I used ‘possibly’ as such a threat could be widely defined but I am sure you would disagree anyhow based on your own definition and views, so I guess I will ‘dodge’ that question. Point 1. remains relevant and proves the hypocrisy already.
But mine was. I stated that the US opposes arms sales to China because China is a potential enemy of the US. Can we address one issue at a time?
Where the heck is Traveller when we need him to point out that someone is obfuscating the issue?
Here is exactly what I stated:
Now, can you identify any recent US arms sale made directly to an enemy of any of our allies?
If you cannot, I maintain that there is no hypocrisy on the part of the US in connection with this issue.
One issue at a time. That way we prevent obfuscation… even if it is innocent obfuscation, which I accept occurs occassionally.
I hope you are referring to yourself, else prove that allegation.
Where did ‘recently’ come from? Nevermind.
That said you have actually obfuscated: what you are here asking for is not the only reason why the US has been and still is opposing the sales, read the article.
So you might limit yourself to that part only (cherry-picking again, eh?) and thus try to prove there is no hypocrisy, but looking at the entire issue you will realize that there is more to it and that this does prove hypocrisy by the US.
See my point 1. which was also part of my initial response.
Don’t take offense where none is intended. I was really just sniping at Traveller, seeing as he is so terribly concerned that issues are obfuscated here.
Anyway, I did show how you obfuscated the issue… and I stated that I do not think you did so intentionally. But you did obfuscate the issue.
No, no… that’s a fair question. I add “recently” because, as you often state, events that occur, say 60 years ago, are irrelevant to current events… No, just teasing. But the sales must be qualified as recent to ensure that you don’t cite a sale to a nation that was once a friend and later became a foe. I am limiting my question to instances where the US sold arms to a current enemy of one or more of our allies.
No obfuscation on my part. I made a statement, which I believe to be accurate. That is what I assert. I care not what someone in the article asserts. I think for myself.
No. No obfuscation. I stated a simple and straightforward argument. Can or will you address my argument, without obfuscating the same?
Its not cherry picking. I merely want to discuss this issue before we move onto different issues. That is, I don’t want to confuse (or obfuscate) the issue(s).
Well, I think I have already proved no hypocrisy with respect to my argument.
Its not the entire issue… you are adding different issues to the mix. One issue at a time, please!
I will not realize anything unless and until you prove it. We do that by addressing one issue at a time… not by obfuscating the issues all in a tangled mess.
Well what are the worst regimes in the world at present? North Korea? Iran? Libya? Syria? PLO? Iraq (previously) and who was selling weapons to whom?
Did the US arm Iraq or Iran or North Korea or Libya or Syria? No. That was left to Germany, France and Russia. Looking over the list of big buyers of US weapons, which one is a threat to world peace or regional stability? None really. People can disagree with selling to Israel, but Israel is not a threat (invasion) to its neighbors. These are merely for defensive purposes. But when Germany and France sell to the likes of Iran and Iraq and now perhaps China, what do they think that they are going to accomplish? Hmmm?
Also of course we are the No. 1 world arms seller, we are also the world’s no. 1 guarantor of security. Who else is going to defend Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore? EUROPE? China? Russia? or what about Israel? the Gulf States? Turkey? etc.? Is the EU going to underwrite their security? Really?
The only area where the US can justifiably be criticized is our arms sales to places like Indonesia, and in certain countries of Latin America. BUT we have also ended a military and nuclear arms race among Brazil, Argentina and Chile by selling them weapons and limiting what we sell to each one. So while their regimes were not so nice previously, continuing to sell them arms ensured that they did not engage in an arms race, wasting vast sums of money on arms and even going to war with each other. Thank you. WE appreciate your gratitude. Our arms sales to Turkey AND Greece also ensured a level of influence that guaranteed that we could keep Greece and Turkey from going to war with each other over Cyprus. Thank you again.
But how can Germany and France sell weapons to Iraq, Libya, Iran, and now perhaps China? What possible reason except just to make money and also the effects of which will cause far greater instability and threats to world and regional peace than US arms sales to say Colombia.
And again, if the EU does not see the need to “consult” with the US, why in the name of Allah should we have to “consult” with them?
[quote=“fred smith”]
And again, if the EU does not see the need to “consult” with the US, why in the name of Allah should we have to “consult” with them?[/quote]
Oh bugger off. It is the US that set the precedent. Why does Europe have to go along with the US on everything anyway? Because the US says so? You want Europe to be more assertive? You have said so often enough. So, you don’t like it. Tough shit. In some ways we are just following your lead. Go sit in your paranoid living-in-fear-of-your-own-making country while the rest of the world moves on in its own way, in its own diverse ways rather than as carbon copies of a plastic, hypocritical, violent, semi-literate culture (Literacy dropped by 17 million in the US between 1992 and 2002 lead by your moronic President, who should be assassinated by the way - Hello DB)
The Old World Will Rise Again while the US consumes itself in an orgy of paranoid destructive over-self analysis. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
:raspberry:
Let me see Broon Ale:
That would be the same EU (Germany and France) that consulted the US about selling a nuclear reactor to Saddam in the 1970s or Germany who was the primary source of Saddam’s nuclear, missile and chemical weapons equipment and technology? Hmmmm lots of consultation there and now we are seeing them act up again with regard to China. Talk about rogue nations. These two need to be put down. And would you argue that the US did not consult Europe regarding Iraq? No. We did. Germany and France disagreed everyone else except megapowerhouse Belgium was on board and we have got what we wanted: A Free Iraq with a Chance for a Brighter Future.
Many say that we could have left Saddam in power because now we have so many unknowns. BUT what would have happened when one of his psycho sons took over. Perhaps, we would have seen an accelerated grab at wmds and a new invasion of the Arabian peninsula. That threat is now gone. Onto Syria.
Quite amazing how destructive the forces of Flemish/Walloon rivalry in their Federal Assembly can be, once unleashed. You are right, though, Belgium liberated Iraq while USArmy spectators got blown up. To prove how effective nad professional the Belgians were, just compare their casualty figures against those of the US (haha, ahem) Army.
BroonAntagonist
Given that my inital reply is there for anyone to see this can hardly be correct. My argument is seen in the initial response and I explained under point #1. (that was just for you my dear) why I see a hypocrisy. You want to tackle one at a time I suggest you start with number 1.
Your believe/assertions or whatever is then wrong as your argument does not correctly reflect on what I actually said, so for that reason I won’t answer it.
The rest is your typical scemantics-shit: I have stressed twice that my point 1. proves the hypocrisis and reminded that 2. is a possibility only, so there is nothing more I need to prove.
If you are of the opinion that the US is not hypocritical prove my point 1. wrong (see explanation in post dated 16 Jul 2004 13:24 and the initial reply).
You just cannot help yourself, right? You are obfuscating… again.
I don’t care about your reply… because it does not address my assertion. My assertion came before your reply. You are adding issues to the matter and thus confusing THE issue (i.e., obfuscating the issue).
I don’t care (yet) about your argument. You haven’t refuted my statement yet. Until you refute my statement, you have not proved hypocrisy as it relates to my statement.
This is not all that difficult to understand. Damn! Where is Traveller to explain this obfuscation to you?
My assertion came first… your reply came second. Why would my assertion need to address your reply? For goodness sake, Rascal. Think!
So, you attempt to obfuscate the issue and then admit that you intend to dodge the real issue.
What can I say? Some things never change…
What about this process do you not understand? I made an assertion. If you wish to disprove the same, you mast address directly my assertion. Adding different issues to my statement/assertion does not prove anything, other than that you are apparently trying to obfuscate the issue.
You’ve proved nothing yet. You have merely confused the issue. Quite well, I might add.
This is fun, Rascal. I wish Traveller were here to help sort everything out, however. He’s really smart.