Quote:Brandon9000
Iraq was invaded because Hussein had[/u] possessed WMD and WMD programs, had a long history of concealing them, and had not produced proof of the destruction of many of them after more than a decade. That is the reason given for the invasion, and that is the legitimate justification.
Let me get this straight.
The USA
HAS a long history of possessing WMDs,
HAS had a long history of concealing them,
HAS used them in the past,
HAS expressed a desire to develop new WMDs, ...
Israel
HAS a fairly long history of possessing WMDs,
HAS had a long history of concealing them, ...
Sounds like it's only dangerous for a country if you've
HAD them. Then you're in deep doggy do-doo. Is it any wonder that other countries don't want to give up any weapons capability faced as they are, with the schizophrenic nature of US foreign policy?
Let's finish up with some more facts.
Quote:http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm
Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world.[1] The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers. [2 ] U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict.
U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999.[3] The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this violence is immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the period from 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.[4]
Of course, a loss of investment opportunities is not the only way Americans are impacted by the weapons trade. In addition to paying billions of dollars every year to support weapons exports, Americans may also feel the impact of increasing instability overseas. The United States military has had to face troops previously trained by its own military or supplied with U.S. weaponry in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and now in Afghanistan. Due to the advanced capabilities these militaries have acquired from past U.S. training and sales, the U.S. had to invest much more money and manpower in these conflicts than would have otherwise been needed.
There are few restrictions on whom the government may export arms to. One notable exception is the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. military aid or training to foreign military units known to have committed human rights abuses. Under the Pentagon's interpretation of the law, however, these restrictions may be lifted if the foreign government filters out the "few bad apples" in that particular unit. An International Code of Conduct on Arms Sales is also being negotiated with other arms exporters in the hopes of creating a common set of export criteria.
"Ah, horsepucky," says Brandon and Timberlandko, "probably a terrorist website, intent on slandering the good ole US of A."
FAS stands for Federation of American Scientists.
)
