is this a new way to fight wars?
if you run out of troops or if it becomes politically to controversial to do your own fighting - albeit ONLY on foreign soil in the nake of "freedom" and "democracy", it seems to be far more profitable to sell the weapons and let them do their own fighting.
yes, i know, it's just business, has been going on for years, and everybody is doing it.
BUT
this is not actually manufacturers selling the stuff, it's the usa government - thereby following a definite foreign policy - and the recent increase in this is quite frightening:
now one thing i can't understand at all is the sale of weapons to a country not exactly on friendly terms with the bush administration - in fact a fair deal of saber rattling and chest thumping has been done by bush himself over the last few months:
has nothing been learned from the past? or is big business really that strong - wait another 6 months and the usa may send in the poor sods in the forces to get shot by the guns the business lobby - na dthe administration - so happily sells of now.
ooooohhh yes.
that's not all of it
now i do understand that these 130 billion will keep alot of american citicens employed - if the parts are not made in china that is - but is it really justified?
full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/washington/14arms.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=foreign%20arms%20deals&st=cse&oref=slogin
if you run out of troops or if it becomes politically to controversial to do your own fighting - albeit ONLY on foreign soil in the nake of "freedom" and "democracy", it seems to be far more profitable to sell the weapons and let them do their own fighting.
yes, i know, it's just business, has been going on for years, and everybody is doing it.
BUT
this is not actually manufacturers selling the stuff, it's the usa government - thereby following a definite foreign policy - and the recent increase in this is quite frightening:
| Quote: |
| 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 |
now one thing i can't understand at all is the sale of weapons to a country not exactly on friendly terms with the bush administration - in fact a fair deal of saber rattling and chest thumping has been done by bush himself over the last few months:
| Quote: |
| The Bush administration is pushing through a broad array of foreign weapons deals as it seeks to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan, contain North Korea and Iran, |
has nothing been learned from the past? or is big business really that strong - wait another 6 months and the usa may send in the poor sods in the forces to get shot by the guns the business lobby - na dthe administration - so happily sells of now.
ooooohhh yes.
that's not all of it
| Quote: |
| Less sophisticated weapons, and services to maintain these weapons systems, are often bought directly by foreign governments. That category of direct commercial sales has seen an enormous surge as well, as measured by export licenses issued this fiscal year covering an estimated $96 billion, up from $58 billion in 2005, according to the State Department, which must approve the licenses. |
now i do understand that these 130 billion will keep alot of american citicens employed - if the parts are not made in china that is - but is it really justified?
full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/washington/14arms.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=foreign%20arms%20deals&st=cse&oref=slogin
