Surprise, surprise

Surprise, surprise October 2, 2007

New York Times:
U.S. is Top Arms Seller to Developing World

The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a

Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers. The global arms market is highly competitive, with manufacturing nations seeking both to increase profits and to expand political influence through weapons sales to developing nations, which reached nearly $28.8 billion in 2006.


Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

9 responses to “Surprise, surprise”

  1. jonathanjones02:

    I’m not getting your comment. It seems that the US is is outselling CHina by 12 times.

    And what constitutes “worst” regimes? The nuclear metastasizing Pakistan-bringing nukes to North Korea, attempting to do so to Libya, etc? And waht about the Saudis? I consider these folks the enemy in the war on terror.

    The US may not be seeling arms to North Korea, but it is to other staes with highly contemptible regimes. Actually has been for a while.

  2. I’m not defending shipping guns all over the place.

    What I’m saying is that we consider an issue like these, you need context. Not, in other words, “Look how screwed up America is! It’s our fault!” or “My country right or wrong!” but instead a more careful consideration of context. You need a Cold War context, for example, when studying Pinochet or nuclear build-up from the U.S. angle. The Soviet Union was a very serious and very present threat.

  3. jonathanjones02:

    It seems that you are slipping into a form of relativism when discussing this. “Understanding the context” is a bit like understanding the circumstances. And this is relativism.

    So, how does one justify Pinochet’s evil? How does one justify the excesses of America in Central America? is Castro all there is?

    How does one justify selling arms to the great purveyors and promoters of terror: Indonesia and the House of Saud? Not even real politik is amenable to such insanity.

    Repetition of the talking points of the National Review does not strengthen an argument.

    Start over again:

    While I always hesitate in doing so: lets defend shipping guns: but to whom? Everyone who was our friend in the Cold War (Oh but 20 years ago) is now an enemy. Like Indonesia-a prime terror generator. As is the House of Saud. Realpolitik doesn’t even suggest the current knuckleheaded decisions in any trade of wealth or arms.

    Why did we win the Cold War? The economic and military isolation of the Soviets from the US was critical. Current strategies all involve the enormous continued transfer of wealth to Saudis and other oil producers. Would we arm Poland in 1980? Then why arm Indoensia, Pakistan or the House of Saud?

    We are arming and financing our enemies. This is the Mensa club strategies the neocons brought you. That and creating a terror home in a country actually hostile to terrorists.

    Clever. Makes pacifism look brilliant by any measure.

  4. Daniel, very well put. I mean these guys will never bring up context when denouncing the actions of ‘our enemies’. I’m afraid the crickets will be chirping for a while before you get a response, and when the response ever comes it will go along the lines of questioning your patriotism.

  5. But so long as we use lots and lots of highly-paid mercenaries, istn’t it, like, you know, OK?