The Center For Defense Information used to put on a program called America's Defense Monitor back in the 80's at the height of Reagan's wargasms. Many former Naval and other military officers have graced their board including Admiral Eugene Carrol, Admiral Jack Shanahan and last night's convention guest Vice Admiral Stansfield Turner....I am forwarding one article for the site and the site's main address for those that have not seen it before. This article explains a great deal of WHY a politician might vote AGAINST a weapons program and also demonstrates that carelessness of the Bush administration in proliferating weapons to rogue nations that may one day use them on us in return.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=1364&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=73&from_page=index.cfmCountry list updated June 30, 2004;
Article last modified March 19, 2003
Reports by Country
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan
• Bahrain
• Djibouti
• Ethiopia
• Kazakhstan
• Kenya
• Kyrgyzstan
• Nepal
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan
• Uzbekistan
• Yemen
The U.S. response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been clear and concise: "If you're not with us, you're against us." When the United States began to develop its international coalition against terrorism, the administration of President George W. Bush looked for partners who were willing and able to take part in the military, political, economic, and diplomatic efforts deemed necessary to stamp out the terrorists and their networks. In one aspect, however, an alarming trend has emerged. The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away high technology weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the global war on terror, regardless of past behavior or current status. In some cases, these recipients of U.S. military goods and services are weak, failing, and failed states. Moreover, the Bush administration has expressed a willingness to provide weapons to countries that in the past have been criticized for human rights violations, lack of democracy, and even support of terrorism, even though it is a standing tenet of U.S. policy that weapon exports should not undermine long-term security and stability, weaken democratic movements, support military coups, escalate arms races, exacerbate ongoing conflicts, cause arms build-ups in unstable regions, or be used to commit human rights abuses.
The countries that have had their sanctions lifted are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Yugoslavia. While these countries have been identified as key allies in the global war on terror, each has troubling recent pasts, which led to them being placed on the list in the first place. Not only is each country involved in inter- and intra-state conflicts, India and Pakistan have been criticized for their evolving nuclear weapon's programs, Pakistan's military government attained power as a result of a coup, Azerbaijan has been embroiled in disputes with Armenia, the stability of Tajikistan remains questionable, and Yugoslavia remains unstable and a possible "hot spot" for future conflict.
To examine these trends, CDI has developed a regular series in which countries that have a unique role in the "war on terror" are examined. Each country is described in terms of the context of the political situation, the type of government, the human rights situation, the infant mortality rate, the military expenditures, the amount spent on conventional arms transfers, and the total armed forces. Infant mortality, democracy, and trade openness have been identified as the most important indicators of state failure by the State Failure Project. These above issues are particularly noteworthy because they are all variables that are also of concern to existing restrictions on arms sales.
Main site address:
http://www.cdi.org/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
