BAE Systems rocked by US anti-corruption probe

theboseian,

I see the existence of Guantanamo Bay as a double standard for two major reasons.

1. How on earth can one have a naval base in a country whose administration one has had sanctions against for years? (Yes, I know about the lease)

2. The legal double standard of setting up a prison outside the USA to circumvent US law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people such as David Hicks getting just what they deserve, but in his case it went on for five years, and was a mountain made out of a molehill. The guy is just some stupid young man who thought that being a soldier was some sort of gung-ho adventure. Having been rejected by the Australian Army, he goes off in search of his adventure, but the moment the shooting starts, he sells his gun and grabs the first available taxi for the Pakistani border S##t, what a dangerous terrorist - I'm shaking in my boots! Even the other prisoners at Guantanamo thought he was a spy planted against them.

In the end, you have to believe that it is all political grandstanding - a guy gets 5 years in a military prison, just for being a stupid ass. What's worse is that it has made him a hero in some people's eyes. Personally, I think a good swift kick up the ass would have done the trick after his experiences in Afghanistan.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 27/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by timeless test
As I get older I get more cynical and such reckless idealism sounds less and less plausible I'm afraid.

It would just take all the arms dealers to have been responsible, and not chase profits (unfortunately captialism has alot to answer for too - it ain't perfect either).

Originally posted by timeless test
I doubt the kids have the money to pay for them. I think we need to look at who pays the bills to understand who is the guilty party.

Kids that stole money would...


My point was that (maybe even it should be governments from the selling country) NO should have been the answer sent to these small highly unstable, and highly undemocratic nations...

Unfortunately, all the so-called 'civilised' nations of both the east, and the west, have a long history of arming highly unstable groups... as long as they were not on the side of their greater enemy.


For Soviet Russia, see Lybia, for the US, see Afghanistan, for China, see Sudan... for the UK, French, Swedish, Danish, German, Spanish, Belgian and Dutch, see apartheid south africa and the Iran-Iraq war (also large scale Russian and American involvement)


NISAT



Virtually every country that claims to be "freedom loving democracies" are run by hypocritical bastards of the highest order.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

....some posters seem more interested in venting US anger, again.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

WestPoint23,

Let's clear the air a little.

I do not vent anger upon the US, but excuse me if I call a spade a spade.

My problem is with your attitude that everything in the USA is 'perfect' and 'invincible' from weapons systems to the legal and political systems.

This when more than half your citizens are in disagreement with your President, and the administration is in conflict with the legislature - hardly good times.

Such things as Guantanamo Bay and 'rendition' are contentious issues both in your own country and around the world.

OK, it's fine with me that you are proud of your country and your military, but be realistic.

Every weapons system is a compromise slanted towards a particular function and a particular scenario. That it is a compromise, means that the scenarios throughout the life of the weapons system will change as potential opponents attempt to exploit the weaknesses of the compromise, rendering that system less effective.

Indeed, any design team, upon introducing a new feature (such as stealth) would be insane if they didn't immediately also discover how to overcome that advantage, because certainly potential opponents will be doing exactly that, while attempting to master the same technology. Thus eventually any operational advantage of a system will be eroded and eventually rendered useless (for example high speed, high altitude bomber penetration was rendered too risky by SAMs and the scenario changed to low level penetration).

The whole thing is cyclic, and will continue to be so (for instance, mastery of hypersonic speeds could change the penetration bomber scenario back to fast and high again). If one could actually design a 'perfect' weapons system, it would be rendered less useful very quickly, partly because of its specialization and partly because the opponent would, of necessity, change the scenario.

One of the basic principles of war is to NEVER underestimate your enemy. It is a sure way to get your ass shot off.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 27/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It would just take all the arms dealers to have been responsible, and not chase profits

I remember sharing that point of view when I was significantly younger than today. I have to say, there is an awfully big "just" in that statement.

Kids that stole money would...

In over twenty years working for companies selling weapons systems components and dual use components I never saw a couple of scruffy urchins turn up clutching a bunch of grubby fivers trying to buy anything. I did see a lot of government representatives.

You are quite right about government control and, in theory, export licence rules in the UK do serve this purpose, the problem is that the definition of a friendly and responsible government is a pretty fluid concept. I remember growing up in the 1960s asking my parents why UK arms sales to South Africa were such a big issue!

Originally posted by Britguy
I found this piece rather interesting at the weekend. I have had the feeling for a long time that the whole Saudi / BAE thing was probably a lot bigger than we probably realise.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

- Interesting Britguy.

It also gives a couple of pointers as to how come Thatcher was so supportive when the ex-Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet was here in the UK & being threatened with being taken to the Hague Courts see here.

I wonder if the pressure of 'powerful friends' & his undoubted threats to tell all on the whole thing unless he was released was what led to the UK eventually releasing him and allowing him to return home?

Amazing how these dreary little greedy webs all come to light eventually.

Lets keep to the topic at hand mmmmmmmmkay

Cheers
Fred