Arab Dictatorships Take 4 of Top 5 Spots in Purchase of U.S. Weapons and Services

Most of the leading buyers of American military hardware in 2008 had two characteristics in common: they speak Arabic and their governments are opposed to democracy and basic freedoms.

Information compiled by the Congressional Research Service revealed that the biggest recipients of U.S. arms sales last year were (in order): the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Iraq and Egypt. With the exception of the popularly-elected government in Baghdad, all of these American military partners are ruled by autocratic or theocratic regimes.

The leading defense contractors manufacturing the weapons for these governments are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon.

Visit the full article here.

Related Links:
U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 2001-2008 by Richard F. Grimmett, Congressional Research Service (.pdf)

Military Spending and Armaments, 2008 (.pdf)

US DSCA Announces Numerous Foreign Military Sale Opportunities in Middle East (Defense Professionals)

Why are we supplying so much weaponry to those who oppose democracy? Is that not exactly what we are supposed to be fighting? Isn't democracy what the US government is all about, and what it tries to shine onto other governments whose ruling over the people is much like a dictatorship?

If you agree with what I just said (for the most part) then why on Earth would we support these countries with weapons that could ultimately be used to kill our own military personnel/citizens? Even if the weapons are not directly going to opposing forces of the US and it's allies, I believe these weapons could very easily be re-sold to the opposing forces with ease. And in fact we know this has happened, and will always happen. Our weapons always tend to end up in the hands of the wrong people [think modern terrorists]. We support support support and then when it's perfect timing for those opposing democracy and/or the US & it's allies those with our weaponry now are able to have a chance at having successful attacks on our people.

US weapons are found through out the world, and are in the hands of many people we all would rather see locked up for life, or dead. This article just shows how much easier some make it for these people to gain access to weapons. Weapons sales need to be much more highly restricted. There will always be people smuggling weapons but higher national security concerning sales of weapons to those who may be targeting the US and/or it's allies in the near future should me amped up, quickly.

Thoughts?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by highlyoriginal]

Those are private companies. It's not like they're democratically elected to serve only the united states. They can sell to whomever they please. Imo the power of the lobbyist indicates that that while gov't officials are getting campaign contribution, the US government will not only pay these companies, but also look the other way when they sell weapons to enemies of the US as well.

Also, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that companies are involved in such a complicated pyramid scheme, that any losses suffered by these private companies would result in international banks treating the United States with disdain. I blieve they are all interconnected and if you mess with one part of the cabal you mess with them all.
I mean, that makes more sense than ignoring such facts as presented in your op simply because of campaign contributions.

reply to post by heyo


Just because they are private contracting companies doesn't mean they should have free reign over the weapons market, especially to other countries.

There should be a much more strict law against selling weapons, especially in mass quantities (but any at all is bad enough) to other governments.

I don't think anyone here is going to say otherwise honestly. Who would support international weapon sales from the US to other countries without strict procedures to be followed?

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
reply to post by heyo

 

Who would support international weapon sales from the US to other countries without strict procedures to be followed?

Congress, for one. It's obvious they don't care, because it's going on as we speak. There must be some risk involved in standing up to the corporate cabal, is all I'm saying. I totally agree that it's not right on the surface, but if it was as easy as not giving these companies contracts with US taxpayer dollars, I just think they would have done it by now is all.
So morally, we agree that it's wrong, I'm just speculating as to why it continues.

the politicians dont sell weapons, the corparations and the MIC sell american weaspons to whomever they please...

not all of whom are authoritarian regimes...

United Arab Emirates:

The United Arab Emirates has the world's sixth largest oil reserves[9] and possesses one of the most developed economies in the Middle East. It is currently the thirty-sixth largest economy at market exchange rates, and has a high per capita gross domestic product, with a nominal per capita GDP of $54,607 as per the IMF.[10] The country is fourteenth largest in purchasing power per capita and has a relatively high Human Development Index for the Asian continent, ranking 35th globally.[11] The United Arab Emirates is classified as a high income developing economy by the IMF.

The United Arab Emirates is a founding member of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, and a member state of the Arab League. It is also a member of the United Nations, Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the OPEC, and the World Trade Organization.

en.wikipedia.org...

Morrocco:

Morocco is a de jure constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. The King of Morocco, with vast executive powers, can dissolve government and deploy the military, among other prerogatives. Opposition political parties are legal, and several have been formed in recent years

en.wikipedia.org...

Egypt:

Egypt possesses one of the most developed economies in the Middle East, with sectors such as tourism, agriculture, industry and service at almost equal rates in national production.[citation needed] Consequently, the Egyptian economy is rapidly developing, due in part to legislation aimed at luring investments, coupled with both internal and political stability, along with recent trade and market liberalization

en.wikipedia.org...

so the only country u listed that in some ways is authoritarian is Saudi Arabia... but hey! you dont see the saudi people complainnig do you...

Another image that proves neither the Republican party nor the Democrats care about their constituents. They are both in bed with whatever country will line their pockets with money.

Money, Corporations, greed, Selfishness, Hierarchy.

Power corrupts absolutely.


Yeah, they care so much about our "freedom", yet they hold hands with some of the worst dictators on the face of the planet.

Go figure.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by Matrix777]

Nice OP -

Sounds like the corporation is where its at, send some roses and chocolate

I agree with you

- much of the R&D is subsidized heavily by the US tax payer, then the hardware and tech is purchased with the tax payers dime. Then the tax payer has to foot the bill for the security measures, hardware, eyeballs and boots to ensure these nations act in an appropriate way, after of course these things are sold to unfriendly lands.

Its like connecting a feeding tube from your butt to your mouth if you ask me.

reply to post by Janky Red


Exactly. I'm not saying our government directly sells these weapons to other countries (although I bet they are doing side deals every day of the year), my issue that I was trying to express in the OP is that these independent companies are able to sell whatever weapons they want to whomever they want really.

Even if some of the countries they sell too aren't an enemy (as of right now) to the US and/or it's allies, it's not hard for something to change overnight because of a bombing, or 'accidental' attack on allied forces. These things happen, and when they do, do we really want these countries to have our weapons? I don't think so.

There's a big difference between tactical and strategic, and many layers. As you move from tactical to strategic, who is the enemy and who is the ally swap back and forth. As you move from tactical to strategic you also move though classified levels. So the guy you're fighting at a tactical level is at a strategic level an ally against someone else as long as they're useful. That's why the US relationship with the Mujahadeen gets confusing.

At a tactical level those countries are not our friends. However you let them get weak militarily, and someone worse will take their place.

reply to post by Dbriefed


I see what you're saying, but the end does not justify the means in this circumstance.

What we are talking about here is American made weapons being directly sold to other countries in which may not only use these weapons against us in the near future, but they may be reselling these weapons to other countries which are our enemy. So think about it, we sell weapons to whomever, they buy for 2.5 billion, take 1/3 of the weapon stock for themselves, sell the other 2/3 to another country and make their money back. Now they just got free weapons from the US, and also supplied another nation with American weapons.

Yes I know I'm just speculating here, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

I was also thinking... on a broader level this who trade perpetuates its own business and
justifies a safe harbor for state SECRETS. This is how the constitution is initially subverted,
the public and its representatives in government are bypassed in the name of the perpetuation.

And there's the basis for conspiracies.

The average person is operating at a tactical level, whether it be as a soldier, and employee, or a private citizen. As a soldier you do as your told with a sense of honor and duty, and you unknowingly may be part of a decoy or low success operation. As an employee you're told there are no foreseen layoffs, but management doesn't want to lose temporarily key employees by news of the upcoming RIF. As a private citizen, you vote on issues important to you not knowing there are campaign services that target specific friendly votes. The US has been in a proxy war with China for decades, and battering lesser nations between them. Mega corporations that profit from national conflicts look for and may incite conflict.

You know, this is an interesting angle!

Hear me out: Glen Beck was boycotted by a lot of advertisers due to the "inflammatory" nature of his show. Imus was boycotted and eventually given the boot for making a "racial" comment about black female basketball players. Whatever you political affiliation, you know that Americans boycott over some pretty silly stuff.

Now here we have defense companies who supply military hardware to fundamentalist Islamic regimes. Regimes that oppress women, deny their citizens basic freedoms and support what is could be mildly referred to as child abuse. Something we should all find extremely reprehensible .. and not a peep out of anybody. I mean, can you imagine a company that openly does business with wife beaters, child abusers, and fascists?

Where are the protestors? Where is NOW? Where are the do-gooder trust fund hippies and their outrage?

reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal


That's what I'm wondering! I would most definitely fight to help create a strict procedure when it comes to independent weapon company's selling weapons to other countries. It should be regulated by the government completely, and possibly a trusted company that the citizens have faith in to actually do their job and check up on these company's and what they are doing/selling.

It is horrible to think what these US made weapons may be being used for when you think about it. Even if the countries we are sending weapons to are not an enemy, they still are countries that oppose democracy (see OP) and they are run by dictators, whose to say they are not hurting their citizen (or other countries) using the US made weapons? After the weapons are shipped out, no one keeps tabs on what happens after that, which is not right.

That is another issue that should be dealt with. Someone (or some group) within the government should not only be keeping an eye out on the sales of these weapons to other countries, but also to what these other countries are doing with the weapons after they are shipped out to them.

As I stated above, these other countries could be keeping something like 1/3 of the weapons for themselves, and re-selling the other 2/3 of them to make the money back that they spent (free weapons!).

reply to post by highlyoriginal


Thanks for making this thread, it really is horrendous that the US govt. allows this stuff to go on, but it doesn't really surprise me. An amendment involving weapon sales to other countries is needed, which you pointed out. Maybe if people start making a fuss about stuff like this something will be done about it! Until then I am afraid it will all continue to happen.

-sonicboom

reply to post by sonicboom


I'm surprised that more people aren't commenting myself. Don't just read this thread people, make some comments and let us all know what you think about the OP. Doesn't it disturb you that our (as in the US) weapons may be deliberately being sold to people attacking our soldiers and/or citizens now or sometime in the future? I know it does, so why are more people not speaking out about this?

There is things we can do to stop this stuff contrary to belief people! We should really be standing up here and uniting, not only because of this subject in the OP, but for all the injustice occurring, it's getting very sickening.