September 11, 2002
5:50 AM   Subscribe

"In the most recent issue of the Arms Sales Monitor, the Arms Sales Monitoring Project finds that the War on Terror has provided the U.S. military with an excuse to begin arming regimes that had previously been blacklisted for human rights abuses, weapons proliferation, or brutal conflict" - Federation of American Scientists. The content of this document gives rise to a range of issues. Can arming new friends with advanced weaponry strengthen the long-term security of the U.S, or will this ultimately ensure renewed hostility arising from an apparent readiness to take sides in foreign conflicts?? One year on from 9/11/01, has the moral high-ground implied by the 'War Against Terrorism' been fatally eroded by turning a blind eye to the questionable ethics of 'friendly' states (the records of the Saudis, and arguably, the Israelis and others, may also be a case in point)?
posted by Doozer (6 comments total)
The saudi's are just like the TALIBAN but with OIL! Does any one really count the middle eastern oil barons amongst our allies? As for selling arms to formerly blacklisted countries we all know that AMERICAN soldiers will be getting killed with what they are selling today 10 years down the road. The arms industry has been doing badly as of late so this to them is just "business"
posted by hoopyfrood at 6:36 AM on September 11, 2002

I'm sayin'...

When DOESN'T our arming/training of others come back to bite us in the ass? Iran/Iraq/Afghanis/Who knows who else.
posted by El_Gray at 7:00 AM on September 11, 2002

I wonder if there's a betting parlor here in Vegas where I can bet on how long before arming the 'stans bites us.
posted by shagoth at 7:06 AM on September 11, 2002

And so it goes, round and round, the cycle completes and begins anew....
posted by rushmc at 9:01 AM on September 11, 2002

Virtually all Americans are in favor of a war on terrorism. However exploiting that popular opinion to do all sorts of other things is not only wrong on its own merits, but it weakens resolve and support for the genuine action that must be taken against the terrorists.
posted by cell divide at 9:04 AM on September 11, 2002

Some specifics: In pursuit of his reckless Iraqi objective, Bush is supporting Karimov, president of Uzbekistan and Akaev, president of Kirgizstan, in return for access to some airbases from which to bomb Iraq.

Both Presidents are the architects of recent and sudden deterioration of the already grim human rights records in their respective countries. The Uzbekistan government has recently jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, a proven and excellent method of converting their families to extremism.

And now religeous movements such as Hizb-ut-Tahirr are starting to attack American assets in Kirgizstan.

Some more people who hate Americans, who didn't hate them prior to this preposterous stunt. And again, manifest difference between being a champion of freedom (a worthy, rallying cause to the world's 95% non-American inhabitants), and a champion of American freedom (not).

Have a squint at this, on losing what makes a country great. I think they are losing it.
posted by RichLyon at 11:08 AM on September 11, 2002

« Older George Bush's Article in NYTIMES.   |   Simon Schama on the last year... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments