National debt/arms spending.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was just wondering whether anyone had some information, I was shocked when my politics tutor informed me that many war torn nations are required to buy arms from the west. I understood that nations are willing to sell because of both the money, and the conflict being good for self image, and weakening any opposing power eg Vietnam. However I didn't understand that there were deals linking America for example, to certain African countries saying that if they do not spen x ammount of their gnp each year on their arms they will remove aid. The countries are being exploited in many ways, but not giving them the chance for peace is as low as I think it can get.

[pay feo 2003]

i guess thats the way of man. suppose this is how policies get so turned around because of this. no matter how many laws are in place, the "contracts" made with the military will override ALL. i believe it has to do with law that supports the "status quo" yet my question still remains unanswered. WHO IS THE STATUS QUO?

so how do peacefull people fight. what weapons are available to the poor and the meek?

its not so complicated as it may be "magical" :biggrin:

good post, im hoping you'll get more intelligent replies than mine.

[pay feo 2003]

oh, by the way, your signature line ROCKS!

[IHP]

I don't know too much about what you are saying specifically, but i do know about the forms of 'aid' granted to the poor nations. Such as the IMF imposing their conditions upon the nations that seek their aid. For example, if a nation borrows money, they must then use that money in a way that the IMF wants. So usually they are forced to farm primarily export crops, to get the money back to the IMF. What, then, is the use of borrowing the money? The populace cannot eat tobacco and cotton. Even worse, for every $1 borrowed, on average $2.60 has to be paid back. Aid? No.

So there's another situation of aid under the guise of profit.

--IHP

(Edited by i hate pinochet at 4:47 am on Feb. 13, 2003)

[pay feo 2003]

can it be simply put as another way to [email protected] the poor?

hmm. makes me think we got this whole damn idea about life all damn wrong. again! :angry:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

OMG!

What fuckin criminal. Can someone please seek a source about the weapon theory, mentioned here before.

[Larissa]

Take a quick look at this...

In 1997, Donald Rumsfeld, along with the proponents of The New American Century, wrote this to President Clinton: " It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."

If Saddam *does acquire*?

This is tantamount to asserting that in 1997 he had none.

The whole site is:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

...an interesting read.

[pay feo 2003]

i have some information on arms, i will post it momentarily. what i do have available...dont know if it will make any sense yet it all starts with this wonderful thing no one seems to want to address. why? maybe its because we have rendered ourselves "powerless" or we are so concerned with "credibility", intellectualism, and of course...who wants to be the "bad guy?"

get the drift?

anyway, as complicated as it seems, the law as contradicting as it is, can be ratified in simple terms...its up to people and not robots to make the change.

of course, arms will be the issue because the basis of law is this (perpetual war!)

British Empire makes a valid point in regards to the justification of the "status quo" and how law functions to maintain such. What may have occured is that the simplification of law concerning land ownership and settlement would mean that land would become more marketable. Once land becomes fully marketable it can no longer be counted on to remain in the hands of the landed aristocratic families; and this means the destinies of the British Empire.

For if American experience has demonstrated anything,

it is that the continued leadership by great families

cannot be as well founded on money as on a land

economy.

The same kind of talent which enables Jay Gould to acquire dominion over certain railroads enables Mr. Harriman to take it away from his sons.


From the point of view of an established land economy,

a money economy thus seems a state of perpetual war
i
nstead of social order where son succeeds father.


-taken from Morris R Cohen "Property and Sovereignty," 13 Cornell Law Quarterly 8, 10 (1927)