|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-07 09:19:33
I suspect when the U.S. removes Saddam we are going to see some ghastly secrets revealed about more French companies proliferating weapons to Saddam. Here is a little gem to start us off...
Link;
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm
Apparently France's interests are not just oil as of late, but weapon systems as well. Let us hope that doesn't include nuke technologies. It will be interesting to see how further investigations will shed light on how far this type of activity goes up the chain of command?
Snippet;
The unidentified (French) company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters these transfers happened as recently as this January.
---What can Canada do to ensure our security from ruthless foreign business weapons proliferating?
Steve.
(...And mom originally thought my background in computers wouldn't be all that enlightening for politics.) ;)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-07 11:35:50
If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world...
Here is a list of the countries that recieved military exports from Canada- Export of Military Goods from Canada Annual Report 2001 - Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:
United Kingdom = $152.1
Denmark = $70.9
Korea, Republic of = $59.2
Australia = $42.4
Saudi Arabia = $32.1
Germany = $13.4
Taiwan = $13.2
Venezuela = $11.6
Malaysia = $10.5
Brazil = $5.1
Botswana = $4.7
Egypt = $3.6
Guatemala = $2.2
Colombia = $2.2
Turkey = $1.4
Indonesia = $0.11
Zimbabwe = $0.0011
(NOTE: Permits are not required for exports to the U.S., therefore statistics are not available.)
On Feb. 8, 2003 the Toronto Star reported these companies to be the top 10 military contractors for 2001 (names with an asterisk have sold weapons to third world countries):
1. * General Motors Defense, London = $831
2. * CAE Inc., Montreal = $581
3. * Bombardier Inc., Montreal = $230
4. General Dynamics Canada, Nepean = $291
5. * SNC-Lavalin Group, Montreal = $149
6. Magellan Aerospace Corp., Mississauga = $194
7. * Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Montreal = $149
8. CMC Electronics Inc., Montreal = $135
9. * Bell Helicoptor Textron Canada, Mirabel = $110
10. Heroux-Devtek Inc., Longueuil = $108
On Oct. 18, 2002 the Independent U.K. reported that "Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme..." and listed the following American corporations as having sold arms and such to Iraq:
(A = nuclear, K = chemical, B = biological, R = rockets & missiles)
1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A,R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Assiciates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
The article also stated that "The five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China - have repeatedly opposed revealing the extent of foreign companies' involvement, although a mass of relevant information was collected by UN weapons inspectors who visited the country between 1991 and 1998. The UN claims that publishing the extent of the companies' involvement in Iraq would jeopardise necessary co-operation with such firms."
It is sad and unfortunate that the agendas of (Canadian, German, American, French and so forth) corporations are more important, or seemingly more important, than actually living up to the moral high-ground that Canadians seem to think they are on. It looks as if there is little that can be done about other nations and their sales of arms...but we can do something about Canada- all we have to do is stop participating.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-07 12:52:32
First off, hello kn_aeshap.
I don’t identify with your point, just to clarify, are you saying you place the below countries on par with Saddam’s Iraq?
United Kingdom = $152.1
Denmark = $70.9
Australia = $42.4
Germany = $13.4
Taiwan = $13.2
Turkey = $1.4
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-08 03:48:06
Never once did I say that any of the countries listed were "on par" with Iraq...
And to ask: what exactly do you mean when you say "on par"? In what respect?
What my point is, and what I said was "If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world..."
It's glaringly obvious- in order to help combat the proliferation of weapons throughout the world, one must stop producing and selling them to the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-08 14:17:20
Now now, don't shoot the messenger... You should know it can be difficult to convey demeanor over text as I can not see your physical expressions. I was merely reflecting back to you what you showed me.
With that said, I will respond to your question.
...."And to ask: what exactly do you mean when you say "on par"? In what respect?"....
Example A1: If Canada is to purchase helicopters next year from Europe/U.S., should we be declined? Our current government has clearly demonstrated it is reasonably responsible with the weapons we employ.
Example A2: If North Korea wants to purchase aircraft from Europe/U.S. should they be declined? This government has been launching missiles over Japan air space; I would call that irresponsible… (Not to mention the democracy question, but I digress)
According to your above statement, you are painting both countries with the same brush or one could construe "On Par".
With all that said, I get your point that if it was a "perfect world" we all wouldn't need armed forces. We could all dance around in the fields with daises. That is an admirable goal, “world peace”.
However, speaking as someone with a few years of world experience, it has forced me to become a realist. There are people in this world who are simply barbarians for one reason or another. Better realize that lad, don’t surrender to denial, I base that on your demonstrated limited experience here.
Yes that statement is harsh, but step outside of Canada or any democracy country and you will quickly find and I quote; “We are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy” I only hope you heed my advice and don’t learn the hard way, as I have…
Steve.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 13:42:26
"Now now, don't shoot the messenger... You should know it can be difficult to convey demeanor over text as I can not see your physical expressions."
I wasn't shooting the messenger at all, my friend- you merely read into something that didn't need to be read into. I made a statement and placed some examples to go along with it. You should've stuck with what I presented, as there was no need to look for anything else.
"According to your above statement, you are painting both countries with the same brush or one could construe "On Par"."
No...you assumed that I was saying that these countries are "on par" with one another. When all I really said was, if Canada wants to help stop the proliferation of weapons around the world, they should stop selling them.
"Example A1: If Canada is to purchase helicopters next year from Europe/U.S., should we be declined? Our current government has clearly demonstrated it is reasonably responsible with the weapons we employ."
This example makes little sense, as we are discussing the sales of arms- not helicopters.
"Example A2: If North Korea wants to purchase aircraft from Europe/U.S. should they be declined? This government has been launching missiles over Japan air space; I would call that irresponsible… (Not to mention the democracy question, but I digress)"
The same goes for this example- nothing directly to do with arms sales.
"However, speaking as someone with a few years of world experience, it has forced me to become a realist. There are people in this world who are simply barbarians for one reason or another..."
I'm sorry that your "world experience" has forced you to become a "realist"...it's made me rather well rounded and hopeful. And yes, there are people in this world who are simply barbarians- but the figure is obviously a minority and it is probably very, very small. In general, people are not Hobsian in nature...not at all.
"Better realize that lad, don’t surrender to denial, I base that on your demonstrated limited experience here."
My "demonstrated limited experience here"? What in the world does that mean? I don't remember mentioning anything about any sort of "limited experience". You really do assume too much...
"Yes that statement is harsh, but step outside of Canada or any democracy country and you will quickly find and I quote; “We are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy” I only hope you heed my advice and don’t learn the hard way, as I have…"
You probably should've attacked my arguement, lad, instead of assuming that my opinions are coming from some sort of 'lack of experience'. I've lived in 7 different countries thus far, 2 of which were not modern democracies...but that really shouldn't matter, as you should be griping about what I said- instead of things that you really know nothing about...such as my "world experience".
Perhaps you don't recognize -with your thick skinned "realist" view point- that people with opinions like yours are actually a part of the problem, and not the solution. Peace will never come from the barrel of a gun- a power balance, yes, but peace no. History has demonstrated that perfectly well.
And I believe the quotation you are looking for is "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" -Dorothy, in Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 15:30:33
Umm… fellow. I'm going to take a step back and try again.
The helicopters are military assets, I think they are armed with guns and likely will be used in action at some point over their operational life time. So yes it is relevant. If you like you can substitute the helicopters for other military assets such as new U.S fighter aircraft due in 2015.
I didn't assume you said they were on par, all I mean is that is how you come across on the forum. You may not realize it, but that is how I and an other; who I just pulled into this forum, understood your reply. I did ask you to clarify just to make sure.
Yes, I probably do have thick skin, but I am open to your opinions and I do appreciate your candor. It is refreshing to talk with someone who says what they mean.
From having many forum conversation and observations over the years I have to eventually make a decision as to the experience level of the person I am talking with.
I say this without disrespect, that you come across as a somewhat inexperienced fellow, now in life you may be experienced I don’t know, but on the forum that is how you come across.
It could simply be that you are new to debate in a text based forum; if that is the case then I apologize. Never the less I do look forward to your thoughts.
Now, are you saying that it is ok for Canada to import military assets but it is not ok for N. Korea? Or should both countries be treated the same and not import anything?
I still don't understand were you are originally coming from...
P.S. As to the Wizard of Oz quote, well I was never very good with cartoons... ;)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 16:30:35
"The helicopters are military assets, I think they are armed with guns and likely will be used in action at some point over their operational life time. So yes it is relevant."
Now it is relevant- perhaps you should have cited a source or even mentioned that you "think" the helicopters would be "armed with guns"...something you didn't do. I can think of many uses for helicopters, that do not include weaponry.
"I didn't assume you said they were on par, all I mean is that is how you come across on the forum."
So even though I said at the very beginning of my post that "If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world..." you thought I was making a comparison because I gave examples of many countries and companies that trade arms? I don't see how- when my point was so clearly stated.
"From having many forum conversation and observations over the years I have to eventually make a decision as to the experience level of the person I am talking with.
I say this without disrespect, that you come across as a somewhat inexperienced fellow, now in life you may be experienced I don’t know, but on the forum that is how you come across.
It could simply be that you are new to debate in a text based forum; if that is the case then I apologize. Never the less I do look forward to your thoughts."
It's nice that you can throw out a judgement like that, without giving any examples what-so-ever. I could just as easily say that you think I am inexperienced, because I don't see things the same way that you do- because perhaps you don't see me as the "experienced realist" that you are. But I'm not giving any examples to back it up, so I won't bother saying that...
As amusing as it is that you've managed to come to this conclusion, I'd like for you to provide me with some sort of evidence for your claim.
"Now, are you saying that it is ok for Canada to import military assets but it is not ok for N. Korea? Or should both countries be treated the same and not import anything?
I still don't understand were you are originally coming from..."
I find it really hard to believe that you can't understand where I was originally coming from...it has to be one of the most elementary truths- if Canada sells arms to the world, they are adding to the proliferation of weapons. In order to help decrease the number of weapons in the world, one has to stop creating and selling them.
"P.S. As to the Wizard of Oz quote, well I was never very good with cartoons... ;)"
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written by Lyman Frank Baum and published on May 15th, 1900- it became the biggest selling children's book of the year. And if you're not very good with "cartoons" -as you say- you probably shouldn't choose to quote them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 20:03:43
…"The helicopters are military assets, I think they are armed with guns and likely will be used in action at some point over their operational life time. So yes it is relevant."
Now it is relevant- perhaps you should have cited a source or even mentioned that you "think" the helicopters would be "armed with guns"...something you didn't do. I can think of many uses for helicopters, that do not include weaponry.”….
-----You are trying to deflect my point, you should know very well that military choppers are included in military assets, if you don’t truly understand the concept, then this is an indicator of less experience.-----
…."I didn't assume you said they were on par, all I mean is that is how you come across on the forum."
So even though I said at the very beginning of my post that "If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world..." you thought I was making a comparison because I gave examples of many countries and companies that trade arms? I don't see how- when my point was so clearly stated….
-----By listing other countries we export to; you are also equally saying that we also should not import weapons. kn_aeshap said, “but we can do something about Canada- all we have to do is stop participating.” Yet when I give you a practical example between Canada and N. Korea and ask for your thoughts. I still haven’t received a direct reply. I got this response;
….Kn_aeshap says, “Now it is relevant- perhaps you should have cited a source or even mentioned that you "think" the helicopters would be "armed with guns"...
----Like I said above, the helicopters are a military asset. Yet you still don’t address my point on whether Canada and N. Korea should be treated the same when it comes to importing Military assets?
In regards to less experience Kn_aeshap says, "As amusing as it is that you've managed to come to this conclusion, I'd like for you to provide me with some sort of evidence for your claim.
----Ok, I hope you can see my points above on why I though you are coming across as less experienced. Please keep in mind that I never ever said you are less experienced, just that is how you come across to me in this text forum. I think that is were I may have upset you, if I did so I didn’t intend too.
….."P.S. As to the Wizard of Oz quote, well I was never very good with cartoons... ;)"
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written by Lyman Frank Baum and published on May 15th, 1900- it became the biggest selling children's book of the year. And if you're not very good with "cartoons" -as you say- you probably shouldn't choose to quote them.”….
-----I tossed the Oz part in as a cookie. :)
Never the less, it should be interesting to see if we can work this conflict out. :)
(Yes, I have some spare moments this Sunday night, now I'll get back to reading the three pillars now). :)
peace.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 21:28:46
"You are trying to deflect my point, you should know very well that military choppers are included in military assets, if you don’t truly understand the concept, then this is an indicator of less experience."
I fully understand the concept, actually...but it is not my fault that you refuse to be specific- if you had meant "military choppers" you should have stated as such- instead of just saying "helicopters". In no way was I deflecting your point...for the sake of a decent conversation, you need to say what you mean more often...
"By listing other countries we export to; you are also equally saying that we also should not import weapons."
I was not listing the countries that Canada sells weapons to in order to say that we should not import weapons. I think you've gone a bit far off the track...I've restated what my point was a few times now- if you don't get it, I'm afraid I can't help you. And I was giving examples of countries that we sell to, I cited a news article about American companies and their arms sales- for example and interest, nothing more. You see...when people state something that they believe to be factual, I expect them to back it up with something- so when I talk about Canada having exported arms around the world, I give examples. So many people using these forums refuse to regularly back up statements with citations. Am I to just accept what other people say? I think not. If you happened to read too far into it, and assumed that I was making a comparison of some sort, I'd like to direct you to the first lines of my original response where I stated what my point was.
"Like I said above, the helicopters are a military asset. Yet you still don’t address my point on whether Canada and N. Korea should be treated the same when it comes to importing Military assets?"
No, I do not believe that North Korea and Canada should not be treated in the same fashion when it comes to the import of military assets.
"Ok, I hope you can see my points above on why I though you are coming across as less experienced. Please keep in mind that I never ever said you are less experienced, just that is how you come across to me in this text forum. I think that is were I may have upset you, if I did so I didn’t intend too."
So...you're thinking that I am inexperienced is due to the fact that you refuse to be specific? I see now ;) It's funny that, in my experience when people are looking to get a direct point across, they are specific in what they say...how unfortunate for all of us, that you are not. It's not upsetting really, just rather time consuming.
"I tossed the Oz part in as a cookie."
I just expected that people who claim to be fairly experienced in this form of discussion, would be able to use proper and correct quotations.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 23:19:39
…Kn_aeshap states,”No, I do not believe that North Korea and Canada should not be treated in the same fashion when it comes to the import of military assets.”…
Thank you for that to the point answer, which is in my view an experienced answer. :)
You say these countries should not be treated in the same fashion, I agree with you. How can kn_aeshap suggest in realistic terms, “but we can do something about Canada- all we have to do is stop participating.”
If we stop participating are we not setting up the Canada for eventual domination by dictators? Would you agree that the only time there will be hope for military disarmament and no need for import/export is when all countries are stable democracies?
In regards to the helicopter example, I did specifically speak of helicopters in the context of a military asset that Canada would responsibly employ. However, I will let it be… :)
On the plus side I am glad you have the stamina to run this debate through with me.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-16 14:01:06
"If we stop participating are we not setting up the Canada for eventual domination by dictators? Would you agree that the only time there will be hope for military disarmament and no need for import/export is when all countries are stable democracies?"
I think it to be a fairly practical suggestion- to say that not selling arms is unrealistic or not practical, scares me in a strange way. To think that people might believe that we cannot go without the import and export of arms is alien to me...
I don't really see how discontinuing the sales of arms to nation states around the world would set us up for domination by dictators- readily placing the weapons in their hands does make that prospect seem a tad more likely though.
And I'm not really sure that the world could be disarmed if each of the countries within were "stable democracies" (whatever that happens to mean)- I don't believe that present forms of democracy are the solution to any of the problems that the world currently faces.
"In regards to the helicopter example, I did specifically speak of helicopters in the context of a military asset that Canada would responsibly employ. However, I will let it be… :)"
You should've used a specific example, regardless of what context you thought you were speaking in. You'll have to excuse how anal I can be about these things- being specific is of the utmost importance...after all, we've only got our words to go on. It might be easier to discuss whether or not we should be allowed to purchase arms, say from England, considering our actions and their actions around the world as of late- in Afghanistan. Or we could discuss whether or not we should be selling arms to Turkey, considering their human rights record, so on and so forth.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-16 18:55:21
I really don't believe that Canada is a big exporter of military arms. We cannot even adequately arm our own small military force. What we do sell are probably mainly parts or items that can be used for peaceful purposes too; such as helicopters. I do not think it is a big issue here
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 16:33:00
Well, at least SNC-Lavalin and Bombardier are involved in weapon systems design and manufacture.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 06:44:41
That is still comparably small compared to Lockheed and Dassault...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-07 12:56:02
Are you trying to tell me that we should not sell any weapon whatsoever, even for legitimate concerns?? I think selling weapons should be strictly controlled by the government, but i don't think it should become illegal ...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-07 20:36:56
Countries cannot avoid the issue of maintaining armed forces if they wish to be considered a sovereign nation.
I think "kn_aeshap" would admit that armed forces without arms would be ridiculous. While he and I would likely hope and prefer to live in a world where people can always work out mutually-agreeable solutions to all disputes, our reality unfortunately suggests we still have a very long way to go.
To be completely dependent on other nations to supply our defence needs is a significant defense liability. And should a nation decide to provide some home-grown defence industry capability for itself, the forces of "scales of economy" always suggest that arms exports be explored. Canada's (and other nations') responsibility as an arms exporter then lie in our exports guidelines and how well we implement them.
So IMO, quite often when we only look at numbers there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Ladies and gentlemen, please take your pick.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-08 13:52:00
"Countries cannot avoid the issue of maintaining armed forces if they wish to be considered a sovereign nation."
That's not true at all, actually. If the entire world gave up their arms, I doubt that the legitimacy of present nation states would immediately dissolve. It might be hard to go without weapons and still stop others from walking in and taking over your country...but nation states are in no way structurally dependent on weapons.
"I think "kn_aeshap" would admit that armed forces without arms would be ridiculous."
No, not ridiculous at all- beautiful, perhaps...but definitely not ridiculous. I think it'd be great if we could have armies of people waiting to engage in dialogue with other nations, as opposed to engaging in physical fights. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but it'd be nice...
"To be completely dependent on other nations to supply our defence needs is a significant defense liability. And should a nation decide to provide some home-grown defence industry capability for itself, the forces of "scales of economy" always suggest that arms exports be explored. Canada's (and other nations') responsibility as an arms exporter then lie in our exports guidelines and how well we implement them."
Yes...it is a mistake to ultimately place the security of a country in the hands of a neighbouring nation. It is indeed a defense liability. I do not think, however, that the creation of arms has to to lead up to the exporting of arms...especially not under government control.
Perhaps arms could be controlled by an international body, independent of the nation states that it serves...so that weapons are sold, created and tracked under the watchful eye of a body that has no other mission than to make sure proliferation of weapons does not happen unnecessarily. Not a perfect system, obviously, as it would most likely have loops and pressure points (like the UN for example)...it would be a system created by and for humans- on default, it would be flawed.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-09 18:32:20
kn_aeshap seemed to refute my statement that "Countries cannot avoid the issue of maintaining armed forces if they wish to be considered a sovereign nation".
He replied: "That's not true at all, actually. If the entire world gave up their arms, I doubt that the legitimacy of present nation states would immediately dissolve. It might be hard to go without weapons and still stop others from walking in and taking over your country..."
So while he seemed to start by completely disagreeing ("...not true at all...") he ended up agreeing with my statement, that "It might be hard to go without weapons" and that armed forces help countries to protect their sovereignty.
kn_aeshap also seemed to disagree with my statement that "...armed forces without arms would be ridiculous" by saying that "(it is)... not ridiculous at all- beautiful, perhaps...but definitely not ridiculous" and kn_aeshap also added that "...I don't see that happening in my lifetime...".
I should think the term "unarmed armed forces" would effectively be an oxymoron and hence, ridiculous. I'm surprised anyone would seriously disagree. Of course, my statement was made in an earnest deductive manner and not meant to be flippant - "if sovereign states need armed forces then arms are ergo, also needed".
Our statements need to remain earnest or this discussion will degenerate to the detriment of all.
I think what kn_aeshap wanted to say was that it would be nice if countries did not need armed forces but he/she thinks it would not happen in his/her lifetime. I agree on this wholeheartedly but IMO complete global disarmament is just a distant possibility.
Now, I do agree with kn_aeshap that having home-grown arms industry does not necessitate the export of arms. I only said that "... the forces of "scales of economy" always suggest that arms exports be explored". IMO, arms development and procurement are very cost-inefficient even for large countries. It is possible to limit our arms industry to government institutions but that often limits ingenuity and cost-control. Overall, I think it is legitimate to suggest barring private Canadian firms from developing arms but a likely problem would be the flight of those companies and expertise to foreign states. I also agree the whole concept of arms industry is disagreeable.
IMO kn_aeshap's suggestion for a truly effective international body to administer arms trading may be even more problematic than the UN situation we now have. We would require agreement on extremely intrusive monitoring capability at the level of a "Big Brother". If a smaller country like Iraq is already such a drain on the UN one can imagine the amount of discord it might be on a global level. It's not workable and it would be impossible to fund. Who would pay and why would they pay to fund this? Not only would it be flawed but it would likely spawn conflicts of its own making. I think efforts to be make to solve problems at the root level. I believe key root problems are distrust and the penchant of some for cheating.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 21:48:10
"So while he seemed to start by completely disagreeing ("...not true at all...") he ended up agreeing with my statement, that "It might be hard to go without weapons" and that armed forces help countries to protect their sovereignty."
Here are my 2 points, just to clarify:
A) It is not necessary to have weapons in order to be considered a nation state. The working construct is not dependent on armed forces.
B) It might be hard to go without weapons and still stop others from walking in and taking over your country.
Even thought the latter is true, the former is a different point altogether.
For the sake of an earnest discussion, could you provide something to back up your opinions or to give example? It's nice that you think that "It is possible to limit our arms industry to government institutions but that often limits ingenuity and cost-control." and that "suggestion for a truly effective international body to administer arms trading may be even more problematic than the UN situation we now have. We would require agreement on extremely intrusive monitoring capability at the level of a "Big Brother"." - but in order to take your opinion seriously, you should really give examples.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 12:40:45
kn_aeshap, since you wish to nit-pick over citations for so many things. Perhaps you can also validate some of your own key ideas:
- "It is not necessary to have weapons in order to be considered a nation state. The working construct is not dependent on armed forces." Just what exactly do you mean by these two statements? Can you identify an authoritative source to back them up? Can you offer valid examples with respect to Canada's security needs?
- "Even thought the latter is true, the former is a different point altogether..". This statement is quite open to interpretation. Can you explain further? How is this idea, whatever it is, relevant to practical Canadian security options?
As for your request for citations:
"It is possible to limit our arms industry to government institutions but that often limits ingenuity and cost-control"
This concept is really not uniquely an arms issue but an issue of how competition can often improve one's choices. A good example is Canada's fighter aircraft. IMO, Dieffenbaker essentially ended Canada's indigenous jet fighter development capability. If Canada wanted to meet national and NATO defence commitments and come up with a fighter it could conceivably have tried to cobble something together but it would have to start from "ground zero". Instead it chosed to buy from an outside commercial (non-government) contractor, McDonnell-Douglas. The CF-18 has served us well and has provided Canadian jobs as well.
"... suggestion for a truly effective international body to administer arms trading may be even more problematic than the UN situation we now have. We would require agreement on extremely intrusive monitoring capability at the level of a "Big Brother".
An excellent example is Iraq. Here we have a very clear case of arms embargo and a very hot story not only for the "main players" in the UN, the US plus Iraq but also for the many investigative journalists all over the world. Throughout the processes, the Iraqis have complained about intrusion and various businesses have also been indicted presumably to their chagrin. So now, after 12 years' of expensive and highly acrimonious effort, even with numerous reports, stories and UN resolutions the UN is still not clear on just what the status of Iraq's compliance is and we have a big war looming as a result. Remember the disputes over interviews and U-2 overflights? This is just to show possession of weapons - proving where those weapons and supplies came from would require additional work. Would you care to extrapolate this kind of process to include arms trade for all the other nations? Who would pay for it all? Why would they?
My validations are taken from every day contenporary life. If you care to keep up with current events you can easily figure it out for yourself. Providing a citation is necessary if a concept is vague but also key in a discussion but relatively simple concepts should be common knowledge to anyone who wants to debate more serious issues. If you wish to debate critical issues, you need to first take some responsibility to be aware of current events, to think about them and to do your own research. Don't be too surprised if I or other people just ask you to "look it up for yourself" next time.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-08 05:04:53
"Are you trying to tell me that we should not sell any weapon whatsoever, even for legitimate concerns??"
First off, let us be clear on the point that in no way do "we" sell weapons to other countries. This is done by governments and corporations. In no way have I ever had a direct say in whether or not the government I live under should allow the sales of arms to particular countries...
Define "legitimate concerns" and I'll tell you whether or not I think Canada should be allowing military exports to go to countries under those conditions.
"I think selling weapons should be strictly controlled by the government, but i don't think it should become illegal ..."
Do you mean to say that you think the selling of arms should be controlled by democratically elected governments, or just the governing body in general?
I don't think that nation states should have complete control of military exports and trade- I think that's a horrible idea. Handing that over to the governing body of a country -the ability to explicitly control arms sales- sounds fairly frightening actually.
Allowing for something -like say- control...to be manufactured via the formation of strategic military alliances (between nation states) who can pick and choose the clients they sell to, under the direct influence of their own political and economic agendas...is an awful thing in my mind. And it sounds all too familiar for my liking...
I'm not sure I think that weapons sales should become illegal, at the moment- that's a tricky one. I wish there was no need for weapons what-so-ever...but I believe that when directly attacked, anyone has the right to use equal or appropriate force in self defence.
Humans have put so much energy into creating such amazing and destructive weapons that it seems as if -in quite a few possible situations- one has to "up the ante" in order to defend at all...it's a troubling issue, indeed.
Perhaps more effort should be put into resolving the issues that breed the want for weapons. It might be better to seek dialogue, than to pour time and effort into creating and selling more weapons- better to seek dialogue than to resolve our problems by beating-down our fellow humans with insanely advanced sticks and rocks. Perhaps we need to be much more vigorous in addressing the issues of why it is that nations feel the need to secure themselves with weapons of mass destruction.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-08 11:24:56
The word "we" was perhaps misleading, i meant the canadian companies.
legitimate concerns : Self-defence and "certain" specific offensive actions to protect the greater good of mankind (such as the invasion of Germany to get rid of the Nazi regime - i don't consider invading Germany during WWII an act of self-defence). Don't ask me to define what specific offensive actions should be allowed, as I'm not an international law lawyer... Offensive action is a very touchy issue, and i don't have a real specific answer ... i think it must be analyzed case per case.
"Do you mean to say that you think the selling of arms should be controlled by democratically elected governments, or just the governing body in general?"
Controlled was maybe the wrong to use, i should rather say "oversee" that the weapons are not sold to countries which are not democratic, don't respect international law, and which do not respect human rights... This analysis must also be done on a case per case basis by the government.
"It might be better to seek dialogue, than to pour time and effort into creating and selling more weapons- better to seek dialogue"
I agree with you, dialogue must be the priority, but we also have to be realistic, if dialogue fails, sometimes you have no choice but to resort to force, especially when one of the parties involved in the dialogue is a despot and dictator. Mr. Chamberlain during the 2nd world war did try dialogue for a very long time with Hitler, and it completely failed...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-08 16:26:55
"legitimate concerns : Self-defence and certain specific offensive actions to protect the greater good of mankind "
I knew i read a document on this somewhere, the actual cases where offensive actions can be taken are
discussed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Canada actively participated in this commission (to avoid the repeat of Rwanda)
For further information,
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/icissresearch/main.htm
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 13:52:01
"...sometimes you have no choice but to resort to force..."
I agree, that sometimes you must defend yourself when being attacked and help to defend those who cannot carry out the job by themselves. However, I do not think that this cycle will ever produce any sort of peace among the worlds nations. It will only ever continue as such...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-07 22:38:36
I bet if you could check; many American companies would be found supplying parts, too. Most of Iraq"s weapons and toxins came originally from the USA government. I believe Iraq is allowed weapons for self defense; just limited on range and types. You do not say if these were for banned weapons. The USA is presently giving arms to third world countries to solicit their support at the UN to attack Iraq. Who knows which of these new found friends will turn their arsenal on their benefators
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-08 11:30:12
I agree with you on this! I think it is quite strange that in some cases the Taliban used American Stinger missiles to attack american troops...
In all cases, my personal feeling is that anything which would permit the direct creation of WMD's should simply
be illegal ...
The problem is that i think that some of the equipment used in developing WMD's can also be used for legitimate reasons (research on disease, nuclear energy, etc)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-08 14:23:21
Yes I'll give you that, but always keep in mind the information you have is in the context of fighting the cold war. (Soviet Union/U.S.S.R.)
That cold war page has turned, perhaps we can do better now.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
