The Negative Effects Of Arms Trading

First, the Lebanese magazine Ash Shiraa reported that the United States had been secretly selling weapons to Iran in an effort to guarantee the release of seven American hostages. Furthermore, this illegal sale contradicted President Reagan’s vow never to negotiate with terrorists and violated the U.S. arms embargo against Iran.

The secret arms sales to Iran violated not only the longstanding expressed United States policy prohibiting negotiations for the release of hostages but also the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which prohibits the transfer of arms to nations that support international terrorism (The New York Times on the Web, 1994). In addition, by failing to report the Iranian arms sales to Congress,

The arms embargo between the United States and Iran forbid the United States from selling arms to the Iraqis. The goal of the embargo was to stop the Iran-Iraq war. Sending the shipment through Israel, Reagan sold Iran 500 antitank missiles (Gwertzman, 1986, para. 1). Lt. Col. Oliver North diverted a portion of the funds that the United States gathered from the sale to the Contra war effort, supposedly without Reagan’s knowledge and without informing the public. On 11 December 1986, 1Iranian man that Reagan used as a point of reference in Lebanon “asserted that he had personally gone to Lebanon to arrange the release of American hostages (Butterfield, 1986, para. 1).” Reagan knew about the arms embargo to Iran, but still went ahead to sell arms to further the American effort in Nicaragua. In essence he declared involvement in war with supplying a hostile nation with arms, and a party-torn country with money. The controversy is not the actions any leader did, but how the American public was left out of the decisions being made in Washington D.C. For all of time the American government has been seen as a clear pane of glass where both sides can see through. These hidden events tinted the window from the public. The Government did not inform the public and they

Week seven reading summary and question In the first reading Jervis demonstrates how fear and uncertainty amongst Status-quo state can lead conflict and arms racing. Jervis observe that the anarchic structure of the international system and the tendency of state to focus on others’ weapon capability can lead to “spirals of hostility” between states. The security dilemma- that is many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security in tern decrease the security of other state by in advertently threatening other state is made worse when the state on the “offensive” has the advantage. Jervis explain it why because countries have an incentive to take offensive action to increase their security and they have an inherent mistrust of

In the article, it is pointed out that the United States is responsible for most of these weapons, but the consequences of these weapons are felt around the world. While the United States makes attempts to justify the creation of the weapons there is no justification. All in all, The arms trade poses “ threats to peace, human rights, and development...” (par ###). This article deals with the Catholic Social Teaching Theme of Human Life and Dignity. Sowing Weapons of War focuses on the free market in arms, moral responsibility and the arms trade, policies for curbing the arms trade, and banning

Most countries hold the power to protect themselves, others, and police their own territory. However, this power can be taken away under unpredictable circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm themselves by other countries, by having sanctions placed on them, or upon losing a war. Likewise, nations that defend themselves against international arms control agreements may find

This paper argues the hypothesis that "guns are dangerous and maybe some terrorists will use these guns to kill in order to be in power". There are lots of persons, corporations and bureaucrats and those who advocate gun rights who are in total agreement with free flow of arms. This paper sets out to show why this is very dangerous. Those who do not agree with these propositions would find ample material to question their views. Thus in length the hypothesis that is sought to be proved is: "Free availability of arms and arming nations that are troubled will lead to escalation of terrorism and threats both aboard and at home in the US"

The United States has been a major supplier of arms to foreign buyers for the better part of the last 75 years. Major military exports beginning under the Lend-Lease Act, Robert M Gates reports in his Foreign Policy piece “Helping Others Defend Themselves”, led the United States to continue supplying weapons to nations that would pay for them in lieu of retreating back into the isolationist policies put forth on the heels of World War I (Gates). Today, America is the largest arms exporter by a wide margin. Per Amnesty International, between 2010 and 2015 the United States facilitated upwards of $55 billion worth of conventional arms sales (“Killer Facts: the scale of the global arms trade”). While a significant portion of the United States’s

There is a product, each country only have one. To buy it, everybody in this country should dig their pocket. This product is named military spending. With the large amounts of research and the development of high technology weapons, regional warming of local wars, armed conflicts, and intensified arms race, the series of a new arms race, military deployment and new high-growth military spending boost are being performed on the international stage. However, governments are concerned about seeking “peace via war”. As the arms trade is the major cause of suffering for human beings, governments should limit their military spending; nobody in the world wants war.

Conflict over energy resources—and the wealth and power they create—has become an increasingly prominent feature for geopolitics particularly in the Middle East . The discovery of oil in the late nineteenth century added a dimension to the region as major outside states powers employed military force to protect their newly acquired interests in the Middle East. The U.S.’s efforts to secure the flow of oil have led to ever increasing involvement in the Middle East region’s political affairs and ongoing power struggles. By the end of the twentieth century, safeguarding the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf had become one of the most important functions of the U.S. military establishment. The close relationship between the United States and the Saudi royal family was formed in the final months of World War II, when U.S. leaders sought to ensure preferential access to Saudi petroleum. The U.S. link with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region has demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to both parties, yet it has also led to ever deepening U.S. involvement in regional politics.

While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations

billions of the world’s poorest, where safety is secured only for those with money, and where much of our well-intended aid is lost in the daily chaos of violence. (Boutros V. and Haugen G., 2014).

They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic (President Bush- State of the Union Address).

These two maps show a lot of Information about the United states.one map is all about the trades they made with other countries. the second map is about the wars and problems the U.S. had with other countries. this Information comes from the years 1780-1860. the U.S. had a lot of wars and traded a lot, and maybe all the trading caused all the wars.

The concept of the current Arms Trade Treaty can be traced back to the 1990’s, but the concept of a treaty that regulates the trade of small firearms and conventional weapons can be dated back up to the 1940’s. In 2006 the notion of an arms trade treaty was introduced to the United for the first time, at which they started a draft. This eventually turned into the treaty that passed on Tuesday 2 April 2013, signed by 118 states and ratified by 41. The intention of this treaty is to control the global trade of small firearms and keep them from getting into the hands of gangs, terrorists groups, pirates or any other people who could potentially bring harm to anyone. To do this the ATT establishes one global set of standards for the trade of conventional weapons and implements international standards that are required to be met before any nations can commence in the trade of weapons. Non-Government organizations have lately been the greatest supports of the ATT by recognizing the need for a set of international laws that governs the trade of weapons uniformly for all countries, and seeing the potential in the treaty to reduce, or even eliminate the $8 million loss in Africa alone annually due to weapons that are “lost” or “stolen”. In fact, arms trade corruption is responsible for approximately 50% of all globally corrupt trades, despite