The Sale Of Foreign Arms

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Now the US has policies to keep the foreign adversaries of human rights in check, such as: Holding governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments. Promoting greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture, freedom of expression, press freedom, women 's rights,

The article published in the New York Times July 22, 2012 by Jack Healy entitled “Suspect Bought Large Stockpile of Rounds online”, addresses an absence of laws regulating the sale of ammunition. Jack Healy is a rocky mountain correspondent for the New York Times, and has reported on the war in Iraq from Baghdad. Healy's article elicits good emotional engagement with the reader, but it is fundamentally lacking sound logical arguments and ethical credibility.

Guy Lawson the author of Arms and the Dudes is against the excess spending of millions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the use of FedBizOpps. FedBizOpps is a website ran by the government where they post contracts for anybody to fulfill at the best possible prices. This website helps fuel the international arms trade, since people use it as a way to make a lot of money through shady arms trade. In 2006 the US Army needed to arm Afghanistan as quickly as possible to aid in the defense from muslim extremists. At first the Pentagon decided not to use “FedBizOpps to buy third-rate supplies from the Balkans via dodgy like AEY” (Lawson 58). The government knew it was throwing money out the window so they turned to Russia to supply brand

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

The United States began air strikes there in 2010 to deal with terrorist groups. Now this may seem like a good thing, and good things can come of it, but with the loose policy of what a target may be is horrible. To the people of the attacks, the drones have taken hundreds of innocent lives. They now fear the skies for the next attack. Farea Al-Muslimi was a boy from Yemen whose entire village was destroyed by a drone strike. He says “The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know, and I love. Now however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time.” Things that seems of good nature can be horrific to the other people. We eliminate terrorist threats because they are a danger to our

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

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

During the annual graduation ceremony of the West Point Military Academy, President Obama delivered a speech highlighting the current and future plans of America’s army. The speech was delivered during a period where U.S. troops were being recalled from Iraq and Afghanistan. For over a decade, America’s military involvement in these countries has led to a series of unanswered questions that the world demanded. This essay focuses on three International Relations theories, which are Realism, Liberalism and Marxism. President Obama’s speech will be analysed from each of these perspectives. Moreover, a stance would be asserted on the predominant notion.

supplied weapons in Yemen has resulted in the death of thousands of civilians, but there is no

Defense spending has remained fairly constant since the Korean War, roughly $300 to $400 billion in 2006 dollars, and is a major component of United States economic stability. Military spending became a permanent fixture of the American economy after WWII and hasn’t let up since. In the early 1960’s, President John F. Kennedy introduced “New Economics” as a way to bring the economy out of stagnation through government spending. A majority of the government spending he proposed was on national defense and the arm’s race with the Soviet Union. His goal was not only to stimulate the economy, but to establish U.S. hegemony.

The United States has a very long history of intervening within other countries, whether it is for political reasons or otherwise. U.S. intervention started along with the establishment of the United States. This long history still continues strong up until today. Although the U.S. often intervenes, the justified reasons for these interventions are often very unclear, but there are a few repeating trends. First, the idea that it is America’s responsibility to spread democracy to developing nations is a very repeated tendency. The goal of these interventions is to set up an American style government, whether the country likes it or not. The second ideal is to bring freedom and safety to the civilian population of the intervened

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"

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.

Another major role is arms trade.Arms trade is a major cause of human rights abuse. Some governments spend more on military spending than on social development, communications infrastructure and health combined. While every nation has the right and the need to ensure its security in these changing times, arms requirements and obtaining processes may need to change too.The arms trade is also a big business. Each year, around $45-60 billion worth of arms sales are agreed("Geopolitics."