FEOS wrote:
It absolutely is, since those agreements are considered "foreign military sales", and thus part of the overall diplomatic strategy.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which still isn't 'foreign relations'.FEOS wrote:
You also forgot that for defense companies to enter a deal with another country, they have to get approval through their own country's government first, Dilbert.
Even jolly old England.
UK politics is somewhat different, foreign policy and arms sales are not so connected, not least because the arms industry does not own the govt.
While its true the govt and diplomatic service will lobby for arms sales in the national financial interest they aren't seen as a key instrument of foreign policy.
Its not as if the UK gives weapons away to favoured regimes, just sells competitively.
While its true the govt and diplomatic service will lobby for arms sales in the national financial interest they aren't seen as a key instrument of foreign policy.
Its not as if the UK gives weapons away to favoured regimes, just sells competitively.
Fuck Israel
thatcher stank was all over that deal. stop being a troll.
Exactly, it was a deal - not a gift of cash in return for political influence.11 Bravo wrote:
thatcher stank was all over that deal. stop being a troll.
If she'd spent taxpayer pounds to give the weapons away you'd have a point.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-28 05:40:06)
Fuck Israel
youre nutsDilbert_X wrote:
Exactly, it was a deal - not a gift of cash in return for political influence.11 Bravo wrote:
thatcher stank was all over that deal. stop being a troll.
You're missing the point, go do press-ups or something.11 Bravo wrote:
youre nutsDilbert_X wrote:
Exactly, it was a deal - not a gift of cash in return for political influence.11 Bravo wrote:
thatcher stank was all over that deal. stop being a troll.
Fuck Israel
If you think the UK government isn't involved in approving or engaged in Typhoon <insert major weapon system here> sales for diplomatic reasons, you're on crack.Dilbert_X wrote:
UK politics is somewhat different, foreign policy and arms sales are not so connected, not least because the arms industry does not own the govt.
While its true the govt and diplomatic service will lobby for arms sales in the national financial interest they aren't seen as a key instrument of foreign policy.
Its not as if the UK gives weapons away to favoured regimes, just sells competitively.
It has nothing to do with your perception that the "arms industry...own(s) the govt". It has everything to do with how elements of governmental power are actually intertwined when it comes to executing foreign policy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
go do press-ups or somethingFEOS wrote:
If you think the UK government isn't involved in approving or engaged in Typhoon <insert major weapon system here> sales for diplomatic reasons, you're on crack.Dilbert_X wrote:
UK politics is somewhat different, foreign policy and arms sales are not so connected, not least because the arms industry does not own the govt.
While its true the govt and diplomatic service will lobby for arms sales in the national financial interest they aren't seen as a key instrument of foreign policy.
Its not as if the UK gives weapons away to favoured regimes, just sells competitively.
It has nothing to do with your perception that the "arms industry...own(s) the govt". It has everything to do with how elements of governmental power are actually intertwined when it comes to executing foreign policy.
Apparently Afghan Politics is going back to tribal warfare, spearheaded by the Taliban, as soon as the coalition troops step out. After a few months/years of blood shed, who knows who'll come out on top.Foxnews.com wrote:
Despite a fierce U.S. military campaign aimed at paralyzing the Taliban in Afghanistan, insurgents have largely been able to absorb attacks and are playing a waiting game until July, when the U.S. troop drawdown is scheduled to begin, military and intelligence officials reportedly say.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
AFAIK The UK doesn't give away weapons systems, or sackfuls of cash, as part of the process of achieving foreign policy objectives.FEOS wrote:
If you think the UK government isn't involved in approving or engaged in Typhoon <insert major weapon system here> sales for diplomatic reasons, you're on crack.
It has nothing to do with your perception that the "arms industry...own(s) the govt". It has everything to do with how elements of governmental power are actually intertwined when it comes to executing foreign policy.
The UK doesn't sell to hostile nations, or to nations hostile to our allies, apart from that its exclusively commercial in interest.
Fuck Israel
Realistically 0 progress has been made in improving the situation since 2002.Evieira wrote:
Apparently Afghan Politics is going back to tribal warfare, spearheaded by the Taliban, as soon as the coalition troops step out. After a few months/years of blood shed, who knows who'll come out on top.
inane little opines
Most of our arms transfers are sales, Dilbert. Yes, they are sweet deals (great financing terms backed by the US government, for example), but they are by and large still sales (the "s" in FMS being "sales").Dilbert_X wrote:
AFAIK The UK doesn't give away weapons systems, or sackfuls of cash, as part of the process of achieving foreign policy objectives.FEOS wrote:
If you think the UK government isn't involved in approving or engaged in Typhoon <insert major weapon system here> sales for diplomatic reasons, you're on crack.
It has nothing to do with your perception that the "arms industry...own(s) the govt". It has everything to do with how elements of governmental power are actually intertwined when it comes to executing foreign policy.
The UK doesn't sell to hostile nations, or to nations hostile to our allies, apart from that its exclusively commercial in interest.
And yes. The UK does the same thing. Just on a smaller scale, relative to the size of its MoD and MIC.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The UK doesn't give weapons away, not U$3bn every year thats for sure.
The UK doesn't hand sackfuls of cash to foreign politicians.
If you have better info feel free to provide it.
The UK doesn't hand sackfuls of cash to foreign politicians.
If you have better info feel free to provide it.
Fuck Israel
yes they do
Sports -> http://forums.bf2s.com/viewforum.php?id=8811 Bravo wrote:
yes they do
Fuck Israel
Read what I wrote above. I never said "give away", did I? Great tactic when you can't win an argument: change the nature of the argument completely. And the Brits DO "give" some arms away as part of their foreign internal defense (SOF) work, at a minimum. It's just part of the mission.Dilbert_X wrote:
The UK doesn't give weapons away, not U$3bn every year thats for sure.
The UK is listed as the 5th largest arms exporter in the world. So yes. They do.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you have better info feel free to provide it.
Yes. They do.Dilbert_X wrote:
The UK doesn't hand sackfuls of cash to foreign politicians.
The UKTI office of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the office of primary responsibility for working those types of deals on behalf of British industry.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
nah your trolling goes unchecked too often so i feel it is my duty
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-10-29 05:21:02)
Again, we not talking about arms sales, or support provided transparently for specific purposes as published in the document you quoted.FEOS wrote:
Read what I wrote above. I never said "give away", did I? Great tactic when you can't win an argument: change the nature of the argument completely. And the Brits DO "give" some arms away as part of their foreign internal defense (SOF) work, at a minimum. It's just part of the mission.Dilbert_X wrote:
The UK doesn't give weapons away, not U$3bn every year thats for sure.The UK is listed as the 5th largest arms exporter in the world. So yes. They do.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you have better info feel free to provide it.Yes. They do.Dilbert_X wrote:
The UK doesn't hand sackfuls of cash to foreign politicians.
The UKTI office of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the office of primary responsibility for working those types of deals on behalf of British industry.
We're talking about free gifts of billions of dollars of weapons and undocumented sackfuls of cash given directly to foreign politicians to spend or pocket as they wish.
Fuck Israel
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.FEOS wrote:
There's nothing about the wars in either country that would "break our budget".Turquoise wrote:
Well, it just goes to show that committing to a war isn't that expensive.JohnG@lt wrote:
In the current two cases, it's the cost of building a country up from scratch
It's the act of nation building that makes or breaks budgets.
Granted, entitlement spending dwarfs both sets of expenses combined.
Seriously, Turq. Look at the overall federal spending, then look at the cost of the wars in comparison. It's fucking noise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_ … e_Iraq_War
Look at the cost of the wars in comparison to overall federal spending.
I believe I already said that...
I believe I already said that...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
$2.4 trillion is a shitload of money even when compared to the overall federal budget.FEOS wrote:
Look at the cost of the wars in comparison to overall federal spending.
I believe I already said that...
That's over several years, if not longer, taking the interest payments into account.Turquoise wrote:
$2.4 trillion is a shitload of money even when compared to the overall federal budget.FEOS wrote:
Look at the cost of the wars in comparison to overall federal spending.
I believe I already said that...
The federal government spends more than that in two years on normal budgetary items, Turq.
Perspective.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Here's the sticking point though... if we're aiming for smaller government eventually, doesn't this also have to include drawing back involvement in foreign conflicts in addition to reducing entitlement spending?FEOS wrote:
That's over several years, if not longer, taking the interest payments into account.Turquoise wrote:
$2.4 trillion is a shitload of money even when compared to the overall federal budget.FEOS wrote:
Look at the cost of the wars in comparison to overall federal spending.
I believe I already said that...
The federal government spends more than that in two years on normal budgetary items, Turq.
Perspective.
Sure. But the biggest difference-maker in the budgetary problems we are facing is entitlement and other defense spending, not the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why the statement that "those wars are 'breaking us'" is so ridiculous. They are noise in comparison to the real culprits in our budget.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the sticking point though... if we're aiming for smaller government eventually, doesn't this also have to include drawing back involvement in foreign conflicts in addition to reducing entitlement spending?FEOS wrote:
That's over several years, if not longer, taking the interest payments into account.Turquoise wrote:
$2.4 trillion is a shitload of money even when compared to the overall federal budget.
The federal government spends more than that in two years on normal budgetary items, Turq.
Perspective.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What are the culprits among the defense budget?FEOS wrote:
Sure. But the biggest difference-maker in the budgetary problems we are facing is entitlement and other defense spending, not the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why the statement that "those wars are 'breaking us'" is so ridiculous. They are noise in comparison to the real culprits in our budget.Turquoise wrote:
Here's the sticking point though... if we're aiming for smaller government eventually, doesn't this also have to include drawing back involvement in foreign conflicts in addition to reducing entitlement spending?FEOS wrote:
That's over several years, if not longer, taking the interest payments into account.
The federal government spends more than that in two years on normal budgetary items, Turq.
Perspective.