The Pros and Cons to the U.S. Arms Production: Above which sold war for nearly nothing!

The Pros and Cons to the U.S

The Pros and Cons to the U.S. Arms Production: Above which sold war for nearly nothing!

A unethical practice condoned by our U.S. Arms Production services was our country and allies supporters deft dealing with guns and artillery of the Iran Contra Arms Embargo. While in the Central America, namely Nicaragua, there was civil unrest because of lies and cover ups by high ranking U.S. Officials afraid to testify against one another. It was here that Oliver North made a humongous mistake when he had to testify amongst congressional hearings about the sale of weaponry to be used for external aggression. And his testimony to sell Arms rather than haul them back to the U.S. appeared totally suspectable. The American people were so opposed to the hearings that they lost jobs and job assignments; got sick; tyrannical, and even jealous.

A acceptable argument for his dealing and recourse was to in effect, just to save the U.S. Government some hostages and to capitalize on the saving of the negotiable sale of weaponry and it economical transport of the weaponry, by use of the canal and its newly controlled channel locks. The guns were mainly sold to wage guerrilla warfare in the Honduras to topple the Nicaragua Government, as a way to train the contra militants for funding the Iran Embargo. Realistically, this could of all be halted but, the affair was initiated to improved U.S./Iranian relations. But there were many public figures under scrutiny, including Ronald Reagan; all requiring discovery and principal. The Contras' form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.

Should the U.S. have the solution to balancing the right amount of Arms Production? Yes, and as to protect its neighboring allies during application of guns weaponry & codes of the conducted. And should it serve as a world reckoning leader when in comes to demonstrating it superiority in mass destruction warheads as the choices are stockpiled among Nations like Algeria, China, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan where their leaders are cleverly developing nuclear power for missiles and a idealist agenda to conquer the world? Also, feasibly yes. Mostly because of what occurred by the mid 80's. The cold war brought little achievers out of small countries and posed questions as to whether they could lead world nations.

Almost half of the new warhead manufactured comes from Russia each year. There are at least twenty other new countries which would compete to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. To name a few are; Algeria, Belarus, China, France, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, and the United States, & the United Kingdom. These leaders in there own rights are either building atomic energy or making commitments to never use reactors of nuclear energy and will make impressions on the remaining 178 countries around the globe. But realistically even these larger astute countries have to follow a code of conduct when selling Arms to the world.

This strict set of arms export criteria practiced in the early 1990s has been a way to provide weapons exporters with a responsible post Cold War balances for arms export decisions. A Code of Conduct would prevent states from exporting weapons or providing military aid to countries when in breech of service. Benefiting countries could not participate in negotiable sales if the exporter were reported engaged in internal repression, external aggression, regional arms races, or otherwise abusive use of weaponry.

And the heart felt wisdom is that our new state of citizenry will make a impartial decision based on only the requirements and preemption of problems on listed commands. This systematic stockpile of defense missile, like in the early 80's of the cold war, couldn't be a benefit to any of the remaining legitimizing stratagem governments with hospitals that still lose veteran's everyday.

There are several other countries taking considerable steps to land domestic energy supplies. Each of them should be recycled in its way for land masses along the coast line including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, and Israel.

How then also will small countries with medium to large governments acquiesce in a recession impacted era tastefully keep up? Feasibly by planning every missile developed in the conventional arms race to be kept low key, like the country of Israel. Honestly, totally opposite of the air defense systems of Russia and its military defense. Should our neighbors of influencing states be engaged in making decision of permanence, or divest their repairs work?

It was decided back in 1986 that the Iran Contra Hearings would set the tone on interstate commerce upon the global unisorce and free use of byway systems. How? By cutting off all means of communication with state jurisdictional services and understanding the application of all of the laws written from then on. I learned that the word "Congress" is though just inter commerce work of transported between one state an another.

Really interstate commerce is more than just commercial trade, it is business; movement of goods or money; or even transportation from one state to another; regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. What is legislated by our congressional leaders makes a point to hand craft solutions for a better applicable preference of law.

Like the White House in Washington D.C., Osama bin Laden is opposed to see Iran's nuclear program described as dangerous and derailing, even if Iranian leaders stop short of blundering just as well as . However, at present, and despite terse relationships, it has proven difficult to conclude that sizable arms acquisitions alone lead to anything but poorer clout.

Little governments have no sight on political activism as for the exception of the clout they collect when they donate to larger politicians' war coffers which become part solutions to the problems of manufacturing machines bosses. Our war chest though personally has done nothing short of stagnate, even through the Iran Contra Arms Conflict of the 80's. But the economy was in a growth spurt the summer of 1986 and in all likelihood the sly talk manufacturing war wasn't good for bolstering Iran's military deficit either. In other words, Oliver North's testimony with Ronald Reagan was way to revealing for his un ethical nature he repeatedly justified as smart tactics of big business!

Although $25 billion for the U.S. Arms Production doesn't seem like a lot. I hold that the Obama's administration, by helping its allies even against Iran at a time when the White House is struggling to build international support, required and then achieved some indebtedness. These small barriers to communications have cost Americans some sanctions through negative press and deliberate postured jobs. For fiscal year 2008 Bush spent $643.8 billion for National Defense and War coffers. But this does not include homeland security, veterans affairs, and supplemental war cost of which amounted to in 2008 $213.4 billion dollars.

Today operation dessert storm and our proud soldiers are here to defend our nation and fight against those pronounced Iraqi insurgents, lacking some character testimonies referenced earlier in the Iran Contra Arms Conflict. Our chance to rebuild our stance on homeland security was never more so evident and clear to the hiding Taliban and mongering Afghanistan soldiers. Now with there chemical weaponry and weapons of mass destruction how can they say as a germinating nation, they have one onslaught lessons to grow.

More recently they commit to ensure that food prices will remain less volatile. Since mid June of 2010 prices have climbed 56% for what we produce as wheat consumption products. Where else is sub-Saharan Africa supposed to go for its grains and harvest. To understand cyclical cycles one must be obtuse to the realities of American interdependence. As a Arms Production Ally all types of misnomers can fault the system of completeness and ability to respond in a regulatory map of ethics.

In conclusion the U.S. and its allies don't need more weapons of mass destruction for a few simple reasons.

Weapons of mass destruction are to expensive to hide and meaningful to lose.

Soldiers are dying everyday and something more should be done in a un callousness

way to keep them from recuperating in hospital or lost in the fields of front lines.

Censorship beside the nuclear program is a phenomenon of proportions and must be

more attentively supervised instead.

There are places we have yet so far to overthrow. But without Christ's people or His trust we might find ourselves in nuclear fallout. In heavens mercy, we should never experience the movement of atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 again and again. I suggest the United States government take on a lesson from the Van Goths. The early century Norsemen found themselves no equal and always in a Luke warm developing mess because they weren't able to recuperate their losses from distancing wars or battles with distancing aggressors.

For recommended reading the below journals may be of some talent. Third World Arms Production and the Evolving Interstate System by Robert M Rosh; and Economic implications of military expenditures in the Middle East by H Askari;

Bibliography

1. Warrick, Toby (2010) U.S. Steps Up Arms Sales to Persian Gulf allies: The Washington Post (January 31, 2010) Blog.

2. Rosh, M. Robert (2010) Third World Arms Production and the Evolving Interstate System (March 1990) ,Vol.34 Journal of Conflict Resolution

3. Clare, F. Joseph (2010) Whither the Third World Arms Producers? (April 1987) World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers

4. Askari, H. (2010) and Economic implications of military expenditures in the Middle East (1974) Journal of Peace Research

5. G Lamb (2010) Military Expenditure and Economic Development; A Symposium on Research Issues (1992) World Bank-Discussion Papers

6. Pike, John (2010) States Possessing, Pursuing or Capable of Acquiring

Weapons of Mass Destruction (July 29, 2000) FAS Intelligence Resource Program

7. "Surviving the Atomic Attack on Hiroshima, 1945," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2001).

8. (2010) There are two primary channels through which U.S. arms manufacturers sell ... (May 7, 2001) Foundation of American Scientist

9. Hill, Gerald (2010) Interstate Commerce (1981-2005) The Free Dictionary

POST COMMENT

Aarkstore Enterprise Imquest Life Sciences - Product Pipeline Review - Q4 2010 There Are Moncler Items On Sale Pink Shepherd Check Ruffles Sweet Lolita Dress, Classic Lolita Dress Very Important Yellow Box Shoes facts you should Know Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - Product Pipeline Review - Q4 2010 Career In Fashion Communications For Collectors, Ballerina and Fashion Dolls Make Perfect Gifts Aarkstore Enterprise Ligocyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - Product Pipeline Review - Q4 2010 Aarkstore Enterprise Marina Biotech, Inc. - Product Pipeline Review - Q4 2010 A Natural Way Of Walking Shoes Provided By Mbt Viparo.com.au- Leather Garments Leather Bomber Jackets Biker Jackets Hooded Leather Jackets High Heel Stiletto Shoes Aarkstore Enterprise -agrochemical Products - Spain (focus Analysis)