U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq

[elena_m]

Published on Thursday, May 9, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq
by Jonathan Reingold

Bill Clinton spoke at Hunter College in New York on Tuesday, challenging President Bush to send American troops as part of an international peacekeeping force to the Middle East. What many Americans don’t know is that U.S. forces might as well be there already.

From 1990 to 2000 U.S. military aid to Israel totaled over $18 billion. No other nation in the world has such a close relationship with the U.S. military and arms industry.

The UN, Amnesty International and other groups have raised questions about the extent the to which U.S. military aid is abetting human rights abuses by Israeli forces operating in the West Bank. These debates will no doubt continue for some time. In the mean time, however, there is another aspect of the American-Israeli relationship that may have an even greater impact on U.S. and Israeli security in the long run: the ongoing transfer of American arms technology from Israel to potential U.S. (and Israeli) adversaries around the globe.

From the most sophisticated warplanes to tank engines, artillery systems and armored vehicles, the United States is Israel's one-stop shopping center. Last year alone the U.S. sold one hundred top-of-the-line F-16s to Israel for a total of over $3 billion. That same year Israel purchased 9 of the newest Apache helicopter version equipped with the Longbow Radar system. The helicopter-buying spree didn't end with the Apaches. Israel bought fifteen Cobra attack helicopters last year along with twenty-four Black Hawk transport helicopters.

Besides selling aircraft, the United States is also Israel's preferred vendor for missiles. Although Israel has designed its own version of the U.S. air-to-air AIM9 sidewinder missile, the Python 3, it still relies on the U.S. for its ground attack technology. Two years ago Lockheed Martin sold Israel approximately 80 AGM-142D Popeye air-to-surface missiles. Israel also buys the AGM65 Maverick air-to-surface missile produced by Hughes and Raytheon.

In addition, the U.S. sells Israel the engines for its "indigenous" Merkava main battle tank. In 1999 Israel purchased 400 power packs for their Merkava fleet. The Merkava was developed by Israel so that it wouldn't have to rely on "fickle" countries like Britain, France or Russia when it was in the midst of a conflict.

Transactions between the U.S. and Israel are not necessarily worrisome by themselves; after all, as Israel has proved, there are a host of countries willing to sell the weapons it needs. Currently, Germany is Israel's source for submarines, and if Israel really needed fighters, Russia is always looking to make a buck and always seems to have a surfeit of aircraft and other excess defense articles.

The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.

Last April, when the Navy EP-3E surveillance plane was forced to land in China after a Chinese F-8 fighter flew into its propeller, photos show Israeli built Python 3 missiles under the fighter's wings.

If Israeli weapons sales to China induce misgivings, including the most recent U.S. blocked sale of Israel's Phalcon airborne radar, the beneficiaries of Chinese arms transfers of Israeli-American technology are even more disturbing. In 1996, as disclosed in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran, along with a handful of combat aircraft and warships. Even worse, in 1997 the New York Daily News reported that Iraq had deployed Israeli-developed, Chinese PL-8 missiles in the no-fly zones, endangering American pilots.

Americans deserve to know where their money is being spent, and how money allocated for friends and technology shared with friends can all too easily end up in the wrong hands, threatening all parties involved. At a minimum, discussions on a new security framework for the Middle East should include plans to monitor and restrict Israeli transfers of U.S.-origin military equipment to potential adversaries. Otherwise, this deadly technology could come back to haunt U.S. and Israeli forces in future conflicts.

Jonathan Reingold is a research associate for the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/
and a military analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/

[NewsGuy]

So what is your point, exactly? Instead of copying and pasting someone's anti-Israel opinion piece, why don't we hear from you directly, what is your point?

I can see that people who despise Israel, of course HATE the fact that Israel has an independent weapons industry. The fact is that Israel can manufacture its own Merkava tanks or its own Uzi and Galil machine guns, as well as missiles and war-planes like the Lavi.

Someone needs to tell Mr. Reingold that it is within Israel's right to modify, improve and resell the weapons systems it buys from the US and other countries, and when the US objected to Israel's proposed sale to China, that sales was CANCELLED by Israel.

So, basically, Reingold is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean he is correct. He apparently is having amnesia about 2 things:

1. The right to combine parts of foreign-made weapons systems into other original Israeli weapons systems is governed by contracts. If anyone has a problem, they can approach it from a breach of contract standpoint. So far, I've seen no such action against Israel, but rather, just the usual Arab-apologist drivel. When the US made an official request to Israel, that request was handled and resolved along time ago.

2. The biggest danger of US weapons comes from being sold to Arab countries, from which Islamic terrorists are launched against Israel and the US, as we've seen on 9-11. The Saudi terrorists of al Qeada and the Egyptian right-hand of Osama bin Ladin caused the massacre of 3,000 Americans and the loss of untold billions of dollars to the US economy.

Nonetheless, the US continues to sell weapons to the Saudis (whose ENTIRE military infrastructure was built by the US) and the US' second largest recipient of military equipment is Egypt.

These sales of advanced US weaponry to corrupt Arab dictatorships are very alarming and should be the real focus of US and international investigation.

[elena_m]

other than informing there's no other point....

if you're doing a tit for tat enjoy the game with another

[Mediocrates]

But what you describe is transfers of technology of Israeli origin to other countries. The examples you list are specifically Israeli arms not US arms.

"The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best. "

Those are countries that US does business with as well. So clearly it is acceptable to you for Lockeed and Raytheon to sell via the US government, to these countries directly but not for this third party, Israel to do so. Moreover the US, who as we already discussed is exempt from your criticism also sells its own technology to Saudi Arabia and this technology as in the recent transfer of advanced F16s is in fact more advanced than can be procured by the US Air Force.

The main technology transfer problem between Israel and the US concerned the sale of Israeli developed AWACS technology to the PRC. This was stopped at the behest of the US because they did not want to quid pro quo an advanced Aegis-like navionics system to Taiwan and the cost it would incur.

[elena_m]

"acceptable"

not at all
I've always found it quite interesting that the superpower regurgitating "axis of evil" is continually conscious of arm deals caterring to supposed enemies...they freely sell their shipments to allies who graciously then feed to the chain.....

the US knows but is indifferent due to the fattenning of pockets
the hypocrisy is beautiful
alive and well

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
other than informing there's no other point....

if you're doing a tit for tat enjoy the game with another
The purpose of this forum is not provide you with a podium to "inform" (or dis-inform) the world of your anti-Israel copy-and-pastes. Instead, we are here to discuss and to debate the issues.

If this doesn't work for you, and you are just seeking a news group to distribute your baseless anti-Israel propaganda and then evade opposing opinions, then please feel free to "enjoy the game with another" forum.

Plenty of anti-Israel members have figured out how to participate here and be heard, so maybe you should take some more time to figure it out too before starting more new threads.

[Mediocrates]

That's I guess the downside of 'most favored nation' status - globalization cuts both ways. If you want to export embargo military technology you will do as much to upset various countries in the world.

[elena_m]

"anti israel"

ah you're one of those, I see

any form of criticism of Israel is stapled as anti-semitic, anti-Israel...how perfectly convenient....

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elena_m
"acceptable"

not at all
I've always found it quite interesting that the superpower regurgitating "axis of evil" is continually conscious of arm deals caterring to supposed enemies...they freely sell their shipments to allies who graciously then feed to the chain.....

the US knows but is indifferent due to the fattenning of pockets
the hypocrisy is beautiful
alive and well

Some things you are overlooking:

1. Military arms can be used for aggression, or they can be used strictly in self defense.

2. It's difficult, if not impossibe, to prevent countries from buying arms.

3. Contrary to your assertion above, the U.S. does block specific sales.

4. The U.S. believes that as countries move towards democracy they become better world citizens.

You find fault with the U.S. for selling arms that are necessary for self-defense, but what really bothers you is that the U.S. has branded the gov'ts of Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea as an Axis of Evil.

Sounds like a case of condemning the world's main (if imperfect) defender of freedom, while defending countries that practice naked aggression and terrorism abroad while brutally suppressing their own people at home.

Talk about hypocrisy...

[elena_m]

defenders of freedom?



clearly we'll fail to comprehend eachother

[elena_m]

and bothers me...no

you've perfectly added to the hypocrisy
Iraq and Iran were both conveniently fed arms for yrs by the supposed defender of freedom....

once the regimes were unwilling to scratch the back of the USA they were perfectly stapled as enemies who my goodness "make horrific violations towards human rights"


I guess you never heard of the Carlyle group, or Pinochet for that matter.

[Mediocrates]

Have you heard of German weapons sales to Libya and both sides in the Somalian conflict? Have you heard of Cuban troops in Angola and Namibia and Ethiopia? Or French missile sales to whomever has hard currency? During the Falklands is was ironically the Hundred Years War fought all over again with French missiles sinking British ships. Or perhaps the greatest "Peace Dividend" of all the wholesale transplant of Russian weapons around the world in exchange for anything fungible.

True enough in most of the those cases there is nothing motivating it beyond simple money with no politics attached - but how is that preferable? It's not simply a case of the big bad US shipping arms around the world. Why is that? Well for one reason the US has to remain engaged because of the high tech high maintenace of the systems they sell. Whereas a rifle is a rifle and you can sell 10 million rifles and forget about it... I think that's where you see the difference in political vs. non political involvment. For example out involvement in Saudi Airbases has as much to do with training and maintenance contracts for the equipment we've already sold them as it does any higher geopolitical gamesmanship.

But at any rate, yes US weapons sales are one expression of its foreign policy. I think though that in Israel's case its simply trade and trade partners. In a world where there are few partners willing to admit they trade with you you sell simply to who you can. The EU is Israels largest trading bloc yet the EU wants and needs little military technology from Israel so they go to other markets but it is rather self serving to claim that out of all the industrialized nations in the world only the US has the audacity to lack a concience when discussing arms sales. Toxic waste kills lots of people and the EU loves to dispose of it in non EU countries - go figure ?!?!

[elena_m]

and where did I declare that the USA was solely worthy of the criticism?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
and where did I declare that the USA was solely worthy of the criticism?
ah... I think we're just now getting to the bottom of it.

Let's see, you criticise Israel, you criticise the US, who else do you blame?

[elena_m]

is that how you'd like to package my post?

it's easier that way?

fine my friend, do so... no harm done.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by elena_m
and where did I declare that the USA was solely worthy of the criticism?

It was the substance of your message, did I miss something?

[elena_m]

you missed the fact that we were discussing the "defender of freedom"

your assumption on my views concering any foreign policy is simplistic....merely commenting on an individual country does not mean that I fail to hold any other concerns/opinions on other nations.

[Mediocrates]

And whom did you mean when you referred to quote defender of freedom unquote? Are you being coy for a reason?


"Iraq and Iran were both conveniently fed arms for yrs by the supposed defender of freedom....

once the regimes were unwilling to scratch the back of the USA they were perfectly stapled as enemies who my goodness "make horrific violations towards human rights"

...and here you get somewhat muddy - do you mean to assert that human rights violations in Iran and Iraq are fabricated or blown out of proportion?

[elena_m]

perhaps you should reread the posts

as for

"...and here you get somewhat muddy - do you mean to assert that human rights violations in Iran and Iraq are fabricated or blown out of proportion?"

I'm asserting that the USA fails to see any human rights violations when they're defined as allies i.e. Saudi Arabia

once the arrangement collapses the once innocent friend of the usa is suddenly an axis of evil

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by elena_m
perhaps you should reread the posts

I quoted it - did I miss something, are you being vague and elusive for a reason?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elena_m


I'm asserting that the USA fails to see any human rights violations when they're defined as allies i.e. Saudi Arabia



An assertion that is easily proven false.

Go to the Web site of the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia:

http://usembassy.state.gov/riyadh/

On the front page, not hidden away somewhere, are links to two U.S. reports on Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record.


Saudi Arabia is a monarchy without elected representative institutions or political parties. It is ruled by King Fahd bin Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud, a son of King Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud, who unified the country in the early 20th century. Since the death of King Abd Al-Aziz, the King and Crown Prince have been chosen from among his sons, who themselves have had preponderant influence in the choice. A 1992 royal decree reserves for the King exclusive power to name the Crown Prince. Crown Prince Abdullah has played an increasing role in governance since King Fahd suffered a stroke in 1995. The Government has declared the Islamic holy book the Koran and the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad to be the country's Constitution. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of a rigorously conservative form of Islam. Neither the Government nor the society in general accepts the concept of separation of religion and state. The Government prohibits the establishment of political parties and suppresses opposition views. In 1992 King Fahd appointed a Consultative Council, or Majlis Ash-Shura, and similar provincial assemblies. The Majlis, a strictly advisory body, began holding sessions in 1993 and was expanded first in 1997 and again in May. The judiciary is subject to influence by the executive branch and members of the royal family.

...The Committee to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue, whose agents commonly are known as Mutawwa'in, or religious police, is a semiautonomous agency that enforces adherence to Islamic norms by monitoring public behavior. ...Members of the security forces committed serious human rights abuses.

...The Government's human rights record remained poor. Citizens have neither the right nor the legal means to change their government. Security forces continued to abuse detainees and prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and hold them in incommunicado detention. In addition there were allegations that security forces committed torture. On October 1, the Council of Ministers approved a new law regarding punitive measures that would forbid harming detainees and to allow those accused of crimes to hire a lawyer or legal agent. The law became effective in November; however, at year's end, there were no reports of its implementation. Prolonged detention without charge is a problem. Security forces committed such abuses, in contradiction to the law, but with the acquiescence of the Government. The Mutawwa'in continued to intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners. Most trials are closed, and defendants usually appear before judges without legal counsel. The Government infringes on citizens' privacy rights. The Government prohibits or restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, and movement. However, during the year, the Government continued to tolerate a wider range of debate and criticism in the press concerning domestic issues. Other continuing problems included discrimination and violence against women, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and strict limitations on worker rights.

The Government views its interpretation of Islamic law as its sole source of guidance on human rights and disagrees with internationally accepted definitions of human rights. However, in 2000 and during the year, the Government initiated limited measures to participate in international human rights mechanisms, such as its approval of the October legislation, which the Government claimed would address some of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

...The Government executed persons for criminal offenses after closed trials in which forced confessions are common and few procedural safeguards are provided (see Sections 1.c. and 1.e.).

The investigation of the 1996 Al-Khobar bombing, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, continued. The Government has not yet issued a report of its findings.

...c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Shar'ia (Islamic law) prohibits any judge from accepting a confession obtained under duress; however, there were credible reports that the authorities abused detainees, both citizens and foreigners. Ministry of Interior officials are responsible for most incidents of abuse of prisoners, including beatings, whippings, sleep deprivation, and at least three cases of drugging of foreign prisoners. In addition there were allegations of torture, including allegations of beatings with sticks, suspension from bars by handcuffs, and threats against family members. Torture and abuse are used to obtain required confessions from prisoners (see Section 1.e.). There were reports that in detention centers some boys and young men were flogged, forced constantly to lie on hard floors, deprived of sleep, and threatened with whipping and other abuse.

The Government has refused to recognize the mandate of the U.N. Committee Against Torture to investigate alleged abuses, although it has invited the committee to visit the country. However, the Government has pledged to cooperate with U.N. human rights mechanisms and announced in 2000 the establishment of a committee to investigate allegations of torture pursuant to its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (see Section 4).

[elena_m]

oh please
that s you're example....you should have just posted the similar depiction that can be found at the CIA World Factbook

now this is the beauty

Saudi Prince Abdullah to visit Bush at Texas ranch

WASHINGTON (AP) — Pronouncing Saudi Arabia a "strong friend," the White House said Tuesday that President Bush will open his Texas ranch to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah next week amid questions about the Saudis' commitment to fighting terrorists in the Middle East. "Relations with the Saudis are strong. Obviously events in the Middle East lead to complications and those complications are going to be discussed," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/04/16/saudi.htm

[ibrodsky]

You just said that the USA does not see any human rights violations among its "allies." I just showed you that the US has issued a scathing report on Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses on the US Embassy's Web site in Riyadh.

Now you try to deflect this by claiming it is meaningless?

None of us know what was discussed behind closed doors. But it's clear that if there is pressure being exerted between SA and the US, its the US exerting the pressure.

Saudi Arabia has been forced to:

1. Present a "peace proposal" that, while it contains nothing new, by its very existence shows that SA recognizes Israel's right to exist whether they have yet admitted it or not.

2. Declare they will not use oil as a weapon.

3. Cooperate with the US in thwarting terrorists. It remains to be seen whether they are really doing anything, but they are clearly under great pressure.

4. Advertize in the US to try to improve their image.

Remember, NYC ripped up a check from the Saudis. Last time I checked, NYC was part of the US (that you think turns a blind eye to Saudi misdeeds).

[elena_m]

a scathing report

are you aware that the same scathing reports were available
at the time of Pinochet's rule yet no mention of it in conventional media by the USA gov administration...the same reports could be found of Iraq prior to the Kuwait invasion while the administartion called him an ally....


what gov depts are forced tpo depict has absoloutly nothing to do with what they feed the american public via the press

you are aware of this, i hope

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elena_m
a scathing report

are you aware that the same scathing reports were available
at the time of Pinochet's rule yet no mention of it in conventional media by the USA gov administration...the same reports could be found of Iraq prior to the Kuwait invasion while the administartion called him an ally....

I'm aware that what you are saying is the accepted but distorted view of many leftists.

The U.S. government and media bowed to leftists and made Pinochet out to be the greatest criminal in history... Are you "aware" that Allende employed street mobs to trample all over basic constitutional freedoms?

The US gave limited support to Iraq in its war with Iran which held US Embassy employees hostage for over a year. But the US made it immediately clear when Iraq conquered Kuwait that the crime would not stand. And it didn't. What don't you understand about that?


what gov depts are forced tpo depict has absoloutly nothing to do with what they feed the american public via the press

you are aware of this, i hope

Are you suggesting that the US media is a tool of the US government?

[elena_m]

that it would not stand for it

you are kidding?
you must be kidding

no one could possibly believe that the war had to do with a simple invasion.....

and Allende....and Pinochet ..
what are your sources?
next you'll thank the high heavens that Franco has his reign

[ibrodsky]

Elena,

You can speculate night and day on what you think was the real motivation. There is no way to get inside people's minds and find out what they really thought.

What matters is the indisputable fact that the US promptly demanded an Iraqi withdrawal, said that if Iraq did not withdraw the US would eject Iraq from Kuwait, and then did exactly what it promised.

I watched and studied the events in Chile closely. I have also been to Chile. I felt exactly as you do at first. I'm not defending Pinochet's human rights record at all, but I am saying that Allende's abuses were sufficient to turn virtually the entire Chilean middle class against him.

The conventional leftist view is that a handful of military men managed to seize power though opposed by the masses. This is simply not true. Had Pinochet not seized power there would have been all-out civil war.

You also didn't answer my question: do you believe the US media is just a tool of the US government?

[elena_m]

every media is a tool for a gov the trick is knowing how to use it accordingly

this is a fine example



HARPER'S MAGAZINE: http://www.harpers.org/
"Meanwhile, it was left to a Canadian journalist, Leslie Fruman of CBC, and to a magazine publisher, John R. MacArthur of Harper's, to reveal in January 1992 that Nayirah was not a simple hospital worker, but the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S."
__________________________________________________ _

HOW TO BUILD SUPPORT FOR WAR: Arthur E. Rowse

*Rowse, a former associate editor of U.S. News & World Report, is a free-lance writer based in Maryland.

"I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators . . . and left the children to die on the cold floor." This was the story told by "Nayirah," the fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl who shocked a public hearing of Congress's Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990.

(The Fifth Estate's 1992 To Sell a War exposed the multi-million-dollar public-relations campaign to sell the U.S. public on the idea of the Gulf War. The report revealed that the infamous tales of baby-murder by Iraqi soldiers were , in fact, well-built lies. (1.5MB QuickTime movie) http://www.tv.cbc.ca/fifth/common/qt/kuwait.mov

Nayirah's testimony came at a time when Americans were wondering how to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Her story was cited frequently in the congressional debate over war authority, which was approved by only five votes in the Senate. President Bush mentioned it often as a reason for taking firm action. It was a major factor in building public backing for war.

As many are now aware, the incubator story was the centerpiece of a massive public relations campaign conducted by Hill and Knowlton on behalf of a group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, for a fee of $ 11.5 million. After the war, the group revealed that it was financed almost entirely by the Kuwaiti government.

In addition to helping to cast and direct the hearing, H&K sent its own camera crew and produced its own film, which was promptly sent out as a video news release, or VNR, to Medialink, a firm that serves some 700 TV stations throughout the country. Portions of the VNR featuring Nayirah's testimony were used on the October 10 NBC Nightly News and eventually reached a total audience of 35 million -- sufficient to win it fourth place on the top ten list of VNR successes in 1990 (see "The VNR Top Ten," CJR, March, 1991 / April, 1991).

H&K scored another coup for its client when it somehow gained access to the U.N. Security Council prior to a November 27 session at which council members expected to debate a resolution dealing with a Palestinian issue. When members entered the council chamber they found the walls hung with pictures of alleged Kuwaiti torture victims. Despite protests, U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, presiding that day, allowed several self-avowed eyewitnesses to atrocities -- rounded up for the occasion by Citizens for a Free Kuwait and H&K -- to testify at both the morning and afternoon sessions. Two days later, the council set the January 15 deadline for the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

Most print and television reporters presented the event as a straight news story. A notable exception was ABC's David Ensor, who alluded to "the carefully managed presentation."

Two weeks later, with Congress still debating whether to approve military action, H&K's U.S. operations chief Robert Gray sent a memo to Citizens for a Free Kuwait warning of "the lessening of the U.S. public's enthusiasm for pursuing a military option" and calling for more atrocity charges from "eyewitnesses," a term he put in quotation marks. (H&K's emphasis on atrocities was based on the findings of its $ 1 million research study which showed, among other things, that such emphasis was the most effective way to win support for strong action.) By January 8, when the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing, the number of alleged incubator murders being quoted by reporters had reached 312, the figure vouched for by Amnesty International. Four days after the hearing, Congress approved military action, and four days after that the bombing began.

The press, which had shown little interest in questioning the credibility of the atrocity reports when those reports were having such a tremendous impact on policy, seemed reluctant to reconsider the evidence -- or its own reporting.

An exception was ABC's John Martin, who interviewed key Kuwaiti hospital officials in March 1991, shortly after the war ended; they acknowledged that some infants had died as the result of a chaotic conditions, including a shortage of nurses, but said no infants had been dumped from their incubators. Reuters was the only news service to pick up the story, even though the AP and others were notified in advance by ABC. But Martin's reporting prompted Amnesty International to send over investigators and subsequently withdraw its report after finding "no reliable evidence" for its earlier claims.

Now, nearly two years after the incubator story was first told, the dispute over numbers continues to simmer -- this despite a seemingly definitive report by an investigator for the Kuwaiti government itself. The investigator, Kroll Associates, Inc., claims to have found credible witnesses to seven incubator deaths by the Iraqis. Nayirah herself admitted to Kroll that she had seen only one of the fifteen babies mentioned in her written testimony, which was prepared with the aid of Hill and Knowlton. Although this report might have afforded the media a new hook for marking an end to the long-running controversy, only The Washington Post seems to have covered it.

Meanwhile, it was left to a Canadian journalist, Leslie Fruman of CBC, and to a magazine publisher, John R. MacArthur of Harper's, to reveal in January 1992 that Nayirah was not a simple hospital worker, but the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S.

H&K had done its job well. The same could not be said of the U.S. press.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by elena_m
I'm asserting that the USA fails to see any human rights violations when they're defined as allies i.e. Saudi Arabia
Well, as ibrodsky has shown, the US is not "failing to see any human rights violations," but I think you make a good point here, elena.

The US should not be kowtowing to the Saudis. It should demand full accountability from ALL so-called Arab allies of the US regarding their involvement in financing and supporting terrorism.

I agree that the US has been entirely too soft on the Saudis and on all Arab countries for that matter. They all support terrorist groups and should been seen as enemies of the US, especially after 9-11.

If the Arab states were forced to abandon the terrorist cause, then the world would be a better place.

[cerulean]

Hill and Knowlton is a public-relations firm that has been hired by various corporations and governments (including the Kuwaiti govt if I recall correctly) to do PR work. It's not a journalistic source. Their existence does not confirm elena_m's notion of a US-govt-controlled media.

They are very skilled at manipulating the media, but that is what PR firms do. It is useful to keep in mind when Hill and Knowlton is involved, because then you can look for the slant.

[cerulean]

Hill and Knowlton is currently under contract with the Saudis, among numerous other contracts.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/46866.htm

One thing that is a problem for journalists is that they often take a pre-fabricated PR press release and incorporate it wholesale into their stories, since that saves a lot of work on a tight deadline. That is a problem of laziness rather than US govt control of media, though.

[elena_m]

yes it has failed

as shown above the relationship that it projects with Saudi Arabia is that of a friendly one....they are our friends, allies onward and so forth

yet if you look at gov documents we see the massive contradiction

the USA has used the discriminated women of Afghanistan as a reason to project a supposed noble cause on their part to attack the nation...yet it is a known fact that 2 mths after President Bush was seated in the White House he was dabbling with representatives of the Taliban and agreed to give the group some financing....

they re not so easily depicted as evil when the possibility of a deal can occur ....

as we see with the Saudis who have a horrendous reputation for their treatment of women...


to declare that it is vocal merely because it's presented in gov documents is ludicrous....every source of message coming from the white house contradicts within mass media the actual truth of said ally

[elena_m]

"notion of a US-govt-controlled media."

when did I declare "controlled"

there seems to be a constant usage of redefing what someone has posted

is this common in this forum?

[ibrodsky]

what gov depts are forced tpo depict has absoloutly nothing to do with what they feed the american public via the press

every media is a tool for a gov the trick is knowing how to use it accordingly

You didn't say that the US media is government controlled. But you certainly implied it.

The gist of the quotes above is that the US media does not operate independently -- that it passes on government-contrived messages just as the government wants.

The US media presents a wide a range of opinions. Most are not afraid to challenge what the government says -- particularly when there is a conservative Republican in the Whitehouse.

[elena_m]

implied ...
no

you assumed


there's a huge difference between stating controlled and a media willing to be fed

and easily fed is continually acknowledged by even the most respected american journalist

a very recent case in point
_____________

Newsweek Exposes Use of Child Soldiers Abroad, But Turns Blind Eye to U.S.

May 8, 2002

Newsweek's May 13 issue features a story about the use of child soldiers and "how the international community can roll back the growing exploitation of children in war," but does not mention the United States' own recruitment of child soldiers, nor the U.S.'s obstruction of international efforts to curb the practice.

The centerpiece of the article, "Voices of the Children: 'We beat and killed people…'," is a series of heart-wrenching interviews with four child veterans from Sierra Leone. Newsweek presents the boys' stories as part of its coverage of the United Nations' Special Session on Children, a conference where the U.N. will address "how to muster the will to enforce longstanding international conventions and three new resolutions on children and armed conflict." Graphic and passionately written, the article seems meant to raise awareness about how kids "have become the cannon fodder of choice," and describes the experiences of child soldiers of Sierra Leone as a lesson in "the unthinkable inhumanity of those who coerced them into combat."

The moral outrage that Newsweek brings to the story of child soldiers makes its omission of the U.S. role all the more bizarre.

The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world-- the other being Somalia-- not to have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the primary legal instrument available to stop the use of child soldiers. Along with the Geneva Conventions, the CRC makes it illegal for militaries to enlist people under the age of 15. Newsweek doesn't mention the CRC by name, but it is certainly among the measures the magazine is referring to when it says the U.N. must "muster the will to enforce" existing laws.

Even though it has not ratified the CRC, the U.S. has worked to water down an Optional Protocol to the Convention which raises the minimum age for combat service to 18. Originally, the Protocol sought to raise the age for "voluntary recruitment" to 18 as well, a move endorsed by human and children's rights groups as crucial for building a real global ban on child combat. But the U.S. recruits soldiers at 17. After six years of heavy pressure from the U.S. and U.K. (which also recruits minors), the Protocol was negotiated to allow militaries recruit children as young as 16 (London Times, 2/13/02).

None of this information is included in the Newsweek article. A table and map accompanying the article show "where the young soldiers are," listing 36 countries that are currently using people under the age of 18 as soldiers in combat. By not including countries that recruit minors, but are not currently using them in combat, Newsweek created a graphic that excluded the U.S. and the U.K., countries which also in fact have "young soldiers."

The U.S.'s attempts to weaken the CRC have become a key issue for rights groups (Human Rights Watch press release, 5/7/02), yet the only time the Newsweek article mentions the U.S. is to note that the chief prosecutor for the Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal is American.

The magazine's silence on the U.S. role becomes most deafening, however, as the article wraps up by recommending that "the West" make aid to the developing world conditional on compliance with child rights conventions.

"Finally," writes Newsweek, "the victimized societies need to look inward, to ask themselves hard questions about what they have done to encourage the treatment of people as commodities. A nation like Sierra Leone will cheat itself if it expects foreigners alone to deliver a cure." It's too bad Newsweek's coverage won't prompt American readers to ask those hard questions about their own government's role in the exploitation of child soldiers.


Newsweek article:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/746985.asp?cp1=1

[L@mplighterM]

Specifically at what age should young adults be recruited as soldiers?


Under some circumstances I could certainly see individuals as young as perhaps 10 or younger being recruited as soldiers. Placing an individual at that age into combat should however only be undertaken as a last resort.

Children at that age or younger have certainly been used as killing machines in various places around the world.

In the right circumstances it’s certainly better to kill than be killed.

Throughout Asia and North America children are currently being thought the art of killing (some would argue self-defense) everyday in the form of martial arts. So what? It’s a healthy exercise and makes great preparation for real life.

Military training is only a small step up from that. What average 10-year-old kid wouldn’t enjoy going to the rifle range for target practice?

So I personally don’t see a problem with kids having military combat training at a very young age.

[Mediocrates]

There is a big difference between training and being thrown into combat. What the gist of the dispute is about is an attempt by the world community to grab scads of children off the streets, put a gun in their hand and tell them to shoot or die. For the ones who even get a gun. It's not about the age of conscription in the industrialised countries. You DO know that there is no draft in the US, right? That the Armend Forces are staffed by volunteers and reservists, right? And that the Marine Corp may sometimes take 17yo but the rest of the branches will only take 18yo with a high school diploma, Right? Unlike Turkey or Switzerland or Israel or Thailand there is no compulsory national service of any kind in the US. There are a at least two reasons for this:

1) The armed forces are too high tech to be able to absorb millions of recruits who basically aren't sharp enough to get out of it. They simply don't need that many ground pounding ditch diggers anymore.

2) The drop in morale that resulted from pushing millions of 18yo conscripts into the jungles of Viet Nam is a lesson well learned. The average age of the front line soldier in VN was a little over 18 whereas the avg. age in Korea and WW2 was 26. That maturity made a huge difference in the field.

[christian]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM



Throughout Asia and North America children are currently being thought the art of killing (some would argue self-defense) everyday in the form of martial arts. So what? It’s a healthy exercise and makes great preparation for real life.



Lamplighter,

I am interested your theory about Martial arts. I practice martial arts for 10 years. I never heard this martial arts theory before. :D

[L@mplighterM]

Bold posted by christian:

Lamplighter,

I am interested your theory about Martial arts. I practice martial arts for 10 years. I never heard this martial arts theory before.


Why do you think millions if not billions of people take their children to study martial arts?

I’ll tell you why.

To beat the **** out of the bully that threatens them with physical harm. I might add it can also be used in a combative type of a situation to kill if necessary. Smoke that!!!!

Further what makes my day is when I occasionally read about a little old lady blowing away a lowlife animal. The Death Wish series are my favorite movies.

Imagine a 5 year old being tought how to use a small caliber handheld automatic weapon in an emergency type of a situation.