freedom for Viktor Bout

[maturin 12]

Could you refresh our memories about that one? Most of us well versed in history and current affairs generally understand that the US had an arms embargo on SA from 1964 till the end of apartheid?

I was about to say French Algeria, then misremembered something about the U.S. divestment campaign and switched to the better known example. Oops.

Yes I would blame the US in general not just the US Govt. The 2nd amendment did not forsee the machine guns and cannons which people have in their homes. It was made during the time of flintlocks. Legally I don't think we could curb the average US citizens right to bear arms, but do they really need an AK-47, M-16 or 50Cal M2?

It's not the assault rifles that're involved in violent crime, though. It's smaller, cheaper guns that are the real social danger. But the principle is the same, as the 2nd Amendment did not foresee how handguns could become so ubiquitous and user-friendly.

Although now it seems that our policy on assault weapons has brought Mexico to a state of civil war, with parity of force between criminals and authorities. The U.S. would look like Afghanistan if we hadn't been so peaceful in the century after fighting the civil war in the age of the minie ball.

Edited April 15, 2012 by maturin

[eble 3]

That is what happens in places like Russia. In the west arms sales are strictly controlled and speaking for the UK , we are very choosy who we sell to. Eg if you look at this website:

Current arms embargoes and other restrictions

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk

there are Arms embargoes, Trade Control Restrictions and Military End-Use Controls on the following:

Armenia and Azerbaijan Burma Democratic Republic of Congo Democratic People's Republic of Korea Eritrea Guinea Iran Iraq Ivory Coast Lebanon Liberia Libya Sierra Leone Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Zimbabwe Afghanistan Argentina Burundi Macao Special Administrative Region Rwanda Tanzania Uganda

There is a longer list of controls on countries (IDA) where "arms exports might seriously hamper its economic or sustainable development". The UK government assess licence applications based on many criteria. Much of the law relating to this is EU wide:

The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/08675r2en8.pdf

Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/eco/docs/consolidated-criteria.doc

I called this thread that is trying to compare Viktor Bout to Western countries "the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on these forums" for very good justifiable reasons. Bout was very successful because he sold to everyone the West wouldn't, with the backing of his government, who even now protest at his arrest and trial. Anyone trying to spread this guff is completely misinformed and is looking in the wrong direction - do a 180!

Lets have a close look at the links between Russia and Syria (RE the above list), as it's in the news at the moment. Russia became Syria's biggest arms supplier in 2006 and has written off $9.6Billion of Syrian debt.Those wondering why Russia continues to support Assad and show such generocity, while ignoring the mass murder of ordinary people across the country need look no further than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus#Russian_naval_base

Since 2009, Russia has been renovating the Syrian Tartus naval base and dredging the port to allow access for its larger naval vessels. It wants the base as a permanent residence for it's navy. That's what a Russian version of an ethical arms supply policy looks like.

Mostly I follow what your saying, but sometimes you do talk out your arse.

It's a fact Western countries supply soviet style weapons via third party countries to whoever they choose, I would not be surprised if the main character in this thread has even done it, most likely the reason for his arrest(The real one).

The fact that Britain or the US hasn't supplied a locally built weapon means nothing, they buy from the Eastern arms suppliers and let them do the job for them., classic example is the Iran/Iraq war western countries pissing themselves laughing while supplying both sides, The US helping the Iraqi's chemical warefare programme and whilst supplying parts for F14's to the Iranians via Israel of all places.

The Russians have there own reasons for supporting Syria, yes the naval base is one of them, another is the fact Russia wants to still play a role in the middle east and won't let the west have a free hand, Libya being the last one the Russians/Chinese will let the west take control of.

Some points of reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(airline) - weapon/(drug runs) drops to anyone it seems would taken them as long as they fought the North Vietnamese forces.

Oliver North well we know enough about him.

British arms sales to Indonesia, could end up being used in Western Papua.

Also note the UK is moving as fast as possible to open arms sales to Burma even though they are still opening killing there own people, terrorists/freedom fighters you decide.

Personally I think the US beat the UK this time Hilary Clinton been there done that in terms of agreements.

link to Burma stuff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Burma

Britain selling arms to Libya before uprising.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/defence-and-security-blog/2012/feb/08/arms-rights-exports

So please don't come the Western gov's don't do this one honest becuase we have a list lol.

This is a shit business and everyone smells.

[PELHAM 10]

So please don't come the Western gov's don't do this one honest becuase we have a list lol.

This is a shit business and everyone smells.

Yes some of that is true - the US has bought soviet style weapons to arm peoples such as the Afghans and Montagnard tribesmen who were being slaughtered by communist forces. Have a look at the film "Charlie Wilsons War" and compare what the Russian's did in Afghanistan to what is hapening there now. Russia is allowing 1000's of Syrians to die simply because they want a Naval Base, not sure how you can defend that.

I can't defend the Iran/Iraq thing - that was dirty pool by the US.

Burma is moving to a Democracy, have you not seen the news about recent elections? There will be checks before sanctions are lifted.

Indonesia is a worry - correct.

There isn't much in the Guardian Article - you would have to look at what was sold before you make a judgement on that, it's sounds like riot gear for the police?

My point is the UK has a generous amount of international and local law controlling what it does and so do most other western nations. WHERE is Bout's and the Russian government's legal control? If I were to draw up a similar list of the oppressive regimes and dodgy arms sales the Russians have made in the last 40 years it would run to 100's of lines. So no comparison really, think about it logically.

[mrcash2009 0]

My point is the UK has a generous amount of international and local law controlling what it does and so do most other western nations.

Indeed, but that doesnt stop them doing something illegal under those rules by changing the game to fit. Iraq invasion ... legal? You cant defend Iraq/Iran things but they are the biggest plays to date on the earth, so, its cant be defended and so it shows that laws are corrupt in the western world, its the same but in a better suit & tie.

So it shows in full view that when you call out the other side, your own team are playing the same games.

To go case by case basis to me is just missing the entire point this thread brings up, bigger picture, they are all at it.

Edited April 15, 2012 by mrcash2009

[maturin 12]

There's not one business. You can't very well tar companies that sell anti-tank missiles to Brazil because governments use covert and indirect military aid as a foreign policy tool. Can anyone come up with a serious objection against Sweden selling munitions inside NATO?

[PELHAM 10]

Indeed, but that doesnt stop them doing something illegal under those rules by changing the game to fit. Iraq invasion ... legal? You cant defend Iraq/Iran things but they are the biggest plays to date on the earth, so, its cant be defended and so it shows that laws are corrupt in the western world, its the same but in a better suit & tie.

So it shows in full view that when you call out the other side, your own team are playing the same games.

To go case by case basis to me is just missing the entire point this thread brings up, bigger picture, they are all at it.

My point is the UK has a generous amount of international and local law controlling what it does and so do most other western nations. WHERE is Bout's and the Russian government's legal control? If I were to draw up a similar list of the oppressive regimes and dodgy arms sales the Russians have made in the last 40 years it would run to 100's of lines. So no comparison really, think about it logically.

We are talking about supplying weapons during the 80s to Iran & Iraq, the Invasion was different law, different time, different subject...............same problem with your comprehension. As for the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s being the biggest plays to date on the earth, can't fathom your reasoning on that? Or are you talking about a different subject again?

Edited April 15, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

In the larger picture all past moves are chess board plays for the present, and so on, build a future enemy R-US. Confusion was 80's event to now in terms of "plays" I was referring too current time. As regards different law & different time, ok, different subject .... really? Im sorry you need to compartmentalise things, I dont. Supplying then, who are the enemy now is like an umbilical cord of the same subject right through the centre of it.

It reminds me of the recent memorial and look at the Falklands, there were war vet stories, one of them (dont quote me but words to the effect) was "We were on the ship and got bombs dropped on us, one landed in the lower area and didn't detonate, when we found the unexploded bomb it had made in *enter UK county becuase the actual name escapes me*". Now that was just a story of a soldiers experience, but the crazy part was the Argentinians were dropping UK made arms on them, I heard this on the radio and then proceeded to think ... "yeh mate, work it out for yourself".

Talk about taking the piss.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

In the larger picture all past moves are chess board plays for the present, and so on, build a future enemy R-US. Confusion was 80's event to now in terms of "plays" I was referring too current time. As regards different law & different time, ok, different subject .... really? Im sorry you need to compartmentalise things, I dont. Supplying then, who are the enemy now is like an umbilical cord of the same subject right through the centre of it. It reminds me of the recent memorial and look at the Falklands, there were war vet stories, one of them (dont quote me but words to the effect) was "We were on the ship and got bombs dropped on us, one landed in the lower area and didn't detonate, when we found the unexploded bomb it had made in *enter UK county becuase the actual name escapes me*". Now that was just a story of a soldiers experience, but the crazy part was the Argentinians were dropping UK made arms on them, I heard this on the radio and then proceeded to think ... "yeh mate, work it out for yourself". Talk about taking the piss.

Old news, yes the bombs were made in Britain, who knew Argentina would attack like that? Not sold them anything since have they? The criminal activities of Viktor Bout do not compare with Western Governments and if thats all you can come up with well I guess I'm right again.

[maturin 12]

The criminal activities of Viktor Bout do not compare with Western Governments and if thats all you can come up with well I guess I'm right again.

Surely you will concede that little separates Iran-Contra from Viktor Bout's activities other than profit motive. And Viktor Bout never carried out illegal, immoral, counterproductive terrorist attacks himself, which few Western intelligence agencies can claim.

But such excesses don't characterize the lamentably ubiquitous, ultimately unfortunate yet largely more responsible international arms trade as a whole.

Edit: What the fuck of a sentence did I just right. I guess I don't really want to argue this and acting accordingly.

[mrcash2009 0]

Old news, yes the bombs were made in Britain, who knew Argentina would attack like that? Not sold them anything since have they?

Old news? No its not, currently argentina and that whole debacle is still open season to this day with the recent highlights of it. So argentina attacking like that meant it was ok to sell them bombs anyway, as long as they attack someone else with them? My point was just another highlight of the "moral stance on the world" when it comes to who is as bad or good in terms of selling arms, perfectly relevant as an example.

We are talking about supplying weapons during the 80s to Iran & Iraq

Old news?

The criminal activities of Viktor Bout do not compare with Western Governments and if thats all you can come up with well I guess I'm right again.

Continue to convince yourself of that, I think the world stage, history, and most of what's come from this thread speaks otherwise, but you can be "right again" if it makes you feel any better mate :) Seems things are old news, or not relevant, or even a different law and time and example for anything in which you remain right by default, problem is it speaks very well for itself as the bigger picture once you put it together and then compare.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Old news? No its not, currently argentina and that whole debacle is still open season to this day with the recent highlights of it. So argentina attacking like that meant it was ok to sell them bombs anyway, as long as they attack someone else with them? My point was just another highlight of the "moral stance on the world" when it comes to who is as bad or good in terms of selling arms, perfectly relevant as an example.

When the UK sold the Argentinians 1000lb bombs they did not know they would be used to attack the UK, so your point is what? It's also old news and is not relevant to the current situation as the UK has not sold them anything since the Falklands War, an embargo is in place.

My point that Western Governements cannot be compared to Russia and Viktor Bout because they have a multitude of legal and international controls still stands. No need to convince myself of anything, there is no evidence to say otherwise, no one here has provided anything apart from 3/4 examples to the contrary when there are 100s of examples for Russia and Bout selling weapons to anyone purely for cash.

It's simple logic, also why I can never find anything valid in all these conspiracy theories you like to post. Like your above point, they don't add up.

Edited April 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

When the UK sold the Argentinians 1000lb bombs they did not know they would be used to attack the UK, so your point is what?

So argentina attacking like that meant it was ok to sell them bombs anyway, as long as they attack someone else with them? My point was just another highlight of the "moral stance on the world" when it comes to who is as bad or good in terms of selling arms, perfectly relevant as an example.

My point that Western Governements cannot be compared to Russia and Viktor Bout because they have a multitude of legal and international controls still stands.

I said before ...

Indeed, but that doesnt stop them doing something illegal under those rules by changing the game to fit. Iraq invasion ... legal? You cant defend Iraq/Iran things but they are the biggest plays to date on the earth, so, its cant be defended and so it shows that laws are corrupt in the western world, its the same but in a better suit & tie.

no one here has provided anything apart from 3/4 examples to the contrary when there are 100s of examples for Russia and Bout selling weapons to anyone purely for cash.

So weapons companies, arms creation and the war machine in general ONLY exists based on protection and not money? Just becuase someone doesnt shave well, uses cash deposits and is less professional looking and not always guided by the law with a set of lawyers to assist at every turn of negotiation, there's a fag paper between them and a professional suit wearing lawyer assisted collective in terms of the end results, those results are what we see now, in all examples posted here that you poo poo at every turn.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[spooky lynx 73]

My point that Western Governements cannot be compared to Russia and Viktor Bout because they have a multitude of legal and international controls still stands. No need to convince myself of anything, there is no evidence to say otherwise, no one here has provided anything apart from 3/4 examples to the contrary when there are 100s of examples for Russia and Bout selling weapons to anyone purely for cash.

Aren't you just trolling or you really try to ignore unsuitable questions with best traditions of mr. Putin, I wonder?

First of all you haven't proved existence of 100s examples of weapon deliveries just for cash by Russia or Bout, that's just childish emotions and nothing else. BTW, what's the main purpose of weapon trade?

Second, what can you say about Blowpipe and Stinger missiles that were given to Afghan opposition? Support of Kurds in Iraq, support of RENAMO in Mozambique, support of one of the sides in Tchad civil wars? What about El-Salvador, Nicaragua, backing of official representation of Cambodia by remained Pol Pot's comrades in UN? Looking at recent history, what about arms sales to Georgia and later using it against civilians in Osetia? What about KLA support?

[PELHAM 10]

Aren't you just trolling or you really try to ignore unsuitable questions with best traditions of mr. Putin, I wonder?

First of all you haven't proved existence of 100s examples of weapon deliveries just for cash by Russia or Bout, that's just childish emotions and nothing else. BTW, what's the main purpose of weapon trade?

Second, what can you say about Blowpipe and Stinger missiles that were given to Afghan opposition? Support of Kurds in Iraq, support of RENAMO in Mozambique, support of one of the sides in Tchad civil wars? What about El-Salvador, Nicaragua, backing of official representation of Cambodia by remained Pol Pot's comrades in UN? Looking at recent history, what about arms sales to Georgia and later using it against civilians in Osetia? What about KLA support?

It's not me trolling - can you please read the thread and see the examples already provided by me and the reasoning given about the above? Don't see why I should have to repeat myself for the lazy? As for the 100's of examples of imoral and illegal weapons sales by Russia and Bout - it's well recorded history (see the oposite side in every example you give for instance). You may as well ask me to provide evidence of the holocaust.

RE support for Iraqi Kurds - Saddam Hussein was slaughtering civilians in the north and south of the country with weapons supplied by Russia. Saddam was in debt to Moscow for over $8 billion for the arms he purchased at the time he was captured by U.S. forces. In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

As for WMD in Iraq - Mrcash will love this story. There is much evidence that Russia sent forces to Iraq in 2002/3 to clean away evidence of illegal weapons sales and the WMD it supplied. It was put on trucks and taken to Syria and no doubt some of it may still be stored there. Maybe even at the Russian Naval base in Tartus? Who knows, the Russian obfuscation in Syria may be a cover for a second clean up operation apart from the protection of it's Naval base?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus#Russian_naval_base

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Shaw#Russia_and_Iraq

Something that may be related - I remember at the time (just before/just after invasion) that GPS jamming signals from Russian equipment were detected in Western Iraq and there was a brief spat between the US and Russia over the issue. Was the equipment being used to protect Russian Spetsnaz and GRU members involved with the convoys?

RE China on the Saddam era - It is well known that China sold Iraq the "Tiger Song" air defense system during the 1990s despite the fact that China also signed on to the U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. NATO gave the system its name in 1998 after it was discovered to be operational in the Iraqi desert.

Why is it whenever you guys lose an argument it ends up with you calling me a troll?

Edited April 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[-Snafu- 77]

Old news? No its not, currently argentina and that whole debacle is still open season to this day with the recent highlights of it. So argentina attacking like that meant it was ok to sell them bombs anyway, as long as they attack someone else with them? My point was just another highlight of the "moral stance on the world" when it comes to who is as bad or good in terms of selling arms, perfectly relevant as an example.

For years before Argentina invaded in 1982 the UK government had been involved in discussion with the Argentinean government over the Falklands which included the possibility of handing over the islands to them. An attack on the islands was thus seen as unlikely so selling them arms was considered OK. The invasion changed everything and the chance of a hand over is extremely remote now. This information is available in reputable, researched and sourced texts.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Snafu

[spooky lynx 73]

Saddam Hussein, as well the Afghan, Nicaraguan and Mozambique governments were/are recognized by UN legal representatives and heads if that countries. You may say Hussein slaughtered civilians, but others may say he fought with rebellion and separatism, as well as Turkey. Or Kurdish rebels in the Iraq deserve their own state and the same Kurds in Turkey not? Again it is all about 'freedom fighters' vs 'terrorists'. Fully depends who's side do you prefer.

[PELHAM 10]

If that's the feeble response to this well.........I guess that is that.

(PS signing up to UN weapons embargoes and breaking them is illegal, Russia (and Bout) did that all over Africa and the Middle East, it's well recorded history)

It's not me trolling - can you please read the thread and see the examples already provided by me and the reasoning given about the above? Don't see why I should have to repeat myself for the lazy? As for the 100's of examples of imoral and illegal weapons sales by Russia and Bout - it's well recorded history (see the oposite side in every example you give for instance). You may as well ask me to provide evidence of the holocaust.

RE support for Iraqi Kurds - Saddam Hussein was slaughtering civilians in the north and south of the country with weapons supplied by Russia. Saddam was in debt to Moscow for over $8 billion for the arms he purchased at the time he was captured by U.S. forces. In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

As for WMD in Iraq - Mrcash will love this story. There is much evidence that Russia sent forces to Iraq in 2002/3 to clean away evidence of illegal weapons sales and the WMD it supplied. It was put on trucks and taken to Syria and no doubt some of it may still be stored there. Maybe even at the Russian Naval base in Tartus? Who knows, the Russian obfuscation in Syria may be a cover for a second clean up operation apart from the protection of it's Naval base?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus#Russian_naval_base

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Shaw#Russia_and_Iraq

Something that may be related - I remember at the time (just before/just after invasion) that GPS jamming signals from Russian equipment were detected in Western Iraq and there was a brief spat between the US and Russia over the issue. Was the equipment being used to protect Russian Spetsnaz and GRU members involved with the convoys?

RE China on the Saddam era - It is well known that China sold Iraq the "Tiger Song" air defense system during the 1990s despite the fact that China also signed on to the U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. NATO gave the system its name in 1998 after it was discovered to be operational in the Iraqi desert.

Why is it whenever you guys lose an argument it ends up with you calling me a troll?

Edited April 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Why is it whenever you guys lose an argument it ends up with you calling me a troll?

Well some of us post our views with things that we clearly see and have our reasons, and dont always post to "win" an "argument", that might shed some light on the matter :) I thought we "agree or disagree on a debate" and subject, to assume people are loosing an argument suggest you just want to argue and win ... could be a bit "troll based", just an observation.

As for WMD in Iraq - Mrcash will love this story. There is much evidence that Russia sent forces to Iraq in 2002/3 to clean away evidence of illegal weapons sales and the WMD it supplied. It was put on trucks and taken to Syria and no doubt some of it may still be stored there.

Interesting, but more telling is aligning its apparent storage with Syria. So no WMD, but the other side moved them to a place we must attack also ... well, that's how I see it. Either way you still have a situation where invasions happened on a illegal basis, and allot of stories & much of it still showing how they all have fingers in many pies, which leads it right back to the standards aspect of the entire subject, like one vicious circle of finger pointing, and the arms still roll out with contracts all over the globe, you finger point at one side you must check who's shouting the loudest with the biggest finger also.

I just see the double standard, and we are on the same page about Viktor Bout on the level of what they are doing, although I cant see how its somehow no link to see the same things happening on both sides all things considered IE cant compare to government, becuase, you can ... its more about if you like to, want to , or are comfortable of doing so, because god forbid being critical of your own team.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Interesting, but more telling is aligning its apparent storage with Syria. So no WMD, but the other side moved them to a place we must attack also ...

Whats telling is your analysis of that - the allegations about this were made in 2002 - 2004. That's 10 years before the current trouble in Syria. No one had a problem with Syria back then. So your allegation that the story is an excuse to attack Syria doesn't add up. It hasn't even appeared in the press recently lol. If you want to dig into things you have to have some basic analytical skills and logical thinking. Looking at timelines is step 1.

Edited April 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

the allegations about this were made in 2002 - 2004. That's 10 years before the current trouble in Syria.

I know, very interesting that isn't it.

So your allegation that the story is an excuse to attack Syria doesn't add up.

Of course not Pelham, I just stated "Interesting" in a more chin stroking observation, and again, back on track ... still shows the global double standard, as I did go on to something else after that.

If you want to dig into things you have to have some basic analytical skills and logical thinking.

I agree with you, funny that isnt it.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[*LK1* 10]

In many cases, NOT all, they were providing people with a means to defend themselves because China, USSR, Cuba, or NK had already armed the mob the other side of the hill/fence/border? The thorny issue that sticks out as the exception is the Contra Rebel fiasco and Col. Ollie North. Viktor sold to anyone, even both sides in the same conflict, there was no motive apart from personal wealth.

i guess there is just an unbridgeable difference in world view. for what i know in most of the cases is the US to destabilize the world with the excuse to bring democracy and prosperity and everyone else has to defend himself from them and not the contrare. show me something credible cuz at the moment the main problem is the US foreign policy not USSR which doesnt exist anymore, CUBA which is drastically changing and at the moment is not involved in any dark activity or China which is just taking care of his problems near the borders or inside his borders, unlike the US. otherwise it could be considerated just the typical petty western vision of the world inoculated by medias but in reality it does not find evidences.

Comparing Viktor to Western Governments doesn't really work on any level. Although there has been some historical corruption there is always oversight and legal control to some extent. This guy just did whatever he liked. And why are you saying specifically that certain people in western governments should go to jail when this is a world wide problem? The most blatent examples of unethical arms sales come from elsewhere as I have comprehensively demonstrated in this thread.

you didnt explained at all why is not working at any level. the impression i have right now is that if a country with fake reasons hes just trying to sell weapons and if this country is western is ok, if is not a country but a man, who obviously works for a country, its not. DO YOU NEED ANY EXAMPLES PLUS LINKS AND VIDEOS or you can clearly understand at which situation i am refering?

he did not something different from any other western country. let me go forward because im just curious. how you would react if in the next mounths some star and strips patriot will be caught by selling weapons at any terrorist organization near the borders of russia? would you consider it a fake revengful arrest or not?

Let's release an arms dealer back into the world just because other arms dealers are free.

Let's also release all the child killers because Casey Anthony didn't get convicted.

Yep... solid logic you got there, LeGeNDK1LLER.

i was waiting for a such misleading observation, considering the "high" level of the users here (pro western brainwashed petty bourgeois in most of the cases).

if we could have a real international court whos judging fairly any kind of crimes committed by anyone your observation could work well. if i made a crime and im in jail and another 1 who made the same shit dont get caught i shouldnt being released just because i was the unlucky guy (its pathetic that we have to start from a such basic level but seems like we really need to do it) but since the court who judged Boult belongs to a country whos hostile to the russian interests and at the same time is not judging any politicians or CIA agents who sold tons of weapons around globe to terrorists and "wannabe" legitimate forces of resistance the verdict is pathetic as any decision soaked in hipocrisy. how long the CIA and their dogs are selling weapons around the planet? well most documentaries concord that eveything started around the 1960-1965 ( cold war era of course) how many years this facious court had to investigate their own US citizen for arms smuggling? 50 years? do you know how many us citizens are in jail for such crimes? noone. do you know who founded and armed UCK with even some sophisticated AT AA weapons in kosovo? do you know who armed the talibans agains the soviet union? could you plz tell me what you know about CONTRAS? and now, can you plz tell me which is the differences between these paramilitary terrorists groups and the FARC? in other words just to make it more clear since...,you know... the level i was speaking at the start of this post, do you think is there any difference in terms of legitimization between FARC and CONTRAS or TALEBANS?

do you know which kind of reaction will have russia after that? probably they will arrest some US "peace promoters" who are actively working right now on the ex soviet republics just to make the bear angrier. and for what we know right now he just sold AA missiles and tons of assault rifles not atomic bombs or chemical weapons. range pl plz no more high school stupid observations style plz, cuz they make things harder.

since I believe that the summaries, here, they work better than the rich and complex abstractions what im just saying is: the game is rigged, in the post cold war era it seems like there is an implicit agreement between russia and us, you dont broke my balls close to my borders i will not broke yours. implicit agreement totally rejected by the US foreign politic and thats why we can see people like Boult going to colombia for selling weapons. the kremlin is making money from that trades and at the same time is making a sort of indirect counter-attack to the nato invasion on the est europe, last example it was georgia( if we really need examples..)

That is why many countries try (fail at it mostly lol) to have some sort of ethical policy when it comes to this. My specific gripe with China, North Korea and Russia is that there is virtually no ethical restriction on who gets to buy weapons. You will sell anything to anyone and all that matters is the cash.

haha omg could you plz name some countries that in your opinion are using this ethical policy plz? US maybe, france, england?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

they sold weapons to this controrivolutionary force whos responsable for attacking/bombing civilians structures, mass rapes, mass murders, tortures ecc.

clearly supplied by the CIA with the consent of the white house.

they sold weapons to talebans, i guess you dont need a link since is a famous news.

ecc. ecc. those are just few examples that flow on my mind.

france, england and US has sold weapons to the "rebels"( i would say terrorist but i dont want to open a new thread with all these western brainwashed around here) who fought gaddafi. now these "rebels", most of them islamic extremists, are fighting eachother and terrorizing the people to gain power in libya.

the ethical policy you were talking about it still missing at the moment. its like the loch ness monster, it doesnt exist.

when there is a group of fighters( lets use this word) who are anti western they will not being supplied by the western not because they are necessarily terrorists, mass rapers ecc. but just because they are against the western policy. i gave you some example above of pro western fighters who were supplied and trained by western forces and they did heinous crimes. you might think that the western world (at least some country on that hemisphere) is using an ethical policy probably because they guys who were supplied and armed are not bad guys from your point of view. but we should now open a thread to speak about the way the western media speak about the armed western friends of the western world to better understand why you think the ethical policy exist.

im sorry but i dont believe anymore on reptilians, Santa Claus or ethical policy when we speak about selling weapons on the globe.

im not saying implicitly that russia is better, is just the same. everyone does his business, if you think that the western world is doing it more ethical is just because the "free" western media are bringing you to this conclusion. which is not truth, considering the examples I have given (contras, talebans ecc.)

If that's the feeble response to this well.........I guess that is that.

(PS signing up to UN weapons embargoes and breaking them is illegal, Russia (and Bout) did that all over Africa and the Middle East, it's well recorded history)

im afraid but most of he major international organizations are higly influenced by the US government and his policy so i wouldnt take to much in consideration what its legal and what is not, because i dont consider credible whos taking these decisions.

the UN nations, which obviously you know how the decisions are made, are only able to set embargoes where theres not western interests or they might think that also Nicaragua probably needed an embargo before thousands and thousands of cvilians got killed by forces trained and armed by the good guys?

UN nations are ridicolous, they are not usefull at all and in most of the cases, when they decide to take a resolution its already to late. of course my 2 cents on UN nations.

im waiting a resolution about the UN nations against the us government responsable for his soldiers able to rape, pissing on dead bodies, deliberately killing unarmed civilians in iraq and also in afghanistan, using biological weapons in iraq (fallujah), tortures against prisoners. just the first things flow on my mind, things proved and recorded of course.

isnt enough for a resolution? still waiting, i trust on UN nations.

(proofs about the utilization of biological weapons on iraq...you can see dead bodies and ecc... if you are not able to see these stuff without having problems dont watch)

LINK TO EXPLICIT CONTENT REMOVED

Edited April 18, 2012 by Max Power
Explicit content

[spooky lynx 73]

Move UN headquarters to Switzerland, make it truly independent.

[PELHAM 10]

China which is just taking care of his problems near the borders or inside his borders, unlike the US. otherwise it could be considerated just the typical petty western vision of the world inoculated by medias but in reality it does not find evidences.

Not heard of Tibet? China's meddling in Nepal or the continued harrasment of Taiwan and Vietnam? Do you not know about China's arms exports to the Sudan which were used to kill 1000's of unarmed villagers in Darfur? (Russia was actually the largest supplier) Evidence here of Russia and China breaking UN sanctions and international law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China%E2%80%93Sudan_relations

you didnt explained at all why is not working at any level. the impression i have right now is that if a country with fake reasons hes just trying to sell weapons and if this country is western is ok, if is not a country but a man, who obviously works for a country, its not. DO YOU NEED ANY EXAMPLES PLUS LINKS AND VIDEOS or you can clearly understand at which situation i am refering?

Yes I did - legal controls are fully refernced in this post:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?133392-freedom-for-Viktor-Bout&p=2134737&viewfull=1#post2134737

Where are the similar legal controls for Viktor Bout, Russia, North Korea and China?

i was waiting for a such misleading observation, considering the "high" level of the users here (pro western brainwashed petty bourgeois in most of the cases).

Lol Brainwashed? Facts is fact you have nothing to back up your argument. You provide one link to a deeply flawed video full of errors and innacuracies.

the kremlin is making money from that trades and at the same time is making a sort of indirect counter-attack to the nato invasion on the est europe, last example it was georgia( if we really need examples..)

NATO invaded Georgia? You can prove that can you? Maybe I was brainwashed into believing it was Russia. The free and independent governments of former Soviet occupied countries in the Baltic, Eastern Europe and elsewhere have all diecided to turn their back on Russia and join the EU and NATO. Why do you suppose that is?

haha omg could you plz name some countries that in your opinion are using this ethical policy plz? US maybe, france, england?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

they sold weapons to talebans, i guess you dont need a link since is a famous news.

ecc. ecc. those are just few examples that flow on my mind.

france, england and US has sold weapons to the "rebels"( i would say terrorist but i dont want to open a new thread with all these western brainwashed around here) who fought gaddafi. now these "rebels", most of them islamic extremists, are fighting eachother and terrorizing the people to gain power in libya.

the ethical policy you were talking about it still missing at the moment. its like the loch ness monster, it doesnt exist.

The US did not sell weapons to the Taliban - they didn't exist in Afghanistan at the time of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan? All US funding to the area stopped in 1988 when the Russians agreed to withdraw. The Taliban were funded and Armed by Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan. You will note from a 5 min search that the Taliban didn't start activities in Afghanistan till several years after the Russian defeat. Do you not know the difference between the Mujahideen and the Taliban?

The legal controls are listed here :http://www.businesslink.gov.uk

The UK, US and France have not sold any weapons to Libyan Rebels, The have been pictured with German G3 rifles which belonged to Ghadaffi and were looted from his compounds. What the UK did do was airlift money to enable them to buy their own, from Egypt.

im waiting a resolution about the UN nations against the us government responsable for his soldiers able to rape, pissing on dead bodies, deliberately killing unarmed civilians in iraq and also in afghanistan, using biological weapons in iraq (fallujah), tortures against prisoners. just the first things flow on my mind, things proved and recorded of course.

isnt enough for a resolution? still waiting, i trust on UN nations.

proofs about the utilization of biological weapons on iraq...you can see dead bodies and ecc... if you are not able to see these stuff without having problems dont watch)

All soldiers caught breaking ROE or committing murder in Iraq / Afghanistan have been arrested and punished by the US themselves, I also condemn these acts but you have to admit there are relatively few compared to conflicts involving say Russia (Afghanistan, Chechnya and Georgia).

Biological and chemical weapons in Fallujah, tosh? Firstly do you know what a biological or chemical weapon is? Both you and the film maker obviously don't. He shows decomposed bodies as some sort of evidence. Biological or chemical weapons don't do that. If biological wepons had been used all the US troops in Fallujah would have to wear NBC gear both during the attack and for many months afterwards. They didn't.

Napalm and phosphorous are not classed as chemical or biological weapons, if they were all explosives and gunpowder would be also. It's garbage made up by dumb activists.

The video is clearly flawed and innacurate. E.g. the scenes from South Vietnam were caused by the South Vietnamese Airforce. The claims made in it are not backed up by any facts or evidence. You are also not allowed to post videos like that here. Further on the subject, it's not just my opinion:

The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Falluja, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Falluja: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact." These assertions were supported by a human-rights advocate who, it said, possessed "a biology degree".

I, too, possess a biology degree, and I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery. So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died. But there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents"

— George Monbiot in The Guardian November 22, 2005[3]

Edited April 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[max power 21]

(proofs about the utilization of biological weapons on iraq...you can see dead bodies and ecc... if you are not able to see these stuff without having problems dont watch)

LINK TO EXPLICIT CONTENT REMOVED

I was expecting you would be less cavalier about posting explicit content since you've been banned for it once already. *shrug* See you in 90 days.

+ 5 infractions (the default penalty) for explicit content.

§19) Videos/Movies

No Video/movies, either posted or linked to shall contain any of the following.

Porn, real killing, mutilations, wounds, carnage, and other disgusting/explicit footage. If something offensive is being shown in cartoon form it shall be treated as if the imagery were real and not simply cartoon. This also includes team killing or anything glorifying deliberate and or anti-social behaviour on any Public or Private server.

[maturin 12]

Saddam Hussein, as well the Afghan, Nicaraguan and Mozambique governments were/are recognized by UN legal representatives and heads if that countries.

And Hitler was democratically elected. This sort of standards-free approach is nothing but an endorsement of immoral realpolitik for whatever economic/political goals are convenient for more powerful countries. Everything's fine, so long as Russia gets to be imperialist too, right?