Liverpool FC Forum

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?

Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....

Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.

They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.

1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK


China aren't big suppliers, TMK.

Where do you get your facts from.

They are incorrect.

From my source, that list would be correct.

yeah big tony down the pub is bound to have his finger on the pulse for arms deals. 




the fact is one of you know who supplies what and to who they supply it so its all just speculation, and comments like 'my source' are laughable, I am sure even the SIS do not know everything and even if they did i doubt very much they would divulge their information for no reason to anyone.

unless really you are in MI6       

No, not 'laughable', just a source. That description would be reserved for accusations against the U.S. gov't of orchestrating 9/11.

and your source would be the press? the fact is any figures given on arms deals to any publication will not be a true reflection, if anyone thinks that these companies are open with all their dealings are being naive to the extreme. even if you dig up a listed companies records for a company involved in this business they will not show a true reflection of what has been sold and who has dealt with who.

pure speculation, nothing more and nothing less

Of course there is margin for error, and the stat's are only conservative estimates.

It's not pure speculation, it's research.

Bamaga man wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?

Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....

Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.

They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.

1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK


China aren't big suppliers, TMK.

Where do you get your facts from.

They are incorrect.

Neither are Germany or Holland TMK.

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?

Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....

Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.

They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.

1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK


China aren't big suppliers, TMK.

Where do you get your facts from.

They are incorrect.

Neither are Germany or Holland TMK.

So you know China are big suppliers?

Bamaga man wrote:

babu wrote:Small note: Yes, UK does suppy arms to Burma, through private (but government contracted suppliers). If ' internecine ' covers repressing democratic protest through violence, then it supplies to at least one country intent internecine warfare (although not cross-border).

Whether or not its a private company, they can't get there without G to G approval & assistance.

All this is beside the point, IMO. I just refering to a particular question.

It would make sense to do business this way, Okay like I mentioned before with selling jets to the Saudi's some of it will make news, dare I say it some of it is realised into the spotlight for all to see.

But with the case of Burma and other countries, the government wouldnt nessercerily would their name smeared onto/into every militia, freedom fighter or government they deal with.

So they bascially get a privatised company in, and freelance it to sell.

Emerald Red wrote:This reminds me of the film Lord Of War. If you haven't seen it, watch it. It's a good show, and very educational. Even though it's Hollywood, it's still based on real events.

Emerald you wouldnt believe it, but I have just finnished watching that movie now.

That is where I got my "researc" from. 

peewee wrote:well you call it research and i will call it speculation and we can end the conversation, i am sure your research comes solely from reading what has been published as by your own admission you are only looking at published arms deals, the fact is that unpublished arms deals may be of greater significance (and probably are) so to draw any conclusion must be purely speculation as you do not have all the facts.

the fact here is your knowledge is exactly the same as anyone elses, based on what they have read as opposed to any real knowledge of the situation

Bamaga man wrote:

Emerald Red wrote:This reminds me of the film Lord Of War. If you haven't seen it, watch it. It's a good show, and very educational. Even though it's Hollywood, it's still based on real events.

Emerald you wouldnt believe it, but I have just finnished watching that movie now.

That is where I got my "researc" from. 

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

Kharhaz wrote:The yanks provided weapons for the Germans during the war did they not?
And they provided weapons for Al Quaida yes?
And Iraq?
And Afghanistan?

Heres what we should do....
We should round em....
Put em in a field....

Not just the Yanks. Russia, France, China and the Uk are the worlds biggest arms supplies.

They are also the five permanent membrs of the U.N. security council.

1) US
2) Russia
3) Germany
4) France
5) Netherlands
6) UK


China aren't big suppliers, TMK.

Where do you get your facts from.

They are incorrect.

Neither are Germany or Holland TMK.

So you know China are big suppliers?

well maybe he read it somewhere, you know, research

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:and of course with china being a communist country you have total access to all their files to back up your claim that they do not provide arms.

just speculation dressed up with good grammar does not make it correct   

Erm.. well, I haven't yet claimed to know who China supply illegally with arm's.

Only registered arm's transfers that have been disclosed.


It's not speculation, it's research.

i never said you knew who the supplied arms to, i am referring to this comment China aren't big suppliers.

the point i am making is really you know nothing about whether china are big suppliers or not. at no point did i say you knew who china supplied arms to

'TMK'. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, i.e. from the sources I have seen this would not be the case.

Therefore, it may well be the case that China are big arm's suppliers. Just unregistered arm's transfers.

so 'to your knowledge' this does not make your assumptions correct, and thats all they are assumptions based on something you may have read, and knowing the press are the bastions of truth then it must be correct   

I don't think I ever said the info was based on press reports, although press reports constitute one source towards the final list.

To my knowledge, i.e. from trusted research institutes, those stat's would be correct.

Its amazing when silly season comes around you desreguard the press on football transfers, yet believe it to be "research" or a reliable source when talking about the arme trade. 

LFC2007 wrote:

peewee wrote:well you call it research and i will call it speculation and we can end the conversation, i am sure your research comes solely from reading what has been published as by your own admission you are only looking at published arms deals, the fact is that unpublished arms deals may be of greater significance (and probably are) so to draw any conclusion must be purely speculation as you do not have all the facts.

the fact here is your knowledge is exactly the same as anyone elses, based on what they have read as opposed to any real knowledge of the situation

No, research from institutions who compile these stat's for a living.

They may well be incorrect, but I would pay more credence to info taken from a research institute as opposed to info grasped solely from the press.

I don't know how anybody could have any 'real knowledge' of the situation.

Unless of course you are an international arm's dealer.

LFC2007 wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

Emerald Red wrote:Recent examples?

Well, only the obvious ones spring to my mind here. Israel, Burma, Iraq. I dare say there's been quite a few people in those regions that have fled. I'm sure those aren't the only places in conflict the arms dealers have supplied. It's big money, man. Money makes the world spin.

As far as I'm aware, munitions are exported from the UK to a number of countries around the world. However, our munitions factories are privatised.

Strictly speaking, Britain in recent times hasn't 'given' munitions to any oppressive regime intent on causing internecine warfare.

There are merely companies forging deals with other countries, according to UK and international regulations.

Business is business. Whether Israel source their munitions from the UK, or an alternative source, is largely inconsequential.


The regulations surrounding munitions exports, are undoubtedly shaped by the views of our gov't and the U.S. gov't.

What they view as an oppressive regime is very different from what you or I may view as an oppressive regime.

What happens to those munitions once exchanged, is out of our control, and hence there will always be the possibility that arm's are appropriated by rogue groups within conflicting regions.

It's perhaps ironic, but to some extent an inevitability. In recent times however, I don't think there have been many clear cut examples.


Burma, to my knowledge, does not import munitions from the UK, or certainly not a significant proportion.

Isreal are predominantly sourced by the U.S. and develop much of their own weapons systems, whilst in Iraq, the weapons used in sectarian violence, are allegedly sourced from Iran.

Care to explain ?