Thread: House Passes Resolution Urging Obama to Send Arms to Ukraine

WASHINGTON—
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly has approved a resolution urging President Barack Obama to send lethal weapons to Ukraine to protect its sovereignty in its fight against Russian-backed rebels.

The resolution was approved Monday by a vote of 348 to 48.

There is bipartisan support in Congress to provide the arms to Ukrainian forces battling the rebels. Russian President Vladimir Putin denies arming rebels in the war in eastern Ukraine, which began in April after Moscow annexed the mostly Russian-speaking Crimean Peninsula.

U.S. State Department officials say Obama administration officials are discussing lethal assistance to Ukraine, but they are waiting to see whether the agreements that led to February's cease-fire are implemented.

House Passes Resolution Urging Obama to Send Arms to Ukraine

What was that a while ago . . . something about what is now Russia sending arms to Cuba . . . didn't that almost start WWIII?

Here's an idea - send the warmongers to the Ukraine, or their sons/daughters, to fight.

This is a toothless referendum. The house passed a similar referendum in December to no effect.

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Here's an idea - send the warmongers to the Ukraine

The Russians are already there.

Originally Posted by bsnub

This is a toothless referendum. The house passed a similar referendum in December to no effect.

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Here's an idea - send the warmongers to the Ukraine

The Russians are already there.

Then the members of the house of representatives can keep them company

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Then the members of the house of representatives can keep them company

I would love to see that.

House Passes Resolution Urging Obama to Send Arms to ____________ (fill in as directed by your arms industry lobbyist)

There, fixed for accuracy.

^Goverment decides long term strategic defence policy and then begins acquisition projects to get hold of the materiel to support the strategy. These acquisition projects engage industry to provide the materiel. These projects typically take years from planning to acceptance testing.

You seriously think that industry builds arms and then tries to direct defence policy by lobbying for war in the hope that their arms will be purchased. This is the kind of delusional nonsense that makes it obvious that you have never been anywhere near the defence industry and have no idea how it works.

^ Sometimes you're as sweet and gullible as your avatar

Originally Posted by Looper

You seriously think that industry builds arms and then tries to direct defence policy by lobbying for war in the hope that their arms will be purchased. This is the kind of delusional nonsense that makes it obvious that you have never been anywhere near the defence industry and have no idea how it works.

I know exactly how it works.

They give $130 million a year to politicians to generate sales.

Originally Posted by Looper

^Goverment decides long term strategic defence policy and then begins acquisition projects to get hold of the materiel to support the strategy. These acquisition projects engage industry to provide the materiel. These projects typically take years from planning to acceptance testing.

You seriously think that industry builds arms and then tries to direct defence policy by lobbying for war in the hope that their arms will be purchased. This is the kind of delusional nonsense that makes it obvious that you have never been anywhere near the defence industry and have no idea how it works.

Joe bidens son needs some nat gas fields

The notion that defence contractors lobby governments to encourage them to engage in conflict is utterly laughable. Can you imagine the scandal and negative press if a major contractor was caught engaging in such activity.

The gulf that exists between the tin foil brigade's fantasy world and reality really needs to be bridged at some point in the next 10 to 20 years for the sake of the safety of the human race.

Originally Posted by Looper

The notion that defence contractors lobby governments to encourage them to engage in conflict is utterly laughable. Can you imagine the scandal and negative press if a major contractor was caught engaging in such activity.

The gulf that exists between the tin foil brigade's fantasy world and reality really needs to be bridged at some point in the next 10 to 20 years for the sake of the safety of the human race.

The line that produces M1A1 Abrams tanks is on the verge of shutting down.
This process costs money and talented workers are lost. IF a lobbyist can convince the Govt to send say, 500 MBTs to the Ukraine as aid, lend or lease then older existing stock can be shipped off and newer advanced models can be constructed to replace them keeping the line up and running for another 2 years....

I am far from being a conspiracy theorist . . . how about one word: Halliburton

Originally Posted by Looper

The notion that defence contractors lobby governments to encourage them to engage in conflict is utterly laughable. Can you imagine the scandal and negative press if a major contractor was caught engaging in such activity.

The gulf that exists between the tin foil brigade's fantasy world and reality really needs to be bridged at some point in the next 10 to 20 years for the sake of the safety of the human race.

Nobody has said they lobby to engage in conflict per se, they lobby (hard) to get the government to spend money on their products or to help promote their products to foreign governments or to lift embargoes so that sales can be made.

If you think that notion falls into the realm of tin foil hattery then what exactly do you think defense industry lobbyists do for a living?

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Nobody has said they lobby to engage in conflict per se

That is exactly what you said in your original post.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

House Passes Resolution Urging Obama to Send Arms to ____________ (fill in as directed by your arms industry lobbyist)

There, fixed for accuracy.

Originally Posted by Looper

That is exactly what you said in your original post.

No it's not. You even quoted my first post, it says "send arms to.." and in this case refers to Ukrainians. If I wrote "Urges Obama to declare war on..." then you'd be right, but that is not what I wrote or what I intended to mean although it is hard to deny that a good war is a very profitable exercise for military suppliers, particularly when they can figure out a way to supply both sides of a conflict.

Would you have us believe instead that the lobbyists are urging restraint and begging congresspeople not to use up (and therefore replace) the things they have previously bought?

THAT is a laughable position, unless arms industry lobbyists are hopelessly inept at their jobs and you ignore the revolving door between congress and the boards of directors of arms industry players and the amount of arms industry connected people who serve as advisors (and sometimes Vice President) in the USA.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

No it's not. You even quoted my first post, it says "send arms to.."

Primary contractors urging western leaders to send arms to belligerents would be in just as much shit as if they had urged the leader to acts of war themselves.

Trying to wriggle out of your original assertion on a technicality?

Originally Posted by Looper

Primary contractors urging western leaders to send arms to belligerents would be in just as much shit as if they had urged the leader to acts of war themselves.

Trying to wriggle out of your original assertion on a technicality?

Not at all, in fact I'll double down on it: if defense contractor lobbyists are NOT urging governments to consume more of the products from the companies they represent then they are failing at their jobs and the shareholders should be asking what they are getting for their money.

$130 million was a number mentioned upthread so let's use that although it is a paltry sum in the order of defense spending - what do you think the companies expect as quid pro quo for that sort of expenditure?


EDIT: changed return to quid pro quo

So you admit you are just making it up as you go along.

You have no evidence that primary contractors lobby government to either engage in war or supply belligerents and your main reference in support of your assertion is a post further up on this thread.

Originally Posted by Looper

So you admit you are just making it up as you go along.

You have no evidence that primary contractors lobby government to either engage in war or supply belligerents and your main reference in support of your assertion is a post further up on this thread.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

The point I am observing is that the lobbying efforts of military contractors must be aimed at advancing the interests of those contractors, by definition since that is their job.

Since military contractors (again by definition) are in the business of supplying goods and services to the military it stands to reason that they will have a vested interest in seeing the consumption of their products and services increase.

Since setting up billboards advertising the benefits of the latest model of techno-zapper isn't likely to be very cost effective then paying a lobbyist to bend the ear of a politician to influence him/her to make decisions that benefit the contractor is a logical way for a contractor to bump the bottom line.

I'm not even trying to make a moral judgement here; having a closely connected person as an advisor on foreign policy to a politico is simply good business sense for a military contractor.

Originally Posted by Looper

So you admit you are just making it up as you go along.

You have no evidence that primary contractors lobby government to either engage in war or supply belligerents and your main reference in support of your assertion is a post further up on this thread.

Read A Bright Shining Lie and google about Bell Industries and Colt during Vietnam.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

The point I am observing is that the lobbying efforts of military contractors must be aimed at advancing the interests of those contractors, by definition since that is their job. Since military contractors (again by definition) are in the business of supplying goods and services to the military it stands to reason that they will have a vested interest in seeing the consumption of their products and services increase.

Only within the constraints of the law which would preclude inciting acts of war.

Your entire assertion is based on the lazy and fashionable supposition that the law is not observed by industry agents.

It does not 'stand to reason' that lobbyists acting within the constraints of the law would be lobbying government to either engage in war or supply belligerents with arms.

Adherence to law when engaging in business (especially sales to government) is front and centre when it comes to western business practice. Sorry if that does not jibe with your 'fashionable' anti-establishment viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

The point I am observing is that the lobbying efforts of military contractors must be aimed at advancing the interests of those contractors, by definition since that is their job. Since military contractors (again by definition) are in the business of supplying goods and services to the military it stands to reason that they will have a vested interest in seeing the consumption of their products and services increase.

Only within the constraints of the law which would preclude inciting acts of war.

Your entire assertion is based on the lazy and fashionable supposition that the law is not observed by industry agents.

It does not 'stand to reason' that lobbyists acting within the constraints of the law would be lobbying government to either engage in war or supply belligerents with arms.

Adherence to law when engaging in business (especially sales to government) is front and centre when it comes to western business practice. Sorry if that does not jibe with your 'fashionable' anti-establishment viewpoint.

Corporations and their lobbyists have long been legally recognized as defacto ctizens and can lobby for whatever they want, just as any citizen can express his opinion to his congressman or Senator.

look it up.

The Ukrainian Army and militias have already lost. More weapons might stop the rebels from deciding to go all the way to Kiev. Otherwise, nothing Congress would vote to give Kiev could stop the Russians if taking Kiev were what they wanted to do.