Browse By

Trump Sells Billions Of Dollars Of Weapons To Country That Sends US Arms To Libyan Civil War In Allegiance With Russia

Last week, while Washington D.C. erupted in chaos after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, it went nearly unnoticed that the U.S. State Department, with the approval of Donald Trump, approved the sale of 2 billion dollars worth of weapons to the United Arab Emirates. In an official notice of the sale sent to Congress, the Trump Administration justified the sale by calling the UAE “an important ally which has been, and continues to be, a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.” Furthermore, the notice claimed that selling weapons to the UAE “will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”

At about the same time that this sale was announced, other news about US weapons sold to the UAE showed that these justifications are false. Time Magazine revealed that the UAE has been sending weapons sold to it by the USA to rebel groups in the current Libyan civil war.

Sending weapons to any rebel group in Libya is in violation of United Nations arms embargo designed to discourage additional bloodshed in the civil war there. It is also in direct opposition to established US foreign policy. The US Department of State, along with the United Nations, supports the current Libyan government.

Why is the State Department, which purports to support the Libyan government, selling weapons to a country known to send weapons it receives from the USA to Libyan insurgents fighting against their national government?

A disturbing detail that may be related is that the Libyan rebels aren’t just being supported by the UAE. They’re also being propped up by Russia.

Before he became the current U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson worked on billions of dollars of business deals with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Tillerson became so close with the Russian government that he accepted a medal from Putin, the highest honor that Russia bestows upon foreigners.

As with most dirty deals, there’s more than one angle to the sale of weapons to the United Arab Emirates. There’s also a great deal of money to be made for people with political connections. The weapons manufacturers, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, spend millions of dollars on lobbying, and millions of dollars more on campaign contributions and dark money support for political candidates, every year.

arms sales by raytheon and lockheed martin

17 thoughts on “Trump Sells Billions Of Dollars Of Weapons To Country That Sends US Arms To Libyan Civil War In Allegiance With Russia”

  1. Al Hopfmann says:

    Your expose is essentially on target. Our government has been indirectly supplying war munitions to our sworn enemies since at least WWII. After the perfidy of allowing nuclear bomb technology secrets to be transferred to the Soviet Union, it got really bad in the Vietnam “war”. American brass and lead ended up in munitions that killed our American soldiers, who were mostly conscripted (read “enslaved”) for that fake war that was supposed to “stop the spread of communism”. Also the US is the biggest funder of the UN, and look at all the atrocities perpetrated by that monstrosity. So there is really nothing new to what you are reporting, except that it is now on Trump’s watch, instead of during the “leadership” of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and the other unlimited government advocate Presidents who preceded Trump.
    Wars are caused and run by governments, and the larger that governments are, the more chance there is for war. So any people who claim to be anti-war activists should also be advocates of limited government instead of unlimited government. The UN is an agency of unlimited government and should be abolished. That would go a long way to achieving the goal of alleviating the Russia/Libya problem that you have described.

    1. J Clifford says:

      The problem with your reasoning, Al, is that before the era of strong national governments, churches, business organizations, and criminal organizations caused and ran terrible wars.

      Reduce the size of government, and you won’t do away with war. It will just be other organizations that engage in warfare.

      The difference between the government of the USA and churches, businesses, and criminal gangs is that in the USA, citizens have some chance of influencing what the government does.

      The other options are top-down, autocratic nightmares.

      Reducing government’s size to smaller nations the size of states isn’t a solution, either. That would simply multiply the opportunity for violent conflict. Don’t kid yourself that if the state of Mississippi became a sovereign government, it would be more democratic simply because it would be smaller in size. The last time that was tried in the United States, the purpose of the smaller government was to perpetuate slavery.

      Right now, Trump, and the people who voted for him, are the problem.

      They are destroying democracy.

      1. Al Hopfmann says:

        If you really want to compare modern times to “before the era of strong national governments…”, you need to go back to before the times of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and untold other ancient war criminals who essentially WERE the government. And they were strong national governments. It’s really time for humanity to improve upon the American “Founding Fathers'” great effort to establish a limited government in our nation by opposing the current trend of increasingly unlimited government in all nations. Only that will lead to peace and liberty.

        1. Horatio says:

          oppose UNLIMITED government power certainly, at the local, state, and national level. But that’s a strawman, Al.

          Effective national government power helps people, and can be in accord with the constitutional freedoms we are guaranteed. The thing is to support strong nationak government when it reflects the Constitution. and oppose it when it violates the Constitution.

          supposing that strong national governments are inherently bad is simplistic, presuming that the only kind of strength therr can be is abusive strength. Genuine democratic. strength is to be celebrated.

          1. Al Hopfmann says:

            Supporting the Constitution is definitely the way to maintain the progress made by the “American Dream”, but it doesn’t take a big, oppressive (strong) government to do that. What it takes is the active participation of good citizens, the election of legislators who have principle, the appointment of good judges who understand right and wrong and can read what the Constitution says rather than what the unlimited government advocates try to tell us what it “means”.
            Let’s work hard to advance the principles of Americanism and oppose the collectivism of those who label themselves as “liberals” but have very little respect for liberty. Support political candidates who truly advocate LOWER TAXES, LESS GOVERNMENT, AND MORE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US. Otherwise, all liberty will be lost.

  2. J Clifford says:

    Straw man, Mr. Hopfmann.

    Name one politician in the U.S. Congress who is advocating for “unlimited government”.

    Once again, you’re confusing the size of government with what the government does.

    How does Donald Trump’s plan to reduce the size of government to take away health care from millions of people support individual liberty?

    1. Al Hopfmann says:

      You can’t be serious! Every Representative and Senator who supports the United Nations is ipso facto supporting unlimited government. Read the UN Charter. Compare it to the US Constitution. Do you believe that individual rights naturally exist, or do you believe that rights are granted by government?

      1. J Clifford says:

        The United Nations Charter does not ever say that it will establish unlimited government.

        There is no evidence of legal rights having a natural existence that establishes them outside of societal influence. Rights in a democracy are established by the people, not by physics or chemistry.

        1. Al Hopfmann says:

          The United Nations Charter states that rights are granted or denied as the proper purview of government, that is, that rights do not naturally exist (as granted by God or existing by nature). That UN philosophy foundation is unlimited government.
          The United Nations Charter was written by two Communists, Hiss and Vyshinsky. Communism is unlimited government; arguing otherwise is absurd.
          The God-given basis of human rights is contained in the Ten Commandments: “Thou shall not murder” and “Thou shall not steal”. The atheistic basis of human rights comes from the obvious tenet that you own your own body. That is intellectually the same as those two Commandments.
          The USA is a democratic republic, not a democracy. People who think otherwise have been hoodwinked by the Establishment and need a basic lesson in civics and American history.
          Physics and chemistry are more related to Deflategate and pollution than to philosophy of government.

          1. J Clifford says:

            No, a lack of a religious basis for rights is not the same thing as unlimited government. You’re stretching this, purposefully placing your own weird ideology into your interpretation, which isn’t based in the language itself.

            The Ten Commandments mostly insist that people have to obey religious authority. That’s no reasonable basis for human rights.

  3. Al Hopfmann says:

    As explained, intelligent atheists do not need a religious basis for accepting and confirming the natural existence of human rights because it would be irrational to believe that you don’t own your own body. So, the claim that “a lack of a religious basis for rights is not the same thing as unlimited government” is a non sequitur. It is deflective to the issue being addressed. An intelligent atheist might even argue that their basis for confirming the natural existence of human rights is superior to that of religious people because many religions imply or declare that God owns your body rather than you yourself. BTW, ownership of your own body is the primary reason why compulsory military conscription and mandatory “public service” are both immoral and a violation of natural human rights.
    Do you think that mainstream libertarian philosophy is really “weird ideology”?

    1. J Clifford says:

      “Mainstream libertarian” is an oxymoron.

      You’re claiming that unless someone supports your fringe religious (yes, it is religious) libertarian ideology, they support unlimited government.

      That’s just absurd.

      1. Al Hopfmann says:

        Claiming that libertarian ideology is religious has the implication that all political philosophies are religious in nature. That is not necessarily an inaccurate claim, but many anti-libertarian activists and thinkers insist that THEIR philosophy is free from religion. Using religion as the bad icon becomes hypocritical.

        1. J Clifford says:

          No, Al. Your version of libertarian ideology, which rests on the blind faith that the universe somehow establishes human liberty as a force of nature, is religious. It doesn’t hold up as anything else.

          1. Al Hopfmann says:

            I interpret your conclusion to be that even atheism is a religion. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but a lot of atheists would not be pleased with that assertion.
            Regardless of whether the origin of “authority” is faith, science, nature, God, or the mythical righteousness of the majority, the basic tenet of libertarian ideology is that you own your own body. and any political philosophy which opposes that tenet opens the door to the tyranny of despots and unlimited government.

          2. J Clifford says:

            Al, I could write, “I like pancakes with bacon for breakfast,” and you would conclude that I’m saying that atheism is a religion and that anyone who fails to support your extremist religious libertarian dogma is in favor of unlimited government.

            You aren’t interpreting what I’m saying. You’re ignoring what I’m saying, and continuing on with the same strange faith-based monologue you started out with in the first place.

  4. Al Hopfmann says:

    As we close out this discussion of the origin of fundamental rights and its relevance to political philosophy, it might be good for anyone reading or commenting here to ask themselves a couple of basic questions, Do you own your own body? If not, then who does own it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!