Originally posted by tvdog:
Viper52>
Yes, I know that issue of TIME magazine, too. Although I was more than 14 at that time. I was probably 22 or something, just after NS.
I tore the page out and I still have it somewhere at home. It was significant for me because that was the first time I learnt that my country had been selling arms to people whom other countries are not willing to sell arms to. I was deeply shocked.
Next I learnt that we sold an entire arms factory to Myanmar. Remember the news? We shipped the parts to build a small-arms factory to Myanmar.
Singapore is full of surprises. Did you also know that SIngapore is one of the world's largest producer of landmines? Not to mention hand-grenades. Remember the news about a female worker being killed by a grenade blast at some secret CIS armoury where they store these things? SAF doesn't use a lot of live hand-grenades so if they keep making them they must be selling 'em. I am not sure I am proud of this aspect of my country.
Myanmar for example, with their human-rights record, no one was supposed to sell them arms. And Thailand has always considered Myanmar a traditional enemy, how come they didn't freak out when they learn of Singapore's in arms deal with the Burmese?
Croatia - together with all the other sides in that war were involved in severe human-rights abuses including mass rape and genocide. Now you know some of the weapons they used to commit these crimes come from Singapore.
I am amazed at how we get away with it without any negative reaction from the rest of the world. What skillful diplomacy is at work here?
Should never confuse the matter that at the point of sales of any weapons, is between legitimate governments, be they viewed as rogue nations by others or not. They may be rogue to some but not to others. To be rogue to all will simply mean they are not of this world.
Go according to the concept - "if I am in charge of what I have, be it owned by someone else or not, I have the right to do whatever I want with it" and not "I can only do what other people like or want me to do".
The key word is "sovereign". No one, not even the world, has the right to say things that would sway the interests of individual nations. To do so is declare absolute war on the nation. So, any united world effort to pinpoint violations of rights by one people against another can only be fulfilled by means of all-out war to mete out the so-called "justice" absolute.
And the essence and truth behind this scheme of things is contrary to the accusing parties' pre-occupation of "rights". The fact is very clear - only the accuser has the right of everything. And it is with this sickeningly injustice of the generic accusers, namely the Western world and their so-called organisations - e.g. WWF, UN, NATO, IMF etc that are actually de-stabilising the world and not the other way around.