U.S.A no1

[billvon 2,991]

>Don't the Afghanii's have a right to secure their border from those
>that would infiltrate and do their people harm?

Yep. And Saddam Hussein had a right to put down all those rebellious Kurds that threatened his security. Although I suppose the Afghanis didn't have a right to do that when they were under control of the USSR. Back then it was important to sell guns to the terrorists trying to destroy the Afghan government.

Face it, John. We're not "doing what's right." We're doing what benefits us, like everyone else. The whole "oh, why won't the world see that everyone _else_ is the bad guy?" shtick is getting old.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

> Don't the Afghanii's have a right to secure their border from
> those that would infiltrate and do their people harm?

Yep.

Aha! So you admit then that some gun sales are perfectly legitimate and for a good cause. And therefore, not all arms sales are an evil thing which makes the world less safe, as the originator of this thread suggested.

So, it's not arms sales per se that are bad. It depends upon to whom they are sold and the circumstances. Therefore, criticism should be directed to specific instances, and not to arms sales in general.

It's just like the gun control debate. Guns can be used for either good or bad, depending upon who has them and their intentions for them. Criticize the armed criminal, but not the law-abiding gun-owning citizen.

[billvon 2,991]

>So you admit then that some gun sales are perfectly legitimate and for a good cause.

You mean internationally or locally? In the US, no problems. Overseas - we should be as careful about selling guns as we are selling plutonium. Historically, the guns we sell people do a lot more harm to us than the plutonium others have sold.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

> Don't the Afghanii's have a right to secure their border from
> those that would infiltrate and do their people harm?

Yep.

Aha! So you admit then that some gun sales are perfectly legitimate and for a good cause. And therefore, not all arms sales are an evil thing which makes the world less safe, as the originator of this thread suggested.

So, it's not arms sales per se that are bad. It depends upon to whom they are sold and the circumstances. Therefore, criticism should be directed to specific instances, and not to arms sales in general.

It's just like the gun control debate. Guns can be used for either good or bad, depending upon who has them and their intentions for them.

Once again, you miss the entire point being made (not necessarily by Billvon, but given quite clearly before).

It is not the gun sales that are bad per se. It is the fact, that Bush likes to tout that we are "FIGHTING TYRANNY" and we "OPPOSE ALL EVIL and OPPRESSION" and that what we do is some kind of ABSOLUTE good instead of a RELATIVE good, when obviously, it is not. We let our companies sell to countries with questionable motives and problems with human rights. We let them supply to countries whose intentions are both good or bad or just morally questionable.

What he tries to sell to the world and us is not the way we really are. And THAT is my problem, not the sale of weapons itself.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Why do you presume that supplying arms to someone
>automatically makes it an evil deed?

Sometimes it is in retrospect. Supplying Al Qaeda's parent organization and Saddam Hussein turned out to be a bad idea. It is a good idea to be very careful about who we give weapons to.

Yeah, both times we invaded Iraq, Saddam was just loaded to the gills with US equipment. All those M1 and M60 tanks; all those F4, F15, F16 fighters; all those M16 rifles, M4 carbines w/M203 grenade launchers.

Now on to something new. Who is this "Parent" organization of Al Qaeda? I never knew one existed? And we're supplying them?

I think you've off target Bill, by more than just a small margin. I know this sounds simplistic, but not acknowledging the context of what was happening in the 1980s doesn't strengthen your point.

Quote

>If a criminal gang was attacking your home to rape your wife and
>kill your children, wouldn't you want someone to give you a gun
>with which to defend your family?

Of course. It would be too bad if the US had supplied the criminals with flamethrowers, though.

This means what? If you use Iraq and Iran as an example then yes, it's too bad, but not without explanation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,991]

>Yeah, both times we invaded Iraq, Saddam was just loaded to
>the gills with US equipment.

Well, he had enough to gas the Kurds. Surely even die-hard right wingers would acknowledge that, in retrospect, it wasn't such a good idea to support Saddam even if he was fighting someone we liked less (Iran.)

>Who is this "Parent" organization of Al Qaeda?

The Mujahideen.

> I know this sounds simplistic, but not acknowledging the context of
> what was happening in the 1980s doesn't strengthen your point.

The context was the Cold War, which we were fighting by proxy in many places. But what ended up winning the Cold War for us was our economy, not our wisdom in arming the radical islamic terrorists that were fighting the then-government of Afghanistan.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Since you are against anyone providing arms to people under attack,

Really? Where did I say that? John, are you making things up again?

Quote

we can only presume that you prefer to sit back and do nothing, and watch these people be slaughtered, all the while, feeling smugly good about yourself for not fanning the "arms race".

Pluralis Majestatus, or are you actually speaking for other people?

Quote

The "America is evil" crowd is delusional and sickening.

I agree. I don't think America is evil at all. They are just doing what is best for themselves or their leaders, or at least what their leaders perceive to be best for themselves or their country. They are not doing it for the greater good of the world though.

[crozby 0]

Quote

It's just like the gun control debate. Guns can be used for either good or bad, depending upon who has them and their intentions for them. Criticize the armed criminal, but not the law-abiding gun-owning citizen.

Precisely. And this report is saying that under the leadership of president Bush, 80% of those arms are being sold to undemocratic and/or repugnant regimes.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

under the leadership of president Bush, 80% of those arms are being sold to undemocratic and/or repugnant regimes.

Just because a nation isn't a democracy, or has some human rights issues that aren't up to American standards, doesn't mean that providing them arms isn't a greater good. The world isn't all as simplistic black and white as you wish it to be.

[billvon 2,991]

>The world isn't all as simplistic black and white as you wish it to be.

Either you're for better-armed terrorists or against them!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

under the leadership of president Bush, 80% of those arms are being sold to undemocratic and/or repugnant regimes.

Just because a nation isn't a democracy, or has some human rights issues that aren't up to American standards, doesn't mean that providing them arms isn't a greater good. The world isn't all as simplistic black and white as you wish it to be.

"You are either with us or against us", President G.W. Bush, November 6, 2001

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Yeah, both times we invaded Iraq, Saddam was just loaded to
>the gills with US equipment.

Well, he had enough to gas the Kurds. Surely even die-hard right wingers would acknowledge that, in retrospect, it wasn't such a good idea to support Saddam even if he was fighting someone we liked less (Iran.)

>Who is this "Parent" organization of Al Qaeda?

The Mujahideen.

This is incorrect, and you know it. Al Qaeda wasn't formed until sometime after the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan. It's incorrect to say that the Mujahideen is even a predecessor, as not all Mujahideen fighters became Al Qaeda operatives.

As you said, in "retrospect", arming Saddam (and in the same covert way, Iran) wasn't a great idea, but it served the achievement of several objectives at the time.

Quote

> I know this sounds simplistic, but not acknowledging the context of
> what was happening in the 1980s doesn't strengthen your point.

The context was the Cold War, which we were fighting by proxy in many places. But what ended up winning the Cold War for us was our economy, not our wisdom in arming the radical islamic terrorists that were fighting the then-government of Afghanistan.

It was our economy that allowed us to maintain a military readiness against the USSR. By arming the Mujahideen against the Soviet invasion, we were able to stress the cost and economy of the Soviets. Additionally, by containing a "proxy" fight in Iraq/Iran, we were able to contain the cost of oil at the time with the Saudis (which would also hinder Iraq and Iran after their war), which also strained the Soviet economy further in their attempts to export oil from eastern Russia.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

under the leadership of president Bush, 80% of those arms are being sold to undemocratic and/or repugnant regimes.

Just because a nation isn't a democracy, or has some human rights issues that aren't up to American standards, doesn't mean that providing them arms isn't a greater good. The world isn't all as simplistic black and white as you wish it to be.

You are correct. However, our president does not portray it that way AT ALL.

With him, there are "good guys" and there are "evil-doers". There are no "we have to do bad stuff to do good guys"

Providing arms to questionable countries or groups may indeed help the greater good: OUR greater good, not everyone in the world's.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.