Chavez Kalashnikov Factory Plan Stirs Fear

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

the US is the largest exporter of armaments in the world?

It's not who is giving the most that is the problem.
It's to whom they are being given.

If you're giving them to nations that aren't threatening others, that's not a problem.

If you're giving arms to crackpots that threaten others, that's a problem.

It doesn't matter John, unless they actually commit a crime with them they are just tools that anyone should have access to. I know because you told me.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

The VAST majority of Iraq's weaponry came from the USSR. Saddam signed an agreement with them back in the 70s saying that the USSR would be their armament supplier.

Saddam also got a large amount of arms from France.

They got less than 1% of their armaments from the USA.

Actually we the British gave him a shed load.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

One can conclude that selling weapons to foreign countries will eventually result in them being used against us.

Gosh, we should never help our friends ever again! You never can tell when a different generation might turn against us in the future. Screw 'em all!

[Skyrad 0]

Friends, I love that.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Why would you want a rifle that's only good out to 200 meters, when your enemy has one that's good to 600 meters?

Because almost ALL modern infantry engagements take place at under 200 metres.

The key word, which I've highlighted, is "almost". I don't want to be a sitting duck when that "almost" day comes. I want the flexibility to take them down out to 600 yards if necessary.

Quote

We could recreate a modern infantry engagement? Start 600 metres apart in rain, smoke & shit visibility. put 500 rounds through our weapons and drop them into muddy sandy water. Then we start. I figure to get to within 50 yards of you with a working AK by the time you've got your AR clear of the jam and stripped for cleaning!

Either: 1) You would never make it that far, or; 2) If my AR is inoperable, you're going to have to run like hell to catch up with me.

I don't think that your perception of the poor performance of a dirty M-16 is as bad as you think it is.
How about another challenge: I'll throw my 500-rounds-fired AR down in the mud and sand. Then, ready-set-go you charge me from 600 yards with your AK, holding fire until you get to 50 yards. That gives me 550-yards of your charge to get you first. Are you really that sure that my AR isn't going to be operational for the several minutes that it's going to take you to cover that distance?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

It's not who is giving the most that is the problem.
It's to whom they are being given.

If you're giving them to nations that aren't threatening others, that's not a problem.

If you're giving arms to crackpots that threaten others, that's a problem.

It doesn't matter John, unless they actually commit a crime with them they are just tools that anyone should have access to. I know because you told me.

Since threatening others is a "crime", then we seem to be in agreement.

[billvon 3,079]

>Gosh, we should never help our friends ever again!

Believe it or not, John (and this may come as a shock, so sit on down) there are other ways to help people other than giving them guns. Indeed, sometimes giving a gun to someone is NOT a good idea - even if they're your friend and they really, really, really want it.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

One can conclude that selling weapons to foreign countries will eventually result in them being used against us. History has proven this happens.

Maybe. But still, you avoided this question from John Rich:

Quote

Would you prefer that we abandon all these allies and let them be overrun by those who would like to destroy them?

Did you find it unworthy of a reply? I see a lot of sense there.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,079]

>Would you prefer that we abandon all these allies and let them
>be overrun by those who would like to destroy them?

Nope. We should defend our allies rather than buy them weapons (especially WMD's.) Let them make their own weapons if they so choose.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Nope. We should defend our allies rather than buy them weapons (especially WMD's.) Let them make their own weapons if they so choose.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

The VAST majority of Iraq's weaponry came from the USSR. Saddam signed an agreement with them back in the 70s saying that the USSR would be their armament supplier.

Saddam also got a large amount of arms from France.

They got less than 1% of their armaments from the USA.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

> Would you prefer that we abandon all these allies and let
> them be overrun by those who would like to destroy them?

Nope. We should defend our allies rather than buy them weapons (especially WMD's.) Let them make their own weapons if they so choose.

Oh my, the irony!

This statement comes from someone who wants to cut-and-run from Iraq.

Yet you think we should send in troops to do the dirty work for our allies when they are attacked, instead of just giving them the means to provide for their own defense with their own men.

Instead of providing military aid to Israel, we should have U.S. troops there fighting the Palestinians ourselves, and on the border with Syria. Instead of helping Taiwan, we should be have the U.S. navy on guard offshore from China, ready to bear the brunt of an invasion.

Your positions are totally contradictory and illogical...

So I guess you're in favor of the U.S. troops currently stationed in South Korea and Germany?

But not in Iraq!

Um, do these troop deployments only count until the shooting starts, and then you want them brought home? Doh!

[kelpdiver 2]

umm, Bill's never been in the cut n run category, believing that we have a respnsibility to the Iraqis not to leave the place in chaos.

me personally - we could have left as soon as we deposed Saddam.

[billvon 3,079]

>This statement comes from someone who wants to cut-and-run from Iraq.

Ah, John, making shit up again to have a good argument. Good luck with that.