Africa and middle east ......

[Lightbringer]

If the military steps in as a permanent ruling body instead of a transition authority, God save Israel!

Trust your God. Why defend it?

All this is the US's fault of propping up ANY dictator or autocrat just because they happened to be "anti-communistic" or "anti-radical" without even trying to see if they had a relatively OK human rights records.

You do realize that Radical Communists are not exactly known for their Human Rights track records, right?

-Light

[The Khan]

If the military steps in as a permanent ruling body instead of a transition authority, God save Israel!

Trust your God. Why defend it?

All this is the US's fault of propping up ANY dictator or autocrat just because they happened to be "anti-communistic" or "anti-radical" without even trying to see if they had a relatively OK human rights records.

You do realize that Radical Communists are not exactly known for their Human Rights track records, right?

-Light

I'M tired, please read the rest of the argument.

[Benjaminvallen1]

Your country houses arms dealers that would sell their own mothers for profit. And yes, not even we have that kind of armament right now as we scramble for a national tank project.

If you can't control that kind of arms dealers in the name of "free market", the blood of every non-Islamists in the future there will be on your hands. 'tis said friends speak bitter. I speak bitter now.

I'm going to pretend there was some sort of logic, reason, and evidence in that statement and go on about my day.

[The Khan]

Your country houses arms dealers that would sell their own mothers for profit. And yes, not even we have that kind of armament right now as we scramble for a national tank project.

If you can't control that kind of arms dealers in the name of "free market", the blood of every non-Islamists in the future there will be on your hands. 'tis said friends speak bitter. I speak bitter now.

I'm going to pretend there was some sort of logic, reason, and evidence in that statement and go on about my day.

D'uh, US equipments sold to former "allied countries"? Iraq? Egypt(it can still be considered as an ally)

I used Arms dealers in a broad term. Those who direct the sales for profit, even though its the government.

[Benjaminvallen1]

Your country houses arms dealers that would sell their own mothers for profit. And yes, not even we have that kind of armament right now as we scramble for a national tank project.

If you can't control that kind of arms dealers in the name of "free market", the blood of every non-Islamists in the future there will be on your hands. 'tis said friends speak bitter. I speak bitter now.

I'm going to pretend there was some sort of logic, reason, and evidence in that statement and go on about my day.

D'uh, US equipments sold to former "allied countries"? Iraq? Egypt(it can still be considered as an ally)

I used Arms dealers in a broad term. Those who direct the sales for profit, even though its the government.

Selling weapons to other countries (government to government) is both legal and completely common in nations across the planet. I think it was unwise selling weapons to Egypt, but it was perfectly legal and not in the slightest unusual.

For the record, from what country do you hail?

[Balthagor]

...Selling weapons to other countries (government to government) is both legal and completely common in nations across the planet...

Without getting into the rest of the debate, common and legal don't make it a good thing.

I'm currently reading a book by a former Canadian general, Romeo Dallaire, about Child Soldiers. He points that the wide distribution of small arms is a key factor in the continuation of the use of children in warfare. And yes, Canada is equally guilty of this though IIRC France and the US are two of the largest exporters.

(IIRC Khan is Turkish)

[fool]

But assimilated by evil Germans.

[The Khan]

...Selling weapons to other countries (government to government) is both legal and completely common in nations across the planet...

Yes, legal. Yet I remember U.S selling Iran Tomcats and other what-have-you, without calculating that some time in the future, such hardware might be turned against it.

Thats what I have pointed out as legal, but unethical. Finest U.S offensive electronics falling in the hands of Islamists is NOT a good thing. Gambling with the future of middle east for the sake of arms sales might be legal, but it is simply, unethical, and evil.

I think it was unwise selling weapons to Egypt, but it was perfectly legal and not in the slightest unusual.

Legal and ethical are different. Look where amoral Machiavellian politics got the whole middle east!

[Lightbringer]

I did read the "rest" of the argument. What you are ignoring is that, up until about 1990, and to a certain degree up to this very day, if we didn't sell them weapons, Russia would have. So America and Western Democracies refuse to sell anyone in the third world any weapons at all. They all become Russian puppets. Even if they don't, they still have modern weapons. Yeah, that would have worked out well. Your fantasy utopia always sounds wonderful, until you overlay the real world on top of it and realize that utopia is BS. Look at places without modern weapons in any great numbers. Are you going to tell me that all the dead in NE Africa are laid at the feet of Machete' manufacturers? Should we keep the third world below even the stone age level of tech so they can't bash each other over the heads with rocks and sticks? Stop blaming vicious, bloodthirsty savagery on anyone but the people committing such acts. Because they will commit such acts with rocks or with jet fighters and tanks.

-Light

[Benjaminvallen1]

I did read the "rest" of the argument. What you are ignoring is that, up until about 1990, and to a certain degree up to this very day, if we didn't sell them weapons, Russia would have. So America and Western Democracies refuse to sell anyone in the third world any weapons at all. They all become Russian puppets. Even if they don't, they still have modern weapons. Yeah, that would have worked out well. Your fantasy utopia always sounds wonderful, until you overlay the real world on top of it and realize that utopia is BS. Look at places without modern weapons in any great numbers. Are you going to tell me that all the dead in NE Africa are laid at the feet of Machete' manufacturers? Should we keep the third world below even the stone age level of tech so they can't bash each other over the heads with rocks and sticks? Stop blaming vicious, bloodthirsty savagery on anyone but the people committing such acts. Because they will commit such acts with rocks or with jet fighters and tanks.

-Light

I was about to formulate my rebuttal, but I think you just did it quite well. Those are EXACTLY my points. Our weapons sales were done in the interest of preventing the expansion of Soviet power, though we may have picked some losers to sell to. The idea that the bloodshed caused by our weapons is OUR fault is basically the same argument used to justify gun control! You can't blame the weapon (and whoever made it) for whatever some moron decided to do with it. That's a ridiculous idea.

[Lea]

What you are ignoring is that, up until about 1990, and to a certain degree up to this very day, if we didn't sell them weapons, Russia would have. So America and Western Democracies refuse to sell anyone in the third world any weapons at all.

Bogeyman story from US. Russia complies international embargoes. NATO countries do not let the Russian weapons inside so Russia is forced to trade with third world countries.

Because they will commit such acts with rocks or with jet fighters and tanks.

Tanks and jet fighters can do it much faster and easier. Weapons should not be sold to children. How about savages too?

[fool]

Some other guy would have done it anyway

-Light

Just sayin'.

[Balthagor]

snip

That's nothing more than the ends justifying the means. There are plenty of other factors that go into influence.

[Lightbringer]

@Lea- I wasn't demeaning Russia for selling arms to third world countries. I was simply pointing out that we could not have prevented them from getting them by simply refusing to sell.

@Fool- Exactly. Just because stating a fact may also be self serving, does not alter the status of it being a fact.

@Balthagor- I never claimed that Arms sales were the be-all, end-all of international influence. Khan uses the situation as his main talking point, and as evidence that the U.S. is Evil and Greedy. I stated my opinion as to why such a viewpoint is flawed. If you want it in more general terms... Yes, the United States makes shady deals, bribes governments, sells questionable governments arms, and all the other dirty little tricks needed to promote our position around the globe. Should we isolate ourselves completely and refuse to play the game? Should we commit suicide as a nation because we decided that any action with a 1% chance of going wrong is too immoral to commit? Imagine a chess game where one player simply passes his turn and does not move his pieces. Even if he moves every 2nd turn, how long do you think the game will last? I know you are left leaning Chris, but are you really that nostalgic for the concept of a global Soviet hegemony? (or alternately a blasted nuclear wasteland once we were backed into a corner by a Soviet controlled globe).

The same analogy applies to the middle east, even without the Soviet Bogeyman. We may make a crappy move, pawns may get killed because of carelessness, but if we don't make moves, the game is lost. Simply refusing to play the game is not moral... it is suicidally stupid. I imagine that Khan is not really angry that America is in the game. I would hazard a guess that he resents middle eastern/third world countries being relegated to being pawns. Actually Turkey might be more of a Rook...

-Light

[fool]

Just who are you playing the game with nowadays, anyway?