Russians & French top arms dealers in world. UN still wants yours.

Status
Not open for further replies.
IIRC, prior to the war Iraq had several weapon systems (missiles, helos, anti-air) that It had bought from Russia, France, (and a few others that I can't recall right now).

Europe likes to complain a lot about our support for the Israelis, but there have been plenty of European and Russian weapons sold to far more extreme and aggressive countries.
 
Hmmmm...

What are the French and Russians up to? They're arming the whole rest of the world, yet they want to disarm us. Something smells fishy here, and it ain't the falafel.

Woody

"Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom: Magic elixirs of life brought to you courtesy of the Constitution for the United States of America. Terrorism, Poverty, and Subjugation: World dominating poisons of life; brought to you courtesy of the United Nations". B.E.Wood
 
But we are still number 3 on the list. We should not be arming any country or group. Because one day those weapons might be used against us.
 
No Problemo!

But we are still number 3 on the list. We should not be arming any country or group. Because one day those weapons might be used against us.

No problem - as long as we still have weapons to shoot back with!

Woody

There is nothing worth more than freedom you win and maintain for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
 
It's an addictive habit that is a holdover from the proxy wars of the Cold War. You give weapons, $$, and equipment to extremist groups because they will make trouble for your enemy and his allies. The lesson that we are slow to learn is; thirty years later your enemy is gone and that extremist group is still mad, still has the guns and $$, and is now causing trouble for you and your allies.

Arming third world nations and radical groups was standard operating procedure for all of the Nato and ComBlock countries, but it goes back farther than that. At the end of the 19th century, several European countries were trying to gain/keep control of Central and South America. The US was trying to keep Europe out of the Americas. Lots of guns and ammo went to all manner of groups.

Leaders allways love to have some other country fight their battles for them. Unfortunately, political winds change rather fast and your friends become your enemies; however, the weapons and power that you gave them can last for a long time.
 
No problem - as long as we still have weapons to shoot back with!

So you rather have our soliders being on the receiving end of weapons that our Government gave the enemy when they where our ally at some time in the past.
 
cbsbyte

So you rather have our soliders being on the receiving end of weapons that our Government gave the enemy when they where our ally at some time in the past.

Rather than what, exactly?

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
 
Last edited:
As someone else has explained it was and still is standard policy of some Nations to arm the enemy of thier enemy even if at some point they could turn against you. In fact that is why we currently have the organized Afghanistan based muslim terrorists. Through Pakistani Intelligence our CIA backed sponsored and helped develop guerilla training (terrorist) camps to beat the soviet union through attrition. It created a high morale enemy that won't give up, will fight, and will even live in dirt homes with dirt floors while being millionaires so they can make thier money go further by not wasting it on things like comfort. These camps in turn trained thousands from all over the world that would return home and benefit from knowing how to defeat 'super powers' through attrition and low morale.

It still goes on to this day. You think Chechen rebels were not designed to keep Russia from becoming a powerful force anytime soon? America has put thier hands in the affairs of almost all of Latin America to keep governments in power that are either pro US policy, or to counter other ideology like communism. When it would be too negative to be seen as doing it directly we have well documented history of asking Isreal to do it on our behalf so we were not liable, while paying Isreal for something else on the surface to cover the expenses. Many such things can be refrenced as they have come to light since the freedom of information act has been enforced.

Truth be told while much of this on the surface is wrong it is what keeps some nations in charge, and others too divided and weak to have a big say in world affairs. I would much rather have Corrupt democracies in charge of the world than many of the alternatives. Sometimes the lesser of the evils must be chosen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top