The Arms Trade

Fanaticals under Adolf Hitler decides to invade Guatemala, which lacks proper weapons to defend itself. Guatemala seeks help from big brother in the North but can’t recieve any due to this act… :-?

hey TG Moses VI, do you have 2 names or something? theres also like TM Moses Vii

LOL, Moses’ proposal could happen, that is what I like about it. LOL

@TG:

Fanaticals under Adolf Hitler decides to invade Guatemala, which lacks proper weapons to defend itself. Guatemala seeks help from big brother in the North but can’t recieve any due to this act… :-?

Nato/UN intervenes a la Kuwait . . . .

@StrongBad1988:

hey TG Moses VI, do you have 2 names or something? theres also like TM Moses Vii

TM Moses VIII is TG Moses VI’s little sister. He’s very emotional when it comes to her and very protective. ;)

hey TG Moses VI, do you have 2 names or something? theres also like TM Moses Vii

Nah, that’s just baby sis…

First of all, if Hitler was going to invade Guatamalea, U.S. troops or the promise that we would fight him would do tens times as much as 1,000 machine guns or a dozen F-16s.

Yet how come there is civil strife across the world?

Second, Guatamalea would use any weapons we gave them on their own people. If they are going to cut down protestors, at least not let it be M-60s or M-16s.

How are you sure of this???

Nato/UN intervenes a la Kuwait . . . .

What about other conflicts around the world - in particular Africa?

Maybe all those weapons we sell to the third world has something to so with it…

Ummm… I don’t see many insurgents equiping them as much with American weapons as I see foreign ones…

If a government or a paramilitary force is going to massacre civilians, why does it have to be our weapons?

Whoever said anything about this?

THird world countries take out huge loans and spend large percentages of their budgets on weapons. THeir economies become retarded, and their governments go bankrupt.

Hence, “in case of an emergency…” :-?

@yourbuttocks:

THird world countries take out huge loans and spend large percentages of their budgets on weapons. THeir economies become retarded, and their governments go bankrupt.

And that’s why we (the first world) sell those weapons:
our banks make a profit,
their industry never will rise to become competition to ours,
they rulers are cheaper to buy,
they have to buy everything, even those things they could easily produce themselves in peacetimes.

Of course, at soem time the whole building will collapse…. but we have nothing to fear as long as we keep the people poor and uneducated enough that they can’t afford to come over to us…
Except for charismatic/ruthless demagogues like SH, or religious fundamentalists, who will find it easy to find followers in such an environment.

I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to say… :-?

If China was secretly sponsoring a group of rebels in Mongolia, then what would be our option?

@yourbuttocks:

The only way we can stop that kind of aggression is by getting into the middle of it. We sold S. Korea a bunch of guns, and if N. Korea wants to invade S. Korea, and we weren’t there, S. Korea would be screwed. With us there, even if S. Korea had no army, they would not invade.

But if the nation has the capability to defend themselves just not the means, ie has men but no weapons. Should the US’s only solution be to throw US soldiers into the middle?

And how would we deal with other nations that would capitalize on the US being out of the arms bussiness? That’s 7.8 billion out of the US economy and into someone elses.

As for your resolution I think the penalties should be tougher against the individual. I would increase the max jail time to 5 years, its’s easier to get off with probation on a 6 month sentence.
Also I weary of the corporate penalty. In a billion dollar company getting a 100 million dollar fine could lead to a couple factories shutting down. Thus leaving thousands unemployed while the execs suffer only a stock drop. I’m not certain how best to state it but should be rethinked.

The U.S. using it’s dominance to countermand aggression in this modern world of ours is what we intellectuals like to call a global unipolar creating regional balances of power via it’s unique ability to project power.

America can’t afford to be everywhere at once, just stationing US troops somewhere excites hate a lot of times… :-?

No we disagree over a hypothetical situation. You believe giving a third world nation about to be overrun 1,000 machine guns or a platoon of M1s helpful.

If China was going to invade Mogolia, what good would selling Mongolia some F-16s do?

Notice how I said domestic and foreign insurgents… :-?
What about the equopment US provided for Finland when they were attacked by Russians? It sure helped a lot…

Did selling weapons to S. Vietnam help?

Did stationing more troops in Vietnam to stablize the region help? (in response to your support of a US build-up in S. Korea :-?)

I did not advocate getting in the middle of civil wars, I advocated using our ability to destroy any country to scare off aggressors.

Then you would disagree with what Clinton did during the Kosovo Civil War. And what does using your ability to “destroy” other countries result in? Destabilization? Innocent Civilian Deaths? Widespread Famine? Economic Disaster? :-?

If their is a civil war, economic aid will do much more to help the government win than assault rifles

Once again you have misunderstood me… :-? I never said that economic aid was bad. In fact, I prefer economic aid in addition to military aid.

To reiterate my points, arms sales to third world nations decreases and retards development, and lines the pockets of corporate fatcats without adding to our economy.

Your Bill never specifies if the arms have to be sold at “market price.” What if I were to sell 1000 M16s for the price of $1.00 (very similar to what Americans did to help UK out before entering WWII)? :-?