Lotta_Drool wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
So wouldn't that make it our responsibility to get them back? Riiiight.
I get it - against all honorable principles sell weapons to dictators (preferably ones with oil) so that at a later date you can 'invade to spread freedom and democracy' (using serious heavy weaponry to do it). Now I realise why you've been selling so much materiel to Saudi Arabia!
Cameron is just jealous because nobody will buy potatoe guns from Ireland.
Get real Cameron, everyone sells everyone weapons. If the US stopped selling weapons do you really think it would stop wars in this world. You look back 30 years all cocky like you are brilliant because you know now what should have been done in hind sight and you think it makes you look smart when you just look like every other dim wit that chimes in after something happens and says " ummm, you shouldn't have done that. ". Well get over it because you know nothing. Nobody knew how the cold war would end, what allies they would need, oil reserves in countries were expected to run out decades ago, or which dictators would turn on the guys holding the leash.
You're so full of shit it is hard for me to stomach your stupid posts anymore that are about the same shit that was proven incorrect the week before but you still have to post your old worn out dishonest liberal tag lines like a robot week after week without ever having an original thought of your own.
At least Micheal Moore came up with his own lies to push as fact.
Whoa man... Look, I agree that hindsight is 20/20, but Cameron makes some good points.
It is true that participating in the arms trade is something that every major country does. Even Canada and Norway make a considerable amount of money from it. The problem with America's level of participation is that we repeatedly make the same mistake of assuming that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. The jihadists have thoroughly proven that assumption wrong, because we armed them against the Soviets and they have become some of the most annoying enemies we've had.
Sure, they may not have as much power as actual governments, but they have 2 things to their advantage: 1) the ability to function like a hydra in that someone is always there to replace a fallen leader, and 2) the fact that they have nothing to lose.
Once the Cold War ended, our enemies became mostly small groups of crazy people, many of whom embrace suicide bombing. We're so used to arming groups to fight our enemies for us that we seem to have forgotten that this is how these crazy people got their weapons in the first place.
It seems like the only logical route to go from here is to spend more time negotiating with allies and potential allies in getting them to help us wipe out extremists. We've done a decent amount of that over the last few years, but I'm still very leery of working with militias (like the Mahdi Army).
