There's no reason we shouldnt be selling weapons to Israel or any of our other allies.
Yes -- the US government sends money to Israel, where it then is used to by US military items from US companies.
That being the case, there is most certainly a 'profit' as the US companies would not sell the items if there were not.
Sure there is -- the arms manufacturers make money.So after all is said and done there really is no profit margin just a simulacrum of one that the taxpayers support.
I'm sure this means somethng to you...
I told you how I interpeted the word, given the context of its use -- and that interpretation is, undeniably, correct.
You can like it or not - I don't care - but either way, get the burr out of your ash.
What makes you think that 'we' aren't?
And lets be clear here -- when 'we' sell weapons to Israel, unless it is a sale of items already in inventory, the 'we' that sells them is actually the US company that manufactures said weapons. The profit margin is then based on the terms of the procurement contract.
Killing civilinas in raids against military targets is not 'using them against civilians' and it is not 'making war' against civilians.
So, your concern here is unfounded.
That might be your opinion, but it doesnt equate to a 'good' (read: rational, supportable) reason.
We have 'supplied' weapons to all of our allies, and have done so for a very long time. Israel is no different than any one of them, and so for your argument to mean anything, you must also then argue against 'supplying' -all- of our allies.
Sure there is -- the arms manufacturers make money.
Nothing new there -- that how all foerign military aid works (save that which involves items from current inventory).
So, keep the burr in your butt -- but please, wash your hands after you scratch.No, I showed you exactly the definition, supply is to provide. We provide the weaponry. It's you whom decided to be obtuse.
That's relevant.... how?A US company can not sell US military weapons without the approval of the government. No way no how.
So, we should not give or sell weapons to anyone?And I guess it shouldn't matter if we make a profit or not, we're not mercenaries and we're not the world police. People need to deal with their own problems it's not up to the US taxpayer to fund it.
This is no different than bombs meant for German factories hitting German schools or houses. The schools and the civilians in it were not 'targeted', the bimbs were not 'used' on them, and we did not "make war" or "encourage war" on civilians.It's a "raid" in the sense that it's a bombing; air raid maybe. Look at what just happened. Some Hezbola r-tards bomb some crap in Israel and kill 2 or so people. Israel bombs a civilian sector to get at some Hezbola jerks and in the process kills hundreds of people, many of whom are civilian.
See above.Is my concern really unfounded? Israel has a long track record of attacking civilians. They have demonstrated that they have no remorse or hesitation to take out a bunch of civilians to get at a few terrorists.
Its very fortunate that you were not in charge, 1940-1991.Let them all fund their own crap. Let them all build their own crap. Let their people put up the money for the resources, the capabilities, and the production of their military. I'm not here to subsidize this for anyone other than the US military
Its been going on for several generations -- rather disingenuous to complain about it now.Okay fine so the profit margin comes at the expense of the US taxpayer.
So, keep the burr in your butt -- but please, wash your hands after you scratch.
:roll:
That's relevant.... how?
So, we should not give or sell weapons to anyone?
This is no different than bombs meant for German factories hitting German schools or houses. The schools and the civilians in it were not 'targeted', the bimbs were not 'used' on them, and we did not "make war" or "encourage war" on civilians.
See above.
Its very fortunate that you were not in charge, 1940-1991.
Its been going on for several generations -- rather disingenuous to complain about it now.
They were also highly effective in fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo.Cluster bombs have there use in certain scenarios, though not in densely populated areas.
- Dumb Bombs
They were used to great affect in Desert Storm.
Paul.
Except that I wasn't.It's a matter of you being wrong...
Which usually the case -- though, its still irrelevant to the point. The US government giving permission to a company to sell isnt the same thing as the US government selling the items it has in inventory or supplying the funding for the nation in question to buy the items.It was a response to your assertion that US companies sell it
Its not analogous to what Israel does, whereas the bombing of German factories (etc) is. Did you want to address the relevant analogy, or concede the point and then discuss somethng irrelevant to the issue you brought up?You sure about that? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? what was that?
I was thnking more of the lend-lease programs to the UK and our other allies, the post-war MAP that re-armed Europe, the sales and supplies od US military equipment during the cold war to counter the USSR, etc.Yeah, I mean all the black ops we did (Iran/Contra, things of that nature).
Had we done that 1940-1991 we'd be speaking Russian and/or German.We shouldn't stick our noses in other's business. Let other people deal with their own crap, we need to quit spending tax payer money on others and focus on our crap.
Sorry - I thought you might have had a point attached to your pointing out that fact.Pointing out a fact is complaining?
Sorry - I thought you might have had a point attached to your pointing out that fact.
When you manage to do that, let me know.Knocking down your short sighted rhetoric was my point.:mrgreen:
So you are equating Israel and AQ. Guess I'm not surprised. :roll:
Except that I wasn't.
Which usually the case -- though, its still irrelevant to the point. The US government giving permission to a company to sell isnt the same thing as the US government selling the items it has in inventory or supplying the funding for the nation in question to buy the items.
Its not analogous to what Israel does, whereas the bombing of German factories (etc) is. Did you want to address the relevant analogy, or concede the point and then discuss somethng irrelevant to the issue you brought up?
I was thnking more of the lend-lease programs to the UK and our other allies, the post-war MAP that re-armed Europe, the sales and supplies od US military equipment during the cold war to counter the USSR, etc.
You knew that, right?
Now, did you want to argue that it would have been better had we done none of those things. or not?
Had we done that 1940-1991 we'd be speaking Russian and/or German.
Actually the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo worked pretty well. The Allies won, did they not. Punishing the citizens had a lot to do with their acquiescence after the surrenders?...
You sure about that? What about the firebombing of Tokyo? what was that? That was a purposeful assault on the civilian populace. It was meant to inflict the highest number of causality possible. It's nothing to be encouraged.
Actually the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo worked pretty well. The Allies won, did they not. Punishing the citizens had a lot to do with their acquiescence after the surrenders?
You know as well as I do that I am right.Not according to the dictionary. So I wonder who is right?
Which you seem to only have an issue with if the US taxpayer is involved. What you posted doesnt related to that.The point is the movement of US military hardware to others whom are not the US military (or part of the United States).
Your post didnt have anything to do with what I said -- and was therefore irrelevant. Israel's attacks on Hamas, et al, are similar to the US raids on Germany, where civilian deaths were incidental, not deliberate. Your discussion of the firebombing of Tokyo isnt relevant to that as they arent similar to te raids on German indurety, or the Israeli raids on Hamas.You love rhetoric games, I'm replying to what you write and you say it's irrelevant.
You know as well as I do that I am right.
Which you seem to only have an issue with if the US taxpayer is involved. What you posted doesnt related to that.
Israel's attacks on Hamas, et al, are similar to the US raids on Germany, where civilian deaths were incidental, not deliberate.
Your discussion of the firebombing of Tokyo isnt relevant to that as they arent similar to te raids on German indurety, or the Israeli raids on Hamas.
But you know that, which is why you wont address the relevant analogy I made.
Which really says all that needs to be said.
:bootyshake
You still know I'm right.I'm gonna go with the dictionary on this one. You misinterpreted the function of the word; but I had shown exactly what the word means. You're merely continuing your obtuse behavior.
Talk about being obtuse...When it comes to the military, the tax payer is always involved. Who do you think pays for the government contracts that the private sector gets to build military equipment? The tax payer is always involved.
And it is correct.That's your opinion.
Unsupportable.To me it seems well more like the firebombings of Tokyo, but with a lot more malice involved.
No different than the US bombing of Germany.They know damned well the civilians are there, they just have no moral objections with blowing them to hell to get to the terrorists.
Hmm... speaking of obtuseness... let's examine yours:It's as relivant as your likening this to German industry. First off, this ain't no world war against a huge industrial and military power the likes of Nazi Germany.
As the desert said to the grain of sand.Yeah, real mature there. It just goes to show you have nothing in your argument,
Funny -- I thought that countering a relevant point with another relevant point was pretty standard.You merely have preconcieved notions of how you wish to structure an argument.
Blue!Therefore, you can't accept counter arguments (much like you clearly being wrong about the function, form, and definition of a word).
Green!You claim this is likable to taking out the German military complex, but the two are worlds apart. There's no formal military Israel is fighting, there's no factory that they're bombing.
Pink!They're bombing civilian areas, not factories, not production capabilities. They are targeting civilian areas with full knowledge that they are killing many many civilians in the hope that maybe they get a terrorist in that.
Grape popsicles!!As Cardinal said in the other thread, those responsible for the attack are going to be long gone by the time the retaliatory missiles get there. Israel knows this too, so the point is merely to inflict damage. That has well more in common with the firebombing of Tokyo than it does with the bombing of production facilities in Germany.
Grape popsicles!!You merely reiterate the same thing over and over because your argument can not stand the challenge.
Wet kleenex!!You based the whole of it on this analogy, and if the analogy is wrong your argument falls apart. Thus you can't let it be wrong, you have to stubbornly hold on to the argument even in the face of being completely wrong (like you were about the definition of "supply").
Pan pizza!Israel is not hitting military targets, they are bombing civilian areas. That's it. They know exactly what they are doing, they have no moral objections to it. They should do it with their own damned **** and not things they buy from us. We should not be supplying them with anything, not in a war which specifically targets civilians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?