Do you think selling arms to the people, like the Saudis, which is the home to terrorist, extremist radicals, and of those on the aircrafts that hit the Trades, is a step toward "Peace", or just an oxyMORON?
TRhose who violate guidelines will be reported as I don't want to hear garbage! This is a legitimate question! If you don't have an opinion please do not answer it!
2007-07-31 08:58:33 · 11 answers · asked by cantcu 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well Warren, as the news regarding the sales had just broken, it would seem to me pretty hard for it to be asked as often as you state. Thanks for your opinion thogh!
2007-08-02 20:18:20 · update #1
Lewis, that seems to be the issue in a lot of places as we are the #1 arms dealer in the world. In fact the Pentagon was caught the 2nd time for selling parts to F-14 Tomcats. A major buyer was Iran, which happens to be the ONLY country using F-14's. The biggest issue seems to be that or weapons are often the ones killing our own troops!
2007-08-02 20:26:12 · update #2
Dekardkain, you miss the point, we are selling them to countries that harbor Terrorist and where the people came from who knocked down the trades!
Your theory on the "Cold war" is an interesting one as the fact is the Soviets ran out of money and Communism! We directly sold Saddam little. Actually we outspent the Russians! We became the brokers For them! So you figure that people are going to kill each other, it should be our weapons that do it! A sound business answer!
2007-08-02 20:35:05 · update #3
Jimsock! Peace thru strength works? Hmm, I think people who were in WW II and WW1 may disagree with you! It doesn't seem so be working so well for us, when we can't even get the troops weapons, but we can sell them to other countries.
2007-08-02 20:40:21 · update #4
Strike Eagle. I guess that is one way (the Patriot System) to get rid of duds! Because we have been selling to Saudis for years begs the question. The 9/11 attackers were Saudi's!!!!
2007-08-02 21:42:29 · update #5
Geoff, you were so busy trying to just put label me being a Democrat ( actually I am a Independent pragmatist) and thus it could not be a real question that you forgot to answer the question! I really don't care whether it is Bush, after 9/11 or the next president! Should we be selling weapons to nations where the extremist were from that hit the trades. Saddam had nothing to do with the trades, yet we attacked him. But it is ok to sell to a country where the terrorist were from! And as part of someones diatribe, the extremist faction is well established in the Saidi government! That is no secret!
2007-08-02 21:52:50 · update #6
Peace and Weapons in the same sentence, hmmmmm. no.
2007-07-31 09:03:29 · answer #1 · answered by rudie_can't_fail 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
the terrorist in SA are not getting their weapons from the SA military they just go over to iran. its kind of like a beer run for us. so it is not relavent.
not sure your example even qualifies as an oxymoron.
you sound like a true dem. give me the answer i want to hear or i will report you. i dont want o hear opposing views. it was nice of you to to verify the question as legitamate.
Here is my problem with your question being legitamate.
ONLY bush can put peace by selling weapons. That makes it a statement not a question. so i would have to say it ring more true of propaganda. It could have been a very good question, but you had to open with a statement. It would be diffrent if you opened with I dont agree with bush on this but tell me what you think (insert question)
you see your statement is inflamitory to people who dont believe they way you do and then you tell them not to be inflamitory. Double standard i would say
so report me or whatever, but you need to open up to diffrent views if you want to ask questions otherwise you can save time and ask yourself and answer you will alway get the answer you want that way
2007-07-31 09:15:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bilateral armament is one of the best ways to keep the peace. Why didn't the Cold War ever become a Hot War? Because both sides had a TON of weapons, and would have wiped each other out. It's when one side is strong, and views the other as weak, that wars start.
It's pretty naive to expect us not to do it anyways. Do you really believe that if we weren't providing them with the weapons, that the Russians or the Chinese wouldn't? Despite the fact that everyone blames us for 'arming Saddam', MOST of his tanks were Soviet, and MOST of the rifles they had were AK-47's.
2007-07-31 09:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Saudi Arabia is going after the radicals within their borders. Granted that Saudi Arabia is one of the more conservative countries in the Middle East, but they have proven themselves as an ally at different times. I do not think that selling them weapons is a great threat.
2007-07-31 09:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The main people they are killing is each other. Now if you wanted peace in the gulf and the oil. Wouldn't you give these people weapons and ammo and then let them kill each other?
think how many American lives are being saved by them killing each other?
So he gives them weapons and training and turns them lose.
If the US military would just get out of the way it should work perfect.
2007-07-31 09:03:08 · answer #5 · answered by Steven 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Joe Kennedy Sr. grew to become into an ardant Nazi Supporter and financed his empire with smuggled whiskey..do you compromise? It potential no longer something approximately their infants you dim bulb. You voted for Clinton and Obama who had alcoholic absentee fathers who died youthful after lives of waste. previous guy
2016-11-10 20:17:07 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The legitimate answer is for people to stop asking the same question 10 times a day.
Next question.
2007-07-31 09:01:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Peace through strength works.
2007-07-31 09:08:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is great news, now we can have a greater conflagration!
President Bush sure knows how to fuel a good war.
2007-07-31 09:02:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Im against it.
2007-07-31 09:04:43 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋