Arms

[KUTradition]

or weapons of death

or deterrents to protect freedom and sovereignty

the US is the largest “dealer” of arms globally ($237 billion worth) with an estimated 100+ nations/states being the recipients

the saudis are the biggest purchasers individually, and the mid-east is regionally…some 46.7%

europe/eurasia, including NATO countries, only account for 15.7% of those sales

asia pacific “states” are second at 26.9% of sales

https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/unit ... s-exports/

here ya go, ousie…discuss

[Qusdahl]

Let’s discuss!

My first thought was, how does the arms numbers compare to Merican humanitarian aid to the rest of the world numbers?

https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/ref ... ssistance/

[japhy]

or weapons of death

or deterrents to protect freedom and sovereignty

the US is the largest “dealer” of arms globally ($237 billion worth) with an estimated 100+ nations/states being the recipients

the saudis are the biggest purchasers individually, and the mid-east is regionally…some 46.7%

europe/eurasia, including NATO countries, only account for 15.7% of those sales

asia pacific “states” are second at 26.9% of sales

https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/unit ... s-exports/

here ya go, ousie…discuss

MBS seems like a real family values guy. According to Graeme Wood at The Atlantic, he eats breakfast every day with his kids. Seems like the kinda family guy most Mericans would enjoy sittin down and drinkin a beer with.

[KUTradition]

Let’s discuss!

My first thought was, how does the arms numbers compare to Merican humanitarian aid to the rest of the world numbers?

https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/ref ... ssistance/

i think there is an often flawed argument that arms dissemination is intended to prevent humanitarian crises

no matter how many daisies we want to put into gun barrels, there are assholes that will seek to do harm to others. aside from eye-for-an-eye escalation when all other means are exhausted, i’m not sure what the correct action is

if the numbers i’m reading are correct (or at least close), then the US is the source for only 37% of the arms trafficked globally. that leaves a whole lot of other countries on the hook for arming assholes (or good people trying to protect themselves)

it seems to me that, all things considered, most countries that sell military goods globally have made the right choices as to who to sell their weapons to. otherwise it seems we’d be seeing a whole lot more of the actions we’re now seeing in eastern europe

the kicker though, is that things change. regimes change, resources change, priorities change. our “friends” today who we’ve sold arms to in order to prevent a cultural genocide may become radicalized 10 or 15 years down the road
and end up using those same weapons to be the aggressors rather than the protectors

should we stop selling arms to everyone? to anyone in particular?

do you think another country would fill the void left if we stopped? would that country share our values and decisions about the right and wrong people to sell arms to?

russia is second behind the US in global arms sales. would you be comfortable with putin making the decisions about who gets arms and who doesn’t, instead of the US?

[KUTradition]

or weapons of death

or deterrents to protect freedom and sovereignty

the US is the largest “dealer” of arms globally ($237 billion worth) with an estimated 100+ nations/states being the recipients

the saudis are the biggest purchasers individually, and the mid-east is regionally…some 46.7%

europe/eurasia, including NATO countries, only account for 15.7% of those sales

asia pacific “states” are second at 26.9% of sales

https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/unit ... s-exports/

here ya go, ousie…discuss

MBS seems like a real family values guy. According to Graeme Wood at The Atlantic, he eats breakfast every day with his kids. Seems like the kinda family guy most Mericans would enjoy sittin down and drinkin a beer with.

i’m sure he values his family…every one of his wives equally too

edit: that’s an interesting read, and highlights something i referenced in my response to ousie…what happens if/when the US stops dealing with “people” that may have questionable records? for the saudis, it seems like the answer is china

keep your friends close, but your enemies closer

[Qusdahl]

Let’s discuss!

My first thought was, how does the arms numbers compare to Merican humanitarian aid to the rest of the world numbers?

https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/ref ... ssistance/

i think there is an often flawed argument that arms dissemination is intended to prevent humanitarian crises

no matter how many daisies we want to put into gun barrels, there are assholes that will seek to do harm to others. aside from eye-for-an-eye escalation when all other means are exhausted, i’m not sure what the correct action is

if the numbers i’m reading are correct (or at least close), then the US is the source for only 37% of the arms trafficked globally. that leaves a whole lot of other countries on the hook for arming assholes (or good people trying to protect themselves)

it seems to me that, all things considered, most countries that sell military goods globally have made the right choices as to who to sell their weapons to. otherwise it seems we’d be seeing a whole lot more of the actions we’re now seeing in eastern europe

the kicker though, is that things change. regimes change, resources change, priorities change. our “friends” today who we’ve sold arms to in order to prevent a cultural genocide may become radicalized 10 or 15 years down the road
and end up using those same weapons to be the aggressors rather than the protectors

should we stop selling arms to everyone? to anyone in particular?

do you think another country would fill the void left if we stopped? would that country share our values and decisions about the right and wrong people to sell arms to?

russia is second behind the US in global arms sales. would you be comfortable with putin making the decisions about who gets arms and who doesn’t, instead of the US?

These are all valid concerns, with no easy answers.

But generally, we gotta figure out how to make things more humanitarian and less militant.

Not to be too dramatic, but the fate of the entire world is sort of depending on it.

[KUTradition]

Let’s discuss!

My first thought was, how does the arms numbers compare to Merican humanitarian aid to the rest of the world numbers?

https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/ref ... ssistance/

i think there is an often flawed argument that arms dissemination is intended to prevent humanitarian crises

no matter how many daisies we want to put into gun barrels, there are assholes that will seek to do harm to others. aside from eye-for-an-eye escalation when all other means are exhausted, i’m not sure what the correct action is

if the numbers i’m reading are correct (or at least close), then the US is the source for only 37% of the arms trafficked globally. that leaves a whole lot of other countries on the hook for arming assholes (or good people trying to protect themselves)

it seems to me that, all things considered, most countries that sell military goods globally have made the right choices as to who to sell their weapons to. otherwise it seems we’d be seeing a whole lot more of the actions we’re now seeing in eastern europe

the kicker though, is that things change. regimes change, resources change, priorities change. our “friends” today who we’ve sold arms to in order to prevent a cultural genocide may become radicalized 10 or 15 years down the road
and end up using those same weapons to be the aggressors rather than the protectors

should we stop selling arms to everyone? to anyone in particular?

do you think another country would fill the void left if we stopped? would that country share our values and decisions about the right and wrong people to sell arms to?

russia is second behind the US in global arms sales. would you be comfortable with putin making the decisions about who gets arms and who doesn’t, instead of the US?

These are all valid concerns, with no easy answers.

But generally, we gotta figure out how to make things more humanitarian and less militant.

Not to be too dramatic, but the fate of the entire world is sort of depending on it.

i agree

organizations like the UN and NATO have largely been successful in doing so

but there’s always gonna be putins, and the world has to have the ability and means to deal with them when they rear their ugly heads

[japhy]

or weapons of death

or deterrents to protect freedom and sovereignty

the US is the largest “dealer” of arms globally ($237 billion worth) with an estimated 100+ nations/states being the recipients

the saudis are the biggest purchasers individually, and the mid-east is regionally…some 46.7%

europe/eurasia, including NATO countries, only account for 15.7% of those sales

asia pacific “states” are second at 26.9% of sales

https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/unit ... s-exports/

here ya go, ousie…discuss

MBS seems like a real family values guy. According to Graeme Wood at The Atlantic, he eats breakfast every day with his kids. Seems like the kinda family guy most Mericans would enjoy sittin down and drinkin a beer with.

i’m sure he values his family…every one of his wives equally too

edit: that’s an interesting read, and highlights something i referenced in my response to ousie…what happens if/when the US stops dealing with “people” that may have questionable records? for the saudis, it seems like the answer is china

keep your friends close, but your enemies closer

If you wanted to make the case that THIS is all about oil. It would be easy to argue that the relationship with the Saudis was all about oil.

And speaking of family values, killing your uncles and cousins is what family is all about.

https://observer.com/2019/01/how-saudi- ... -to-power/

[KUTradition]

from the Atlantic piece:

It’s sometimes a decision between bad and worse.

unfortunately, this is a truth when maintaining global relationships

[Qusdahl]

I wonder how much of Putins (and generally other toxic grifters) of the world would be mitigated by some more politically and economically egalitarian approaches, or whatever.

[KUTradition]

such as?

edit: you’ve gotta keep in mind that in many cases we’re forced to deal with religion-based scenarios where a lack of equality is built into the system

[Qusdahl]

Yeah, exactly, such as overcoming inherently unequal systems.

it’s a big broad general idea

[KUTradition]

Yeah, exactly, such as overcoming inherently unequal systems.

it’s a big broad general idea

which is kinda why i posted the quote that i did

if we don’t cooperate with some of these parties, they’ll just go do business with the russians or chinese, who will hold them even less accountable than we will

[Qusdahl]

It’s oversimplified and maybe not even applicable, but I may once again try to analogy of 2 kids roughhousing in the yard:

Does a responsible parent resolve the roughhousing by running out there and giving one or both kids weapons?

Much of it is reprogramming our good-or-bad, gotta-pick-a-side sort of dualistic thinking

In Merica, at least, I wonder how much of that could be accomplished by overhauling the “two-party system”

[KUTradition]

as soon as you convince the assholes of the world to give up all their weapons, let me know

i mean, we can’t even convince a large proportions of ‘muricans to submit to reasonable gun legislation, much less total disarming

i think your ideas come from a good place, but they are rather pie-in-the-sky and not rooted in reality

[Qusdahl]

Yea.

Like I’ve said, lefties are a bunch of theoretical dreamers.

But at least give credit for actually trying to have a better vision for us all, rather than just fussing about mah rights and mah heritage and all these other self-centered and short-sighted grievances that usually amount to arguing for preservation of those unequal systems, even if they’re cutting off their nose to spite their face.

At this point, I think the salvation of the world is more likely to come from someone generally looking forward than looking back; from someone trying to imagine an existence beyond the constructs of class and race and religion, rather than doubling down on those constructs.

[KUTradition]

i’m increasingly of the opinion that humanity is moving beyond salvation

[japhy]

Yea.

Like I’ve said, lefties are a bunch of theoretical dreamers.

But at least give credit for actually trying to have a better vision for us all, rather than just fussing about mah rights and mah heritage and all these other self-centered and short-sighted grievances that usually amount to arguing for preservation of those unequal systems, even if they’re cutting off their nose to spite their face.

At this point, I think the salvation of the world is more likely to come from someone generally looking forward than looking back; from someone trying to imagine an existence beyond the constructs of class and race and religion, rather than doubling down on those constructs.

I think the Russians tried that in 1917 and the Chinese in 1949. Theory is great, but then millions of people get involved. In any population there is always a subset of thousands of assholes.

You should start the revolution small. Get together all of the like minded prols in the Frasier valley and convinced them to work together to build affordable housing for themselves and self regulate the administration of the housing complex. You could call it something like a Home Owners Association and all agree to work for the greater good and see how it goes.

[Deleted User 863]

Humans are not nice animals. We kill each other. We have since the beginning of time. Long before guns were invented.

[TDub]

so do all other animals...even those cute little ducklings. ever seen what ducks do to each other....and to chickens? Drakes can be vicious little fuckers.