Barack Obama is going to spend almost $700 million dollars of taxpayer money to buy Russian helicopt

I don't get it, isn't that kind of like blaming Smith and Wesson for every robbery that has ever taken place with one of their guns? So they sold weapons to the Syrian government, they can't control what they do with them. Apparently the right-wing has no problem with this type of logic when there is no perceived threat to their second amendment, or when it is one of those "bad commie reds" way over there.

 

I am becoming impatient with your apparent lack of understanding, so I will not wait for your response before continuing.

The question I ask may appear to be supporting my argument, but it may actually be supporting yours.

Here's why:

If the companies actions were illegal, and the U.S. banned trade with the company based on the illegality of their acts, for the Defense Department to choose to exempt a specific purchase from the ban, the merits of that exclusion must be given to me before I can make a judgement of my own as to whether or not I'd support that exclusion.

So, to reiterate once more: Were the companies actions illegal?

 

It depends on just who is making the ruling. According to the UN agreement, yes. According to US courts, yes. According to Syrian courts (if there is such a thing), no. According to Russian courts, it depends on how much goes to whom.

 

Thank you, I'll assume you are correct and move on to the next point.

Since the company has committed an illegal arms deal (if you will), I'll assume that was the reason why it was specifically named within the DD's 2013 budget report. I'm assuming it was specifically named, but was it?

Moving on from that minor point, we can address the legality of the U.S. excluding a specific trade with the company. From what I understand, this was a legal trade between us and the company, unless I'm mistaken in that assumption?

I don't believe I am, or at least don't believe you will say it was an illegal act on our part, so I will move on. I may need to readdress these points later on, should we not achieve consensus, but for now...

Working under the assumption that what I conclude above is true, what is your specific argument? Please understand that I will not debate human rights abuses, for the reasons stated earlier.

 

Sorry, but I cannot wurk "under the assumption that what I conclude above is true". False assumptions can often lead to false conclusions.

If you do not like the legal problem dicussion with this deal, try this one. BO's number one objective is to help the economy. He has repeatedly stated that. Please explain how giving Afghanistan Russian made helicopters (which in the future will require Russian made parts to maintain them) could possibly help the American economy. Even if they are cheaper, borrowing money to pay Russia can only deduct from out productivity. At least borrowing more to hire Americans would be a positive.

 

I was working under those assumptions until you had the chance to address them, in order to move to related points. Each individual assumption will need to be vetted by you in order to proceed. As these assumptions are not difficult concepts, and were worded in a way to provide you with the means to answer them, it should be no issue for you to answer them and move the debate forward.

Your second point is valid, and I agree with you on it. I haven't addressed it until now, since it was not appropriate for me to do so until now, but yes, that is something we can and do agree on.

Please address the contended questions in question, so the debate can proceed, and a modicum of consensus can be achieved.

 

BTW (from my OP had you read it);
A bipartisan Congressional group wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week in which they objected to the ongoing business relationship between the Russian arms company and the Pentagon.
“What is the national security justification of continuing business with Rosoboronexport?” they asked in the letter.
“Russia continues to transfer weapons through Rosoboronexport to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria,” they continued. “Since the Syrian uprising began, Russia has continued to serve as the Assad regime’s chief supplier of weapons, enabling the mass murder of Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government.”

I guess you are saying that you do not believe the Democratic Senators?

 

Your argument is invalid. The quotes you provided do not meet the necessary criteria for answering my questions. Furthermore, your statement that I had not read your OP is a claim that you can read my mind, yet, if that were true, you would be drooling right now.

The tissue box is to your left.

The two questions I still have are minor, but lead to many others that may not be so minor.

The first is: Is the company specifically named in the 2013 Report. I'm assuming it is, but that is not vetted at this point to my satisfaction. If you wish, we can assume it does, but to do so is improper to the spirit of this debate.

The second is the legality of the DD's choice to use the exclusion and trade with the company. Again, I'm assuming that it is indeed legal. If you have other information as to the legality of the exclusion, post it, and I will consider it.

I do not automatically believe anyone. Playing poker with god does that. That bastard still owes me $20.

 

So you don't like it. Therefore it is not so. Great logic. You could collect that bet if it were just so. Good luck trying.

 

View attachment 1696

 

View attachment 1697