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

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130405/180451358.html

 

Well, of course. There's always an "except" clause in every bit of government policy. It acts as the moon sized loophole they always seem to think we don't notice.

 

You are probably right that that is their loophole. However, it is a bigger stretch than you make it sound. These helicopters are for the "Afghan security forces". I read that our national security. I wonder if Obama considers Afghan security our security.

 

I think it's nice that Russian helicopters will be in Afghanistan again. Kind of a symbolic reference to one imperial invader by its successor.

 

I don't know. I'm envisioning another backfire in our face like what happened when we supplied Iraq with weapons of war in their war with Iran. And Columbia and Somalia and Pakistan...

 

The bill also prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo "detainees" to the U.S.

Of course

 

There's also an amendment that lifts the ban on disseminating information (propaganda) in America.

I'm not sure what that means, I thought we were neck deep in bs already lol

 

Here's a link to the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text

 

Honestly, I don't see the issue. What did the Russian company do that any other Russian company wouldn't, or doesn't, do?

Mind you, human-rights abuses by Russia is not an acceptable reason. Why? Human-rights abuses by America. That may be contentious, but the point about trading with Russia isn't. We trade all the time, why not this?

So, is there something specific that the company did?

 

From the OP;

 

So do we give the Afghans the equipment best suited to their needs under the assumption that what's good for them is good for us in the Afghan theater? Or does the fact that supplying them with said equipment could benefit those against whom we are beginning a proxy war in Syria outweigh and advantages that would accrue from such a deal? And then to complicate things even more there are some human rights issues about which we must pretend that we care. The joys of empire.

 

And again, human rights abuses are not a valid argument, since American companies are just as guilty. If you are claiming the Russian company committed a crime due to it's actions, you must also charge American companies for theirs.

 

Great logic. One wrong justifies the other. WOW!
So name one company who is supplying the Syrian government.

 

You may be right, but for the wrong reason, or more specifically: the wrong country.

The occupation of Afghanistan is already a done deal, with the backfire from it already a reality. What I'm concerned about today is what may happen with places like Syria.

Mexico though is another country that has potential disaster written all over it, should the Drug War there have created a state of anarchy too great to mitigate. Rhyme somewhat intended. But I believe that fits more into your point than mine, as that too is already a done deal, where, with Syria, we have not been active enough to warrant it's inclusion, IMO.

Should we become more involved in Syria, as recent events appear to be foreshadowing, it too can be added to your list. Europe has become more involved, with arms now being legal to bring there. Obama's administration is getting tired of the conflict, and wants the rebels to win.

The question is: Which rebels? That old geezer that traveled there recently will point to the people he met and say "Them!", but there are serious questions that have to be answered about just who "they" are before we should agree to support any decision to arm them.

The reports about the use of chemical weapons should frighten any sane person, but again, not for the usual reason.

"Who used them?" is a question that Obama MUST answer correctly, if he is to have my support for any serious actions in Syria. Pun not intended. It is NOT enough for him to claim that the government, and only the government, used chemical weapons when there is evidence that contradicts that claim.

IMO

 

Wrong request.

Our companies produce weapons. Those weapons are sold to whoever the company is allowed to sell them to. The list of countries that have received those weapons is likely to be all of them, with a few minor exceptions. Those weapons are in the hands of people, and people use them to kill other people. Not all of those people have justification to kill others, as in human rights violations.

So, to reiterate: Human rights violations are not a valid argument.

 

Now that I've answered your unspoken question, I will ask one of my own, one which I believe has the makings of a more valid argument, and that is: Was the company's act illegal?

 

While you say it sarcastically, I choose to agree with you anyway, based on the merits of my argument versus the merits of your own.

However, I also choose to point out to you that by dismissing my argument so easily, without a rational explanation as to why ("One wrong justifies the other. WOW!" is an incorrect interpretation of my argument. As such, it is irrational and does not merit a response), I must conclude that at this point in this "debate" you are unwilling to have a reasonable conversation based on the merits of my argument.

Some other reason, beyond a lack of knowledge itself, may be responsible for the difficulty you are having forming a rational counter-argument. It is quite possible that, when one is prone to a vindictiveness born from past arguments, one cannot find a means to separate themselves from their hatred for that person. I believe this to be true in your case, as the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of that conclusion.

You are free to call me mistaken, but without a rational argument to back up the claim, it will be ignored and will not be suitable for inclusion in this debate.

You, have been served.

 

So you are telling me that selling guns to Korea is just as wrong as selling missiles to Syria? That is some interesting logic!

 

I asked you a question that I believe is worth addressing, not ignoring.

Were (sic) the company's acts illegal?

It's a question that must be answered at some point, why not now?

 

What's a helicopt?