Patton no where did I imply that we should refrain from weapons sales. What I said was we ARE politically responsible for how our weapons are used. Just as Russia was responsible for arming nations we are equally responsible in similar circumstances.

Can you cite how this "standard" you apply to arms sales applies anywhere else in the world of politics?

It's entirely likely that since Israel has a capable military that we are responcible for actions they take with it. Our purpose in the sales of arms was to DEFEND Israel. When Israel takes first-strike actions like this, it is imperative we review what we give them. Defense is one thing... but what Israel did was purely offensive.

Also, the weapons WE GAVE Suddam Hussein (to fight Iran) allowed him to kill his own citizens and strike Kuwait.

These are just the few examples that came to mind.

Sadly votes matters more...

I think this is a little naive.

Again, we stop selling, then others step in and get the sale...we lose billions, while competitors make more and are able to invest more in R&D.

What's to stop a third party to buy for Israel for a profit...they still get what they want.

We still don't know all the facts, but you assume this was offensive when it could have been defensive...seems you wish for a mushroom cloud before Israel takes any action.

Trying to be the nice decent guy in matters of survival and warfare can get you killed...and gives an enemy who may not be so nice and decent first strike capabilities and an upper hand.

If it wasn't our weapons causing the problem in Iran, Iraq and potentially China...it would be someone elses. Rest assured, the demand for weapons will be met...we can take advantage of a reality we cannot control, or lose hundreds of billions while playing nice, losing out on advantages of our sales I delineated earlier (actual combat field testing under authentic battle conditions versus competitors hardware allowing accurate battle damage assessements)

We are not responsible for HOW our weapons are used...the ones using them are.

To think anything we may sell or give to other nations will never be used in acts of aggression, acts of revenge, acts of condemnation, or acts that inflict disparity, racism, class warfare and suffering is "Ivory Tower" philosophy.

Sending hundreds of tons of food to a starving nation as we did in the 80's-90's ala "Feed the World"...just to have the ruling junta horde it, and let it rot on docks and in warehouses, while keeping the people from it...the people knowing it was there...parents watching their children die knowing food was in the warehouse just rotting...but being shot dead if they approached to get some...this is torture of the worst kind.

We sent food and it was used as psychological torture by the ruling class.

Are WE responsible for how the junta used/misused the food?

An argument can be made that our arms sales, while capturing a net profit, never satisfy anyone and only serve to create MORE tension. Take for instance our arming of Taiwan, an action that will undoubtedly tick off China. We also arm Pakistan, a provocative action that attracts the attention of India... among others. Plus, there is always Israel...

I'm only saying there are political repercussions for our sales of weapons' technology and it is likely that they could eventually become violent repercussions.


I don't subscribe to that philosophy.

I'm saying we give certain countries the means to create conflict... and in some case encourage it, like with our support of Hussein against Iran.


Weapons give a nation the means to fight wars and commit acts of violence. The same cannot be said about food, so I don't think that analogy is appropriate.


Congress has oversight. I hold them partially responcible.