From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:57:01 GMT

In article <1b48keINNp04@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> Good.   When you are setting out to be sarcastic, it's quite a good idea
> to have your facts right, so as to avoid the catcalls of the onlookers.

Yes, it would indeed have been a completely different situation if it had been
a torpedo. It's amazing how so many arguments fall down due to this kind of
factual errors, isn't it?

> Your local public library is often a good source.

Sure, I've got nothing better to do with my time than visit the local library
to check whether the Exocet was a missile or a torpedo. I apologize for not
having uploaded the complete definition of the two words from the OED, along
with a personal thesis on the relative appropriateness of the two words for a
device that flies barely a couple metres above the sea.

> As a matter of fact, the Falklands campaign was followed by advertising
> campaigns by *both* France and the UK about the relative effectiveness
> of their weapons.

Of course. The French boasted about the effectiveness of their weapon. What did
you expect the Brits to do, print articles saying "Oh shit this time the French
really got us, they really do have superior weapons :(((((((("?

> The world needs more French.

Poor world.

> Evidently, you live in a naive binary world in which things DO
> happen for one reason, and NOT happen for another.  [Your capitals]
> The truth is more likely that they sell weapons for both reasons.

They sell weapons for both reasons, but there is only one reason for any given
country. There are countries which have the money to pay, and countries which
don't. To the former they sell at a profit, often because the situation is
"delicate" and there is some sort of ban from NATO or the US or whatever (one
example is India). They will also sell nuclear technology in similar conditions
(I am this time reminded of the sale of a full nuclear plant which Israel was
not entirely pleased with). Then there are countries which haven't got any
money, but do have a war to compensate. These get the weapons virtually free,
so they can be tested. There are regular scandals in the french press about
this, it is an ongoing activity - you could even call it a tradition.

> Well, that's jolly noble of you.    Let's hope you never live in
> a country that is obliged to defend itself without access to western
> arms.

Yes, this is the CIA tradition. Give guns to the poor oppressed people on the
one side, so they can defend themselves against the bad guys. Damn, the poor
oppressed people seem to be behaving like real assholes, too. Ah well, let's
arrange for guns to fall into the hands of the other side as well, by accident
of course, so they can shoot each other and then the problem is solved. I
prefer the MI6 way, thank you very much.

Well, I suppose there *are* cases where this is needed. But do you seriously
think the weapons are being sold out of philanthropic considerations? Have you
got any idea of the magnitude of the bribing that goes with arm sales
contracts? These people make a certain dilettante US presidential candidate
look like a choir boy in comparison.

  Eric