From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 11 Oct 1992 01:09:09 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct10.005701.1@sejnet.sunet.se>, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes:
|> In article <1b48keINNp04@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|>   [Mr Thomas' tantrum at having his facts corrected, deleted]

|> > 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 British *did* think the French had a superior weapon in the 
Exocet.    That's why they bought it themselves!    Jeepers, talk 
about missing the point.

This is exactly what is so silly about your attempt to turn the
Falklands campaign into some Franco-British vendetta.    Before 
and after the Falklands campaign, the British continued to buy 
French equipment when they felt it was superior, and they 
continued to buy and to boost their own equipment when they felt 
that it was superior.

Armed force always want to best equipment, and so should we, as
taxpayers.   So all this stuff about refusing to cooperate with 
the French simply because they were visibly pleased about the
performance of their kit in the Falklands is bogus.


|> They sell weapons for both reasons, but there is only one reason 
|> for any given country. 

This is complete bull.   There are multiple reasons for selling
equipment even to a single country.   It can be to promote the 
weapons, to get the buyer to help you test your weapons under
operational situations, to assist an ally, to gain political
influence, to make money, or just to keep a rival supplier out
of one of your markets, and combinations of the above.

Even if you are just considering the buy versus purchase
axis, one might give and sell the same arms to the same country.
Wartime Lease-lend (1941-45) was an example.   The UK purchased
arms as long as they were able, and after that the arms were
'lent'.   As long as the US could make money supplying the UK
they did so, but when they no could longer make money at it, the 
strategic advantages were still so attractive that they went on 
supplying arms anyway.


|>  But do you seriously think the weapons are being sold out of 
|> philanthropic considerations? 

No, and more to the point, I never defend straw-man positions.
If I thought the West sold arms for philanthropic considerations,
I would have said so.    Saying that people sometimes defend
themselves with western arms is not the same as saying the West
sells arms out of philanthropic considerations.


|> Have you got any idea of the magnitude of the bribing that goes 
|> with arm sales contracts? 

Well, since I've read about it in quite a bit of detail, I expect
I have some idea about it.    But what's the point?   How does this 
assist your argument?


|> These people make a certain dilettante US presidential candidate
|> look like a choir boy in comparison.

Ah, so this is your point?   Pardon me while I consider the
implications of this stunning insight in detail.

jon.