[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.

I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...

---

The Stingers are not all that advanced, and it should also be noted that without maintenance, they spoil in storage. This was built into them from the start. Also, the cold war was a different world; we armed anyone who would fight communism in those days. We even influenced the elections of our allies when it appeared that their governments were in danger of going socie/commie. There were direct interventions in Italy and France, and we outright fixed an election in Australia back in the sixties. Back then anything was game so long as the US and USSR were not face to face. We had a quiet shooting war in Central America from the sixties all the way into the eighties. We had combatants in Africa during the late sixties and first part of the seventies. And of course we were all over SEA for two decades. Back then we armed lots of people, but not with frontline aircraft, and not with advanced chemical plants and reactors.

The Stinger is a defensive weapon, and has limited offensive capabilities. And providing them was a magnitude of order less dangerous than supplying Saddam with F-1s. No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash?

[ March 21, 2003, 12:10: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]