• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Europe aids Iran, Russia and China in looming arms race

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It isn't that hard to find out which country has the biggest military and exports the most weapons.
You are skeptical of the claims I made on that subject.

Feel free to contradict my claims with something more compelling than your personal skepticism.

Or not.
Tom
I don't intend to counter such claims.
It would be fruitless because I evaluate
militaries from a different perspective.
And it isn't the issue in this thread.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Because the authoritarian East deserves an equal potential of power as the more liberalized West?

That seems like an ideologically based reaction as opposed to a well planned out agenda.
The "West" has an extremely tribal attitude.

We'll happily and enthusiastically support ugly tyrants, from Shah Pahlavi to Guatemalan generals, as long as it makes money for the government.

By government, I mean the rich folks who can buy politicians.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I couldn't support the claim that the sky is blue to someone who refuses to come out from under their blankets.
Tom
Sometimes the sky is gray on Earth.
And on the Moon it's black.
You should learn to think outside your little box.
 
I'll meet you halfway, and say it's more like you owned all the raw plastics and metals, and the bank payed for a team to fabricate those raw materials into a car for you, and then you tell the bank thanks for the car, now **** off.

...That's playing dirty IMO.

It's not even remotely comparable to what happened though.

If you want a simplistic analogy, it would be like if you were 5 years old and your dad agreed a deal with his friend where, in exchange for paying for your schooling, 70% of all the money you earned in your lifetime would go directly to his friend.

You probably wouldn't be overly keen on a deal such as that.

The previous, undemocratic regime signed a long-term deal with mainly the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later BP), on very bad terms and which enabled APOC to make enormous profits.

The British government was making far more from Iran's oil than Iran was. Moreover, the supply of oil was key to transforming the Royal Navy from coal to oil based power, helping win WW1 and maintain British Imperial power.

They had certainly had their money's worth out of the deal they signed.

When a new regime took over they didn't really like the terms of the deal, a bit like how Britain's American colonies didn't much like 'taxation without representation'.

And just like the colonials, when their attempts to get a better deal where thwarted, they took more radical action.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
The U.S. should not sell arms to one side and then be surprised that the recipients of those arms became our enemies.

That is also true. Allegiances change constantly, and all shipments of arms ultimately are based on making a quick buck, or supporting the internal politics of the nation giving or selling the arms.
 
Top