Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (4722)	7/12/2001 2:17:15 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I'd like to get ill about now. These people are selling small countries a bill of goods..... IMO, on this topic there are three groups of countries; the major arms producers; the major arms buyers [third world] and everybody else. The first two groups don't really want control of illicit arms sales. There's too much money [or power] at stake. The last group, largest by counting of countries, would like to push towards the tight control of illicit arms sales. Since they don't buy or sell as much, there isn't that much economic gain. If they end up sending in a humanitarian/peacekeeping effort; it's only a cost drain. Lots of guns in a country with 30-60% unemployment doesn't do well for a stable society. Form a group ; shoot the other group ; and take the little food they have. If that's the environment, it's pretty darn tough to get the economic machine humming. With the number of deaths involved in these third world countries, I would find it difficult to argue the position that guns are providing protection. If you zero down to one individual, there may be some very temporary argument. But when you step back to look at the whole picture, it's not terribly clear. We could be very "honest" and turn to Palestine and Israel and say; "Look, you're determined to destroy each other, we the weapon's producers of the world will sell you every weapon you can pay for. Do it! Let's get it over with. We'll go in and pick up the pieces when you're finished killing each other, and we'll make a tidy profit in the process. We've come a long way since the middle ages, drawn and quartered, and other such audience enjoyment. We've had our Hitler's; we've had our Pol Pots and we have our good friend Milsovic. It's hard to imagine that we've made progress, but I think we have. Major countries aren't doing each other in like we did in the good ol' days. The major countries now worry more about trade wars. We're filtering down to the third world countries. Looking at history, this seems to be a process that transitions over hundreds of years. There are no answers for the next five. But I don't think that you don't try to head in a direction that's more appealing. jttmab Why would you willingly give up your only protection in a country with 60% unemployment? ::scratches head::