Meanwhile the Omnipresident said in a speech on Sunday that he had garnered in ten billion euros and the blokes in the factories knew what that meant to them. Except:
But let's suppose I had children (fingers crossed ;-) ), they may think it means a lot to them that dad has started selling drugs and now they get a lot of toys and fancy holidays. Do you think the judge will say "oh, that's alright then"?
I am ready to enter into a discussion on whether it is acceptable or not to invite him, and will admit that there are arguments in favour of it, however repugnant it may be. But to dismiss the objections on the grounds that Lybia buys stuff is a non starter. "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
First, if you don't sell, someone else will. (We always say, "if we don't sell, the French and Russians will")
Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between selling drugs and arms. Drugs are criminal to sell. Arms deals are by definition a matter of international relations, and as the international system is anarchic, arm sales cannot, by definition, be illegal. Except if the arms are sold to a nation under a weapons embargo which is supported by all great powers.
Third, every nation has a right to buy arms for self defence. The alternative is that every nation has a reasonably big and diversified domestic arms industry.
Fourth, how are you supposed to opress anyones human rights with a fighter bomber? If the French were selling machetes, tear gas or torture manuals, there might be reasons for worry and complaint. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I just used an example to refute the "just shut up and mind your own business because the people in the factories will be getting some work" argument.
That Lybia may be bringing money to France is not an argument to decide whether or not Gadhafi's presence is acceptable on Human Rights grounds. That was my point.
As for your arguments, 2 to 4 are fully valid. 1 is not. Similarly, if I don't sell drugs, someone will. But I don't, even though someone will. "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
Fourth, how are you supposed to opress anyones human rights with a fighter bomber? If the French were selling machetes, tear gas or torture manuals, there might be reasons for worry and complaint.
What makes you think we don't ?
What do you think the hundreds of French soldiers who had participated in the Algerian war were "teaching" to the various new armies in Africa for a few decades ? Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between selling drugs and arms. Drugs are criminal to sell.
As they said in the good old days: drop acid, not bombs!
As for this:
Fourth, how are you supposed to opress anyones human rights with a fighter bomber?
Will this do as an example?
Chapter : Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem
Falsehood #4: Israeli Intelligence is able to pin-point so-called "terrorist bases" as targets for air strikes. The truth: The communiques of the Israeli Air Force itself mostly claim that air strikes were against merely "suspected" terrorist sites. This is as absurd as bombing a town or village because someone who may have committed an act of violence might be living somewhere in the town or village. Falsehood # 5: Israeli air strikes are only "retaliatory" actions because of terrorist acts. The truth: Most Israeli air strikes have been unrelated to armed action by Palestinians, but have been designed solely to "make life unbearable" for the Palestinian civilian population. In cases where air strikes followed an armed Palestinian action, the Israeli Air Force's targets were civilian population centers with no relationship to the men involved in the action for which the "retaliation" allegedly took place.
Falsehood #4: Israeli Intelligence is able to pin-point so-called "terrorist bases" as targets for air strikes.
The truth: The communiques of the Israeli Air Force itself mostly claim that air strikes were against merely "suspected" terrorist sites. This is as absurd as bombing a town or village because someone who may have committed an act of violence might be living somewhere in the town or village.
Falsehood # 5: Israeli air strikes are only "retaliatory" actions because of terrorist acts.
The truth: Most Israeli air strikes have been unrelated to armed action by Palestinians, but have been designed solely to "make life unbearable" for the Palestinian civilian population. In cases where air strikes followed an armed Palestinian action, the Israeli Air Force's targets were civilian population centers with no relationship to the men involved in the action for which the "retaliation" allegedly took place.
Now, let's say the Israelis wanted to buy Rafales. Should France deny it? Nope. If they don't the Israelis will buy American instead (which they do anyway, but still).
Results are the only thing that matter. Of course, France could turn not selling Rafales to Israel into a big political issue, shaming Israel. Then it would be a relevant thing to do. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you want opression, sticks and guns are far more efficient. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
In this way, the left is even more marginalised. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
