Quote:
Originally posted by positive14
Again...
Here's my argument:
The US and the UK arm states and organizations that we eventually deem to be our enemies.
|
That's not an argument, silly - it's a historical fact. Here's an argument:
There is nothing implicitly negative with arming states that later are deemed enemies. The inconvenience of fighting a better-armed foe in the future (using present-day technology and weaponry, which may be out of date in the future battle) should be, in an ideal game of intelligence and espianage, more than offset by the strategic gains in the short term present.
Also, considering the raw amount of foreign aid that goes to arms, it would seem that any sort of cost/benefit analysis would indicate that there is a low incidence of allies-turned-future-enemies, and an ABSURDLY low incidence of times those allies-turned-enemies have won the future battle.
I'll spare you the links this time.