Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
I disagree.. the two cases are different.
Haliburton are accused of profiteering and being given government contracts because the vice president of America is on their board - this is an allegation of corruption.
The arms dealers are accused of selling arms to a country that the UN forbids arm sales too.... we might add that America has gone against the UN many times, as have many other states... in fact, disobeying the UN seems to be actually very popular with the American right.
As for arms dealers... as far as I can see, you either sell arms or you dont, there isnt much room for morality... everything you sell is going to be used to try and kill someone or threaten it. UK companies also tried to sell arms to Iraq while this was outlawed by the UN, and they were allegedly helped by three middle ranking ministers of the Conservative government (see the Scott Report), so you can add the UK to that list
As for the arms dealers... it is an allegation of being arms dealers, the logic of arms dealership... selling something where it is banned is a different offence to using government power for the furtherment of the interests of a favoured corporation though.
|
I agree. I think you have to squint pretty hard to see only similarities between selling weapons to an ally's enemy and milking your country's taxpayers for millions of dollars.
In any case, i don't think arms dealing is good under any circumstances. That being said, how are the actions of these companies any different than america's dealing of arms to a genocidal indonesia during their little east timorese jaunt? Does that bother you too?
The point is that for nearly any action undertaken by another nation that you decide to get all up-in-arms about america is also guilty of it in some form or another.