https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48076262
So yep. Trump has withdrawn from a UN arms treaty. He seems to have the first amendment as the modus operandi here.
This is odd and implies that it's ok to basically force the 2nd Amendment on other countries according to him AND that the 2nd covers Tanks and Planes. Though that's one thing common in neocon foreign policy, it's less malicious and more based on the idea that we're doing good by bringing Democracy to the world. To quote CS Lewis, an intelligent man who's own desire for more people to think like him drove him into some questionable logic, said this and it rings true today and always has done
The thing about this type of move is that it's very very hard to calculate how much damage what he's doing has done, likely a lot though as the US is a big producer of arms and has a history of supplying places with them like Saudi Arabia. In someways there is the argument that if we didn't supply those places, they'd just buy them elsewhere, BUT what we're seeing here is a multilateral argument among countries that could do serious good in parts of the world, as a lower supply of weapons means a higher cost and people will be less likely to shoot indiscriminately. They will shoot still, BUT when you have a situation in which it's harder to get those weapons, you're less likely to use them unless needed. This means this will dis-proportionally effect innocents, not actual insurgents.
I'm also amused by Trump's hypocrisy, is not trade bad? Is not trade deficits bad? So I ask "Why do you do this when this will increase trade?", once again proving his a hypocrite. But the GOP have always been like that, socialism is bad unless it's for GOP people, deficits are bad once the dems are in office, capitalism is good...unless it's trade, etc.
So yep. Trump has withdrawn from a UN arms treaty. He seems to have the first amendment as the modus operandi here.
This is odd and implies that it's ok to basically force the 2nd Amendment on other countries according to him AND that the 2nd covers Tanks and Planes. Though that's one thing common in neocon foreign policy, it's less malicious and more based on the idea that we're doing good by bringing Democracy to the world. To quote CS Lewis, an intelligent man who's own desire for more people to think like him drove him into some questionable logic, said this and it rings true today and always has done
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C. S. Lewis
The thing about this type of move is that it's very very hard to calculate how much damage what he's doing has done, likely a lot though as the US is a big producer of arms and has a history of supplying places with them like Saudi Arabia. In someways there is the argument that if we didn't supply those places, they'd just buy them elsewhere, BUT what we're seeing here is a multilateral argument among countries that could do serious good in parts of the world, as a lower supply of weapons means a higher cost and people will be less likely to shoot indiscriminately. They will shoot still, BUT when you have a situation in which it's harder to get those weapons, you're less likely to use them unless needed. This means this will dis-proportionally effect innocents, not actual insurgents.
I'm also amused by Trump's hypocrisy, is not trade bad? Is not trade deficits bad? So I ask "Why do you do this when this will increase trade?", once again proving his a hypocrite. But the GOP have always been like that, socialism is bad unless it's for GOP people, deficits are bad once the dems are in office, capitalism is good...unless it's trade, etc.