How about we don’t use the word nuke, in the context of military actions, unless actual nuclear weapons were involved? Because Israel is the one country on Earth that has them but hasn’t declared as such. And they have repeatedly threatened to use them on Gaza as some sort of act of god.
So only the American government can sell Lockheed martin arms? Then the corporation is no longer liable for any harm their weapons cause since they have no power or agency in how they are used. Are you really sure you know your position here?
Wow. I genuinely don’t know how you managed to come up with that, it’s genuinely impressive.
Try: “Manufacturing weapons of war for profit when you can’t guarantee that they won’t end up in the wrong hands is unethical and war profiteering corporations should not exist.”
Wow. It is more unethical to not manufacture weapons leaving your society completely defenseless. Don’t know what planet you live on , but bad people exist and they seek to do harm and must be stopped with weapons. You can’t tell them to go away with rainbows and lollipops like you seem to think.
OK, so your earlier comment was saying they’re good for sending (selling) weapons to Ukraine. Then you say they can’t be held responsible for the bad things. If they can’t be responsible for the bad, then they also don’t get credit for any good.
That’s fine. They manufacture the top of line defense products. The government decides when they should be used. Those products work and keep Americans safe when used properly. The ethical use of them falls on our elected leaders, which is the way it should be.
Call me crazy, but if you save a granny from getting run over by a car, and the next thing you do is pull out a gun and shoot a pregnant woman in the face, I don’t think people are just gonna forget the latter act of violence because of your former act of compassion.
Also, they aren’t doing it an act of compassion either. They’re being paid stupid amounts of money. I’m not going to thank someone for walking a granny across the street if they were paid a few million dollars to do so.
Lockheed martin makes HIMARS. HIMARS is saving ukraine lives. That’s a good thing.
They also make a motherload of AGMs including hellfires & mavericks which the IDF used exclusively to nuke Gaza and its residents into oblivion.
How about we don’t use the word nuke, in the context of military actions, unless actual nuclear weapons were involved? Because Israel is the one country on Earth that has them but hasn’t declared as such. And they have repeatedly threatened to use them on Gaza as some sort of act of god.
Weapons can be used for liberation or oppression at the same time. Lockheed doesn’t get to say who they sell to.
Yes, you’ve identified the problem.
So corporations backed by tax dollars get to sell to anyone?
Swing and a miss. Try going in the opposite direction.
So only the American government can sell Lockheed martin arms? Then the corporation is no longer liable for any harm their weapons cause since they have no power or agency in how they are used. Are you really sure you know your position here?
Wow. I genuinely don’t know how you managed to come up with that, it’s genuinely impressive.
Try: “Manufacturing weapons of war for profit when you can’t guarantee that they won’t end up in the wrong hands is unethical and war profiteering corporations should not exist.”
Wow. It is more unethical to not manufacture weapons leaving your society completely defenseless. Don’t know what planet you live on , but bad people exist and they seek to do harm and must be stopped with weapons. You can’t tell them to go away with rainbows and lollipops like you seem to think.
OK, so your earlier comment was saying they’re good for sending (selling) weapons to Ukraine. Then you say they can’t be held responsible for the bad things. If they can’t be responsible for the bad, then they also don’t get credit for any good.
That’s fine. They manufacture the top of line defense products. The government decides when they should be used. Those products work and keep Americans safe when used properly. The ethical use of them falls on our elected leaders, which is the way it should be.
“sometimes they kill the right people, sometimes they don’t, not their fault for producing weapons fully knowing that”
Call me crazy, but if you save a granny from getting run over by a car, and the next thing you do is pull out a gun and shoot a pregnant woman in the face, I don’t think people are just gonna forget the latter act of violence because of your former act of compassion.
Also, they aren’t doing it an act of compassion either. They’re being paid stupid amounts of money. I’m not going to thank someone for walking a granny across the street if they were paid a few million dollars to do so.
But what if you do both at the same time? Continuously…
Many people on this platform disagree with that, unfortunately.