I agree with you Dbackers. Has the U.S. always made good decisions when selling weapons; they all seemed good at the time, but as Tortdog pointed out hindsight is 20/20.
As Vincenzo pointed out there have been many countries that the U.S. has supplied weapons to that it has been beneficial, but your not going to hear about that.
The key here though is that the U.S. does this to alleviate current threats to itself, or its allies, and for monetary gain. The U.S. will also sell weapons to it's allies to counter an enemy build-up of weapons. The enemy will be buying it weapons from someone else, and our allies have to get them from somewhere too.
Sure it is a lucrative business, but it is also necessary. I believe this topic was brought up by Tortdog. This is a relevant point, in my opinion, as it directly responds to why the U.S. sells weapons to its allies. We do it because they have to get them from somewhere.
Will those guys be our allies in 10 years; we can't know that.
Arms offer as Bush visits Saudis
The Bush administration sets in motion a major arms sale to Saudi Arabia as the US president visits the kingdom.
Ref. https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/m...ast/7188602.stm
Does the US need to sell weapons to these countries to make a buck. Were selling to subclasses that will one day bomb us in our flippin backyard.
International Level: Specialist / Political Participation: 39 3.9%
"If a country develops an economic system that is based on how to pay for the war, and if the amounts of fixed capital investment that are apparent are tied up in armaments, and if that country is a major exporter of arms, and its industrial fabric is dependent on them, then it would be in that country's interests to ensure that it always had a market. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is clearly in the interests of the world's leading arms exporters to make sure that there is always a war going on somewhere.": Marilyn Waring - Source: Documentary 'Who's Counting', based on her book 'Counting for Nothing'.