We buy Russian helicopters to give to the Afghans. Without even addressing the fact that maybe we shouldn't be giving 30 nifty helicopters to the Afghans, it's still sounding nuts.
We continue to lose manufacturing jobs, but we bolster Russia's economy by buying these helicopters from them? Theoretically, I suppose we'll also be buying any replacement parts from Russia as well. If the Russians decide not to sell them to us at some point, the Afghans are left with a bunch of useless helicopters.
But it's nuttier than that ,,,we're supposed to be supporting the rebels in Syria (bad idea that it may be), and also supporting the company that is a major arms supplier for the Assad forces by giving them the profit from the helicopters we're buying for the Afghans.
But Human Rights Watch claimed last year that Rosoboronexport nevertheless appears to be Syria's main weapons supplier, questioning how the company tracks how its weapons are being used.
The Pentagon contract comes at a vital time, as the Obama administration steps up its support for the anti-Assad opposition by pledging to provide small arms to certain opposition groups. The contract potentially puts the U.S. government in the uncomfortable position of funding a company that is aiding the other side of that civil war.
Despite Russia's claims, Cornyn said in a letter last year to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that the Pentagon had informed him of "evidence" that Rosoboronexport's arms "are being used by Syrian forces against Syria's civilian population."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2WhT58YY3