> They are selling to everyone that pays. They also never have claimed to have anything like a "responsible selling of weapons" policy. This is incorrect [0]:

> They are selling to everyone that pays. They also never have claimed to have anything like a "responsible selling of weapons" policy. This is incorrect [0]: > no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit, facilitate the recipients’ commission of, or to aggravate risks that the recipient will commit: genocide; crimes against humanity; grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, including attacks intentionally directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such; or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, including serious acts of gender‑based violence or serious acts of violence against children. > ... a somewhat more reasonable comparison would be to compare it to the death and disaster caused by the US industrialisation, which I again suspect will outnumber the rest given the much longer timeframe I was giving a counter-argument to your point that no other countries actions compares to the US giving amnesty to perpetrators of genocide. The fact is that both China and Russia did worse: they actively supported genocides against Uyghurs and Ukrainians. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...