> If an article says "the us is supplying israel with weapons" it could mean > that they are GIVING them well yes it could. I accept that. So "supply" is ambiguous. It's not "loaded", it's ambiguous. So when I said (as I now see I did) JE>(Hence my knowledge of their supplying arms. I think we supply JE>arms parts -- helicopter parts -- rather than arms I could have been read as saying that the US and the UK donated the arms and the parts for arms. But the "loadedness" is in your mind. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stone" <pas@xxxxxxxx> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:43 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Cook's Tour (4) > > >(I said "sends" re the US, "supplies" re the UK, which *sells* > >arms to Israel. I assume it is "the US" not some private arms > >company. "Loaded", I didn't see it as loaded at all. Frankly.) > > I didn't know how to put it any clearer, but I'll try again. > > If an article says "the us is supplying israel with weapons" it could mean > that they are GIVING them, by using tax-payers money to buy weapons from US > arms dealers and then shipping them to israel free of charge OR it could > mean that they are just shipping them weapons (therefore being the original > place shipment) that they (Israel) has paid for. This is where I find a > trouble with the word "supplying" because I've seen it used both ways and > so many times that I no longer know which is which. I think there is a BIG > difference between selling weapons -- a legitimate business deal -- and > GIVING weapons -- an obvious political maneuver. That's all I meant. And, > in the case of Israel, it's probably both which is even more problematic. > > not understanding a thing today, > p > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html