Who wins in war? - arms manufacturers

Tim Jones blog on today's Argentina v Iran match-up just shows how only arms manufacturers seem to benefit from war, and switching sides in the field of international relations. Makes you wonder where many of the arms have come from that are currently being bandied about, captured, acquired or threatened in the present crisis engulfing Iraq and Syria.

Highlights from Tim Jones' take on matters:

'Back in the 1970s both countries were close friends of the UK. So close, that the British government lent the governments of Argentina and Iran money to purchase weapons.
'Argentina was the host for the last world cup in South America, in 1978. A military dictatorship had taken power in the country two years earlier. The regime ‘disappeared’ and murdered thousands of human rights activists and trade unionists. The World Cup Final was held just one mile away a concentration camp. ...
'At the time, the UK was signing a deal to lend the Argentine military junta the money to buy two warships and associated helicopters and missiles. Then Foreign Secretary David Owen wrote that the deal should probably not go ahead because of the dictatorship’s human rights abuses, and because the weapons could be used to invade the Falkland Islands. But he signed it off anyway, as it would benefit British arms manufacturers. Four years later, the first helicopter to land on the Falklands Islands was British made paid for with British government loans.'
About the same time, British loans were helping the former Shah of Iran (toppled in the Iranian revolution of 1978) buy tanks - tanks that probably later came to grief in the Iran-Iraq war, fighting against US and British weapons supplied to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Yes, the same Saddam Hussein that became 'the enemy' in the 2003 Iraq war waged by the United States and Britain.