I keep seeing and hearing people talk about how horrible it is that American-made weapons are being used in conflicts they don't agree with. Israel, for instance, is using American-made munitions during their incursion into the Gaza strip.

The funny thing is, most people look at this as an active decision made on the part of the Americans who make those weapons. And in some ways I understand the concept - that if we weren't making or allowing the weapons to be made, then there would be some kind of mitigation on the action, that somehow our involvement would be seperated and we'd be free to sit in moral judgement on someone else's actions. We wouldn't have anything to do with it and happily be able to sit back and bemoan the fact that, for instance, Israel is invading the Gaza strip.

Unfortunately, that's not really the case any more.

In most of the world conflicts, the United States is a key player on all levels, diplomatically and socially. I hate to say it, but the Americans are still key in smacking someone down if they're coloring outside the lines. Although our diplomatic cred has been substantially weakened by Boy George and Company, we still have an immense amount of pressure that can be brought to bear via diplomatic means on actions we deem unacceptable.

And the reality is, if the weapons were not being purchased by Israel from the United States, Israel would likely buy weapons from another, intending fully to use those weapons to defend itself and its borders. If USA-made weapons were not currently being used in the Israeli conflict, then those weapons would be Chinese, Russian, French, or Czech in origin. Those weapons' country of origin has no direct bearing on how Israel chooses to use those weapons.

One thing I've always wondered about was the logic of a lawsuit aimed at the manufacturer of a firearm used in a crime. By the same logic, a manufacturer of a machete used in a crime should be sued as well. There is no culpability in the auto manufacturer when someone drives a Chevy across four lanes of traffic and plows into two carloads of soccer moms. So why the emotional connection?

I understand that the NRA and the gun lobby have cheerfully trotted out the right to bear arms and the machismo of swinging your .357 magnum around like Dirty Harry for years, but trying to place moral culpability on Charleton Heston for the death of a six-year old (thanks, Michael Moore) is like trying to blame the rain for the suicide of the guy who jumped off the Aurora Bridge in Seattle last week.

Similarly, while we can focus on the fact that American-made weapons are being used in the Gaza conflict as a side show to the actual issues at hand between Hamas and Israel, we eliminate the causality and focus instead on the little details, which means we miss accomplishing the big mission at hand.

It's entirely possible that both Russia's bravado against the Ukraine and most of Europe regarding their natural gas supply and Israel's push against Gaza are coincided with the transition between presidencies in America - and by the time Obama takes office, both conflicts will have resolved without much American "interference". Maybe that's the idea.

Weapons exist, and the fact that they're used to settle conflicts is an ugly truth. Where those weapons come from and the sale of those weapons are a continual shade on the economies of many nations, but those weapons and that supply chain will always exist as long as humans feel the need to defend themselves or attack each other. Removing the refined ability does nothing to resolve the conflict.

Anyway, I see the reaction of many people who are anti-gun, anti-weapon, anti-American armaments as that visceral reaction to something they don't like, but that antipathy towards a tool seems misguided to me. Rather, I think the focus should always be on convincing the person holding that tool to use it in an intelligent manner, and to make sure that the use of that tool is always reserved for the most neccessary of actions.

Rather than labeling the tool as "evil".