 sj |
||
|
||
BS: International arms trading
|
|
|
Subject: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 17 - 04:34 AM There are many belligerent and well armed aggressive nations. They should not be sold arms, but they are. All nations are entitled to defend their borders, but most need to buy arms to do that. UK sells arms, but is very restrictive on who it sells them to. I think that is a reasonable position. There was war before there was an arms trade. Is it OK to sell arms to countries interested only in defending themselves, e.g. Ireland? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 17 - 04:43 AM ""Psssssttt... pssssttttt.... wanna buy some arms?" "huh?" "left arms, right arms, does no-one no arms, I got 'em all" "erm, I'm OK thanks" "Your loss. We all need arms. Arms to hold people with, arms to do the garden, arms to itch a scratchy back". Can you hear music? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 17 - 05:14 AM Not an issue for you then Stu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 17 - 05:18 AM Sandman, Of all nations, UK is the most restrictive on who it sells arms to." please provide stats to back this up Here you will find lists of nations we refuse to sell arms to, but others do. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/current-arms-embargoes-and-other-restrictions BBC, "The government said UK defence exports would continue to be "under careful review" to ensure they meet the standards of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. "We welcome this judgment, which underscores the fact that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world," a spokesperson said." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40553741 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 05 Sep 17 - 05:19 AM The Office of National Statistics listed UK GDP for 2015 as £1.833 trillion, making arms sales for that year about 0.42% of the total. "UK sells arms, but is very restrictive on who it sells them to." It may be restrictive but, like it or not it is also very pragmatic. Apparently morality ain't part of the discussion under Conservative, Labour or the pathetic coalition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 05:21 AM "UK sells arms, but is very restrictive on who it sells them to. I think that is a reasonable position." Oh, you do, do you? I'm sorry, but you are either blind or you are trolling. We sell arms to Saudi Arabia, which is executing a brutal bombing campaign in Yemen, killing thousands of innocent civilians, making thousand more homeless and spawning a horrible cholera epidemic. We sell arms to Qatar, a country that sponsors terrorists. We sell arms to Turkey, which has imprisoned without trial thousands of people after the recent coup attempt was put down. Let me give you a bloody great big clue as to why we trade in arms. It's lucrative, and it keeps people sweet who are useful to us. There are no principles involved. This thread is going nowhere and should be deleted as soon as the mods get out of bed. I didn't hear the music, Stu, as the video popped up as unavailable, but your sentiment is admirable, unlike Keith's, who needs to get a life instead of starting mischief threads that are one hundred percent certain to cause endless trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 05 Sep 17 - 05:58 AM I think this is a very important subject and can throw light on why certain governments behave in certain ways. It can cause us to look into the future which can be either bleak, non existent, or bright and sunny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 05 Sep 17 - 06:10 AM You have to remember also that governments are duplicitous. I draw your attention to the arms to Iraq affair of matrix churchill. The government of the day was quite happy to allow a blatant miscarriage of justice but luckily the case collapsed. This lead to the Scott report. A parliamentary debate on the report led to a speech by Robin Cook that was widely praised both sides of the house. Another speech he made, in response to the President of the board of Trade, stated:(tories)this is not just a Government which does not know how to accept blame; it is a Government which knows no shame. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Arms-to-Iraq_Scandal On that occasion the government was rumbled. I wonder how many arrangements pass by entirely under the radar. Too many people live their lives as sheep happily grazing in the field, not knowing or caring what lies beyond the fence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 05 Sep 17 - 06:27 AM To discuss international arms trading in isolation totally obscures the reality. Politics, economics, strategic considerations are an integral part of the mix, and account for the complexity of the traffic. A middle eastern alliance of Saudi and other major middle eastern oil and gas producers with China and Russia would have major ramifications for the western world. Arms sales are a way of preserving the status quo, so if they want the 2017 version of battlefield toys from the west they will get them-despite all the squawking of the pacifists. It is a very joined up world and the resulting instability from pulling rhe plug here and there is very hard to predict. You may feel very smug stopping the international arms trade, but that is very little consolation as you starve to death ,dressed in rags, sitting in the dark with no transport. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 06:50 AM So you think we're being blackmailed. Well I think that it's largely about money, holding our noses and keeping our often disreputable friends sweet. Maybe the last point is simply saying what you're saying. I can't say that you're wrong. So what do we do? Just carry on like this? Shall we ask the Yemeni villagers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:01 AM well i think its a fair area of debate. its constantly being cited by Jim as another facet of English amorality. What would satisfy you critics - that we exercise discretion and restraint in whom we sell arms to. Or abandoning arms production completely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:05 AM The usual suspects are exactly where they should have been at the tinme of the display of crocodile tears of Homs Horror Britain sells arms, whatever their HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD The victims of these regimes, when they seek refuge in, among others, countries involved in selling arms they are met with suspicion, outright hostility and refusal to the poing of allowing young children to DROWN Selling arms to these people not only debases the seller nation, but it lays the way open for terrorist fanatics to win the hearts and minds of those who have been alienated by such western bestiality as arms selling This is the Brave New Worl these clowns are presenting as a future for Britain Ther is no discrimination as to whether these weapons are "defensive" - their immediate use is against protesters against the regimes they are sold to, certainly in the case of the riot control gear, armoured cars and rear gas sold to Assad by Britain This is probably the sickest thread ever for this forum - a defence of a trade that is condemned throughout the civilised section of the world as evil. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-arms-sales-yemen-war-uk-government-us-donald-trump-obama-aid-a7643066.html Sick, sick, sick Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:19 AM We should not sell arms to anyone. It's as simple as that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have an arms industry. But the arms should be for our defence only. And when I say defence, I mean defence. Giving or selling arms, or subsidising another country's arms industry, or threatening or invading countries on your own or someone else's behalf, is what causes most of the trouble in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:21 AM I do think it a reasonable position Steve. If good people did not sell arms to good people, only bad people would have them. IF US had not sold them to UK in 1940, Hitler would have won the war. We follow the EU or Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) embargoes and enforce stricter trade controls in other named countries. See my link. The legality of selling to Saudi was challenged in court but was found to be legal. See my BBC link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:35 AM If the UK stopped arms sales overnight others would step in to fill the vacuum. Wow. What an achievement. Nothing has changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:37 AM 💥 Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom 💥 🎵Your arms bone's connected to your wrist bone.🎵 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 07:39 AM "but was found to be legal" An indication of the sick condition of a British society is when its judiciary support inhuman acts by the Government of the day "UK bombs sold to Saudi Arabia contributed to '81 unlawful attacks in Yemen', say human rights activists More than 80 allegedly unlawful attacks in Yemen have been carried out by the Saudis, human rights activists have discovered, and some attacks have used UK-made bombs. Since the spring of 2015, Saudi Arabia has launched what campaigners described as a "devastating aerial campaign", targeting areas crowded with civilians including schools, hospitals, weddings and markets. Many of those attacks, which allegedly breach international law, used bombs and cluster munitions made in the UK, worth £3 billion to the UK economy over the past two years. The Campaign Against Arms Trade has challenged the UK Government over its alleged complicity in human rights crimes in Yemen, where more than 10,000 civilians have died as of January, and the verdict is pending. Home Secretary Amber Rudd said she was "confident" the verdict would be in the government's favour. Kristine Beckerle, Yemen and Kuwait Researcher at Human Rights Watch, said Yemen is struggling from war, famine and cholera and the UK should stop selling arms to the Saudis. "It's not just a question of the right thing to do, it's also a question of legal liability," she said. Asked if the coalition air strikes could breed terrorism in Yemen, she replied: "Do those conditions make it very, very difficult for civilians to live and get on with their lives? Absolutely. Impossible." Home Secretary Amber Rudd, when questioned during a BBC leaders debate last week on the issue, replied that selling arms was "good for our industry". On the BBC Woman's Hour radio debate on Tuesday, Ms Rudd added that the UK had the "toughest form of export licences in the world" and the UK sold arms in a way that was "robust and correct". Read more http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/saudi-arabia-yemen-uk-bombs-sold-arms-deal-used-unlawful-attacks-claims-a7776071.html Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 08:07 AM Well, Keith, let's not even begin to talk about who the good people and the bad people are. What an idiotic thing to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Sep 17 - 08:09 AM Wikipedia has a very interesting article on arms trading. For most (or all) of my lifetime, the United States has been the greatest manufacturer and exporter of arms in the world. I suppose that should give me warm, fuzzy, patriotic feelings, but it doesn't. Occasionally, U.S. Presidents will make a Big Deal about how we don't sell to customers guilty of human rights abuses, but the size of the customer's pocketbook seems to be the prime determiner of its human rights record. Here's a list of some of our arms sales: I'm a pacifist, and I am deeply embarrassed by my country's reputation as an arms dealer. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 17 - 08:32 AM "rear gas sold to Assad by Britain" We sold "Farts" to Assad?? - If true, say what you like, you cannot fault the undoubted skill and salesmanship abilities of the representatives of the Company involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Mr Red Date: 05 Sep 17 - 08:46 AM Those belligerent nations that make and trade in arms? May we include North Korea? How do you think they survive in a world full of sanctions? Think again. Think the current showcase shenanigans. It may not be as stupid as you think. Think why Kim Jon-Nam was assassinated, he was siphoning off funds from his nefarious arms sales on behalf of the regime a threat to Kim Jong-Un. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 17 - 08:48 AM I do wish the world was as simple as the likes of Shaw and Jom seem to pretend it is - factual reality, however, dictates that it is not. What rights, what laws, what freedoms WE as "baby boomers" enjoy were all hard won by our parents and our grandparents by force of arms in two wars that they neither sought or wished for. As stated by Keith A above: "IF US had not sold them to UK in 1940, Hitler would have won the war." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 05 Sep 17 - 08:49 AM Mr Red. North Korea has probably looked at the failed states of Libya and Iraq and decided they do not like what is on offer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 17 - 09:05 AM IIRC North Korea with the full support of the USSR and the PRC has been a problem for the international community for a damned sight longer than anything related to either Libya or Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 09:09 AM "English amorality." It has never been cited by me as an example of "English" amorality - that would be aa racist statement for anybody to make The British establishment sells arms and instruments of oppression to the scum of the earth - the British - English, Northern Irish - Welsh - Scots people have no say in the matter. The excuse for the worst excesses of any society is that it is "too complicated" for us ordinary mortals to understand - you could write this rat packs script for them in advance. There is nothing complicated about anything here - we live in a society driven by profit - it is profitable to sell weapons to whoever will by them. It really does not get more complicated than that. The fact that we sell what we do to who we do is the sign of the degeneration of our society - time for a change I'D VOTE FOR THIS ANY DAY Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Sep 17 - 10:38 AM Jim, "In the real world it is called progress-for good or ill." Laser weaponry I would say it was a sign of modern savagery One of the aspects of this filth being examined it the possibility of blinding the enemy Are you advocating this as a moral way fr human beings to remain? Arrows can blind the enemy. Ask King Harold Godwinson. All countries are entitled to defend themselves. They must be allowed to buy modern weapons. Decent governments will only sell to countries unlikely to misuse them. Sadly, nasty countries can always find suppliers if they can pay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 10:43 AM That's about the stupidest post so far. Well done, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 10:45 AM "Arrows can blind the enemy." Don't be stupid Keith I made an ironical comment - killing people by any method is evil Remote control killing is cowardly depravity We are a sad nasty little country by indulging in this filth Th fact that others do it only indicates that we are no better than the worst Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 10:49 AM Perhaps Keith's now going to tell us who decides which are the nice countries and which are the nasty ones. Cue a remark concerning decent democracies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 11:26 AM "All countries are entitled to defend themselves" You can repeat this as often as you like Keith but weapons sold to tyrants are used to defend tyranny Nobody has a right to do that Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 17 - 11:38 AM "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 11:46 AM Jaw, jaw, not war, war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 17 - 12:17 PM International arms trading under certain circumstances is both beneficial and necessary under others it can be amoral, disastrous and on a particular level it can threaten the existence of life as we know it on the planet. Science cannot be reversed, once discovered and once applied it stays with us for anybody to pick up and use as they wish. The "bomb" having been invented cannot be disinvented so it must be controlled. Up to fairly recently it has been. GWB's actions against Iraq brought forth the following (Frankly frightening) information with regard to nuclear WMD: - The "secret" and illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Pakistan's Dr.A.Q.Khan; - The "secret"" and undeclared uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Qom in Iran; - The "secret" nuclear weapons programme being run in Libya; - The "secret" nuclear weapons programme being established in Syria. From various perspectives alliances are formed to enhance security of member nations, the most successful of these has been NATO - without an international arms trade alliances such as NATO would be toothless in the face of aggression, the countries of the world would find themselves in an endless arms race - co-operation prevents this. As we have seen on another thread according to a very highly regarded Swedish institution ( the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) the UK at the moment happens to be the sixth largest arms trading nation in the world behind the USA; Russia; China; France & Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 17 - 12:48 PM This from Shaw in a recently closed thread: "A few choice non-signatories are Saudi Arabia (who have used them in Yemen), tbe US, Israel and Turkey. Plenty more." The "Plenty more" were the weasel words used to deliberately avoid mentioning Russia and China. The following gives a far better picture of the Convention on "Cluster Munitions": Convention on Cluster Munitions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 01:05 PM "International arms trading under certain circumstances is both beneficial and necessary" A matter of opinion, but indiscriminate trade to terrorist states of the type Britain trades with is not - this is what is under discussion here Alliances with membership nations by selling them weapons - little more than self-interest - never "nuclear WMD:" America has nuclear weapons and it is the only country to have used WMD against a civilian population - ever With the highly Donald Trump at the helm, the risk of America giving a repeat performance There is no argument that America is any more fit to possess nuclear weapons than any other state (wasn't that long ago they were dropping burning petrol on peasants) You carefully omit Isreal (the country which attempted to make Apartheid South Africa nuclear proficient) from your list - indicates that you believe only extremist states you support are fit to be nuclear facilitated "the UK at the moment happens to be the sixth largest arms trading nation in the world behind the USA" Satistics collated by UK Trade and Investment, a government body that promotes British exports abroad, show the UK has sold more arms than Russia, China, or France on average over the last 10 years. Only the United States is a bigger exporter. Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East. Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked "not free" on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government's own human rights watch list. A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 01:16 PM The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) said on Monday that more weapons were delivered between 2012 and 2016 than any other five-year period since 1990. Saudi Arabia, which leads a military intervention in Yemen that has cost hundreds of civilian lives, was the world's second largest importer after India, increasing its intake by 212%, mainly from the US and the UK. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 05 Sep 17 - 01:28 PM "If good people did not sell arms to good people, only bad people would have them." And that will solve all our problems?????????????????????? "A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West." Now ere those weapons to cause the instability or cure it? Or could it be shady little characters are deliberately encouraging various factions to destabilize the entire middle east. Answers on a postcard please! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 17 - 01:58 PM Ere they be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 01:58 PM "Now ere those weapons to cause the instability or cure it?" Neither - they were to make money - these sales were for profit and no other reason. THat is what makes the Arms Trade no better than the illegal drugs trade - no consideration is given to the human effects of their distribution The risk of terror threats to Britain or elsewhere is a bonus! "If good people did not sell arms to good people" As crass as it gets when you consider who these arms are being sold to The "good" recipients of British arms Saudi Arabia, which has been accused of perpetrating war crimes in Yemen. Bahrain, which used troops to quell protests following the Arab spring. Burundi, which is being investigated by the UN for human rights violations. The Maldives, which in 2015 jailed its former president, Mohamed Nasheed, for 13 years following what critics said was a politically motivated show trial. Figures shared with the Observer show that in 2014 the UK licensed just £170m of arms to 18 of the 27 countries then on the "priority countries" list. The massive increase in sales was largely attributable to sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. The largest export licence granted was for £1.7bn of fighter jets, agreed in May 2015. In July 2015 the UK approved the export of £990m of air-to-air missiles. In September, it approved the sale of £62m of bombs to the country. All three sales took place after the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, prompting concerns that civilian buildings have been targeted in widespread human rights violations." Jim Carrroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 02:02 PM AND THE VICTIMS Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: David Carter (UK) Date: 05 Sep 17 - 02:30 PM Banning arms sales to Iran but allowing them to Saudi is perverse. Iran, as a Shia nation, does not export Jihad, Jihad is something to be used in its immediate locality. All major terrorist organisations operating in the west are Sunni. Yet the foreign office has been in Sunni pockets and opposed to Shia since the days of Lawrence. Personally I would sell arms to neither, maybe not to anyone. produce them for use at home, fine, but we can't say we sell then to "good people" as Keith wants. We havn't the mechanism to identify who good people are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 05 Sep 17 - 03:01 PM Who the bloody hell taught Jim to highlight passages in red? Triffic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Sep 17 - 04:06 PM Amazing what a Secondary Modern Education leaves you Stu Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Sep 17 - 04:17 PM 'We havn't the mechanism to identify who good people are..' i think it would be safe enough selling arms to Stephen Fry...he seems quite nice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: peteglasgow Date: 05 Sep 17 - 04:25 PM maybe men should be banned from buying or selling arms. all such deals could only be approved by small committees of women, representing no less than 5 countries from 3 continents. who would take about 5 minutes at most to decide that there are many things preferable and necessary on which to spend the obscene mounts of money. healing the world for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: robomatic Date: 05 Sep 17 - 04:27 PM Maybe that old joke applies to Jim: When Western bus drivers see a red light, they stop. When Soviet bus drivers see a red light, they salute. I'm gonna learn to highlight in color, methinks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Sep 17 - 06:04 PM Oh, don't worry, Billybullyboy. I hold a candle for neither China nor Russia. I'm more than happy to mention them. As your research may have indicated to you, there are dozens more non-signatories. Didn't want to bore you with the whole roster. Carry on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 02:31 AM "Stephen Fry...he seems quite nice." Don't let Ake hear you saying that....!!! "I'm gonna learn to highlight in color, methinks..." Try to learn it better than I have Robo - I only intended to highlight one line IT'S QUITE EASY Only use it on self imposed semi-literates though (a confession - I owe my ability to use it on that nice Vic Smith - the Secondary Modern System only taught you how to "tot up your wages at the end of the week!) Jom Christmas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 02:34 AM "Maybe that old joke applies to Jim:" I'd rather have Ghandi's reply when he was asked what he thought of Western civilisation "It would be a good idea" Woks for me Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Mr Red Date: 06 Sep 17 - 02:54 AM i think it would be safe enough selling arms to Stephen Fry...he seems quite nice Ah! Stephen Fry, on QI, who couldn't tell a lie. Tis an unreliable place this planet, even monkeys are aggressive to strangers. It will only get worse as the most precious of resources moves further to the poles. Water. In theory we could desalinate, in practice it is power hungry. We could use all that endless sunshine to power a plant, Bahrain does. But progress is slow and oil is cheap. Until then we procreate and make demand more pressing. And meanwhile we make arms. War is the result and it will become more prominent as resources tighten. Wars will become more likely IMHO. Too many people, not enough planet. Watch this lack of space............ Answers on a postcard please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: David Carter (UK) Date: 06 Sep 17 - 03:31 AM You could maybe offer to sell arms to Stephen Fry, but I doubt that he would want them. This is the issue, anybody sufficiently "good" to trust with destructive weapons, would not want them and never use them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 03:41 AM " This is the issue, anybody sufficiently "good" to trust with destructive weapons, would not want them and never use them." Like gun licencing - a good rule of thumb would be that anybody who wants one is not fit to be trusted with one Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Sep 17 - 03:52 AM Perhaps Keith's now going to tell us who decides which are the nice countries and which are the nasty ones. Cue a remark concerning decent democracies... OK Steve. Democracies do not go to war with each other. "All countries are entitled to defend themselves" You can repeat this as often as you like Keith but weapons sold to tyrants are used to defend tyranny No. If the country has a bad record you refuse them weapons that can be used to subjugate the people. Just the means to defend the nation, e.g. frigates, air defence,.... Iran, as a Shia nation, does not export Jihad, It fights for Assad in Syria. It arms and sponsors the rebels in Yemen. It controls Hezbollah. It arms and sponsors Hamas. It has a nuclear programme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Sep 17 - 04:05 AM I think that we should be allowed to discuss uk politics. As I said in that OP, these are dramatically interesting times for UK politics. Lib Dems and UKIP are currently marginalised, but the EU debate could see them break through again any time. The Tories have a knife edge majority and that only by relying on DUP. They are split over Brexit, and May's leadership hangs by a thread. Labour are also split over brexit, and their left/right split has just widened over their Scottish leadership. The discussion was no more contentious than any US political debate. The armaments discussion can now go on in this separate thread. What is the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 06 Sep 17 - 04:14 AM "No. If the country has a bad record you refuse them weapons that can be used to subjugate the people. Just the means to defend the nation, e.g. frigates, air defence,...." You make a distinction that does nor exist in the real world. All those cruise missile we hear about. What do you think some of the launch platforms were? Air defense has both defensive and offensive capability! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 04:30 AM "I think that we should be allowed to discuss uk politics." I'n not usually in to this sort of thing, but as you make a habit of it, isn't this "thread drift" You opened this thread on arms, it is now apparent that you did so to divert the subject of arms sales - one of the most contentious aspects of UK politics, away from your other thread of - UK politics. You really can't have it both ways and shift an important aspect of UK politics out of harms way Terrorism is at the top of the list of world problems today - some of us believe that arms sales exacerbate unrest and involve so many other subjects - including immigrants and refugees You can't comparmentalise these discussions into your own personalised comfort zones (having failed miserably to censor them Your previous posting is utter gibberish Democracies don't go to war with one another!!! Divide weapons int repressive and non-repressive ones and specify what they should be used for!!!! Are you mad? Until we come to an agreement with all the people we share this planet with, even if it is only to agree to disagree with how each nation chooses its future, the lives o our childern and our children's children will continue to be at risk. Please stop trying to manipulate discussions tio suit your own personal tastes Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 06 Sep 17 - 05:29 AM some of us believe that arms sales exacerbate unrest and involve so many other subjects - including immigrants and refugees. Not that simple Jim. It is some obvious people and also not so obvious people that manipulate to create the instability of political systems that generate the need for arms. A lot of it is a game of smoke and mirrors, but innocents get killed. A perfect example of government duplicity below. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq Looking underneath stones in the middle east does more that uncover IED's. A little research on ISIS uncovers many differing stories-I wonder where the real truth lies. Definitely a need to believe nothing, question everything. Oftentimes what hits the headlines is what "they" want you to see, the real story is very murky and deeply hidden apart from the accidental release of "gems". Once upon a time planes flew into SE asia carrying arms. Reputedly some flew out with a payload of narcotics. Does this account for continuous war in the yemen?(The opium wars all over again?). Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, perhaps? And what we know of the Iran/Contra affair is only what has been released after multiple applications of bleach. The list goes on and on..... You can trust government just as much as a rabid dog! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:17 AM " Not that simple Jim." Not to you maybe Don't understand what your next statement means in relation to selling arms Arms haven'[t been invented which only kill the guilty and the bigger they get, the more innocents that ket killed - that is why they deesperately need controlling If we could isolate those who cause wars and give them a gun and lock them all in a big room, that might olve a problem, but it would leave the world bereft of politicians and profiteers (maybe not too bad an idea!) "I wonder where the real truth lies." Not unlike "don't bother your pretty little head about it" Modern technology, if it has any value, has given us the wherewithal to work a lot of things out for ourselves - this information is no longer tha domain of the priveleged "Iran/Contra affair " Just seen the highly entertaining, based on fact "Made in America" which calls into question the whole question of which democracies are truely "democratic" "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même" I saw 'The Leopard' many years ago, where the main character is given the wonderful line, "we need to change if we are going to stay the same" - a lesson our "betters" are gradually learning - hopefully too late to keep them where they are. "You can trust government just as much as a rabid dog!" Present governments - true. One of the great failures of Communism as attempted is that it abandoned one of its most important principles - that of making its leaders answerable to those who chose them and subject to recall if they failed to do so When you think about it, it's not too much to ask and should not be difficult to write into any constitution - it only takes the will to do so. That is also a condition that was once part of Trades Union leadership but was abandoned when officers were bought off by the establishments by offered company positions and sets in the house of Lords. I seriously believe that our system has now run its course and has nowhere else to go in its present form The only question is, which way will it turn, left or right Your Guardian link is excellent, but incomplete - certainly not contradictory to what I have been claiming Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:27 AM I would like to know why the "UK Politics" thread was closed without comment? Some of the threads on US politics contain no discussion at all, just a series of boring and unfunny insults directed at their democratically elected President. Why are these insult threads not closed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:39 AM ""I wonder where the real truth lies." Not unlike "don't bother your pretty little head about it" No Jim-quite the reverse. Mainstream media mixes Facts with propaganda and selectivity to such an extent that determining the true facts and causation of some events becomes almost impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:40 AM Let us say for arguments sake the international trade in arms was banned as of tomorrow. What would the obvious consequences of that be? 1: If we accept that one, if not the most important responsibility of any sovereign government, is the safety and security of the state, then from tomorrow every single country in the world now has to fend for itself - they now cannot just purchase what they need from others. 2: What all those countries immediately lose are the savings on time, energy and resources, that currently exist. Not every country designs and makes/builds weapons and weapon systems. So from tomorrow if they fulfil that obligation of defending their sovereign integrity, some will have to start from scratch and establish their own domestic capability to manufacture their own weapons and equip their own armed forces. This is going to be extremely costly and those newly created industries will only ever have one customer - themselves. 3: As from tomorrow some countries might decide that they do not need arms, or armed forces. International disputes and the desirability of ever depleting natural resources will not disappear and countries who have decided not to bother establishing adequate defence forces will soon find themselves divorced from their resources or out of existence as independent countries. Don't look to the United Nations to protect such states - the United Nations to date has not prevented any act of aggression by any member state. I would say such a world is a far more dangerous place than the one we currently live in. Others might disagree. On the Iran-Contra thing. It really was remarkably simple from the perspectives of both Iran and the USA and provided a "win-win" solution for both parties: A) Iran in it's ongoing war with Iraq relied on the armed forces and the equipment purchased during the time of the Shah - these were in the main US, British and French weapons and weapons systems. When the Ayatollah Khomeini took over all supplies and spares were cut off. The Iranians found themselves facing defeat, Iraq who bought their weaponry from Russia and France could replace it's combat losses, Iran could not. B) Iran held US hostages from the US Embassy in Tehran, these were, by the time we are talking about, becoming more of an embarrassment than an asset. They were however still a great bargaining chip. C) The Iran/Iraq war was one where the International community wanted to see no clear victor as that would destabilise the entire region. In the early stages it looked as though Iraq was going to walk all over Iran. The solution was blindingly obvious: The US through proxies guarantee a source of weapons to allow Iran to prosecute the war and drive the Iraqis back in exchange for the US Hostages held in Tehran - That is precisely what happened. The Iran/Iraq War bimbled on for another couple of years and ended in stalemate which was exactly what the international community wanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:48 AM "The only question is, which way will it turn, left or right" See, this is the problem, Jim can only think of two alternatives both based on his outdated ideology. The future will never be assured by beating the alternative voices into submission.....we need to start thinking about working together, both domestically and internationally. The so called Left have too much time invested in political and social myths to allow themselves to see anything clearly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:50 AM "Jim can only think of two alternatives both based on his outdated ideology." how can a thing not tried be undated Ake Yousr solution was tried and six million Jews were sent to their deaths Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 06 Sep 17 - 07:13 AM Yousr solution was tried and six million Jews were sent to their deaths. No Jim, that happened because of YOUR two alternatives. A battle over the political direction of Germany a consequence of that battle was the rise of the Nazi Party. It could have happened here in the same timeframe, Mosely had a large support amongst centre voting Labour and Conservatives. The Public were for the most part unconcerned by the rise of the Tory/ Labour MP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 06 Sep 17 - 07:15 AM "The only question is, which way will it turn, left or right" What "IT" are you talking about? Akenaton in his post 06 Sep 17 - 06:48 AM is perfectly correct: "The future will never be assured by beating the alternative voices into submission.....we need to start thinking about working together, both domestically and internationally." And I cannot for the life of me see how, following that bit about, working together, domestically and internationally, resulted in six million Jews being sent to their deaths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 06 Sep 17 - 07:48 AM "It could have happened here in the same timeframe," Still could if Farage gets his way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 06 Sep 17 - 07:50 AM Arrggghhhh! He's got green and blue now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Sep 17 - 08:31 AM Ians, You make a distinction that does nor exist in the real world. It is a distinction that UK government and others do make when deciding what defence items are permissible to sell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 06 Sep 17 - 09:52 AM K of H. It is a distinction that UK government and others do make when deciding what defence items are permissible to sell. Yes but there are many ways around such distinctions when the mood suits. Also many governments may not share the same ethos. Perhaps you have forgotten French exocets and technicians working for the Argentinians during the Falklands war. Or perhaps a close look at who founded, funded,and still trains and supplies isis. In reality those distinctions are meaningless. Perhaps a close look should be taken at the use of depleted uranium scattered like confetti by coalition forces in recent wars. A WMD in all but name. 2 links below can they both be correct? Is one a massaged whitewash or is one a gross exaggeration.? http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1164_web.pdf http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/soundscience/Al-Azzawi.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 06 Sep 17 - 12:16 PM Stu, I'm sorry to say this but you have already proved yourself gutless in being unable to issue an apology, now you have added another attribute, cluelessness. Nigel Farage is certainly no Fascist, he is an extremely astute politician with a good grasp of political and economic affairs. He also has the very necessary gift of charisma. He is deeply hated by the political establishment AND the idiotic Left.......no mean feat. By the idiotic left I mean people from the UK who frequent these pages, people who are in reality fairly rich old world Liberals, warbling on about their posh lunches and taste in wine. Go to Glasgow and ask the underclass about THEIR taste in wine....Bucky an' Lanliq to a man, tae wash doon the smack an' goofies. You folk are only posturing, the very last thing you want is a Socialist state.....you are all too fucking comfortable as you are!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 12:21 PM "No Jim, that happened because of YOUR two alternatives." Utter nonsense The Holocaust arose because of a defeated nation attempting to solve its economic and social problems by making the Jews a scapegoat - dividing the nation, one against the other. If A battle over the political direction of Germany was a problem fascism was already there and din't need a Nazi Perty That's what happens every time a country holds a general election - it's called "democracy" Germany was defeated and a large section of the population gdecided that the wiping out of en entire generation in a war over colonies should never happen again - they were defeated - hence the disollusionment and the rise of fascism I can recommend a good book if I thought you were a reader To be accused of "living in the past" by someone whose attitude to homosexuality dates back to "unnatural" and chemical castration and who, long after even the bumwipe press has condemned the forcing of asylum seekers to wear the equivalent of 'Yellow Stars' (a true symbol of Nazi Germany' is somewhat ludicrous Your support for allowing racist marches, for the dictator in the White House and his rabid journalist supporter whose work has been heralded by The Klan, undermines the nonsense of youer accusation Your description of protests against Trump as seditious while at the same time condemning those of us who objected to the behaviour of The Klan at Charlotteville puts you pretty well on par with the behaviour of a regime who imprisoned and exterminated all opposition. Please don't accuse me of this again - I used to beloiieve you a dinosaur, but your viciously insulting manner of posting and refusing to respond to genuine argument puts the gentle, herbivore dinosaurs in the shade - Gorgonops would be nearer the mark Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 06 Sep 17 - 12:36 PM Jim, you are not one of the "idiotic Left" you are simply a milestone, or should that be millstone, on a road long since closed, overgrown and pot holed and on the brambly verge there you stand, lichen covered, cracked and fragmenting, but still despairingly repeating the old mantra ......Fascist! Racist! Homophobe!......sad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 12:52 PM "Jim, you are not one of the "idiotic Left" " You've had my argument Ake - how about giving us yours instead of the cowardly and childish name-calling I've explained my reasons for describing you the way I have - in some detail, If they are as "sad" as you claim, they shouldn't be too difficult to dispute - feel free You might start by telling us if anything I described of your behaviour was inaccurate Someone who refuses to take responsibility for anything they claim describing another member as "gutless" - more than a little priceless! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Sep 17 - 01:43 PM Going.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Sep 17 - 01:45 PM It will if you keep that up Baccy Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:04 PM Some points Iains related to the following posted by Keith A: K of H. It is a distinction that UK government and others do make when deciding what defence items are permissible to sell. 1: "Yes but there are many ways around such distinctions when the mood suits." Things change in the field of international relationships - there never can be "Hard-and-fast" rules cast in stone (A common fault with the "political left" who appear to be shackled to dogma and ideology) 2: "Also many governments may not share the same ethos." Very true but Keith A was specifically referring to the UK. 3: "Perhaps you have forgotten French exocets and technicians working for the Argentinians during the Falklands war." I rather think that the French gave us more assistance than they did the Argentines. The French company that made the Exocet had five technicians who found themselves trapped in Argentina during the war, one of them was a French Secret Service Agent who through contact with the Argentines managed to discover what steps they were attempting to secure additional missiles and essential parts. What the French did for us: a) Put two squadrons of Super Etendard strike aircraft at our disposal and they followed the Task Force South from the English Channel to Dakar constantly flying every type of Exocet Attack Profile so that the RN ships could recognise an attack when it took place. It should also be remembered that Exocet did not SINK a single ship in the Falklands - subsequent fires and failures in Damage Control actually brought about the loss the ships (In 1987 during the Iran/Iraq War The USS Stark, a Frigate, was hit by two Exocet missiles and the vessel and survived) b) Co-operated with M.I.6 to ensure that world-wide Argentine could not get any additional missiles - these efforts were 100% successful. Our NATO Belgian allies refused to sell us artillery shells and small arms ammunition. Israel tried its best to resupply Argentine with their version of the Exocet - The French and the British Secret Services foiled their efforts. In the USA part of the Regan Administration backed and supported Argentina and did whatever they could to hinder the section of the same administration who sided with the UK's stand on the Islands. Later Hilary Clinton gave instructions to her Staff to always refer to the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas. 4: Or perhaps a close look at who founded, funded,and still trains and supplies isis. Founded - ISIS was founded by former Ba'athists from Iraq who fled to Ba'athist Syria, they were joined by elements formerly part of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq's Anbar Province. Funded - In the vacuum created by the civil war in Syria, ISIS seized operating oilfields and sold oil on the black market. The had a number of revenue streams that at their zenith earned them in excess of £4 billion a year - they largely funded themselves. Training and Supply - I dare say in the early days of resistance in Syria some elements of ISIS did receive training and equipment indirectly from western sources. But their early marked successes in Syria and in western Iraq brought them vast stockpiles of weapons formerly "owned" by the Syrian and Iraqi Armies. Hasn't done them much good though. 5: Perhaps a close look should be taken at the use of depleted uranium scattered like confetti by coalition forces in recent wars. A WMD in all but name. Depleted uranium munitions were not "scattered like confetti" in recent wars by coalition forces. DU munitions have only got ONE purpose - the rounds made from DU are very good at destroying tanks and armoured vehicles. The person WHO DID USE DU Munitions and DID "scatter them like confetti" in and around Basra in Iraq was Saddam Hussein while he was in the process of killing over 200,000 Shia Muslims immediately after Desert Storm - The "Hind" Mil Mi-24 Helicopter Gunship was used. 6: 2 links below can they both be correct? Is one a massaged whitewash or is one a gross exaggeration.? For a start they cover two different subjects, two different areas, Kuwait and Basra/South Iraq. Link 1: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1164_web.pdf Report on Kuwait by the IAEA stated the following: "On the basis of the measurements carried out for the sites investigated during the study and summarized in this report,DU does not pose a radiological hazard to the population of Kuwait." I see no reason why the IAEA would lie or whitewash anything. Link 2: Relates to Basra Province in Southern Iraq: ttp://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/soundscience/Al-Azzawi.pdf This is a gross exaggeration. It is undated It was carried out by an Iraqi University, references to "Illegal No-Fly Zones" cast doubts on its impartiality and suggest bias on the part of the author. It refers to weapons that do not exist and were never used It covers the period from 1991 (Desert Storm) to at least 2003 - For the majority of that time the area was under Iraqi Governance which included a period of ruthless repression in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens were killed by Saddam Hussein. Ground water was deliberately contaminated on Saddam's instructions in order to ethnically cleanse the Ma'adan - they fled over the border into Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:11 PM I live in hope, Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Sep 17 - 06:33 PM So, democracies don't go to war against each other, Keith. So you're using that as a demonstration that democracies are the nice guys. OK to sell them weapons, etc. Well one or two things. First, one of our biggest arms customers is as far from being a democracy as it's possible to be. Not only that, it's a country that's bombing a neighbour back to the Stone Age, destroying in the process thousands of lives of innocent people and perpetuating an epidemic that is a shame on the modern world. Second, some of these alleged democracies are acting just a little undemocratically, especially beyond their own borders. Indiscriminate drone attacks killing civilians. Ousting a democratically-elected president then propping up his successor, one of the worst fascist dictators of the last century. Plenty more propping ups of similarly nasty dictatorships too. The funding of right-wing terrorist rebels who undermined a democratic administration. Chemical warfare on Vietnamese civilians and their crops. The invasion of a country on entirely false pretences. The uncritical military funding and political support of a country that routinely invades its neighbours, which has carried out massacres in refugee camps, razed civilian villages, stolen land for its settlements, tries to ethnically cleanse the Negev of Bedouins, left hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets in a neigbouring country which are still blowing off children's feet twenty years later, illuminated school playgrounds with white phosphorus flares in order to more easily attack civilians, built an apartheid wall and uses remote-controlled weaponry to kill children. So the fact that a democracy hasn't attacked other democracies is, to say the very least, not a reliable measure of whether that country is one of the good guys. So I ask you again. When it comes to who we should sell weapons to, who is it who decides who the good guys are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 06 Sep 17 - 08:09 PM Teribus."DU munitions are neither the benign wonder weapons promoted by Pentagon propagandists nor the instruments of genocide decried by hyperbolic anti-DU activists.While the political effects of using DU munitions are perhaps more apparent than their health and environmental effects, science and common sense dictate it is unwise to use a weapon that distributes large quantities of a toxic waste in areas where people live, work,grow food, or draw water. The European Parliament has called for a global ban on depleted uranium weapons with 491 votes in favour, 18 against and 12 abstentions. (European Parliament May 22, 2008) By "scattered like confetti" I mean that when a DU round hits a hardened target a variable component of that round forms an aerosol of nanno sized particles that can create local contamination. Much of Syria,Iraq and Kuwait is extremely arid and dust storms can be intense therefore inhalation of depleted uranium can be a distinct hazard. The extent of the hazard is downplayed by the US and UK, and probably overstated by others. I suspect that the risk is real but has yet to be adequately studied and quantified as vested interests muddy the waters. For me John Pilgar argues a convincing case.(though general environmental degradation may also have contributed) http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-iraq-a-tragic-reminder https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/un-general-assembly-help-for-depleted-uranium |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Sep 17 - 08:33 PM Depleted uranium was used extensively bu the US and the UK in Iraq in 2003, as many as ten thousand rounds. I can't find any evidence that Saddam used this weapon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 07 Sep 17 - 03:28 AM " the Gulf War ceasefire agreement of March 3 prohibited the Iraqi military's use of fixed-wing aircraft over the country, but allowed them to fly helicopters because most bridges had been destroyed. This was because General Norman Schwarzkopf accepted the request of an Iraqi general to fly helicopters, including armed gunships, to transport government officials because of destroyed transport infrastructure, acting without Pentagon or White House instructions; almost immediately, the Iraqis began using the helicopters as gunships to put down the uprisings. The outgunned rebels had few heavy weapons and few surface-to-air missiles, which made them almost defenceless against helicopter gunships and indiscriminate artillery barrages when the Ba'athists responded to the uprisings with crushing force. According to Human Rights Watch, "in their attempts to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of anyone who opposes them whether a rebel or a civilian by firing indiscriminately into the opposing areas; executing them on the streets, in homes and in hospitals; rounding up suspects, especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them with or without charge or shooting them en masse; and using helicopters to attack those who try to flee the cities The tanks used by Saddam are Russian which fire DU ammunition - The Russian military has used DU ammunition in tank main gun ammunition since the late 1970s, mostly for the 115 mm guns in the T-62 tank and the 125 mm guns in the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks. The helicopter gunships are armed with the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 or GSh-2-30 which is a dual-barrel autocannon developed for use on Sukhoi Su-25 ground attack aircraft and the Mil Mi-24 helicopter gunship - Depleted uranium enhanced armor-piercing shells suitable for the GSh-30-2 are operationally qualified for both aircraft. 1: "DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium" 2: Anybody see anything odd about this graph: Desert Storm 1991 - Look at the spike 3: "Studies in 2005 and earlier have concluded that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects." Studies by: RAND Corporation 1991 - "No evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to depleted or natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses" Archive of Oncology - James P. Mc LAUGHLIN (DEPARTMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN), Michael P. R. WALIGORSKI (THE HENRY KNIEWODNICZANSKI INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS, KRAKW, POLAND & CENTRE OF ONCOLOGY, KRAKW, POLAND) - 2001 - "the present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction". The Australian defense ministry - 2002 - This Study concluded that "there has been no established increase in mortality or morbidity in workers exposed to uranium in uranium processing industries... studies of Gulf War veterans show that, in those who have retained fragments of depleted uranium following combat related injury, it has been possible to detect elevated urinary uranium levels, but no kidney toxicity or other adverse health effects related to depleted uranium after a decade of follow-up." IAEA - 2002 - "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat". IAEA - 2003 - "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." The IAEA concluded that, while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that it has been carcinogenic in humans. Sandia National Laboratories 2005 - Al Marshall used mathematical models to analyze potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall's study concluded that the reports of cancer risks from DU exposure are not supported by his analysis nor by veteran medical statistics. 4: World DU Inventory: US - 480,000 tonnes Russia - 460,000 tonnes 5: If the argument that DU rounds are carcinogenic then replacement for depleted uranium in penetrator ammunitions, such as tungsten-cobalt or tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloys have been found to also possess carcinogenic properties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Sep 17 - 03:53 AM Steve, legitimate governments of undemocratic countries are also entitled to defend themselves. Decent countries would only sell items for national defence, and nothing that they could use against their own people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Sep 17 - 04:10 AM "Steve, legitimate governments of undemocratic countries are also entitled to defend themselves." You are back into your talking clock mode Keith Why do you open threads when you haven't the slightest interest in what other people have to say? (rhetorical question) This point has been answered - if those answers are wrong, correct them "Decent countries would only sell items for national defence" Then Britain and America are not "decent countries" - they sell arms to monsters who use them to oppress their people - for profit. Suppresion of facts bt the British Government (to be studiosly ignored by Keith) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-saudi-arabia-report-funding-uk-islamist-extremism-arms-deals-pmqs-terrorism-caroline-a7849296.html Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Sep 17 - 04:38 AM I want the direct evidence, please, that Saddam used depleted uranium. Saying that he had weaponry that happened to be able to use it is not evidence that he used it. Give me the honest evidence and I promise to believe you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Sep 17 - 04:41 AM Try posting after your coffee has woken you up properly, Keith, and stop talking drivel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 07 Sep 17 - 04:42 AM Teribus The argument over the toxity of depleted uranium gathers adherents and detractors just like brexit. Likewise all constituents of the spectrum fund studies to support their viewpoint. Extracting the truth is a challenge. It is a low level radiation risk, probably masked by background radiation in many places. But the same argument could be applied to radon, However in confined spaces radon is regarded as a (relatively recently recognised)significant hazard, hence the production of radon maps in the UK and radon sumps being incorporated in new builds in Ireland. A parallel argument could be applied to depleted uranium, inhaled nanno particles can penetrate deep in the lung and show no rush to vacate once ensconced. From the WHO Guidance on Exposure to Depleted Uranium: "Inhaled depleted uranium particles that reside in the lungs for long periods may damage lung cells and increase the possibility of lung cancer after many years. The scientific evidence for this is tenuous because studies of uranium mill workers have not shown any excess of lung cancer I liked your clarification of the Exocet story. One's education is ongoing. There are many allegations of birth defects in areas where DU has been used but I do not know if any formal epidemiological surveys have been carried out. We need politicians to realise that the military are in denial over DU, and that generals are not necessarily the best people to advise on epidemiology. " Similar questions were raised over the Vietnam war when Agent Orange, a herbicide containing the dioxin TCDD, was sprayed by the US army over rainforest to prevent it providing cover for hostile forces. The chances of a definitive answer were lost when the US government cancelled an investigation into it in 2005, but some blame it for deformities of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Stu Date: 07 Sep 17 - 06:56 AM "Stu, I'm sorry to say this but you have already proved yourself gutless in being unable to issue an apology" Because I saw no need to apologise. Still don't. So won't. "He is deeply hated by the political establishment" He is part of the political establishment. Posho public schoolboy, city money man and perviously tory who hobnobs with the likes of Murdoch and Dacre. That he's pulled the wool over so many people's eyes is testament to the inability of people to ask even the simplest questions, or are themselves supporters of the alt-reich. Here y'go Ake: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Sep 17 - 07:04 AM US "We used depleted uranium in Syria Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 07 Sep 17 - 07:08 AM Radiation with regard to DU is not the issue - never has been depleted uranium exists naturally. Where does the Military come into the picture with regard to the studies? The RAND Corporation is an American nonprofit global policy think tank. Not Military. The Department of Experimental Physics at University College Dublin has nothing whatsoever to do with the Military. Neither has the Henry Kniewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Krakw, or the Polish Centre of Oncology. The Australian Defence Ministry commissioned a study in 2002 but they did not undertake that study, that was done on their behalf by an independent third party. The IAEA have got nothing to do with the Military. Desert Storm was in 1991 - anyone who bothered to open the link I provided (Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq) would have noted that incidence of congenital malformations observed decreased after 1991, still decreasing in 1992 to reach an all time low in 1993. The trend then changes and the congenital malformations observed starts to rise through 1994, 1995 and 1996. It then dips in 1997 then explodes from 1998 to 2000 where the levels are 9 times what they were immediately AFTER Desert Storm. Explanations please? The US or their Coalition partners were not firing DU ammunition in Southern Iraq between 1992 and 2000. But take a look at what Saddam Hussein was doing: - Killing over 200,000 Iraqi Shia Muslims using helicopters and tanks that fire DU rounds. - Used chemical weapons against civilian population. - Disposed of chemical and biological weapons in an uncontrolled manner - Contaminated ground water and drained marshes Obviously to one little coterie of "socialists" on this forum none of the above could possibly have had anything to do with the congenital malformations observed. The timing of those observations would suggest otherwise - but just to remind them - from 1992 to 2000 Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Regime were in control of Iraq and as such were responsible for what was happening in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 07 Sep 17 - 07:19 AM Oh WOW Jom, what a credible link - A Russian Blog - this the same crowd who claimed that Russia did not allow a BUK missile launcher to stray over the border into rebel held territory in the Ukraine and shoot down a civilian airliner? Now they are beginning to bump off the investigators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: akenaton Date: 07 Sep 17 - 07:33 AM "He is part of the political establishment. Posho public schoolboy, city money man and perviously tory who hobnobs with the likes of Murdoch and Dacre. That he's pulled the wool over so many people's eyes is testament to the inability of people to ask even the simplest questions, or are themselves supporters of the alt-reich. Well, for a start there have been many genuine socialists, who attended public school, There have been millions of socialists who are or were social conservatives, previously or otherwise. All politicians use the media, it is a large part of their tool box. Your last sentence makes no sense and is an ignorant rant. You have to apologise for calling me a Racist and a Fascist, from my writing here I am obviously neither. If you are simple enough to believe that objection to uncontrolled immigration equates to Racism or Fascism, then further discussion is pointless. You may simply be channelling Jim, but most here know the nature of his problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 07 Sep 17 - 07:52 AM "Radiation with regard to DU is not the issue - never has been depleted uranium exists naturally." So does radon. Please read what I said above. In its natural state (ie rocks and soils) uranium tends to be bound chemically. Used as a munition it is not bound. If you take a drive through Rumaila when the wind is picking up you find all those flagged off hazards become meaningless. When it is blowing a hoolie the entire topsoil? gets airboune and starts to jig about, along with any particles of depleted uranium below a certain size. You are arguing from a military perspective. We can both link to papers to support our positions but that does not progress the argument. I will meet you part way and concede that DU may not be the only factor at play. There are a number of studies of Gulf War illness incidence among troops. They demonstrate it is real not psychosomatic, although the aetiology still shows uncertainty. For GWI "Chemical exposures have become the focus of etiologic research because nervous system symptoms are prominent and many neurotoxicants were present in theater, including organophosphates (OPs), carbamates, and other pesticides; sarin/cyclosarin nerve agents, and pyridostigmine bromide (PB) medications used as prophylaxis against chemical warfare attacks. Psychiatric etiologies have been ruled out." Some of the above were only exposed to troops, others to civilians. Whether it is the troops or civilians were subjected to greater stress and hence vulnerability is a mute point. Either way the environment was degraded as a result both of Saddam or the coalition. At the end of the day who created the problem is less important than its recognition and cure. I believe the cleanup bill in Saudi and Kuwait was considerable-no doubt the dollars to achieve the same in Iraq were subjected to embargo, like many medicines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Sep 17 - 07:53 AM "- Killing over 200,000 Iraqi Shia Muslims using helicopters and tanks that fire DU rounds" That COULD fire them but which may not have done. Your evidence is not evidence. And being a socialist has exactly what to do with this discussion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Sep 17 - 08:43 AM "Oh WOW Jom, what a credible link" Repeated all over the internet Maybe this is another case of "SOLDIERS TELLING LIES" again!! Back to Jom - I see your pills seem to be losing their effect again Is that really the best you can come up with - "made up shit"? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Teribus Date: 07 Sep 17 - 08:51 AM So as no-one appears to address the point. The figures used to club the US and the coalition that kicked Iraq out of Kuwait over the use of DU munitions that caused congenital deformities as observed in Basra somehow through shamal after shamal between 1991 and 1997 resulted in little change, then all of a sudden from 1997 onwards the rate of incidence exploded to nine times what it was after Desert Storm - Amazin' innit? Bloody unbelievable more like. Nobody appears to want to discuss what a ban on the international arms trade would result in for the 190-odd countries in the world - again very strange considering the title of the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Sep 17 - 08:53 AM OR THIS? OR MAYBE THIS? Horses mouth quote "According to US Central Command spokesman Major Josh Jacques, a total of 5,265 depleted uranium rounds were fired in combination with other incendiary rounds in 2015. The US may use the munitions again. As the official put it, «We will continue to look at all options during operational planning to defeat ISIS, this includes DU rounds»." MORE FAKE NEWS Jom Christmas (as it seems to make you feel more secure) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Sep 17 - 09:09 AM Steve, Try posting after your coffee has woken you up properly, Keith, and stop talking drivel. Again you attempt to ridicule my post without identifying a single error. Please specify anything wrong in anything I have said. Jim, nothing has been "answered." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Sep 17 - 09:38 AM Still not evidence, Teribus. Congenital abnormalities can have various causes. Even poor diet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Iains Date: 07 Sep 17 - 09:39 AM Teribus. We have a problem. The military and politicians spin one story, other interested parties spin another. As I said before establishing the truth is impossible, which bit of spin do you believe? http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/get-informed/uranium-weapons/ The WHO and UN seem incapable of independent thought when it might contradict the coalition so their relevant narratives on the subject are highly suspect. The lack of recognition/recognition of Gulf War illness is a perfect parallel. Money talks and bullshit walks! Recognition has financial consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Sep 17 - 09:40 AM You posted drivel which was very well answered by Jim. And stop trying to make this all about Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: International arms trading From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Sep 17 - 09:44 AM "Again you attempt to ridicule my post without identifying a single error." And you continue to ignore the facts being put before you - that is not an "error" is is deliberate evasion Jim Carroll |
