 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. |
