Current Affairs Syria...

[bluestevon]

I see the Syrians and the Russians are holding up the OPCW inspections.....spring cleaning I expect....

Which was an infinitely predictable action that would happen the moment the US/UK/France decided to bomb them the day before the OCPW team arrived into the country.

 

[peteblue]

Then why is the country allowing the sale from UK companies of chemicals known to be needed in the production of chemical weapons to countries known to be willing to use them mate?

this has happened not once but in several different countries now including Syria

For a country who assumes a lot in terms of assigning blame in foreign policy decisions, thinking a country which has used chemical weapons and buys ingredients from UK companies for those chemicals is using them for altruistic purposes and not the prior one is a bit naive - or more rationally - they simply don't care what they are being used for until it is politically advantageous to do so?

The nationalities of the 9/11 bombers was 15 of the 19 where Saudis mate, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese (strangely no Iraqis or Afhgans in there)
Bin Laden was also Saudi - whose father and family are very closely connected to the House of Saud.

The propping up and support of atrocities inside Saudi Arabia has to a great extent led and fueled the extremist feelings in Arab countries

Israel - the wests tolerance and support of numerous human rights violations, murders, flouting of international laws, and the blocking of any pressure on them being able to be exerted by the UN or in sanctions by the US/UK steadfastly sticking with vetos etc, has also fuelled extremism in the region and beyond.

Would you not say that the continued support - blinding support despite any actions they commit, does not represent a threat to the UK/US etc?

There is always an issue in relation to the likes of arms sales, technologies and indeed chemicals. The problem we face though is that if we don’t sell them someone else will and then our political influence as well as our economy suffers, which the would affect our ability to do any good in the world. If you made a list of components and products that could not be exported because someone will reconfigure, mix, or abuse them, then the list would probably include everything that the U.K. produces.....

 

[peteblue]

With regards to Syria?

i) only use force where it can actually do some good for us, not in order to appear to have done something
ii) support the people who have fought for us over there (ie: the SDF) and oppose any attempts to abandon them
iii) come up with a negotiation process that doesn't have preconditions that make it impossible to acheive

i) The powers only attacked and blew up chemical development and storage sites, no one died. Surely this is good.
ii)Totally agree. We should never abandon people who have served our country
iii) This is what the U.N. have tried to do but Russia keeps using a veto to stop this, so how do we move forward.

 

[bluestevon]

There is always an issue in relation to the likes of arms sales, technologies and indeed chemicals. The problem we face though is that if we don’t sell them someone else will and then our political influence as well as our economy suffers, which the would affect our ability to do any good in the world. If you made a list of components and products that could not be exported because someone will reconfigure, mix, or abuse them, then the list would probably include everything that the U.K. produces.....

If we don't do it someone else will.

May be quite the most pathetic thing i have ever heard said mate, it excuses absolutely any action you wish to do behind that shield, so the economy suffers a little, that would be made up for by not having to spend shed-loads on bombing the countries you sold stuff too at a later date at vast expense wouldn't it?

As for banning components and products...


Errrm wouldn't that just be the exact same thing as is done already via the implementing of sanctions against a country, only this would be a country self imposing a sanction, strange that you think this would be impossible almost to do, when it's the first words - sanctions - out of politicians mouths whenever someone does something they don't like in a foreign country though.

Exactly how you think Britains political influence isn't at a dying ember stage already baffles me also, we are a country that is holding onto a nuclear deterrent at massive cost for the one reason we believe it makes us still 'relevant' as a nuclear power, when the reality is Britain has and never would be under danger of attack outside of a full blown nuclear war - in which scenario us having them wouldn't matter a single iota.

Don't even need to think about you being 100% vehemently in favour of trident etc mate, it is obvious as day comes before night you would be.

 

[peteblue]

Heres a start mate, without the support and supply of arms and political veto's in the UN/Security council, Israel would be forced to start listening

Stick massive sanctions on the country, target high profile Israelis who support the government with the same types of sanctions Russian oligarchs are being and in the past have been hit by.

See how long Israel flout human rights, kill civilians and effectively do what they feel when they start running out of parts for their state of the art army/air force.

Without the US support and protection - Israel would have no choice sooner or later than to come to the table to negotiate

Totally agree, now how can we make it happen. The U.K. at the SC has voted against Israel, but the USA just like Russia keeps using its Veto, so what now......meanwhile Israel does not have a civil war, with tens of thousands dying and millions of refugees. So why do you place Israel in the same category as Syria......

 

[bluestevon]

i) The powers only attacked and blew up chemical development and storage sites, no one died. Surely this is good.
ii)Totally agree. We should never abandon people who have served our country
iii) This is what the U.N. have tried to do but Russia keeps using a veto to stop this, so how do we move forward.

as for point 3, and the US/UK block and counter proposal from Russia mate, and round and round we go...

Only i can see that both sides are doing this, you see the one side as being obstructive because it stops who you think are the 'righteous' side

 

[peteblue]

If we don't do it someone else will.

May be quite the most pathetic thing i have ever heard said mate, it excuses absolutely any action you wish to do behind that shield, so the economy suffers a little, that would be made up for by not having to spend shed-loads on bombing the countries you sold stuff too at a later date at vast expense wouldn't it?

As for banning components and products...


Errrm wouldn't that just be the exact same thing as is done already via the implementing of sanctions against a country, only this would be a country self imposing a sanction, strange that you think this would be impossible almost to do, when it's the first words - sanctions - out of politicians mouths whenever someone does something they don't like in a foreign country though.

Exactly how you think Britains political influence isn't at a dying ember stage already baffles me also, we are a country that is holding onto a nuclear deterrent at massive cost for the one reason we believe it makes us still 'relevant' as a nuclear power, when the reality is Britain has and never would be under danger of attack outside of a full blown nuclear war - in which scenario us having them wouldn't matter a single iota.

Don't even need to think about you being 100% vehemently in favour of trident etc mate, it is obvious as day comes before night you would be.

It is a pathetic excuse, but unfortunately true.

Sanctions are not the same as banning products. Sanctions tend to be aimed at deteriorating an economy or affecting officials. In terms of products, for instance, should we continue to sell mobile phones, which can be used to detonate bombs.

If the UK’s influence is dead then you should be directing your ire at the USA or the EU.

I am in favour of a nuclear deterrent. I really wish we didn’t need one, but while these weapons exist there is no doubt that having also them gives a much greater degree of security. Had Ukraine kept hold of theirs, the Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine by Russia would not have happened.....

 

[bluestevon]

Totally agree, now how can we make it happen. The U.K. at the SC has voted against Israel, but the USA just like Russia keeps using its Veto, so what now......meanwhile Israel does not have a civil war, with tens of thousands dying and millions of refugees. So why do you place Israel in the same category as Syria......

What now i would say would be to apply the same sort of scrutiny to the US support of Israel as you do to none allied countries use of the veto etc and the motives for it.

Israel does not have a civil war because they have occupied illegally a lot of the land, forced the Palestinians to flee their own lands or have effectively put them into a very modern form of concentration camp mate, easy to not have a civil war when you have effectively imprisoned an entire set of people in all but name, even easier when you have the support of the country both politically and militarily which spends more than 40% of the total world spend on the military which is what the US does.

Have you honestly just said that Syria is above the Palestine crisis due to the refugees and deaths mate? Any idea how many people have died due to the Palestinian 'problem', how many people have been displaced, the knock on effect on other countries in the region - especially Lebanon as an example.

and no i don't place Israel in the same category, i would place it higher and by a margin, the Syrian war will come to a conclusion and a swift one unless the west start meddling again, at that point a potential powder keg in the making is defused.

Meanwhile the Arab - Israeli problems, with the Palestinian 'crisis' right slap bang at the heart of it, is the central point for that regions instability - question only remains is has that been allowed and supported for so long that permanent and irreversible damage has been done to the region which no amount of doing the right thing now can fix - i expect that is the case sadly

 

[peteblue]

as for point 3, and the US/UK block and counter proposal from Russia mate, and round and round we go...

Only i can see that both sides are doing this, you see the one side as being obstructive because it stops who you think are the 'righteous' side

Only because the USA proposal wanted an independent review while Russia wanted a review that could be vetoed by itself if it came back with the ‘wrong’ answer. I am not blind to the use of the Veto, the USA have disgracefully used it for years in respect of Israel, but in this particular case, Syria, it really is Russia that is stopping any progress.....

 

[bluestevon]

Only because the USA proposal wanted an independent review while Russia wanted a review that could be vetoed by itself if it came back with the ‘wrong’ answer. I am not blind to the use of the Veto, the USA have disgracefully used it for years in respect of Israel, but in this particular case, Syria, it really is Russia that is stopping any progress.....

So allow the Russian proposal, it's better than nothing surely, and when/if they decide to veto it then you have a nice PR win which you can beat them with.

The UN in reality is just a simple can't have my way, you won't get yours, no matter if their way is better than nothing at all.

 

[hullefc]

There is always an issue in relation to the likes of arms sales, technologies and indeed chemicals. The problem we face though is that if we don’t sell them someone else will and then our political influence as well as our economy suffers, which the would affect our ability to do any good in the world. If you made a list of components and products that could not be exported because someone will reconfigure, mix, or abuse them, then the list would probably include everything that the U.K. produces.....

Weapons/arms are good for UK plc. And UK weapons plc results in a humanitarian crisis in Yemen with Saudi's actions dictate by UK military advisers. 'Our ability to do any good in the world', tell that to the, 'Yemen: More than 50,000 children expected to die of starvation and ...'

Yemen war: 5,000 children dead or hurt and 400,000 malnourished ...

World Report 2017: Yemen | Human Rights Watch

"Human Rights Watch has documented 58 apparently unlawful coalition airstrikes since the start of the campaign, which have killed nearly 800 civilians and hit homes, markets, hospitals, schools, civilian businesses, and mosques. Some attacks may amount to war crimes. These include airstrikes on a crowded market in northern Yemen on March 15 that killed 97 civilians, including 25 children, and another on a crowded funeral in Sanaa on October that killed over 100 civilians and wounded hundreds more".

You mean that sort of 'good'. Including selling components to Saddam Hussein to enable him to make mustard gas to use against the Iranian army. That sort of 'good'.

 

[hullefc]

i) The powers only attacked and blew up chemical development and storage sites, no one died. Surely this is good.
ii)Totally agree. We should never abandon people who have served our country
iii) This is what the U.N. have tried to do but Russia keeps using a veto to stop this, so how do we move forward.

How do you know?

Your assumption that it was storage sites would mean the area/areas are saturated with chemical fallout.

 

[peteblue]

So allow the Russian proposal, it's better than nothing surely, and when/if they decide to veto it then you have a nice PR win which you can beat them with.

The UN in reality is just a simple can't have my way, you won't get yours, no matter if their way is better than nothing at all.

I actually agreed with that approach, something is better than nothing, but let’s not forget it wasn’t only the U.K. that voted against it.

I think the U.N. should be amended. I have no problem with having the 5 permanent members, but I would get rid of the veto......

 

[peteblue]

How do you know?

Your assumption that it was storage sites would mean the area/areas are saturated with chemical fallout.

Because you and Russia would have told us by now.......

 

[hullefc]

Totally agree, now how can we make it happen. The U.K. at the SC has voted against Israel, but the USA just like Russia keeps using its Veto, so what now......meanwhile Israel does not have a civil war, with tens of thousands dying and millions of refugees. So why do you place Israel in the same category as Syria......

6 million Palestinian refugees, displaced by the civil war, would disagree.