pwa wrote:Two different uses of chemical weapons but the same principle: if you use chemical weapons you pay a price. And that, surely, is a message worth sending. Not just to Assad and Putin, but more widely. If this is allowed to pass without repercussions it will be a green light to others.
Unfortunately, the US has been blurring the lines around chemical weapons, by its use of white phosphorus. It makes it harder to now claim the moral high ground, especially in that region.
As possibly the most hypocritical nation state ever, the US has no place on moral high ground!
"As in Syria today, world superpowers fought a proxy war both at arm's length and in person over north and south Vietnam. America not only helped South Vietnam to rain down chemical weapons on civilians and combatants alike but is thought to have dumped 20m gallons of chemicals itself. Weapons used included the defoliant Agent Orange which according to the Red Cross has left 1m people - and many American veterans - severely ill with chromosomal defects, birth deformities, high rates of leukaemia and cancers. Napalm, developed at Harvard in 1942, was used indiscriminately. It generates temperatures of 1,200 degrees Celsius, causes severe burns, suffocation, carbon monoxide poisoning, and firestorms."
And let's not forget the weapons,some chemical,the UK and US and other countries too,supplied Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war and afterwards. Then there's Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen. The West has no moral high ground to speak of,but only adds to the cesspit of weapon sales profits to despotic regemes around the world,then recoils in faux shock when they murder people with them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Mick F wrote:No, but there are various decisions that is left to the PM alone. The PM can consult if he/she wants to, but they don't have to.
If you want the law changed, you need to lobby your MP. TBH, I agree that the PM shouldn't be allowed to declare war without a vote. All I'm stating is the law.
You are right about the legal position, of course. It was, I think, greatly to the credit of David Cameron that he did give a MP’s a vote on whether to carry out strikes against Syria.
Mick F wrote:No, but there are various decisions that is left to the PM alone. The PM can consult if he/she wants to, but they don't have to.
If you want the law changed, you need to lobby your MP. TBH, I agree that the PM shouldn't be allowed to declare war without a vote. All I'm stating is the law.
You are right about the legal position, of course. It was, I think, greatly to the credit of David Cameron that he did give a MP’s a vote on whether to carry out strikes against Syria.
Agreed(one of his few)and probably why the current PM most likely won't
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2 wrote:And let's not forget the weapons,some chemical,the UK and US and other countries too,supplied Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war and afterwards. Then there's Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen. The West has no moral high ground to speak of,but only adds to the cesspit of weapon sales profits to despotic regemes around the world,then recoils in faux shock when they murder people with them.
Saddam was a good guy then - fighting Iran.
pwa wrote:if you use chemical weapons you pay a price.
Not if you're Saddam - didn't the Yanks give him the stuff he used against Iran for free?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
reohn2 wrote:And let's not forget the weapons,some chemical,the UK and US and other countries too,supplied Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war and afterwards. Then there's Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen. The West has no moral high ground to speak of,but only adds to the cesspit of weapon sales profits to despotic regemes around the world,then recoils in faux shock when they murder people with them.
Saddam was a good guy then - fighting Iran.
Not if you are Iranian
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
seems like the uk is a Great Power again since Russia accuses us of fabricating the chemical attack in Syria
"General Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman for Russia's defence ministry, said: "We have... evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in organising this provocation.""
reohn2 wrote:And let's not forget the weapons,some chemical,the UK and US and other countries too,supplied Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war and afterwards. Then there's Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen. The West has no moral high ground to speak of,but only adds to the cesspit of weapon sales profits to despotic regemes around the world,then recoils in faux shock when they murder people with them.
Saddam was a good guy then - fighting Iran.
pwa wrote:if you use chemical weapons you pay a price.
Not if you're Saddam - didn't the Yanks give him the stuff he used against Iran for free?
No - all the chemical weapons used against Iran were produced by Iraq - though in facilities largely built by German or German owned companies. The products required to manufacture the weapons came from a range of sources though, including the US and a range of European countries. Essentially Iraq bought the materials from whomever would grant an export licence.
So you could regard a whole series of countries in being complicit - though the countries that were the worst offenders may have been Germany and the Netherlands. Of course the UK and the US did look the other way and are not doing so now - but it was nearly 40 years ago - it's almost like comparing attitudes in the Korean War to attitudes in the Falklands War.
reohn2 wrote:And let's not forget the weapons,some chemical,the UK and US and other countries too,supplied Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war and afterwards. Then there's Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen. The West has no moral high ground to speak of,but only adds to the cesspit of weapon sales profits to despotic regemes around the world,then recoils in faux shock when they murder people with them.
Saddam was a good guy then - fighting Iran.
pwa wrote:if you use chemical weapons you pay a price.
Not if you're Saddam - didn't the Yanks give him the stuff he used against Iran for free?
No - all the chemical weapons used against Iran were produced by Iraq - though in facilities largely built by German or German owned companies. The products required to manufacture the weapons came from a range of sources though, including the US and a range of European countries. Essentially Iraq bought the materials from whomever would grant an export licence.
So you could regard a whole series of countries in being complicit - though the countries that were the worst offenders may have been Germany and the Netherlands. Of course the UK and the US did look the other way and are not doing so now - but it was nearly 40 years ago - it's almost like comparing attitudes in the Korean War to attitudes in the Falklands War.
The UK did more than look the other way. The Thatcher government provided export credit guarantees and in 1990 paid £300,000 to uhde ltd when the first gulf war stopped the payment for a chlorine plant they built in Iraq. In other words the UK taxpayer financed the building of one of Saddam's chemical facilities. I don't think attitudes have changed. Its rather a case of who uses the stuff ie is it a regime supported by or opposed by the UK/US.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Ben@Forest wrote:No - all the chemical weapons used against Iran were produced by Iraq - though in facilities largely built by German or German owned companies. The products required to manufacture the weapons came from a range of sources though, including the US and a range of European countries. Essentially Iraq bought the materials from whomever would grant an export licence.
So you could regard a whole series of countries in being complicit - though the countries that were the worst offenders may have been Germany and the Netherlands. Of course the UK and the US did look the other way and are not doing so now - but it was nearly 40 years ago - it's almost like comparing attitudes in the Korean War to attitudes in the Falklands War.
The UK did more than look the other way. The Thatcher government provided export credit guarantees and in 1990 paid £300,000 to uhde ltd when the first gulf war stopped the payment for a chlorine plant they built in Iraq. In other words the UK taxpayer financed the building of one of Saddam's chemical facilities. I don't think attitudes have changed. Its rather a case of who uses the stuff ie is it a regime supported by or opposed by the UK/US.
I don't think it's quite so clear cut now. Assad represents a secular and therefore 'safe' face to the West but we have not backed him. We are now possibly supporting a body of indeterminate jihadist groups and really don't know where they may go. A Syria without Assad may be like Libya - even more of a mess once Gadaffi had gone.
I think there us simply more political and public opprobrium about the use of CW and perhaps that is a good thing.
Lets just pull up the drawbridge, flood the tunnel and let the rest of the world kill itself while we pretend it's nothing to do with us. Let Governments gas kids, rape children, burn villages ... and always look the other way. Pretend that diplomats will sort out the Assad's, the Pol Pot's and the Putins. Turn our weapons into ploughshares. . As a nation we are fast becoming pointless. .
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
