DaveLovesDee

When news reports state exactly the same types of weapons have been used against Yemeni civilians, what were they deterring?

Lion in Winter

Not much of a closet, if you've looked at any of the videos and sources he posts.

I don't know why he keeps coming back to BE with that garbage. It's one thing for him to have a bee in his bonnet about immigration, but another to think that this forum of largely reasonable people is a fertile breeding ground for the vile stuff that he wades around in online.

They've got their absurd brexit (sort of) and that was supposed to magically solve all of these people's complaints, wasn't it? And yet here we are, 20****ing20 and and apparently the night has been spent spreading this "immigrant" nonsense across at least two threads. Good grief.

DigitalGhost

Again, we only sell them. It's up to the Saudis how they use them. Should AVIS and Herzt stop renting out vans in Europe and elsewhere now they've become an Islamic terrorism weapon of choice?

DigitalGhost

Are you speaking from experience there?

Psuedoephedrine is a key ingredient in crystal meth. That's why its sale and distribution is quite heavily controlled in Australia and the US these days, two countries with a much bigger meth use problem than the UK. It's pretty heavily restricted and even illegal in a few Asian countries as well, most notably Japan, for the same reason.

Lion in Winter

And...

"Nearly a third of arms exports authorised by Britain over the past decade were to nations identified by the government as among the worst for human rights, new figures reveal.Military arms deals worth an estimated £39bn were approved between 2008 and 2017, £12bn of which went to states included on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights “priority countries” list, according to analysis by Action on Armed Violence.Over that period, the only country on the 30-strong watchlist to which Britain did not approve arms export deals was North Korea....

The data shows a record number of arms export licences to nations on the watchlist in 2017, almost double the previous year. While 2018 was not included in the study, the British deal to supply 48 Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, reported earlier this year, is worth £5bn alone, a value that dwarfs previous agreements.

In 2017, there were 855 military licence approvals for Saudi, worth £1.3bn, compared with 331, worth £680m, the previous year.

In total, 5,782 export licences for military items in countries of concern were approved last year, worth £1.5bn, up from 2,477, worth £820m, in 2016. Some campaigners expressed concern over the doubling of licence approvals to countries with human rights abuses since the Brexit referendum in 2016."

https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...t-say-analysts


Etc.

paulry

I'd say it doesn't count as a crisis if the country is building enough housing every year (and there is plenty of available land on which to build) to absorb them. I'd say it doesn't count as a crisis if health, education, policing and the like are not struggling to cope. I'd say it doesn't count as a crisis if especially the nations poorest and most vulnerable are not at all negatively impacted by large numbers of low skilled immigrants. I'd say it doesn't count as a crisis if the country can continue to absorb such numbers each year, every year, forever - without negative effect.

Jerseygirl

I have asked both of you to put each other on ignore. DO IT please!

DigitalGhost

To be fair, they probably couldn't afford British weapons anyway. They struggle to pay for Russian and Chinese arms imports without resorting the proceeds of crime. That's probably why the UK refused to sell to them. Any attempt to trace North Korean government expenditure will just lead back to dodgy shell companies in Malaysia and Eastern Europe and the opium trade.

Lion in Winter

As has been already pointed out, weapons have one singular use. You can't treat colds with them, for example.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to sell a product who sole use is death and destruction to regimes that are clearly using them for death and destruction and try to wash your hands of any responsibility by saying that "well we only sold them the means, it's not our responsibility". What do you think the FO thinks they will do with them?

Lion in Winter

It has been demonstrated to you multiple times over the years that "immigrants" are not causing the above mentioned issues. The numbers don't add up.

DigitalGhost

Exactly. Britain doesn't even have enough affordable housing to cover its own population right now. Regardless on where you stand as to why that is, there's no denying that it's a genuine problem especially in the South East and the likes of Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow which is where most non-agricultural migrants are likely to end up.

Lion in Winter

Which is why I'm not worried about our role in North Korea, in that sense. But the stuff we sell to the Sauds, etc etc......

DigitalGhost

No they can be used as a defensive tool or an offensive one. Those are two very different things and every country has the right, if not the responsibility, to suitably defend itself.

Lion in Winter

Is there no denying it?

What percentage of the population in those areas is made up by "migrants" and how much housing are they using?

Lion in Winter

A tool? So when the US bombs the shit out of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, that's a "defensive tool"?

The list could go on and on. What is "defense" and what is "offense"? Who decides that? The Kurds?

No, we are exporters of death that we put in the hands of others, and you want to absolve us of responsibility by saying "oh, how could we have known that?". It's for money and profit, you know it is, like every other product and like most wars, in the end.