Defying US, Paris and Berlin stand firm on EU defence pact - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14899355
Decky wrote:That isn't true at all. There is absolutely an alternative. We keep doing what we have done for thousands of years. Each nation has its own military which is used to achieve its own foreign policy goals. NATO is not an alliance it is vassalage. Nations from all around the globe sacrificing their working class teenagers by throwing them into America's wars like meat into a grinder and getting nothing back in return.



You don’t want to join the Empire? Why ever not?

Image
#14899358
Ah he is from a non country. That makes sense. He knows Australia could not go it alone so they have be someone's colony. First they were ours, now they belong to the yanks and one day they will work for the Chinese.
#14899359
Decky wrote:Why are you such a fan of NATO member states sending their people to die in Yankee wars? :?: Seriously. I don't quite get what your angle is here?


Well, partly because it stirs up Atlantis. But there are practical reasons also.

NATO does have the advantage of keeping the Americans and Europeans on the same side. Strictly speaking, NATO isn’t necessary for involving allies in, as you call it, ‘yankee wars’. Quite often it is America’s allies who get them involved because those allies are too gutless to risk it on their own.

PESCO isn’t a bad idea. Currently the Europeans can’t do much military action on their own, which for such an advanced and wealthy region is something of an embarrassment. The Americans don’t like the idea at present, but they will come round when they realise it means they don’t have to do Europe’s dirty work all the time.

The lefties, what have they got to offer? They aren’t like you, Decky. They are middle class dreamers who take they fortune for granted.

Anyway, back to the Empire. Don’t you think Darth Vader is a bit like Stalin?
#14899360
B0ycey wrote:He is Australian Decky. He is a fan because he knows no Australian blood will be spilt in bullshit American wars through NATO.


That is not true. Australian forces were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside NATO troops. Furthermore, American forces get pulled into your wars, for example Libya. That was your idea, not America.

But since you bring up Australia, let’s have a look at the record. We led the East Timor intervention (without leaving the place in ruins), conduct disaster relief and stabilisation missions in the South Pacific, support training in Iraq and Afghanistan, patrol the Persian gulf (without the Iranians capturing any sailors, mind you) and so on. So we have operated without the Americans and with them. Whereas the British these days don’t seem to be able to do anything without NATO.

Australia has a much smaller population and GDP yet today Australia has a greater and more positive effect on shaping world events than Britain. And we haven’t sold arms to countries involved in human rights abuses like Saudi Arabia. Whereas you have. In fact Australia is a reasonable model of the sort of foriegn policy @Atlantis has been advocating for Europe to follow.
#14899361
foxdemon wrote:That is not true. Australian forces were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside NATO troops. Furthermore, American forces get pulled into your wars, for example Libya. That was your idea, not America.


Wow. You are happy to be involved in the Iraq and Afgan wars? They were American bullshit wars of revenge and protecting their own oil interests. And what has been gained from such intervention? ISIS, refugees and billions of Dollars funding American defence contracts. But being you are the other side of the world what do you care? Things would be different if America attacked Indonesia and boat loads of refugees made it to Australian soil I'm sure.

Nonetheless I will give you Libya. I won't blame the US for that. Only foolish Conservatives on both sides of the channel. And Syria was a near miss mistake where thankfully parliament spared UK brushes over. Otherwise ISIS would have taken over the entire Middle East by now. That is what War mongering does. Creates issues and problems from no problems.

But since you bring up Australia, let’s have a look at the record. We led the East Timor intervention (without leaving the place in ruins), conduct disaster relief and stabilisation missions in the South Pacific, support training in Iraq and Afghanistan, patrol the Persian gulf (without the Iranians capturing any sailors, mind you) and so on. So we have operated without the Americans and with them. Whereas the British these days don’t seem to be able to do anything without NATO.


So fucking what. I am in the belief that defence should be used for defence and not attack. Since WWII there has only been one war that required UK troops to be involved in. The Falklands. There is a case for the UK being involved in the First Iraq war as Kuwait were an Ally, and maybe the Serbian War, but that would be it. NATO has had its day. The Cold War is over. Until a sufficient substitute is created by Pesco it can remain. But when Europe can look after itself, what use is NATO? America can look after their own affairs. Let Europe look after theirs.

Australia has a much smaller population and GDP yet today Australia has a greater and more positive effect on shaping world events than Britain. And we haven’t sold arms to countries involved in human rights abuses like Saudi Arabia. Whereas you have. In fact Australia is a reasonable model of the sort of foriegn policy @Atlantis has been advocating for Europe to follow.


Jeez, Australia being a better global, moral, political model than the UK. Of course it is. The UK are the American poodle. We fight in bullshit wars. But I am not the one advocating these wars. You are.

Europe will never be free from US shackles until they can defend themselves militarily. So today they have to defend clear political suicidal foreign policies until then. Hence why Pesco is Europes only hope. Europe can only be a truely significant political figure when it is an equal to America, not its understudy.
#14899365
foxdemon wrote:That is not true. Australian forces were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside NATO troops.

Australians are the bloody paratroopers of the empire. They have spilled their blood in every bloody Yankee war since Gallipoli (I know that Gallipoli wasn't a Yankee war). I don't know why they do it. It doesn't bring them any advantage. After the Iraq war they were rewarded by getting fucked with a very unfavorable US trade deal. But they are such suckers. They'll never learn, no matter how often they get fucked. But once Trump feeds them as cannon fodder to the Chinese, they'll get their fill and lose most of their trade into the bargain. :excited:

I think the Chinese should settle Australia. It's such waste the way it is now.
Last edited by Atlantis on 24 Mar 2018 15:22, edited 2 times in total.
#14899367
B0ycey wrote:Wow. You are happy to be involved in the Iraq and Afgan wars?


No, not really. I never agreed with either. I thought both were a bad idea at the time. But Australia didn’t make the strategy. Can you same the same of the UK under Blair?

However, Australian personal, did their job competently and earn’t their ally’s respect. Disagreeing with strategy isn’t the same as condemning one’s nation or soldiers.

They were American bullshit wars of revenge and protecting their own oil interests. And what has been gained from such intervention? ISIS, refugees and billions of Dollars funding American defence contracts. But being you are the other side of the world what do you care?


It is necessary to fight groups such as ISIS. They are trying to attack us so may as well do something about them.


Things would be different if America attacked Indonesia and boat loads of refugees made it to Australian soil I'm sure.


Ah, but you see, that is why we kept the Americans out of the East Timor operation. You know how they like to blow stuff up.


Nonetheless I will give you Libya. I won't blame the US for that. Only foolish Conservatives on both sides of the channel. And Syria was a near miss mistake where thankfully parliament spared UK brushes over. Otherwise ISIS would have taken over the entire Middle East by now. That is what War mongering does. Creates issues and problems from no problems.


Sure, Libya was a mistake.

ISIS is just one extremist franchise. The Brotherhood goes back to the 1930s at least. American actions didn’t create Al Queda or ISIS, just gave them opportunities.

In fact the US has been chasing these guys all over the world, in Africa and Asia. But they have over extended. Their foriegn policy is reactive rather than goal orientated. They are just wearing themselves down by trying to resist extremism everywhere.



So fucking what. I am in the belief that defence should be used for defence and not attack. Since WWII there has only been one war that required UK troops to be involved in. The Falklands. There is a case for the UK being involved in the First Iraq war as Kuwait were an Ally, and maybe the Serbian War, but that would be it. NATO has had its day. The Cold War is over. Until a sufficient substitute is created by Pesco it can remain. But when Europe can look after itself, what use is NATO? America can look after their own affairs. Let Europe look after theirs.


You do realise PESCO will focus much of its attention on West Africa, right? The French have been long involved in that region. Now you might point out that is where France gets its uranium. But it is also the case that Islamic extremists are threatening to take over that region. Can you just ignore that? If you do, your enemies will have a base of resources to build forces to attack you.



Jeez, Australia being a better global, moral, political model than the UK. Of course it is. The UK are the American poodle. We fight in bullshit wars. But I am not the one advocating these wars. You are.


You can’t ignore world events. You do have to get involved. At least when it really matters. I think the problem with UK leaders is they make decisions as though it was 80 years ago rather than acting within circumstances today. The Americans are not adjusting that well either. Both the UK and the USA need to be smarter in how they use their power.


Europe will never be free from US shackles until they can defend themselves militarily. So today they have to defend clear political suicidal foreign policies until then. Hence why Pesco is Europes only hope. Europe can only be a truely significant political figure when it is an equal to America, not its understudy.



Stop blaming the Americans. The UK is just as culpable as the US when it comes to Middle East interventions.

Anyway, what does PESCO matter to you. The UK won’t be in it. Nor will you even be in the EU. And if you withdraw from NATO (Corbyn said he wants to do that) what will you have left?
#14899368
You know that France was Europe's premier military power for centuries right? In fact they were Europe's premier military power for longer than your colony has been independent, in fact without France you would not have became independent in the first place.


Gallic Wars – Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War – Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”

Italian Wars – Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion – France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War – France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution – Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War – Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William’s War/French and Indian War – Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession – Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution – In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome”, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”

French Revolution – Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars – Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War – Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I – Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II – Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina – Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

Algerian Rebellion – Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism – France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.

Let’s face it. When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache.


But if you have confidence in them then I am going to say, "good for you". France and all of the Muslim men Europe imported should form the basis for a powerful, if expensive, force.

Maybe Trump was right. Maybe it is time to end Nato. You have all of this 'power' and we can have a much needed tax break.
#14899369
Atlantis wrote:Australians are the bloody paratroopers of the empire. They have spilled their blood in every bloody Yankee war since Gallipoli (I know that Gallipoli wasn't a Yankee war). I don't know why they do it. It doesn't bring them any advantage. After the Iraq war they were rewarded by getting fucked with a very unfavorable US trade deal. But they are such suckers. They'll never learn, no matter how often they get fucked. But once Trump feeds them as cannon fodder to the Chinese, they'll get their fill and lose most of their trade into the bargain. :excited:

I think the Chinese should settle Australia. It's such waste the way it is now.


You are just cranky because of Tobruk and Al Alamein.

Erwin Rommel commented on the Australians - “immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle”.

Not that the British ever thought that. :hmm:
#14899376
Drlee wrote:Maybe Trump was right. Maybe it is time to end Nato. You have all of this 'power' and we can have a much needed tax break.


I would be in favor of paying for every GI willing to go home, all costs for the relocation, in addition to a lump sum for a down-payment on a residential house plus the initial investment in any business of their choosing to allow them to earn a living by honest means. Hell, we could even build factories in Texas or whatever, to keep them in employment. It would still be cheaper than the extortionist protection racket you are running now.
#14899378
foxdemon wrote:No, not really. I never agreed with either. I thought both were a bad idea at the time. But Australia didn’t make the strategy. Can you same the same of the UK under Blair?


Did anyone have a strategy? Serious question. I still today don't know what the objective in either war was. And Blair was a poodle. He did what he was told. And the result. A mess.

It is necessary to fight groups such as ISIS. They are trying to attack us so may as well do something about them.


Invading Iraq created ISIS. Without intervention there be no ISIS to defeat.

ISIS is just one extremist franchise. The Brotherhood goes back to the 1930s at least. American actions didn’t create Al Queda or ISIS, just gave them opportunities.


Exactly. They gave them opportunities by eliminating their enemies. Everyone is a moderate rebel until they are not. A lesson the West has yet to learn.

In fact the US has been chasing these guys all over the world, in Africa and Asia. But they have over extended. Their foriegn policy is reactive rather than goal orientated. They are just wearing themselves down by trying to resist extremism everywhere.


An inconvenient truth about to be told now. Dictatators create stability in regions that are unstable. We are lucky to live in Liberal nations. But if you remove a dictator you do not solve the problem. On the contrary. You make things worse. And that is why I advocate for protecting internal affairs and not interfere with foreign affairs. If you can change a dictator by sanctions great. But if you can't, you need to let the people revolt on their own. Because if you don't, you are seen as aggressors and hated across the global. America are not known as liberators are they? They are known as imperialists.

You do realise PESCO will focus much of its attention on West Africa, right? The French have been long involved in that region. Now you might point out that is where France gets its uranium. But it is also the case that Islamic extremists are threatening to take over that region. Can you just ignore that? If you do, your enemies will have a base of resources to build forces to attack you.


Pesco will look after their own affairs. If it becomes another imperialist force fighting nations for greed rather than defence purposes then I will regard it as just another Western military greed organisation that needs scrapping. My hope is it eliminates the need for Europe to rely on American foreign policies, which has been the source of the worlds problems since 2001 - and as a result, isn't just another NATO.

You can’t ignore world events. You do have to get involved. At least when it really matters. I think the problem with UK leaders is they make decisions as though it was 80 years ago rather than acting within circumstances today. The Americans are not adjusting that well either. Both the UK and the USA need to be smarter in how they use their power.


The UK live in a very stable region in the world so they can. And I know it sound callous, but they will do more good in the world by letting things solve themselves than interfering. Nations in unstable regions can only help themselves by working together And fighting off terrorists. And if they are not prepared to do that, then they live by the consequences of their actions. They shouldn't be relying on Western nations to solve their problems. The only exception is if an ally is attacked. All allies should be protected and stand together.

Stop blaming the Americans. The UK is just as culpable as the US when it comes to Middle East interventions.


America gave Blair the dodgy dossier. They also gave him the 'you are either with us or against us speech'. Blair was spinless and stupid, but I do put more blame on Bush than Blair. I'd like to think that had Bush not wanted to avenge his father and was more pragmatic in his foreign policies, Blair wouldn't have became the poodle that he did. He lost his legacy due to Iraq. His own fault of course, but he was duped and that cannot be denied.

Anyway, what does PESCO matter to you. The UK won’t be in it. Nor will you even be in the EU. And if you withdraw from NATO (Corbyn said he wants to do that) what will you have left?


True. But I'd be glad for Europe to unchain itself. And if the UK doesn't join up I wouldn't advocate them leaving NATO. Unfortuantely for the UK, is a small nation with big boots. So it either joins Pesco or stays in NATO. Their is no other choice. But if it stays in NATO then we have to accept US foreign policy. And that is not good for us. It means more dead soldiers for wealthy rich American capitalists.
#14899407
B0ycey wrote:Did anyone have a strategy? Serious question. I still today don't know what the objective in either war was. And Blair was a poodle. He did what he was told. And the result. A mess.

In a confidential note, Blair wrote to Bush "if we are successful in Iraq, we'll be successful elsewhere in the ME."

The message is clear. The US/UK wanted to re-establish control over the oilfields in the region. The Gulf States are in the bag already, and once Iraq, Syria and Iran are on our side, the prospects for BP and Exxon will be substantially improved. This was the chance for GB to make a comeback after the Suez crisis, this time together with the US.

But if you remove a dictator you do not solve the problem. On the contrary. You make things worse.

That's the idea of it. Democracy and human rights were used as a pretext. The US/UK cannot tolerate strong national leaders like Nasser, Saddam, Assad, Quadaffi, Putin, etc., because they want to protect their national resources from foreign exploitation. The Neocons want these resources to be open to foreign exploitation. That's why every strong leader in the ME has to be removed, even if it means letting the Islamist crazies in.

Pesco will look after their own affairs. If it becomes another imperialist force fighting nations for greed rather than defence purposes then I will regard it as just another Western military greed organisation that needs scrapping.


Imperialism needs a strong central power. French absolutism gave birth to French imperialism and the strong powers of the president in the republic. The US, Russia, Turkey, each have a strong president to serve as central power for projecting imperial power. The UK has the first-past-the-post election system to produce a strong government at the center of the empire in Westminster.

The EU is the opposite of imperialism because it has a federal structure without a strong central power. In a way, it is the reincarnation of the HRE, which even though it had the "empire" in its name, always was a union of independent political unities, and not an empire. In the end, it fell victim to French imperialism, but it never projected imperial power in the 1,000 years of its existence. The first thing Hitler did was to abolish the German federal system to create a centrally ruled empire in the image of the French and British empires. Therefore, it is false to suspect the EU, with its federal structures, of imperial ambitions. How do you think 27 European capitals from Athens to Helsinki would form a consensus to engage on a militaristic adventure like the Iraq war? It is totally unthinkable. Imperialism is inbuilt into the very DNA of centrally ruled countries. Federalism is the very opposite. The EU is not the opposite of the nation state; it is the opposite of imperialism.
#14899508
B0ycey wrote:Did anyone have a strategy? Serious question. I still today don't know what the objective in either war was. And Blair was a poodle. He did what he was told. And the result. A mess.


What do you mean ‘does anyone have a strategy’. Everyone else but the UK has a strategy. As to Blair, he was already in kahoots with Clinton before junior became president. Just taking orders? Where have I heard that before?



Invading Iraq created ISIS. Without intervention there be no ISIS to defeat.


Was going to happen anyway. Maybe not as it did, but it would still have happened. ISIS and Al Queda are just franchises of something bigger.



Exactly. They gave them opportunities by eliminating their enemies. Everyone is a moderate rebel until they are not. A lesson the West has yet to learn.


UK and US strategy has not been terribly inspired lately.



An inconvenient truth about to be told now. Dictatators create stability in regions that are unstable. We are lucky to live in Liberal nations. But if you remove a dictator you do not solve the problem. On the contrary. You make things worse. And that is why I advocate for protecting internal affairs and not interfere with foreign affairs. If you can change a dictator by sanctions great. But if you can't, you need to let the people revolt on their own. Because if you don't, you are seen as aggressors and hated across the global. America are not known as liberators are they? They are known as imperialists.


So you support dictators and human rights violators? That would explain why you are A’OK with selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Any other human rights violators you are really to admit to supporting?


Pesco will look after their own affairs. If it becomes another imperialist force fighting nations for greed rather than defence purposes then I will regard it as just another Western military greed organisation that needs scrapping. My hope is it eliminates the need for Europe to rely on American foreign policies, which has been the source of the worlds problems since 2001 - and as a result, isn't just another NATO.


What of Russia, China, India, Iran, Turkey...etc. All this moral grandstanding! Wait, I know..., you could sell weapons to all of them.


The UK live in a very stable region in the world so they can. And I know it sound callous, but they will do more good in the world by letting things solve themselves than interfering. Nations in unstable regions can only help themselves by working together And fighting off terrorists. And if they are not prepared to do that, then they live by the consequences of their actions. They shouldn't be relying on Western nations to solve their problems. The only exception is if an ally is attacked. All allies should be protected and stand together.


Stable? So stable that you have Russian SSNs patrolling of your coast, spies are being assassinated and your alliances are falling apart.



America gave Blair the dodgy dossier. They also gave him the 'you are either with us or against us speech'. Blair was spinless and stupid, but I do put more blame on Bush than Blair. I'd like to think that had Bush not wanted to avenge his father and was more pragmatic in his foreign policies, Blair wouldn't have became the poodle that he did. He lost his legacy due to Iraq. His own fault of course, but he was duped and that cannot be denied.


Nice try at shifting the blame. As I wrote above, Blair already had an intimate relationship with Clinton. Bush may well have been influenced by Blair, not the other way around.



True. But I'd be glad for Europe to unchain itself. And if the UK doesn't join up I wouldn't advocate them leaving NATO. Unfortuantely for the UK, is a small nation with big boots. So it either joins Pesco or stays in NATO. Their is no other choice. But if it stays in NATO then we have to accept US foreign policy. And that is not good for us. It means more dead soldiers for wealthy rich American capitalists.


You mean more dead soldiers for London’s rich capitalists, don’t you?
#14899513
Invading Iraq created ISIS. Without intervention there be no ISIS to defeat.


Was going to happen anyway. Maybe not as it did, but it would still have happened. ISIS and Al Queda are just franchises of something bigger.


Obama hands off policy created ISIS. Invading Iraq is one more attempt to contain the mess Britain and France created after destroying the Ottoman empire and invented all sort of "states", with no liable nations there.
#14899514
foxdemon wrote:So you support dictators and human rights violators? That would explain why you are A’OK with selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Any other human rights violators you are really to admit to supporting?


Wooo there... How have you got that I am supporting arm sales to SA from what I have written? Nonetheless the truth is if they don't buy arms from the UK it will be from someone else like Russia anyways. So in that sense you may as well cash in. Unless you are prepared to ally with another oil rich nation like Iran of course and then distance yourself from SA all together. And their human rights are questionable too. And that unfortunately is how the world works. I may not like it or support it, but I do know you have to shake hands with the devil if it is in the best interests of your nation no matter what the devil does. After all, don't you support the US, the biggest devil of them all? Morals will only go so far. What your electorate really want are jobs and petrol for the car. And that is yet another inconventient truth.

Nonetheless my point was you can't solve the world's problems by removing dictators anyways. You make things much worse as have been proven. And more importantly there are worse dictators out there today than Saddam and Gaddafi. Are we to remove them all? Liberate most of Africa and Asia because they don't have democracies or support the West? I think not. The UK is not the world's police officer. If you want Austalia to become liberators and send their armed forces into every single shithole out there then lobby your MP to do so. I am more interested in keeping our soldiers alive and away from bullshit wars.

Stable? So stable that you have Russian SSNs patrolling of your coast, spies are being assassinated and your alliances are falling apart.


Please proved the proof Russia poisoned or killed anyone? I am yet to be convinced without evidence. Funny you promote democracy and justice around the world but don't support its virtue 'innocent until proven guilty'. But Russia are not a threat to the rest of Europe if Europe doesn't interfere with their affairs. And that is exactly what they have been doing since the Berlin wall fell. Tensions were created by supporting the Ukraine coup which were against Russian interests. Then Russia annexed Crimea which was essentially Russia anyways and the West santioned Russia. If Europe want the threat of Russia to go away, it is quite simple. Dialogue, divide Ukraine into two new states and removal of sanctions. But this is a moot point anyway. Russia can't nor aren't able to afford a war on Europe . And NATO does protect it from any threat also. So Europe is a very stable region whatever you may think.
#14899526
B0ycey wrote:Wooo there... How have you got that I am supporting arm sales to SA from what I have written? Nonetheless the truth is if they don't buy arms from the UK it will be from someone else like Russia anyways. So in that sense you may as well cash in. Unless you are prepared to ally with another oil rich nation like Iran of course and then distance yourself from SA all together. And their human rights are questionable too. And that unfortunately is how the world works. I may not like it or support it, but I do know you have to shake hands with the devil if it is in the best interests of your nation no matter what the devil does.


It is one thing to try and keep Saudi Arabia from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda or ISIS, which is their stated objective, it is another thing to push 10s of billions worth of advanced US and UK weapons to the Saudis while they are unchaining their hegemonic ambitions with war crimes in Yemen and elsewhere, covered up by Cameron and Johnson.

"Saudi Arabia is by far the larger recipient of arms under the opaque open licensing system, and last month MEE revealed that the use of approvals for arms exports, including vital parts for jets striking targets in Yemen, had risen by 75 percent."

Arms exports were singled out as a key priority for the UK's post-Brexit trade push, and prior to his resignation last year, former defence secretary Michael Fallon promised that the UK would "spread its wings across the world" with increased weapons sales.

In fact, Fallon is on record as saying that British arms sales will boom due to increasing conflicts in the world. The Tories always know how to stir up conflict - it's good for business. I'm sure @layman would agree.

REVEALED: Britain's 'secret' arms sales to Middle East human rights abusers

LONDON - The UK government has been accused of using secretive export rules to hide the true extent of arms exports to Middle East states with dire human rights records, Middle East Eye can reveal.

Figures seen exclusively by MEE reveal a more than 20 percent increase in the use of opaque "open licences" to approve arms sales to states in the Middle East and North Africa, in a move that avoids public scrutiny and keeps the value of arms and their quantities secret.


Arms exports are worth $8.3bn a year to the UK economy, and defence firms have used standard open licenses to approve more than $4.2bn in arms to the Middle East since senior ministers vowed to expand UK arms exports after the Brexit vote in June 2016.

The new figures, compiled for MEE by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), show that the government has also overseen a 22 percent rise in the use of secretive open licences to boost arms export to the Middle East and North Africa, including assault rifles to Turkey in 2016 - as a rights crackdown intensified in the country - and acoustic riot control devices to Egypt in 2015.

Figures for open arms export licences show the number of open arms export licences rose from 189 to 230 from 2013 to 2017, while the number of individual items approved under these licensees soared to 4,315 from 1,201.

Saudi Arabia is by far the larger recipient of arms under the opaque open licensing system, and last month MEE revealed that the use of approvals for arms exports, including vital parts for jets striking targets in Yemen, had risen by 75 percent.



"Current government policy on this in fundamentally contradictory."

To the dismay of rights groups, the figures show that 135 licences have been granted to Turkey, including licences for drone and tank components, machine guns, sniper rifles, gun mounting and aircraft components, thought to be linked to a $140mn fighter jet deal signed by British Prime Minister Theresa May and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in January 2017.

Turkey, a Nato member, has cooperated with Europe in tackling the refugee crisis, but Erdogan’s government has locked up thousands of its opponents in the wake of an attempted coup, amid fears it is sliding into authoritarianism.

There have also been reports that its security forces have forcibly returned Syrian refugees to the war-torn province of Idlib.

There is also growing concern that UK-made weapons and components are being used in the Turkish assault on the pro-Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in Afrin, where tens of thousands of people have been displaced and up to 300 civilians killed, according to war monitors.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has led calls in Westminster for a halt to the assault on Afrin and expressed "solidarity" with the Kurdish people over the assult, which he said "is already causing civilian casualties".

Turkey considers the YPG to be the Syrian branch of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is regarded as a terrorist group by the EU, UK and US.

However, despite human rights concerns Turkey remains a "priority market" for UK arms exports and ministers have defended Ankara and called on opposition politicians to "recognise Turkey’s legitimate interests".

'Evil forces at play'

The exposure of the approval of exports for riot control equipment to Egypt comes as there is growing concern ahead of Monday's presidential election that Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has warned of unspecified "evil forces" at play in the country, is overseeing increased repression and and a greater role for the military.

Open licences to Egypt cover licences for assault rifles, small arms ammunition and parts for military aircraft.

These have been granted despite that fact that the Foreign Office lists it as a "human rights priority country" over the jailing of journalists and an increase in reports of "torture, police brutality, forced disappearance".

The figures also show that 136 open licences have been granted for exports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since 2013, including for military-grade electronic equipment and components for military aircraft. The UAE is heavily involved in the Saudi-led aerial bombardment of Yemen, which has claimed thousands of civilians lives.

At home, the UAE makes use of "expensive surveillance software" and "draconian counter-terrorism laws" to target human rights activists, according to Human Rights Watch.

Elsewhere in the Gulf, Qatar has seen a 150 percent increase in open licences granted since 2013, with items approved including assault rifles, body armour, small arms ammunition and military radar equipment.

In some cases, such as Algeria and Israel, the number of open licences has dropped since 2013, but far higher numbers of items have been individually approved, including components for launching rockets and drone parts to Tel Aviv.

'Terrible damage'
Andrew Smith, spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade, told MEE: "The increase in open licences should concern everybody. It tells us that the government wants to make a shady industry even more closed and secretive.

"UK arms are doing terrible damage in Yemen, so it's more important than ever that parliament and civil society are given as much information as possible so that the government can be held to account."

Campaigners are also concerned that the number of items approved under open licences has risen dramatically since senior ministers vowed to expand UK arms exports after the Brexit vote.

Arms exports were singled out as a key priority for the UK's post-Brexit trade push, and prior to his resignation last year, former defence secretary Michael Fallon promised that the UK would "spread its wings across the world" with increased weapons sales.

To the dismay of anti-arms trade activists, the Defence & Security Organisation, the government body which promotes arms sales to overseas buyers, was moved to the Department of International Trade in the wake of referendum on leaving the European Union in 2016.

The number of standard licences, where firms must declare exactly what they are exporting and its value, dwarf open licences and are far more lucrative for arms manufacturers. But campaigners are concerned about the rise in the use of open licences because they are difficult to track and allow for multiple consignments of arms to be sent to the same destination without public scrutiny or parliamentary oversight.

However, MPs have welcomed testimony from Paul Everitt, head of ADS, the trade body representing UK defence firms, in which he said industry had "no objection" to details of open licences being made available for scrutiny.


Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a Labour MP who sits on the influential arms export controls select committee (CAEC), which heard the testimony, told MEE: “In the past the government has said transparency on open licences would be an administrative burden on industry. Mr Everitt's oral evidence has clearly showed this to be a cheap excuse. The government should make public the value of arms transfer under open licenses. They have no excuse left.”

The government said the UK took export controls "very seriously" and operated "one of the most robust export control regimes in the world".

"We rigorously examine every application... on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria with risks around human rights abuses being a key part of our licensing assessment," a spokesperson said.

"We will not grant a licence if doing so would be inconsistent with these criteria and have suspended or revoked licenses when the level of risk changes."

#14899530
When Saudi Arabia make the 'Human Rights council', you know something is underhand - even in the UN. While Saudi Arabia have oil, the US/UK will always ignore what is happening in Yemen. The same logic can be applied with Palestine and Israel. So you have to be a complete idiot to believe that the West is holding the moral high ground when it comes to their foreign policies. They are no different to Russia, China or even some dictator in the Middle East. Everyone is looking after their own interests. And that is not morally right. It is not politically correct and it isn't humane. But is it the way things are. And no amount of wars are going to change this. You can either sanction or ignore. Change only makes things worse. And even though I don't advocate this thought or even support this thought - and I wish things would change, at the same time I am not a disillusionist. So that is why I advocate internal and not international policies and believe it is up to the rest of the world to sort out and fight their own issues without interference.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

They're going to bring the debunked "Russiaga[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]