Its the same context. The UK manufactures weapons. The UK uncovers that a sale of weapons might go to a country that has the potential to use them. The UK blocks the sale of weapons.
What did they think people where going to do with them before?
Advertisement
by The UK in Exile » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:38 pm
by Valaran » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:39 pm
Olerand wrote:The UK in Exile wrote:
Not particularly. The arms trade would struggle tremendously if we restricted it solely to countries with no desire to use them.
The German Social Democrats are influencing the German government to basically do that. Sell weaponry only to countries that like respect human rights and are peaceful and stuff. So basically to countries that don't need them, and America.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Alyakia » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:39 pm
Olerand wrote:The UK in Exile wrote:
Not particularly. The arms trade would struggle tremendously if we restricted it solely to countries with no desire to use them.
The German Social Democrats are influencing the German government to basically do that. Sell weaponry only to countries that like respect human rights and are peaceful and stuff. So basically to countries that don't need them, and America.
by The UK in Exile » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:39 pm
Napkiraly wrote:The UK in Exile wrote:It does say something about the Schizophrenic nature of the UK's arms sales laws.
We'll sell to Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia..... but not to Argentina?
Last time I checked they don't have a territorial dispute with the UK, especially one that led to a war 32 years ago.
by Frazers » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:40 pm
The UK in Exile wrote:Frazers wrote:
So your just going to completely make up a whole new context for my post huh
Its the same context. The UK manufactures weapons. The UK uncovers that a sale of weapons might go to a country that has the strongly stated potential to use them against the UK . The UK blocks the sale of weapons.
What did they think people where going to do with them before?
by The UK in Exile » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:43 pm
Frazers wrote:The UK in Exile wrote:
Its the same context. The UK manufactures weapons. The UK uncovers that a sale of weapons might go to a country that has the strongly stated potential to use them against the UK . The UK blocks the sale of weapons.
What did they think people where going to do with them before?
Ta da
"(We hope) that (his mission) takes the message to the major powers in the world to participate in dialogue ... that the great powers in the world, who have arms and financial power, can be convinced to finally heed the emerging countries and that they commit to a dialogue of civilisations where things are resolved by diplomatic channels rather than by force."
by Organized States » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:44 pm
by Valaran » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:45 pm
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Frazers » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:46 pm
The UK in Exile wrote:Frazers wrote:
Ta da
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lands.html"(We hope) that (his mission) takes the message to the major powers in the world to participate in dialogue ... that the great powers in the world, who have arms and financial power, can be convinced to finally heed the emerging countries and that they commit to a dialogue of civilisations where things are resolved by diplomatic channels rather than by force."
I, for one, am terrified.
by FutureAmerica » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:47 pm
by The UK in Exile » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:54 pm
Frazers wrote:The UK in Exile wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lands.html
I, for one, am terrified.
Do you always believe one statement from chronic thugs?
"Today, once again, we reiterate our willingness to restart talks with Britain, a dialogue between democracies" he said but adding that "they (British) must show they are willing to negotiate our claim to the Islands."
"We're not giving up and we'll be persistent. Malvinas is a national objective for all Argentines and we must recover them through dialogue and peace, but peace does not mean living with heads bent down", said the Argentine president recalling that "we have the full support of the international community in our claims".
She said that to see the Malvinas only as a territorial or sovereignty matter was to shrink the case. It was more than that: it was a challenge to multilateral bodies to determine whether the world was able to overcome prejudice and cliché. “We must leave behind us this outdated story,” she said. “We’re not asking for much. We’re just asking to talk.” She urged embracing a new world order that all States must help to realize.
At his swearing-in ceremony on Monday, the former senator for Buenos Aires said the creation of the post reaffirmed the government's commitment to resolving the dispute through peaceful, democratic means.
by Valaran » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:58 pm
Frazers wrote:"Look I know I tried to murder you that time but i'm totally different now. Would you just sell me the gun please, i'm totally a changed man"
Fuck no.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:00 pm
The UK in Exile wrote:Frazers wrote:
Do you always believe one statement from chronic thugs?
http://en.mercopress.com/2006/04/02/fal ... y-generals"Today, once again, we reiterate our willingness to restart talks with Britain, a dialogue between democracies" he said but adding that "they (British) must show they are willing to negotiate our claim to the Islands."
"We're not giving up and we'll be persistent. Malvinas is a national objective for all Argentines and we must recover them through dialogue and peace, but peace does not mean living with heads bent down", said the Argentine president recalling that "we have the full support of the international community in our claims".
http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/gacol3238.doc.htmShe said that to see the Malvinas only as a territorial or sovereignty matter was to shrink the case. It was more than that: it was a challenge to multilateral bodies to determine whether the world was able to overcome prejudice and cliché. “We must leave behind us this outdated story,” she said. “We’re not asking for much. We’re just asking to talk.” She urged embracing a new world order that all States must help to realize.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... -secretaryAt his swearing-in ceremony on Monday, the former senator for Buenos Aires said the creation of the post reaffirmed the government's commitment to resolving the dispute through peaceful, democratic means.
No.
by Alyakia » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:00 pm
Frazers wrote:"Look I know I tried to murder you that time but i'm totally different now. Would you just sell me the gun please, i'm totally a changed man"
Fuck no.
by Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:02 pm
Valaran wrote:Frazers wrote:"Look I know I tried to murder you that time but i'm totally different now. Would you just sell me the gun please, i'm totally a changed man"
Fuck no.
I don't particularly trust Kirchner. But Argentina isn't in a a military or economic (or even political) situation to fight over the Falklands (let alone have a good chance at winning) and nor will it be in the near future, so I don't see this as a major sticking point.
by The UK in Exile » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:02 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:
Any quotes from the Argentine government saying they're willing to take the opinions of the Falklands people into account?
First. -The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.
by Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:04 pm
The UK in Exile wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
Any quotes from the Argentine government saying they're willing to take the opinions of the Falklands people into account?
http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/argent ... tution.pdfFirst. -The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.
First. -The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.
by FutureAmerica » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:04 pm
by Valaran » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:04 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Valaran wrote:
I don't particularly trust Kirchner. But Argentina isn't in a a military or economic (or even political) situation to fight over the Falklands (let alone have a good chance at winning) and nor will it be in the near future, so I don't see this as a major sticking point.
Military aircraft don't suddenly become less potent after a few years. Realistically, Britain won't be upgrading from Typhoons for a few decades.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by The UK in Exile » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:06 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:First. -The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.
So no is your answer then?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Alexiandra, Elejamie, Great United States, Hidrandia, Infected Mushroom, Old Order Of Bubba, The Selkie, United Kingdom of Poland
Advertisement