Business is business

[Tongs ya bas]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/10/uk-arms-exports-to-saudi-arabia-can-continue-high-court-rules

 

isn't Saudi Arabua one of the most repressive theocratic dictatorships on earth with direct links to Daesh? Looks like I invented a new country there, but you get my drift

[Oxford]

7 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/10/uk-arms-exports-to-saudi-arabia-can-continue-high-court-rules

 

isn't Saudi Arabua one of the most repressive theocratic dictatorships on earth with direct links to Daesh? 

Did you watch Frankie Boyle this week? I think you should look for the bit where Saudi is mentioned in particular.

The title of your OP sums up much of what we're faced with along with phrases like you can't buck the market and life is hard which sum up the political view of life that dominates at the moment and has been dominant for quite a while. This along with the excellent biblical get out clause of "The poor will always be with you!" is a fabulous recipe for the few to have their cake, eat it and take your slice as well. Moral justification and applying ethical rules are not on the back burner they simply haven't seen a kitchen in decades and decades.

Apart from all that have a nice weekend!

[GeordieSaint]

I find selling arms to regimes like the Saudis difficult to justify morally but economically more easily justifiable; we are inexplicably linked to the Saudis in a number of different ways. So the question is do we risk economic damage (the Russians, Chinese and French would be selling the weapons to the Saudis as soon as we stopped) or take the moral high ground?

[Oxford]

25 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I find selling arms to regimes like the Saudis difficult to justify morally but economically more easily justifiable; we are inexplicably linked to the Saudis in a number of different ways. So the question is do we risk economic damage (the Russians, Chinese and French would be selling the weapons to the Saudis as soon as we stopped) or take the moral high ground?

That comes down to what you think is more important your actions or the effects your actions have. The ability to sell arms to no matter who will have consequences for the rest of the world and your country somewhere along the line. The terrorism that terrifies us all and is being used as pretext for leaving the EU is just one pretty byproduct of turning a blind eye and if we didn't do it someone else would does help, of course!

[Shadow]

1 hour ago, GeordieSaint said:

I find selling arms to regimes like the Saudis difficult to justify morally but economically more easily justifiable; we are inexplicably linked to the Saudis in a number of different ways. So the question is do we risk economic damage (the Russians, Chinese and French would be selling the weapons to the Saudis as soon as we stopped) or take the moral high ground?

Of course if we were members of a large multinational trading and cultural partnership that comprised oh I don't know, maybe 20% of the world's economy then it would be so much easier to get together with the French and the Germans and put in place a cohesive strategy with certain Human Rights criteria linked to export permissions for weaponry and related goods. That trade group could then include a clause in any agreements with third parties like China or Russia to encourage them to take similar measures.

I say "related goods" as I for one felt a swell of nationalistic pride when I discovered the cattle prods used by the Bahrain Police to deal with rioters are made in the UK.

I wonder if such an organisation could ever exist.

[GeordieSaint]

27 minutes ago, Oxford said:

That comes down to what you think is more important your actions or the effects your actions have. The ability to sell arms to no matter who will have consequences for the rest of the world and your country somewhere along the line.

I agree - but I understand our actions of not selling weapons will have no effect on Saudi actions anywhere as they'll simply by those weapons from someone else. The primary effect of our actions will simply be an economic one on ourselves.

I personally don't think ceasing arms sales to the Saudis will have any impact on terrorism; preventing Saudi money funding Wahbabist mosques in the UK is more effective for that issue.

But like I said, it's a hugely complex issue with both moral and economic factors in play; I don't know where I sit... clearly UK PLC has a clear opinion.

[GeordieSaint]

5 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Of course if we were members of a large multinational trading and cultural partnership that comprised oh I don't know, maybe 20% of the world's economy then it would be so much easier to get together with the French and the Germans and put in place a cohesive strategy with certain Human Rights criteria linked to export permissions for weaponry and related goods. I wonder if such an organisation could ever exist.

In all seriousness, do you think the French would buy into that? Agree with the point though; 20% of the World's economy would be difficult to ignore for the Saudis and I'd be on board. Slightly more difficult if UK PLC made such a decision unilaterally.

[Oxford]

41 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I agree - but I understand our actions of not selling weapons will have no effect on Saudi actions anywhere

No it won't but you (not you personally) are as guilty when you sell the arms knowing what the outcome is as if you you'd pulled the trigger, the divorce between action and consequence is convenient moral gymnastics. 

[Tongs ya bas]

2 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

I find selling arms to regimes like the Saudis difficult to justify morally but economically more easily justifiable; we are inexplicably linked to the Saudis in a number of different ways. So the question is do we risk economic damage (the Russians, Chinese and French would be selling the weapons to the Saudis as soon as we stopped) or take the moral high ground?

This isn't a slightly dodgy banana republic. It is a wealthy deeply oppressive, ruthless theocracy. The moral high ground is a gentle slope here.

[Phil]

"If we didn't supply 'em someone else would"

Brilliant argument 

[Tongs ya bas]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

"If we didn't supply 'em someone else would"

Brilliant argument 

Used by drug dealers everywhere

[Tongs ya bas]

10 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

I agree - but I understand our actions of not selling weapons will have no effect on Saudi actions anywhere as they'll simply by those weapons from someone else. The primary effect of our actions will simply be an economic one on ourselves.

I personally don't think ceasing arms sales to the Saudis will have any impact on terrorism; preventing Saudi money funding Wahbabist mosques in the UK is more effective for that issue.

But like I said, it's a hugely complex issue with both moral and economic factors in play; I don't know where I sit... clearly UK PLC has a clear opinion.

Where would you draw the line? Who wouldn't you sell weapons  and instruments of torture to?

[GeordieSaint]

11 hours ago, Tongs ya bas said:

Where would you draw the line? Who wouldn't you sell weapons  and instruments of torture to?

I honestly don't know. There's a moral and economic issue and they are interlinked. I am just not sure a unilateral decision to stop selling arms to regimes like Saudis in the current climate is a sensible idea.

[Tongs ya bas]

56 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I honestly don't know. There's a moral and economic issue and they are interlinked. I am just not sure a unilateral decision to stop selling arms to regimes like Saudis in the current climate is a sensible idea.

Thanks for a straight answer mate. In the case of Saudi  imho the answer is pretty clear.