Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: BREAKING:Britain Didn't Sell Kind of "Ingredients" for Nerve Gas to Syria (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry, I'm going to have to jump out of this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marsanges

    diary. Nearly everyone commenting is completely clueless as to how international trade works, and this diary is an embarrassment to this site.

    For the record, I am unequivocally and without reservation opposed to a war with Syria, but we don't need to distort facts and outright lie in order to build a case against it.

    Critical thinking is necessary. And I've lost a lot of respect for you today, that you won't even change your diary title and let something so absurd stay out in the open.

    There is absolutely no evidence that Britain sold chemicals to Syria. None. They issued export licenses to British companies, who were exporting commonly-used chemicals. Those are two entirely different things.

    Coca-Cola steals water from already thirsty nations in order to bottle Coke there. You wouldn't write a diary saying "US stealing water from drought-ravaged Nigeria," would you? I don't know. Maybe you would.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:22:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Honestly, the issue of Coke and water (0+ / 0-)

      is a pretty big deal. Although I'd say that the oil companies' actions in Nigeria are far worse.

      You wouldn't write a diary saying "US stealing water from drought-ravaged Nigeria," would you? I don't know. Maybe you would.
      Well, obviously not now. Damn, you just stole my next rec list diary;)
      that you won't even change your diary title and let something so absurd stay out in the open.
      What was it that you suggested I change it to? I'm not getting the issue here. Are these only banned now for economic reasons?
      They issued export licenses to British companies, who were exporting commonly-used chemicals. Those are two entirely different things.
      This I disagree with. British companies importing to Syria is a good as Britain doing so. All arms sold from the US come from private companies. Does that mean thatthe US is not the largest international arms dealer?

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:35:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  indeed, most of the commenters here are jumping (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BoiseBlue

      the gun (and perhaps the shark).

      Flourides are no more "ingredients for chemical weapons" than water is. Or rubbing alcohol.

      There's no "here" here. (shrug)

    •  If there's nothing to it why did they suspend (0+ / 0-)

      the licences to sell these particular chemicals to syria 10 months after the slaughter began?

      If work was a good thing, the rich would have it all and not let you do it. -- Elmore Leonard

      by voroki on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:48:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  because an economic embargo was put in place, (0+ / 0-)

        and those industrial chemicals fall under that economic embargo.  They are used to manufacture everything from glass drinking cups to baby diapers.

        They were NOT embargoed as "military" products, because they are NOT "military" products.  They are plain old ordinary industrial chemicals.  You yourself can buy them online right here in the US from any chemical company (though the stuff is pretty dangerous to handle so the chemical company might not want to sell it to private individuals for liability purposes). There's nothing illegal about it.

        You are barking up the wrong tree.

        •  They were embargoed as "dual use" (0+ / 0-)

          from what I can tell. But that category is extremely broad and includes things like PCs and even some console gaming systems. Correct me if I'm wrong on that though.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 02:21:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Because facts on the ground change? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        Your question is worded in a way that there can be multiple answers.

        The simplest answer is that the goods were exported for commercial use, and there was no reason to deny a license to export them for that reason. I used this example above: it could be something as innocuous as a Colgate plant stationed in Syria that bought the product and there was no reason to deny the license. Then the war in Syria ratcheted up and Britain faced pressure to deny the licenses in the event that months later people would write blogs declaring that Britain sold deadly chemicals to Syria.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 02:23:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site