The politics of responsibility???

bonkey

OK...before I start out on this, let me state for the record that I am undecided about the issue. I am looking for opinions on both sides, and I wuold much rather that this not turn into a "pro/anti war in Iraq" thread., even though it is exactly those events which sparked off these thoughts.

Listening to CNN whilst cooking the dinner last night, a comment struck off a thought process with me.

Tony B. has been spouting on for some time about how one of his biggest concerns is that Iraqi WMDs will fall into terrorist hands, and that ultimately Iraq would be responsible were said weapons used as part of a terrorist campaign.

Now...I take his point. If Iraq develops weapons, gives/sells them to terrorists, or to third parties who then sell on to terrorists ... there is a case to be made that Iraq is responsible for the use of those weapons.

But why isnt this established doctrine? Why are weapons manufacturers in general, or the nations governing said manufacturer's not held accountable when their weapons are used fotr terrorist purposes. Why are the Kalashnikov and IMI not held accountable every time a terrorist turns up with an AK47 assault rifle or an Uzi SMG in his grasp? Why is the manufacturer of C4 not responsible for any misuse of it - such as the Bali bomb blast?

OK...there is an argument that one market is so much larger than the other, so is harder to police. There is an argument that a single WMD in the wrong hands could wreak as much damage as all of the attacks with conventional weapons carried out globally in the last century. There is an argument that the arms manufacturers dont intend for these weapons to be used in these ways, and try not to sell to the wrong people.

Are these arguments enough? Is it enough to simply say "this problem is too big, and there are safegaurds in place, so we've done all we can/should"?

What about the supply of "heavy" equipment (fighters, tanks, etc) to nations - especially those ruled by dictators or with a poor human-rights record?

While its better than nothing, I find the double standards somewhat hypocritical. No, I am not saying that we should just sit back and do nothing (which is an almost inevitable response these days). What I am saying is that surely we should be saying to the Western Powers that if they wish to put forward such an argument, they should set the standards by showing that they are serious about its application, and that it isnt just a handy "pick and choose who to beat" stick.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that the West (pro and anti war nations included, in general) appears to believe that highly stringent rules must apply to those who cannot be trusted, but do not need to apply to those who can be trusted. The only reason I can see is that it shouldnt apply to those who can be trusted, because they can be trusted not to break them too much.

Is that good enough? I dont know...thats what I'm wondering about.

jc

Venom

But why isnt this established doctrine?

The reasion is because of all the weapon's that the UK and US sell to all these little war torn and unstable countries.

There are only a number of countries out there that are acceptable producers/sellers of military grade merchandise. Generally any nation thats outside this group, that sells weapons is labelled a threat to world peace. Even more so, the US would be more than happy to become the sole seller of weapons, simply because they're making themselves the orlds greatest superpower.

Personally i think Iraq has the right to these weapons as a nation. I don't think either the UN or the US have the right to dictate policy to another nation in this case, even considering Iraq. Iraq hasn't been causing any trouble to anyone for 12 years, and yet its being taken down a few notches, while there are more dangerous nations out there.

Besides i don't think Iraq would sell those weapons, simply because they would have more than enough money comin in from their oil resources, once UN sanctions were lifted. In fact i think they'd be one of the few countries that wouldn't need to sell weapons to boost their economy. However, this is not going to happen. The US will restrict every nation's right to bear arms, once they think those weapons might be turned against them.

Cork

Personally i think Iraq has the right to these weapons as a nation. I don't think either the UN or the US have the right to dictate policy to another nation in this case, even considering Iraq. Iraq hasn't been causing any trouble to anyone for 12 years, and yet its being taken down a few notches, while there are more dangerous nations out there.

Could the people who are Anti-War give any gaurentees that Saddam does not have these weapons.

They go around thinking they have all the answers but don't be confused it is only arrogance.

If the US invades within the next 2 weeks - I am sure the Anti - War brigade will see what weapons Saddam has.

About the resoulution on immediate disarming - Saddam's dictionary must not have the word.

bonkey

Cork, exactly which part of I wuold much rather that this not turn into a "pro/anti war in Iraq" thread was not understand????? Do I have to be less polite? OK - lets try this :

Do not try and turn this into a pro/anti-war thread.

Is that clearer?

There are only a number of countries out there that are acceptable producers/sellers of military grade merchandise. Generally any nation thats outside this group, that sells weapons is labelled a threat to world peace.

Agreed, and to be honest, I tend to agree to a large part with that sentiment.

Where I have the problem is that this small clique of weapon-exporting nations do not seem to think that it is incumbent on themselves to be as rigidly focussed on who their weapons end up with.

For example - C4 is only produced in a handful of nations, and I believe all of them are "Western Powers" (for lack of a better term=. It is a military-grade explosive, not available for non-military use that I am aware of. Its sale is supposedly tightly controlled.

It was used in one of the Bali bombings a few months ago. By Al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

So....the "policing" nations of the world are producing a tightly controlled, extremely powerful explosive that terrorists are able to acquire and use in atrocities.

This is apparently not an issue, and I want to know why. Yes, C4 is nowhere near as dangerous as (say) a dose of VX gas or somesuch, but is that any excuse? Is it acceptable that such devestating weapons are not tightly controlled (and that the suppliers or their nations are not held accountable)???

jc

Cork

The politics of responsibility???

Do you think groups who are Anti War groups will take responsibility for groups with direct or indirect links to Iraq will not attack Ireland?

Will they take responsibility that US troops will not be attacked with chemical weapons - if the US Invades Iraq?

Of course they won't.

They are all talk. Zero responsibility.

Labour Party had no problems with the use of Shannon until recently.
They are all talk. Zero responsibility.

The same goes for criticising any government policy.

They are all talk. Zero responsibility.

DeVore

Great topic Bonkey, pity the war-weenies will probably wreck it...

Anyway, here's my two cents.

I make scapels... people use my scalpels to save lives. I feel good. People use them to slice up their enemies. I feel bad.

However I am not responsible for what other humans do with my scalpels. They are sufficently multi-useful that I cant claim credit when they do good or be blamed when used for evil.


Ok, thats one way to look at things and its true.


Now flip it around... I make Anthrax. It has almost NO beneficial uses. I make it and sell it and close my eyes to what people do with it. That makes me a bad person. An irresponsible (evil) person.

The difference is in the thing you make and you're knowledge of what its going to be used for.

Thats my 2cent off the top of my head.

DeV.

Victor

One argument that is relevant is there must be a free market for weapons, otherwise a country being attacked wouldn't be able to defend itself.

This is complicated by the weapons in your sample case of Iraq - there are non-proliferation treaties in place.

However in the post-Cold War era many more people are killed by machetes, pistols and rifles than more sophisticated weapons, largely becasue they are more avavilable.

[will post more later]

Cork

The politics of responsibility???

If people resign from the British Cabinet forcing Tony Blair himself to resign - The Northern Irish Peace Process will have lost a pretty genuine friend.

the Irish Labour party would be better supporting their sister party in the UK. Will it take responsibility for the potential downfall of Tony Blair & the knock on consequnces to our peace process?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork

Do you think groups who are Anti War groups will take responsibility for groups with direct or indirect links to Iraq will not attack Ireland?

I've read and re-read this sentence countless times, and I still can't make head nor tail of it.

Back on topic, and my own two cents...

It should be the duty of every state which values, and promotes, democracy and personal freedom, to do everything humanly possible to ensure the conditions which are necessary for those values to flourish in other states should come about. Put more simply, if you mouth off about liberty and freedom, as many Western states do, then you don't do business with people who have no interest in promoting those ideals in their own state. You should not provide active support for human rights abusers, nor for that matter states which deliberately threaten global peace and security. For example, if it is unwise to sell nuclear technology and weaponry to Iraq, then surely it is equally unwise to sell Hawk fighter-bombers to Indonesia, when you know they are being used against the East-Timorese population...

This won't always be possible, or practical, but surely if we hope to foster democracy throughout the world it is highly desirable that we apply forms of ethical foreign and economic policies in dealings between the "free" West and the rest of the world.

Bonkey mentions C4 falling into the hands of terrorists as an example. perhaps he'd also consider Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, provided by the US to the mujahaideen (I suspect that ain't the right spelling:D ) during the war against the Soviets, which have found their way into Al Quieda hands. Its a classic example of a country (I'm seriously not US bashing on this one) being less than careful in choosing its friends, and being stung as a result.

I remember having a conversation with a fairly conservative US citizen one night. I asked him about US support for General Suharto's regime in Indonesia, and his justification was the Cold War, nothing more. I pointed out the deaths directly attributed to Suharto seizing power, the human rights abuses, and the death toll in East Timor (which the West was quiet on for a long time). All of it was justified because of the Cold War he told me. Personally I found this slightly bizarre...I mean, how far are we prepared to go before we say "no, enough is enough"? Should Pinochet be left to his own devices because he helped the UK during the Falklands War for instance?

Now flip it around... I make Anthrax. It has almost NO beneficial uses. I make it and sell it and close my eyes to what people do with it. That makes me a bad person. An irresponsible (evil) person.

This is interesting. In this specific example, its clear that Anthrax has no justifiable use. What of C4 for example? Or a tank? Or an assault rifle? Surely all of those can be justified by a state as necessary for defence purposes. Then they happen to use them to oppress their population...Indonesian fighter bombers are used to kill East Timorese civilians for instance. Or Iraqi attack helicopters use missiles or machine gun fire to destroy Kurdish villages. Easy to condemn, but difficult to prevent (bearing in mind that each state could argue the weaponry is for self defence), would you agree?

However in the post-Cold War era many more people are killed by machetes, pistols and rifles than more sophisticated weapons, largely becasue they are more avavilable

Too true. Remember that 800,000 died in Rwanda in only 100 days. Thats over twice the death toll of 9/11 per day! Now thats real mass destruction, and ironically was largely ignored by the US media (certainly the impression I got from a number of Americans I discussed it with post 9/11).

Cork

Did the Anti-War movement even make a statement last week on IRA disarmment?

I think Eoghan Harris was right in todays Sunday Independant today. Tony Blair is dealing with reality. Bertie and Tony are elected heads of state.

The Irish Labour Party has not the same responsibilities. September 11th - did not happen in Ireland. The Irish Labour don't have to bother themselves about rogue states. They see nothing wrong marching with SF/IRA.

Frank Grimes

Cork, what has you so hung up on what the labour party here does or does not do?
(I'm not trolling, I'd just like to know).

Sorry for going off thread for a sec, but i need to say something abt this.

Could the people who are Anti-War give any gaurentees that Saddam does not have these weapons.

Cork, I'm not part of any anti-war group, nor do i wish to be. I have my opinions on this war, and i feel that the US should not be allowed to prosecute another nation, whenever it feels like it.

No I can't guarantee that he doesn't have these weapons, just as i can't guarantee that i'll be alive tomorrow. Can you guarantee the he has these weapons, since you're such an advocate for this war? Time & time again you've said that Saddam has not co-operated with the UN, and thats one of the reasons for this war, from your perspective. Well if thats the case, surely the world would have hundreds of wars currently going on, all involving the US?

surely if we hope to foster democracy throughout the world it is highly desirable that we apply forms of ethical foreign and economic policies in dealings between the "free" West and the rest of the world.

I agree with this sentiment, however i don't think democracy should be shoved down the throats of people, while a gun is being put to the back of their heads.

Now flip it around... I make Anthrax. It has almost NO beneficial uses. I make it and sell it and close my eyes to what people do with it. That makes me a bad person. An irresponsible (evil) person.

Unfortuently we humans are creative little beasts when it comes to weapons. Are the people that produce petrol evil, because it could be used as a weapon? Extreme i know. As for anthrax, it has no possible use except for killing at the moment, but that could change, and these evil people could end up creating a miracle cure, thru such a poison.

Do you think groups who are Anti War groups will take responsibility for groups with direct or indirect links to Iraq will not attack Ireland?

Responsibility? be serious. I'll be responsible if i run over a dog while driving, not if i'm watching while someone else does it. Simplistic but vaguely true.

Cork, Are you responsible for every person, soldier or otherwise that dies in this war? Should you pay for each and every one of their funerals, because you think this war is so correct?

No of course not. At i assume so. U might have different ideas.

Cork

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
Cork, what has you so hung up on what the labour party here does or does not do?
(I'm not trolling, I'd just like to know).

Well, whatever the Irish Labour does in reality is not of much importance. But, it is so easy for them to make wide sweeping statements without taking any responsibility.

What have the stances of either the French or Germans contributed to solving of the Saddam situation?

Tony Blair has done much for this country. What has Pat Rabbitte done - besides being the leader of a party involved in marches with the political representatives of the IRA.

As for SF - SF has a long history of not getting involved in condemation. Well SF - is pretty vocal about condeming losts of things except the IRA. . But the Anti War movement is fixated on Bush. Saddam has not complied with UN resolution 1441 - Yet he is not to blame George W Bush clearly is.

Saddam is responsible for complying with the UN resolution. SF/IRA are responsible making sure the IRA disarm as agreed under the Good Friday Agreement.

No more excuses - no more apologies or time wasting.

Lennoxschips

What have the stances of either the French or Germans contributed to solving of the Saddam situation

Perhaps if the US had adopted the "French and German stance" during the 1980s they wouldn't have armed Saddam Hussein in the first place and there would be no problem... Just a thought.

DeVore

*mashes head on keyboard*

Firstly, could people PLEASE clarify attributed quotes. I HATE it when people quote me and its either not attributed or attributed to someone else. And vice versa.... if you quote someone and later quote a *different* person, please have the respect to clarify the source.


Secondly, funny how everyone picked up on the Anthrax part of my post and not the part refering to scapels...

Scapels are multi purpose and multi use.... they exonerate me from responsibility BECAUSE they have so many useful uses and purposes. So "Responsibility" is tied to "function"... but also to knowledge...

Suppose I know a person is going to use my scapels to torture someone.....In that case if I sell him the scalpel I'm responsible and evil (imho).

"but he could buy your scalpels in a shop" ... yup he could but I didnt knowlingly create them or sell them to him. I'm not to blame.

"but someone else will sell him your scalpels anyway, you might as well be the person to profit from it... you could even do *good* with the money".... Cop out. He may be able to buy the scalpels somewhere else, but I dont have to be the one to sell them to him. Let others look after their own morality, I'm not my brothers keeper. (Note, this doesnt get me out of the Anthrax example... its evil by Function.... which makes me evil for simply making it).


So... here's the test to know if you are responsible.

1. To what degree did the thing you make/sell have multiple uses and how many of them are good and how likely is it to be applied for "good".

2. Do you know or have any idea or means of finding out what its going to be used for?


By comparing the answers of these two questions you can gauge your responsibility. One can forgive the other (such as making small pox so that vaccines can be derived from it) or condemn the other (making scalpels spefically for torture).

DeV.

DeVore

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
Perhaps if the US had adopted the "French and German stance" during the 1980s they wouldn't have armed Saddam Hussein in the first place and there would be no problem... Just a thought.

Sloppy thinking.

Differentiate between "learning from our mistakes" and "dealing with the situation".

Both are important but solutions to one dont help the other.


Blame rarely assists a solution to a problem already in existance, only to the prevention of future problems.

The prevention of future problems in no way resolves existing ones.

Please stay on topic... this is not an anti-war thread.

DeV.

Clintons Cat

Devore>>>
Differentiate between "learning from our mistakes" and "dealing with the situation".

An excellent point,Sadly there is no sign that the west has learnt any real lesson from Arming and funding Despots.
Whilst Blix has been running round disarming Sadamns Al samoud missiles.On the other side of the world General Pervez Musharraf has been showing off his Hatf-IV missile capable of hitting new Delhi.

Still no need to worry because Musharraf has displayed his "friendly" credentials by handing over Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to the US.

I'm not worried.
not me.
nope.
Trots.com

Clintons Cat

To Use the Scalpels analogy.
Appologies in advance dev for using the quote out of context.

A bullet is always a Bullet,it has no other "peaceful" applications.
A tank cannot be used to plough a field.
A fighter jet cannot carry passengers or frieght.

If these items are not actively being used they are in real terms a burden on a third world countries resources ,because they need somewhere to be stored, someone to guard them,someone else to maintain them,and parts bought to keep them working.
Furthermore they have a built in obselesence,todays state of the art Aircraft Carrier is tommorrows rusting hulk.

One of the main arguments for selling arms to the developing countries is that a healthy arms industry is vital for National Defence.But does the claim really stand up to scrutiny? The British Army is going into Gulf War 2 with a lack of adequate kit.
Standard issue boots have a tendency to melt in the sun,there is a lack of desert camoflague uniforms many troops are equiped with much heavier/ thicker european uniforms.ABC protection is a joke most troops have just a standard issue gas mask.As for the ongoing saga with the SA80...Lets just say its gone through yet another series of modifications and is probally reliable until proven other wise.
Oh and the radios dont work properly either...Great

And yet British Arms Companies are out of control,The excellent Mark Thomas comedy product,showed just how easy it was to get around attempts to impose arms restrictions on countries like zimbabwe.In the space of an afternoon armed with only a fax machine he arranged for Heckler and Koch a british owned German company to sell arms through its Iranian and Pakistan Subsideries to a bogus govt dept in Zimbabwe.

Demand responsibility

Cork

Differentiate between "learning from our mistakes" and "dealing with the situation".

Of course , we need to learn from past mistakes. But Saddam not complying with UN resolution 1441. This should not be tolerated by the UN.

I thinkFrance will not use it's veto because it will not want to see itself backing a looser.

Saddam is preparing for war at present - if only he was as eger to comply with UN resolutions.

Of course , we need to learn from past mistakes.

well considering how most nations are still producing WMD's, i don't think they're being too successful.

But Saddam not complying with UN resolution 1441. This should not be tolerated by the UN.

its not being tolerated, hence why most of Iraq's infrastructure is still wrecked after the last war. Also do u really think America's mobilisation would have been allowed if Iraq hadn't pissed the UN off so much?

I thinkFrance will not use it's veto because it will not want to see itself backing a looser.

Is that what it comes down to, whether they back a looser?

I certainly hope not. I'm hoping the French will weigh the evidence as to whether Saddam has co-operated enough or not. 1441 was a harsh answer to the original failure to comply, and Saddam has complied with a number of issues. Admittedly not enough to satisfy the US or Cork, but he's getting there.

Saddam is preparing for war at present - if only he was as eger to comply with UN resolutions.

Damn right he is. And i totally approve. Would you really expect him, not to defend his country from an invader? Especially since whenever he co-operates even a little bit, the demands change..

This is going to end up with being war, partially because of his non-compliance, but mostly because the US wants this war.

Demand responsibility

Not much of that happening really.

Nuclear production is still in full swing in a number of nations. Use of nuclear power, which any crack-pot can attack/steal is becoming to norm. Hell we don't even raise an eyebrow when we hear of a new station being built these days.

There has never been an investigation into just how many WMD's the US has, and how much of their military budget is alloted towards WMD production/maintnance. I don't mean to pick on the US in this, but they are the worlds largest superpower. France, could also be accused of this, as could Russia.

The Human Race, up until now has always been a destructive race. The majority of advances have come from periods of huge destruction (i.e. wars etc). We can take most ordinary items, and given a few hrs can produce weapons capable of killing/maiming other people.

bonkey

Cork...

given either your inability to understand simple english, or your unwillingness to respect a moderator's direct request to not continue hijacking a thread....you have left me with no option.

I fail to find a single post from in this entire thread which is not attempting to just move the discussion back to pro/anti war, or your usual alternate (Irish politics). I also fail to find a single post which is even discussing the topic at hand.

You are banned for one week from Politics.

You are more than welcome back after that time, as long as you start respecting the rules you are requested to. However, continued behaviour of this nature on your part will lead to more permanent measures.

As per usual, if you disagree with this action, then take it up on the Admin forum, or with one of the other two moderators - Gandalf or Swiss.

jc
jc

growler

it's a function of responsibility versus economics

As a scalpel manufacturer i want to sell scalpels, i invest heavily in scapel research, i employ 3000 people in my scapel factory , my business is selling scalpels. I might have some moral qualms as an individual about the use of my scalpels in , say , abortion or stem cell research whatever , i still need to sell my scalpels and that is why governments allow the arms trade to continue to countries like ethiopia , indonesia, burma , eritrea etc. ....money.

selling weapons makes economic sense, obviously , otherwise there wouldn't be a trade.


quote:

---

Originally posted by Cork

Do you think groups who are Anti War groups will take responsibility for groups with direct or indirect links to Iraq will not attack Ireland?
__________________________________________________
also , completely and utterly baffling to any user of english !!!

bonkey

Just to follow up on my last post.

Anyone else who feels that this is a pro/anti war topic better get out now.

I would ask all posters to stop replying to posts from Cork in this thread. If you've already done so, and it appears after this post, then go and edit/delete it please.

jc

p.s. No, I am not taking special privilieges because I'm a moderator and this is my thread. If any poster asks that a thread be "policed" properly to avoid off-topicness or hijackery (good made up words those), then it will be.

selling weapons makes economic sense, obviously , otherwise there wouldn't be a trade

And more often than not its the countries that seel the weapons, that have created the conflict in the first place. Increase demand and the price will go up. Also place import sanctions by the UN, and then smuggle weapons in.

BTW: Sorry for going off thread before. I have a tendacy to merge threads, by accident.

Lennoxschips

I dont understand what bonkey means when he tells everyone that this is not about war/anti-war.

growler

if there were no guns , would there be any shootings?
if there were no knives , would there be any stabbings ?
if there were no rocks would there be any headbashing ?

suppose that the arms manufacturer logic is simple , it's people commit crimes / war not weapons.


the rawanda situation as so correctly pointed out above was far beyond what an isolated bio or chemical attack might inflict in the west. It's man is the problem.

klaz , i'm not sure i agree that its the countries that sell the weapons instigate the conflicts, true selling weapons to a nation at war lessens the immediate chance of a peaceful solution, but sell em enough weapons and the fight might be over faster. I can't think of many instances where a arms manufacturing nation engineered a conflict to create a market, (except maybe that falklands debacle, I can't believe that anyone really went to war over a few penguins ;-) )

The fact that the west continues to sell weaponry to already over armed african / asian / south american countries is something that needs to be addresses at UN level , strangely enough though there appears to be very few moral champions in the arms industry.

I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to this sort of things. I believe that Humans are the most self-destructive creation in the world, and we'll always find some way to hurt each other.

If you've every watched a fight in a pub/nightclub, people will use whatever they can to inflict as much damage as possible in as short as time as possible.


In the case of supplying arms, to nations at war, to continue the war, well i'm not certain of it. However, selling weapons to nations at war is older than sin. America did so with lend lease, and they've engineered rebellions, while selling weapons to the rebels opponents. So has many other nations. American Indians were sold rifles, during their own wars, with both the government, and themselves.

AS to whether it decreases the time taken for the war to finish, I doubt thats really in the mind of the suppliers. Lets face it, if the US really wanted a war to stop, especially in Africa, they'd just bring 5 carrier groups down there.

very few moral champions in the arms industry.

well it is a business i suppose. So i doubt very much that they want to damage their own possible sales, especially with so many arms companies/develpoers in financial trouble.

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey:

Do not try and turn this into a pro/anti-war thread.

Agreed. Not because we hate discussing it, but because this isn't the thread. There are lots of other threads in politics discussing it right now, and if anyone feels that isn't enough, feel free to create another.

Now, back (more permanently I hope) to the topic in hand.

I have to agree with DeVore's summation of practical ethical responsibility. However when we look at weapons production, we have to consider that there is more than one party responsible for allowing any weapon that isn't a primitive melee weapon to fall into the hands of those who would misuse, or abuse those weapons.

Firstly, we have the weapons manufacturers, of which there are several. A quick search in google threw up this link which lists some of the small arms manufacturers in Tennessee alone. Of course, the most popular firearm is that created nearly 30 years ago by Mikhail Kalashnikov, the AK 47. One may argue that for weapons, it is a buyers market, and the lure of profit would encourage arms manufacturers to be somewhat more lax in it's background checking procedures for potential buyers.

It is one thing to manufacture weapons, another to ensure that they reach their host destination. As a rule, countries that are most likely to misuse weapons do not have large arms manufacturing industries. Another search on google revealed this link, containing several documents released by UNIDIR, detailing the need to reinforce efforts to fight against the illicit trafficking of weapons. It calls for a strategic mutilateral approach to combat this, as a means of helping to ensure stability.

Obviously this would involve close co-operation between several western powers, as well as Russia. However, this, from a practical standpoint is unlikely to happen IMO, if for no other reason than for the vast quantities of profit such illicit transactions earn for their mammoth arms industries. For this same reason, arms companies are unlikely to welcome any move that would curb arms sales, as growler said, we don't often see moral champions in arms manufacturers.

Finally then we have those who are the 'end users' of the weapons, and we oftentimes place all of the culpability on those people for using the weapons which have been illicitly purchased, trafficed and attained for them when they misuse those weapons. As countries that have a part to play in putting those weapons in the hands of despots, we share part of the culpability when human rights abuses invariably occur.

Whether we have the necessary resolve to actually *do* something about it though, is an entirely other matter.

Finally then we have those who are the 'end users' of the weapons, and we oftentimes place all of the culpability on those people for using the weapons which have been illicitly purchased, trafficed and attained for them when they misuse those weapons. As countries that have a part to play in putting those weapons in the hands of despots, we share part of the culpability when human rights abuses invariably occur.

True, but you also have to take into account the millions of people who have purchased weapons legally over the counter. When you consider that in the US Arms sales while monitored, are still open to pretty much anyone that pay the cash. Also in Russia anyone can walk into a gun shop, and come away with any form of pistol, and in more reduced cases, fully automatic assault rifles.

Where does the responsibility lie, in these cases?

Also consider that in cases like the old USSR, many retired soldiers, took the weapons of their trade with them, as did KGB/GRU officers. The same can be said of many countries, where ex-servicemen/women have their own personal firearms in their homes. Whether in the end they use em, or someone else steals them, the availability of these weapons is disturbing.

In Ireland we're sheltered to the large part against these things, but consider that people can buy antique weapons of many sorts, which can all be turned to the activity of killing. I'm not even talking about firearms, but crossbows, Bows, and swords. All weapons that can kill. Irish law prohibits crossbows and such to a large degree, but licenses can be bought. Also people that own land can purchase rifles, and shotguns. All weapons that can be turned to any uyse.

Clintons Cat

Good post swiss.

there are attempts to monitor Arms sales at International level.

The UN issues arms sales returns to monitor the Worlds Arms Trade,unfortunately the scheme is entirely voluntary and many countries including the Former Soviet Republics and China do not file reports.

More information can be found at

..........
Caat.uk

Well worth a browse.
..........