General Discussion
Suggest you contact Unison. They represent care workers in the public sector (what is left of it) and possib ly some in the private sector. Private sector not very unionised.
As I said - it depends on the definition of chemical. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401378/Agent-Orange-Vietnamese-children-suffering-effects-herbicide-sprayed-US-Army-40-years-ago.html I note the Americans were flinging around that Edmond Burke quote quite a bit yesterday and I wondered to myself if they were implying that by not being involved in military action that this ...
@Paul So......... if we were to have a civil war in this country and an arab country plus, say, China or Russia didn't approve of the weapons being used and you were fighting on behalf of the side using the weapons not approved by China/Russia, I take it then that you would have no problem if that superpower plus one of its acolytes militarily intervened on behalf of the side you were ...
And on this matter of International Treaties/laws concerning the use of Chemical Weapons.... Chemical Weapons If, as I have read, there is a 1926(?) International Agreement that Chemical Weapons should not be used in warfare and that there is also a UN treaty to the same effect then whoever has used CWs in Syria has broken International law and UN Treaty. The US (and until last night) ...
There seems to be a resounding silence coming from The Arab League countries. If (if) outside miliatary action is thought to be necessary then why hasn't/doesn't the Arab League countries get involved? Feel sure we've sold enough arms to them for them to be able to do so.
List of Coalition MPs who voted against the government last night. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-tory-rebels
If "it is wrong for us to stand by and watch innocent people being killed" then why haven't we made noises about intervening before now (believe this conflict has been going on for the past 2 and a half years)? We haven't. And, by using the same sentiment, why haven't we intervened in all and every other civil conflict? We haven't done that either. Just heard Nick Clegg say something along ...
Thank you for that explanation Huw. From what you say it would seem that any and all weapons are 'allowed' provided that they destroy infrastructure as well as people. However, if they destroy only (only?!) people then that is not playing by the 'rules'. Is that the logic (logic????) of all this?
Are nuclear weapons classified as chemical weapons? If not, then does it mean it's okay to use them ?
Can someone explain why the reason we are likely to get involved in the Syrian conflict is because of the alleged use of chemical weapons. Why, because of chemical weapons? What makes the use of them so different from the use of other types of weapons when the outcome for those on the receiving end is exactly the same.
