circumstances. i have been under combat situations where i was a target. it does not give me any privilege or any right. the issue is what are the surgeonation's for a command, a certain rule of engagement, a certain doctrine, a certain engagement. kincaid -- indeed, they involve casualties. they involve the fallen and their families. there is also a strong emotional component of the situation. that should be taken into account, not ignored. there is a strong indication of what should be done and what should not be done. >> yes? >> [inaudible]

>> yes. >> with all due respect to the gentleman and his question, the reality of why we have to fight wars -- my own father was a veteran of world war ii, korea, in vietnam. i have been a veteran of 32 years. i believe if we have a strong military we have a lesser chance of going to war. because of individuals who will drive situations to appoint where, if one wants to preserve the peace, one has to be willing to go to war -- you have to understand the nature of warfare, the way you must fight it, and that way you can determine better those who will

drive us to that point. >> thank you very much. next question. please state your first name. >> hello. read that the afghanistan war is the longest war the united states has been involved in. i do not know if that statistic is true or not. it started in 2001 after 9/11. i was wondering if this was due in part in fact to these new methods of war, like using robots. it is not personal combat. it is more of remote thing. >> the simple answer is no. that is not why the wars are going on so long.

in many cases, the robotics we are using on the ground are actually giving our soldiers and our folks -- and he may not be aware -- there are about 14,000 navy personnel on the ground in afghanistan and iraq. many are unaware we have so many on the ground over there. robotics in many cases, the new development of some of that, is because it allows us to have additional surveillance and reconnaissance, whether they are weapon last, we can use those for surveillance and reconnaissance. it gives us information that would help us to understand where the non-combatants are. >> were you trying to comment on this as well? >> it is a complicated question.

i think you are right. certainly, this is one of the longest -- officially, you know -- longest conflict we have been involved in. vietnam is the only other one that comes to mind of a similar links. yes, it is possible for these nasty counterinsurgency wars to drag on for much longer. i do not think it has anything to do with a particular tactic serb weapons, but the nature of the intractable conflicts that we're trying to resolve to some satisfactory level. i think we will see more of these ugly, dirty little wars as opposed to huge conventional conflict between nation states that people are willing the heck out of one another. that does not happen in these kinds of things. what to do about that and how to

respond to prepare our troops for those, indeed in the very way suggested, why it should we not be talking about ending these conflicts? if we get people to end or resolve conflicts according to legal procedures, the same way that you argue with domestic criminals. it would be much better to adjudicate disputes then to take the law into their own hands. we do need the ability to resort to force, sometimes to enforce the law. sometimes to protect vulnerable people. you are asking to change the human situation, if you pursue too far that line of thought. i do not know anyone who would not like that transformation to occur. >> brief comment by professor

sharkey. >> i would have to about to your superior wisdom as to the cause of the length of the war of -- in iraq -- >> afghanistan. " sorry. afghanistan. i do not think it is due to the robots either. i did notice that what is happening in iraq is the greater use of drones. one of the big darker projects is called project a vulture. it has just been awarded to boeing for developing a uav that can carry a 5000-pound payload. whether you would call that war or not -- i can see the end here is you fight the war, you pull

out your troops, but you leave the uav's constantly overhead. whether you are prepared to call that were or not, i do not know. >> i think, ironically, one should look at the weaker party in the conflict to see why it takes so long. look at the methods that they use. improvised device is that not everyone can produce. as long as the weaker party can use types of tactics which do not involve sophisticated weaponry, but involve the primitive way of getting them done, then the war will continue. >> yes.

please step forward. >> my name is norman robbins. you have alluded several times to be a threshold of war in the article 51 on self-defense. i would like to ask when -- when, if ever, pre-emptive war is justified. we had our nose bloodied with the pre-emptive war in iraq or it turned out the major cause, the w m.d., was false. there was a lot of media that led to democratic support. i see that same situation with respect to iran, where even thinking about getting a capability, a lot of words like that, in some minds, it is justification for an impact now

as a pre-emptive. so, my question -- what should be the true justification for pre-emptive war, knowing full well, as many of you certainly acknowledge, the great death and destruction it will bring about? >> i think david first and -- >> thank you. that is a really good question. there is nothing new about the challenge of pre-emption. in the 12th century, a writer tried to work out when it was justified to use preemptive force. he used the example of an ambush. you are about to be ambushed. they have not done anything yet. but if you attack them, you are the aggressor. if you are about to be ambushed,

but you take the first action, because you discover the ambush, you are still acting in self- defense. that is the key. it is not a new idea. that is the key. are you acting in self-defense? or are you imagine or predicting a threat without any capability , intention, without the eminence? are you saying could this be a threat for us? therefore we are going to eliminate it? preemption, which can be legitimate, which is when you act before the threat manifests itself in a way that is going to hurt you or innocent actors -- as long as you can get that balance right, it is not an aggressive war. it is getting that balance

right. it is not simple. this is prevention rather than preemption. the most simple formula that you can set a which one it is -- getting the balance right is absolutely essential. >> professor lucas? >> there are two issues. one is the cause for war. or the cause for using force. put it that way. the other is deciding whether to do it or not. he may decide to use force, but this side you have no jurisdiction to do so. -- but this side you have no jurisdiction to do so -- but decide you have no jurisdiction to do so. there were ample reasons to be concerned about iraq and its leadership. iran is building nuclear

weapons. certainly, the israeli attacks on the iraqi nuclear reactor under construction -- there was a serious amount of mr.. the question is always one of jurisdiction. article 51 grants nations who are signatories to the un charter, nothing in that charter will abrogate their individual right to self-defense. i believe that is justification for the israeli strike in 1981, i think it was. the problem we faced in iraq is, we had moved from a case of something like an ambush to something like suspicion that an ambush was under way without much certainty. one would have wished for something like the analog of an arrest warrant. a procedure where you take your evidence to the judge in some reasonably impartial party looks at it and says, yes, you have a

case or no, you do not have the case. that is what we were missing in that instance. i think if we were talking about preventive war, war is meant to interdict and prevent criminal conspiracies, we need another way of the international community coping with that in deciding not only there is a cause, but who will be delegated and whether or not the cause has risen to the level of, you know, a fair and reasonable procedure which we just do not have in the u.n. could be dealt ballot -- could be developed to authorize the protection of citizens living under the rule of law in those cases. >> i disagree with david. there has to be full consideration.

there's the new circumstances of iran that you mentioned. first, what you gain should justify the harm you cause to innocent parties. now, you can try to draw the picture of what you came on one end and what is going to be lost on the other end. or you can take damage as if is damage to your own people. the most difficult consideration is the other side. is it the last resort? that is the most difficult question to answer. because you have to convince yourself in a morally justified way that you have already

exhausted all other means to solve this problem. when do you reach the conclusion? it is very difficult. it is very difficult. so if you think about iran, i think some elements are there, but last resort is in the dark. >> thank you. next question, please. >> hello. my name is karen. my question relates -- my name is karen. my question relates to -- my name is darin. my question relates to the conflict between the cost base. -- two states. we have all these situations that arise, insurgencies or

counterinsurgencies where we are justified in using civilian casualties' or dropping bombs on a bonkers. damages in afghanistan are now judged to be incidental. or -- civil warfare where is ok for us to use chemical weapons and also the treatment of, you know, combatants, enemy combatants that goes against the geneva convention and the rights of human dignity. we've created a situation where the ethics of war no longer apply. is it time that we imagine the definition of warfare to include all these different circumstances so at the least, even if we do not know, even if we advocate that killing is ok

and killing civilians is ok, that we have expanded our definition of warfare to describe these other situations said the ethical criteria applied. insurgencies, civil wars, a counter-terrorism efforts, things like that. >> interesting. david? >> war applies to armed conflict, not just recognize the legal definition of war, which is two states. but you have got it right. not declarenty's do war on each other. why? because it is a legal. declaring war would be illegal. that would be a crime of aggression. honestly. >> ok. >> armed conflict is war in the

narrow, legal sense. it is war. it is war in the commonly- understood sense. it is armed conflict. i know the people are waiting to come in. you will find the martins' clause in all 20 -- 20th- century armed conflict. just because it is not written down in all lawbook does not mean you can do it. in a nut shell, it says covering everything that applies to war. if we have not, rely on the ethical principles. if it is a violent assault on the conscience of humankind, just because the law does not

say it is a legal doesn't mean you can do it. it is wrong. the martins claus, you'll find that in the geneva convention. it just a paragraph. and it says just because it is not written down does not mean it is ok. >> if there is a vacuum in the law, that does not mean you can fill it with anything you like. you still have to appear to ethical principles. would anyone else to jump in with a question? >> he said everything. you hear about policing operations nowadays. somehow i never get this thing about policing operations, but -- because policing has separate rules to warfare. if someone is holding the hostages, you cannot bomb the building. police are much more careful about collateral damage. i do not think they are allowed collateral damage at all.

there should be different sets of rules for policing operations then you have a war. >> i would have a very short answer to your question. regarding pre-emption -- you do not know what is your adversaries and tension. intention.y's even perfidy is always possible in human relations. so, which do you presume when you're in responsibility and you are the political leadership, you know? there is a mortal risk at stake. so, we come back to one of your

first questions. what addional risk should we take? not only ourselves, but in all life at large? it is obvious that if the answer is we would never take any kind of such a risk, then, well, it is a concept of political community which emerges and we are driven to this particular spot. ok. so. it seems to me that when we still corner on the problems of war, we should think that before

being cornered, we should have thought more about peace when it was possible, and maybe a was always possible -- and maybe it was always possible. >> so you would say we mustn't give up on last resort? or jump too quickly to last resorts? >> yes. in order to build trust, probably, we would have to acknowledge some kind of good faith. i mean, probably your adversary would want to harm you, ok? i presume some kind of good faith means the understanding that your adversary is not always necessarily supremely on

just -- unjust to people or leadership and it has some kind of idea -- you can disagree with that, ok. and yet, your adversary is not acting only on bad intentions as a gangster or an evildoer. this happen sometimes, but not always. and so, we have this tragic truism. it is the ideas of justice, which are many, and so we are getting out of the problem with the story of justice, i you know? so, the problem is diplomacy. can we figure out some kind of

road where it is perfectly we can make, sitting together, very imperfectly, this idea of justice, or is that compromise by its self unjust? this is the choice to be made. compromise or not compromising -- not only in domestic policy, but also in world policy. >> there are a lot of elements in that, and the point about the potential need to compromise in some cases, but also your point about respecting different views of justice and not going into a conflict with the assumption that your enemy does not have a concept of justice, even if it differs. >> it could be dehumanizing for everybody, not assuming that we

all refer to some same ideal of justice. the all-embracing ideal of justice. but the fact is, we see this quite well in domestic policy. we are sensitive, more sensitive to some dimension of justice. i will talk about dimensions of justice, dimensions of time, the dimensions of space, you know? when i listen to your debates, you talk so particularly. is working.lic it is not bad, you know? [laughter] it says to me that, well, everything is true, you know?

this is some kind of tragedy, you know? in life. i do not want to be too blunt. >> no, thank you for your thoughts. next, roger. >> yes. my name is roger. i teach courses about the -- disadvantages of new technology. i do not know whether this story is true or not, but six weeks ago on national public radio, the former cia agent was interviewed who was still active with the state department. he said that two months ago, and armored drone aircraft was taken over from signals coming up from televisa, -- from tel aviv, and the aircraft was going out for

miles to -- believe it or not -- a topless beach. where the aircraft circled for hours, at any the cameras at the women. it was later found that it was a 17-year-old and 19-year-old hacker who had done this. true or not, when we fire weapons by remote signals, especially if they are armed, what is the likelihood of advanced hackers being able to take over these weapons systems? correct i feel like this is a question for you, noel. >> george has already mentioned the cyber warfare. a remote controlled machine is particularly susceptible -- i do not know about that particular instance. i do not know about it. i do know the taliban were

finding film footage from the drones on their laptops. they bought the program for $10. that was all its debt. one of the big drives at the moment, not discussed here, in all the united states military plans have been too good to autonomous systems which are not able to be attacked in the same way. and they are not able to be jammed either. to me, that is worse, because you have machines that do not discriminate between combatants and civilians at all and you use those. there was talk about having a human on the loop that would be an executive in control of many machines. but that is a kind of fantasy because it takes away the issue

of them being autonomous. you need them to be autonomous for things like dogfighting. if you go into deep missions and you're fighting a nation like china or russia, a nation that is technologically sophisticated, they will be able to jam the satellite signals, the radio signals. to me this is a much worse scenario been having people take over the drone and lookit women on topless beaches. >> and if they take over the drones, they can send our own weapons against them. >> stop using them. >> i just want to mention -- a number of scholars at other institutions and this one are involved in a research consortium to look at some of these issues. it is called setmon -- cetmoms.

it is for scholars interested in this subject. i directed to the website. yes, ma'am. >> hello. my name is and zoe. i am 13. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. actually, my view of peace -- i have never known war before in my life. my view of peace is completely void of war. so, when you tell -- when people tell us that war is simply a way to manufacture peace, i would ask you why? >> yes? >> i do not think it is a way to manufacture peace. i think it is a way to return to

peace. it is fortunate you have never know war. that is a good thing. there are many people and many -- many people in many nations at your age who have known nothing but violence. i would ask what is the definition of peace. we've talked about the definition of war. there are times that you can say in the avoidance of warfare, because it nations do not resort to conflict, that there are citizens of different nations who are subjected to a lack of peace all the time, physically and in their spirits, the oppression that they go through. that lack of warfare, peace for them, do you automatically transcend if you are at war or at peace? those are things to think about. in my own thought about it, i think about the women and children, and there is a u.n.

security council resolution passed 10 years ago called 1325. i would invite you to go and read it. it talks about how the brunt of warfare -- and i would say the brunt of the lack of peace globally -- impacts women and children in a way that it does not impact men. in many cases, that is because women could not even stand in a microphone situation like you are doing right now to be able to address the kind of question. moving forward, much of the research that has been done in the last 10 or 15 years, there is a really fine article written about five years ago by a bunch of researchers at harvard talking about the course of hundreds of years, the impact on women and children of warfare. and if we increase the education

of women, and we provide opportunity for them, that by nature, we therefore secure more peaceful circumstances and warfare is something that is not resorted to as often. there are many instances, where there are crimes of humanity perpetrated against women particularly in the form of rape. there are situations like that that sum would define as short of warfare, but certainly could not be in any way construed as a way for them to have a peaceful and abundant life. so, i am happy that you have had the absence of warfare in your life and that you have had peace. i have a daughter who is 20 who i hope never knows those kinds of circumstances that other women are subject to in other

nations. i would tell you that i think one of the things that i think is very important is, as we look to secure peace, that we do it on a basis that is not only across the lines of countries so that we are not at war, but the kind of existence that people have is one of opportunity and liberty and education and peace that they have an ability to feel secure, no matter where they are. >> another comment, asa? >> i wish i could speak like yourself, saying i have never experienced anything but peace. i have never experienced anything but war and troops between war. i think you have the picture somewhat wrong. the picture is not there is peace and someone comes along with the idea of having more to

have peace. you have something that is unacceptable, which could be war, which could be genocide, and other circumstances. then you went to war in order to stop the activity, which is horrendous. but when you wage war, and you have to constantly think about what is going to happen after the war has ended, and you have to think about peace. so, waging a war is not just getting rid of your enemies. waging a war is to gain at victory over your enemy, but in a way that enables all the involved parties to enjoy peace among themselves when the war ends. >> i know george you have written extensively about a just peace. do you want to comment? >> i guess the addendum would be

even if we could envision that dream in the folk song of all the people from all the nations coming together and signing a document in which they renounce war -- we essentially have that in the united nations convention for 1948. that was what it was intended to do. what do we do with a convention like that that grants the member parties, the signatories to the document, the unlimited right to do unlimited wrong within their own borders? what about the holocaust? what about the people of rwanda? so, what we need and do not have yet is a way of protecting peace-loving individuals who were going about their own business and minding the rahm business, whether as a collective entity or as individuals within their nation from being harassed and abused and threatened with violence or

death. i think it is right not to call that concern a " war." id is instead law enforcement. we do not have any reasonable mechanisms other than the ad hoc way we do now for protecting the rights of vulnerable people. in rwanda, dark fur -- darfur, wherever they may be. we do not have no method of doing that. so we rely on what our customs of war insofar as they can be made to fit this to accomplish this. this is why afghanistan ling persson. it is not because anyone wishes to make war on the afghan people. it is because what kind of the state can be established so these people will not be living in a threat and terror of continued activity that threatens their security.

we do not have a good answer to that. the way we are doing it now is a particularly good. but it is all we have. so we look to people like yourselves to come up with better instruments than the ones we currently have, instruments that would guard the rights and security of vulnerable people. >> the fact that you are here listening to this conversation and you care gives us all a bit of hope. we appreciate your presence. thank you. [applause] >> i will try to be brief. thank you out for your work. i will recommend the book "the code of war." your book and other works make clear how utterly important is to have a guiding moral and ethical principles at every

level, from protecting civilians and the ecology infrastructure, to our troops and all the way up to legist ship -- leadership. i've worked with veterans from all over the world and from many of the wars in living memory 3. there is no compelling justification to a soldier who has been in common for taking a civilian life. there is no compelling justification when a combatants decides, before, during, or after the conflict that the causes or the kaine sport illegitimate. and there is no compelling justification for the combatant when they determined that their war was not truly and

exclusively a last resort. the only justification i have ever encountered i amorking with combatants all over the world is when they absolutely, unquestionably determine that they fought and had to kill in order to protect the immediate and absolute threat to their families, their children, their homes. in every other case, except those who have cytopathic -- psychopathic tendencies, breakdown in posttraumatic stress disorder. how do we apply the standard to all represent so well as such a high level that the conscience of our combatants and civilians are absolutely and unconditionally protected? >> excellent question. [applause] who would like to take this first? i think when the and then -- wendy and then asa?

>> that is an outstanding point. i've had people who work for me and come back and on through posttraumatic stress. my father went to that from vietnam. no one at that point in time, although the categorize it as ptsd, no one offered assistance. i would tell you that i believe fundamentally if someone is going to -- we have a volunteer force in the united states. yes, the volunteers will come back with the same issues. there are a number of fine books written -- actually, there was one girl, a psychologist in iraq who came back. there was a psychologist their

who was minister into our troops on the ground, and yet no one was asking her how she was doing. ok? and these are parallels -- there are friends of mine who are doctors in emergency rooms in places like los angeles to go through that same kind of trauma and stress -- who go through that same kind of trauma and stressed. windward dispatching troops to haiti, one of the first things i did -- because i am a psychology major. i am not an engineer. when the first things i did was e-mail the four-star who was sending our forces and asked, sir, please consider dispatching now people who will be trained to minister to the troops, spiritually, emotionally, medically, because what they are going to see -- the onslaught on their consciences of doing

relief efforts, where we are not even in warfare, ok? and the fact that they could not intercede, especially for the children, to save the children, was so traumatic for many of them. this is something we have to grapple with in the united states, and i think, globally. any relief effort, at any wartime scenario, we have people who are traumatized by these things. this happens to police officers and firefighters. certainly the ones who responded after 9/11. this is something we have to do. i believe is not just a psychology peace, but a whole person peace, and much of that has to come from the spiritual aspect of how is that individual deal with it from a spiritual perspective, particularly knowing that they had volunteered to go into that

situation, and then not fully understood what it is that they were going to get into? i think one of the problems for many, many years, through movies, through books, it is that there is almost a glamour to war or to these kinds of things and people are attracted to do careers for the wrong reasons when they may not be well prepared to handle the aftermath of what their choices are. >> i would like to let a few more of our panelists respond. i am very apologetic to those of you who've been waiting patiently in line. we will run out of time. however, i will impose on our gracious panelists to hang around a little bit after the panel, and perhaps those of you who have not gotten a chance, i do apologize. you could speak to them and ask

your questions. now since we're so close to running at a time, i would like any of them to make comments in response to our keynote speakers final questionnaire. what we just go down the line or skip around. henri? >> thank you, shannon. war is tragedy. we should take tragedy in a very precise meaning, which is something you sometimes cannot avoid, i cannot prevent from happening without allowing something else happening, which is maybe even worse. i remember a story of two

people -- not fighting, but trying to grasp the same would come offloading would reject -- same floating wood. maybe they are siblings, friends, enemies? we come to moments in time were one life could be exchanged for one of their life, and which one should we take?

when we come to such situations, either in war or elsewhere, it selfishness and' utilitarianism ways of thinking are quite inappropriate. dignity, human dignity in tragedy needs higher ground. it is not possible to reach these grounds without studying the concept of sacrifice and a self sacrifice. kierkegaard made this point quite clear, that ethics is reasonably easy to deal with until we come to the point where

sacrifice has to be made. then there is the consequence that the universe crumbles. that is what i do not have the answers to all questions. i would like that, but really i do not. i can bear witness. when i was appointed to the literary academy, i suppose i knew. [laughter] quickly realize that in fact, talking about war made the necessary complete reworking of moral philosophy. this is when we come to war and peace. it is necessary to deepen, deepen, deepen in fact all the

questions. i can tell you, the first time i talk to my colleague. i was taking a drink with him. he said, i was in serbia. and at such things happen to me. should i pulled the trigger or should i not? >> oh, my. >> so, i think we should address all the questions which emerged from all the genuine wish to eradicate war, not to be satisfied with shallow answers, you know? because war is rooted in everybody and everyone and there is all lost for power -- a lust

for power with which we much of surf and analyze. >> now, i realize if you had your hand up earlier i do not want you to forget your point, but -- >> i have forgotten that. >> the last person who opposed the question. i think the issue is much larger and deeper. it does not have anything to do with the unjust way. i am perfectly justified in what i am doing. what i am doing is killing at terrorist to jeopardize the life of my family on one hand, and i might damage three of his neighbors. i am perfectly justified.

still, i come home and i have mixed feelings. i am delighted to have been able to protect my family. i am delighted truly delighted. on the other hand, i am very sorry extremely sorry to taken the life of three people who are innocent in the sense of not jeopardize the life of anybody. so i have those mixed feelings. so psychology enters the picture not only when we commit atrocities. when we carry out the perfect action that is perfectly justified, we still have those mixed feelings. now assume there is no collateral damage. assume i am a helicopter pilot. i killed the terrorists to save the life of the veterans.

i return home. i hate that i have to kill. i am perfectly justified when i do it. but the person i killed was not innocent at all. he was a terrorist. he was an arch terrorists. so, moral psychology should be applied to people who find themselves in this tragedy. what ever you do, there are two aspects. there is one about which you are happy and one about which you arsad. and so, it is not just posttraumatic stress cases which is much too late. in training, briefings, at every

stage when you carry out your command, people who carry out such activities. you have to cultivate those two emotions. be very proud. be courageous. protector force. and all your compatriots. but never forget that human and civility -- if he is a terrorist, he is still a person. i have to kill them. i will do it again tomorrow. i have to do it. i am doing it. i find those mixed feelings, and that should be a regular reaction for combatants. when i speak to pilots and people in other branches of the

israeli defense force, it is a regular, ordinary, mixed feelings that people have. >> david? >> you talk very eloquently about the moral trauma of the hearts. if people are better prepared, you can minimize, but you can never eliminate. if you could, then we're in the robotic world of automatons, which i do not think anybody really wants to go to completely. we do not want that. there should be a cost. a human cost. when we put people into this situation, we send men and women to war, we have to look after them afterwards as well. is what you are doing -- and this is part of your proportionate calculation -- the

cost to your people, to your society, to the marriages, to the children -- is what you're going to war, is a proportional tax is the end justified? does the end justify what you have got to do? the calculation is very important. the falklands conflict in the early 1980's. more falklands veterans have died at their own hands since the conflict then died in the conflict. the care after the conflict is just as profound as the care before. i live in a town -- which there is no reason anybody would have heard of it. it was the first town that repatriated casualty's from afghanistan.

they came out to pay their respects every time. it is always national news. regrettably, it is national news about once or twice a week at the moment. it always makes headlines, as it should. my fear is that 10 years from now, after the suppose a drawdown, those veterans will become forgotten once more and we may see a repeat of what happened after the falklands. i really hope we do not do that again. >> thank you. >> like wendi, i was a psych major as well. i have worked in psychiatric hospitals. i've seen posttraumatic stress. you have to be very careful as a therapist. sometimes, the best -- therapists caused the

posttraumatic stress because they get in there and ask the questions. strangely, we've made a lot of progress. at one point, it might have been called shell shock. at other times, it might have be called cowardice and you would have been shot for it. on the other hand, it gives me the idea that soldiers suffering posttraumatic stress gives me great hope for humanity in fact, because you probably know there are a lot of historians going right back to brigadier-general marshall who was considered to be suspect we talked about soldiers from world war ii. the majority of them shot over the heads of the enemy. at the battle of gettysburg, they found that muskets were multiply loaded so people were not even shooting.

soldiers never retreated, and it is much easier to kill people in the back -- so that is one of the very strange things of war. i think that this whole thing of "killology." you do not get this shooting over the heads. people are immerse trained in telling. so, they will kill. the idea -- it sounds protest of me to say this. the idea is so many are -- the i dia is so many are suffering from post-traumatic stress is giving me a great deal of hope for the human beings. >> to you have anything else to add? >> i think those are great point. there is a great deal of compassion. we do train people in the art of warfare.

fundamentally the military is about warfare. i am charged to fight and win the nation's wars. but i would tell you that our military strategy is that it is just important to preserve the peace, as it is to go to war. we do all of those things. when you subject someone to those combat situations and they have to make a decision, based on the things that are expected of them, people die as a result. that is what we have to do. we come back and develop those kinds of programs. many years ago, we did not deal with that. it is very frequent now that you will actually hear senior commanders talking about

experiencing that. there is a level of caring and compassion. i'll also tell you that our political leadership is very taken aback by every single person that is a casualty or dies. if the truth were known, i think there were some of them who have not been in combat who were feeling a great deal and probably would even need, you know, some types of counseling themselves, depending on the situation they are actually in. i did a download of every casualty that is going on, even though i am not in command of those individuals. i care about where they are and what they are going through. and what the repercussions are for the society.

in many cases, we spoke to the young lady earlier, the 13-year- old -- thank you for asking your question. in the aftermath of war, people who are not being dealt with adequately in many other nations, in the wars in their own regions may be so filled with issues an anchor that they -- and anger that they carry out catastrophic events against their own populations. we need to not only look into this for the united states, but certainly globally. what do we do so we equip our people to go back into society? >> i'm going to give you the last comment, dr. lucas. >> i wonder if many of you

sitting up there have found the last few hours disturbing, confusing, and perhaps an unsatisfying? you should. the present state of conflict is disturbing, confusing, and quite unsatisfying. my concern, personally is our men and women can be put in uniform and placed in harm's way, maintain a sense of their role, purpose, and vision in the midst of this disturbing and unsatisfying situation in which we have placed them. they are tough, good people and they have had a traditional way of summing up their role in all of this. they would say we are the pointy end of the spear. our job is to kill people and break things and you order us to do so until someone orders us to stop. my rejoinder is, well, that may

have been so. but now, unfortunately, there are plenty of people already out there in the darker regions of the new global order killing people, breaking things, and generally doing all they can to make human life as miserable as possible. your job is to interpose yourself between your victims -- between them and their victims. >> thank you to all of our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> "washington journal" continues. host: reducing the defense department budget and some of the concerns that members of congress have about advocating such a reduction.

tell me, why is it that some of these folks feel that there are other areas whe we can reduce spending and we don't necessarily have to touch on the fense department budget? guest: there is an argument out there that says one of the primary things that the gornment must do is provide for comment defense above all other things. not cutting firemen and policemen at the city or state level. the send argument to make is that there is nobody else out there for protecting u.s. interests. unlike the past,here the british had a great empire or a great navy. there is nobody else out there. if the u.s. wants to protect its own interests, it must do that. there are some really bad people out there with the potential to do some really bad

things. there is the concern about the growth of chinese military power. there are questions aboutl- qaeda and its operations worldwide. when you go down the list of these problems, for many people, the argument is that defense as a percentage of the budget is a very cheap insurance policy to protect the nation. host: in march, he wrote an article under t title -- do you rlly think that we are in a position that we are going to have to reduce our defense

spending and our defense obligations so our defense is cut back as drastically as the british defense obligations were cut back? guest: that refers to a period in 1962. people who worry about the weakening of the dollar or the chinese calling in our debt, that is the kind of thing you worry about the british left half of the world. and then the united states was there to take up the slack. and there is nobody to take up our slack. before we make drastic arsenic reductions in defense spending, let's figure out what our national and security interests are. then we can decide what to pay out for our commitments. what are the consequences? if we leave a place, that mns

it might go nuclear because the lack of our support. host: this op-ed was written in the washington examiner. your thoughts? guest: the real issue here is why can't we of 44% of gdp? there is nothing about -- the al issue here is why can't we afford 4% of gdp? there are things we can do to cut defense or reduce expenditures in the name of efficiency. what we should not do is simply say we are going to take a meat ax to this and it does not matter what the consequences are going to be.

host: he is the vice president of the lexington institute about reducing the defense department budget. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are -- if you have called us in th last 30 days, send us an electronic message this morning. our email is -- or you can send us a twitter message. daniel, has there been a change in attitude in defense spending now that we are nine years removed from september 11? right after the attacks, it was like spend on defense spending at all costs, no questions asked. are we beginning to ratchet that

back now? guest: we are certainly ratcheting back the idea of throwing money at the problem. this is in respect to even important prrams, like the effort to defeat the implementation of explosive devices. the secretary of defense robert gates has slashed programs that are not working. it does not matter if they are going to be 20 years late and triple the budget. that is true. the cost of defense, personnel costs, maintenance costs, putting troops in afghanistan, they are continuing to rise. no one has found a way to keep those costs from going up. host: michael is on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask why there is not a solid accounting system

for the defense department so we can see where the waste and fraud is taking place. guest: this is one of the problems, that defense has not had a good accounting. that was supposed to happen this year. it was the latest. it turns out, public defense has had a dismal accounting system. one reason for that is money is often put aside for programs that is not going to be spent for five or 10 years. we do that for a naval programs. sometimes the money is doled out over a period of 10 or 12 years. having been id, it is certainly about time. we had an opening -- if we had an open accounting system, we

would know where the money was going. caller: of it was just wanted -- i just wanted to say that i think a lot of our problems is picking the battles, the wars that we fight. the iraq war was a war that we did not have to fight. i think -- to me, israel is up against our national security. they are only thinking about israel. if we continue to allow them to get away with the things that are getting away with, that is causing terrorism in this country. i think we have to be smarter about the worst that we fight and the allies that we choose and be neutral in some of these states because israel wants to get this country into another

war. host: talk to us about the alliances in the far east, asia, and central asia. what is that our alliances are costing us in terms of expenditures? guest: if you say our military is simply to support those people in the far east, then it is a net cost. the fact is, we have in an interest there. u.s. interests are at stake. in a lot of these cases, we have net gains. if we have an aircraft carrier in the far east war in europe, the host country is paying a lot of the costs. we are moving our forces inta bomb. japan is spending billions of dollars, literally heading us a check, to support that kind of

facility. if we brought all of this control and put them in bases in the united state we bear the full costs. they also prode actual direct subsidies for u.s. forces. host: you were talking about moving our forces into guam and how the japanese are paying us. how much or would it cost the japanese to put their own military in the region and how much money it would we save by not having a military presence, on the island? guest: it depends which forces that go out to the area. the savings and would be modest or nonexistent. if the japanese build up their military -- we have to fight somewhere else and protect

indonesia. we have a relationship with india there would be no net savings to the united states at all. host: our next call comes from north carolina, nancy is on our line for democrats. callnancy? all right, let's move on to build in cape cod. you are on the "washington journal." caller: how are you doing today? by spend over three decades in the military, primarily in special operation. i am experienced in the military and their work now in the private sector. i can tell you for a fact that if we don't have stable funding for the military -- we need to

have stable funding for the service given all the missions that we have taken upon ourselves on a global scale, if you will. i want to point out that there is a lot greater need in the cyber warfare, if you will, the whole internet and computer systems and the threat that we face are around the globe through our computer and intelligence systems. i am very pleased that the government has increased funding and support for our special operions divisions. we were based out of florida but we operate all over the country. most people do not realize what we do, but we are the first rise in the years for the remainder of our service units. we need to continue to support our veterans, all of our

brothers and sisters who are disabled. the government sent us into coat and they really need to provide the medical and psychological benefits that we have earned. host: why do you mean by stable funding? how can you use that term in this situation with the military that is very often unstable? they do not know when your to the next how many people they have to deploy to a certain area caller: if i had the control, i would put ade enough monies in special accounts to provide stable funding, and i would really, really focused on a contract that we had with the defense contractors to make sure we get the best bang for our buck. est: for the military and --

the size and character that we have, we need about 4% of gdp on average. part of the reason why you need that amount, military technology, even when the programs are well defined, grows at a higher rate than civil technology. therefore, for this kind of military, which we have had for over 45 years, which has been very useful, you need about that percentage. as the caller just suggested, that is about what we are going to spend. a should not go down much in a crisis. a should be as efficient as possible. host: the last caller also mentioned contractors. does the hiring of contractors stabilize the costs of our military overall?

does t cost of contractors fluctuate also with missions and deployments? guest: it fluctuates greatly. we are using contractors to supply our forces in iraq and w in afghanistan. they are doing logistics' jobs that might otherwise have to be done by military personnel. in a sense, which do not have to have those people in e uniform with a long-term commitment because when a cris happens we can call on those contractors to take up the slack. host: our next call comes from chicago, ill., on our line for independents. caller: talking about cutting banks, the product as military. some of these people are being paid more than our enlisted

people. these people have notsworn an oath to this country. you are cutting back there and you are scaling back the funding of people coming back who are injured. i think that is not reducing but balancing it. we do need transparent accounting with this because it is our money. we need to have accountability for this. host: i think one of the important -- guest: it should not be done at the expense of one thing or another account at the expense of veterans. those troops need the support they are getting from those contractors and need to have the upper ready when they need it. they need to have the logistics work. host: next up, on our line for the democrats.

let's move on to hayward, caf., on our line for republicans. caller: first of all, i think they need to do a better job of sending the questions to him. it first of all, all of those contractors are connected with the congress and is a seat those contracts from these private companies. it is like the same scheme that wall street did to us. then you get on the tv and asked us to be patriotic. then you want to go to other countries and insist on them to have a democracy. it leaves the other countries alone. let them have the culture that they want to have. then you have all of these media channels complaining about the government, taking up back -- taking back our government.

you complained about going through the airport. you are creating a whole disaster around the world. host: we will leave it there. do you have a comment? guest: there is a decision we have to make about what america's role is going to be printed in the united states really is a linchpin in the stability. everybody in the world, all of those countries that we worry about are going to start building up their own the military's. and they are going to be fearing each other. it is going to be a world of less security, not more. host: we are talking to the vice-presidentf the lexington institute about the defense department budget. we want to touch on concerns about members of congress, including those who have been elected from the help of the tea

party, about reducing the budget of the department of defense. from where you sit, to the incoming members in who were selected, do they have the juice to actually cut back on defense spending over and above what may have been laid out by some of the more veteran members of the house and senate? guest: i think they are going to have a knee-jerk reaction. it is difficult enough to do in the middle of 1.5 wars. it would be a particularly bad way of dealing with this defense problem. one has to address the question of what kind of military we wanted. if you are not going to invest in cutting edge systems, do you really want to buy airplanes for

at the u.s. military that are not better than the other side? do you want to put our pilots in harm's way without better

ry on c-span three. "washington journal" continues. host: amy harder is the energy and environment reporter here to talk to us about the coal industry. welcome to the "washington

journal." guest: thanks for having me. host: first tell us what is clean coal? guest: first of all. a lot of people think it's an oxymoron. it's kind of a lamen's term ccs. that's technology that will enable, although not commercially viable yet, where coal burning plants to run more cleanly. you capture it and store under ground. there's only had half a dozen demonstration projects in the world. these rules announced are laying the foundation for what the administration hoping will be a commercially-viable technology. the industry isn't expecting

that any time soon. host: so instead of it coming out of the top, they will store it? guest: the technology is very new. there are some ccs type projects for oil that are also being developed right now, but it's mainly going to be used hopefully for coal, given it's the dirtyist energy and the one we're the most reliant on. host: how necessary is coal to the production of energy in the united states? guest: it's absolutely critical and the administration realizes that, even though environmentalists are opposed to coal. they don't support clean technology because they say it doesn't exist. the concept of clean coal, but the administration understands that coal is number one, a domestic fuel and when we're trying to get off foreign oil, we have to do that.

it's cheaper than nuclear power. creates jobs for economies in the midwest and all crucial reasons why we need to continue using coal. host: there's a climate summit coming up in cancun, mexico. with climate chance to push greenhouse gas emissions all but dead in the united states. they will meet on monday to find a less vicious attack to global warming in the city of can cun. they will focus on the caret of tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies. tell us about this 2-week conference and how much of attention is going to be focused on the u.s., and how much

greenhouse gas we're emitting into the at mos -- atmoshere. guest: the u.s. is going into these talks in a weakened position compareed to last year's talks. the united states will be the central focus like it is in almost all talks. we do have a disproportionate share of the carbon emissions. host: will the results of what happens at this meeting in cancun, will that put any sort of emphasize on getting cap-and-trade legislation back

on the front burner? guest: no, frankly, i don't think it's going to have a sizeable impact on what the congress does in energy legislation. cap and trade is essentially dead for two years. republicans -- there's a good amount of republicans that don't think the climate is changing. so i think these talks will -- they will be important insofar there has been a lot of people that say these global negotiations are not useful or productive. they may encourage people to think about different ways to do it. in terms of any type of impetus. i don't think it will have any. host: we're talking about the coal where amy harder. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the screen and you can send messages by e-mail and

twitter. our first call is from new land. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. can you explain to me because my brain is small. can you explain why our country is giving millions of dollars to other countries to drill for oil? and during the 2008 elections, boom pickins was spending his money on natural gas when now we hear that china is driving extremely hard to turn their automobile industry into natural gas because that's the way of the future. why are we not doing that since

2008, this is 2010, fixing to be 2011 and we're not talking about natural gas. thank you and have a great day. host: thank you, caller, your brain is bigger than you think. guest: the first on dripping. off-shore drilling has really gotten on the box. president obama in march introduced an expanded off-shore drilling. as far as giving money to brazil and mexico, there are supporters that want to expand off-shore drilling. i do see that happening in the 112th congress especially with the republican-controlled house. the senate hopes to vote to a t

bone pickins bill. it's interesting that china is moving forward. so, the reason why t-bone pickins bill hasn't passed congress yet is because of the way to pay for that bill, which cost $5 million. the idea of using natural gas does have bipartisan support. host: you say the cost is $5 billion. what does that pay for? host: 4.5 goes to natural gas and the rest to electric technology. promoting infrastructure and tax

incentives. primarily in the semitrucks. it's expensive. in order to do that, the trucks could cost up to $80,000. so it's a steep price for them to pay. at the same time, it's cheaper and much cleaner then. host: our next call comes from houston texas jan on our line for democrats. caller: yes. good morning. i just had a question. i worked in the coal industry for over 20 years in indiana beginning in the early 1970's. there was a lot of emphasis put on clean coal and the coal companies strategy as far as what we were going to do to reduce emissions. in the early 1980's, for a good decade, you couldn't look at the

newspaper, the news or anything without hearing this term acid rain. that was a big issue. now it's like you never hear this term anymore. what happened with that, you know, i don't think the coal emissions were reduced so much that that's not even an issue anymore. why don't we ever hear about acid rain? host: acid rain is quite relevant to the discussion about reducing our carbon emissions. and that reduced the emissions of the utility sector by upwards of 70 to 80%. there are new regulations coming down the pipe that will reduce acid rain. this was that program in the 1990's that reduced acid rain. at the same time, proponents of

a cap-and-trade system cite the system created in the 1990's, because it was successful. it can be used for carbon emissions as well. host: carl, you're on the "washington journal." caller: you are talking about coal. we're going to burn it for a long time to provide electricity. there's no such thing as clean control when you look at the way they extract it. you talk to the kentuckians or west virginia, you can see how they have dumped all the debris and waste. there will never be such a thing as clean coal. thank you for listening to me. guest: yeah, mountain top mining

is a very controversial way to might be for coal. that's separate from ccs. insofar, it's a way to actually mine the coal. whereas, ccs deals more with the power plant and how to emit less carbon into the atmosphere. host: in this meeting in cancun. it's talked about in in issue of the journal. the balance of power, how the shifting dynamic between the united states and china could doom the climate talks. is the concern that the lessor countries are going to be sort of frozen out of conversation and dominated by what the u.s.

and what china want in terms of energy production, energy consumpion? host: we have a lot of partnerships with china, but we're all very dependent on them. it will be interesting on what china and the united states will do. they are moving forward with clean energy. they have committed to reduce their emissions more concretely than we have given. we don't have any type of bill that reduces it. but, at the same time, a lot of people point out china is building coal-fired power plants

at a record level. there will be, just like last year, a stand off between president obama and china on this in the 11th hour of the copenhagen talk. we don't have any bill so china will have the upper hand. host: as far as gaining favor, alliances with some of the smaller countries, some of the lesser consumer countries, who's really going to have the upper hand? the united states or china? does the money go also? guest: well china consumes the largest or the most emissions in the world, and we are second. we just swapped positions there. china is -- has been

historically technically categorized as a developing country. that's something that enrage us us here. so, the biggest thing with developing countries they want climate finance. last year, secretary of state, hillary clinton, pledged the united states would contribute to. a portion of hundred billion dollars. i don't think that's going to fly with the republican house that wants to ban earmarks and give money to developing countries for climate change. host: in addition to covering energy and environment in the national journal. amy harder monitors a blog. guest: it's national journal and

the energy environment expert. host: justin on our line for democrats. are you there? [bleep] host: kentucky on our line for republicans. caller: yes, i have one question and one comment. my one question on the unanticipated affects of the items you capture from the clean coal technology, has any thought been given to how you're going to dispose of that or store is that? i make that comment in relationship to the unanticipated intent had hydrology. also, i always thought of eastern kentucky, the appalachian area and southwest virginia as being more the east coast rather than the midwest.

they seem to have a bigger affect on there. do you have any thoughts on the unanticipated effects of the clean coal technology? guest: yeah, that's a great question. i think a lot of what you call the unanticipated consequences are unknown at the moment given there are so few demonstration projects in the world and even less in the united states. some of the issues as you rightly point out is how to store this. it would go underground. that's a very tech -- technical problem. they are trying to lay the foundation and the task force president obama developed.

host: next up, eric. caller: yeah, i had a question about what would it take for us to get to where china is at in life with them getting farther along in the coal industry and building the companies, and what it will take for us to get to where we need to be at with where they're at today. guest: well, there's a lot of step that is china is able to take given it's not a democracy with a senate and house that often becomes gridlock. that's one of biggest differences between united states the china. so, the way -- there was a great article in the atlantic magazine last issue, i think it was. that examined the relationship between china and the united states as it pertains to coal, specifically clean coal. china has become this breeding

ground for clean coal and coal-fired plants. in order for the united states to join, we need to engage with china and partnership with various advantages that the two countries can offer. host: next up. cleveland, ohio, lance. caller: hi. how are you doing? i have a question about the tipping point. whether or not the young lady, ms. harder believes the tipping point we have so many years to reduce our output before there's a point of no return and whether you do or don't, are there any studies of what clean coal technology, how much it will reduce our or shorten the length of us getting to this tipping point of, you know, not being able to correct our mistakes as far as the environment?

guest: thanks for your questions. as far as the tipping point, there's different schools of thought. come feel we have gone past the tipping point. specifically a price to carbon i missions. other studies have concluded it's only going to get worse without action to reduce carbon emissions. on the ccs, i know that the new rules from the epa. one of them was to require power plants to report how much greenhouse gases they have reduced. given it's so undeveloped and not used on a commercial scale.

really hard to predict how much they will reduce. given coal already emits, almost 40% of the emissions in the united states are from coal-fired plants. host: clifford krous wrote this. there will be fuel. they will come with cost. he writes another wave of natural gas drilling has taken across the united states and it's just beginning in europe and asia and an increase in liquefied natural gas export. do you see it's going to go down and are their regulations or

legislation being worked on the hill to sort of keep that in check? guest: you know, natural gas is a very fascinating energy source given how the political landscape has changed. without a price to carbon. natural gas has emerged as the one that's worn out. given you mention the shale discoveries and louisiana and the northeast. that's huge for the industry. given the prices are so cheap, insiders predict the utility sector will shift from coal to natural gas. the price volatility is a really big issue and has a lot of industry concerned. that could slow down the change from coal to natural gas. they like to point out. given the fact that prices will

remain low for the forseeable future. host: just below that, in the heartlands still investing in coal, one of the callers earlier talked about coal that's being mined in kentucky and west virginia, how much of a contest will we see in the next few years regarding coal-fired and natural gas. what do you expect to be the politics in coal usage and natural gas usage? host: i think that's going to be, given not a price to carbon emissions, going to be a dominant part the discussion over the next couple years. coal-fired plants because of the epa restrictions will be faced with daunting regulations that

could knockout the coal production. that will happen inevitably, there's the price volatility and hydrauli hydraulics. there's a natural gas to extract that. host: tell us about that because it's a fascinating process. guest: yeah, i know it has been on the internet. it's a very wonky topic. you shoot chemicals into the ground to extract the gas. it uses a lot of water. there's been reports it could contaminate the drinking water around there. that could be the one thing, that and the price volatility

are pretty much the only two issues going against natural gas. an interesting dynamic. hydrology pricing is really expensive. to invest in that, the natural gas prices really need to be higher to offset those prices. if you cost is higher, you may go back to coal. natural gas. while it's poised to gain in the next decade. host: jack writes what about reports of people's water taps running with gas to ignite there's faucets? guest: the epa is doing a study on the affects of water and

environmental and safety concerns. that's expected to be concluded toward the end or mental health of next year. until then, there's a lot of back and forth and those who live around that which is the safest way to do that host: our next call. from pennsylvania, rudolph, thanks for waiting. caller: there's no reason why coal focus has to pollute. i used to work in coal and we sent it to mississippi, our coal generation and they passed the clean air act. it's going to be stopped because they're polluting the water and everything. i don't know what person came up with taking co2 and putting it

in the ground. they should find a way to make profit to convert it. there's no reason why coal as to pollute at all. the coal stockers don't pollute. they passed the clean air act. host: rudolph, we will leave it there. guest: that raises a good point. those carbon regulations that go affect are requiring all power plants to implement what's known as the best available control technology. which is basically things like scrubbers and other efficient technology in order to make the power plant as clean as possible. notably, in the rules the epa will roll out.

the agency has explicitly says. clean coal technology will not be required to be installed given it's not commercially available yet. host: this article also in the "new york times," the problem with republicans say the united states should embark on a building campaign. senator john mccain at the 2008 presidential nominee called for 45 more reactors. but the party dislikes what it needs. its progress in the mid-term elections are doom for now. as you mentioned, does the election of so many republicans to capitol hill mean a slow down or stoppage in the thoughts or progressing on building nuclear

power plants here in the united states? guest: republicans are pro-nuclear power. the deficit hawks to the bone. they don't want to spend any money. nuclear power is the most expensive. to build one reactor it's 6 to 7 to $8 billion president obama has allocated in his last year's budget, to go on top of energy budget the energy department already has. only 8 billion of it, i think 7 or 8 billion has been given for that. as that article probably notes is that without a price on cauton emissions, coal and natural gas will continue to

rein as the most popular choices. nuclear power is too expensive. and dollars waste. yucca mountain has been yanked as an option. that hangs in the balance what to do with nuclear waste. host: next up. wade county, "washington journal." >> caller: i would like to challenge c-span to have a conversation on mountain top removal mining. it's destroying west virginia and appalachia. it's the dirtiest way for the coal industry to make money. a lot of this coal can be mined under ground. when they go from a thousand feet in these mountains and

dumping this product, this violates the clean water production act. we cannot do mountain top removal legally in the united states. the problem is the legacy that's left for this, this rubble that's being removed from these mountains and shoved into the streams contains heavy metals and based on our vital statistics and cancer rates. the heavy metals causes crazy stuff. learning disabilities kidney and liver cancer. if we don't have to do this. there's a lot of other ways to lessen the impact. they talked about the clean air act. when they passed the clean air act and decided to do the scrubbers and change the quality of the coal being shipped to the

power plants, they left these impairments and these massive sludge ponds of the waste -- host: sorry joe, i inad vertently hit the button. guest: it's taken a back seat, if you take the environmental perspective on that and hydraulicos that. i know epa has taken steps shut that down. there's the sentiment to shift away from that. without a price on carbon.

mountain top mining will be a factor. the epa is taking the steps to take care of that. host: we have this e-mail is that says, since the usa has the largest deposits of coal, is there research or technology to pulverize coal? guest: i haven't heard anything like that. just the sheer fact we have the largest coal reserves in the world, makes it a vital piece. that gets back to the ccs policy. i know we had callers from west virginia. the senator is a huge proponent of the coal industry. he introduced legislation, from the retiring senator from ohio that incentivizes that. the technology for coal, i think he, that bill would create

$20 billion or so for -- to incentivize that. that's really what will be the saving grace for the coal industry. host: homewood, illinois, you're on the "washington journal" caller: yes, i have read books on the co2 effects. one of them is by peter huberg. in this book, he indicates the americans are actually through [inaudible] absorbed the co2. it's the rest of the world that actually is creating a problem if there is one. and i -- from his book, i understand as well humans

account for only 6% of the co2 that's emitted. the oceans and tilled land emit many, many times the amount of co2 that's created by human activity. host: amy harder. guest: yeah, there's a lot of different reports on how humans contribute to carbon. humans are at least part, and it varies, are due in the rise to greenhouse gas emissions. even regardless of whether huma humans interpret climate change, they are facing these regulations regardless of the

studies that say it's happening or not happening. to the industry, they have, they have taken a step back. this has distanced themselves from climate change. but they have to work to reduce the emissions no matter what. host: next up. you are on the "washington journal," steve. caller: yes. they are currently no credible scientists that suggest that co2 does anything negative to the environment. it's quite the contrary. it make plants grow faster. you see that evidence in the peer-reviewed process. you can go and read an 870 page document negating all the evidence for co2. it's nothing but superstition

motivating this. it's quite the contrary. can you google hot tub sized nuclear power plants, which will produce enough power for 25,000 houses and cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $28 a month rather than all the prices to come up with energy for people. host: and we'll leave it there. guest: yeah, there are a lot of, you know, there are alternatives that say co2 points to that. i am not a scientist. but can continue to reference the peer-reviewed studies. the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

that is causing increased wildfires and increased sea levels and the what not. as to your point about the nuclear power, nuclear power has a lot of great assets. it's a steady, base low power and emits no carbon at all. as i pointed out earlier, it costs so much money and there's so many risks. the big question mark of the nuclear waste. paired with the fact there's no price to carbon to make nuclear not as expensive to coal. host: bob sends this twitter message. it comes from our own respiration. next environmentalists will

stay, stop breathing. dennis, you're on the "washington journal," go ahead. caller: just to bob. if we don't do about this soon, we will all stop breathing. this is the largest, worst things we face in the world today. the answer is very clear. it's renewable energies. i live in philadelphia, they just announced in nobody noticed. the outdoor football stadium that the eagles just built is going all agree. next year, i don't remember the name of the power company is going to have it set up with these beautiful windows all around the outside and solar panels. they will produce enough electricity to sell to the

owners of football team for the game days to light up the field. during the week, they will produce enough energy to sell back to the grid. this is the answer to the united states's independence from the rest of world. we cannot drill out way out. we don't have enough. we can't blowup enough mountain tops. we just cannot do it. host: dennis, we will leave it there. guest: renewable energy is something we haven't discussed. it's really left in this standing still without a price on carbon emissions. i keep going back to that. that's the turning point we have made. renewable energy faces extremely high cost and encourage it.

at the same time, renewable -- the amount of renewable energy the utilities must produce is facing a similar face as cap-and-trade. there's a bill in the lame duck congress that probably won't pass. it faces even a more conservative house and senate. so renewable energy. only makes up 7% of the entire country's power supply. that includes hydroelectric power. solar is not even one %. when you look at those number, compareed to of

commons presides over this 90 minute debate. [inaudible conversations] >> colleagues, please be seated. welcome to those, only the second ever sitting of the u.k. youth parliament here in the

chamber of the house of commons. as he will have heard already, because the point is being made, on the 21st of july this year, the house of commons voted to allow the u.k. youth parliament to meet annually for the remainder of this parliament to debate the subject, which you have decided should be debated. that decision, with a ringing endorsement of the outstanding success of the first-ever series of debates, which took place exactly a year ago and it was also, members of the youth president, a symbol of the commitment of the house of

commons, better to engage with civil society in general and with young people in prticular, a car ich i imagine by now, many of you will know, is very dear to my own heart. i mention the 21st of july, which has an historic and enduring significance for you at the parliament. three days afterward -- and if i may say so at my request to the chief exutive of the parliament, on the 24th of july, i traveled to belfast because i wanted to be present on the occasion of your annual general meeting. and i was, i confess, overwhelmed on that occasion by

the warmth and generosity of the welcome that she extended to me in return for the warmth and generosity of the welcome that you extended to me, i., on behalf of the house today, extend the warmest and most generous welcome possible to each and every one of you sitting here at the chamber and two of the people who have aided and abetted to in coming here today. and i offer you that not merely out of politeness, because there's nothing wrong with that, but out of repect, respect for what you are, respect for what you do and respect for what i know you as a parliament will

increasingly become. the legitimate and respect good form for the expression of the views of young people and the engagement and debate on crucial questions, which affect you, your fellows and society as a whole. and i know that many of my parliamentary colleagues here today, from the deputy leader of the house, david healy, to the chair of the business committee, thatcher and go and from all parliaments, are united in respect for what we can learn from your own parliament. in terms not merely of enthusiasm, though they certainly have a president and the range of subjects that they discuss, which is easily observable, but if you're

representativeness as an institution. i have always been stuck by the 50% if you care about your female, approximately 20% if you are from black and minority ethnic communities. in approximately 10% of you had some form of disability. so in terms of representing the kaleidoscope of modern society come at te u.k. youth parliament does it very impressively and does it a away from which the elected house of commons at south can learn. on this great occasion, i would like to y something about a very special man, who is sadly no longer with us. and that man is called andrew rau, who served as member of parliament for midtown and then

forefather shown and it can't and he sadly passed away two years ago. andrew rowe, served as mp for that constituency, was as farsighted as he was a warmhearted man, whose visual and inspiration that was to see established a u.k. youth parliament as a forum for young people to debate, to articulate, to engage with each other and to contribute to the democratic process. he is turn off minimum of fashion to establish the parliament with a relatively small number of enthusiastic supporters. i know how proud he would b today of your presence and of what you're going to offer. and from my poi of view, it's

a joy and i think it is for you, to be able to welcome andrew's family who are in the gallery over there, his children and his grandchildren. you're hugely welcome and you could be so proud of what andrew did. he was truly a great parliamentarian, a thoroughly decent man and what hugely appreciated. [applause] [applause] we are going to get onto the great debates. enjoy yourselves. speak up and speak their minds. speak for yourself, speak for your fellows come to speak for your areas and recognize that it's a great privilege and it's

a privilege which should be truly rewarding for you. we're thrilled to have you. we are going to get on to the main business of the day because there is much to do as winston churchill did in very little time in which there is to do it. [laughter] order, order appeared to youth parliament will consider the first motion of the day, relating to sex education as printed on the order paper. to move the motion -- and i ask you to give him a very warm welcome. i call mr. joe vincent. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. may 1st thank you in a process

for getting us here today. we'll eay value how you felt this so far. mr. speaker, the highest teenage rate, an increasing number of transmitted infections among young people knows compulsory sex education in the united kingdo this is a dire situation we find ourselves in today. in current legislation, no school in england or wales is compelled to teach their students about sex and relationships in italy the governors of the school that decide what is taught. this is a disgrace. this approach has not only left many people naïve enough nowhere in this created an adversary pocode lottery. if you don't live in the right area, yowon't be taught the copyright status. because the school doesn't have to teach any of it. in fact, the only compulsory elements of sex education are contained in the science curriculum. and let us be clear, sex education covers a wide range of

issues affecting young people and these include: safe practices, transmitted infections and legal issues surrounding consent and abuse. these, mr. speaker are clearly beyond the realms of science. it is this lack of education that is haunting society. the most recent figures showed that almost 43,000 young people, it is up to 19 had an abortion in 2008. and in different terms, that's 117 abortions every day for those aged up to 19. other countries have shown that by teaching your people about sex and relationships from an early age, teenage pregnant he, sexually diseases: mr people or complement about themselves. we can't say that it singl or in person pulled from the tribes of previous generations. it makes sense if you teach a young person the basics of what is a good, healthy relationship

is before there'll want to sex him about the confidence to make healthy decisions. sex education in this country is too little too late. we need to wake up to the facts. when he took what were doing to young people and say this is enough. why are we waiting until there is a problem to teach young people aut se education? were treating it like were covering up behind a 30-ton. sex educationists circulate to stop the damage before it's too late. on a similar note, if we are serious about our commitment to ensuring a person is seven left in the dark, but we must remove a parents right to take their child out of sex and relationships education. it wld be ridiculous of me to stand here and i mention religion. and i recognize the difficulty they propose to certain religions, which is why support the previous government's proposal to allow the source to

their belief in education, too. i cannot stress enough how important it is that no young person falls through and not. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for getting us off to a confident, clear starter. there lots of people to hear from today, but i do want you to appreciate the blood of my parliamentary colleagues are you today. as evidence of their strong support for you as an organization, for each of you as an individual. timor 10. he's very shy, but yr handout. lynn brown,, not. kerry mccarthy was the labour member of the minister and no doubt the colleagues who is now leaning forward expectantly.

we wouldn't want not to notice you and it would indd be impossible for any length of time. [laughter] is great to have you. i call ms. maria finnerty to oppose the motion. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are a generation like no other. and the world in which information can be trained mended at the clickf a button, it is unsurprising that young people develop ideas influenced the media. images dominate media activity and often presented socal and so recklessly that it is fido that our young people are provided with immediate responsible counterpart to sex and relationship education.

76% of teens surveyed across the country, including those in my own constituent he thought that they needed more sex education. young people are clearly provided with inconsistent and in opera. sre. however, teams that take sex education to young could exacerbate the effects of the media. i'm sure you'll agree that an understding of relationship cannot simply be taught on the chart board, but requires experience of life, which primary children do not possess. any primary school teacher will uphold, promote and encourage the role of parents as an educator, particularly between the impessionable ages of five and 10. it is simply not necessary for the state to interfere with the

powers and race to enter this crucial that that delicate moral issue with their own young children. essentially, we are experiencing a traffic laws of the child. and what, high street reveals a distressing turn to the adult design. children with playboy symbols. our children are being sexualized too young and we must aim to protect this short-lived innocence. sre is simply an appropriate within primary curriculum. the issue quite clearly does not lie within the thought, but how thoroughly and how consistently. the se education recently brought up the main concern of youths is in my normal? we must not do love young men

and particularly young women to their self image is tormented by a media which often fails to acknowledge differences in shape, size and appearance. we must dispel the illusion that they must conform to the media image of perfection and teach them and set the value of their own unique bodies. i believe that teaching children sex education at primary school will be too much to young. let us defend the innocence of childhood. it is a sedentary school age that sre becomes crucial for the health and well-being of millions of young people. thank you. [applause] >> maria, thank you for an

excellent contribution. now, who wants to take part in this debate? any people to indicate, and you've been told how to do so. >> we are separated by or social backgrounds more than anything else. therefore would be blind to believe that when unilateral policy would be the answer. what is needed is a policy-based and a solid aim to reduce, teenage pregnancy rate venture promote all aspects of relationships. sex education is not a. one size does not fit all to solve this problem. it's a waste of time, money and resources that an effective policies launched the entire country. education is bad for ignorance. ignorance will exist not only to

pass an exam, but how to take care of their own well-being. with the right education and the right to help comes the rights of the health education. it is not a question of morality, but a question of equality. why should some children in this country have education when others do not? they also have some form of personal health education and sex education as a new part of action tat came through in a local area priorities for what they wanted to do. at only 1.6% of people who voted out the dirt education was an issue. however, 60% of young people feel that their education is out of touch. e government has to take responsibility twos education. for inequality, which affec the basic well-being of the human being is unacceptable in

state society. financially, sexual education is highly viable. if you teach teenagers about prevention measures, then it would reduce the cost and accept thousands each year, thus helping the 20 billion pounds efficiency and productivity savings the government had introduced this year. but in education needs to be on people. the right topics are introduced, the numbers continue to rise, money wasted. this is why a curriculum finalized the local level and meet the needs of each young person. this way, every young person is to be valued and every young person in this country can be equal. [applause] >> young getleman with the red

tie at the back. >> thank you, mr. speaker. other members weekdays a fast growing and serious issue. >> from which part of the country? >> i was mips -- [inaudible] as my reasonable friend that in the past three years we have a sre relationship and people in my constituency sex education when it exists is very limited, often focuses oncontraception, inception and not getting pregnant, but it doesn't tackle the issues of eelings, emotions, competence or communication. and we need to put this in an propriate cultural context. and also i would like to remind the honorable members here that the children and families those in parliament in some concessions along the way due to our position. not me personally and my

constituency believes that this is an absolute disgrace and a complete betrayal to young people who actively requested that sex education is to be better provided. [applause] >> magnificent. the suit were very reluctant to go first. can we have someone from northern ireland. chairwomen there. >> i'd like to look at this from a large perspective first of all. i believe teenage pregnancy is an appropriate measure of the excessive quality of sex education jurisdiction. it's often about to say with the highest in western europe, but that's in context. first of all, 1971, 50.6 births were teenage mothers. however, in my own region, north of ireland, only 23 were to

teenage mothers. but the massive decrease. and i can perhaps attribute type to the education is initiated by or department of health. a 6.6% decrease since 2000, despite the fact they were come pretty assistant during te 90s. the point would be that we are at severe risk of over sexualizing our primary school children. their innocence should be safe, not sacrificed for the sake of a statistic. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. the young lady here. >> bobby simmons. i feel we have misnamed this debate. i feel that elationships, are moremportant and this is why i've completely wholehearted he

agree with the decision to take them to rsa. we have our priorities wrong. relationships should concur. relationship is key to good, safe and informed sex. we need to look to relationships first. but then again, i'mnot saying that sex is wrong. it's not wrong to have. it's good and it can lead to better things. [cheers and applause] and with that, it shows they guess we are extreme deep sexuizing our primary school children. but why should we teach them about relationships? why should we teach them about life why should we teach them about how to have good relationships and then it could lead onto sex. it is not wrong for sex, but yet it's too early. therefore, i think we should

teach in more context of private school relationships and then move onto sex. so my point here is that we have our priorities wrong. relationships first, leading to and that's how we should educate our children. [applause] >> young men they are. yes indeed, sir. >> yes, i'd like jamaica plain first of all about age in primary school. i can't imagine prais by telling this is what happens when you get an. it shows that relationship first and other things in relationships to sex education that you can bring an earlier and think about and education primary school defensible. it must be mentioned that he

pushes a button in today's society and you see images they are learning from friends or roommates. the government has an opportunity to tell people versed about sex enemies to keep up with the media speed and sexual imaging. thank you. [applause] >> members of the parliament, we've been joined by tumor lleagues. valery who is worse outcome a labour member. and allison mcgovern is with us as well. the thank you both for coming. >> my name is landry ever allowed, of london. i think it's important that we keep the innocence of young people. i don't think it's a good idea to corrupt the minds of young people into thinking i'm going to catch and std if i do this

and do that because i wouldn't want my brother coming home again told me today learned about and chlamydia. that is not good at all. also we've got in primary schools i'm sure they teach sex education from the age of year five. they teach them about sex, the basics, not about sexual transmitted infections. that's when they start to learn more in detail about what's going on if you do this and you do that. so we should keep it at that instead of making them think i'm five years old, when i get to lebanon to thisand this is going to happen to me. now. [laughter] >> thank you. colin ashworth.

>> my name is owen ashworth om halt the north was. young people with the quality of sex ducation is diabolically of the information they have taught today. that is the best case they can get worse for some individuals, which has gotten a disability get no sex education because it's the social norm. [applause] >> the young woman over there. >> johnny davis from bristol. as it has been said before, this is not about teaching girls about std's for using a.

it's teaching gross to have a healthy relationship in the future. his teaching about confidence, and in my normal thing, same everyone develops at different stages. everyone is ready for sex at a different age and this is not about the facts and the figures and the birds and the bees. they should be left to when you're older. the young people are having sex from the age of 11 or 12. and if we left it too late, these people can already get pregnant. i have known by people of that kind of age tht i've got pregnant. we need to teach people about the respect and when the right time is a need to teach that not necessarily from site, but from a quite l&h. i would have someone tell me, maybe they should drink some more alcohol, then they'd be ready for their first time, which is completely out of order.

no one should have to feel pressureinto anything. the age of consent, std', everything else. not enough is put on feelings, personal appearance and confident to say no until you are ready and in a healthy relationship. [cheers and [applause] >> thank you very much indeed for what you have to say. ve we got a female member om the west midlands who might like to contribe, no? yes, i think we have. [inaudible] i just like to say in private schools i think we should secure the relationship and making sure they have a healthy relationship between the persons. it's n actually that much more familiarnd used to be improved on. the thing is what needs be

improved on we also need to government relationship and sex, but also we have new sent this for these children to. u.k. i think maybe we should have this game, which then goes to school, which young people would feel more comfortable talking to persons like that. i think some teachers fe awkward and i cannot sex education in that situation should be -- [inaudible] thank you. [applause] >> whoever got from wales who was waiting to speak? young woman mayor. thank you. >> i have been taught nothing of relationships or sex education at her. i got nothing until i was in

biologlessons, i thought how you actually got pregnant and how humans reproduce. i was utterly shocked and that's probably different as i'm sure a lot of people's parents would give them that information. but i simply believ in primary school age they should be taught about safe and loving relationships. by your parents or stepparents order who brought you up and is developed here because that is the way forward on that. and i don't think that in secondary school it should be brought into much more depth, not only do things such as pregnancy and sdis, but also

re the relationship side of it, so that it can be attacked as a good team, which is like the dangers that are always shocked to you, that you almost do it because it's dangerous. and i learned far re from the show that maria mentioned that i have ever learned in school, which i think is just wrong. [applause] >> i'm going to call the you woman from buckingham. >> hello, i am at their psyche. ladies and gentlen, britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in erope and

there was a social and political reasons for this. but the most paramount thing about rectifying this issue is education. we need to educate youngpeople on sex and relationships. and it is not just making it compulsory, but we need to have a basic standard of sre and schools. see, if we look at the system at the moment, the fluctuations between different schools, different counties is now says. some of my friends have had comprehensive and consistent sre education, whereas i in my entire life can count about three and a half hours. two of those were in primary school when i learned about how the human reproductive system works. one of those within europe when i walked into a biology class and that is slightly more in depth about how the human reproductive system rks.

and one of those was 45 minutes in whi i learned how difficult it was to put on a condom. so the thing about it is we need to prevent young people from learning about relationships and sex through google and costa. we are thoroughly distorting the ideas the better relationships. we need to teach young people about contraception, about safe back, but relationships, but how to spot an abusive relationship before it starts. it is a huge thing. and for those who say that sre is by the pairings for the children -- [inaudible who feel thoroughly mortified about having to talk with parents, raise your hands.

[inaudible conversations] cameras in my hands, mom, if you're watching as well. [cheers and applause] every single context they form an existence has had. okay, we start when we were teenagers. [applause] >> right, before this debate is found up with that time -- i'm going to create time for two very short contributions. young women here. and then for the east of england. just at 10 yeah speaker. i believe that it's paramount not only to teach children and young people about what is a healthy relationship and how to manage one's, but to help teach

them about managing quality and to bring the policy and society. and the only way to do studies teacher and from from a young age that is perfectly accetable to have same sex relationships, for example. i'm not in my constituency, there still is a lot of that occurs and i'm sure the same approxation. and the only way to tackle this is to teach children from a young age that is perfectly acceptable to have the same sex relationship and it's perfectly normal to have a relationship and that's the only way to stop this inner quality that so does occur. [applause] >> thank you for that speech. as you can taught me the real impact. east of england, whoever got from the east of england? young woman here. [inaudible] >> why is it so important

because why should a young person be free to be intimate and have sex when it's not safe over the edge number they could access a much different informion when you could go to a school in a safe environment of vetan teachers. i think it's much better. and also, what information you find i knowquite a lot of young people that would want to know about it and the only other solution is the internet because personally i wouldn't want my parents to tak about sex with my parents. i would be able to do it. i think it's better that it's taught in a safe environment rather than going to the internet for your produce a much different information. [applause] m afraid that excise the time available for speeches. please don't be upset or in any way discouraged if you didn't have the chance to speak in this

debate. there were other debates upcoming as you know. if you're keen to contribute, please stand and i'll try and get as many of you as they possibly can to have your say. i call and i hope he'll give a warm welcome as i call her, ms. felicity stone hill. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, honorable speaker. i would like to thank all of you for a very valid points. sex and relationship education is a new topic to be debated and i myself am honored to be able to discuss a crucial topic with all of you today. but compulsory sex and relationship education is something that is strived for and it is something we have been campaigning for a further five years. last year we were just days away from making compulsory sre laws and yes, we did have a disappointing outcome. but i believe is a unified organization we can make the government set up and listen to

r campaign. i would like to mention us as our dependence and by many others before her, that this is not just sex and sex education in the anatomy of it. this is sex and relationship educion. many believe teaching children about relationships ring on each such as primary school is finally important to their development. and those children should understand the needs of relationips, such as trust and respect. not just respect for yourself, the respect for one another. maybe with this knowledge as they mature, we can he a generation with a better attitude towards them. today we're asking what age should education be pplied? somewhat argue secondary school. the connect independent sre, said many worked successfully to provide sre, even in faith organitions with their rticular surrounding the delivery of sre. also, it was highlight this education is strongly valued by

parents and young people. right now, our generation could have a much bigger view, from things such as peer pressure and as bernie mentioned,sexualized media format. and this can lead to repercussions such as teenage pregnancy, which is something for all fully aware of as we've heard so many times. this can lead to negative opinion of her generation and this is not the way that young people to be represented. i think most of us can agree that sex education is important to young people with the right education, teenagers know what to say now. so what i'm asking you today is to think about your own experiences and decide which you think could have been done differently. anything current sex education would've affected you or change her attitude toward sex and relationships today. thank you. [applause] >> felicity, thank you for

winding up our debate so welk yr winding up our debate so well. the debate really has been very striking, characterized by people speaking with knowledge, with passion, with oise. and i think you'll find that the serious media will treat you with great respect because what you've done has been frankly fantastic. we now move on because it's time for the youth parliament to consider the second motion of the day related to university tuition fees have printed on the order pper. to move the motion, please give them a warm welcome. i call mr. james bartel. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as members will be aware, a few weeks ago, brian brown published his report into the future of higher education in this country.

lord browne listed th cap and university tuition fees, paving the way from raising fees to an average of 6000 pounds. mr. speaker, this price in fees is absolutely necessary if we are to maintain high stanrds in our education system. the reality is that at the moment we are reaching a crisis point in university funding. many universities are starved of cash with which you cuts of some 2.9 billion pounds to university and there is a massive gap to fill. the director general of the russell group, which represents 20 of the uk's type university said we desperately need our money if we are to give students the education they deserve. mr. speaker, there is a real risk that standards and univerties will fall if investment is not sustained. but of course, mr. speaker, quality is not the only factor we should consider. turner should be at the heart of

our university system. we must all remember that students do not pay a penny for their university education. you don't pay a penny until you leave. nobody will pay for their education until they've left universities, they started working and they are earning over 21,000 pounds a year. if their wages go down, so will the payment. if they stop working, the nonpayment will stop as well. mr. speaker, that is fair. because in the end, the person that benefits more from having a degree is the student. if you have a degree, yocan get better paying jobs which would be significantly harder if he didn' have a degree. it's estimated over the course they graduate with an average 23.5% more than somebody w doesn't have a degree. so why should the taxpayer has to pay for the privilege of that young person to have enough extra money?

turning to the issue of debt, people are rightly worried about the level of debt they get into at universities. what they should think about, amounts they wold add to the level of national debt in this country if the taxpayer had to put a gap in the funding. the debt we get into at universities in goa, compared to the 952 billion pounds of debt, which our generation has been set but because of the economic mismanagement of the previous government. it is true and that is a record that the previous government should be ashamed of and a record for which, mr.'s weaker are yet to apologize. mr. speaker -- are back again, this is true. no mr. speaker, in this debate we have a clear choice. we can vote for bill universities come which are funded to a fair contribution

from graduate or we can say no. the students don't have to pay any more. we will then have to upset that we have third-rate universities, which gives students decrease of little value. i know the choice i would go with. i hopalso share in a few and i commend this motion to the house. [applause] >> thank you for that very bust opening speech. to oppose the motion, i shall in a moment i'll mr. connor morgan. i know you'll give him a warm welcome. and i just informed members of the youth parliament. but, will say some words and irish gaelic and he will then, for all of our benefit, repeat the media in english. mr. connor morgan. [cheers and applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> loosely translated that was thank you, mr. speaker. it was a great honor to stand before you and have the opportunity to address you in irish now back to thank you for the opportunity. cop mark 70000 pounds -- the amount a student will pay is 32,000 pounds, the amount of data never suitable patit they cast the left as indicated in the steamy affair. then they put this in perspective. the average wage in the u.k. each year is 25,543 pounds. but let me ask you something. is that very reason the capital tuition fees, educational become

a privilege only for those that can afford it? [cheers and applause] is it just that the members of parliament wh have an education paid for the state may expect us the innocent a disenfranchised this economic mess to pay for the mistakes ty have made. as of right turns are we as young people are considered or constantly being told we are the future? our future appears to be a burden of debt and uncertain job prospects. we are the representatives of young people. we believe education is to write that everyone should be entitled to. we do not believe the welfare class should pay a factor and we most certainly do not believe we should be expeed to begin our life trapped beneath a burden of death of up to 30,000 pounds. this also meant 5% of young people, all of whom opposed nothing. we do not think the young people in these proposals have been

adequately consulted and that those who choose not only to maintain education began an enormous debt, but they are choosing to worsen an already entirely unjust circumstances. what kind of society do we live in when one of three young people choose their university based on how much it will cost them? fopanic education system allows them to be left behind? account decision makers on the latest of young people, but also make rash decisions -- i can ever pronounce this word, decision so negatively affect the lives of many. we must stand up come we must. we must send a clear message to decision-makers that our education must never be a compromise. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you and congratulations. can i just issue on appeal?

i'll try not to make the mistake myself, but the appeal is if you've already spoken, please don't stand at this stage because obviously there's lots of people who have another chance to speak at an invite to give them that opportunity. perhaps we can at the young woman here. yes, you. [laughter] >> no disrespect, this young woman here. >> i'm alex from the midlands. but kind of society do we live in where you could date job where you have to go on to university and the degree is not a level. we should be able to leave school and then go get training argot apprenticeships into that. now i've got to go into debt to get a job that's not as good as we would've gotten four years ago. it's not right. [applause] >> whoever got from the northeast england?

moves, got some young men here. >> thomas robinson from middlesboro d northeast. young people in bittersweet constituency by midterm report suggestions for him. and middle story we have been magnificent teesside university, which was recently named university here, the 16th out of 23 and middle spurt are socially deprived, so it's obvious that our young people do find it hard to pay to go to university, even when they're academically able. we belve the rising tuition fees will make our higher education system belly disco or the rich can afford to go and the poor cannot. and we urge the coalition government not to make such a devastating decision, which will no doubt exclude so many young people from achieving their true potential. thank you. [applause] >> someonerom london. young women here. >> barnburner boren -- [inaudible]

i should go to te university next year. i suspect quite a few of you are. how michael and pay pay my tuition fees when i leave, but also how mike went to live and have a social life when i fall into the as i would get nothing. i look at the lowest amount that the government can possibly give me. how many times do you hear i learned friend from my learned colleague. there learned because they go to university. how many bmps haven't been to university? they practically all have in their charge take that away from our generation, away from us. is that really fair? [applause] >> thank you. what about somebody from the west midlands who hasn't spoken before. what about the young man here. yes. >> thank you, speaker. my name is tommy and i am from

birmingham. at the universities that allow the tuition fees at 10,000 pounda year. a young student in the university will attend 50,000 pounds. working-class demands, like my constituency, may be put off and go to the uversity and following their dreams. these universities and institutions for the rich and not the initution for the talented. [applause] >> can we have somebodyfrom wales? who have the cup from wales? two people standing for miles. yeah, the young woman here. [laughter] >> how many of you live in this state?

[inaudible] well, seeing as mostf you i disagree because some emily is may be able to afford their tuition fees. some may not as they might have more bigger families. but people with vigor families would stopheir childn from going to university. or would you stop them from having more children? and from my point of view, i would say to stop them -- stop the tuition fees from getting tinier as some people might not be able to afford them and some may, but the people who can't, then you should think of them more than the people who can. [appuse] >> thank you. what about the southeast? what about the young gentleman here? yes. >> the young man from buckingham. may i point out that the government has promised that

should university tuition fees dropthere will be enough money to get from student loans or more scholarships to cover the cost? now i actually think that th government nd the loan repayment threshold actually puts them into a different decision because they will have more money and they may not get it back. yeah, 40% cuts in the university budget are over four years. it is inevitable that we have to stand against it because simply we can't. what we should focus on now is how much university fees will rise by, whether there were still be a cap or not. whether we're going to turn into a free market, where universities and churches much as they play. [applause] >> to do we have somebody would like to contribute from the east of england?

i think the young woman in the back is out to explode. [laughter] 's >> thank you, speaker. i am from the university and i am very proud of what i'm doing right now. when i had about tuition going up, the next day it was shocking. there were -- discerning mac i do not agree with what he is doing. you have the ability of what it's causing. add value to get a career, not a jot. i don't think you should say you have go and you don't need a degree. but i want to get a degree. the one tng i've realized, cleverly, with economics, they said just recently, that there

is a public or universities, that they go private. this is a process that happens in america and we see how unspent our process is in america that sees bitterly equaling encourager blames the amount we pay and i? i be horrified to have to leave to the death of 50,000 pounds. it's a privile we have the universities in the u.k. so lord browne, please consider them because i do not agree personally as students who have to now think about okay, if the university. it's a massive thing. anto conclude one argument that i won't say about lord browne. there is a standard in terms of the points. future taken into account the budget for them to pay.

students will not be eligible for financial report integrates were below the standards. so what is the standard to detain universities? [applause] >> i'm looking for a speaker from yorkshire and humberside. we've got a whole gathering of you there. what about the young woman with blond hair. yes, yes. >> i just like to say that in 2008, i actually headed in the house of lords and for abolishing university tuition fees. in two years time i still agree that it should be not to your son where we are by what we wanted and was to lower it to not have existed soever and cut e education they deserved. and it's not working that way.

i understand the universities need the funding, but if i'm coming from somewhere else, i mean, not two days. not completely. wiout the other other day trying to write for next year. i thought this one screen and i could think about was the death of money and how much i wanted to go and how much i knew there's nothing more that i want to go to university. i've always wanted to go. that's something i've always wanted to do. and now i'm doubting whether i can. thank you. [applause] 's >> can we have a speaker from northern ireland, please, which is what we're looking for. [inaudible] ..

[applause] [unintelligible] [inaudible] we cannot fund gorn more people. we live in america -- and i

believe it would create more of an aristocracy. [applause] >> it is ti for somebody from the northwest. and actually, the moment they girls are out doing the boy so we need to call young men at this stage. peter, is it you? yes indeed it is you welcome. >> i represent -- and like to jog your attention to -- [inaudible]

i wonder if you can tell me what is there about this. students at the moment pay the same that those locally, so in the e.u. if you came from the e.u. to study in scotland, you pay what the scots pay, which is nothing. if i were to study in scotland i would have to pay 1175 pounds probably more. i live in the e.u.. i am english and i can't study in scotland for the same money. how on earth is that fair? [applause] >> what about the young man just at the end of that little court if? you, you are looking around. no, the check to your right. yes, you. indeed. welcome. >> ben lacy. the government can't afford to

put any more money into the university system, which is what is causing this rice to each individual in student fees, but the other option is, the truth is thereare too many people being driven into universities when it is not the right option for them. more partnerships and more work placement would mean less strain n the university system and allow government to fund those spaces and give them the education they need, without driving up debt to that individual. [applause] >> okay, you have been waiting very patiently. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the academies education system should return to the latest system. when a brown report is adopted the coalition -- we are told

with a the kaplan piece we will have no effect on young people. opinion such as this demonstrate how to -- even going as far as to cutting at the annual program which encourages youg people to attend the university. generation of politicians that attend universities for free and sure thousands of disadvantaged youn people from reaching their potential. no that there is going to be the university tuition fees, the future jobs bunch of benefit and of course surely young people are in a more than most [applause] >> i am looking for a female speaker from the southwest. can we have a female speaker from the southwest? okay, your good self. >> i am from dublin. just some rough numbers here. a three-year degree for the

current university levy, 9900 pounds. student accommodation for the first tier 150 pounds a week in 40 weeks is 6000-pound. the second year 52 weeks, 9100-pound, 9100-pound. books for degree each year, 300-pound, transport to and from university per and am 500-pound. this gives a conservative total of 35,500 pounds. now consider raising the levy for the university bradon. recalculate this total and you get 46,000 pounds and 600 plus 2.5% above inflation. now consider a medical degree for seven years, and then if someone wants to go to a university the cost could go up to 12-pound a year. now in effect this is discriminating against young people from poor backgrounds and

i believe that everyone shoul be born into the world with an equal rights to succeed. even though this is never going to be achieved i think that we should try and move one step further towards at or in this case, prevent the government from moving a step backwards. thank you. [applause] >> here here, thank you. once again time is their enemy and to conclude the debate i do need to call mr. daniel palmer. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. i've always wanted to say that. there it is. what do you think the effect would be if tuition fees were to rise? thats a question i've been asking young people and they came back to me and said that people fromlow or middle income families will be put off from going to the university, causing them to be institutions for the rich only.

they said a rise in tuition fees would also cause the gap between the rich and the poor to increase and said it would be unfair that people whonnot afford to go to university should be deprived of the opportunities of those who can't. now there has been a lot of strong support and justification for a rise in tuition fees. some of these being tha universities and always the right path ferber want to go down to get a higher paying job but the rich should be promoted by the government said said his apprenticeships come and college education. they argue it is a rise in tuition fees would deter people to fool around for a couple of years at the taxpayers expense and set the reducing member people which go to university increases the value amhe worth of a degree. fairness. it has been mentioned in the media quite a lot recently and also in this house today. i would like to ask the house to think about these following questions before they vote.

is it fair that the people who cannot afford to go to university don't have the same opportunities than those who n't afford to do so? equally, sit there that the taxpayers should pay for your education en you take all the benefits? youthparliament. should university tuition fees rise? [applause] >> thank you for another lively and well-informed debate, which i hope you enjoy it. again i say to people who didn't get called, don't despair. have another go. this i'm afraid is the daily experience of colleagues when noally the demand to speak exceeds the number of slots available. youth parliament will now consider the third motion of the day and the last of the morning session, relating to jo opportunities as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i call mr. mohammad abbas honey if.

[applause] >> thank youmr. speer. mr. speaker members of the youth parliament, education i the passport to the future for tomorrow belongs to those who favor it today. how many of us are prepared at 16? how many employers want to employ 16-year-olds in the current economic climate? by giving young people to extra years of school or training are giving them breathing space. an extra two years to gain additional skills, an extra two years to prepare but most importantly a possible two years in the -- y. through 16 euros out in the cold economic climate right now when we can do something about this? that is why support raising the agto 18 immediately. the school age is rising to 18, however survey opportunities for young people are decreasing month by month. cuts haven't been implement it everywhere. young people are finding it difficult to get jobs or even

internships as older more educated people are taking them. the office for national statistics shows there are currently 742,000, 18 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed. some may save the school isn't for everyone and not everyone is an academic but let me ask you something. who said you have to our your head intbooks for another two years? who said you have to do exams for another two years? you can do practical partnerships and part-time education or training if you are employed, self-employed. as we heard last week at this very -- releasing another 490,000 jobs. is that there? is that fair for 16-year-old to leave school knowing that 490,000 jobs are being cut and his or her chances have become even more difficult? is met there for them to another o years and possibly have a stronger case to gain a ob when the economy has recovered? the extra two yeas also gives the government time to source

more jobs for those who inte to leave education at 18. this way young people have time to build more academic or practical skills be a training countant or a decorator. work experience is another major factor. one experience is not enough for young people to decide which course they want to choose and turn into the future career. work experience provides invaluable experience. provides people to learn directly about working life and allows them -- i believe we need more experience. some people may say that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to choose to go to work or stay in school or training. simple answer to that is, how in this climate will a 16-year-old be able to find a job that so many others are fighting for the job with education and experience? being unemployed at such a young age has a long-term impact. do we really want is for young people? this isn't about me or you. is is about us are going to

stick together and work on the bigger picture, getting our young people the best possible start in life in tough times. i believe staying in school until 18 is the way forward. thank you are very much. [applause] steam ahamed, thank you forthat splendid and articulate speech to open our debate. just before i called the second speaker to oppose the motion i would like to mention that jim dobbin, my parliamentary colleagues from the northwest if memory serves me heywood and middleton is present and behind him, looking suitably self-effacing as in beer but this is the honorable gentleman from aldrich brown hills mr. richard epherd. so we will welcome him. [applause] and last but not definitely not least i think lurking behind the chair is the honorable gentleman, the member from bowls over, mr. dennis skinner. [applause]

i want very warmly to welcome dennis, because he is a parliamentarian o has always spoken his mind without fear or favor on every subject, and if memory serves me correctly, he entered the house on june 18th,. and he has served without interruption since, for 40 years, four months and 11 days. he is a very senior member. dennis you are very welcome. [applause] >> strayed from the coal face dennis just said to me. thank you dennis for eing with

us and giving your encouragement. tony baer who retired from a house in 2001, famously said, and not with dennis's, tony blair said any purpose of the oldest to give encouragement to the young. so there we are. to oppose the motion i call mr. adam osmond. [applause] >> thank you very much for this opportunity for everybody here to get a new facebook profile picture. [laughter] allen sugar, richard bronson, delius smith, three people who built themselves u from nothing, three people who worked hard for what they wanted, three people who got where they wanted to be. but what do all of these people have in common? they all left school at 16. i am not for one minutes ago

suggesting that everyone should go out and get a job when they are 16 because we all know that the jobs are simply not out there. the point is, everyone should have a conscious choice to continue with education or get a job at 16. nobody should be forced into education against their will. that is a presumption frankly originating from the dark ages. it will cost 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they are 18 and in a time of cuts, that is ludicrous. education is not for everyone. and i appreciate it has been said already that this motion does not just include education by training and apprenticeships as well. however, it must be said that with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due the cuts last week, it will be harder than ever to find these placements. the work connections did to get young people into apprenticeships and training is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support

to young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth unemployment will rise. these people who would have left and found a job at 16 will be forced to say in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the classroom. there is a point in my area. a nice little plug. his father's a owner of a local sweets shop. the boy helped out with his father in the shop for generations, as generations have gone before. when he turned 16, his father was taken ill and could no longer work. under the motion put before you today, he could not take this business on. are we really saying they wish to see this family sweet shop and other businesses sold up the cassette 16 he has to be in educatio ad is clearly not mature enough to run a business? nowadays, employers increasingly preferred to take on workers who have ample work experience needed to do thejob. so by writing the age of 818 --

18 u. of two years less work experience compared to somebody who left at 16. for what? a few extra qualifications? one life experiences more valuable than anything. extend this to the end f the university. you will have six years less work experience than a graduate of the same age. what does the graduate have? eighth two-2-degree in klingon, a 40,000-pound debt and they are unemployed. how does keeping a young person out of the system for six years solve our nation's youth unemployment crisis? the swer, it doesn't. [applause] >> i'm looking to call people from parts of the country is so far have been slightly underrepresented in the debate and beginning with wales. somebody from wales who wants to speak. the young man there, please. >> josh from wales.

given today's economic climate this country does not have the money to fund qualifications to some people who to be frank don't want them. there are some people who are quite happy to leave school at 16 and go work in a shop. there are some people who are quite happy to settle down, have a family and live on jobseekers allowance for the rest of their lives. i don't see how these qualifications will benefit them. it is a total waste of money. [applause] >> thank you. see we have enjoined by the honorable member from birmingham, give us a wave. [applause] thank you very much for joining us. i'm looking to call someone from the west midlands. the young man there at the end who just had his hand up. >> a new recent survey conducted

by -- we found one in three young people who don't receive engh support from education system. is the pride we failed these young people for an extra two years? you don't agree that education becomes about passing exams. we need to change this and change education so we are producing branded young people that have the skills to go into employment, to go to university and only then can we meet society's demand and take our education system into the 21st century. [applause] >> i'm looking from someone from london. hands up, somebody from london. the young woman there. yes, your good self. >> i represent london. ladies and gents, can we take into consideration that the government would like to cut people like -- as well as they are now hiring the age to 18 for

people to take -- stay in school. they want people to go and stay until 18. however, they want to cut down the people that get into university. at the end of the day, the people that get their extra qualifications and get into university have -- we have lowered our hired the age of joe bartonames. who is going to get a job to pay that muchebt off? everyone says education is not for everyone. some people wanted in some people don't. internships and job opportunities and -- is named for people. academics and education and to get our heads in the books is needed for others. can we think about this wisely? wasting money and saying how people cannoinvest and how the lady back of the band said that she actually wants to learn not

get a career but learn to get her degree. can we take this into consideration, please? thank you. [applause] >> i'm looking tocall from someone from the east of england. who is from the east of england? a young woman there. you deserve to be called because i lled you earlier and someone thought that i was calling them so go ahead. >> to consider that the motion is not to keep everybody and lessons until they are 18 is to keep them in education, not necessarily in books. we can have apprenticeships, work experience and work with books alongside job opportunities. everybody knows what they want to do at 16. i am fortunate that i know what i want to do at 16 but not everybody does. keeping them in education for two more years might help them gaining an idea of what they want to do when they are older plus the rising university fees the government is insisting on would have not help to get more

qualifications to help them get a better job in the future? [alause] >> yorkshire and humber side. yorkshead humber side. sir, let's hear from you. >> i think not everybody is capable to stay on after they are 16. nick brwer. everybody is capable to stay on the extra two years. i think the have got to make the choice whether they want to, whether it is right for them. because of the cuts in the loss of the connections and most parts of the u.k. due to the cuts it is going to hinder their choice to decide whether they want to stay or not. of. [applause] >> someone from northern ireland. the young man here has been patiently waiting. >> alex easton from east belfast in northern ireland. i think it is an absolute disgrace that people are sitting

here to say that i should be dictated to and told i have to leave school at 18. if i want to leave school at 16 i should be entitled to prepare if you raise the age to 18, how long until they risa to 21 and the tuition fees thing, what is going to happen to that? we live in a state where we are controlled and watched in the thought of controlling our education even more is an absolute disgrace. thank you. [applause] >> how about somebody from the east midlands? yes, the young woman here from the east midlands. yesterday, you. >> i'm from east midlands. personally i think making the age to 18 will benefit the statistics involved with youth unemployment. but it won't hide the fact that the financial problems young people face. i realize you need a job and you are at college and i am not amazed that any money i get at the moment is from my parents.

and the fact that ama -- people whose parents have a lot lss are going to struggle a lot more. so i think that raising the age isn't going to benefit in any way. [applause] >> thank you. somebody from the northwest. hands up from the northwest. what about the young man there with a checkered shirt. to. >> if education is made compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds, it will be disruptive and more vocational cause will be wasted in a way. this will make the standard of the drop and could affect those who want to be in college. thank you. [applause] >> somebody from the southwest. yes, the woman here with a red blouse.

>> i'm vicki from -- people think in education is not necessary to the employment. for many peop education does lead to a better job. to some it doesn't. gordon ramsey for example left school at 16. he is now worth 67 million pounds, much more than most people believe school at 18. staying on at 18, he could've got in 1-800-level. perhaps he could have done free technology learn the same skills that he now has but not as good. it wouldn't have been any good to him. and if he had not stayed in school he would have been in a class full of peopleho maybe didn't want to learn, may be disrupted the class of people have already mentioned. and that could have ruined his life chances. many young people, staying in education is essential for them. young people should be given the

choice. may be encouraged to stay in encouraged to benefit and improve their life chances but no force. young people desire the choice. [applause] >> thank you. someone from the northeast. what about the young man right at the back? >> tom hunter. i think ladies and gentlemen we are thinking too much of statisti at the moment. i think we need to remember that these are real young people we are talking about. we need to remember that they should have a chance is at the age of 16, you can decide whether not to engage in sexual activity. you can decide whether or not you want to go and fight in the armed forces. why it 16 can you decide whether or not to leave education? we need to make it clear to young people what it is like out there if we are going to send them out at the age of 16, because then if we do change it, if we do raise it to 18, then

they could choose whether or not to stay. so we just need to make sure we give young people the choice because that is the only fair thing to do. thank you. [applause] >> and a further interest from wales? yes, the one -- the young woman there. >> i think we have to acknowledge we have got a problem now in the a lot of young people especially in this room will be finding we do have this problem now with an increase in the number of young people looking to go into university fewer young people are leaving school at 16like our pants generation did but this is the problem i think is going to get a lot worse if we choose to raise the leaving compulsory age to 18. i can see hat money, which could be a substantial sum, would be put into an extra two years of education could be spent so much more wisely on structured placements up to the age of 16-year-olds that will not only help those who do

choose to leave school at 16 to get a job and move more seamlessly into the world of rk butthose who then choose actually to stay on until 18 and go through to university to compete that much more easily because i'm sure a lot of you he know experience is the magic word for university of at the moment. [applause] >> the southeast. whoever got from the southeast? yes, the young woman here who has been standing several times. >> thank you mr. speaker. melissa cham from southeast england. i feel personally, i am sure all of you have been aware of the troublemakers in the class of people who can't wait to get their gs at sea over with. i've always felt a anoints believe that people who want to carry on their education will do so i'm not necessarily a holiday regardless but an academic such

as master english or maybe go into performing arts. there are apprenticeships, there were placements and where we can fund the extra money into more education for 16 to 18-year-olds instead of making it mandatory, making it optional. so if you do want to go into education after your gcse, you know you have the security and support. if you don't want to necessarily go to college you might want to do in a partnership than you think i would love to become a plumber or a carpenter at how do i go about doing that? so, thank you. [applause] >> i'm afraid we have run out of time for speeches. just before i called the person who will conclude the debate, i would like to refer to another row or colleagues who has just entered the chamber and i am referring to the member for west

ambassador. j. simpson, give us a way. [applause] it is a particular pleasure to mention joe for two reasons. if memory serves make correctly when she came into the house of commons at the age of 25 she was the youngest member in her intake, and secondly, she has been a champion of youth centers, youth participation in youth empowerment from the moments he set foot in th house of commons. is absolutely right and drop or she should be here today and i think we will take an example from her. [applause] so, thank you once again for some first-class speeches with different opinions and sincerely expressed with real knowledge and fluency d passion. i think all of us today who said in the house of commons on a daily basis are incredibly impressed by what we occurred. to conclude the debate i call ms. holly maddy on the.

[appuse] >> thank you mr. speaker. my name is holly and i'm from the youth council. do i hear you ask yourself what job opportunities are available to you? ould you be educated until 18? are you competing for jobs with people more experienced and qualified than you are? this is extremely common in our current economic climate. will race in the school and training leaving age to 18 solve youth unemployment and fix these problems? 71% of young people already say say -- stay in education until they are 18 but it is a 29% we need to consider today. those of you who are academic, you can go on to higher education, but just take a moment to think of those who are

not like you, those who struggle with education or maybe who don't understand the level. by increasing the inventory h. immediately will this give the government time to reduce the current unemployment figures? in two years time imagine this. one, and even higher number of people competing for university spaces. how many jobs are there to accommodate the number of graduates? two the qualifications that don't include practical skills required, could they not have been getting this experience in the previous two years? unemployment is higher amongst young people aged 19 to 25. what unemployment levels reduced significany enough to warrant spending 60 million pounds annually on 16 to 18-ear-olds? that we not just witnessed the biggest cuts to public spending in living memory? keeping young people in education will give them the

opportunity to experience mulled zabul were placements empowering them to make informed career decisions. if you were toeave at 16, would work experience be more beneficial from the age of 14 before you choose your subject? or if we were to wait until 18, could there be a focus on work experience for all students, academic or not or would this be too late to influence our way of thinking? either way, more work experience will create ambition amongst young people today. so the motion we are faced today with is should the school and education leaving age be raised to 18 immediately in order to over youth unemployment? is it guaranteed that unemployment levels will reduce? i have come here today with my long-winded speech padded out with statistics. i sound like a politician, this is not about you ad i debating in the house of comons although we maynjoy it. this is about young people's lives.

those in university and those on street corners. jobs are vital to create self-esteem, confidence, optimism and a positive approach to life in general. there are two simple sides to this. yes, or no. if we say yes, raise it to 18, the unemployment figures will decrease, but they are just figures, just numbers and just statistics. will those young people be happy? will they be getting the education that they need? and is it affordable? uniform costs, equipment, school dinners. are they going to be given more opportunities for work experience and will they feel more prepared for the working world? the other side is to stay at 16. unemployment figures know they will not alter, but young people will have a choice just as you you -- united nations for the rights of the child states we should have. will young people be happier? did the know what they want at 16?

is it stereotypical of us to ask are they bored hanging around on the street corners? committing crime, or is this just reality? bearing in mind that those are the young people that will be competing for jobs with university graduates. remember that 29%. the decisions we make here today, guess they are important, but how the politicians respond to what we have said, what we have voted on, will be the life changing for the generation of young people. [applause] >> thank you holly for rounding off in such. that concludes the morning session of our sitting. the youth parliament will now adjourned until 1:30 and i invite everyone to return in a moment to wesminster hall for lunch.

however because we started late, we are a little behind schedule and lunch will have to be truncated somewhat. can i just just therefore emphasize to people to be back by 1:30 when we must start or afternoon session. you do you need to start coming back from westminster hall at 1:15 so a very brief lunch and then we will continue. thank you. you have acquitted yourself with great distinction.

>> portraits of been in afghanistan for days not knowing if they will step on an itt -- our troops have been in afghanistan for days not knowing if they will step on and ied. to many dead british citizens. we should not be pouring more money into this afghan war. it is too much. 20 billion pounds by the end of this year that the government will have spent on this war.

this government should learn from tony blair's mistakes. the government cannot expect us to accept all of these cuts and spend the small -- as much money on more. is it money well spent? the first few months of this year, 3268 civilians died. this is not the taliban or warlords. war isernment's say the justified because of the infringement on human rights. one not invade zimbabwe or north korea? -- why not invade in zimbabwe or north korea? what are they so different?

one person lks down the street and does not know if she will be killed by a roadside bomb or get shot. there has been massive negative financial impact. this government is killing innocent human beings. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that forceful introduction into the debate. to oppose the motion, i hope you will welcome him.

[unintelligible] [applause] >> 2012 and we pull out. terrorism propels by 2013. we wipe away years of taliban terror. we have to deal with this threat. until their soldiers are at a place where they can deal with themselves and secure the area. this is needed to mentor and train afghan armies to maintain the authority. thenwe've done that job,

we can get out. they need to rebuild the underground leadership structure that was taking complete control before we came. [unintelligible] there is a great shadow over afghanistan. can we cut this cancer from this country? some are asking more trivial questions. can we afford to be in the afghanistan area any longer? should we run away to save so many pounds a day. i say no. you cannot put a price on the things we are fighting for. these are people's lives and families. the liberty of the people are -- is at stake. [applause]

i say the question that really need to be asking ourselves is one of conscious. there is blood and violence in sierra leone and others to protect the lives of the oppressed. why shouldn't be any different now? afghanistan is not iraq. some appeal for the u.n. for troops. because some were committing the most heinous of atrocities. and're torturing members having women as second-class members of society. the taliban has killed over 10,000 innocent afghans since 2001 who have done nothing wrong.

the afghan people deserve better. they deserve better than tierney and corruption. they deserve to live as free people. we should provide that liberty while we are there. i cannot agree with the notion that we should withdraw soon. we need to change how we talk about the war immediately. we need to declare decisively what we mean by victory. victory would be honoring the innocent victims in afghans and the soldiers that have died so far. victory would be a step forward to afghanistan into an age of self-reliance and honest governance. leaving now would put in a risk the nine years that our brave troops have spent trying to heal this wounded nation. this conflict began because the

government of afghanistan asked us for help. they were not the ones who needed us. i believe the real victory is the genuine difference we have made at a grassroots level to the people of afghanistan. i say freedom over fascism for the people of afghanistan for however long it takes. [applause] >> thank you for that contribution. we have got off to a fire crackling start. before we go any further, i'd like to welcome this person.

of she is not a member parliament, but i would like to welcome my wife. [applause] she is a key supporter of this institution. thanks for coming. i'd like to ask the woman at the back to kick off. i think she is from the southwest. >> british forces, germany. this is a big issue from my area. it does affect us. many people have parents that have been to afghanistan are in afghanistan. it is true that we hold great pride in never troops and are very proud of them. we are holding up a government that is causing us to lose

bible human lives. these -- valuable human lives. these are not just soldiers but people who have families left behind. they have families and friends. the army is a close-knit community. when someone dies, it kills every little part of that person that was in everybody else in the community. i do not know if you have ever lost a vital member of your family, but it brings your entire world to a crashing halt. imagine waking up to find out that your dad is gone and never will return. he has died in you will never ever see him again. imagine the heartbreak. it has to stop. we have to stop torturing these families. we do not want them to die in vain.

our heroes have been given a job that the government refuses to equip them properly for. how can you win a war with one set of armor between three soldiers? why are we sending their if we cannot afford to equip them? it is a crime to put someone who is unequipped in front of a bullet just as much as it is for someone to shoot a gun. [applause] we find it even more difficult to answer this timetable. we force people's families are out of their. -- there. it would be wise to make sure

that the afghan government is stable before really. our army can achieve that if we concentrate on it now. we want to bring our boys home to get a of a triumphant return. [applause] >> thank you for that. i am looking for a contributor from the west midlands. the young woman here. >> we have talked about conscious. thousands of civilians are dying due to the crossfire. many young men and women have died since the war. it is many more compared to thousands of other casualties. [unintelligible] [applause] >> somebody from your shirt.

-- yorkshire. >> it is important to remember many of those fighting in losing their lives in afghanistan are young people. they are friends, family, neighbors. our support for them is unwavering. mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers losing their lives, and with the government spending billions does causing us to face financial cuts domestically, is this war beneficial to both the citizens of both nations th? [unintelligible] [applause] >> east of england?

>> when we first entered afghanistan, it was for the honor of this country to invade a country to bring it to a democracy. now we have lost lives, our approval rating has gone down. we no longer approve of this war. where is the honor of abandoning a country that we initially invaded? our soldiers want to fight in this war. it is their job. they love what they are doing. why should we pull them out from something they enjoy doing and send them back into a country -- they will be working but not doing what they are trained to do when we have yet the honor to do this. they want to fight. iay