1
   

UN at it Again

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 05:44 am
Gee, since we are so incapable of doing our job, maybe if we disarm everone we can be better at it?

Unreal.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iszvtvZ5bngmyHb3zrJeQaQ97hoAD8RVT7KG0

UN Members, Gun Lobby Face Treaty Fight
By CHARLES J. HANLEY - 3 days ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) ?- Britain, Japan, Australia and others are pushing for an unprecedented treaty regulating the arms trade worldwide, in a campaign sure to last years and to pit them against a determined American foe, the National Rifle Association.

In what U.N. officials say is an "overwhelming" response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. There's an "extremely urgent" need for controls on the international gun trade, says Kenya, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa.

But in the U.S., the NRA says it sees a creeping attempt to limit civilian gun ownership within nations ?- even though the focus now is on setting standards for arms exports and imports.

The international issues "necessarily will come to involve at some point domestic laws and policies regarding firearms," said former congressman Bob Barr, a leading NRA voice on the subject.

"That's not what we're looking at here," countered Greg Puley, of the Control Arms coalition of pro-treaty advocacy groups. "The point is to control trade in weapons that contribute to conflict and atrocities."

The NRA and other U.S. gun lobbyists have helped blunt earlier efforts at the United Nations to rein in the weapons trade. Last December, the U.S. delegation cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations approved a General Assembly resolution initiating this new treaty process.

Now, alone among the world's top 10 arms suppliers, the United States ?- by far the biggest, with almost $13 billion in arms export agreements in 2005 ?- has not filed a requested report to the United Nations with its views on a treaty.

"The United States has not yet decided whether it will or will not participate in (the review), and thus we will have no submission at this time," Richard Kidd, a deputy assistant secretary of state, told The Associated Press.

The treaty campaign may encounter resistance beyond Washington as well. The reports from Russia and China, two other big arms exporters, offered only lukewarm endorsement for stricter controls.

"This is just the beginning of the process. There will be a lot said on the issue," noted Pamela Maponga, conventional arms chief in the U.N. Disarmament Affairs Office here.

Britain, a $3-billion-a-year arms exporter, has spearheaded the effort with a half-dozen co-sponsoring nations, saying unscrupulous traders capitalize on gaps and differences in various nations' export-import laws in order to ship assault rifles and other weapons into areas where they inflame conflict and oppression.

The United States and other industrialized countries generally keep close oversight on arms sales, but dozens of nations have no regulations specific to weapons exports and imports. Only 37 nations, for example, have laws governing the operations of private arms brokers.

In its submission, Britain proposes a legally binding treaty requiring governments to authorize weapons exports only after ascertaining that they will not provoke or prolong armed conflicts, aid in human rights abuses, destabilize countries or undermine peace in other ways.

Treaty advocates favor standardizing export-import documents for weapons, and requiring governments to exchange information about weapons transfers, to ensure that the end-use criteria are being met. The British say a "mechanism for enforcement and monitoring" would be necessary ?- implying some kind of U.N. arms watchdog ?- along with provisions for punishing states breaking the rules.

Barr said the NRA, long opposed to government tracking of gun owners, fears that any international "watch list" of gun purchasers might violate U.S. privacy rights. In addition, he said, U.S. firearms manufacturers are "extremely concerned" about trade restrictions.

Britain, Canada, France and others propose a treaty that would cover the full range of conventional weapons, from handguns to tanks and combat aircraft. But concerns about illicit sales and smuggling have mostly focused on AK-47 assault rifles and other smaller weapons, especially in Africa. Experts estimate one-quarter of the $4 billion-a-year international small arms business involves illicit dealings. Up to a half-million people are believed killed each year by small arms, and more than 600 million such weapons are believed in circulation.

"We urge all governments to act in the interest of those millions dying," Kenya said in its submission.

In the next step, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected this month to name an experts' group from two dozen nations to review the submissions of 98 governments and report back to the General Assembly in the fall of 2008 on what kind of arms trade treaty might be feasible.

In a "best-case scenario," Puley said, the experts would recommend that a working group be established to draft a treaty text. General Assembly adoption of a pact wouldn't be expected before 2010.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,329 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 05:57 am
Quote:
Now, alone among the world's top 10 arms suppliers, the United States ?- by far the biggest, with almost $13 billion in arms export agreements in 2005 ?- has not filed a requested report to the United Nations with its views on a treaty.


The US is by far the most agressive nation on the earth.

Politically, environmentally and socially.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:06 am
dadpad wrote:
Quote:
Now, alone among the world's top 10 arms suppliers, the United States ?- by far the biggest, with almost $13 billion in arms export agreements in 2005 ?- has not filed a requested report to the United Nations with its views on a treaty.


The US is by far the most agressive nation on the earth.

Politically, environmentally and socially.


Environmentally? Really? You reading Al Gore?

China is the real culprit. They even poison our toys and food.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:09 am
cjhsa wrote:

China is the real culprit. They even poison our toys and food.


Besides that you seem to have never read and understood aything about the small arms treaty, you missed completely that Mattel apologised to China for damaging its reputation last month: it was "homemade".
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:13 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
cjhsa wrote:

China is the real culprit. They even poison our toys and food.


Besides that you seem to have never read and understood aything about the small arms treaty, you missed completely that Mattel apologised to China for damaging its reputation last month: it was "homemade".


Mattel put the lead in chinese paint? Who knew???
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:02 am
You should listen to the news, watch them or read the papers.
Such educates.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:06 am
Mattel apologized for a "design flaw". They were so afraid of having to move operations back to the expensive USA instead of being able to pay cheaper than dirt wages in China, they felt they had no choice but to take part of the responsibilty (which they will anyway when the lead poisoning cases come to court).

Simple answer: Buy locally produced goods. Hunt for your own food. Be a part of the process - not part of the problem.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:23 am
cjhsa wrote:

Simple answer: Buy locally produced goods. Hunt for your own food. Be a part of the process - not part of the problem.


If you are going to hunt for your own food, why not also produce your own goods?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:26 am
Intrepid wrote:
cjhsa wrote:

Simple answer: Buy locally produced goods. Hunt for your own food. Be a part of the process - not part of the problem.


If you are going to hunt for your own food, why not also produce your own goods?


In many ways I do.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:30 am
While I enjoy owning guns, I do not foresee a time when a foreign power (the UN) will ever have a say on American law or the constitution. Other countries around the world do not have much similar to the second amendment and they are free to get together and determine what is best for them.

Americans are far too stubborn about gun rights and even if something like this passes, it will never touch American shores. Well, I mean unless Democrats get into power and have solid, overwhelming control of all 3 branches of government.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 09:33 am
Quote:
even though the focus now is on setting standards for arms exports and imports.


We wouldn't possibly want to prevent terrorists from importing guns.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 10:33 am
McGentrix wrote:
While I enjoy owning guns, I do not foresee a time when a foreign power (the UN) will ever have a say on American law or the constitution.


About the United Nations

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/8503/65096656qm9.jpg

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2509/56568297gd9.jpg
... ... ...
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/3355/26651680yq0.jpg

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6207/72874046sh8.jpg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 10:46 am
Maybe you could make your point less vague Walter?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 10:47 am
It's crystal clear - The UN in large part is us.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 12:23 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Maybe you could make your point less vague Walter?


What Cycloptichorn said.
The USA founded the UN, are one THE FIVE veto-powers ... If you call that a foreign power, okay.

May I ask you what p o w e r the UN has got in your educated opinion? "Teethless" you called them .... at least three times according to A2K-search.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 12:57 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Maybe you could make your point less vague Walter?


What Cycloptichorn said.
The USA founded the UN, are one THE FIVE veto-powers ... If you call that a foreign power, okay.

May I ask you what p o w e r the UN has got in your educated opinion? "Teethless" you called them .... at least three times according to A2K-search.


So, how is any of that contrary to what I said? Perhaps your head is so far up your ass you failed to read what I wrote?

Let me quote it for you.

Quote:
I do not foresee a time when a foreign power (the UN) will ever have a say on American law or the constitution.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:00 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Maybe you could make your point less vague Walter?


What Cycloptichorn said.
The USA founded the UN, are one THE FIVE veto-powers ... If you call that a foreign power, okay.

May I ask you what p o w e r the UN has got in your educated opinion? "Teethless" you called them .... at least three times according to A2K-search.


So, how is any of that contrary to what I said? Perhaps your head is so far up your ass you failed to read what I wrote?

Let me quote it for you.

Quote:
I do not foresee a time when a foreign power (the UN) will ever have a say on American law or the constitution.


The point is that the UN isn't a foreign power at all. We can veto any decision they make, because for all intents and purposes we are the major and senior member of the UN. So you're presenting a false dichotomy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:09 pm
Please do try to remember that the U.N. security council is NOT the U.N. general assembly and that we do not have any veto powers amongst the general assembly. We have one vote, just like every other country.

You did realize that, right?

And YES, the UN is a foreign power.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:21 pm
Please do tell what power anything has that is proclaimed by the General Assembly.
Thank you.

Is it constituinal that the USA is a member of a foreign power?
Thank you for US-constitunial expertise in advance.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 01:24 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Please do try to remember that the U.N. security council is NOT the U.N. general assembly and that we do not have any veto powers amongst the general assembly. We have one vote, just like every other country.

You did realize that, right?

And YES, the UN is a foreign power.


You do realize that the General assembly can't do anything binding without the force of the Security council behind it?

C'mon, man, try a little harder. You are presenting a false dichotomy; the UN cannot be viewed seperately from the US, b/c we make up a huge part of it and supply it with legitimacy.

I know it's quite en vogue for you Conservatives to rail against the UN, but it's hardly a 'foreign power.' Hell, the headquarters are in New York, for chrissakes!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » UN at it Again
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/14/2026 at 04:01:26