Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:00 am
Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The UN "Small Arms" Conference entered its second day
with more country statements being delivered to the delegates
gathered in the General Assembly Chamber.

The highlight of today's meeting was the United States statement
delivered by U.S. Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph.
Joseph politely but forcefully gave the U.S. "red lines" - issues which
the U.S. strongly opposes and will not allow into any Conference report
or recommendations.

These included interference with Americans' Right To Bear Arms,
a UN ban on transfer of arms to freedom fighters and international regulation
of ammunition. The U.S. also said it was not ready to commit
to any future conferences on small arms.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,120 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:53 am
I think, the USA should leave the UN immediately (nuke their buildings or so).

Other countries should invaded or nuked as well.

A few of the good ones (UK, perhaps Ireland) could become a US-state. A couple of others a Depend Area or sign a Compact of Free Association.

All the other 180 become a colony.

This would solve all problems and bring freedom, peave and democracy to the whole world under one leader and God.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 06:23 am
God forbid the terrorists wouldn't have access to US guns.





How could the world survive without the US there to arm the terrorists and then protect us from those same terrorists they just armed?
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:41 am
Walter, your suggestion has been noted.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:58 am
John Bolton has explicitly stated his opinion that though it may appear, in the short run, to be advantageous for the US to join any treaty or international agreement/obligation, that short term view will be false. Nothing extremist to see here folks... move along now.

.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 12:29 am
blatham wrote:
John Bolton has explicitly stated his opinion that though it may appear, in the short run, to be advantageous for the US to join any treaty or international agreement/obligation, that short term view will be false.

Nothing extremist to see here folks... move along now.

.

That is correct.
He is being FAITHFUL to the Bill of Rights of US Constitution,
as he shud be. Credit and gratitude to him.
David
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 06:16 am
Thus, of course, it follows that no other state has any obligation, legal or moral, to follow the terms of any signed treaty with the US or to abide by any mandates laid down within international bodies such as the UN.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 07:26 am
blatham wrote:
Thus, of course, it follows that no other state has any obligation, legal or moral, to follow the terms of any signed treaty with the US or to abide by any mandates laid down within international bodies such as the UN.


That's of course wrong: only the USA have the legal and moral right to act in such a way, not any other other country - correct, OmSigDAVID?
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » U.S. v. U.N.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:51:33