US votes no on small arms treaty
You would think that with the US fighting Islamic militias and insurgencies from the Phillipines to North Africa that cutting off their supply of small arms would be a top priority. But no.
Look, I'm willing to talk about the debates on US gun control either way, but this is about limiting large international sales, and the US votes to have no limits on international transshipments?
I'm sure that the administration's goal is to leave open the US policies towards arming "freedom fighters" against "objectionable" governments, but this is insane.
Haven't we learned from Afghanistan and elsewhere that US soldiers frequently end up on the point end of those transferred weapons?
(The politics of this does play well with the black helicopter crowd.)
A United Nations committee has voted to start drafting an international arms trade treaty which would regulate the import and export of conventional weapons.
The measure, passed by an overwhelming majority, would help to stop guns finding their way to existing war zones despite existing arms embargos and export controls.
The assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee voted 139 to 1, with the US casting the sole 'no' vote.
Look, I'm willing to talk about the debates on US gun control either way, but this is about limiting large international sales, and the US votes to have no limits on international transshipments?
US President George W Bush, a close ally of the US gun lobby, said the US govt was willing to endorse a set of voluntary principles aimed at guiding arms deals, but would not back binding controls on transfers across national boundaries.
I'm sure that the administration's goal is to leave open the US policies towards arming "freedom fighters" against "objectionable" governments, but this is insane.
Haven't we learned from Afghanistan and elsewhere that US soldiers frequently end up on the point end of those transferred weapons?
(The politics of this does play well with the black helicopter crowd.)
posted by mikevotes at
11:58 AM
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Ptelea, at 1:38 PM
But doesn't that misfocus on certain single divisive issue, ignoring the greater questions, typify alot of today's discourse?
And, really, this protocol has very little to do with gun rights. It is about large volume sales and international transfers.
(Generally, I do not have a strong position on guns and gun control on an individuals. I think registration is generally a really good idea and very tight limits on dealers and the size of sales, but I think most of it should be left to localities because small town Iowa and New York/Chicago are very different situations.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:15 PM
The administration is willing to use any power to stop WMD's but not coventional arms.
Seems like (anong other reasons) they want to assure the military power to prevail over aggression and protect their position as the one supreme superpower.
They believe that a major contributer to economic stability is a healthy arms manufacturing industry, not only for the U.S., but other countries as well.
They also feel that it is healthy for the people to be armed; not only for the U.S., but for other countries as well.
By
Unknown, at 5:18 PM
Time,
You made me realize that guns are about the only manufacturing left where the US leads the world.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:30 PM
Really. Why vote against this? To prove once again to the world that we're really just whores for the commerce of death and destruction? That we've got a twisted fetish for weapons and violence?
I think it just boils down to the fact that we really don't give a flying shit about anyone -- and I mean anyone -- when it comes to making a buck. We're just warlords in pin strips...
By
-epm, at 10:53 PM
I'll buy that.
I think it also says that the US is unwilling to give up its practice of fostering coups in second and third world nations.
That gets noticed.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home