| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| 153-1; Why people think the U.S. is insane | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 7 2006, 06:02 AM (430 Views) | |
| lara | Dec 7 2006, 06:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
153-1 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Over U.S. objections, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution Wednesday that could lead to the first international treaty on controlling the trade in assault rifles, machine guns and other small arms. The nonbinding resolution asks the secretary-general to seek the views of the 192-member General Assembly on the feasibility of a comprehensive treaty “establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year. The resolution asks the secretary-general to submit a report in the next General Assembly session, which starts in September 2007. It also asks the secretary-general to establish a group of government experts to examine the feasibility of a treaty based on the report. Resolution advocates said they hope any final treaty would compel countries to officially authorize all weapons transfers, stiffen compliance with previous treaties related to conventional weapons while prohibiting weapons transfers with countries likely to use the arms to violate their citizens’ rights. The resolution was approved by a vote of 153-1 with 24 abstentions. The United States was the only country to vote against it, despite an appeal from 14 Democratic senators to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed the adoption of the resolution, noting that “unregulated trade in these weapons currently contributes to conflict, crime and terrorism, and undermines international efforts for peace and development,” his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. When the resolution was approved by the assembly’s legal committee over U.S. objections, Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said: “The only way for a global arms trade treaty to work is to have every country agree on a standard.” “For us, that standard would be so far below what we are already required to do under U.S. law that we had to vote against it in order to maintain our higher standards,” he said. The National Rifle Association has strongly opposed U.N. efforts at crafting a treaty to curb private ownership of small arms. The group has said such a treaty might embolden regimes that violate human rights to disarm their citizens and make popular uprisings against oppression impossible. But human rights campaigners supporting the drive to regulate the arms trade welcomed the resolution’s approval, though they said much work is left to be done before the final passage of any comprehensive compact. “This indicates not only widespread recognition of the problem but also widespread political will to take action,” Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, said in a statement. Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International, called the vote “a historic step,” saying only five governments supported the concept of an arms trade treaty in 2003. “Now governments must follow through and achieve a strong, effective treaty,” Hobbs said. “Every day that they delay is another day when thousands of lives are wrecked by armed violence.” |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 7 2006, 08:07 AM Post #2 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
In a twisted kind of way, I admire the US for coming out with a bold "no" vote, and not sliding out from under by abstaining. They have stood up and said, no, we want to continue making a lot of money from selling guns and things that go boom so that countries like Africa remain the basketcases of the world. War is good for business, as Billy Bragg said.
I do wonder, what are these people thinking? Can't they make money from electric cars instead, or something?? And haven't india and pakistan got better things to do than make guns? Like feeding starving people?
At least it's good that 153 countries have decided they don't want to be shot at anymore. It's progress: we have bans on mines and now this. The cynic in me says, it's just a measure to give the UN back some ground lost over the oil-for-food rorts. The idealist is hopeful. Our government approved export of yellowcake to China today, provided that inspectors were in place to make sure it doesn't go to weapons projects. YEAH, RIGHT. Our government can't even keep a check on our wheat exports. |
![]() |
|
| lara | Dec 7 2006, 09:27 AM Post #3 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I love Billy Bragg! And that's all I have to say at this point. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Dec 7 2006, 02:25 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
War = $$$ profit! |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Dec 7 2006, 03:07 PM Post #5 |
|
I haz powah!
|
America enjoys screwing the world, ain't going to stop now is it? |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Dec 7 2006, 03:09 PM Post #6 |
|
I haz powah!
|
In countries like India and China people are an expendable resource that isn't going to run out any time soon, so no feeding starving people is not a priority. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Dec 7 2006, 03:30 PM Post #7 |
|
Reliant
|
... a resolution... that could lead to the first international treaty on controlling the trade in assault rifles, machine guns and other small arms. The nonbinding resolution asks the secretary-general to seek the views of the 192-member General Assembly on the feasibility of a comprehensive treaty “establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year. It also asks the secretary-general to establish a group of government experts to examine the feasibility of a treaty based on the report. Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said: “For us, that standard would be so far below what we are already required to do under U.S. law that we had to vote against it in order to maintain our higher standards,” So, if I understand: You think the US is insane because it voted no to a feasibility study that may result in a treaty that the big small arms traders may sign but may not follow, ie, Russia, China, Pakistan, etc and as far as I can tell deals only with $1 billion(?) worth of small arms trade that accounts for 60-90%(?) fatalities which according to the US would result in a treaty that is substandard to existing US law? Comments: Personally, I think the big question is what is existing US law and how true is the statement? Two, I'm really surprised that small arms sales legal or otherwise is so small. It seems to me most arms trader are worth a billion dollars (I exaggerate but not by much). Obviously they're selling more than small arms. I wonder about the statistics. I wonder if it isn't explosives more than guns. Certainly in Iraq it appears there are more deaths and injuries from explosives. Israel, again, explosives. Darfur, I'm not sure what the weapon of choice is and Rwanda was predominantly machete. Now the Sudan, a lot of different weapons of all types are being used, certainly not limited to guns. Questions, questions, questions. Interesting. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 7 2006, 10:12 PM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Ah. I missed the "feasibility study". It's a publicity stunt to make the UN look good after the oil-for-food scandal.
:( The good old non-binding resolution. It was probably John Bolton's last poke in the eye for Kofi Annan before they both go. However, the arguments for America not signing sound suspiciously like the ones against the Kyoto agreement. America could have signed it: the substandard system isn't a problem, because you just do what Australia does - sign on and then ignore it. :angry: Krazy, I think you are being a leetle unfair to the American government.They don't set out to screw the world: they want to look after American interests. Screwing over the rest of the world is just a side-effect. (Sorry Americans. I don't want to bash your government, because mine is so much more awful.) |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Dec 7 2006, 10:40 PM Post #9 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Well Eral, your government doesn't build up trade deficits of trillions of dollars in loan notes it never intends to pay off screwing over the countries stupid enough to give them any worth like China Of course China thinks it is getting a bargain because it builds its economy on the back of it, but they can never call in the loan without collapsing the house of cards like the Japanese years before. This gross distortion of world economics effectively giving the Americans free products, screws everyone else and is intentional. The money from arms if small fry compared to this. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 7 2006, 10:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I had forgotten that. I was thinking more of unleashing companies like Nike on the world. OK. I concede that looking after American interests means screwing over the rest of the world. (Sorry Americans. But I am morally obligated to hate your government just as much as mine.) Most African nations having trouble with warlords/rebels wouldn't be if it wasn't for small arms trade. Rwanda wasn't a dispute between rebels and government: it was one part of the population deciding to kill another part of the population. Hence the machetes. Those with money enough to afford guns did indeed use them - but most people were (are) abysmally poor. I'd say it's interesting that Russia makes squillions out of small arms trading, and then makes a big noise squashing the rebellion in Chechneya. The Chechens probably bought their guns from the Russians. <_< |
![]() |
|
| lara | Dec 7 2006, 10:58 PM Post #11 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I doubt you have to apologize to Americans for hating their government. Many Americans I know hate their government even more than I do - it's theirs, it's even worse for them. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Dec 7 2006, 11:04 PM Post #12 |
|
Reliant
|
Anyone read Pravda on-line? Couple of years ago they had this huge headline announcing their supremacy in the arms market. It was kinda a huge "Hey We're #1!!!" Pravda on-line is kinda odd it's kinda like News of the World, World Weekly News, The Sun and then seirious stuff sometimes. An odd combo. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 7 2006, 11:58 PM Post #13 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
lara: Australia has had Pauline Hanson, refugee prison camps and too many other ugly ugly blots on the national escutcheon for me to be too self-righteous anymore. I also believe you should only bash your own country. (The behaviour of England over the last 800 years in Ireland, is of course, exempt from this rule.) Pravda On-line? Stalin would be turning in his grave. :lol: I wonder if it's like the Chinese News On-line - we are only telling you some bits. Probably accounts for the mix. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Dec 8 2006, 12:05 AM Post #14 |
|
Reliant
|
I'm posting two links to articles in the Asia Times which have nothing to do with the original topic.
:D All about dollar hegemony and trade deficits, etc, ect. Old hat to Krazy but interesting overview nonetheless: The Wages of Neo- Liberalism - Core Contradictions The Wages of Neo-Liberalism - PART 2: The US-China trade imbalance |
| |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Dec 8 2006, 12:37 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
Pravda? Me speak no Rooskie. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Dec 8 2006, 12:39 AM Post #16 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
It means pride, but it's the name of a Russian newspaper. |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Dec 8 2006, 01:40 AM Post #17 |
|
puppet dictator
|
I don't, but my Danish friend Sofie recently admitted that it's a guilty pleasure of hers. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Dec 8 2006, 03:46 AM Post #18 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
|
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Dec 8 2006, 04:17 AM Post #19 |
|
Reliant
|
A good point. Thanks for the links and nice to see you again. :) |
| |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Dec 8 2006, 12:00 PM Post #20 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Interesting links on the trade deficit there, Reg. It was not all old hat to me by any means. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 10 2006, 09:18 PM Post #21 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Hello Underdog!
:) I keep wondering why people think they need an AR-15. Handguns, I can see, sort of. Underdog, why do you and your wife have permits? Personal protection reason, or more political? I think we can safely say that if legal small arms trade between countries is too tough for anything more than a non-binding resolution :rolleyes: , we won't be having to worry about the complexities of internal trade laws just yet. Two phrases jumped out at me in the first article "wages and rents in China need to rise." And that when countries raise their currencies it doesn't reduce the American deficit: it just leads to inflation and a gooey economy. How come America keeps going with the same policy, if we know this? (If the answer is in either of the articles, I will go back and read them properly.) |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Dec 11 2006, 06:43 AM Post #22 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
Well I don't have an AR-15, so I could't really say, they're too expensive.
Well lets see here, we got the permits, uhhh.... because we can?? :rolleyes: :lol: I usually don't carry one anyway, but I can if I want to, or sometimes when I head up to the ciites, both of which now have a higher crime rate then LA. The class taken to get the permit focused on personal protection in the home, how and when to use them, like you should first try to avoid the situation, then if you can leave peacefully, or tallk you way out, and only if you feel threatened for life or great bodily harm you can use lethal force. http://www.startribune.com/467/story/841009.html http://www.startribune.com/467/story/842425.html We had an officer come in give a talk also, you have a permit for personal defense, that doesn't make you an officer, you are not a vigilante to stop all crime, if you do use the gun legitimatily, plan on having it confiscated, and maybe even getting hauled down to the station in cuffs, not because you did anything wrong, that's just until they get things sorted out, then you will be released and the gun given back. If you got pulled over for traffic violations, and you have a gun, you inform the officer first thing, show the permit, he will then take the gun, run a check on it, and you will get it back when he's done. Small arms trade between countries, I wonder if that's just AK47, AR15 rifles, or hand guns, or both, and how much is actually legal versus illegal black market arms trading, I realy doubt that any resolution or law would do anything to stop illegal trading. My feeling is that gun control laws only help the criminals, it stops or makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to get a gun, but does nothing to stop a criminal. http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html Washington DC, has some of the toughest gun laws in the country but has the highest gun crime rates in the country. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CamEdwa.../gun_free_in_dc (the last paragraph is the one to pay attention to, you don't need everyone armed only 2-3%) |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 11 2006, 09:47 AM Post #23 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
The gun permit classes sound eminently sensible. Much better than that bank shown in "Bowling for Columbine" where you got a gun when you opened an account. :o The argument that gun control only leads to criminals having all the guns is persuasive emotionally; and when faced with someone breaking into my house with a gun, I'm sure I would rather he ended up dead than me. The thing is, I don't see how having a gun makes me safer. Unless I am already holding it in my hand when the burglary/ carjacking/mugging occurs. Makes me feel I have some control in a violent situation? Yes. Safer? I don't know. I have read a lot of statistics/reports suggesting more people are shot by someone they know: either in anger or confusion as to their identity. I have only experienced one crime in my life: some kids broke into a house I was share renting and stole any cash lying about. Grand total of $80 for them. (Moral: don't rob students.) It may be that because of Australia's low population, the incidence of crime makes less of an impact, and hence the difference in views on gun control. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Dec 11 2006, 01:34 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
![]() I want a Tommy Gun just like the mobsters of the 30's. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Dec 11 2006, 03:24 PM Post #25 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
Good luck getting one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_subm...e_United_States Not only that shooting a 45Cal, it would have a pretty good kick, you better have a strong arm. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






Can't they make money from electric cars instead, or something?? And haven't india and pakistan got better things to do than make guns? Like feeding starving people?

Handguns, I can see, sort of.


7:00 PM Jul 11