Gun control - US vs. rest of the world

[iceaura]

I disagree; if the country is consitutionally inclined to support the arming of civilians, it provides legal sanction to export the arms without oversight.

I'm sorry, but that's

1) bullshit. Look at China - the international trade in military weapons so flagrantly and corruptly furthered by the US military/industrial complex has almost nothing to do with any "gun culture" in the US.

2) revealing of the odd blind spot that attends so much foreign criticism of the US - the US is not Constitutionally "inclined" to "support the arming of civilians". The Constitution blocks the disarming of civilians by the government, is all.

The difference between supporting something, and not forbidding something, is fundamental to the US political setup.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm sorry, but that's

1) bullshit. Look at China - the international trade in military weapons so flagrantly and corruptly furthered by the US military/industrial complex has almost nothing to do with any "gun culture" in the US.

2) revealing of the odd blind spot that attends so much foreign criticism of the US - the US is not Constitutionally "inclined" to "support the arming of civilians". The Constitution blocks the disarming of civilians by the government, is all.

The difference between supporting something, and not forbidding something, is fundamental to the US political setup.

Did you miss where the US refuses to sign UN resolutions against arming militants in conflict ridden areas due to its constitutional rights of bearing arms?

John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, bluntly told the delegates that “The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” He also said the United States, the largest supplier of arms worldwide, would not support moves to outlaw any arming of rebel groups, nor would it help fund a campaign by human rights groups to raise awareness of the trade. He also said the U.S. would not support a ban on private ownership of military weapons, including assault rifles and grenade launchers.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

SpAM paid propaganda 40+ a day.

Heh I cannot believe you are using these examples.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=611

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29



So this means you support arming both sides in a conflict. Its a reflection of your culture of permissive gun ownership and violence.

No it means that if someone wants to make peace with us, and join in destroying a common enemy, ( Remember the Foreign Islamic Terrorist in Iraq are killing more innocent Iraqis, by a factor of 300 to 1, than they are killing U.S. soldiers) I have no problem in arming them, and I find it great that Moslems actually can realize that fellow Moslems are more dangerous to them then Infidels, and take appropriate action, like killing the Foreign Moslem Terrorist.

 

[S.A.M.]

So why arm both sides in Greece and Turkey?

In Iraq and Iran?

And thats just off the top of my head, if I looked I would find lots more.

 

[S.A.M.]

See? Why fuel all these conflicts?
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million).

In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003-- a full 80%-- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.

The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan ($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain ($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested $4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001 levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71.

Although the Clinton administration has been quick to criticize the governments involved in the Congo War, decades of U.S. weapons transfers and continued military training to both sides of the conflict have helped fuel the fighting.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm

 

[S.A.M.]

On top of which any UN resolution to restrict arms trade is voted down by the US.


http://www.cdi.org/program/document...eLastUpdated&ProgramID=73&from_page=index.cfm


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1027-01.htm

The United States, the world's largest supplier of small arms, was the only country that opposed the resolution.

 

[Nickelodeon]

On top of which any UN resolution to restrict arms trade is voted down by the US.

Thats because theres too much money to be made.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

So why arm both sides in Greece and Turkey?

In Iraq and Iran?

And thats just off the top of my head, if I looked I would find lots more.

And what does that have to do with the subject of the thread?

Greece, Turkey, maintain influence with both? and when was the last time that there was a conflict between these countries? But then I forget SpAM and Islam, never forgive never forget.

As for Iraq and Iran, we were supporting Sadam, it was in our best interest, we stopped sending aid to Iran after the Hostage Crisis, we don't take kindly to getting kicked in the teeth and the only reason that we sent any thing more was blackmail by Iran, we sent some TOW's to get the release of our Hostages in Lebanon held by the Iranian proxies, Shiite Moslem, Amal, and Hezbullah.

 

[madanthonywayne]

So this means you support arming both sides in a conflict. Its a reflection of your culture of permissive gun ownership and violence.

Well, it wouldn't be very fair to arm only one side, would it?

 

[iceaura]

Did you miss where the US refuses to sign UN resolutions against arming militants in conflict ridden areas due to its constitutional rights of bearing arms?

No. I just know how lame a cover that is. He talks a different line when it comes to Iran arming Hezbollah, for example.

Bolton represents the US military/industrial complex and the corporate interests in quasi-colonial control. His servicing of their needs has no more to do with the US "gun culture" and US Constitutional rights than China's or Russia's or France's advancement of their weapons exports has to do with Russian "gun culture" and Chinese civil liberties and French Rifleman's Associations.

we stopped sending aid to Iran after the Hostage Crisis, we don't take kindly to getting kicked in the teeth and the only reason that we sent any thing more was blackmail by Iran, we sent some TOW's to get the release of our Hostages in Lebanon held by the Iranian proxies, Shiite Moslem, Amal, and Hezbullah.

Yeah, they blackmailed us by threating the re-election of Jimmy Carter.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. I just know how lame a cover that is. He talks a different line when it comes to Iran arming Hezbollah, for example.

Bolton represents the US military/industrial complex and the corporate interests in quasi-colonial control. His servicing of their needs has no more to do with the US "gun culture" and US Constitutional rights than China's or Russia's or France's advancement of their weapons exports has to do with Russian "gun culture" and Chinese civil liberties and French Rifleman's Associations.

Yeah, but the US is the only one that votes against arms control

 

[madanthonywayne]

Yeah, but the US is the only one that votes against arms control

The only reason the US stays in the UN is to veto all the nonsense that would otherwise be passed.

 

[S.A.M.]

The only reason the US stays in the UN is to veto all the nonsense that would otherwise be passed.

They could not veto this one, the UN passed it anyway. At some point, the naysayers become irrelevant.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No. I just know how lame a cover that is. He talks a different line when it comes to Iran arming Hezbollah, for example.

Bolton represents the US military/industrial complex and the corporate interests in quasi-colonial control. His servicing of their needs has no more to do with the US "gun culture" and US Constitutional rights than China's or Russia's or France's advancement of their weapons exports has to do with Russian "gun culture" and Chinese civil liberties and French Rifleman's Associations.

Yeah, they blackmailed us by threating the re-election of Jimmy Carter.

Well if they wanted Carter for the U.S. all they had to do was release the Hostages? and Carter would have been a shoe in, as it was Carter who fucked thing up so badly that we are still paying for it today.

 

[madanthonywayne]

They could not veto this one, the UN passed it anyway. At some point, the naysayers become irrelevant.

We can veto anything. Apparently, we just decided not to. As I said, the only reason I could conceive of staying in the UN is to retain our veto.

 

[nietzschefan]

Want gun control? Make them really expensive. Put gun makers out of business. Your efforts are best directed at World Peace.

 

[S.A.M.]

We can veto anything. Apparently, we just decided not to. As I said, the only reason I could conceive of staying in the UN is to retain our veto.

Thats obvious. They veto everything that affects their profits.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/167.html

Right to food
Office of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, 23 April 2003

In a resolution on the right to food (E/CN.4/2003/L.27), adopted in a roll-call vote of 51 in favour and 1 against, with 1 abstention, the Commission encouraged all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food, including steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and as soon as possible enjoy fully the right to food, as well as to elaborate and adopt national plans to combat hunger; and took note with interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (51): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

 

[Baron Max]

Thats obvious. They veto everything that affects their profits.

So you think a nation should agree on something that would harm and/or destroy their own economy????? Would India do such a thing???

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

So you think a nation should agree on something that would harm and/or destroy their own economy????? Would India do such a thing???

Baron Max

I think some things are too important to consider profit first.

 

[nietzschefan]

like say...Religion?