Posted on 07/27/2012 6:00:54 PM PDT by Red Steel
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Member states failed to reach agreement Friday on a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade, and some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference.
Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some major loopholes by Friday's deadline for action.
-snip-
The U.N. General Assembly voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, with the U.S. casting a "no" vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.
-snip-
Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, the conference chairman, said treaty supporters knew "this was going to be difficult to achieve" and there were some delegations that didn't like the draft though "the overwhelming majority in the room did."
-snip-
Despite the failure to reach agreement, Moritan predicted that "we certainly are going to have a treaty in 2012."
He said there are several options for moving forward in the General Assembly which will be considered over the summer, before the world body's new session begins in September.
The estimated $60 billion international arms trade is unregulated, though the U.S. and other countries have their own rules
-snip-
...Thursday, a bipartisan group of 51 senators threatened to oppose the treaty if it falls short in protecting Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. In a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable.
(Excerpt) Read more at wdrb.com ...
The U. N. needs to be U.N.Done!
YES!
Don’t let your guard down. They’ll try again and again and again. They won’t stop until you are unarmed or they are dead.
I can't help but think they want us to go to sleep while they cram something through during the lame duck session and after the election.
Obama probably just told them the same thing he told the Ruskies. “Wait until I’m re-elected....”
Obama seeing his campaign floundering in the latest polls kicked this tin can down the street.
A dead snake can still bite.
For the "Oh, BTW, did you know that" basket...
@ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Page 5402, right column
It continues on Page 5403.
How does imposing this "prohibition" in any way "enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States"?
Do you really mean to tell me, that this same State Department was negotiating terms on behalf of protecting gun ownership that caused this treaty to collapse? Really?
I just don't believe it.
From the article:
"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."
They know it would spell death in keeping the Senate. People would vote against Democrats just on the threat of its pending ratification.
A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, also blamed the U.S., saying "they derailed the process," adding that nothing will happen to revive negotiations until after the U.S. presidential election in November.
OK, so we know two things. They know everybody will hate what they were pushing for and they've decided to "try again" after the election. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration can bandy the outrageous lie that they were trying to protect the Second Amendment.
As far as I am concerned, this means that the treaty language is SO bad that they want to cram it through unseen. Harry Reid is a master of such shenanigans. We should be passing that draft around like it is still immediately pending.
This is a sucker play. IT IS NOT "DEAD." That the media are calling it that is just another bad indication.
...and after the election.
We'll just have to wait and see on that.
No. This is the time to put the infrastructure in place to assure that this thing does not slip through. I don't know what that looks like in the Senate, but a serious discussion with a Senator about the depth of intrigue re treaties in the past should convince that person that this danger is no joke.
I'm not telling you that. I'm not even inferring that.
This is the same old "disarm them all" BS that has been in the works for decades. It just got a temporary hitch in the giddy-up. I'm not getting fooled, but I'm happy at any setbacks.
You need to read my comments on the other thread that I pinged you to.
This is a sucker play. IT IS NOT "DEAD."
It's only a sucker play if you fall for it.
And we all know that it'll get picked up again. You first win battles to win the war. The war is far from over and this is one battle we won.
Take a minute out to revel and enjoy it.
It's a little more than a hitch, I believe.
In fact, I think a number of someones got majorly bitch-slapped, yet again.
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results." ― Albert Einstein
Man, we don't even know what the count is going to be in the Senate until after the election.
People that aren't up for reelection this round are being informed that "We the People" are informed and we aren't going to stand for this and they will be expected to keep watch on this for the duration of their term of office.
And there are people who know other people who also know people who know other people who are working on this as well.
IMO as much as can be done at this time is being done. We have to wait till the election to see how things unfold. If a move is made before then it will be addressed.
If an attempt to "go under the radar" is tried they better fly very close to the ground.
Give me a break will you? READ the post. It was to Red Steel. You were copied.
You need to read my comments on the other thread that I pinged you to.
I did, so no, I don't. You need to stop being so defensive.
Take a minute out to revel and enjoy it.
No. I'm going to take that minute to gain as much ground as I can while they think I'm "reveling" in it.
I'm loving it!
I'm not forgetting about it.
The count between now and January 20 will be what it is now.
People that aren't up for reelection this round are being informed that "We the People" are informed and we aren't going to stand for this and they will be expected to keep watch on this for the duration of their term of office.
With all the FReepers I see saying that it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty, I'll bet they're saying 'We can do anything we want because they're all a bunch of dopes.'
IMO as much as can be done at this time is being done.
No. We should be bringing DeMint up to speed on the history and get his people looking into Reid's history to learn what kind of parliamentary games he's pulled in Nevada, which I have heard are legendary.
We have to wait till the election to see how things unfold. If a move is made before then it will be addressed.
NO. To play defense in a case where the whole thing can go down in fifteen minutes is a losing game.
If an attempt to "go under the radar" is tried they better fly very close to the ground.
And you think this beyond them... Why?
Yeah, I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.