Bull$hit.

I've made my (well informed) opinions on this - based on thorough reading of the treaty itself and research into the nature of international treaties like this - well known elsewhere here.

This is what irritates the hell out of me about the NRA right now. This. Is. Not. True. But it sure does drive membership donations. Which, in the end, probably isn't a bad thing and I'm happy they have the money to continue lobbying on behalf of the 2nd amendment. But the cost of the tactic is that we ALL look ignorant of how international treaties work and selfish for torpedoing a process that ~could~ make our own troops safer down the road because we are spooked that "the UN is a'comin' fer our guns!"

That said, and as I've said before, there ~is~ language in the treaty that could be used by anti-gunners to push for more regulation. What nobody in the *@#% NRA is thinking about is that there is ALSO language in the treaty that makes it clear that we are already MORE than fulfilling any reasonable arms control obligations. Way more. It is a matter of interpretation - which, as I've said before, brings it back to the only place we have a problem: our law makers and our Supreme Court. They are FAR more threatening to our rights than the UN could ever be. STOP giving the UN power it doesn't have.

.

Yet, if the major countries that supply the arms to our enemies, be it intentionally or unintentionally, are not going to adhere to the treaty, then it is essentially worthless.

We have created an uproar about the 2nd amendment when the treaty doesn't really have anything to do with it. A large part of why our enemies are not interested in signing it is because we probably won't ratify it either. That's the way war is: no one agrees to put down their arms in a ceasefire unless their enemy does, too. If the American public understood and was behind the treaty this process would look very different and it would be clear that our enemies are the bad guys.

As it is, when it comes to the international stage of using sectarian violence for political purposes... we're still looking like the bad guys, too. We created the Saddam Hussein regime. We helped create the Taliban. Both were CIA cold war tactics to arm and stabilize the Middle East against the spread of communism. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

What this treaty is attempting to address is the first steps towards international accountability to the fact that millions of civilians' lives are caught up in these political uses of arms sales and sectarian, racial tensions.

The world isn't anywhere near ready to do that and I know the treaty is inadequate to the task. But this hype about how the treaty undercuts the Constitution. "bypasses congress" and whatnot is shamefully highlighting how little we understand our own political process. And how willing we are to accept a sales pitch without researching it when it "feels right." This pro-gun hype about the treaty is no different, and no less idiotic, than the "feel good" fervor about magazine capacity limits by the anti-gunners.

Look at it this way. We all pretty much agree that known violent felons shouldn't be able to buy guns. Why is it that we're opposed to the idea that known violent and abusive regimes should have a tougher time getting tanks, anti-aircraft systems, naval vessels and RPG's?

That is what our political enemies can't figure out. If the Americans are in favor of selling to THEIR irresponsible, human rights violating strategic ally warlords... then they are certainly going to keep selling to theirs. The millions of innocent civilians who's lives are then shaped by the continued violence be damned.

Hi clshade,

I have not read this treaty but would you be able to answer some questions I had about it?  These questions are asked because I don't know.

1. How can Obama sign such a treaty when Congress will not approve it?  Basically, it is like Obama telling the world one thing even though Congress doesn't agree.  Even though he knows about the opposition by congress, is it up to king Obama to decide on this?

What is his motive for doing such a thing (promising the USA to something that Congress would likely repeal or conflicts with current US international policy)?  Is he just grandstanding?

2. Why should the USA bind itself to such a treaty even though we know its enemies will not adhere to it and just use it as a document to use against the US?  Basically, it is like gun laws... It will hold the good guys accountable even though the bad guys will ignore it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

1. How can Obama sign such a treaty when Congress will not approve it?  Basically, it is like Obama telling the world one thing even though Congress doesn't agree.  Even though he knows opposition by congress, is it up to king Obama to decide on this?

What is his motive for doing such a thing (promising the USA to something that Congress would likely repeal or conflicts with current US international policy)?

With the international treaty process, the president's signature isn't at all the same as signing a law. It is not a promise at all. The signature simply says "THIS version of the treaty is the one we'll take home and see if it will get ratified." The State Department actually does the negotiating - Obama is just the signature because... well, he's the President. I watched the State department's tactics in the the final rounds of negotiations over the treaty language and they did, in fact, lobby hard to remove proposed sections of the treaty that might conflict with the 2nd. Other countries (*cough*Mexico*cough*) were trying to make this about controlling American private arms ownership but the State department killed that attempt in its tracks. They also removed and neutered sections that were aimed at regulating ammo sales - pretty much in order to maintain the easy flow of surplus ammo to US markets.

Obama's signature means nothing. It is a gesture that the US is willing to consider limiting the trade of war machinery to unstable regions but no one has any illusions that the answer to that consideration will result in ratification.

2. Why should the USA bind itself to such a treaty even though we know its enemies will not adhere to it and just use it as a document to use against the US?  Basically, it is like gun laws... It will hold the good guys accountable even though the bad guys will ignore it.

A couple things.

First, the US already has the highest of international arms sales standards. We don't sell tanks and warplanes to abusing dictators, at least not anymore. Well, not as much as we used to. And these days if we do supply a faction with war machinery it is usually part of a larger, UN sanctioned endeavor. So aside from a relatively small amount of reporting abiding by the treaty as it is currently written wouldn't much affect how the US currently handles international arms sales. Are we the champions of human rights and democracy around the world or not? Our opposition to the treaty pretty much says "Yeah, no, we're still gonna sell tanks and missiles to bad guys because they are making life difficult for our enemies. Who cares about the civilians they are oppressing?"

Second, if a nation agrees to the treaty and then does not abide by it we can threaten UN action against that country for doing so. Theoretically it shifts the tactics of proxy warfare via the arming of rival factions from "I'll arm my warlords better than yours" to "I and my allies punish your country for arming your proxy warlords." In reality, its just a step in that direction by mandating reporting of international sales. There is no enforcement provision in the treaty so any attempt to penalize a country for selling to human rights violators would require an ad hoc coalition of countries to decide action was necessary.

To date, the US and its allies are FAR better at doing that kind of thing than any other faction. We use NATO if the UN won't play along.

Make no mistake, we still have the biggest stick around: the treaty is far more a weapon for us to use than it can be used against us. Which is another reason why our political enemies are leary of it.

edit: Hmmm... a shorter summary is that the treaty ~could~ be the first step in the process of the world condemning the use of proxy warfare - essentially ending the cold war practices that lead to every single major conflict we've been involved in since WWII. The UN's goal in this is to highlight that the cost in innocent human lives and the retardation of economic growth in areas of the world that need it most is just too high to continue this tactic without calling it out as the disruption that it is. It really has nothing to do with private ownership of firearms in the US. The American people are flaunting their ignorance and self-centeredness by assuming that it is about their guns and opposing it on that basis. And that dialog was entirely generated by the pro-gun advocates without, I think, a real understanding of the treaty process and what the UN can and cannot do with regards to our sovereignty.

.

If this is case, I am hoping that this treaty disallows our funding/arming of the FSA in Syria. I am no lover of assad, but when you are arming individuals who are splinter cells of a declared enemy, it just sounds like the proxy war in Afghanistan all over again, and we all know how that turned out in the end.

That's pretty much the size of it. The UN moved on this on the timeline that it has because Communism more or less fell. Sure, there is still China but the Cold War aspect of things has settled down. It was a good plan until 9/11. We have apparently decided to rekindle the forever war by targeting "Terrorism" now in place of Communism. As valid as that is in some ways, our involvement in the Middle East isn't really about terrorism - its about stabilizing the political climate around oil and packing the region with allies if we can.

Because our military consumes almost 1/3 of the world's oil supply. About 30%. Civilians and industry account for about another 30%. Oil is very much a matter of national security for us (even though is ~will~ be running out here shortly, in the grand scheme of things) and that's why our military spending (including proxy warfare expenses) are more than the next 14 countries combined.

The UN was hoping the American people were getting tired of the forever war and would support putting the kibosh on proxy warfare, at least, since we already have our own forces that are so well funded and trained. Unfortunately, that's not how we see it.

.

which, as I've said before, brings it back to the only place we have a problem: our law makers and our Supreme Court.

Curious sentiment from someone that voted for the POS that has already nominated two very anti-2A justices, and would do so again in a heartbeat should he get the chance.

Curious sentiment from someone that voted for the POS that has already nominated two very anti-2A justices, and would do so again in a heartbeat should he get the chance.

You sure about that? edit: (Or are you that unable to see that there are more things at stake than just the 2nd amendment when it comes to voting? ) - My apologies. That was much harsher in tone than I intended. I won't delete it, though, and pretend I didn't post it. Should have said "While I think the 2nd amendment is extremely important, I look at a lot of other issues when I decide how to vote - and they sometimes conflict."

I happen to think that corporate (i.e. the 1%) influence on government is a FAR more present danger to our freedoms than the petty attacks on the 2nd amendment. In fact I think they are the source of the incremental attacks on the 2nd amendment and that its not about making people safer at all. Its about removing the possibility of the French Revolution Part 2 should the American People wake up to the degree to which they have been thoroughly screwed. Its the same families that still own and control most of the world - they've just learned not to live in castles and have the taxes delivered directly to them.

I think that no matter which color tie the President wears the American people are still getting screwed. When a republican is in office the rights of corporations are expanded, use of military for corporate goals is expanded, and the tax code is stuffed with loopholes so the rich can continue getting richer. When a democrat is in office the rights of the people are constricted.

Truth be told, I ~really~ wished that the Republicans had nominated Ron Paul. He would have been just as unable to achieve his goals as Obama is (unless those goals coincide with the needs of the 1%) but at least it would be a sign that the republicans aren't the tools of corporate interests and wealth that the libs accuse them of being. Mitt was so the wrong choice. Paul, given that the only other choice was Obama, could have won the general election by stealing the large number of Obama supporters that felt (very) let down by his track record. Instead, the corporate media (not the Liberal media) made sure no one ever got a whiff of Paul's integrity and message.

So we were given the choice between someone who is obviously rich and out of touch and a standing president who (somewhat less obviously) is a puppet for those who are rich and don't care about the People or their rights.

That's how I see D.C. We'll have our rights only as long we we don't threaten those who are pulling the strings. Who you vote for is immaterial and just dictates the flavor of the slow, steady decline. This country isn't embroiled in a battle between left and right. Its a class war that has pretty much been won by the folks who hold all the cards. It has been that way since before the Revolution. The revolution was really a bunch of rich colonists who wanted to be the ones holding the cards instead of letting the King continue doing so. Keep in mind that only white, male land owners were allowed to vote. So much for "taxation without representation." Then when the rich southern plantation owners got tired of the rich northern industrialists messing with them we had a civil war which ended with the southerners no longer being rich. Problem solved.

Why else did the NDAA pass with hardly an opposition? That wasn't Obama. Why else did the supreme court decide that corporations are "people" even though that flies in the face of any kind of common sense. Why else did the Patriot Act pass without the legislature even having time to read it well enough to know what they were voting on? The bailout?

 Doesn't matter which edge of the sword we're getting hit with: they are still the ones swinging it.

Thanks for articulating this clshade. I agree with you on a lot of your points here.

In essence, you're saying we have been divided and conquered by the powers that pull the strings.

In essence, you're saying we have been divided and conquered by the powers that pull the strings.

Yup. That's how I see it. I don't really blame them for doing so, either, as that has been standard practice (as far as I can tell) since the dawn of civilization. I just wish... well, I wish a lot of things... but I think it would be reasonable for the powers that be to pitch in and help fix the many things that are broken or breaking instead of continuing to exploit them for their own profit and consolidation of power. Include the will of the people a bit more in the process and there need be no repeat of the French Revolution. Come back from the extreme of wealth inequality that we are headed towards and the S need not HTF.

We have more than enough resources, ingenuity and generosity of spirit to do this. That those with all the cards seem unwilling to allow that to happen is... troubling. Regardless of what the politicians are saying, I'm afraid (again, literally) that the powers that be have already decided that it is too late and are shoring up their own resources the way we've been hoarding ammo and bucket food. Meanwhile, they have us at each other's throats over partisan (and largely irrelevant) issues so that we don't notice.

I don't necessarily believe that is TRUE. But that what I observe allows for it to be true, even looks more likely to be true than a lot of other possible explanations I've heard, is what spooks me. I really want to have more faith in humanity than that. And I do. But absolute power corrupts absolutely and we haven't seen this kind of consolidation of wealth and power since the Great Depression.

Well, on the flip side, have you ever read that book / watched the movie called Atlas Shrugged?  The book was written by Ayn Rand whose family suffered from the Soviet communist / socialist regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

The hyper capitalism philosophy she expouses is quite narcissistic and a favorite of the 1%.  However, the point that tyrannical governments just likes to villify and take from the productive people to give to the non-productive people cannot be ignored. 

The book basically is saying that Atlas (who carries the world on his shoulders, aka the productive 1% that makes the world go around) should just shrug and and let society fail seems like a very scary and possible position that the 1% is taking concerning the fate of the other 99%.

I'm aware of it but haven't read it.

Atlas carries the world on his shoulders because since the industrial revolution He has done everything in his power to make sure that the majority of every dollar (euro, yen, and ruble) spent flows through his hands. He has overwhelmingly succeeded in that over the protests of the many family farms and small, regional industries that got paved over in the steadfast march to global markets, outsourced manufacturing and getting the lowest prices for materials while selling to the highest priced markets. (If you don't understand this, try to find a non-GMO corn food product in the US or a piece of consumer electronics NOT made in foreign sweatshop.)

Now that resources are getting scarcer (relative to population growth) and we're all getting a little edgy thinking that we're sooner or later going to have to either start fighting over them or (gasp!) abandon growth based economy... its awfully tempting and just shrug off responsibility for creating the situation where virtually no civilized location is sustainable.

I get it. I understand and sympathize. I also think that shrugging is not the best response to a crisis and that collectively we have a lot more capacity to understand, forgive, and move forward ~together~ than Atlas could possibly imagine. It'll be plenty uncomfortable getting honest about it, but less uncomfortable than if the SHTF the way it might.

.... anyway. Apologies all for dragging this (way) off topic in response to questions I was asked. :/

I'm aware of it but haven't read it.

It's a good book. A few of my business-minded friends said to read it as it is a "must read".

Atlas carries the world on his shoulders because since the industrial revolution He has done everything in his power to make sure that the majority of every dollar (euro, yen, and ruble) spent flows through his hands. He has overwhelmingly succeeded in that over the protests of the many family farms and small, regional industries that got paved over in the steadfast march to global markets, outsourced manufacturing and getting the lowest prices for materials while selling to the highest priced markets. (If you don't understand this, try to find a non-GMO corn food product in the US or a piece of consumer electronics NOT made in foreign sweatshop.)

Yes, Adam Smith's dream ran by the wolves. More on this below.

Now that resources are getting scarcer (relative to population growth) and we're all getting a little edgy thinking that we're sooner or later going to have to either start fighting over them or (gasp!) abandon growth based economy... its awfully tempting and just shrug off responsibility for creating the situation where virtually no civilized location is sustainable.

I don't believe that there are not enough resources in this world. 

Before I go into why, let me share two observations I find very fascinating. 

1. When left alone, everything that humans build decays and crumbles over time.  Humans can build a house but this will crumble without constant manual intervention.

2. On the other hand, everything that God made multiplies and repopulates on its own over time.  Leave a forest or an animal species on its own and it will just grow and multiply by itself.  For example, I find the reproductive capacity of fishes be truly amazing.  Have a pair of male and female tilapia in a fish pond and after a month, you have 30 baby tilapias. Same for rabbits and other of God's creatures.  These little animals become food for the larger species including us human beings.  In God's creation, life begets life.  Plants are equally amazing... Fruits and grain harvested from plants contain seeds that can be used to plant another generation of crops.  Even the non living natural resources of this earth has a recycling feature built in... ask a geologist.

Now to my point... The more we destroy God's natural design and replace it with man's own, then yes, we will run out of resources as man's creation does not reproduce and only decays. In the Garden of Eden, life reproduced and there was much for Adam and Eve to eat.  But the fall of man began in wanting to live independent of God, and thus death became our fate.  God is the source of all life. That is why in the bible, it says that without God, there is only death. God had put man in charge of stewarding His creation but we are doing a really poor job at this.

Companies like Monsanto GMOs the crops for the sake of control so farmers have to always buy the seeds from them instead of just saving part of the seeds harvest for a new replant. I find the long term risk of this truly frightening... What if one day, all our plants become GMOd to the point that they all no longer produce seeds that can be replanted?

As our society depends more and more on things created by man, we will have scarcity of resources.  Instead, if we begin to respect God's design of His creations, I believe we will not have this scarcity and there will be plenty for man to thrive.

I get it. I understand and sympathize. I also think that shrugging is not the best response to a crisis and that collectively we have a lot more capacity to understand, forgive, and move forward ~together~ than Atlas could possibly imagine. It'll be plenty uncomfortable getting honest about it, but less uncomfortable than if the SHTF the way it might.

All human beings have the capacity to innovate and come up with better solutions than what we have now. It's just that the powers that be want us to be docile and dependent on them so it is easier to control us and easier for the incumbents to retain their power.  And who can blame them?  People make a choice to be sheep and be consumers instead of doing something productive to help their own lives.

Some men would rather stay boys, play computer games or watch entertainment instead of putting on big boy pants and being productive in their own adult lives.  Imagine what our community would be like if we can transform our generation of boys into "Atlases" instead of "warrior princesses" (sorry, couldn't resist).  But our docile society would rather blame others for their problems and demonize these "greedy" CEOs for the result of their own inaction.

Our hope and our responsibility is in raising a new generation of God-fearing CEOs (instead of self-serving wolves or sheep) who will have a clear idea between what is right and what is wrong.

Overwhelmingly agreed.

I could go on but I am painfully aware that this is apparently my day to lead things wildly off topic...