It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN fails to reach deal on global arms trade treaty, as US asks for more time

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
the U.S. is not the U.N...they need to mind their own business and leave our country to US...


Oh dear lord, another anti-UN American, what an ironic surprise...

The UN is an American invention post-WW2. In fact, the US positively insisted on it in the run up to Victory. They insisted on the HQ being in NY and, for a while, funded it entirely. Let's also not forget the permanent UNSC seat you have, with veto power.

If you have such an issue with the UN, you only have yourselves to blame for bloody well inventing it.




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Hello Stumason, ATS Readers, Writers,

Other than sounding pretty high and mighty there buddy.. I wonder if you or others have thought out your words.

WHO is alive today that had anything to do with the UN???

WHO ALIVE TODAY, was instrumental in the UN being formed after WW2.. Unless there is 100 yrs olds out there...you are talking to the LONG DEAD... in those who "are to blame", those alive CAN NOT blame themselves, because the BS one world organization already existed when 99.9% of Americans and ATS readers were born..

And when it comes to these type things, U.N., WAR, INTERVENTION.... they sure as hell quit listening to the public a LONG time ago..."they" do as they please, untouchable it seems TEFLON dictators..so to speak, nothing sticks to them.

I see it coming to a head someday, with maybe large protests.. this fine stew they have created for us all..

The root of it seems to pointing more and more to the bankers and a small handfull of elite doing it for profits..just like all the other stinking wars eh??

Pravdaseeker



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pravdaseeker
 


It matters not if the people are "dead", or is that how you view treaties and such? Only valid if the people who signed it are still alive? The fact remains, it was the American attitude as "victors" in WW2 that they called the shots and they did with the UN. Nothing much has changed with the general US psyche since then, no?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The UN needs to remember why they are here. They are not here to regulate sovereign nations internally. They need to back off and let us decide on our own what we want to make illegal in our home or they will go the way of the league of nations.
edit on 28-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by here4awhile
the U.S. is not the U.N...they need to mind their own business and leave our country to US...


Oh dear lord, another anti-UN American, what an ironic surprise...

The UN is an American invention post-WW2. In fact, the US positively insisted on it in the run up to Victory. They insisted on the HQ being in NY and, for a while, funded it entirely. Let's also not forget the permanent UNSC seat you have, with veto power.

If you have such an issue with the UN, you only have yourselves to blame for bloody well inventing it.


An "American Invention"?

Make that a John D. Rockefeller Jr./Rothchilds invention. The Rockefellers donated the land with the lead architect for the building was the real estate firm of Wallace Harrison, the personal architectural adviser for the Rockefeller family. The Rothchild's are in a deep as the Rockefellers.

Both the Rockefellers and Rothchilds institute their Globalist policies through the United Nations.

SOURCE

SOURCE

Sorry Stu, the Brits are in this just a deep as the Americans and I didn't expect this comment to come from you!!!!


edit on 28-7-2012 by Oldnslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by Oldnslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by Oldnslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just like the US and fed runs the IMF.
people forget sometimes that most international agencies, groups and entities are funded by US tax payers.
without my or your permission.

UN will do as US want them to do, plain and simple. Is nothing but a joke.

The only way US can force the US citizens to part from the second amendment is if they again amend the Constitution

No foreign entity can do any of that.

This treaty is nothing but gesture of good will nothing else.

I will like to see any law abiding citizen in the US been ask by the government to give up their arms because the UN wants them to do.




"The U.N. is a global-leftist organization that uses multilateral treaties like the ATT to enforce their will upon all humankind. It's the ultimate power play. To them, the U.S. Constitution and the sovereign rights of American citizens are irrelevant. If they have their way, they will create a vast new international bureaucracy to document, regulate, track, supervise, inspect and maintain surveillance over every firearm ever made. Such a regime ought to be completely unacceptable to every American."


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Now the question is who is truly trying to step on US citizens second amendment? open you eyes because you going to be very surprised, is the elite that pays and support the UN from use of tax payers money

In other words our own government is against its own citizens


United States 22.00 362.7
Japan 19.47 279.6
Germany 8.66 124.4
United Kingdom 6.13 88.0
France 6.03 86.6
Italy 4.89 70.2
Canada 2.81 40.4
Spain 2.52 36.2
China 2.05 29.5
Mexico 1.88 27.0


Even when all the members contribute to the UN the US is still the biggest sole contributor of all.

www.un.org...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Oldnslo
 


I never said us Brits weren't


Just pointing out the idiocy of Americans hating on the UN, when it was they who pushed hard for it's creation, which subsequently led to the disintegration of the British Empire, which is what the US wanted all along so as to gain access to those markets.... Many of the stipulations put upon the UK during the war were with the express intention of forcing us out of our Empire so that the US could take the number 1 spot...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
So cute to read american yelling 2nd Amendment as if it was anything to do with the GLOBAL arms trade.

A U.N. arms trade treaty would not interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession.

/facepalm



And another irony is the fact some of these people are the same who are against IRAN or any "I don't like you country" having weapons shipped to them.
edit on 28/7/12 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The Orwellian Creed

Just my personal opinions here...


Originally posted by stumason
Just pointing out the idiocy of Americans hating on the UN, when it was they who pushed hard for it's creation, which subsequently led to the disintegration of the British Empire, which is what the US wanted all along so as to gain access to those markets....

As it happens, not only do many Americans despise the UN and what it stands for, but a vast majority of Americans also oppose slavery and think it was morally reprehensible. Is that "idiocy" too?

By your own brand of logic, it would be "idiocy" for you to oppose the past actions of your own government. That means we can hold you personally responsible for the atrocities of the Raj, the Opium Wars, the colonization and exploitation of hundreds of millions of people, innumerable wars of conquest and membership in the EU and UN, which is stridently opposed by many Britons.

Who, of course, are not entitled to do so if the line of thought you are expressing here is to be faithfully followed.

Does that really make sense to you? Are you really willing to own that sort of reasoning in a public forum?

The only "idiocy" on display here is the notion that in a nation of over 300 million people, individual liberty and a willingness to disagree with one's own government is somehow "idiocy". :shk:



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


And I don't really think the US has baulked at this because of domestic, pro-gun pressure, but rather a desire to protect its $55 billion a year Arms industry. The pro-gun lobby are useful scapegoat to blame it on.


Right, that's one of the few industries the US has left which is still profitable.
And the arms industry is probably one of the most powerful lobbies to ever exist, among select few others.

By the way, did you realize that the word "Scapegoat" is a reference to the occult?
The "goat" of course, should be an obvious reference.

Check this out:
Rene Girard

the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry;


Think of the way the terminology is used. Like the way people blame "the devil" for their own crimes/actions, it's "scapegoating". They are blaming the goat.

Blaming "guns" for violence, it's blaming the goat.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Hasnt this law been in the works since 03? So why are you blaming Obama? Partisan politics on ATS>
edit on 28-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
As it happens, not only do many Americans despise the UN and what it stands for, but a vast majority of Americans also oppose slavery and think it was morally reprehensible. Is that "idiocy" too?


I expected a better analogy than that, Majic! Slavery was abolished in the US, so your analogy falls flat. It doesn't even compare to the UN thing I was on about. Your example would only work if the US subsequently left the UN and then you moaned about it.

Seeing as you mentioned slavery, it was the British who banned it first and worked quite hard for the 30-40 years prior to the US banning it to stop the trade. Just a side note....


Originally posted by Majic
By your own brand of logic, it would be "idiocy" for you to oppose the past actions of your own government. That means we can hold you personally responsible for the atrocities of the Raj, the Opium Wars, the colonization and exploitation of hundreds of millions of people, innumerable wars of conquest and membership in the EU and UN, which is stridently opposed by many Britons.


Not at all, as we ended all that (as part of joining the UN). But, if you want to hold me personally responsible, that's fine, because by association, I can be held personally responsible for the introduction of modern education, democracy, rule of law, railroads and all the other good things we did. Take the good with the bad, after all.

But, what I think is an important distinction is that those anti-UN peeps on here seem to think it some grand autonomous body, separate from the US, which is to be feared and opposed, when much of what the UN does is done so with the EXPRESS PERMISSION (and often under the actual direction of) of the current US Government, not a past Government.

As for the EU, well, we got sold short on that. We were asked if we wanted to join the EEC, which was a free trade zone, not the EU which is what has morphed since and it has been a constant topic of debate here in the UK that we should have a referendum, but we are duly ignored or sidestepped every time.


Originally posted by Majic
Who, of course, are not entitled to do so if the line of thought you are expressing here is to be faithfully followed.


EU membership and membership of the UN are two different things. Our EU membership has changed fundamentally since we joined, to the point it is nothing like what we voted for. The UK has almost no say in what goes on and we have laws forced upon us we neither asked for, nor even need.

The UN has remained in exactly the same form as setup by the victors of WW2 and works in exactly the same way, with nothing happening without the express permission of the US (and others) and it doesn't pass laws that change the internal workings of member states, just how each of those states operate together.


Originally posted by Majic
Does that really make sense to you? Are you really willing to own that sort of reasoning in a public forum?


I understand what you're trying to say, but your examples are not analogous. The US set up the UN and the US is one of the countries which runs the UN, nothing happening unless the US says it can,so the argument it is merely the past Governments fault falls flat, as your current Government uses the UN to it's own ends today.


Originally posted by Majic
The only "idiocy" on display here is the notion that in a nation of over 300 million people, individual liberty and a willingness to disagree with one's own government is somehow "idiocy". :shk:


No, the idiocy I was pointing out (quite clearly actually and it is shameful you try to twist it) is trying to make out the UN is some extra-national body trying to impose it's will on the US, when that is not even close to the truth, as the US calls the shots (along with the other UNSC members) today and set up the bloody thing in the first place.

It's fine to disagree with your Government, it's another thing entirely to pretend something is what it isn't.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

As it happens, not only do many Americans despise the UN and what it stands for, but a vast majority of Americans also oppose slavery and think it was morally reprehensible. Is that "idiocy" too?


You're slipping between present and past tense. A vast majority of Americans oppose slavery now, or did in the past? What point in the past? Are Americans so confused that they cant differentiate between past and present?
edit on 28-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 

A more direct and less tortured point is that the U.S. government does a lot of things many Americans disagree with, including the creation and ongoing support of the UN.

You are not speaking to an entire nation, nor are you speaking to the U.S. government. There are only individuals here who each have their own opinions and are entitled to express them without having nationalistic straw men shoved in their faces.

Berating individual Americans for expressing their opposition to U.S. policy is disingenuous and substitutes gratuitous provocation for sensible discussion, and you know better.

No amount of circular sophistry will change that fact.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
the U.S. is not the U.N...they need to mind their own business and leave our country to US...


remember, when the U.N. comes to help with the gun grab "AIM FOR THE BLUE HELMETS"



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by article
 



Now, many states already require gun registration so this particular argument I find confusing.


Only 6 states require registration, so no not many.

news.medill.northwestern.edu... (pdf)

Federal law requires a background check if purchased from an FFL dealer but not a private party. A few states have mandated a check for any purchase private or dealer.

On another note this whole postponement is just to wait till after the election. Obama knows if he signs this before the election he's done for sure.


edit on 28-7-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I have a problem with the UN because 80% of its members are dictatorships. So what does that make the UN?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Well it looks like they want to play hardball with their employers, like make 9/11 calls take longer. I found this video from one of my subscriptions, and its quite alarming. Not enough support from Americans to sign the deal, election year, but they want to start bullying and threatening citizens, by dropping or prolonging their services to punish them into it.


Definiton of Terrorism - Bloomberg Uses Batman Massacre as Coersion to Control Guns



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by here4awhile
the U.S. is not the U.N...they need to mind their own business and leave our country to US...


Oh dear lord, another anti-UN American, what an ironic surprise...

The UN is an American invention post-WW2. In fact, the US positively insisted on it in the run up to Victory. They insisted on the HQ being in NY and, for a while, funded it entirely. Let's also not forget the permanent UNSC seat you have, with veto power.

If you have such an issue with the UN, you only have yourselves to blame for bloody well inventing it.


Since the UN has become a cesspool of dictators and has mainly adopted a socialist-pushing agenda, things have changed in the minds of many Americans.




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join