Interesting take on the matter; The arms control treaty as a WEAPON in the hands of the US

Most of the opposition to the new UN arms treaty seems to be focused on fears of civilian disarmament inside the US. Most don't bother to look at the larger, international implications of this treaty and how it can be abused by the US.

U.S. “Human Rights” Wars: Arms Control as a Weapon

In the 21st century, in a cruel joke on humanity, the mass murderers in Washington put on their “human rights” hats and declared themselves to be the international community’s protectors against so-called “rogue” nations. The doctrine of “humanitarian military intervention” was inflicted on the world. It was not coincidental that each of those nations designated as rogue violators of human rights were also at the top of Washington’s hit list for regime change. Haiti was attacked and occupied, its sovereignty stolen under the auspices of the UN, for supposedly “humanitarian” reasons. Libya was bombed for seven months and plunged into a race war, under the “humanitarian” umbrella. The Democratic Republic of Congo has lost six million people at the hands of U.S. humanitarian policy. Let us one day be saved from the fatal embrace of the humanitarian superpower, who has made human rights a weapon of mass destruction.

“This treaty is not about limiting warfare, but about making nations into outlaws.”

The newly minted international Arms Trade Treaty, like humanitarian warfare and that racist mockery of an International Criminal Court, is simply another device to strip nations targeted for U.S. attack of the ability to defend themselves. The immediate targets are Syria, Iran, and North Korea, which is why they voted against the treaty. Twenty-three other countries abstained, including Russia, China and India. They understand that this treaty is not about limiting warfare, but about making nations into outlaws, to be more easily subdued by the United States. In a stroke of supreme cynicism, America and its allies argued that non-state actors – like their jihadist proxies waging a war of terror against Syria – should not be subject to the treaty, because “national liberation movements” should be able to protect themselves. What shameless hypocrisy! The U.S. and Europe now sing the praises of national liberation movements, after having killed tens of millions to stifle the national aspirations of most of the world’s people.

But, that is no more insane than Washington posing as a force for peace. Not only is the U.S. the top arms exporter in the world, but 8 of the top 10 war-profiteering corporations on the planet are American. On the lips of U.S. presidents, arms control is bogus, human rights is a sham, and words of peace are actually weapons of war.

Black Agenda Report

Even if the US doesn't sign on to this treaty, it can still be used by the US to punish and disarm those who it seeks to destroy across the world. The treaty will still be used to impose arms embargoes on our supposed "enemies" while leaving out the so-called "freedom fighter" movements springing up all over to overthrow the governments that US finds displeasing.

It seems this treaty will be used by the US to disarm any country they disagree with, turn them into criminals and create even more justification for US military intervention. The military industrial complex always wins.

Reply to post by FortAnthem

I was there when we invaded Iraq. When Saddam's government fell we were told each household was allowed to keep an AK-47 for personal protection.

I remember thinking it was a little absurd. We were allowing the Iraqis to keep guns we don't allow US citizens to have without special permissions.

The point is we don't disarm people when we occupy them today. The theory of the OP doesn't jive with reality.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


The theory of the article isn't about disarming the people of a country, its about the US using the treaty to make outlaws out of the governments we want to take down.

By declaring a country a "rogue" nation chock full of "human rights violations" the US can force an arms embargo onto that nation, send arms to any rebel groups we send into that nation to overthrow their government and cry foul when that country seeks to purchase arms to defend itself from the rebels we set on them.

The US can then use the "rogue" nation's attempts to buy arms as an excuse for military intervention to punish them for violating the UN arms control treaty and embargoes.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

 

The theory of the article isn't about disarming the people of a country, its about the US using the treaty to make outlaws out of the governments we want to take down.

By declaring a country a "rogue" nation chock full of "human rights violations" the US can force an arms embargo onto that nation, send arms to any rebel groups we send into that nation to overthrow their government and cry foul when that country seeks to purchase arms to defend itself from the rebels we set on them.

The US can then use the "rogue" nation's attempts to buy arms as an excuse for military intervention to punish them for violating the UN arms control treaty and embargoes.

The US can already do this. And the treaty has no teeth nor enforcement.

Oh what a tangled web they weave.....some of this crap takes decades to bring to full pitch....they work for the long haul.....sure means not much today, but sooner or later the intent and the wording will be revised....
Like the US gun grabbers.....theyll never stop....give them nothing.

Let me get this straight. If the people of a country want to liberate themselves and replace their government, then it is ok to get arms to the people that want to overthrow the regime i.e. National Liberators and Freedom Fighters?

So, if that holds true, then if the citizens of the US decide it is time to replace the government with a new government and want to liberate themselves from an oppressive government, they too should be able to be armed by say, any other country that can import weapons i.e. fully automatic AK47's, rocket launchers, etc.

However, the hypocrisy comes in because the citizens being in the US can't be liberators, only terrorists?

Who gets to make the determination who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist? The UN? A majority of the signatories to the Treaty?

reply to post by FortAnthem


Here...........



It all boils down to ratification by the U.S.

The Ultimate Goal is to Disarm Nations and Individuals....only the UN "Peacekeeping Force" will be able to have theatre weapons of war (nations just enough for local law enforcement) and all civilians will be disarmed. See US State Dept Memo 7277, "Freedom from War."

Reply to post by FortAnthem

You mean like Iraq? They were embargoed since the first Gulf War. Hell, they couldn't fly/drive in 2/3 of their country.

Yet, the US looked the other way at the Kurds and Shia uprisings.

However, when crunch time came we looked allowed these same rebels to keep arms who then would attack us later on. Remember the Madhi Army?

So thus I don't think theory jives with reality.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com