Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:32 am

    It seems the west is frustrated at not getting its way by whining in the UN, and now wants a legal way to separate Russia from its clients.

    The suggestion is that there be an international arms trade treaty that stipulates that countries guilty of human rights abuses cannot be allowed to be sold weapons on the legal international market.

    As shown by western illegal supplies to rebel groups in Libya and Syria it wont really effect the west much because it seems it is them that decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. For instance I rather doubt the illegal detention and torture of people in a US base in Cuba or across secret CIA bases all over eastern europe would be considered, and I am sure Saudi Arabia would not be held accountable for the forces it sent to Bahrain to crush peaceful protest rallys... you know where this is going of course, and we all know how they will try to do it.

    Keep the wording vague, but make sure that anyone who refuses to sign are perceived not to do so not because of genuine suspicions that this is another tool to tie hands and control the legal arms market, but because the country refusing to sign hates freedom and democracy...

    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20120703/174382218.html


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:31 am

    GarryB wrote:It seems the west is frustrated at not getting its way by whining in the UN, and now wants a legal way to separate Russia from its clients.

    The suggestion is that there be an international arms trade treaty that stipulates that countries guilty of human rights abuses cannot be allowed to be sold weapons on the legal international market.

    As shown by western illegal supplies to rebel groups in Libya and Syria it wont really effect the west much because it seems it is them that decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. For instance I rather doubt the illegal detention and torture of people in a US base in Cuba or across secret CIA bases all over eastern europe would be considered, and I am sure Saudi Arabia would not be held accountable for the forces it sent to Bahrain to crush peaceful protest rallys... you know where this is going of course, and we all know how they will try to do it.

    Keep the wording vague, but make sure that anyone who refuses to sign are perceived not to do so not because of genuine suspicions that this is another tool to tie hands and control the legal arms market, but because the country refusing to sign hates freedom and democracy...

    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20120703/174382218.html


    **Insert pic of Captain Haddock from Tintin laughing to tears with the caption "OH WOW"**

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:46 am

    Especially the one recently on at the pictures that was made by New Zealands Weta Workshop... which also made the Lord of the Rings movies and is making the Hobbit movies as we speak... Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  Kysusha on Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:44 am

    GarryB wrote:

    “It seems the west is frustrated at not getting its way by whining in the UN, and now wants a legal way to separate Russia from its clients.

    The suggestion is that there be an international arms trade treaty that stipulates that countries guilty of human rights abuses cannot be allowed to be sold weapons on the legal international market.”


    Guilty – by who’s definition?? Obviously the Yanks and their HATO puppets would be happy with this definition as they are the one who control the ICJ in THE HAGUE.

    Given the fact that the Yank Zionist controlled news media is responsible for setting “opinion’ worldwide by the over 80% control of news media – it is little wonder then that all we hear about are the supposed abuses of states the Yanks term hostill. [They can’t pronounce Hostile – like their missills].

    There was a brief news clip the other night of the victorious and brave Syrian freedom fighters and they were “rounding up” suspects of the Government informants living in a city that they had just “liberated”. The reporter mentioned in passing that there will be “little justice here”. Those people were in civilian clothes and my bet is they were murdered and then the UN invited to come and see yet more massacres carried out on civilians by the government forces! The Zionist controlled new media would then trumpet around the world this disinformation for people to see and believe without thinking.

    Same issue with this latest Yank initiative; they want to be the ones poking the finger – being the accuser. No country in world history has behaved so abominably towards it’s people or humanity in general, than Zionist controlled America. When people/ countries around the world try to point the finger at the crimes against humanity conducted by the Yanks and their Zionist masters; they are thwarted at every opportunity and every step of the way. Yet when the yanks want to point the finger, heaven and earth moves for them to bring people like Slobodan Milošević to a show trial for trumped-up charges.

    Look at the appalling events of the Nuremburg revenge trials where a fundamental basic of justice was set-aside – the fact that a person must know of an offence before they can be tried. The Yanks “made-up” charges against humanity post event and then charged the Germans with those crimes; like designing a crime to fit an action.

    The illegal bombing of Serbia by HATO was a war crime- a crime against humanity. No war was declared, Clinton said “if you do not do as I say, WE will bomb you back to the stone-age”. HATO killed civilians in their bombing raids and called it “collateral damage” – would that excuse have been applicable in Nuremburg? HATO specifically targeted the infrastructure of the country, removing the means of support for the civilian population – THAT is a war crime. I suppose HATO figured we got away with it in WWII by bombing the crap out of Germany’s infrastructure and causing untold pain, suffering and hardship to the civilian population AND we wiped out millions of civilians in the firebombing of Dresden, Cologne Hamburg et.al. and still we were not prosecuted, so we can do it all again! At the start of WWII there was tacit agreement between Germany and Britain that the bombing of civilian targets would be a war crime – yet Churchill was the first to bomb civilian targets and did so until he provoked a response from Hitler. Churchill, the war criminal, deliberately sacrificed his people for his own aims. – as did Roosevelt with the planned bombing of Pearl Harbour. Sacrificing his people for his own goals – same as Bush did with The Twin Towers.

    The horrific firebombing of Japan in the Second World War was a despicable war crime and General Curtis Lemay fully expected to be tried for war crimes post war – but was shielded by the Yank administration because “he was simply following orders”. [Strange, that has a certain Nuremburg ring to it]. Don’t try to argue that the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan was not a war crime either – the defence of “the ends justify the means” [the erroneous argument that two bombs shortened the war] was a defence soundly dismissed at Nuremburg.

    The countless wars of “liberation”, of government over-throws [coloured revolutions], the wars against tyrants [Iraq x2, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria], all are crimes against humanity and who brings the Yanks and HATO to court??

    Oh, don’t worry, the Joos don’t get off lightly either – their persecution of Christians and Arabs to gain the bastard state of Israel was nothing short of war crimes against humanity [the start of modern-day terrorism by Menachem Begin]. They continue this to the current day with the use of White Phosphorus against civilians – we all saw it plainly on Newsreel, yet when the UN sent a Jew to investigate, it took three years to return a verdict that there was no case to answer!! . Well, go figure!

    Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:03 am

    I must say I pretty much agree with everything you have written, except I don't think the Zionist Jewish people control the world... I don't think anyone does.

    I rather think most of the people with the most powerful positions in the west are easily manipulated by the zionist jews because they have a lot of sympathy for them and at some level... in their black and white view of the world have decided that these ZJs have sided with them against the commies in the past so they must be the good guys and therefore on our side... forever.

    This thread is about an international arms treaty being worked out at the UN so I will expect those posting on this thread to try to remain on topic where possible... yes I realise I do wander off topic occasionally.

    The UN itself has been misused and abused recently as a sort of a rubber stamp tool to justify western interests... the obvious example would be Kosovo where a UNSC resolution clearly stated that Kosovo was a part of Serbia, yet all this was ignored when Kosovo declared independence.

    In comparison under the guise of a humanitarian intervention in Libya the French and British and Americans supported one side in a civil war with the intent to remove a regime that didn't suit the western governments. A stable country turned into a shthole of violence and unrest to secure mineral and oil and gas contracts, but most importantly to remove from office an African leader who was suggesting using Libyas mineral and energy wealth to create a new gold standard currency to rival the Euro and American dollar for international trade in the region.

    Rather than some zionist jewish conspiracy, I rather suspect many of the interventions in the last few decades where the goal was regime change was because the current regime was talking about alternative international trade currencies.

    Beware BRICS countries because using your own currencies and creating alternative structures to the IMF goes against the western plan of global domination with the US at the head of the table.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  SOC on Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:52 pm

    BRICS hell, it was Iran that was talking about an international oil market based on the Euro rather than the dollar. Makes you think...

    Then there's the fact that if you're using the human rights thing to make it look like the US is pushing this version of the treaty you aren't paying complete attention. Right now, as written, the treaty has very lax conditions for passing judgement or amending the document after ratification. Who is considered one of the biggest human rights abusers out there by a lot of the world? Israel. The treaty as it stands could effectively castrate US military support to Israel, which in my book is not a bad thing at all. In reality though the world (yes, the world, not just oh so evil America) needs to get off its high horse and realize that cultural differences do not equate to crimes against women/minorities/humanity/etc. WTF is a "crime against humanity" anyway? How do you actually define it in black and white terms? You can't? Then get it out of the treaty. Ethnic cleansing, genocide, those kinds of terms are far easier to explain in black and white definitions. A crime against humanity should be a crime against the entire race. of which I'm pretty sure there have been precisely zero examples in recorded history. Unless you count the biblical flood as factual...

    Oh, and good luck justifying the 1991 war with Iraq as some sort of immoral crime against humanity. I get it, everything US = bad through certain blinders. But Saddam goes and invades country A and makes country B think twice about its own security. A good case can be made against a lot of the other actions, maybe not as actual crimes against humanity but certainly as questionable actions, but that one? Seriously?

    And yes, dropping the bomb twice did shorten the war (call it the "holy crap cities are disappearing" effect). Might not justify the action after the fact, that's not what I'm getting at, but do you really think an actual invasion of the home islands would've been over and done with that quickly? because that was the alternative plan, to continue the island hopping campaign until Tokyo harbor.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  Kysusha on Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:03 am

    A short history lesson;

    Iraqi wars were because of the petro-Dollar. Saddam was planning to sell oil to France and Italy based on the Euro and the Central Banks/Fed reserve told him not to. [I won’t go into the mechanics here of how the Petro-dollar scam works – it’s easy to look up]. Iraq One was to teach Saddam a lesson – that is why, almost inexplicably, the Coalition forces let them escape when they had the Iraqi Army lined up on the road to Bagdad. However, Saddam was belligerent and determined to push-ahead, even more so since the war against his country, - so Iraq war Two and this time they killed him. So does that make you think?

    What absolute dribble to suggest that the US/Israeli bond would be broken because of Israeli volition of human rights! US and Israel don’t give a rats arse for Human rights violations – so long as they are the ones perpetrating it.! Has the human rights violations against Palestine stopped US from delivering Arms to Israel? No, and it never will because they DO NOT ACCEPT that they have committed any violation AND the world cannot bring them to the ICJ because the Yanks stimmy all applications. Why do you think it took three years for a Jew to report back to the UN that there was no case to answer over Israeli war crimes in Palestine??

    Your convoluted argument about crimes against humanity is twisted. The “Allies” introduce this term at Nuremburg so that they could remove the German leadership by executing them. There it was used almost specifically as a crime against the Jews! Not the “world humanity” per sae. As a result it has been applied to acts of genocide and acts against the greater civilian populace. It has been the Zionist West that have pointed the finger an shouted genocide – always oblivious to their own acts in this regard: Palestine et.al. Even the ill conceived attack against South Ossetia was in itself an attempted acts of genocide [against the Russian ethnic minority]. That attack was sponsored by the Yanks and supplied and assisted by their Zionist mates. All we got from that was how awful the evil Russians were for invading poor little Georgia and turning their puppet into a tie eater. Even after the EU belatedly sent a deputation there and admitted that the Georgian started the war, the Yanks/HATO/Israel all still continued to trumpet their lies through their controlled media.

    Your comment: "(yes, the world, not just oh so evil America) needs to get off its high horse and realize that cultural differences do not equate to crimes against women/minorities/humanity/etc."

    Come on, the World is trying to hold America/HATO/Israel to account for their hypocrisy. Fortunately, there are some in America who can see the double standard and are agitating for change, but they are a very small voice and the majority of Americans can’t see past their own nose in terms of foreign policy. For them, the world ends wherever there is not a Stars and Stripes flying outside someone’s window. Only the Yanks [supported by the Zionists] have set themselves up as world Policeman – they haven’t been appointed, they have taken this position so as to further their own cause and spread “democracy’ throughout the world. This democracy is only the right for them to control events in your country! The reason it is championed is because unlike other forms of governance, Democracy is bought. So the Zionists can influence/control governments around the world simply by their control of money and the buying of favours. Democracy is never about people power – if it was, it would never be promoted as the top 10% will not share their wealth. Under democracy, they can continue to plunder the world’s recourses and riches by manufacturing crisis and in the turmoil, remove/redistribute wealth. – That’s’ all depressions are, moving real wealth to the Banksters while calling up monopoly money.

    Your comment: "And yes, dropping the bomb twice did shorten the war (call it the "holy crap cities are disappearing" effect). Might not justify the action after the fact, that's not what I'm getting at, but do you really think an actual invasion of the home islands would've been over and done with that quickly? because that was the alternative plan, to continue the island hopping campaign until Tokyo harbour."

    More mainstream crap. Read about the Kwantung Army. [Google it]. The dropping of two atomic bombs had no effect on the outcome of the war against Japan. Japan was losing 100,000 a night to horrific fire bombing, do you really think the loss of 45,000 to one bomb and 70,000 to another bomb stopped the war?? Get real! The Russian advance through Manchuria and their invasion of Japan [Kiril Islands, still disputed today] is what stopped the war. Tojo asked his cabinet [yes, these records are available if you are prepared to read them] “is this true?” referring to the Russians preparing to invade Mainland Japan. His advisors said “yes”. Tojo then said, “well the game is up”. His argument was that they could be invaded by the Red Army and become like Eastern Europe, a communist satellite, or they could surrender to the Americans.

    Try reading more widely.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:03 am

    The problem is that this law really has nothing to do with fixing anything, and is all about the ability of a majority imposing its political will on the others... and normally this is for underlying reasons that are very different from anything publicly mentioned.

    Ethnic cleansing, genocide, those kinds of terms are far easier to explain in black and white definitions.

    A good example... I am sure the people in Kosovo are wondering where all those dead bodies are from the genocide that took place there. The problem is that it is politicians that make the decisions and judgements... it would be like Lawyers in the judges chair making decisions before the case has even been heard.

    They say that law is blind... and they mean that Law should be applied the same to everyone... it should be fair. In the real world however if you can afford an expensive lawyer you will likely get away with it, or at least you will get a minimal sentence. If you get the court appointed lawyer you might get the electric chair... well you shouldn't have been driving at 60km/h in a 50km/h zone anyway!

    Look at the western reaction to the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, look at their antics in Libya and now in Syria... should the UN be some kind of world police force rubber stamping invasions and regime changes? I thought it was supposed to be a forum for dialog and discussion between parties with a disagreement where the parties and third parties can help solve the problems with dialog.

    Clearly not.

    Oh, and good luck justifying the 1991 war with Iraq as some sort of immoral crime against humanity. I get it, everything US = bad through certain blinders. But Saddam goes and invades country A and makes country B think twice about its own security. A good case can be made against a lot of the other actions, maybe not as actual crimes against humanity but certainly as questionable actions, but that one? Seriously?

    Countries attack other countries all the time, yet there is rarely the international reaction we saw in 1991. Saddams crime wasn't invading Kuwaite... if the international intervention was to save Kuwaite and bring them democracy then it FAILED because they still don't have democracy. 1991 was all about known oil reserves and protecting western interests in cheap oil supplies. If Saddam had invaded Syria or Iran instead of Kuwaite there would have been applause from the west and secret support. It had nothing to do with protecting a victim of aggression, just as most actions since have had nothing to do with protecting the sovereignty of nations or states.

    And yes, dropping the bomb twice did shorten the war (call it the "holy crap cities are disappearing" effect). Might not justify the action after the fact, that's not what I'm getting at, but do you really think an actual invasion of the home islands would've been over and done with that quickly? because that was the alternative plan, to continue the island hopping campaign until Tokyo harbor.

    The nuclear bomb attacks were deliberately against non military cities that had no tangible influence on the war, both attacks were as much aimed at the Soviets as the Japanese and pretty much were intended to say we don't care about human life and we are prepared to kill as many of you as is necessary to make you give up.

    The Japanese had already approached the Soviets to negotiate peace with the US, so the US knew they wouldn't be island hopping to Tokyo Harbour at all... was a good enough reason to tell the people to justify a barbarity they accused the Japanese of though.

    Obviously the Japanese would not have hesitated to do the same to the US too.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  SOC on Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:07 am

    GarryB wrote:The problem is that this law really has nothing to do with fixing anything

    ...thereby making it another case of business as usual, unfortunately.

    GarryB wrote:The problem is that it is politicians that make the decisions and judgements...

    Can't disagree with that.

    GarryB wrote:They say that law is blind... and they mean that Law should be applied the same to everyone... it should be fair. In the real world however if you can afford an expensive lawyer you will likely get away with it, or at least you will get a minimal sentence. If you get the court appointed lawyer you might get the electric chair... well you shouldn't have been driving at 60km/h in a 50km/h zone anyway!

    It should be applied in a uniform manner, but part of the problem I see is that too often the system gets the attention while the actual breaker of said law or whatever led him/her/it to break or be able to break the law does not. The ENTIRE thing is a mess, not just how the law is applied. If everything truly was applied in a fair and even-handed manner things would be a lot different on many levels.

    GarryB wrote:Look at the western reaction to the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, look at their antics in Libya and now in Syria...

    The reaction to Georgia was a patent joke given that NATO and the US just finished extolling the virtues of an independent Kosovo. What, it was alright for Kosovo to decide to be independent, but not Abkhazia or South Ossetia? Or, the horror, for one or both of them to decide to be part of Russia instead of Georgia? If we were more about self-determination and less about "spreading democracy" people might have a different view of how we do things. It was self-determination that led to America after all, democracy is just the system we picked going forward. All this talk of "spreading democracy" and "spreading American values" is really ignorant of history.

    Libya and Syria: also jokes. Those are internal matters to be handled internally. The exact same way Yugoslavia should've been handled: hands-off, let them sort it out on their own.

    GarryB wrote:should the UN be some kind of world police force rubber stamping invasions and regime changes? I thought it was supposed to be a forum for dialog and discussion between parties with a disagreement where the parties and third parties can help solve the problems with dialog.

    The UN is and will remain a complete and total laughingstock so long as the Security Council retains the one-veto requirement. Until you require a majority of the five to agree to a veto, it's both undemocratic (heh) and useless. Members don't even abide by crap the UN or its affiliates come up with anyway.

    GarryB wrote:Countries attack other countries all the time, yet there is rarely the international reaction we saw in 1991. Saddams crime wasn't invading Kuwaite... if the international intervention was to save Kuwaite and bring them democracy then it FAILED because they still don't have democracy. 1991 was all about known oil reserves and protecting western interests in cheap oil supplies. If Saddam had invaded Syria or Iran instead of Kuwaite there would have been applause from the west and secret support. It had nothing to do with protecting a victim of aggression, just as most actions since have had nothing to do with protecting the sovereignty of nations or states.

    That was all about slapping Saddam for messing with the oil. Plus, it's not like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia were opposed to the effort. Or did Kuwait not have its own right to self-determination and sovereignty? There may have been ulterior motives behind the assistance that was given, but at the end of the day had Kuwait gotten on TV and jumped for joy about the wonders of becoming a new Iraqi state, well, given the leadership at the time and the situation in the world, things might've gone differently, who knows. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    GarryB wrote:The nuclear bomb attacks were deliberately against non military cities that had no tangible influence on the war, both attacks were as much aimed at the Soviets as the Japanese and pretty much were intended to say we don't care about human life and we are prepared to kill as many of you as is necessary to make you give up.

    The Japanese had already approached the Soviets to negotiate peace with the US, so the US knew they wouldn't be island hopping to Tokyo Harbour at all... was a good enough reason to tell the people to justify a barbarity they accused the Japanese of though.

    Obviously the Japanese would not have hesitated to do the same to the US too.

    ...and the USSR entered the war on 8 August, blowing Japan's hopes out for a negotiated peace via Stalin out of the water. I'm not implying that the two bombs were the singular events that ended the war. But to claim that they had no effect whatsoever is laughable.

    Kysusha wrote:What absolute dribble to suggest that the US/Israeli bond would be broken because of Israeli volition of human rights!

    No, they'll still have their lobbyists leading Congress around by its nose and exerting policy influence, but the current framework of the treaty would basically allow Israel to be put on the list of human rights violators with or without American consent, thereby requiring America to cease arms shipments. This is all over the news over here, it's one of the reasons Congress is up in arms over the treaty right now. It's funny because this is one of the few non-partisan issues everyone seems to agree on!

    Kysusha wrote:The “Allies” introduce this term at Nuremburg so that they could remove the German leadership by executing them.

    ...and those weren't crimes against humanity either. So they introduced the term, so what? They still managed to screw up the meaning, or at the very least fail to define it in any useable sense for the future. All we're left with as a result is some asinine rallying cry for anyone who is butthurt by, well, anything. Germany was practicing ethnic cleansing, no more, no less. Unless you (the collective you, not you in particular) are of some seriously misguided viewpoint that the Jews in Germany represent the apex pinnacle of existance and are the only ones fit to be labeled as "humanity."

    Don't ever let me be in charge. I'll have 95% declared mentally unsound and exported to Mars and thereby solve pretty much every problem the world has.

    Kysusha wrote:All we got from that was how awful the evil Russians were for invading poor little Georgia and turning their puppet into a tie eater...Come on, the World is trying to hold America/HATO/Israel to account for their hypocrisy.

    Which I have no problem with (the second part). If you think I represent any sort of fan of America's blind support of Israel, you need to re-evaluate your impression Laughing And I've already stated more than once that the Western reaction to the whole Georgian thing was completely hypocritical and asinine.

    Kysusha wrote:Try reading more widely.


    I've read Hasegawa. The point was never that the bombs were the only event that ended the war, or even the biggest of many factors.

    Furthermore, while we're at it, if two states go to war, then as far as I'm concerned you open the toolbox and find your biggest hammer. Which constitutes warfighting, not some convoluted crime against humanity crap.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  Kysusha on Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:13 am

    SCO wrote:

    "...and the USSR entered the war on 8 August, blowing Japan's hopes out for a negotiated peace via Stalin out of the water. I'm not implying that the two bombs were the singular events that ended the war. But to claim that they had no effect whatsoever is laughable."

    Truthfully, I am absolutely convinced by what I have read that the dropping of two bombs on Japan did not hasten the capitulation of Japan. Look at the timeframe for the surrender and the time the bombs were dropped – there was no immediate “shock-horror”. Japan was prepared to suffer interminably in the resolute belief that they could endure suffering more than American and thus force concessions from American as opposed to unconditional surrender. Japan believed that the cost to America in trying to invade Japan would cause such public up-roar that they could extract favourable terms for a surrender and to do that, they were prepared to suffer whatever the cost. The advent of the USSR entering the war and literally steamrolling the Japanese army in Manchuria – their only fully equipped army and on that was still intact, in the space of about one week, spelt the end for Japan. With the USSR preparing to invade from the West, long before America could consider an invasion, Japan would have become a Communist Satellite. America on the other hand, saw it’s long-term ambition for Pac Pacifica going up in smoke after shouldering the whole Pacific war. The dropping of two bombs was as much a warning to Uncle Joe as it was about testing the weapons; after all, if they missed this opportunity, when next would they have a war as an excuse to see the effects of the weapon? . What Wilson didn’t know was Uncle Joe already knew all about the bomb – possibly more than Wilson did as a result of his infiltration of the USSR spy network.

    The dropping of the two bombs was a callous act and most definitely a crime against humanity – but the victor chooses the Court.

    That’s the facts – laugh if you want.

    SCO wrote:

    "Germany was practicing ethnic cleansing, no more, no less".

    Yet another lie from history; repeated ad infinitum until it is accepted as “fact”. There was no orchestrated campaign by Germany to cleans it’s populace, there was no extermination of Jews; the concentration camps were labour camps not death camps and the “final solution” for the Jews was not extermination, but a relocating of them to inner Siberia, after Germany had conquered the USSR. The International Red Cross Completed a lengthy study into deaths at the 13 German concentration camps and published their findings in 1979 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s5yaZ0Ye2Mo/RrU7Ouu69KI/AAAAAAAACkI/4Ody4MwX-WY/s1600-h/paage_1.jpg] in this official report, they found that a TOTAL of 373,468 deaths occurred in the 13 German camps. For 60 years we have had the Jew lie and the vilification of Germany to live with – time now to face the truth.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:09 am

    [quyote] If everything truly was applied in a fair and even-handed manner things would be a lot different on many levels.[/quote]

    Totally agree, but when the UN is the instrument of international law, or a world judicial system shall we call it, then what is the function of the UNSC veto... if not a mechanism for protecting the big 5 and their closest allies from the rule of law applied to all the other countries?

    The UN can only be a discussion forum and nothing more because it is not equipped to be more.

    As shown in the recent past it has been used as a weapon to impose the will of a few for reasons other than those which the founders of the UN had intended.

    The UN is useless but only because its misuse and abuse by the major powers has made it so.

    As an international forum for debate and discussion... it works as it was supposed to... it was never meant to ensure world peace through force or sanctions.

    The reaction to Georgia was a patent joke given that NATO and the US just finished extolling the virtues of an independent Kosovo. What, it was alright for Kosovo to decide to be independent, but not Abkhazia or South Ossetia? Or, the horror, for one or both of them to decide to be part of Russia instead of Georgia?

    Neither Russia nor South Ossetia nor Abkhazia have ever stated at any time that joining the Russian Federation was even to be considered. More importantly South Ossetia and Abkhazia were part of Georgia only by decree of Stalin, and for no other reason... it would be like the US splitting up into states and California demanding that Texas becomes a part of California, while Texas wants to remain a separate autonomous state on its own.

    The funniest thing is when Clinton claims that Kosovo is a unique case, I guess all the other cases are the same are they? That is politician speak for we are going to ignore all the rules and common sense and just go with something that is useful to us right now... and in that sense it really isn't all that unique. Twisted Evil

    The UN is and will remain a complete and total laughingstock so long as the Security Council retains the one-veto requirement. Until you require a majority of the five to agree to a veto, it's both undemocratic (heh) and useless.

    Well as long as Britain and France and the US are three of the 5 then such a change will never happen. Removing Britain from the voting 5 and perhaps adding a country that is independent from the US would make it rather more democratic in my opinion. France generally votes with the US anyway, but this is not automatic like it is with Britains vote.

    Members don't even abide by crap the UN or its affiliates come up with anyway.

    Global or regional powers can safely ignore UNSC resolutions if they can be sure that the western powers wont reinterpret the resolution to justify the use force when it suits them, but they will be frustrated in their attempt to misuse the UN if one of the big countries oppose them... an example is Libya... for all the western BS about Russian support for Gaddafi, he wasn't really a best buddy for Russia and left his orders for powerful Russian weapons too late to save himself. In Syria on the other hand to the average westerner it looks like a repeat of Libya, but it is not because while the western media portray both countries as being ruled by ruthless dictators and the opposition as being freedom fighters wanting democracy, while anyone who paid even the slightest attention would see that those brutal dictators actually ruled countries where minorities were safe and extremists were kept in line, the real difference is that Russia has an interest in Syria, in the form of a naval base to support their naval operations in the Med and beyond, and for that reason letting the west play its game of corner Iran and let muslim extremists rule the Arab world... perhaps the plan is that in the long term they might eventually see western democracy as an improvement over living in the 5th century.. is not going to be anywhere near as easy as it was in Libya.

    That was all about slapping Saddam for messing with the oil. Plus, it's not like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia were opposed to the effort.

    Of course it was all about the Oil. Kuwaite exists as a country because in the 1920s when France and the UK were drawing lines on maps to create countries they realised that one country can't have all the oil to themselves. One country called Kuwaite gets this boundry and we will pick a family to be the royal family to rule without question, and next door we will create a country and that country will be so arrogant as to name itself after the family we pick to be the royal family there... and so the family Saud rules Saudi Arabia... and still does to this day.

    Was it worth spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to protect those brutal dictatorships that export muslim extremism around the world? I really don't think so. The sooner the US gets over its addiction to oil the better for the US.

    Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Apparently not.

    ...and the USSR entered the war on 8 August, blowing Japan's hopes out for a negotiated peace via Stalin out of the water. I'm not implying that the two bombs were the singular events that ended the war. But to claim that they had no effect whatsoever is laughable.

    The allies were asking Stalin to open a second front of Japan from about 1943. Considering the loss of life and material the Soviets had had to live through because the western allies didn't start D-Day till 1944, I would say the west is rather ungrateful for what they did in 1945 at your request.


    No, they'll still have their lobbyists leading Congress around by its nose and exerting policy influence, but the current framework of the treaty would basically allow Israel to be put on the list of human rights violators with or without American consent, thereby requiring America to cease arms shipments. This is all over the news over here, it's one of the reasons Congress is up in arms over the treaty right now. It's funny because this is one of the few non-partisan issues everyone seems to agree on!

    Dare I say that the reason such objections are all over your media reflects the infiltration of your media by those sympathetic to Zionist Jews. Non zionist jews would likely celebrate such a law...

    Furthermore, while we're at it, if two states go to war, then as far as I'm concerned you open the toolbox and find your biggest hammer. Which constitutes warfighting, not some convoluted crime against humanity crap.

    The amusing thing is that on both fronts the west was happy to fight from 30,000 ft and drop bombs on enemy cities.

    The irony is that if you speak with most western laymen and even some interested in the military activities of WWII they will often claim such air raids won WWII.

    The irony is that from the dispassionate hindsight of half a century later fire bombing a city to pretty much wipe out an enemy population seems like the real war crime. You are not targeting the enemy military that is a threat to you, you are targeting the families of those on the front line... women, children, old men.

    Sure they started it and they started total war bombing of cities, yet Britains own experience of London being bombed must have told them that no level of German bombing would make them want to give up so the gamble was that the Germans were weaker than Brits. They continued a course that led to the unnecessary deaths of millions of civilians and they claim that won the war. Of course if they had hit the ball bearing factories and the oil wells and oil refineries then they might have had a case, but mostly they killed people and destroyed their homes.

    The dropping of the two bombs was a callous act and most definitely a crime against humanity – but the victor chooses the Court.

    I agree, mainly because Nagasaki and Hiroshima were of no military value and were specifically targeted with nuclear weapons because they had been largely untouched by conventional bombing and were therefore largely intact.

    The only military purpose of choosing those two cities and the other cities that were on the list for nuclear attack was to maximise the body count...

    The International Red Cross Completed a lengthy study into deaths at the 13 German concentration camps and published their findings in 1979 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s5yaZ0Ye2Mo/RrU7Ouu69KI/AAAAAAAACkI/4Ody4MwX-WY/s1600-h/paage_1.jpg] in this official report, they found that a TOTAL of 373,468 deaths occurred in the 13 German camps. For 60 years we have had the Jew lie and the vilification of Germany to live with – time now to face the truth.

    Sorry, but I don't agree with that. We know for a fact that at least 4.5 million captured Soviet soldiers were worked to death over the period of mid 1941 to 1945, so those numbers are clearly wrong. There were about 1.5 million Soviet survivors from German camps from an estimated 6 million captured over the whole war period.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:46 am

    Kysusha wrote:
    "Germany was practicing ethnic cleansing, no more, no less".

    Yet another lie from history; repeated ad infinitum until it is accepted as “fact”. There was no orchestrated campaign by Germany to cleans it’s populace, there was no extermination of Jews; the concentration camps were labour camps not death camps and the “final solution” for the Jews was not extermination, but a relocating of them to inner Siberia, after Germany had conquered the USSR. The International Red Cross Completed a lengthy study into deaths at the 13 German concentration camps and published their findings in 1979 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s5yaZ0Ye2Mo/RrU7Ouu69KI/AAAAAAAACkI/4Ody4MwX-WY/s1600-h/paage_1.jpg] in this official report, they found that a TOTAL of 373,468 deaths occurred in the 13 German camps. For 60 years we have had the Jew lie and the vilification of Germany to live with – time now to face the truth.

    Oh dear lord.

    Faceplam to the max.

    Germany deserves 100% of the vilification it received.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  Kysusha on Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:41 am

    GaryB wrote:

    Sorry, but I don't agree with that. We know for a fact that at least 4.5 million captured Soviet soldiers were worked to death over the period of mid 1941 to 1945, so those numbers are clearly wrong. There were about 1.5 million Soviet survivors from German camps from an estimated 6 million captured over the whole war period.

    GaryB, the International Red Cross took account of the Concentration Camps, not the total prisoner of war camps. Certainly many Salvs were sent to Concentration Camps, as were gypsies, homosexual, 7th Day Adventists, political prisoners, Zionist Jews [many of the leading German Generals were Jewish – Goring famously said at Nuremburg when asked why there were Jews as Generals said – “ I decide who is a Jew”. The inference being that if a Jew was a German, then they were treated as Germans – if a Jew was Zionist, then they were part of the concerted plan to over-throw Germany. The allies quickly moved from this line of questioning] and general society miss-fits were all sent to Concentration Camps. The purpose of the camps were to provide labour close to an industrial centre as the German workforce was otherwise actively engaged in fighting a war and Germany needed manpower to produce the war materiel she needed to continue to fight the war. This is why it is just so incongruous that they gassed and incinerated the workforce. Ask yourself, why would they bother to go to the trouble of tattooing a number on people just to put them into a gas-chamber??!@ The number was so that the Germans could easily register production against inmates; with so many different nationalities, languages etc, it would have been impossible to “ASK” each person their name at the end of a shift, let alone write down the various names – with miss-spelling etc.

    Similarly, the meticulously kept German records taken and concealed by the Bolsheviks at the end of WWII but released after the breakup of the Bolshevik created Soviet Union, evidence that Jewish prisoners in the Auschwitz camp system from 1941-1944 were as follows:
    IN OUT
    ________________________________________
    Jewish prisoners entering the Auschwitz camp system 173000
    Jewish prisoners who died of typhus 58240
    Jewish prisoners who died of natural causes 2064
    Jewish prisoners executed 117
    Jewish prisoners transferred to other camps 100743
    ________________________________________
    TOTALS 173000 161164

    The records show only 173,000 Jews were ever assigned to Auschwitz and of them 58,240 died of typhus, 2,064 died of natural causes and 117 were executed, the rest survived their stay in the Auschwitz camp. So much for millions of Jews being murdered at Auschwitz. This material is readily available to anyone who wants to know the truth.

    The deaths at the camps were a direct result of allied interdictory bombing of German communications systems, civilian distribution networks and civilian population areas so that essential supplies could not be distributed. Starvation and sickness were the killers of people in the Concentration Camps – not German gas chambers!

    The sign over Auschwitz “Work Will Set You Free” [liberal translation] was no sick joke as the Zionist have portrayed it – the Germans actually meant it. They were there to work for the German war effort and if they worked hard enough, produced enough, then hopefully Germany would have won.

    The Holohoax was a Zionist lie, created to garnish support for a bastard state of Israel, carved out of Palestine. The concept being to create such guilt and sympathy that “we” would forever feel sorry for the Jew and acquiesce to their every demand – as is currently the case.

    It is past time that this lie was exposed. Perhaps then, America would stop paying blood money to Israel, by way of donations every year which only go to support a government that cannot balance their books without guilt money from around the world. Germany needs to exercise its self from the scourge of the Holohoax and rescind the anti-Semitic laws that were instituted in the wake of this vicious lie.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:57 am

    Germany deserves 100% of the vilification it received.

    I think more like 150% because I don't think it suffered nearly enough for its crimes of WWII.

    However I also think that if Germany was not scape goated as the "bad guy" that started WWI, which even western history records shows was not the case then I rather doubt WWII would have happened.

    WWI happened because of large military power blocks dragged the big countries into a conflict that never needed to happen in the first place. Germany was the bad side simply because it wasn't on the winning side, and it was treated after that conflict as if it was a naughty child, including the public slaps on the hand, of you can't have a military again till you learn to play properly, and we are taking enormous swaths of your land because we have secretly wanted it for some time and BTW hand over cash and your colonial satellites too.

    Certainly no excuse for what they did in WWII, just like the German treatment of jews in Europe did not justify pinching land in the middle east... no matter what your story books say.

    In fact much of the cooperation between the Soviet Union and Germany up until 1933 was largely based on the fact that these two countries bore the political brunt of "blame" in the west and both lost territory.

    I would suggest that the plans for Blitzkrieg were likely born in that period of the 20s and early 30s because of both sides experience on the eastern front during WWI, which was not static like it was on the west, but mobile and fluid... resulting in the Soviets preferring the fast mobile tanks which in the form of the T-26 they made in large numbers before the war.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  George1 on Fri May 22, 2015 4:21 am

    Russia will not join the Arms Trade Treaty

    Sponsored content

    Re: New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:15 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:15 pm