New international "Arms Trade Treaty"

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

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...

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 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.

[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.

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.

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.