Dems on the attack already

[billamj]

If this doesn't make it clear that we WILL be under attack with the new congress, I don't know what will.

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m...yid-17216.html

Fourteen Senators Call for U.S. Involvement in United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty
Date 12/6/2006


Fourteen Senators Call for U.S. Involvement in United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty
December 5, 2006 -- Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and thirteen other Senators yesterday evening sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging the United States to reconsider its opposition to the development of a global arms trade treaty.

A resolution to begin developing international standards for the sale and export of weapons will be voted on before the United Nations General Assembly in early December. The Senators urged Secretary Rice to support the upcoming resolution and move toward establishing an international system in line with the United States’ own strong standards.
In late October, the United States was the only country of 140 to vote against the development of global arms trade standards, despite our country’s strong arms export system.

“Due to the global nature of the arms trade, a buyer who is barred from purchasing weapons under U.S. law can exploit lower standards in other countries and receive weapons,� the Senators wrote. “In order to close this loop-hole and ensure that controls imposed by one state or region are not undermined by the lax controls of another, national and regional initiatives must be complemented by the development and enforcement of global standards.�

The letter was signed by Senators Feinstein, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii). Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Byron Dogan (D-N.D.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The following is the complete text of their letter to Secretary of State Rice:

December 4, 2006

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary Rice:

As you know, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly passed a resolution on October 26, by a resounding margin of 139 to 1, that begins a process to develop a global arms trade treaty. We write to express our disappointment that the United States failed to join our allies in supporting this life-saving initiative and cast the only “no� vote on the resolution.

As members of the U.S. Senate, we are proud that the U.S. arms export system we helped create is considered the “gold standard� of the world. Many of us have worked diligently with the Department of State through the years to ensure that U.S. weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

However, we understand that even the strictest export control system in one country is not enough to stop weapons from reaching irresponsible end-users. Due to the global nature of the arms trade, a buyer who is barred from purchasing weapons under U.S. law can exploit lower standards in other countries and receive weapons. In order to close this loop-hole and ensure that controls imposed by one state or region are not undermined by the lax controls of another, national and regional initiatives must be complemented by the development and enforcement of global standards. Such was the intention behind the International Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act, passed by Congress in November 1999, which required the president begin negotiations toward a multilateral regime of arms export criteria. The resolution offers the opportunity to begin such negotiations.

The decision to vote “no� on the resolution supported by the United Kingdom and 138 other nations – including every NATO country except the U.S. – is out of step with our closest allies and long-established U.S. policy. Given the horrific consequences of the under-regulated global arms trade, discussions on how to set up a global regime within the United Nations is clearly in the interest of the United States. While we are disappointed in the vote, we encourage you to reconsider the U.S. position and support the resolution when it comes to a vote at the UN General Assembly plenary in early December. We look forward to future collaboration between the State Department and the Senate as you work with U.S. allies to further global efforts to control the global market of arms and pursue global standards as enshrined in U.S. law.

Source: Senator Dianne Feinstein

[phillyd2]

BAN the UN !!!!!!

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

BAN the UN !!!!!!

Amen to that, brother! The biggest bunch of ineffectual idiots I've ever seen.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

BAN the UN !!!!!!

At the very least US OUT OF THE UN!!!

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by billamj

At the very least US OUT OF THE UN!!!

HA! I knew you were a pinko softy

[SGTUSArmy]

Notice that 3 of the people supporting it are the biggest fascist socialist wannabes. Mikulski, Boxer, and Kerry.

If we pull out of the UN, it will be just like it was with the League of Nations. We pull out, it crumbles. Granted, I think it is the most ineffectual piece of beauracratic backstabbing piece of crap since the dawn of time, but it does serve it's purpose, on occasion.

I do think we need to withhold our support for a period of time. I say we pull our support for about a year. That means the financial support (the US provides more than 50% of the funds for the UN), pull our land grant, and also pull our military support. (The US supplies between 25 and 50% of the force depending on where the issue is.)

Besides, with the amount we support the UN, you would think that we would be able to get support when we want them. Instead, everything we propose, just asking them to enforce the already made rulings, is vetoed.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by SGTUSArmy

If we pull out of the UN, it will be just like it was with the League of Nations. We pull out, it crumbles. Granted, I think it is the most ineffectual piece of beauracratic backstabbing piece of crap since the dawn of time, but it does serve it's purpose, on occasion.

1) So it would be bad that the Useless Nations would fall apart?

2) Did I miss that minute when they actually did something right?

[rwilson452]

The only reason that the UN exists for that I can see is to pick the pockets of the U.S. taxpayers.

[SGTUSArmy]

We withdraw from the UN, there is no one to come to our aid if anything goes down in the US. The US is already moving towards a bloodless civil war. (if it gets bad enough, there will be blood.) If things get hairy enough, the UN will come in and help.

In Iraq, the reason they have not stepped in is because we did not wait as they wished. If we could have proven what we have proven (hasn't been in the news) before we went it. Unfortunately, as it is everywhere, this is the nature of politics.

I know that they do not act in the way that most Americans wish (me included), but they are supposed to be the little angel or devil on your shoulder. If we pull out, not only will they fall apart, but those nations which have been reigned in by the UN, (not including N korea, China, Iran) will cross the lines that they have been leaning against. It will be World War 3. If you think it is bad now, it would be 10 times worse, and there is no way we would be able to prevent it from reaching American shores. As a father, husband, American, and a Soldier, I do not want to see that.

Picture Viet Nam, Korea, World War 2, World War 1, and the events which brought about an end to the war in the Pacific increased exponentially. It is a sad state, but it is what my "Magic Eight Ball" says will happen.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by SGTUSArmy

We withdraw from the UN, there is no one to come to our aid if anything goes down in the US. The US is already moving towards a bloodless civil war. (if it gets bad enough, there will be blood.) If things get hairy enough, the UN will come in and help.

In Iraq, the reason they have not stepped in is because we did not wait as they wished. If we could have proven what we have proven (hasn't been in the news) before we went it. Unfortunately, as it is everywhere, this is the nature of politics.

I know that they do not act in the way that most Americans wish (me included), but they are supposed to be the little angel or devil on your shoulder. If we pull out, not only will they fall apart, but those nations which have been reigned in by the UN, (not including N korea, China, Iran) will cross the lines that they have been leaning against. It will be World War 3. If you think it is bad now, it would be 10 times worse, and there is no way we would be able to prevent it from reaching American shores. As a father, husband, American, and a Soldier, I do not want to see that.

Picture Viet Nam, Korea, World War 2, World War 1, and the events which brought about an end to the war in the Pacific increased exponentially. It is a sad state, but it is what my "Magic Eight Ball" says will happen.

I hope you are kidding here.

Do you really think any country does or does not do anything because of fear of the UN?

The main reason they did not step was because the French, Chinese, Germans & Russians had business interests in Iraq and they love nothing more than seeing the US knocked down a notch.

Raw basic politics.

A simple fact is that countries do not have friends, only common interests. The reason the world has not gone to hell is US Military and Economic might.

The UN? Yeah, right