Kerry Set To Sign 'Gun-Grabbing' UN Treaty...

[BlindBoo]

The UN hasn't the authority to intervene in our internal affairs? That's what Iraq, A-Stan, and Syria thought.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because first Kuwait was cut off of Iraq during the redrawing of the map following WW1 and secondly because Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. It was Iraqi business not George Bush's. there was a UN resolution in Libya for use of force to protect civilians which was abused to overthrow the Libyan government which is why Russia and China vowed to not allow the US to do it again in Syria and why they blocked all attempts at the UN for use of force there. Afghanistan was giving al Qaida aid and now Obama is giving al Qaida aid.

I stand corrected on the Libyan Resolution Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

Iraq was snookered into invading Kuwait. When Sadda asked our ambassador what we thought of a military solution to the crisis, if he was told in no uncertain term that we would defend Kuwait like it was our 51 state I don't think Saddam would have invaded.

The support Afghanistan gave to al Qaeda is not the same as al Qaeda linked Islamic radicals inadvertently receiving military hardware distributed to the rebels. It is quite ridiculous to claim that the President is guilty of providing the type of aid as the Taliban did in any way shape or form.

 

[paulitician]

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because first Kuwait was cut off of Iraq during the redrawing of the map following WW1 and secondly because Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. It was Iraqi business not George Bush's. there was a UN resolution in Libya for use of force to protect civilians which was abused to overthrow the Libyan government which is why Russia and China vowed to not allow the US to do it again in Syria and why they blocked all attempts at the UN for use of force there. Afghanistan was giving al Qaida aid and now Obama is giving al Qaida aid.

I stand corrected on the Libyan Resolution Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

Iraq was snookered into invading Kuwait. When Sadda asked our ambassador what we thought of a military solution to the crisis, if he was told in no uncertain term that we would defend Kuwait like it was our 51 state I don't think Saddam would have invaded.

The support Afghanistan gave to al Qaeda is not the same as al Qaeda linked Islamic radicals inadvertently receiving military hardware distributed to the rebels. It is quite ridiculous to claim that the President is guilty of providing the type of aid as the Taliban did in any way shape or form.

Not to derail you, but check this out. I think you may be very surprised. Might change your perspective on War somewhat...

 

[Montecresto]

Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because first Kuwait was cut off of Iraq during the redrawing of the map following WW1 and secondly because Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. It was Iraqi business not George Bush's. there was a UN resolution in Libya for use of force to protect civilians which was abused to overthrow the Libyan government which is why Russia and China vowed to not allow the US to do it again in Syria and why they blocked all attempts at the UN for use of force there. Afghanistan was giving al Qaida aid and now Obama is giving al Qaida aid.

I stand corrected on the Libyan Resolution Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

Iraq was snookered into invading Kuwait. When Sadda asked our ambassador what we thought of a military solution to the crisis, if he was told in no uncertain term that we would defend Kuwait like it was our 51 state I don't think Saddam would have invaded.

The support Afghanistan gave to al Qaeda is not the same as al Qaeda linked Islamic radicals inadvertently receiving military hardware distributed to the rebels. It is quite ridiculous to claim that the President is guilty of providing the type of aid as the Taliban did in any way shape or form.

I agree, April Gillespie told Saddam that the US had no interest in their quarrel. More good reasons that Muslims HATE and distrust the US. as for Obama knowingly arming terrorists. Because the Chinese and Russians denied Obama the means to overtly arm the Islamic extremists in Syria, he did so covertly out of the benghazi annex. Russia was aware of that. Obama supported MB in Egypt, but Egyptians don't want Islamic extremists governing them, same thing in Libya and now Syria. But we have digressed, with backing from other countries UN measures have been enforced in countries that didn't care to recognize their authority. "IF" the UN small arms treaty was to have the eventuality of disarming citizens in sovereign nations, it will be supported by other countries. And there are plenty of countries that think the US second amendment is NUTS.

 

[PredFan]

Time to make yet another donation to the NRA.

So far my money has been well spent.

 

[BlindBoo]

Iraq invaded Kuwait because first Kuwait was cut off of Iraq during the redrawing of the map following WW1 and secondly because Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. It was Iraqi business not George Bush's. there was a UN resolution in Libya for use of force to protect civilians which was abused to overthrow the Libyan government which is why Russia and China vowed to not allow the US to do it again in Syria and why they blocked all attempts at the UN for use of force there. Afghanistan was giving al Qaida aid and now Obama is giving al Qaida aid.

I stand corrected on the Libyan Resolution Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

Iraq was snookered into invading Kuwait. When Sadda asked our ambassador what we thought of a military solution to the crisis, if he was told in no uncertain term that we would defend Kuwait like it was our 51 state I don't think Saddam would have invaded.

The support Afghanistan gave to al Qaeda is not the same as al Qaeda linked Islamic radicals inadvertently receiving military hardware distributed to the rebels. It is quite ridiculous to claim that the President is guilty of providing the type of aid as the Taliban did in any way shape or form.

Not to derail you, but check this out. I think you may be very surprised. Might change your perspective on War somewhat...

Seems pretty one sided and ignores much of the Republicans actions as well. Doesn't change my perspective what so ever. War, imperialism and interventionism has been a bipartisan policy going back to the end of WWII.

Wasn't it the Young Democrats (mostly) who were protesting the Vietnam war?

 

[Dutch]

Welcome to the NWO. Most 'American' Politicians no longer represent American Citizens. These days, they seem to represent everyone but American Citizens. They're doing everything in their power to destroy our Constitutional Sovereignty. We now have a rogue criminal Government. But hopefully, some brave American Heroes will stand up and oppose this farce. I guess we'll see.


Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, the State Department confirmed, setting up a Senate showdown over an international agreement many in Congress believe would usurp the Second Amendment.

The agreement would regulate international trade in conventional weapons, including small arms, in a bid to keep such equipment out of the hands of rogue regimes and terrorist groups. One hundred fifty-three nations, including the United States, voted in favor of the treaty during a U.N. vote last April.

But gun-rights activists have blasted the treaty as a threat to “the rights and privacy of American gun owners,” and Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe wrote to Kerry on Tuesday to accuse him of “wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats.”

“The U.N. should not be deceived into thinking the U.S. will ratify a treaty just because it has been signed by the President or someone in his Administration,” he continued, attaching a list of 53 senators who voted to oppose America’s ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty back in March.

Any international treaty signed by the administration requires the approval of two-thirds of U.S. senators before it becomes the law of the land.

Many lawmakers in the House have also expressed concern over the agreement. 130 representatives sent a letter to President Obama in May, urging him not to sign a treaty they worry could be “used to justify the imposition of further [gun] controls within the United States.”...

Read more: Kerry set to sign 'gun-grabbing' UN treaty | The Daily Caller

Congratualations you are on the same side as the dreaded "Axis of Evil".

The United States voted in favor of the treaty, as the head of its delegation, Tom Countryman, indicated it would on Friday last week. While Iran, Syria, and North Korea – apparently the "new Axis of evil" – have been criticized for blocking adoption of the treaty during consensus negotiations, it is also worth remembering that the U.S. has long been opposed to such a treaty. It was only in 2009, after the election of Barack Obama, that the U.S. reversed its previous policy and decided to support an arms treaty. The U.S. was also responsible for "torpedoing ... [negotiations] last summer and dragging its feet" during negotiations last week."

Russia and China also?

"On Friday last week, Iran, Syria, and North Korea all opposed the treaty on the grounds that it is flawed and discriminatory, and failed to ban sales of weapons to rebel groups. Other nations including Russia and China criticised the treaty but reportedly made it clear that they would not have blocked consensus."


UN Arms Treaty: Why Both the U.S. and the "Axis Of Evil" Oppose It

 

[Spoonman]

This is a statue that sits in front of the UN Building. Tell me there is no agenda there