Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Breaking news?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 11:48:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.reuters.com...

So theres this arms treaty that has to be ratified in the General Assembly. The draft is supposedly one of a kind, that regulates arms trade throughout the globe. The aim is to have a uniform legislation to regulate arms trade, ' restricting flow of arms that would likely be used in genocide/ war.' The ambit doesn't include nuclear weapons / biological weapons/ chemical weapons.

I can't understand the quoted portion. Does this imply that the restrictions would apply on weapons that are traditionally used in genocides and wars ( in which case, I don't understand how that would be different from conventional weapons), or does that the flow would be restricted in countries that would probably use them for genocide and stuff ( in which case, I see a potential diplomatic rift. Also, how would that be different from the arms embargo imposed now?)

Or do you reckon its open to interpretation?
Also, the India clause, which allows bilateral trade in weapons, included in the draft, doesnt that kind of defeat the purpose of the treaty?

Why is this such a big deal?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:13:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 11:48:50 AM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.reuters.com...

So theres this arms treaty that has to be ratified in the General Assembly. The draft is supposedly one of a kind, that regulates arms trade throughout the globe. The aim is to have a uniform legislation to regulate arms trade, ' restricting flow of arms that would likely be used in genocide/ war.' The ambit doesn't include nuclear weapons / biological weapons/ chemical weapons.

I can't understand the quoted portion. Does this imply that the restrictions would apply on weapons that are traditionally used in genocides and wars ( in which case, I don't understand how that would be different from conventional weapons), or does that the flow would be restricted in countries that would probably use them for genocide and stuff ( in which case, I see a potential diplomatic rift. Also, how would that be different from the arms embargo imposed now?)

Or do you reckon its open to interpretation?
Also, the India clause, which allows bilateral trade in weapons, included in the draft, doesnt that kind of defeat the purpose of the treaty?

Why is this such a big deal?

It's a big deal to conspiricists who think the U.N. is coming for your guns.
Much like the U.S. federal government regulates interstate trade, the U.N. is trying to regulate international trade. It has little to no effect on people trying to get a gun a la 2nd Amendment.

Plus, you know, the whole "UN is worthless and should be dissolved" and "the US should not be associated with the UN" angles, too.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:37:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 12:31:53 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The UN should have NO power over who trades what to who.

I hate the UN.

Oh, so you don't mind if someone trades NK some bioweapons? Okay. I'm sure nothing could go wrong!

What we should do is establish a UN-wide defense pact in the event that North Korea does use WMDs on anyone.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian