Gil223
Regular Member
And here are a few selected quotes from Reuters reportage (which to me, always seems a bit less politically influenced than do our own news services):
So, the good news is that even the member states of the U.N. can't agree on a draft at this point in time. Now, the question becomes one of "Does the UN consider a 2/3 majority to be a 'consensus', and will the current administration sign off on such a definition?" And this thought just crossed my mind - Could this be a political ploy to take the pressure off the Obama camp, possibly in return for a promise of some sort? Something like, "The U.N. will hold off on the ATT until after November 6th, if you swear to get rid of that pesky Second Amendment early in your next term." (Mind you, that is not a prediction - I don't have "the gift of prophecy" - it's just an expression of how my personal awareness sees the business of politics, and my opinion of those involved in it.)
"A spokesman for Britain's delegation" represents Elizabeth II, and the royal decree restricting British subjects (as opposed to "citizens") from the ownership/possession of firearms. Such a statement from any representative of the Brits is totally unsurprising. The UK has had severe restrictions on the private ownership of firearms since 1937, and in 1997, Great Britain banned private ownership of almost all handguns. If this unnamed "spokesman" didn't sing the "party song", he would be removed from the chorus.
That "small minority of states", includes four Islamic countries who cannot impose the will of Allah on the infidels without significant firepower, and one country being run by the delusional lunatic son of the late delusional lunatic leader.
Of course they blamed the US and Russia! They are both internationally influential... and they weren't alone.
They're trying to sell this as a cure for "poverty and injustice" now? And the "human rights" at issue, are those of self-defense.
But, we will now enjoy a break in the excitement provided by the UN's ATT for an unspecified period of time. Could be a week, could be a year. My money is on sometime after November 6th. Pax...
More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.
But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year.
So, the good news is that even the member states of the U.N. can't agree on a draft at this point in time. Now, the question becomes one of "Does the UN consider a 2/3 majority to be a 'consensus', and will the current administration sign off on such a definition?" And this thought just crossed my mind - Could this be a political ploy to take the pressure off the Obama camp, possibly in return for a promise of some sort? Something like, "The U.N. will hold off on the ATT until after November 6th, if you swear to get rid of that pesky Second Amendment early in your next term." (Mind you, that is not a prediction - I don't have "the gift of prophecy" - it's just an expression of how my personal awareness sees the business of politics, and my opinion of those involved in it.)
"We feel that we could have agreed (a treaty). It is disappointing that more time is needed. But an arms-trade treaty is coming - not today - but soon. We've taken a big step forward," said a spokesman for Britain's delegation.
"A spokesman for Britain's delegation" represents Elizabeth II, and the royal decree restricting British subjects (as opposed to "citizens") from the ownership/possession of firearms. Such a statement from any representative of the Brits is totally unsurprising. The UK has had severe restrictions on the private ownership of firearms since 1937, and in 1997, Great Britain banned private ownership of almost all handguns. If this unnamed "spokesman" didn't sing the "party song", he would be removed from the chorus.
While most U.N. member states favored a strong treaty, activists said there was a small minority of states, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria, who loudly voiced opposition to global arms control throughout the negotiations
That "small minority of states", includes four Islamic countries who cannot impose the will of Allah on the infidels without significant firepower, and one country being run by the delusional lunatic son of the late delusional lunatic leader.
But ultimately, arms-control activists blamed the United States and Russia for the inability to reach a decision on Friday, as both countries said there was not enough time left for them to clarify and resolve issues they had with the draft treaty.
Of course they blamed the US and Russia! They are both internationally influential... and they weren't alone.
"Moving forward, President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality," said Scott Stedjan, a senior policy advisor at Oxfam America, which fights poverty and other injustices.
They're trying to sell this as a cure for "poverty and injustice" now? And the "human rights" at issue, are those of self-defense.
But, we will now enjoy a break in the excitement provided by the UN's ATT for an unspecified period of time. Could be a week, could be a year. My money is on sometime after November 6th. Pax...