Assault weapons trade increases the likelihood of drone programs.

[patrice]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a pioneering treaty aimed at regulating the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking sales to the human rights records of the buyers.

Although implementation is years away and there is no specific enforcement mechanism, proponents say the treaty would for the first time force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons that kill tens of thousands of people every year — by, for example, making it harder for Russia to argue that its arms deals with Syria are legal under international law.

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, reflects growing international sentiment that the multibillion-dollar weapons trade needs to be held to a moral standard. The hope is that even nations reluctant to ratify the treaty will feel public pressure to abide by its provisions. The treaty calls for sales to be evaluated on whether the weapons will be used to break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, abet terrorism or organized crime or slaughter women and children.

~ snip ~

Even some supporters conceded that the highly complicated negotiations forced compromises that left significant loopholes. The treaty focuses on sales, for example, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including as gifts, loans, leases and aid. “This is a very good framework to build on,” said Peter Woolcott, the Australian diplomat who presided over the negotiations. “But it is only a framework.”

Whether one approves of the use of drones or not,

- Given that unregulated weapons trade supports terrorism and
- Given that the status-quo response to terrorism includes the use of drone,

Opposition to drone programs that DOES NOT OPPOSE UNREGULATED WEAPONS TRADE actually increases the possibility of drone responses to the various uses of those weapons in the world's troubled countries.

[Cha]

1. thanks for article, patrice

[patrice]

2. It's over a month old, but I missed that that had happened. It's a pretty big deal.

Africa in particular comes to mind, as their already drought destroyed land will soon experience a significant spike in the intensity and distribution of drought conditions.

Drones make me as nervous as the next person (I too saw that original (anime version) of the Matrix), but perhaps we need to think ahead a bit: if we, amongst other nations on Earth, mount any kind of Peace response to what is happening to Africa and actually put Peace Corp type persons from other nations on the ground in that continent, would it be a good idea to leave those folks without any security? If something happened, how long would it take conventional forces to arrive?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. If we put Peace Corps in Africa? We already do. Of the 8,073 current participants in the Peace Corps

43% serve in Africa right now, today. They are on the ground in Africa right now. How could you not know that? To use the Corps in your rhetoric as if they are not on the ground, right now taking risks to help others is not very fair to those thousands who are on the ground now.
If indeed.

[burnodo]

3. second attempt?

didnt you try this before?

[patrice]

4. Do you find it even slightly odd that so many people here deny a connection between unregulated

assault weapons trade and drones?

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I think people are not agreeing with your framing of the issue, not denying a connection

no one here wants unregulated weapons trade and I for one still have no idea what you are raving about, you offer characterizations in lieu of quotes or cites, and that's not odd that is intentional. How many DUers have asked you to clarify that which you are wailing about? Many. Yet you can not support any of your assertions. Demanding that people nod along with you and using hyperbolic language to equate a disagreement with you about an activist with opinions about unregulated gun trade is seriously bogus crapola more suited to the right wing.