Comments on: U.S. Policy on Conventional Arms Control Departs Reality

By: Leon Lundquist, Dura

Leon Lundquist, Dura — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:44:54 +0000

UN-believable!

By: Freedom of Speech TX

Freedom of Speech TX — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:50:58 +0000

Dear Brinley Salzmann, UK,

I stated a fact. I am not "sniping from the wings".

My "exalted view" is based on reality. It is based on historical precedent on how tyrannical regimes conduct themselves as "civilized" countries. Most importantly, it is based on common sense.

Mr. Bromund commented that: "Any standards that are agreed will bind the U.S. but not the world’s irresponsible sellers, who do not even live up to their existing obligations."

As many of my Brit friends would say, "Spot on."

We cannot even get Russia and China to help the "world" stop Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon. The reason is economics and geo-politics. The Russians are fools for allowing an Islamic Radical Fundamentalist Theocracy to gain these weapons. Apparently, they have forgotten about their own dangerous Islamic Jihadists.

My first "exalted view" is that a treaty will not work, so why sign it?

My second "exalted view" is that nothing can be done. That Sir, is reality.

By: Ted, Washington DC

Ted, Washington DC — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:27:28 +0000

The poster from the UK asks an excellent question. The first principle is simple: do no harm. Do not sign a treaty that will make things worse. The second principle is also simple: governments already have full powers to control the arms trade. If they chose not to, it is a delusion to believe that a treaty will make a difference. To put it bluntly, if the arms trade is 'totally out of control,' that is how the UN's member states want it. As for our counter-proposal: we set out principles for a sensible approach to a treaty on the conventional arms trade here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrg... Dr. Ted R. Bromund

By: Brinley Salzmann, UK

Brinley Salzmann, UK — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:21:17 +0000

Okay, so instead in sniping from the wings, please can you state what, in your exalted view, should be the constructive way ahead to address the fact that the "arms trade" in patently totally out of control in so many countries around the World? The ATT is one proposal, which is already on the table – so, what would be your counter-proposal?

By: Freedom of Speech, T

Freedom of Speech, T — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:37:53 +0000

Once again, we show our ___ and China, Russia, Iran, Syria, India, Pakistan, and Cuba AND France have to be chuckling in disbelief.

It will take the next President their entire term just to UNDO the damage that "may be" done.