Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

US envoy

Where in our government does a US Envoy create and enforce laws? Who ratifies treaties in this country? Your glossing over this Seb. The UN is not elected by US citizens. The US Envoy to the UN I not elected by US citizens and we both know he/she is appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by a Senate Committee.

Let me ask this though. Would you prefer UN influence on your government on making laws to apply over you from a UN resolution?

Let's not pretend the UN is a cruel dictator ramming unwanted laws down the USA's throat.

The USA, like all other countries that took part in creating the treaty, had a hand in creating the treaty.

The USA doesn't have to ratify the treaty it helped create.

 Jihadin wrote:
Where in our government does a US Envoy create and enforce laws?

Nowhere, including the UN envoy. Instead, that envoy merely follows the directions given to it by the democratically elected, lawfully appointed government of the day. Part of which includes forming treaties that the government of the day desires.

Which means that when that government appointed, government directed envoy goes off and signs a treaty on the behalf of his country, he is acting exactly the same as a local deputy when he hands you a speeding ticket. Complaining about either the deputy or the UN envoy being unelected makes no sense.

Let me ask this though. Would you prefer UN influence on your government on making laws to apply over you from a UN resolution?

The UN can't make my country do anything that the government of the day doesn't agree to. It can't make your country either.

Sometimes your country may agree to something, which it might not like to do in isolation, but agrees to so that another country will agree as well (nuclear non-proliferation, some kind of carbon emission reduction)... but that won't be the UN making your country do anything, it's basically a deal your government is voluntarily entering in to.

The UN's ability to enforce a measure on a country that doesn't want to accept it is very deliberately very weak. That's why everyone moans and dismisses the UN when it is so powerless in the face of dictators slaughtering the population of their own countries. Well, that's how little power the UN has when the matter is genocide and the country is some tinpot shithole... when you start talking about some minor domestic issue and the most powerful country on Earth, the UN's ability to 'make your laws' goes from zero 'to something that's a lot less than zero'.

The only thing I can think of for Kerry to sign it is to make the Republicans more evil about "anti-gun" Doesn't really make sense either since like 130ish senators are against it

 Jihadin wrote:
The only thing I can think of for Kerry to sign it is to make the Republicans more evil about "anti-gun" Doesn't really make sense either since like 130ish senators are against it

Yeah, I speculated on the first page as to why they might sign on to this, knowing full well it will never be ratified. It's like some combination of domestic political shenanigans (drawing attention to the Republicans shooting down gun control, to fire up the base) and international political shenanigans (giving the appearance of trying to do something, even when it'll obviously never happen).

 sebster wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
The only thing I can think of for Kerry to sign it is to make the Republicans more evil about "anti-gun" Doesn't really make sense either since like 130ish senators are against it

Yeah, I speculated on the first page as to why they might sign on to this, knowing full well it will never be ratified. It's like some combination of domestic political shenanigans (drawing attention to the Republicans shooting down gun control, to fire up the base) and international political shenanigans (giving the appearance of trying to do something, even when it'll obviously never happen).

That's what confused me over this whole ordeal... we know it won't be ratified.

So, why would Kerry as a democrat, give fuel to the 2nd Amendment supporters?

If Sandy Hook didn't compel our legislative body to pass new stringent gun policy... signing an UN treaty that will never be ratify just seems asinine. All he's doing is poking the angry bear.

*shrugs*

You can look at it different ways.

On one hand, playing to their audience, Fox can spin it as an anti-2nd amendment measure. On the other hand it is very clear on the front page that it isn't.

So, as a Democrat, if you see a Republican spinning it like that you can laugh and point at the idiot who failed their primary school reading test (in a suitably statesmanlike manner, of course).

It hasn't been planned that way. That would be a stupidly trivial use of international diplomacy.

I think it is a genuine attempt at reducing the international arms trade. It has been pointed out that 1,000 Syrians have been killed with Sarin, and 100,000 with bullets and rockets.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it is a genuine attempt at reducing the international arms trade. It has been pointed out that 1,000 Syrians have been killed with Sarin, and 100,000 with bullets and rockets.

Or to try and use it to regain international credit by painting Russia in a bad light over Syria, and show that the US is committed to stopping the arms trade (on paper at least)

But then I am a cynic

The treaty wasn't got up by the USA, however the Russians deserve to be painted in a bad light, so that would be a good piece of diplomacy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The treaty wasn't got up by the USA, however the Russians deserve to be painted in a bad light, so that would be a good piece of diplomacy.

It doesn't have to be, they just have to be signatories to it