Politicsgunsundisarmament

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:50 AM

UN Seeks US-based Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Specialists (gun grabbers)

It’s no secret that the United Nations, with assistance from members of the Executive and Legislative branches in the United States, has been actively working to reduce Americans’ accessibility to firearms. In 2012 President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spearheaded a backdoor move that would have imposed gun control on the United States through foreign means by signing a global disarmament initiative known as the Small Arms Treaty. Though that attempt failed, mass shooting incidents at Sandy Hook and elsewhere have kept the pressure on gun owners with the President having made repeated suggestions that he would mandate gun restrictions through Executive Order should state and federal legislatures fail to act.

According to the United Nations information page on ‘DDR’ operations, the New York post will involve various aspects related to the process by which a governing organization would confiscate firearms, all of which target what the U.N. calls “small arms.”

Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.

Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.

Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.

The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hiring-disarmament-demobilization-reintegration-specialists-york/

21 replies, 8098 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply UN Seeks US-based Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Specialists (gun grabbers) (Original post)
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 OP
6mm Jun 2014 #1
i verglas Jun 2014 #2
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #3
i verglas Jun 2014 #4
New Deal Democrat Jun 2014 #5
island4diver Jun 2014 #7
New Deal Democrat Jun 2014 #8
i verglas Jun 2014 #9
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #11
New Deal Democrat Jun 2014 #12
i verglas Jun 2014 #13
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #14
i verglas Jun 2014 #15
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #16
i verglas Jun 2014 #17
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #18
i verglas Jun 2014 #19
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #20
i verglas Jun 2014 #21
Barefoot Dancer Jun 2014 #10
Badsamm Jun 2014 #6

Response to Barefoot Dancer (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:04 AM

1. Lol

Never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:53 AM

2. second time around

 

http://www.discussionist.com/101590843

If I may just quote what I said to the jokesters without a clue in that thread (casting no aspersions on anyone in this thread):

4. get a fucking clue

... you may need to do a year or two of reading about things like "child soldiers" before you have much more to say.

What you find amusing is the horrible reality of people who live in conflict zones, and the virtually insurmountable problems of rebuilding their communities and societies when they have a chance to try. One of those problems is the guns their countries are awash in.

Here's one of the people who hold positions like this:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/ilena-paltzer/41/522/a99
Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer at United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)

Tell ya what -- anybody here who's so big and brave, YOU go to South Sudan and do that work.

I believe one of the countries the current job posting relates to is the Democratic Republic of Congo. Some here may have heard of that place and the spot of bother it has experienced in the last decade. A random google result:

http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/democratic_republic_of_the_congo_drc
BACKGROUND: During 2012 and 2013 insecurity in the eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) caused by fighting between the Armed Forces of the DRC (FARDC) and a group of army defectors known as the March 23 (M23) rebel movement allowed various armed groups to perpetrate mass atrocity crimes. Although M23 surrendered on 5 November 2013, civilians are still threatened by other armed groups.

The government of the DRC estimates that there are more than 20 armed groups operating in the eastern DRC, many of which increased their activities in the security vacuum created by redeployment of FARDC troops to confront M23. Patterns of violence committed by these groups, including killing, abduction and forced recruitment of civilians, have been witnessed in North Kivu, South Kivu, Katanga and Oriental Province over the past two years. The government recorded over 15,000 incidents of sexual and gender-based violence in these four regions during 2013. There are currently more than 2.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the DRC, most of whom have fled violence in areas where these armed groups are active.

The government has recently launched offensives against groups in the eastern DRC with assistance from the UN mission in the DRC (MONUSCO), which operates with a protection of civilians mandate and includes an intervention brigade. In response to attacks by the Allied Democratic Forces-Nalu (ADF-Nalu), an alliance of Ugandan rebel groups operating in Beni and Kamango in North Kivu, the FARDC initiated an offensive in early January and declared victory over the group on 14 March. The FARDC and MONUSCO have also launched operations against the Patriotic Force of Resistance in Ituri (FRPI) and the Alliance for a Free and Sovereign Congo (APCLS), which have both previously perpetrated crimes against humanity. In advance of these offensives, the government and MONUSCO encouraged militias to participate in Disarmament, Demobilization, Repatriation, Reintegration and Resettlement (DDRRR) programs.

I suspect "The Free Thought Project" has a very good clue and is just pretending to be a big old ignoramus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:34 AM

3. "The Free Thought Project" certainly has a clue.

I'm wondering about yours. Is there anything stopping those conflict zones from collecting arms in their own countries? Just because the USA has a Constitutional amendment to guarantee the civil liberty to arm themselves doesn't mean the entire world has to follow suit. Citizen disarmament has turned Mexico into a full scale war zone. Controlling access is a pipe dream. Criminals will always have guns. The cartels in Mexico have corrupted most of the police force. The USA already has plenty of corrupt cops. I don't think they need any encouragement to escalate violence whenever and wherever possible. You have a higher chance of being killed by a cop than you do being killed by a terrorist or school shootings. We don't have any civilians waging armed warfare against the entire population in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:41 AM

4. Yeah, "The Free Thought Project" has quite a lot of shit

 

Shit being the operative word.

I quite enjoyed the references in the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Whittlesey. Quite the disgusting human being, that one.

Is there anything stopping those conflict zones from collecting arms in their own countries?
I may not be taking your point. Are you imagining that the international organizations are not in those countries by invitation?

Citizen disarmament has turned Mexico into a full scale war zone.
Ah, by their code words ye shall know them. "Citizen". It does get old.

The fact that you have chosen to drag this smelly herring into an issue to which it has no relevance, and then veer off into I have no idea what tangential rabbit hole, leaves me devoid of speech -- since I thought we were discussing disarmament and reintegration efforts in conflict zones (all of these words having actual meanings), but you, who had appeared to want to initiate a discussion of that subject by posting the OP, seem to have decided to ride off on some other hobbyhorse altogether. Bon voyage!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:59 AM

5. Bogus claims debunked by Snopes

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Claim: A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment."

FALSE

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market":

The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.
The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:04 AM

7. That explains why many arms manufactures support it

with the possible exception of Norinco. My question is why gun rights groups both in the US and outside the US are skeptical of it? I know the NRA and the NFA (the Canadian NRA) both oppose it.
Since many of the countries supporting it are not exactly enlightened liberal democracies, I question the humanitarian value. The UN also believe only the recognized State should have a monopoly on force and be armed. That means those restrictions would apply to the French Underground, and the people in southern Sudan, not the Nazis or Sudanese government (or the Janjaweed militias either).
In Rwanda, what did the UN do other than give a Canadian general PTSD and turn him into an alcoholic, and probably many of the troops under his command? Nothing.
What did President Clinton do? Nothing. Many in the rank and file military wanted to go, but no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to island4diver (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 12:31 PM

8. I'm learning more about this issue.

Frankly I've been ignorant of the Arms Trade Treaty until now. But I will guess that manufacturers support it because it makes competition less likely from imported firearms. When reading the Snopes article I also noticed the NRA is opposed. I didn't understand that either, so I looked around a little and came up with this from Mar 16, 2013:

NRA opposes U.N. arms treaty

The NRA is among the treaty’s most vocal opponents and a founder of the World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international coalition of gun rights activists and gun manufacturers who plan to speak against the treaty.

“What we really object to is the inclusion of civilian firearms within the scope of the ATT,” said Tom Mason, the group’s executive secretary and a lawyer who has represented the NRA at U.N. meetings for nearly two decades. “This is a treaty that really needs to address the transfer of large numbers of military weapons that leads to human rights abuses. We have submitted language that you can define what a civilian firearm is.”

The NRA also argues that the treaty could infringe on gun rights as understood in the United States and could force Americans onto an international registry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-nra-square-off-over-small-arms-treaty/2013/03/16/ae495dae-8d76-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html
It appears the NRA's main objection to the ATT is that they think its inclusion of civilian firearms would force Americans onto a de facto international registry. This Wikipedia article can further slake our thirst for knowledge on the subject.

The Snopes article notwithstanding, I believe the NRA, et al, have a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:08 PM

9. they've been a-riding this hobbyhorse for some time now

 

It was all the rage in the gun dungeon 4 or 5 years ago.

As is often the case with right-wing bullshit, the total incoherency of it makes it almost impossible for a rational person to address, mainly because a rational person has no chance of figuring out what they are saying.

And damned if that isn't their actual goal, of course.

In this instance, the fact that the word "disarmament" appears in the text of the job posting and the work it refers to gives them their jumping off point into the void.

This job posting, and the work it refers to, have absolutely nothing to do with the proposed Small Arms Treaty. Except that such a treaty might have been a start on preventing the situation now being addressed: societies infested with firearms in the hands of anyone with a beef or a desire for control of resources or a political aspiration. Boko Haram, anyone? And all of the roving gangs and militias that have made the DRC a living hell for its population for years.

This job posting is about efforts to initiate and secure social, economic and political stability, by getting firearms out of the social, economic and political landscape and helping those who both perpetrated the violence and were its victims -- child soldiers and others coerced into militias -- to recover and rejoin civil society.

This is a goal that a lot of people apparently abhor. One must assume that they approve of the abduction and torture and rape and murder that have comprised the daily lives of millions of people on this planet for years, and continue to do so.


I completely fail to understand your comment:

The Snopes article notwithstanding, I believe the NRA, et al, have a point.
If anyone thinks that any authority or power in the world has the authority or power to influence US domestic policy, they're living in my utopia.

In any event, if the US signs any international agreement, it does so BY CHOICE.

What are "civilian firearms" to you and the NRA are the weapons that are used to overthrow legitimate governments, steal and control resources, murder "civilians", and organize genocides, to many more people in the world. What you call them makes no difference to them at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:49 PM

11. Doesn't add up.

It is allegedly aimed at preventing the export "small arms", which requires a national/international registry database. But that doesn't explain what the 'disarmament' is for. Prohibiting exports has nothing whatsoever to do with disarmament.

UN Firearms Treaty Dead...At Least For Now

The good news is that the ATT process failed to reach agreement on the terms of an arms treaty, and that at least for now, the matter is dead. The bad news is that neither this arms-control effort, nor any other of the many bad ideas emanating from the UN headquarters on the banks of New York City’s East River, is ever really dead. Much like Great Britain’s Fabian Society, which seeks to achieve incremental political goals by simply outlasting its opponents, the bureaucracy at the United Nations will simply re-group, schedule more meetings and present more “papers” about the dire need to rein in out-of-control international “trafficking” in firearms.

The United States played a decidedly ambivalent role in this latest rendition of “Keystone Kops at the United Nations.” President Barrack Obama had signaled three years ago that the US was reversing a decade of opposition to a formal UN firearms protocol such as the ATT, and would support the treaty process. However, given the timing of this ATT process in the middle of a tight presidential race – and the fact that anything smacking of gun control would likely cost the incumbent votes in November -- Obama is likely offering a quiet prayer of thanks that the ATT is a dead issue for the moment.

In the summer of 2001, when the UN’s foray into gun control was just getting underway, Washington took a very different approach. Under the decisive leadership of then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the U.S. made clear it would neither support nor allow to be adopted any international instrument that directly or indirectly infringed any constitutionally-protected rights. Throughout the administration of George W. Bush, Bolton proactively prevented the international body from formally adopting any such instrument.

Throughout these years, however, the vast majority of other UN member states kept the issue alive. The effort was led by the U.K., Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, and other countries that take a far different view of the basic human right of self-defense than do we. Advocates always have been careful to maintain with a collective straight face they would never dream of infringing any rights enjoyed by citizens of any member nation. However, the rhetoric and actions in this arena remain couched in UN doublespeak about “small arms and light weapons,” which includes virtually every firearm on the market anywhere.

In “UN World,” the responsibility to protect all of mankind from the scourge of firearms falls to this international body tasked with ensuring “world peace.” Despite repeated efforts to convince the American public that only international actions relating to firearms would be impacted by the ATT, the clear and inescapable fact is that every one of the documents drafted, debated, and adopted throughout this tortuously long process, sooner or later would impact domestic laws, regulations and rights as they relate to possession of firearms, even if indirectly.http://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2012/08/01/un_firearms_treaty_deadat_least_for_now/page/full

For liberals who are more invested in the messenger rather than the message, you won't like this messenger. No need to mention it. Just move on. Some of us are interested in truth no matter who reports it. We are never satisfied with a single point of view on any issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:39 PM

12. You're right, it doesn't.

Just because gun owners are paranoid, that doesn't mean nobody wants to take our guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:47 PM

13. are you serious?

 

Prohibiting exports has nothing whatsoever to do with disarmament.

Exactly where do you think the armed groups committing murder, torture, sexual assault, abduction, genocide, etc. etc., in parts of the world you appear to know nothing about, get their weapons?

... The same place "thugs" in your home town do, I suppose.

They drop like lawn darts from the sky ...


I guess it's only "liberals" who give a shit about THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO LIFE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:50 PM

14. I'm a liberal

who supports RKBA. In spite of your multiple posts in this thread, I honestly do not know what your position is or what point you are trying to make. I am weary of your hateful replies to me, though. So I'm not replying to you again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:01 PM

15. here's where your problem started: your OP (edited)

 

You are apparently joining with your bizarre putrid right-wing sources in trying to pretend that this job posting has something to do with something it has nothing to do with.

The process in issue is a process underway in countries like South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo, which are trying to achieve the degree of security and stability for their populations that will enable them to live something resembling a normal life.

Not the kind of luxury you enjoy. Just a life where children do not have to sleep in the forest at night for fear of being abducted and turned into soldiers, and/or having their limbs amputated, being turned into drug addicts, being forced to commit sexual and other atrocities on one another and others in their country; where women can collect firewood and fetch water without being raped by a dozen or two men; etc. etc. etc.

The UN, varous international organizations and various countries around the world are engaged in this process by providing some of the resources that are needed for it to occur.

It is ESSENTIAL that the millions of firearms in the hands of present and former combattants in these conflicts be removed from those societies. It is essential to the very lives of individual members of the populations, and to the social, economic and political well-being and futures of the countries.

edit for further clarity:
The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.
Do you seriously think this has something to do with YOU???

This has nothing to do with YOU. NOTHING to do with you.

If right-wing elements in the US with an agenda that has NOTHING TO DO with the well-being of anyone anywhere in the world, including in the US, succeed in derailing any of these efforts, even if by making it impossible for the US to contribute resources to them, the blood will be on their hands.

(As it already is on the hands of the US anyway, since, as has been pointed out, it has long been in the business of injecting vast numbers of weapons into conficts in other countries, thus both being complicit in the atrocities committed in those conficts and ensuring that resolving them will be multiple times more difficult and less likely to succeed than if the US had not done this. Columbia stands as a prime example.)

Let us say it again, in order to be perfectly clear.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR BLEEDING "RKBA".

It has NOTHING TO DO with YOU.

It has to do with real people who have never heard about you and, if they did, would very undoubtedly give far less of a shit about your "RKBA" than you do about their lives. You mind your own damned business, and I am very sure they will be happy to do the same.

So do you honestly not know what my point is now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:05 PM

16. I don't believe you. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:09 PM

17. it's honestly impossible to know what to say

 

You don't believe truth, facts, and reality.

Let me ask again what I edited the above post to add; this is from your source, quoting the UN info:

The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.

Are you seriously claiming that this has something to do with YOU and your "RKBA"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:27 PM

18. Your conclusions are just wrong.

Try removing your liberal blinders to see the whole picture. You can't see with blinders on.

During his tenure as mayor in New York City, Michael Bloomberg all but eradicated private gun ownership inside city limits, and gun owners even received notices in the mail last November telling them to surrender their firearms to the police.

He has also pushed for magazine size limits, bans on semiautomatic rifles, “gun-free” zones and ammunition fees, among other draconian restrictions.

But Bloomberg is now working towards the destruction of the Second Amendment in all parts of the country by bankrolling various gun control groups such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which claims representation in nearly 1,000 cities.

“It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns,” Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Mayor and whistleblower John C. Tkazyik said after leaving the group. “Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

In advocating for firearm bans, MAIG’s mayors routinely describe their inner cities as war-zones no different than the countries targeted by the U.N.’s DDR program.

And it should be pointed out that Bloomberg is also heavily affiliated with the U.N.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/u-n-gun-confiscation-program-serves-as-model-for-gun-bans-in-america_062014#sthash.HomqiRCD.dpuf

The folks at United Nations headquarters in New York City, and our “allies” at Number 10 Downing Street in London, must be rubbing their hands with glee. Gun control groups here and abroad likewise are at last quietly cheering. Why? After a decade and a half of pushing unsuccessfully to secure America’s support for a legally-binding, international instrument to regulate the marketing, transfer and brokering in firearms, they are now on the brink of success. The process of formally negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (“ATT”) now has Washington’s seal of approval; announced October 14th by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It was not always thus.

In the summer of 2001, the UN formally launched its multi-year effort to institutionalize its role as regulator of international transfers of firearms; something it had coveted openly since the mid-1990s. In July 2001, John Bolton had been serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs for barely two months. It is this office at the state department that is responsible for issues ranging from nuclear disarmament to land mine eradication. When the UN began its foray into “small arms and light weapons” (a term that incorporates virtually every type, size and model of firearm) in the mid-90s, the issue fell into the lap of whoever occupied that office.

In one of his first public addresses after being sworn in as undersecretary, Bolton delivered the opening statement for the United States at the UN arms conference on July 9, 2001. His blunt words shocked many of the delegates present. The message he delivered made crystal clear, with reference to our constitutionally-guaranteed “right to keep and bear arms,” that the US would not be a party to any international effort that would directly or indirectly infringe that fundamental right.

Over the next five years, in meeting after meeting, the US was true to the words Bolton delivered in 2001. Refusing to bow to intense pressure from many of our “allies,” including most notably the UK, the US opposed and even vetoed numerous efforts to afford the UN any legally-binding power to regulate the “international” trafficking in firearms. The Bush Administration realized that doing so would tie US policy makers’ hands in supporting certain arms transfers in our own national security interests. Moreover, and more relevant for Second Amendment purposes, a legally-binding instrument purporting to regulate illicit international transfers of firearms, would necessarily touch domestic activities. For example, in order to know and regulate international transfers, the UN folks would have to know what firearms were being manufactured, stocked, and purported to be transferred within each country.
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009/10/26/%E2%80%9Cperfect-storm%E2%80%9D-for-un-gun-control-agenda/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:19 PM

19. I apologise in advance for saying it

 

but you are incoherent.

Perhaps you would start at the beginning.

What is the OP about, and what point are you attempting to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:29 PM

20. My point is that your assessment of the situation is wrong headed.

It DOES apply to the US and gun owners. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I find you incoherent as well, so maybe we just aren't supposed to communicate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:31 PM

21. I'll ask again

 

It DOES apply to the US and gun owners.

WHAT applies to the US and gun owners????

The JOB POSTING that the OP is about? The PROGRAM that the OP is about?

IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE U.S. AND GUN OWNERS IN THE U.S.

It is about a PARTICULAR PROGRAM that is being carried on in AFRICA in POST-CONFLICT ZONES.

Because the UN is headquartered in NYC, this particular HQ position, which is part of the program for post-conflict zones in Africa, is located in the US.

It has NOTHING TO DO with the domestic or foreign policy or activities of the US.

NOTHING.

READ IT again:

The objective of the DDR <disarmament, demobilization and reintegration> process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.
Is the US a POST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT?
Are there EX-COMBATANTS in the US who need to be demobilized and reintegrated?
Is the US in a TRANSITION PERIOD from conflict to peace and development?

Do you know ANYTHING AT ALL about the world outside your borders???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:10 PM

10. oh so

Snopes is saying that it's just a method to control competition with US weapons dealers. The US has been arming anti-Assad forces in Syria for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barefoot Dancer (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:47 AM

6. UN is a joke. League of Nations ring a bell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsgunsundisarmament