Arms trade pact

I came across this article in Reuters about the arms trade pact being pushed by US.

What do you think of the last couple of paragraphs? It goes on about US requiring the veto power over the negotiations and any rules that go into the pact:

Washington, they said, had argued that it needed to be able to block an outcome that would permit international standards that are lower than the extremely strict U.S. criteria for international weapons sales.

More permissive standards would put U.S. arms makers at a competitive disadvantage because U.S. firms could be barred from selling to certain foreign governments under U.S. law while their competitors abroad could trade with those same governments under a weak U.N. treaty.

A wonderful example of perverse logic, isn’t it? Well, folks, they do not have any rules now, right? So they are at a competitive disadvantage, right? And you think any kind of rules would be better than none for controlling the arms trade? Eh, not really. Only the rules that will put US at an advantage against the others are good.

Yes, politics is great. You can turn the words any which way and nobody will notice where the truth lies.

US has been making the rules for the world with their “no trade barriers” demagoguery for years. Now they turn from civil goods to the arms trade. Apparently, the weapons industry is big enough that it is ready to go for the empire building too. Or maybe they just woke up with a start and go like “eh? did we miss something?” Yes, guys, go ahead, the world is your fucking playground, sure.

Why am I not surprised that every country in the world is dreaming to have the nuclear weapons arsenal? A wonderful deterrent, and the only known one that works against US empire building ambitions…