Obama Rejects International Convention Banning Land Mines

[CaptainGoodnight]

Obama has refused to sign the international convention banning land mines. This is the same policy of his predecessor, a policy I am strongly in favor of. the first thing to note is that just because we have refused to ban them does not commit us to using them. It is a fairly simple notion, but one that should be mentioned. The reverse is obviously not true. Should we ban them and decide we need them, we would be in violation of the treaty. That assumes we had kept any around which would be doubtful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/land-mine-treaty-wont-be_n_369658.html

"The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.

"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.

More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia."

 

[ayabe]

It's a chicken and egg thing, we won't ban them unless China and Russia do - which they never will, so here we are.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama has refused to sign the international convention banning land mines. This is the same policy of his predecessor, a policy I am strongly in favor of. the first thing to note is that just because we have refused to ban them does not commit us to using them. It is a fairly simple notion, but one that should be mentioned. The reverse is obviously not true. Should we ban them and decide we need them, we would be in violation of the treaty. That assumes we had kept any around which would be doubtful.

Land mines are pretty horrible weapons, and having spent some time in Cambodia I have seen what their use can do to a society. It's atrocious. In addition, I'm really not convinced that the US needs landmines to accomplish our military objectives.

While I'm not aware of any large scale use of land mines by the US at the moment I can't say I'm super outraged, but I'm a bit disappointed by Obama on yet another national security issue.

Speaking of Obama, I'm about 99% sure that your quote from him in your signature either isn't a quote or is taken seriously out of context.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

It's a chicken and egg thing, we won't ban them unless China and Russia do - which they never will, so here we are.

That and the Clinton and Bush administrations wanted an exception for the Korean border, which the international chattering classes weren't willing to accept.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Land mines are pretty horrible weapons, and having spent some time in Cambodia I have seen what their use can do to a society. It's atrocious. In addition, I'm really not convinced that the US needs landmines to accomplish our military objectives.

While I'm not aware of any large scale use of land mines by the US at the moment I can't say I'm super outraged, but I'm a bit disappointed by Obama on yet another national security issue.

Speaking of Obama, I'm about 99% sure that your quote from him in your signature either isn't a quote or is taken seriously out of context.

Actually both quotes are wrong, neither one of those presidents said those.

I'm just tried of being called a racist because I oppose some of Obama's policies.

 

[feralkid]

Actually both quotes are wrong, neither one of those presidents said those.

I'm just tried of being called a racist because I oppose some of Obama's policies.

That's cool.

Making up stuff to ease your suffering is one of the most common of all delusions.

 

[Carmen813]

Land mines are pretty horrible weapons, and having spent some time in Cambodia I have seen what their use can do to a society. It's atrocious. In addition, I'm really not convinced that the US needs landmines to accomplish our military objectives.

While I'm not aware of any large scale use of land mines by the US at the moment I can't say I'm super outraged, but I'm a bit disappointed by Obama on yet another national security issue.

Speaking of Obama, I'm about 99% sure that your quote from him in your signature either isn't a quote or is taken seriously out of context.

Aren't landmines used extensively on the Korean border? I was under the impression that is why we are against them.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

That's cool.

Making up stuff to ease your suffering is one of the most common of all delusions.

What part is made up? I saw that Jefferson quote (even though Jefferson never said) all the time from people who felt that they were being called unpatriotic.

 

[Robor]

What part is made up? I saw that Jefferson quote (even though Jefferson never said) all the time from people who felt that they were being called unpatriotic.

Um, you just admitted neither quote was true...

Actually both quotes are wrong, neither one of those presidents said those.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Um, you just admitted neither quote was true...

Right. If that does not stop others from using it, why can't I?

That quote was commonly used by people who felt that they were being called unpatriotic for opposing the Bush administration. So I made up my own.

 

[Jaskalas]

Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines.

This goes too far. I would agree to no use of mines, but not entirely removing them from production and stockpiles.

Also.... they might have proper uses protecting the walls of military bases. So now I'm conflicted as to banning the entire use of them.

 

[brblx]

don't we still use mines around some foreign bases? seems like there were mines around gitmo.

i'm sure any future use would simply be to protect american facilities- we know better than to leave mines just laying around in areas we don't control. not just because of the civvy casualties, but because we've certainly already seen a hell of a lot of our own ordnance used against us in placed like iraq.

 

[nobodyknows]

Right. If that does not stop others from using it, why can't I?

That quote was commonly used by people who felt that they were being called unpatriotic for opposing the Bush administration. So I made up my own.

In other words you're like the little kid whining that the other guy started it.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

In other words you're like the little kid whining that the other guy started it.

I like to use the word irony. My quote can only be taken as ironic unless you are a hypocrite.

 

[nobodyknows]

I like to use the word irony. My quote can only be taken as ironic unless you are a hypocrite.

I'll make up my own interpertation if you don't mind.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

This goes too far. I would agree to no use of mines, but not entirely removing them from production and stockpiles.

Also.... they might have proper uses protecting the walls of military bases. So now I'm conflicted as to banning the entire use of them.

I think the USA already stopped producing them in 1997.

The use of landmines is really just a trade off. Save lives for the duration of the conflict at the expense of those misfortune people who step on one long after the conflict is over.

 

[Lemon law]

I would rather have Obama step up to the plate, join the bulk of the world community, and ban the US use of land minds.

Given how full Obama's plate is now, I can somewhat understand why he declined for now, but I can still hope that he starts some diplomatic initiatives, so the all major powers can come on board for a treaty against land mines later.

If we can disengage ourselves from our quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, such a ban on land minds would make more sense for the USA.

 

[MotF Bane]

I can see a use for them around foreign military encampments, or just in case a very large war appears. There's no harm in stockpiling them, so forget the treaty.

Also, wouldn't this treaty ban JDAM's or cluster bombs or something? Sure as hell we shouldn't be removing some of our best weapons.

 

[fskimospy]

Aren't landmines used extensively on the Korean border? I was under the impression that is why we are against them.

I imagine that you mean we are against the treaty to ban them? Yes, the Korean border is heavily mined. I sincerely doubt our mines would be what stop the In Min Gun, and those mines will make that area a disaster for future generations.

 

[JSt0rm]

what we need are nano machine land mines with friend or foe recognition. They then climb through the nose and burrow into the brain and explode and while emitting death metal sonic waves that make the soon to be dead insane. everybody knows this.

 

[fskimospy]

I can see a use for them around foreign military encampments, or just in case a very large war appears. There's no harm in stockpiling them, so forget the treaty.

Also, wouldn't this treaty ban JDAM's or cluster bombs or something? Sure as hell we shouldn't be removing some of our best weapons.

I really doubt that this treaty would ban JDAMs. Cluster bombs might be included, and that would probably be a good thing for humanity as well. Cluster bombs are in many ways a larger threat to civilians than mines.

 

[ayabe]

I believe all of the new cluster type munitions have a self destruct after XXX amount of days to minimize this - and is sort of what we're using to opt out of these treaties.

 

[bfdd]

I'm perfectly fine with this. War is a terrible thing.

 

[ZzZGuy]

IIRC, banning of mines would also ban cluster bombs using the reasoning that a there is a ~20% (varies a lot) failure rate of bomblets exploding leaving them as land mines that can exploded when disturbed.

 

[piasabird]

Nothing wrong with land mines. They can help to secure your perimiter from being overrun. Claymores work great.

The big problem is that people like ex-president Bush trying to fight a kinder gentler war. They only way to fight a war is to kill as much of the enemy as possible in as short a period of time. War is cruel and people die so if you dont want to die, dont start a war. We should have turned Iraq into a parking lot in the first war. If you dont demand an absolute surrender, then what is the point of going to war?