US senators send letter to Obama urging landmine ban

[Modbert]

AFP: US senators send letter to Obama urging landmine ban

WASHINGTON — Two out of three US Senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to work toward the ratification of the 1997 treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, the Senate said Wednesday.

Signed by 68 senators, including 10 Republicans, the letter supports the Obama administration's ongoing review of US policy on landmines and is the first indication the Senate is in favor of ratifying the treaty, which the US refuses to sign.

Significantly, it represents one more than the 67 votes needed for ratification, however, the senators in their letter make no firm commitment on a vote.

The key US objection to signing the treaty was the Pentagon's concern it might need anti-personnel landmines to slow a possible invasion of South Korea by its communist neighbor, North Korea.

Leahy pointed out that the US military no longer uses landmines in the Korean peninsula.

The Ottawa Convention banning the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines as well as their destruction was signed by 158 nations, including several US allies.

Besides the United States, China and Russia have also declined to join the treaty.

Very interesting to say the least, thoughts?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

 

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't eliminate land mines entirely, they still provide good defense for troops in closing areas to infiltration. There just needs to be a way to quickly deactivate them so that they don't remain a threat permanantly

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I agree with Rightwinger on this. They need to have a timer on how dangerous they are. But they are a useful tool.

What folks object to is that mines are everywhere, hard to remove and still kill generations after the war is over.

 

[Modbert]

I agree with Rightwinger on this. They need to have a timer on how dangerous they are. But they are a useful tool.

What folks object to is that mines are everywhere, hard to remove and still kill generations after the war is over.

It's a terrifying thought if you lived in a area where you can't have your kids play outside, otherwise a landmine might blow them up where they would lose a limb or even worse.

I can see the use for landmines, and Radio makes a great point. I would figure with technology though we would have landmines at this point that can be deactivated remotely and easily without loss of life or limb.

 

[jillian]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

why? just because heaven forbid we should live by a set of moral laws?

 

[xotoxi]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

Do you really think that the American Government has never thrown a signed treaty out the window whenever it no longer suits them?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

why? just because heaven forbid we should live by a set of moral laws?

We don't need to sign a treaty to hold ourselves to a set of morals.

Like I said, just don't use them. But to sign a treaty saying we will never use them backs us into a corner, geopolitically and militarily, that there's no reason to back into IMO.

I'd be OK with internal United State legislation outlawing certain types of landmines. Just not so much with an international treaty banning all types of landmines.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

Do you really think that the American Government has never thrown a signed treaty out the window whenever it no longer suits them?

I dunno....let me go ask the Indians.

But it's better to not sign a treaty that you might need to break then, no?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

Do you really think that the American Government has never thrown a signed treaty out the window whenever it no longer suits them?

I dunno....let me go ask the Indians.

But it's better to not sign a treaty that you might need to break then, no?

"White man speak with forked tongue"

 

[RadiomanATL]

Do you really think that the American Government has never thrown a signed treaty out the window whenever it no longer suits them?

I dunno....let me go ask the Indians.

But it's better to not sign a treaty that you might need to break then, no?

"White man speak with forked tongue"

Who you callin' white, cracka?

 

[jillian]

I don't like the idea of signing a treaty that says we will not ever do something.

Just don't do it, but reserve the right to do so if deemed necessary.

why? just because heaven forbid we should live by a set of moral laws?

We don't need to sign a treaty to hold ourselves to a set of morals.

Like I said, just don't use them. But to sign a treaty saying we will never use them backs us into a corner, geopolitically and militarily, that there's no reason to back into IMO.

I'd be OK with internal United State legislation outlawing certain types of landmines. Just not so much with an international treaty banning all types of landmines.

but without a signed treaty, we don't. and perception around the world is that we don't. should we not be signatories to the geneva convention either?

 

[L.K.Eder]

landmines are a no-go!

 

[RadiomanATL]

why? just because heaven forbid we should live by a set of moral laws?

We don't need to sign a treaty to hold ourselves to a set of morals.

Like I said, just don't use them. But to sign a treaty saying we will never use them backs us into a corner, geopolitically and militarily, that there's no reason to back into IMO.

I'd be OK with internal United State legislation outlawing certain types of landmines. Just not so much with an international treaty banning all types of landmines.

but without a signed treaty, we don't. and perception around the world is that we don't.

We don't, what? I missing what you are referring to here.

 

[L.K.Eder]

We don't need to sign a treaty to hold ourselves to a set of morals.

Like I said, just don't use them. But to sign a treaty saying we will never use them backs us into a corner, geopolitically and militarily, that there's no reason to back into IMO.

I'd be OK with internal United State legislation outlawing certain types of landmines. Just not so much with an international treaty banning all types of landmines.

but without a signed treaty, we don't. and perception around the world is that we don't.

We don't, what? I missing what you are referring to here.

the USA is one of the few countries that refuse to ban landmines.

therefore the USA loses the high road, and gets laughed out of every room where they try to lecture other countries on how to behave.

 

[RadiomanATL]

but without a signed treaty, we don't. and perception around the world is that we don't.

We don't, what? I missing what you are referring to here.

the USA is one of the few countries that refuse to ban landmines.

therefore the USA loses the high road, and gets laughed out of every room where they try to lecture other countries on how to behave.

We don't get laughed out of the room.

They usually want us to stay in the room because they want us to help bail them out of whatever mess they're in.

 

[L.K.Eder]

We don't, what? I missing what you are referring to here.

the USA is one of the few countries that refuse to ban landmines.

therefore the USA loses the high road, and gets laughed out of every room where they try to lecture other countries on how to behave.

We don't get laughed out of the room.

They usually want us to stay in the room because they want us to help bail them out of whatever mess they're in.

an asshole like mugabe made sense in a speech.

clean your house. you can't have the cake and not eat it, or whatever.

 

[RadiomanATL]

the USA is one of the few countries that refuse to ban landmines.

therefore the USA loses the high road, and gets laughed out of every room where they try to lecture other countries on how to behave.

We don't get laughed out of the room.

They usually want us to stay in the room because they want us to help bail them out of whatever mess they're in.

an asshole like mugabe made sense in a speech.

clean your house. you can't have the cake and not eat it, or whatever.

Mugabe lecturing the US on how to act comes across as a bit hypocritical. Not to mention laughable.

I think you mistook exactly who got laughed out of the room on that one.

 

[L.K.Eder]

We don't get laughed out of the room.

They usually want us to stay in the room because they want us to help bail them out of whatever mess they're in.

an asshole like mugabe made sense in a speech.

clean your house. you can't have the cake and not eat it, or whatever.

Mugabe lecturing the US on how to act comes across as a bit hypocritical. Not to mention laughable.

I think you mistook exactly who got laughed out of the room on that one.

that is exactly the point. if a prick like mugabe can make some points, you are in trouble. the hypocritical part is not only on mugabe's side, he plays defense, the usa tries to play offense. without covering the weak spots.

land mines, e.g.

 

[RadiomanATL]

an asshole like mugabe made sense in a speech.

clean your house. you can't have the cake and not eat it, or whatever.

Mugabe lecturing the US on how to act comes across as a bit hypocritical. Not to mention laughable.

I think you mistook exactly who got laughed out of the room on that one.

that is exactly the point. if a prick like mugabe can make some points, you are in trouble. the hypocritical part is not only on mugabe's side, he plays defense, the usa tries to play offense. without covering the weak spots.

land mines, e.g.

The point is, Mugabe didn't make any points.

Forgive me if I am of the opinion that Mugabe can go shit in a hat for all I care.