Obama doesn't sign the Anti-Landmine Treaty

As hopeful as I am of Obama as different and sensible President, when I heard today in the news (no linky yet) that the US still refuses to sign the Ottawa treaty banning land mines, I really was disappointed and angry. The speaker of the government said that the US Army can’t fight properly without using landmines.:mad:

All the EU countries manage to do so (which are also of course a major part of NATO). And please, no need to tell me that the US has shouldered the burden of war for us limp-wristed Europeans and that’s why we have such dinky little armies, that stuff is old hat and wrong besides. The difference is that we don’t want to play empire anymore, so we don’t need troops to invade Iraq while still staying in Afghanistan.

So, Shit on Obama until he comes to his senses.

Unless there was a big “Korea” exception, he made the right choice.

Why - do landmines not kill people in Korea? The reason to try to ban them is because they are so harmful to civilians, even long after the original conflict is over. Millions of people are wounded, maimed or even killed, decades after the war is over. How would Korea be different?

And does the US only use them in Korea?

I learned in another thread that the US apparently uses landmines in Korea in a fashion that avoids civilian casualties, and instead uses them to prevent troops from entering a well defined, well marked area.

I don’t think civilians are wandering around the DMZ in Korea stepping on mines.

It’s okay. We pay a small deposit on every land mine we place, and nobody’s going to just throw that money away.

Why, it’s exactly like East Germany DDR and their Wall (not only in Berlin, but around the whole border of the DDR with the West)! They had landmines in the strip between the two walls, and occasionally one went off and blew up a hare, and occasionally one blew up someone fleeing from socialist paradise to the West.

So the US are the good guys, why again?

And you seem to think that the DMZ will last forever, because at the time landmines were laid in other fields of battle, people didn’t think about peace 20 years in the future, either.

I’m pretty sure the U.S. hasn’t planted mindfields along the DMZ to keep South Koreans from fleeing North.

Because the North Korean army marching south would be A Very Bad Thing. If we were having this discussion ~56 years after a peace treaty was signed, I’d agree that the mined border was useless, but a state of war still technically exists between the Koreas and I don’t see that ending anytime soon. Heck, if the Americans of 1953 had thought “Nah, let’s not place so many mines - in 20 years this’ll all be forgotten”, they’d have been dead wrong.

Please read the wiki page about the Korean War, at the very bare minimum. I think you’ll find it describes the situation somewhat more accurately than reruns of MASH*.

Sigh, when ever this comes up I always have to point out that signing the treaty would would probably halt the production of the claymore and similar devices. Not all mines are the type that some poor kid steps on and it goes boom.

The Claymore is usually used by the US military in a command detonation mode. It’s only going to go boom when the operator hits the button on the remote. If you get rid of those things, you might as well ban C4. Command detonation is permitted under the treaty, but the backers of the treaty really, really don’t like it. Because the claymore is such a useful infantry weapon in both ambush and defense, any decent Commander in Chief is going to be awful wary of things that will take it away.

Constanze, as far as your oh so “civilized” Europe is concerned, just know that the US spends more money and exerts more effort in cleaning up other nations mines than your precious Germany. Take the damn treaty and shove it up your ass. We’re the ones that are actually cleaning the damn things up.

How about some numbers, Constance?


How much did the EU spend?

Huh, just realized this was a pit thread.
Contanze, fuck your Euroscum pretentious shithead attitude about how immoral the Americans are when they spent blood and treasure to protect your sorry ass from, get this, other Europeans! The bullshit you guys have done to each other is way worse than anything the Americans have done… well, pretty much to anyone, ever. Frankly, without the Americans and if I may be so bold to include my fellow Canadians, you’d be under the thumb of either latter-day Nazis or latter-day Soviets, so show some respect, you stupid bitch. Maybe that “give peace a chance” crap works on your fellow Eurotwits who have a friendly competition going over who can sneer the most, but fortunately there are people who have antibodies of intellect to help us resist even the most determined of stupidity infections.

You’ve given me cause to seriously regret the Pit language restrictions, because the profundity of my utter contempt would be better expressed in the bluntness of a curt and crude dismissal instead of this overly flowery prose to which I must resort, so in that small way: congratulations, bitch.

Gee, I thought much better of German schools until now. The difference between the two cases is of course obvious.

Please do not forget, constanze seems to be a German. As such, he is somehow quite capable of lecturing others on morality. After all, we have taught it to the Germans a couple of times.

I am inexplicably exhausted and not up for ranting, but I have to say that I, too, wish Obama would sign the anti-landmine treaty. Landmines are really, really bad. It’s just too fucking hard to clean them up after they’re useful to make it worth the protection they offer. They should be banned.

Also, I shit on pretentious, snooty Europeans.

There’s a very good discussion in here somewhere.

Obama should not sign the treaty. Nobody really wants the bury and forget landmines, but modern militaries need explosive devises. That’s really all a land mine is. I posted the wiki link to the claymore for a reason. It has a hell of a lot of applications when it comes to infantry combat. Yet it’s still a “mine”.

The US shouldn’t sign the treaty because the thing is just too damn broad.

Heck, next thing you know people will cobble togther some kinda crazy category under the label “assault weapons”.

Neither did Clinton.

Maybe I spoke too quickly. I’ll have to read more about it when I’m not so tired. Hell, I have to write another paper for my international security class, maybe I’ll write it on the debate over this treaty. (Probably not, though, I already have a topic. This would be a good one too, though.)

Don’t sweat it. I know you’re bright enough to realize this thing isn’t black and white. There are valid arguments both for and against (I’m against). The subject really does deserve discussion.

Good luck on your paper.


Yeah, and all Americans are jingoistic cockbags like you.

Mark my words, the Internet will be what causes World War III in the end…

You all do realize that not all European countries have signed the Ottawa treaty either? Some countries, like mine for example, depend heavily on land mines in their defense strategy.

If the internet has anything to do with World War III, it’ll be because Google’s servers became sentient and used their unparalleled searching ability to learn how to remotely launch nukes at China or North Korea or somewhere equally bad for the world.

You mark my words. If the internet has anythind to do with WWIII, Google will be involved.