Worse than the almost extinction of the Native Americans, worse than the millions of Africans who died in the Slave trade, worse than the 3 to 4 million Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam war?
Or what about the more recent interventions since WWII only, not only Vietnam, but also toppling democratic governments in South America to establish dictatorships, and training secret police there to torture people to keep the population quiet?
Only half of Europe was under the thumb of the Soviets for 40 years.
Furthemore, in order to get “Rrah, rah” points for bringing freedom and democracry, you must first undertake something for that reason, and not for self-defense. Then you can claim that legitmatly, and not use freedom as window dressing and PR.
Only that nobody said anything about total pacifism, only to realize that if war occurs, which is a bad thing, that civilised countries at least should try and keep to minimal rules and not, you know, adopt the same methods the evil guys use.
Well, actually, there is a difference. When the bad communist East Germans put landmines between the outer and the inner wall to blow up people, the West Germans didn’t follow suit and put landmines on their side to stop the infamous 1 million Soviet Army from invading.
But if you think that when Americans do it, it’s okay, but when communists do it, it’s evil, then you fail.
No, what the Americans taught us was hypocrisy: go around killing people in a war, using despiccable methods the bad guys use (like bombing civilian cities to break morale) and then claim it was for freedom and democracy, when the motivation was self-interest.
Those tanks are easy to target with shoulder fired missiles, the helicopters, planes & rockets don’t offer the ability to actually invade another country, only attack it. N. Korea’s goal isn’t simply to attack S. Korea, it’s to conquer and control it.
You cannot seize and hold territory without actually getting boots on the ground, and those mine fields are specifically to hinder that. They’re well marked and not hidden, they’re intended to funnel enemy troops into slaughter-boxes, which is to say that they’re intentionally designed to make it more difficult to invade.
Having to have N. Korea use Anti-mine armor to destroy those mines is the specific reason they’re placed – anti mine armor is slow and takes a considerable amount of time and effort to mobilize, not to mention the difficulty in doing 155 miles of it in one fast go.
The Geneva convention doesn’t dictate that you can’t kill people in gruesome ways.
It dictates that you can’t take weapons that kill/maim and intentionally make them more maim-y. You can make them more lethal, and if that makes them more maim-y, that’s fine.
For instance, hollowpoint bullets are banned because they cause worse wounds, without actually killing any better than FMJ. This is false, but that’s the context of the treaty, IIRC.
No, a land mine is not simply an explosive. An explosive is used by the pioneers to make way. It’s not used in a gruesome way to kill and maim the enemy as horribly as possible. For similar reasons, Dum-dum bullets are outlawed under the Geneva treaty.
Either you want to win at all costs, with no regard to the enemy at all. But then you don’t get to call yourselves good guys. Or you realize that war is a terrible thing that should not be entered into lightly, but only for good reason, and done in as civilsed way as possible.
A lot of countries that signed it have armies that also fight, yet they manage without claymores.
Well, Clinton wasn’t the special man for change, he was a lame guy that made a lot of bad decisions that were closer to being a Republican than a Democrat.
I’m disappointed by that. Either landmines are bad, then they should be banned. Or the US needs a special molly-coddle of being allowed to use evil weapons to protect themselves, when they already are the military largest nation, and puts them in the same bed as China and other bad countries.
Is the US too dumb or too lazy to come up with other ways to protect itself?
So if a bunch of landmines kept the frightening Soviet army of 1 million men, poised to overrun all of Western Europe at a moments notice, and in possession of many tanks and airplanes and rockets that could easily deal with them - then how come the Austrians stayed neutral? They didn’t plant landmines, not even when neighboring Ungary fell to the Soviets, they just stayed neutral.
I really didn’t know how magical landmines are, that they can protect you from all evil.
The US isn’t a policeman, it’s a bully. It goes around looking at what it covets, and then attacks, if coercion or bribery doesn’t work.
A policemen enforces the laws agreed upon by a higher authority, while the US either ignores or defies the UN (the closest authority we have on that scale).
And a real proper policman doesn’t use evil weapons, he uses a truncheon, but not a knuckle ring.
You forgot to list all the countries where you stood by and didn’t care, and all those countries where you messed up and made things worse. And all of the above are self-interest, not caring for the welfare of others.
I’ve been involved in military programs for 15 years, all kinds, all services. If you knew the precautions they take, the money they spend in stuff like chem demil, nuclear protocols, etc., it would boggle your mind. We go out of our way to protect the good guys (us and them), compared to others. The value to protecting our people that the mines bring far outweighs the costs.
[/quote]
I’ve never heard of the US military spending money on protecting the good guys. You only protect the Americans. Standard strategy is still to bomb places from above, because it saves US lives at the cost of civilians who belong to the enemy country.
All the people affected by mines would disagree with the cost.
You trust the only country that has used nuclear bombs on civilian cities? Well I don’t. Not at all. I would trust much more to remove and destroy all nuclear weapons, than to have to rely on the hope that no Bush III comes along and presses the button because God told him to.
So the Pentagon couldn’t and never has lied to people about military aspects? You seem to have missed some news recently. I wouldn’t trust anything the Pentagon says offically farther than I can throw it.
Yes, until a rain causes a mudslide that washes away the fence and the markers. Or the americans leave because the war is over, but don’t spend the money on removing them, and the fence falls away because the poor country doesn’t have the money for proper removal.
Really, landmines to funnel troops? You have no other better methods than using something that will still be dangerous to the next generation?
You know, every time you or anyone else spouts this nonsense, I feel compelled to refute it. I have known, served under and/or am related to many, many officers in the US Army, from lieutenants on up through general officers (my Father was a major general), and almost to a man (and I’m talking about a sample size of well over a hundred people here), everything you just said is completely false.
Only retired, non-defense contracted military brass tells the truth? Really?
Active ones are trying to accumulate power, huh? Not to my knowledge. Sure, there’s a little hubris there amongst the higher-ranking officers, whom are all well-educated men, but every general, colonel, lieutenant colonel, major or captain (the only officer ranks capable of command at the company level or greater) that I have ever known cares more about the safety of their men than they do “accumulating power”. There’s no Macarthurs anymore and Westmoreland is dead, gonzo. Even the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are answerable to civilian leaders in Congress and the President, as well as SecDef, Asst SecDef, etc. You’re way off base here. You know whom is considered one of the worst offenders as an overly-ambitious, asshole, hubris-filled, d-bag modern-era general officer? Why, the left’s darling Wes Clark, of course. he is a supreme asshole. I could cull some stories about him dating all the way back to his being a classmate of my Dad’s and some family friends at USMC all the way through his military career. Now there was a guy that cared only about self-aggrandizement and his career first, his men second.
Get promoted? Well shit…who doesn’t want to get promoted? You have to get promoted at some point during your military career or you just aren’t very good at your job and you will be forcibly retired because of it. There’s more pay in promotions, too…which is something junior officers should aspire to, since junior officer pay is shit.
Build a huge retirement you say? Really? My Dad graduated from West Point in 1963. He has a Master’s Of Science from Illinois. He was in the Army Corps of Engineers for 36 years. He served two tours in Vietnam. He worked his ass off. He missed a lot of time with my Mom, brother and I growing up, all sacrifices he made in order to serve his country. He was the first officer in my family to attain general officer rank. He retired in 1999 even though he was in line for the Chief Of Engineers job, which would have given him another star (would have been his third) and an increase in pay. The reason? Politics! He got sick and tired of appropriations committees, congresspeople and their ilk for their constant beratement of funding for the Corps of Engineers during peacetime projects…like digging reservoirs, building bridges and maintaining waterways!
Do you know how much money my Dad was making a year as a major general in 1999? About $120k a year. Sure, that’s nice pay and all…but he had to serve you, me and our government for 36 fucking years to make that. And his retirement pay is 2/3rds of that for the rest of his life. He’s earned it, wouldn’t you say? He could have easily retired earlier and gone into the civilian workforce and quadrupled his pay as a civil engineer (which he briefly did as the director of public works and transportation for Montgomery County MD for a few years after retirement…but that was another government job…just somewhat higher paying.
And finally, the more troops thing. OK. Do you know why General Shinseki retired? Do you know whom he is? Any idea why the generals in Afghanistan (or even in Vietnam) were/are crying for more troops? Because they almost never get the troop levels they tell civilian leadership they require in order to properly accomplish a mission that was ordered by politicians in the first place! Its the politicians that don’t listen to the military people with experience more often than not.
So all the mines the US laid in the past are of this modern variety? And the technology that promises all those things has been tried, and will be used? But we only have your word for it that you can, and will do.
No knucklehead; we’re not talking about mines from 50 years ago. And we’re not talking about shooting grape shot out of ship-based cannons, nor are we talking about shooting flaming balls over the city walls out of a catapult.
Are you actually that ignorant or are you just taking a position so you have something to argue about?
This treaty, for all intents and purposes, would cover stuff in use now. Not 50 years ago.
No. The humanitarian response that comes from private charities is not related to the actions of your government; and the offical government response is 90% of the time PR or self-service (some state charities “spend” 100$ to send corn or grain to Africa by giving 40% to the US farmer and 50$ to the US shipping company. Some help for the Africans!)
And the way the US “secures” the planet actually makes it more dangerous. If the US had done a better job in Afghanistan the first time, the whole suffering under the Taliban could have been avoided. But because the US only cared about hurting the Soviets, not about helping the Afghans, they trained the extremist fundies, who then took power and erected a dictatorship.
As for Kim Jong Il - if the US hadn’t attacked Iraq without reason, the world would be far more secure. Now all other dictatorships are on edge ready to strike because they see that negoitiating with the US and giving in to their requests (Saddam allowing inspections, so the US smuggled spies in there, Sadddam giving up his weapons, so the US faked reports of WMDs, …) DOES NOT work, and if they are going to be attacked anyway, they will rather go out with a bang.
And the uneven trade treaties and meddling in countries have made sure that too many people are poor, too many countries are in civil strife or were dictatorships, with many people angry and knowing how to fight and ready to go. That’s not helping secure the planet, that’s filling the powder barrell.
No, everybody hates the rich bully that got and stays rich by keeping under nations under his thumb (through one-sided trade treaties and import tariffs and similar), who meddles and overturns govt. in other countries in order to please it’s own corporations, who lies and lies and lies to other countries, esp. the less educated ones, to get one-sided favours, and who invades and makes war against other countries without giving a shit about dead foreigners, only about dead Americans. Like building a big monument for a quarter million dead soldiers - who could have denied service if they were serious - but not mentioning once the 3 to 4 million dead Vietnamese, many of whom were civilians, plus the many more afflicted from the Agent Orange, the Napalm etc.
Also, the general attitude, that life and trade is a zero sum game played for short time, thus trying everything possible to screw the other side, instead of realizing that both sides can win, and long-term benefits are far better.
And the general indifference to other people’s suffering.
Don’t worry…the word of Kim Jong Il is so much more believable. And despite your assertions regarding the ability of the North Koreans to attack the South in spite of clearly marked and/or fenced in and well-placed minefields…well, sure.
One key thing though…you need infantry to take/hold territory. You can launch all the fancy ordinance you like, lob artillery for weeks, bomb the shit out of a place with planes…you still need boots on the ground to hold/occupy it.
Large minefields that are strategically placed to stop or hinder troop movements are a pretty effective tactic. At worst its a costly speedbump for the invading forces. While minesweeping vehicles and tanks and such are trying to dispose of the mines, it leaves them very vulnerable to counterattack.
If my understanding is correct, it is the Korea issue that is preventing us from joining this accord against landmines…and the reason there is that we’re the only country other than South Korea that has any stake in the affair anyway.
And if the landmine ban includes useful, non-buried mines such as Claymores, then its a dealbreaker anyway. Those mines are above ground and triggered remotely or with trip wires. If you surround your troop encampment with them and you aren’t attacked before you move again, you pick them up and take them with you. They are not landmines as you may be thinking of them.
It’s well agreed upon that using those nuclear weapons actually ended the war far sooner, and saved lives – both American and Japanese.
Still willfully ignorant, I see.
They’re not dangerous to the next generation, the majority of them automatically diffuse after a given period without signal from an outside source.
So because all of those mines in the past were of one variety, the less advanced kind, we should ban all of the new variety?
And your, mostly false and completely idiotic shpiel is why many Americans hate foreigners.
They assume, much like you, that the people on the other side are all the same. That because the vocal douches like you are in the majority. You should, if you payed any attention to history at all, know that what you’re talking about happens less often than you seem to think, but because you jump to conclusions and then search for facts to back them up you rant on like the deranged and uninformed asshole that you are.
I’m pretty sure even the next ten generations of Koreans will know that the 38th parallel is a dangerous place. For them not to know that, they’d have to be as stupid and ignorant of reality as, well, you.