They’re not out of the question – just far more expensive and less cost effective.
It would take way more American troops to have the same effect those few mine fields have.
What’s the problem with keeping the technology if you’re not going to abuse it?
It’s the same question about firearms: People (or countries) who break the law are going to do so anyway, and find ways to kill. So, banning firearms (or mines) doesn’t help those of us who use them responsibly anyway.
Believe it or not, we have trusted the UN and worked with them in the past – it’s been largely ineffective because it’s a bureaucratic mess that requires the USA, China, Russia, France and England to agree before anything can get done. And if you asked the five of them what color the sky was, you’d get 8 different answers.
Joining the ICC would surrender a level of National Sovereignty that, I personally, and many others are uncomfortable with.
But the UN is not the same as the EU.
The European Union unites a group with very limited social and cultural backgrounds – all pretty much “White guys” with Christianity as a background.
AFAIK they haven’t signed the treaty, so that says enough right there.
Oh, and for anyone who thinks that the Landmines being used in korea are of the “Child killin’” variety, please read The following.
Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices was amended on May 3, 1996 to strengthen its provisions. It extends the scope of application to cover both international and internal armed conflicts; prohibits the use of non-detectable anti-personnel mines and their transfer; prohibits the use of non-self-destructing and non-self-deactivating mines outside fenced, monitored and marked areas; broadens obligations of protection in favour of peacekeeping and other missions of the United Nations and its agencies; requires States to enforce compliance with its provisions within their jurisdiction; and calls for penal sanctions in case of violation.
All Korean mines are compliant with this.
I came in to post more or less exactly this, with the addition that the United States is a major proponent of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The fact that the Ottawa treaty is ridiculously broad and frankly unacceptable on a few levels doesn’t somehow magically make the US some sort of evil landmine spreaders.
Hey, I don’t necessarily agree that Obama is the same even on this one issue, and definitely not as a whole, but even I can see that it’s just an expression.
Well, his assumption that the correct thing to do would be to sign it, but because he’s flawed in whatever way Bush was, he won’t. It has a flawed assumption - that it’s even a good idea for Obama to sign it - and a conclusion that the reasons he did not sign it were because he shares certain flaws with Bush. Both are unfounded and hence it was a stupid statement.
The military should ALWAYS need more and newer weapons systems. That’s how they roll and why? Because newer, more sophisticated weapons mean less and less collateral damage = innocent people being killed. Further, it takes beween 3 and 6 support personnel for each fighter, that means for each infantryman that mans a .50 on the roof of a humvee, there needs to be someone to repair the humvee, someone to get the fuel for it. Then someone to haul and prepare the food the soldier has to eat and someone to deal with the waste. Finally there needs to be someone to fix him when he gets hurt, get him glasses when he can’t see, get him new equipment when his wears out and get the computer he uses to work properly.
I shouldn’t need to go on here. America has the most well-equipped and well trained fighting force in modern history. That costs money and lots of it, but even though it’s a lot, it’s still not as much as we spent on medicare/medicaid in 2008.
In as far as the treaty? Fuck that treaty and you as well if you don’t like Obama not signing it. When it makes sense for us, then we’ll do it.
[Hijack Bump]Squink, this isn’t something you can really blame on the former President Bush. When the Cold War was in full gear, working on nukes was prestigious and a way of moving up the chain of command in the USAF. I spoke with officers who handled the weapons–they considered the most important duty with in the service in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Afterwards, the weapons lost their shine as the Cold War ceased. From what I can tell ( unfortunately via anecdotes ), this started late in President Clinton’s 1st term, and gradually deteriorated over a period of years; eventually nukes became a backwater job that didn’t lead to much in the way of promotions; hence people got sloppy. It culminated in the Bent Spear incident at Minot after 15+ years of incrementally increasing neglect by the Air Force.
Full disclosure: I despised Bush and never liked Clinton–but I’ve always found it disingenuous to blame the president for what happen; but knowing full well that the blame always comes with the job. IMHO, the Air Force as an institution is fully to blame for allowing this to happen. General Curtis LeMay would have had everyones testicles on a platter within an hour if it been on his watch. Still, at least it was publicized. Very few incidents involving nuclear weapons are seldom publicized. I think this started during the Reagen administration, but I’m not totally certain; feel free to correct me. [/Hijack Bump]
Both increased the number of troops in the Middle East.
Both didn’t sign the treaty.
Politicians tend to promise all kinds of things, and then fail to deliver. Even Obama will do this.
You have truly hurt my feelings. I may or may not be a mentally deficient person with no anticipatory desire for improving myself, but I’m not currently having sex.
I’ve checked twice.
In order to maintain the proper amount of name calling, I deem you a decidedly substandard sentient being.
The term isn’t one with strict definitions - various uses of it do include Afghanistan. And this certainly isn’t a modern construct - a century ago Damascus was considered by many scholars to be in the Near East, and Kabul in the Middle East.
I am in some agreement with criticisms of these terms that they lack strict definitions and reflect a certain Eurocentric view. Be that as it may, they are in wide use and have to be dealt with from time to time.
That certainly includes the occasional inclusion of Afghanistan in the Middle East. I would say Central Asia myself, but there you go.
