I don’t know what your cites are supposed to show - one is a generic piece on old land mines, and the other is an article about an atomic land mine that we clearly aren’t using.
The US has not laid any dumb mines for a long time and doesn’t do it anymore. They do have mines that can be buried to secure things, but they’re remotely controlled and automatically detonate or deactivate in the event that they lose communication with their controller. Regarding atomic mines - do you think we’re still laying those?
The point of the treaty is to get rid of mines that can lay dormant for years and cause unintended injuries - but it isn’t written in a way that would only ban those munitions. The US already doesn’t use the sort of mines that ban was intended to outlaw, hence no point in the US signing the treaty when they would suffer the consequences of overly broadly written language that didn’t apply to the original intent of the contract.
As far as Kyoto - it specifically permits developing nations to throw as much carbon in the atmosphere as they want, while at the same time restricting the carbon emissions of first world countries. That in effect raises the cost of production in first world countries and further incentivizes moving away manufacturing from the first world to the third world - where their inferior pollution controls means more pollution.
Besides which, none of the countries really intend to abide by the Kyoto treaty - it was a nice gesture, and they’ll make some token carbon reductions, but they weren’t going to seriously aim at hitting it. Whereas in the US, the constitution gives treaties a very serious, very powerful meaning and we’d be forced to abide by it, making us less competitive against even other first world countries.
Forget any beef Latro may have had with december. Why are you answering a nine-year old question from a now-banned poster as though the poster is still here to see the answer?
But yes, you’re right that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq.