Bush Refuses to Sign Global Landmine Treaty..

[dropoutdave 0]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0228-03.htm

It really does come as no surprise.


By the way, how do you make a the link shorter? Ive seen ones that just say Clicky?

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[Lee03 0]

No, it's no surprise, and I'm glad that he refused to sign it! All signing it would do would be to hamstring the U.S., because most of the other countries that sign it would only ignore it and keep on using the mines as if this treaty didn't exist!

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[pajarito 0]

You'd hamstring the spec ops troops out there too. We use them for self protection.

[Muenkel 0]

I hope he doesn't get haunted by the ghost of Princess Diana.

That's because I rather she haunt me.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[LouDiamond 1]

Why not dig a little deeper and see how many Prior US Presidents also refused to sign it. It bridges both political parties and there is a reason why none of them have agreed to it. Do a little research and find out why.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It really does come as no surprise.

Excerpts from your own referenced story:

"The United States has not used these weapons since 1991, and has not produced them since 1997."

"Washington promised to boost funding for global anti-mine activities for 2005 by 50 percent over 2003 levels."

"landmines with timing devices are relatively safe and "have some continuing utility for our armed forces around the world", reported the Associated Press. Those so-called "smart mines" are programmed to self-destruct after a certain period, unlike conventional ("persistent") landmines. The United States will begin destroying its persistent mines in 2006 with a goal to eliminate them by 2010"

"Human Rights Watch's HRW's Mary Wareham said... that although the United States had not signed the treaty, "in our minds (Washington) was doing all the right things".

"It sets a bad example for the 40-odd nations that have not signed the treaty, said Wareham." (In other words, the U.S. is not alone in rejecting this treaty.)

* * * *

White House press briefing quote:

Q Scott, the previous administration had pledged to end the use of all antipersonnel land mines, including self-destructing land mines, by 2003. And it also pledged to sign the Ottawa treaty banning land mines by 2006. Why did the President go back on those pledges?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, let me point out to you, this is a strong step forward in our efforts to eliminate a serious humanitarian problem. The policy that was announced today is a comprehensive strategy for addressing the use of land mines. And unlike any previous land mine policy, it covers all persistent land mines, or long-lasting land mines, would be another way to refer to it -- both antipersonnel and antivehicle. So it goes beyond previous land mine policy in that regard.

Q But the previous administration had pledged to sign the Ottawa treaty by 2006, and I just wonder, what did this administration -- what did the President see as flawed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the previous administration did not agree at the time to participate in the Ottawa agreement. This administration has stated the same, as well.

Q But the previous administration had pledged to end the use of all persistent land mines -- all land mines, including the so-called self-destructing ones. This administration wants to keep using those land mines. Can you explain that a little bit?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me talk about -- sure, absolutely. When you're talking about using our military to address some of the dangerous threats that we face, it's important that they have certain resources available, not only to protect our troops and save their lives, but to save the lives of civilians. You're talking about smart land mines, now. That is not the issue here when it comes to the humanitarian problem that is posed by land mines.

I would remind you that the United States is a leader in confronting this issue and eliminating this humanitarian problem. The State Department funding for the United States Humanitarian Mine Action program will be increased by an additional 50 percent above the fiscal year '03 levels, to $70 million a year. That's significantly more than any other country. So the United States is providing strong leadership to eliminate the humanitarian problem that exists from persistent land mines.

* * * *

Now that casts a whole different light on the situation, compared to what you tried to imply with your subject title and personal comment.

Oh, and those land mines are also one of the things that keeps North Korea from invading South Korea, involving the U.S. in a war that would cost many thousands of American casualties. Do you want to put U.S. troops in jeopardy there?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Why not dig a little deeper and see how many Prior US Presidents also refused to sign it.

Yes, the brave Mr. Clinton grabbed this bull by the horns and agreed to get rid of them at a date after he was out of office. He didn't have the guts to do it himself. He saddled some future President with the issue.

So if Bush is evil for not signing it, then I guess Clinton is evil too, for also not doing anything about it.

[quade 4]

Quote

Yes, the brave Mr. Clinton grabbed this bull by the horns and agreed to get rid of them at a date after he was out of office. He didn't have the guts to do it himself. He saddled some future President with the issue.

You mean Presidents pass on issues to their successors?!?

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

No President that I can think of would ever run up a deficit or pass along the issues of Social Security or Medicare.

Oh, wait . . . scratch that.

Almost every President tries to get the benefits in their term while passing along the costs or consequences to others. Name ANY that haven't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[gary350 0]

Quote

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0228-03.htm

It really does come as no surprise.

You won't find too many folks more disgusted or angry with the Bush administration than me.

That said, I actually thought the decisions here were fairly balanced and nicely out-of-character with the normal reactionary right-wing arrogance of this administration.

Maybe it's just that my cynicism meter has maxed out, or that my expectations for Bush/Rove have bottomed out, but I really think this could have been worse.

[koz2000 1]

As Pajarito mentioned SpecOps guys use them for protection. These are mines that destroy themselves after a short time. Also the claymore is considered part of these mines. This has been a staple in perimeter defense, and are only setoff by command det. (unless rigged otherwise).

______________________________________________
- Does this small canopy make my balls look big? - J. Hayes -

[bshl 0]

As heinous as indiscriminate mining when pulling out is, I think this is a good thing. My understanding is that signing this would eliminate our ability to use claymores and that's not an option. In either an offensive or defensive role, they're too important a weapon to even consider removing them from our inventory.

Blue skies and happy landings!

[crzjp20 0]

like said befoer if we signed it we wouldl be the only country to follow the rules of it. And claymores are preaty cool, first time i trained with them i was fastinated.... anyways.....

Blue Skys

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

like said befoer if we signed it we wouldl be the only country to follow the rules of it. And claymores are preaty cool, first time i trained with them i was fastinated.... anyways.....

Blue Skys

Really? You think Canada or Norway or the UK would violate the treaty?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crzjp20 0]

ok so an over exageriation.... nothing more. No offence just making an example....

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[goose491 0]

This is one case where I have to side with the U.S... much to mine own suprise I might add.

landmines with timing devices are relatively safe and "have some continuing utility for our armed forces around the world"

I tend to beleive this coming from the states (althought it contradicts the fact that the country has not used them since 1991 personally, I think that's a croc).

The thing about land mines is that they don't generally cause a threat to the innocent until the battle is long over and the fields have been left armed and forgotten.

I put much faith in the States that when mines are used, it is well-known that they are present. Also, I beleive that when the States pull out of an area, they spend a great deal of time, effort and funds to disarm them.

So the issue is really one of the double-standard.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Ron 10]

Quote

Really? You think Canada or Norway or the UK would violate the treaty?

Maybe not them, but how about you list all the other nations that have landmies as well..

You think Iraq, the pakis, N. Korea....Ect would?

Cool thing about the Geniva Convention...Few follow it...And if you listen to some not even the US.

This is one area you don't know about John.

I'll side with the folks that have carried weapons in battle, not just designed them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Really? You think Canada or Norway or the UK would violate the treaty?

Maybe not them, but how about you list all the other nations that have landmies as well..

You think Iraq, the pakis, N. Korea....Ect would?

Cool thing about the Geniva Convention...Few follow it...And if you listen to some not even the US.

This is one area you don't know about John.

I'll side with the folks that have carried weapons in battle, not just designed them.

What part of "the only country to follow the rules" was not clear?

But then, you also had a problem with "We know where they are."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm another buy who can't stand Bush (I know...you're all shocked), but don't have a big problem with this. I believe that we use them responsibly, are responsible for cleaning up most of the ones other counrties leave around, and most importantly.....what else did that treaty say? I doubt it was a single line saying we won't use landmines anymore. I'll bet there were other kinds of restrictions, penalties, etc. they may not have been in our best interest to agree to.

Also, it's nice to see him at least just flat out refusing to sign a new treaty as opposed to his past actions of violating those that we already signed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

What part of "the only country to follow the rules" was not clear?

But then, you also had a problem with "We know where they are."

And you have a problem with the definiton of a LIE.

I could explain it again...But Im tired or explaining things to a guy who should be smart enough to know the difference between a lie, and being wrong.

But saying "He was wrong" is not as much fun as saying "He is a liar" I guess.

Durring my short stint in the Army...Every opposition we were trained for...NONE of them followed the "rules of war".

You have no idea how some of these weapons are VERY important to our forces...Have you ever SEEN a Claymore?

They are very cool, and very effective....And they would have been outlawed by this piece of tripe treaty.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Luv2Fall 0]

Excuse me while I pass out.

[PhillyKev 0]

Well....it only took him 3 years to do something for me to agree with. And of course, it's actually him NOT doing something that I don't agree with. Can't be sure if he did it on purpose or just forgot how to spell his name.

[Luv2Fall 0]

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

What part of "the only country to follow the rules" was not clear?

But then, you also had a problem with "We know where they are."

And you have a problem with the definiton of a LIE.

I could explain it again...But Im tired or explaining things to a guy who should be smart enough to know the difference between a lie, and being wrong.

But saying "He was wrong" is not as much fun as saying "He is a liar" I guess.

.

Since you bring up the subject of his lies, how did you like this example of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=950455#950455

The initial cuts in benefits were announced the SAME F**KING DAY he made the speech at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

I thought you were a physics professor. Doesn't quantum theory state something along the lines that every possible situation happens concurrently? So, he wasn't lying, he was just talking about circumstances in an alternate universe.

[gary350 0]

>You have no idea how some of these weapons are VERY important to our forces...Have you ever SEEN a Claymore?

Look Ron, just because we're liberal or progressive or whatever, doesn't mean we don't know our weapons, and I resent any implication otherwise!

I happen to know all about Claymores - they are large Scottish broadswords, with the blade modified to explode out in one direction. The blade is marked "This Side Toward Enemy (The English)"