U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
boo
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/ ... index.html
U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides
From Charley Keyes, CNN Senior Producer
November 24, 2009 6:05 p.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- The United States won't join its NATO allies and many other countries in formally banning landmines, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said during his midday briefing Tuesday.
"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect," Kelly said in response to a question. "We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention."
Opponents of the U.S. landmine policy said they were surprised.
"It is a disturbing development," said Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch. "The administration never said a policy review was under way."
Goose said the decision to leave the policy in place is at odds with the administration's professed commitments to international agreements and humanitarian issues.
"The international treaty against landmines has made a a huge difference and it is a very strong deterrent," Goose said. "It has to have been a very fast and cursory review."
The United States will attend an international conference on landmines next week in Cartagena, Colombia, sending an inter-agency delegation from the State and Defense departments as observers.
Kelly said the United States continues to work with governments as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to help remove landmines.
"The U.S. is proud to be the world's single largest supporter of humanitarian mine action," Kelly said. "Since 1993 the U.S. has provided more than $1.5 billion worldwide dedicated to building new partnerships with more than 50 post-conflict countries and supporting efforts by dozens of NGOs to promote stability and set the stage for recovery and development through mine clearance and conventional-weapons destruction programs."
The United States is the only member of NATO that will not sign the landmine treaty, Goose said. Russia and China also have not joined the 156 nations that have endorsed the ban, he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/ ... index.html
U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides
From Charley Keyes, CNN Senior Producer
November 24, 2009 6:05 p.m. EST
Washington (CNN) -- The United States won't join its NATO allies and many other countries in formally banning landmines, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said during his midday briefing Tuesday.
"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect," Kelly said in response to a question. "We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention."
Opponents of the U.S. landmine policy said they were surprised.
"It is a disturbing development," said Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch. "The administration never said a policy review was under way."
Goose said the decision to leave the policy in place is at odds with the administration's professed commitments to international agreements and humanitarian issues.
"The international treaty against landmines has made a a huge difference and it is a very strong deterrent," Goose said. "It has to have been a very fast and cursory review."
The United States will attend an international conference on landmines next week in Cartagena, Colombia, sending an inter-agency delegation from the State and Defense departments as observers.
Kelly said the United States continues to work with governments as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to help remove landmines.
"The U.S. is proud to be the world's single largest supporter of humanitarian mine action," Kelly said. "Since 1993 the U.S. has provided more than $1.5 billion worldwide dedicated to building new partnerships with more than 50 post-conflict countries and supporting efforts by dozens of NGOs to promote stability and set the stage for recovery and development through mine clearance and conventional-weapons destruction programs."
The United States is the only member of NATO that will not sign the landmine treaty, Goose said. Russia and China also have not joined the 156 nations that have endorsed the ban, he said.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
what a fucking joke....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
let's pretend that spending more money than any other nation (1.5 billion in the last 15 years), to assist with mine clearance, and cleaning up the mess, makes us awesome and the good guys.
how about showing support for the other countries that agree this is wrong, and let's do the sane thing and not make a mess to start with.
wouldn't that be simpler?
seriously though, with every post you make, you expose yourself as possibly the least well informed poster in the history of the train. and that is not easy to do.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i am completely perplexed and astonished by this decision.... :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
because apparently if we banned landmines "we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies"
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
even so, how will landmines meet our national defense needs? considering they are all placed in countries other than our own..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
says the least informed poster on the board... and potentially the only one that agree with him on this issue and thinks landmines are fine, just like torturing terrorists. the irony...
Because with anything, there is more too this story then we are ever going to know to form any kind of opinion.
The "military industrial complex" has been on a decline for a while, get ready to see some massive cut backs on the next BRAC, and more contracts slashed with in the coming years.
wasn't the "military industrial complex" at least partly to blame for our hard-on for the wars in iraq and afghanistan? those companies made record windfall profits from our lack of a strategy and our willingness to pay companies like blackwater 5 times what a US soldier makes and KBR $300 for a hammer and $500 for a damn toilet seat WITHOUT GETTING COMPETING BIDS? sounds like some pretty big influence to me....
if the pentagon budget and these contracts get slashed its about 8 years too late, and frankly i will be stunned if that happens, considering that obama has gone from "change we can believe in" to "bush lite"...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Until North Korea becomes less of a concern, I can't say I disagree too much with Obama, Bush & Clinton on this.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/79/landmines
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
nevermind effort, we all must heed the urgent call of 'meh, maybe someday' that was his campaign slogan, right?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
is there something in your link that says landmines are good? ... the initial part up top just reaffirms my belief that these things are unnecessary and in fact do more for civilian devastation than defense ...
for the same reasons why the US do not participate in ANY weapons (nuclear or otherwise) - this landmine ban shows what US priorities are ... $$$
Nope.
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
I don't think they're losing influence-- just the opposite, actually. I think this is a classic example of the landmine manufacturers having more influence ($) than whatever company that could come and and gain a contract to remove landmines.
I know someone that has several patents for technology that would have saved American lives in the battlefield right now from IEDs. It is robotic technology that disarms bombs with a laser-- I've seen his video demonstration of it all, and it's very interesting stuff. He has signed contracts with the army and has been pushing to get this stuff manufactured and in the field for years. He has given speaking engagements and demonstrations at the pentagon, and he just keeps getting the yellow and red light from the Dept. of Defense-- all the while, people are losing limbs and lives out there. Four years later, he's still no farther than when he started. Bottomline: stuff NEEDS to get blown up for a very small group of businesses out there to profit immensely-- his ideas only get in the way. The other day, he said to me, "They can ram through any piece of legislation they want, and allocate billions of dollars at a time for any purpose at all, including 'stimulus'-- but they can't push through some small, effective, and inexpensive machinery to help out the troops." Sadly, it's true-- the lives of the soldiers are not important enough when there is money to be made.
He's Joe Schmoe with a great idea-- not Lockheed Martin with some incredibly wasteful ideas, and that's why he will only continue to be strung along, waiting for the green light that's never going to come, or come far too late.
Very good points Vinny. it is very disheartening to me to know that there is technology to protect soldiers from IEDS and it is being sandbagged by the powers that be. the saddest thing is that maybe if he sold the idea to lockheed martin it might gain some traction....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
From a business standpoint, he probably should have sold his patents long ago, cashed out, and should be chillin' on an island somewhere-- but he loves this stuff. He had opportunities to sell it to private companies (not sure if lockheed was one of them) a few times-- what he really wanted out of the deal was employment, to be able to stay on board with a company and continue to be paid for his inventions for life, all while having the ability to keep his patents. He came really close to inking a deal with one company, but it would have involved screwing over some of his investors / fellow developers big time-- he did have some help with his designs, and with the money to design them... He couldn't bring himself to do it, and blew the opportunity of a lifetime because of loyalty. It has cost him numerous "regular" jobs from the constant "HURRY UP AND WAIT" circle-jerk that he kept being put through. Again, very sad.
The problem with selling these ideas to big businesses is that they can buy the patent just to sit on them. How many patents do you think GM, Ford, and every other automaker are sitting on right now that had the potential to put them or their friends in the oil industry, who probably hold large portions of the automaker's stock out of business? Maybe OIL themselves are sitting on the solution to the combustion engine right now? We probably will never know.
What's worse is, since he is currently directly involved with the military, none of his patents are any longer listed or searchable on the government patents site-- they are his, but aren't his at the same time right now. If they really wanted, I'm sure they could claim them as their own and pretend that he never had anything to do with them. You really can't beat these people, no matter how hard you try.
It's all about fire prevention. Stop the wars before they start. Once they start, there is no ending them. We've been fighting steady since World War II, and until more people wake and realize WHY, it is not going to stop.
That might not be a bad idea... I will ask him.
The reason, quite simply, is that by agreeing to ban land-mines, you also effectively ban cluster bombs. The military thinks these are neat, and from a military perspective they are. Superb for destroying air-strips, and for dropping lots of smaller bombs over a wide area. A sizable portion of these do not explode on impact, leaving bomblets lying around as de facto land mines. I remember we had some of these grenades in the artillery when I was conscripted in the army. We rarely fired them, partly because they were a mess to clear up afterwards.
There is no moral arguement here. They are horrible weapons due to the undetonated bomblets they scatter around, BUT they have "military value" so the US will never agree to stop using them, as any other weapon they find a use for.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Guess Mel Brooks was right... it's good to be the king. :(
All ths link says about North Korea is that the US wants to maintain their use in the demilitarized zone.
Where is the logic in that? Are they worried about north Korean terrorists? Or a land invasion from the North?
Do you think this threat warrants littering miles of land with indiscrimminate, hidden bombs? What are you 'not disagreeing' with too much?
Info in CJMST3K's link says landmines are not currently manufactured in the US (?). I'd bet Dan has it right with the proxy technology. They probably won't sign it because the language doesn't allow them to play with their newer toys either.
not to mention how many lives could've been saved by technology already being used like body armor and armor plating for their vehicles....
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
yes, dan makes a great point as a basic landmine makes no sense relating to the statement about not being able to meet our national defense and security commitments and i seriously doubt it was landmines all these years that kept north korea from invading
cluster bombs, DU weaponry, DIME weaponry, white phosphorous....all should be banned weapons in my opinion
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'