Obama won't sign international land mine ban.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Wotan31, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-administration-wont-sign-land-ban/?test=latestnews


     
  2. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #2
    That is disgraceful.

    I really expected better from this administration.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Agreed this is outrageous.
     
  4. CarlisleUnited macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Location:
    Nederland
    #4
    Why would you not sign up to such an agreement? I get the impression (I could be wrong, don't hesitate to prove me wrong) that Obama is very hesitant when it comes to make any decisions when it comes to anything to do with war and recovery.
     
  5. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    Nothing much more to say, awful and a huge disappointment.
     
  6. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #6
    I thought that US plan had always been 2009 - making this a change from Bush-era policy.

    As far as holding out, I can sort of understand the other countries doing so. Pakistan, India, and China hate each other enough that using landmines is likely the biggest deterrent to even minimal border crossings; Russia is paranoid; and Burma is governed by idiots who deserve to follow in the footsteps of Mussolini.

    I suppose the administration is holding back with the intention of ensuring that all options are always available, but I would have signed this more readily than a nuclear reduction treaty.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    I suspect that the other countries holding out are probably doing so at least partially because the US isn't signing up.
     
  8. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #8
    What if he is faced with a decision that doesn't offer the luxurious option of months to render?
     
  9. CarlisleUnited macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Location:
    Nederland
    #9
    That's what I getting at, his lack of decision making is costing many British lives. I don't know what the hold up is all about...
     
  10. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    huh? :confused:
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    Maybe he's talking about Afghanistan...
     
  12. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #12
    I imagine that this is a very technical decision that revolves around the Korean Peninsula. As best I understand, there is a process of terminating the War Reserve Stocks for Allies in Korea concerning antipersonnel mines, where the US will cease using them in 2010.

    The US hasn't used a victim activated landmine since 1991; the US doesn't export them to countries; and the US is the largest donor state to cleanup projects.

    I severely doubt countries that are also not signatories will come around if the US decided to sign. The nations that the US has leverage with, by and large, are already signatories.

    The US will eventually come around on this particular issue, and this appears to be more outrage than it really deserves.

    I would rather have the US give $80 million a year on average to cleanup mines than take that number down to $0 and sign a ban.
     
  13. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #13
    See DrudgeReport: http://www.drudgereport.com/

    Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan
    Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.
    James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden
    Published: 9:00PM GMT 24 Nov 2009
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...criticises-Barack-Obama-over-Afghanistan.html
    Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban. A “period of hiatus” in Washington - and a lack of clear direction - had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said. Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns. But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

    ~

    The Chicago clown took more than a year of decision to get his kids a puppy and four months now to supply our own the troops resources. Of course the Brits see this for the clear weakness that it is...
     
  14. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #14
    I took a note of the other countries holding out and there is a pattern. The Number 1 and 2 military powers of the world did not sign it.
    Land minds are an effective base defense providing when the bases closes they mines are removed.
     
  15. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #15
    Interesting points.
     
  16. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    Bob Ainsworth and our entire defence in general is a bit of a joke. You think your troops have equipment problems, it's nothing like ours. Bob and his buddies will be looking for any excuse to relieve themselves of some blame.

    The whole war is a disastrous mess. No one knows what to do, and I'd rather those in control did sit and consider all options before making any more knee jerk reactions and making things worse.

    Obama isn't killing our troops, an ill-conceived war is. A war he had nothing to do with starting.
     
  17. OriginalFormula macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    #17
    True, but some sort of statement against the proliferation of landmines would have been nice. The continued policy of landmine usage is a strike against this overall-good administration.
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    dissapointing ... i expect obama to do better

    and while the US doesn't produce anti personal landmines currently they still have one of the biggest stock piles of the world
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    All of the other countries who have a military worth a damn didn't sign on either.

    I would love to hear how many countries with less than 300k troops signed on to this, because thats probably all there is.

    Its about the equivalent of me signing off on not buying $20 million dollar private jets if all of the rich people will sign also to save the environment.
     
  20. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20

    Do you ever tell the truth? Your hatred of Obama isn't healthy.

    Obama has already sent additional troops to Afghanistan, it was linked for you yesterday.

    Obama promised his girls a dog once they moved into and were settled in the White House. Of course, they had to make sure they got the right breed as one of his daughters is allergic to dogs.

    If you want to go after him for this, then go after him for originally saying he would adopt a rescue dog.
     
  21. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    Why are we talking about dogs?? Who cares if it took him 1, 2, or 5 years to get them a dog, some parents don't let their kid have a dog at all, and its not like he didn't have anything more important to work on. :rolleyes:
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #22
    Unacceptable. There is absolutely no need to keep landmines in use. They are one of most most horrific and cowardly of weapons.

    I really can't envisage a reason not to sign up unless there were some ridiculous stipulations.
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    This is about North Korea, thats why Obama couldnt sign it.
     
  24. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #24
    Also they likely feel that since it isn't normal policy to use them either, they shouldn't have to sign and immediately be hit with the cost of disposing them.

    Should probably be a bit more worried about their cluster bomb policy. Since unexploded bomblets are far more likely to cause harm than a landmine the US used.
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    Some nations don't like to fight with their hands tied behind their back, especially when they are doing the majority of the fighting around the world.

    Sniper rifles, missiles, bombs are all pretty cowardly as you won't see them coming...
     

Share This Page