Destino Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Is this thread breaking the rules... it looks like we are using a Drudge report headline maybe? The articles title is "U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides". I guess someone is still butt hurt that the guy that started two wars and refused to defuse any situation without the threat of war didn't win a peace prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Is this thread breaking the rules... it looks like we are using a Drudge report headline maybe? The articles title is "U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides". I guess someone is still butt hurt that the guy that started two wars and refused to defuse any situation without the threat of war didn't win a peace prize. Good point. But maybe somebody is pointing out that the guy who won a peace prize, continued one war, stepped another up and started a third is now refusing to stop using nondiscriminatory munitions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Deploying landmines for defensive purposes isn't the problem; failing to remove landmines is the problem. I don't have a problem with the United States military using landmines because, at least in the recent past, it removes the landmines after they have served their useful purpose.EDIT: Obama just can't win with some people. Had he signed the treaty, people on the right would have blasted him for placing our soldiers' lives at risk. Now that he has opted not to sign the treaty, people on the right blast him for being a hypocrite (see, e.g., the thread title). For the record - word for word, this is the best post in the thread so far. Several additional posts are a close second imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Good point. But maybe somebody is pointing out that the guy who won a peace prize, continued one war, stepped another up and started a third is now refusing to stop using nondiscriminatory munitions? Continued? The time line to exit Iraq is in place (Obama created it on the campaign trail and Bush adopted it after Iraq liked it). Stepped up a war? This remains to be seen but likely. Started a third? Feel free to explain that. Refusing? True. All in all you made fair points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Continued? Iraq and everybody said they were working on the time line and even Bush. Stepped up a war?Afghanistan. Started a third? Pakistan daily bombing raids started under Obama Refusing? Land mines are just straight ****ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Pakistan daily bombing raids started under Obama. Drone attacks into Pakistan were going on long before Pres. Obama took office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Deploying landmines for defensive purposes isn't the problem; failing to remove landmines is the problem. I don't have a problem with the United States military using landmines because, at least in the recent past, it removes the landmines after they have served their useful purpose.EDIT: Obama just can't win with some people. Had he signed the treaty, people on the right would have blasted him for placing our soldiers' lives at risk. Now that he has opted not to sign the treaty, people on the right blast him for being a hypocrite (see, e.g., the thread title). I am perfectly happy with Obama's decision and as you have seen, I have not bashed him on it. I think he made the correct choice. Land mine use is a great option for commanders, especially in these times where we demand our military to do more with less troops and fewer and fewer casualties. I like our maneuver commanders having both the offensive and defensive options that FASCAM's and other mines give us. All of our landmines self destruct after a set amount of time. I would also hate to see our infantry guys loose the use of Claymores as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky72 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 EDIT: Obama just can't win with some people. Had he signed the treaty, people on the right would have blasted him for placing our soldiers' lives at risk. Now that he has opted not to sign the treaty, people on the right blast him for being a hypocrite (see, e.g., the thread title). Of course he can't win with some people. But call me crazy, I was under the impression when voting for him that the people who'd be upset with him would be the pro-land mine, pro-illegal wiretaps, pro-state secrets, pro-war escalation side. I'm pretty sure he's still a liberal, but he sure isn't acting and legislating like it. This particular issue has decent arguments from both sides, but yes, I expect him to generally lead as a liberal on most issues. I'm not a Democrat because I don't trust any party, but am a liberal. As one I do have respect for Reagan and even Bush, because even if I disagreed with them on many issues, they had the balls to stick by their ideologies. Democrats though roll over and don't use their power as they should. Or are outright liars and only care about reelection. Maybe it's time for another sabbatical from following politics, I'm starting to get depressed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Deploying landmines for defensive purposes isn't the problem; failing to remove landmines is the problem. I don't have a problem with the United States military using landmines because, at least in the recent past, it removes the landmines after they have served their useful purpose.EDIT: Obama just can't win with some people. Had he signed the treaty, people on the right would have blasted him for placing our soldiers' lives at risk. Now that he has opted not to sign the treaty, people on the right blast him for being a hypocrite (see, e.g., the thread title). You know what? That's an excellent post, and sums up what is, to me, something much better than some silly "promise" to not use land mines - except, of course, when a significant national threat is realized, in which case I'd be stunned to see the politician who would foresake landmines if they could be part of a significant military advantage, and thusly part of saving "thousands of our troops." (I'm talking conventional war here, not what we've been fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan.) Removing the landmines that once served a purpose during wartime is better than, um, "pledging" not to use them at all, which, to me, reeks of one of those international agreements that's nice until it's inconvenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Deploying landmines for defensive purposes isn't the problem; failing to remove landmines is the problem. I don't have a problem with the United States military using landmines because, at least in the recent past, it removes the landmines after they have served their useful purpose.EDIT: Obama just can't win with some people. Had he signed the treaty, people on the right would have blasted him for placing our soldiers' lives at risk. Now that he has opted not to sign the treaty, people on the right blast him for being a hypocrite (see, e.g., the thread title). And he just can't lose with some people. That is kind of the point. Although there are at least a few "Obama Supporters" that have posted they disagree with the decision. And plenty of people that I suspect did not vote for him that applaud the decision. Both are refreshing to see. You said "in the recent past it removes the landmines"...which war/conflict are you speaking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Is this thread breaking the rules... it looks like we are using a Drudge report headline maybe? The articles title is "U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides". I guess someone is still butt hurt that the guy that started two wars and refused to defuse any situation without the threat of war didn't win a peace prize. You would be "butt wrong" with that guess. I actually don't care who won the Peace Prize and who didn't. Just found it a little ironic that cnn.com had the headlines of "Pentagon preparing to send 34,00 additional troops to Afghanistan" and "U.S. Won't Join Ban on Landmines" side by side while having a sitting Peace Prize winner as President. Sorry your panties are in a bunch over the thread title. Lighten up Francis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 Yes. That is most likely the main source of our opposition to this. I believe you are correct. The U.S. Policy on landmines since about 2004 has been that for all practical purposes the have been prohibited outside of Korea. We(my battalion) did not put out a single landmine(anti personnel or anti tank) in either Afghanistan or Iraq. This statement does not include command detonated(mines that are "fired") like Claymores. So how many hands do you want to tie behind our back? They are effective in what they do, deny the enemy from operating in certain areas. We have effectively tied our hands behind our backs. The current policy in place requires POTUS approval to employ landmines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'll jump in and say its not bashing on Obama.. Landmines are a Loooooong history. Not everything can be changed same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I believe you are correct. The U.S. Policy on landmines since about 2004 has been that for all practical purposes the have been prohibited outside of Korea. We(my battalion) did not put out a single landmine(anti personnel or anti tank) in either Afghanistan or Iraq. This statement does not include command detonated(mines that are "fired") like Claymores.We have effectively tied our hands behind our backs. The current policy in place requires POTUS approval to employ landmines. Landmine use requires approval from the Crops commander and can be delegated down to the Brigade commander. One it is approved, they are coodinated through the G3. Of course we have no deployed mines in Afghanistan or Iraq, they are not convential wars. In maneuver warfare, mine are used regularly for both offensive and defensive reasons. The mine ban includes all AP mines reguardless of type, no matter if they SD, are command detonated or are cluster munitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Poison gas is effective too. We still dont use it - only terrorists do. This depends on what you call poison gas. We use Mustard gas, Sarin and VX. We just have a policy of no first use. If someone uses chemical warfare on us, then we will use it back on them. We have about 30,000 tons of chemical weapons stockpiled, although some of them are old and need to be disposed of. The only thing we do not use is Biological Warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 This depends on what you call poison gas. We use Mustard gas, Sarin and VX. We just have a policy of no first use. If someone uses chemical warfare on us, then we will use it back on them. We have about 30,000 tons of chemical weapons stockpiled, although some of them are old and need to be disposed of. The only thing we do not use is Biological Warfare. Maybe 25 years ago this would have been true but we eliminated our poison Gas stocks in the late 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Huh? WTF? :doh: No American President has ever or will ever join the land mine treaty. Obama is the fifth President to decline overtures from high profile pleas to sign up for this. America has some quarter of a million landmines separating North and South Korea and they are a key part of our strategy to defend the south from invasion by the north. The alternative to land mines is more American troops. Land mines make good sense to us. We have a relatively small defense department and we have global security concerns. We depend heavily on landmines to equal out that equation against many countries who have vastly larger armies than we do.... Like Iran, China, and North Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Because they are completely indiscriminate. For every soldier they kill, they nail dozens of innocent civilians, sometimes many years later. No, the US marks their minefields and redeploys the mines (or destroys them in place) when we leave. The issues lie with other countries who deploy land mines without keeping records (see the entire Balkans area, guess who played a major role in searching for and removing a ****load of landmines there?). The US had a major policy shift post-Vietnam when it comes to landmines. We shouldn't sign a treaty agreeing to never use mines. In a battlefield setting, they serve a distinct purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Maybe 25 years ago this would have been true but we eliminated our poison Gas stocks in the late 1990s. Nonniey, I think you are wrong. Ronald Reagan and GW Bush called for a ban on these weapons but never signed any. We did sign a bilateral treaty with Russia which says we won't use them first or against each other. We have never banned this classficiation of weapon. Currently controling treaty on chemical weapons are regulated by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. We have eliminated our poison gas stocks, but that was in order to modernize them, rather than to eliminate them. We have not eliminated the weapons classification. American today stock piles binary weapons with two innert components which when combined create poison gasses. These are much less corrosive. Which means they are less likely to leak poisons back on the troops or while being stock piled. We do and have had a treaty since after WWI not to use poison gas in a time of war. However if it's used against us, we have always reserved the right to retaliate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyj Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Because they are completely indiscriminate. This should be a good thing, nobody should discriminate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Poison gas is effective too. We still dont use it - only terrorists do. It's not really that effective. It's a weapon of last resort or terririst weapon. Sure it's great at killing folks. the problem is winds change and the stuff can blow back and kill your own troops. Also the stuff lingers on the battle field in trenches and holes; so your advancing troops could get hurt too. It was banned mostly because it was ineffective. It killed a lot of folks but it's unpredictability meant it oftenned killed folks on the side which used it. That's why the militaries on both sides of WWI agreed to stop using it. It just wasn't militarily effective enough to offset the huge liabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No American President has ever or will ever join the land mine treaty. Obama is the fifth President to decline overtures from high profile pleas to sign up for this. But I though he was "CHANGE"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Dammit Obama get it together :doh: Agreed, I really don't like this decision at all. Its stupid and it does not bode well. BTW, I sure hope someone doesn't think that I'm cheerleading. *edit.... Oh and there are thread title issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Normally I'd be against this sort of thing - but if landmines are what is currently keeping a situation from occuring between North and South Korea than I am all for it. Last thing this country can afford is having to deal with a situation there while all of this other stuff is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Sorry your panties are in a bunch over the thread title. Lighten up Francis Rules is rules Betsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.