sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 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. Why is it stupid and not bode well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 But I though he was "CHANGE"? He is. He's significant change. But the sky is still blue and the sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why is it stupid and not bode well? Its stupid to blow up children inadvertently with discarded landmines that we leave on the battlefield and it doesn't bode well for any nation who does such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 He is. He's significant change. But the sky is still blue and the sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west. lmao!! yep, he's become a parody at this point. "change! (except for all the policies that have driven this nation into economic and foreign policy horror) You are an awesome apologist though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 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. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes Obama a pragmatist rather than a liberal. From a liberal perspective there are some good arguments for banning landmines. The fact is our military relies upon them. If we banned them it would make ourselves and our allies less safe. It would also put more Americans at risk and be to the advantage of our enemies. We aren't the country which is planning to invade others systemically. We are the ones defending trying to deter. Banning Landmines just doesn't work in the defenders favor. Good for Obama for being able to listen to reason and understand the arguments being given him.... Every president since Ronald Reagan has declined to ban landmines, both Democrats and Republicans. Obama's no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 lmao!! yep, he's become a parody at this point."change! (except for all the policies that have driven this nation into economic and foreign policy horror) You are an awesome apologist though! LMAO at blaming Obama for economic and foreign policy horror. Damn, I almost can't wait until the guy's term is over so some of you can find something new to ***** about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 "change! (except for all the policies that have driven this nation into economic and foreign policy horror)You are an awesome apologist though! I find your entire line of reasoning intellectually undefendable. Jumping off a bridge would be change... Genocide against red haired people would be change.... you can't justificy any action just because it's change. You can't condemn Obama just because he refuses to change everything every president has ever done. At least not if you are being intellectually honest. There are good reasons why both Republicans and Democrats have declined to sign up for a land mine ban before Obama. Just like there are good reasons Obama has declined to sign this ban. We don't want our President to change good policy, just because it's politically controversial. But thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I find your entire line of reasoning intellectually undefendable. Jumping off a bridge would be change... Genocide against red haired people would be change.... you can't justificy any action just because it's change.You can't condemn Obama just because he refuses to change everything every president has ever done. There are good reasons why both Republicans and Democrats have declined to sign up for a land mine ban before Obama. Just like there are good reasons Obama has declined to sign this ban. We don't want our president to change good policy, just because it's politically controversial. But thanks for playing. Yes, I'd agree. He really seeks to keep only the most harmful policies for our nation. again, you are an awesome apologist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Its stupid to blow up children inadvertently with discarded landmines that we leave on the battlefield and it doesn't bode well for any nation who does such things. Agreed, Which is why we have tried to make our landmines safer. and easier to dispose of when they aren't necesary.... We make catagories of them them out of biodegradeable plastic firing pins which will disarm themselves after a time, we also make them with other expiration type of devises. The fact is though there are many places where we don't want land mines to expire. Like the boarder of North and South Korea.... We give up the quarter of a million land mines in the dmz and we would have to put many times the number of Americans there in harms way to have the same deterant factor. Strategically and doctrinally we just use devices like landmines to our advantage and giving them up would do a lot of harm to our soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 again, you are an awesome apologist! And you are intellectually dishonest. It's not that you found this policy objectionable when Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush defended it. It's that it's a handy club to beat Obama with now that he has followed suit with those that came before him. Your agument has no merit, you haven't even attempted to frame an argument much less to frame one with merrit. All you do is bluster and whine about Obama, The topic doesn't really interupt that, your central theme. Hell this American objection to the land mine ban might go all the way back to Jimmy Carter... Your constant critique of Obama is he's too leftist, pinko liberal. Here he comes out with an another moderate decision, and your saying he's not being liberal enough! It proves you don't really have a reasonable position, rather you are just pursuing a blanket policy of objecting to all things Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Its stupid to blow up children inadvertently with discarded landmines that we leave on the battlefield and it doesn't bode well for any nation who does such things. How many children are blown up by US landmines? Our goal is to protect this nation and our allies to the best of our abilities and giving up a capability that gives us a strategic advantage on the battlefield is just not smart, especially when all of our FASCAM landmines are programed to self destruct and if we plant then with engineers they are mapped and marked and recovered after combat operations. Additionally, our troops use command detonated landmines which would also be banned and so would the use of our cluster munitions. This is going to sound cold, but its war, a lot of unpleasent things happen in wartime and sometimes innocent people die. That is the nature of the beast. However, the US goes far out of its way to limit civilian casualties on the battlefield be it from landmines or bombing military targets in civilian areas. We do far more than any other nation does, but yet it is never enough for some people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 How many children are blown up by US landmines? Our goal is to protect this nation and our allies to the best of our abilities and giving up a capability that gives us a strategic advantage on the battlefield is just not smart, especially when all of our FASCAM landmines are programed to self destruct and if we plant then with engineers they are mapped and marked and recovered after combat operations. Additionally, our troops use command detonated landmines which would also be banned and so would the use of our cluster munitions.This is going to sound cold, but its war, a lot of unpleasent things happen in wartime and sometimes innocent people die. That is the nature of the beast. However, the US goes far out of its way to limit civilian casualties on the battlefield be it from landmines or bombing military targets in civilian areas. We do far more than any other nation does, but yet it is never enough for some people... That's a good explaination. The fact is we have tried to address the critisms of these weapons catagories as best we can without harming or militaries ability to defend itself in the field. And that's what we are talking about. Land mines are defensive weapons. Troops put them out to secure their perimeters. To safe guard themselves in enemy territory or to deter being overrun in an invasion. Our military doctrine doesn't allow for us to outnumber our foes in many theatres of operation. Landmines protect our troops. But to Ashberry's point. Our Vietnam era landmines still kill people every year to this day. The problems with landmines is a real one, and historically we have contributed to that problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You know, if it weren't for landmines we wouldn't have things like The Miss Landmine Pageant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 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. I'm fine with tying that hand until there is a country that could invade us but I do think you make a good argument about how in theory we are more responsible at recovering them than others (including ourselves in the past). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 And you are intellectually dishonest. It's not that you found this policy objectionable when Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush defended it. It's that it's a handy club to beat Obama with now that he has followed suit with those that came before him.Your agument has no merit, you haven't even attempted to frame an argument much less to frame one with merrit. All you do is bluster and whine about Obama, The topic doesn't really interupt that, your central theme. Hell this American objection to the land mine ban might go all the way back to Jimmy Carter... Your constant critique of Obama is he's too leftist, pinko liberal. Here he comes out with an another moderate decision, and your saying he's not being liberal enough! It proves you don't really have a reasonable position, rather you are just pursuing a blanket policy of objecting to all things Obama. So many falshoods in this post! LOL Yes, I have always found landmines objectionable, even way back in my neo-con days. I think they should be on par with biological weapons and that we should set the international standard in rejecting them. I've always felt this way. President Obama has been wonderful in providing the club to beat him with. I'm not sure where you have seen me saying that the president is "too leftist, too pinko Liberal? I think you must mistake me with some others at this board. The only items I have ever challenged him on are: poor econonomic policy, poor foreign policy, and his attempts to grow spending and federal scope, and finally his seeming inability to break away from failed Bush era policies (like he said he would). For a third time, you ROCK as my favorite Obama apologist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm fine with tying that hand until there is a country that could invade usbut I do think you make a good argument about how in theory we are more responsible at recovering them than others (including ourselves in the past). So what about using them to protect an unprotected flank of a brigade because we don't have enough troops on the battle field? What about using them to funnel enemy troops to certain areas so that we can engage them with superior firepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So what about using them to protect an unprotected flank of a brigade because we don't have enough troops on the battle field? What about using them to funnel enemy troops to certain areas so that we can engage them with superior firepower. what about them? Clearly they're useful, but that's not the main point is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So what about using them to protect an unprotected flank of a brigade because we don't have enough troops on the battle field? What about using them to funnel enemy troops to certain areas so that we can engage them with superior firepower. sounds more like a tactic that our enemies would find useful. You would think our military might could find alternatives that dont involve landmines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Landmines are nasty, nasty business. I wrote a paper on landmines. The old school land mines are definitely horrific and ruin countrysides and blow off limbs of kids because they're the ones playing off the beaten paths. With that said, I would never want to tie the hands of my countries military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 sounds more like a tactic that our enemies would find useful. You would think our military might could find alternatives that dont involve landmines. What would you suggest then? Look at the FM I posted earlier in the thread, it talks about Army doctrine when using mines in both the offensive and defensive fight as well as countermine operations. Why would our enemies find it more useful than us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 What would you suggest then? Look at the FM I posted earlier in the thread, it talks about Army doctrine when using mines in both the offensive and defensive fight as well as countermine operations. Why would our enemies find it more useful than us? because they have fewer alternatives. Our military might shouldneasily have alternatives to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 because they have fewer alternatives. Our military might should easily have alternatives to compensate. Like what? Simple and technology free usually make it difficult to overcome with technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyj Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You know, if it weren't for landmines we wouldn't have things like The Miss Landmine Pageant Phenomenal! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 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. I wasn't talking about the US. We act very responsibly in this area. I was explaining why people are pushing for this threaty in general. Because landmines kill many more civilians than soldiers around the world, and always have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I wasn't talking about the US. We act very responsibly in this area.I was explaining why people are pushing for this threaty in general. Because landmines kill many more civilians than soldiers around the world, and always have. Right. But in order to sign on, Obama would have pledged to do away with the US' use of landmines. I actually support his refusal to sign. If you outlaw landmines, you accomplish the same thing as outlawing guns: only rogues have them and use them. If anyone thinks this treaty will stop any insurgent group from throwing landmines out the back of a jeep, they are sorely mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.