Project Censored

[iago]

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm

This site talks about various news stories that weren't picked up by the mainstream media for whatever reasons. Some interesting stuff, there.

[iago]

Wow, the US refuses to agree to abandon landmines? That's ridiculous!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Convention -- I love how the people who won't ban landmines are Russia, Asia, the Middle East, and the US. Three cheers for progress!

[CrAz3D]

So?  Have we banned rockets because they kill?  Grenades?  No...so why would we ban land mines?

Also, re: Halliburton, Iran, and their nuclear minister dude, so? 

[iago]

Because landmines are at least as likely to kill (or main) civilians as military? Because landmines can last years after a war ends, injuring people who were never involved?

[CrAz3D]

What about all of those chemical weapons that have been found in sheds and what not?
Stuff gets left around all the time.

Also, it seems that land mines would be used to keep people out of somewhere...somewhere where there would probably be a fence.  So unless they are already trespassing they're not going to step on one.

[iago]

Chemical weapons are banned, too. But the sheds don't explode when kids play nearby.

Which is almost acceptable during a war, but what about 60 years later? Yes, there are still landmines from WW2 and other old wars buried around, and yes they will still kill people who come nearby.

There's a reason that 90% of the civilized world has signed the treaty. The US, Middle East, and China are the biggest powers that haven't. Gotta love being lumped in with them

[CrAz3D]

Chemical weapons are banned, too. But the sheds don't explode when kids play nearby.

Nor do landmines...

[Armin]

Wow, the US refuses to agree to abandon landmines? That's ridiculous!

The United States refuses to sign the treaty because it does not offer a "Korean exception", as landmines are a crucial component of the U.S. military strategy in South Korea. According to the US government, the one million mines along the DMZ between North and South help maintain the delicate peace by deterring a North Korean attack.

Things often have two sides. Don't assume it's because the US is heartless and wants as many weapons as possible, or that the US doesn't care about civilian casualties.

[iago]

Chemical weapons are banned, too. But the sheds don't explode when kids play nearby.

Nor do landmines...

Umm, perhaps you should go read what landmines are? Because I'm afraid they do, that's kind of the point.

Things often have two sides. Don't assume it's because the US is heartless and wants as many weapons as possible, or that the US doesn't care about civilian casualties.

I read that, and, in my uneducated opinion, it doesn't sound like enough. First of all, why is the US still developing and constructing landmines if it's only for that? Second, does North Korea really have an army ready to march the second that SK lets their defenses down? That just doesn't sound right to me.

[Armin]

I read that, and, in my uneducated opinion, it doesn't sound like enough. First of all, why is the US still developing and constructing landmines if it's only for that? Second, does North Korea really have an army ready to march the second that SK lets their defenses down? That just doesn't sound right to me.

They never said they're only using landmines for that, but they said that's why they won't sign the treaty. If they would just add the Korean exception into the bill, everything would be fine. I honestly don't know why they don't just add that clause.

And yes, I'm sure North Korea has an army like that. Especially with how fucking crazy their leader is.

[CrAz3D]

Chemical weapons are banned, too. But the sheds don't explode when kids play nearby.

Nor do landmines...

Umm, perhaps you should go read what landmines are? Because I'm afraid they do, that's kind of the point.

If kids play ON them, well, then yeah...DUH they're gonna pop.  Also, if kids play on chemical weapons its possible that they end up purple and dead.

[Armin]

The difference is a kid can see chemical weapons. A kid can't see a land mine under the ground they're playing catch on.

[iago]

They never said they're only using landmines for that, but they said that's why they won't sign the treaty. If they would just add the Korean exception into the bill, everything would be fine. I honestly don't know why they don't just add that clause.

And yes, I'm sure North Korea has an army like that. Especially with how fucking crazy their leader is.

I imagine it's because adding exceptions is a slippery slope. What happens when another country is in the same situation, will they write in exceptions for other countries? What if the Americans/Israelis wanted to use landmines to keep the Palestinians at bay? Write another exception? I think it totally defeat the purpose of the bill.

I doubt that landmines would stop them if North Korea wanted to attach that badly. But I'm imagining a bunch of Koreans standing just behind the minefield, walking back and forth like broken AI in games.

If kids play ON them, well, then yeah...DUH they're gonna pop.  Also, if kids play on chemical weapons its possible that they end up purple and dead.

Come on, use your brain, please! You don't go to a war-torn country and put landmines in their sheds. You bury them, so that when people (be it army, civilian, children, etc) walk on them, they blow up. Chemical weapons, while also a horrible thing, aren't used that way. You don't bury a can of mustard gas and have it trigger when somebody steps on it (if they did, that would be a landmine).

[CrAz3D]

yeah there are some places that have mines from WW2, but it seems that this is talking about new mines.

You wouldn't put new mines where civilians would step on them, you'd put them around important buildings along with fences.

[iago]

Here's something cool, the Landmine Incident Database. You can search for how many innocent people have been killed by landmines around the world: http://www.ddasonline.com/

[iago]

yeah there are some places that have mines from WW2, but it seems that this is talking about new mines.

You wouldn't put new mines where civilians would step on them, you'd put them around important buildings along with fences.

Go read about landmines, and come back to this thread when you know what you're talking about. Please.

[CrAz3D]

You step on them and they pop up out of the ground and explode blowing off legs and torsos.

We're talking about modern day use of them, not old ones that've been left around in places that little kids might now play.
Why should we stop using them now just because people in the 1940s were careless with the removal/placement?

[MyndFyre]

Here's something cool, the Landmine Incident Database. You can search for how many innocent people have been killed by landmines around the world: http://www.ddasonline.com/

406 incidents?

By that logic we should ban cars, because WAY more people die from them.

[iago]

You step on them and they pop up out of the ground and explode blowing off legs and torsos.

We're talking about modern day use of them, not old ones that've been left around in places that little kids might now play.
Why should we stop using them now just because people in the 1940s were careless with the removal/placement?

You don't bury them around your buildings, though. You bury them in fields, or on roads, or in a city as you retreat.

406 incidents?

By that logic we should ban cars, because WAY more people die from them.

Yeah, I realized after that that was a bad source. I was hoping nobody would actually read the link, since that's what generally happens

Either way, the difference is that mines' sole purpose for existing is to kill random people.

[zorm]

Yeah, I realized after that that was a bad source. I was hoping nobody would actually read the link, since that's what generally happens

Either way, the difference is that mines' sole purpose for existing is to kill random people.

Not true at all. For one there are different types of mines. The US employs land mines and antipersonnel mines(some can be configured into land mine status). So blatently saying "mines are bad" is false. They also aren't ment for killing random people they are normally targeted at things like defense in which case they will be killing the guy trying to attack you.

BTW, US policy today is such that land mines have to be recorded very specifically as to their location and such so that we can go back and fetch them at a later date if they are left behind. Its almost to a point where putting mines out is more of a pain than it is worth.

As far as treaty's go thats all a wash. A treaty never stopped anyone from doing something and you'll notice that most of the accidents with land mines today are from mines left over from earlier wars. So its not like telling a country to destroy all the mines they have in stockpile now is going to change anything...

[CrAz3D]

You step on them and they pop up out of the ground and explode blowing off legs and torsos.

We're talking about modern day use of them, not old ones that've been left around in places that little kids might now play.
Why should we stop using them now just because people in the 1940s were careless with the removal/placement?

You don't bury them around your buildings, though. You bury them in fields, or on roads, or in a city as you retreat.

I've never heard of that regarding American placement of mines in modern day warfare.  Not once.  Especially because we never really leave an area, and if we do it is because we just rebuilt it.  Why would we want to destroy something that we rebuilt after we destroyed it in the reformation of that government/area/etc?

Also, if we were leaving like we do now and political tensions might be tight but we aren't at war...why would we (The US of A) plant mines?  So the force we just came to some sort of agreement with will be mad again?  That'd be foolish.



Furthermore, I like zorm's point about "treaties never stopping anyone before."  If someone wants to do it they're gonna do it anyway, why give others the false sense of security?

[iago]

Not true at all. For one there are different types of mines. The US employs land mines and antipersonnel mines(some can be configured into land mine status). So blatently saying "mines are bad" is false. They also aren't ment for killing random people they are normally targeted at things like defense in which case they will be killing the guy trying to attack you.

BTW, US policy today is such that land mines have to be recorded very specifically as to their location and such so that we can go back and fetch them at a later date if they are left behind. Its almost to a point where putting mines out is more of a pain than it is worth.

As far as treaty's go thats all a wash. A treaty never stopped anyone from doing something and you'll notice that most of the accidents with land mines today are from mines left over from earlier wars. So its not like telling a country to destroy all the mines they have in stockpile now is going to change anything...

I'm glad to hear that they've made progress in using mines carefully. I still think they're a bad idea, but at least if they are able to recover all of them safely, it's not terrible.

The treaty doesn't even demand that countries destroy all their mines, only that the mines they keep are for training purposes. I don't care if countries stockpile stuff, as long as they can't use it. And much like the geneva convention, at least it keeps countries (other than the US, of course) from using terror-style warfare.

(by the way, thanks for a helpful post -- it's nice to see somebody who knows what they're talking about. I was kind of wondering if the US was careful like that)

I've never heard of that regarding American placement of mines in modern day warfare.  Not once.

Great. Do you think the mines between North and South Korea are floating? They're either in a field or on roads, I don't know, but they aren't surrounding buildings.

Especially because we never really leave an area

Viet Nam?

And in any large-scale wars, retreat is often necessary.

Also, if we were leaving like we do now and political tensions might be tight but we aren't at war...why would we (The US of A) plant mines?  So the force we just came to some sort of agreement with will be mad again?  That'd be foolish.

Just because you aren't at (real) war now, doesn't mean you won't be in the future. Duh?

Furthermore, I like zorm's point about "treaties never stopping anyone before."  If someone wants to do it they're gonna do it anyway, why give others the false sense of security?

That doesn't even make sense, really. Other countries not having mines doesn't give me any sense of security, it just makes me feel a little better that civilians will stop feeling after-effects of war.

[CrAz3D]

The mines between N & S Korea are in an area where no one is supposed to go and is guarded.  Mines are to protect against a military invasion.  (This is all assuming that they are there, I don't know what is there)

Also, Vietnam, yeah...where else have we hail tailed it out of?  And even then, that was 40 years ago, nearly, and much has changed about military strategy and technique.

And re: the "why would we leave them and cause more bad feelings"...even IF we are in a country v. country war in the future, why would we make things worse by leaving mines around to kill civilians?

Finally, the thing about the treaty is that even if someone signs it, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will abide by it.  That possibility of contradiction with the treaty puts citizens into a false sense of security just as the U.S. currently sat in a false sense of security because bin Laden hadn't hit us in a few years...but he still was and is out there wanting to destroy us regardless of any agreement

[Super_X]

The mines between N & S Korea are in an area where no one is supposed to go and is guarded.  Mines are to protect against a military invasion.  (This is all assuming that they are there, I don't know what is there)

Also, Vietnam, yeah...where else have we hail tailed it out of?  And even then, that was 40 years ago, nearly, and much has changed about military strategy and technique.

And re: the "why would we leave them and cause more bad feelings"...even IF we are in a country v. country war in the future, why would we make things worse by leaving mines around to kill civilians?

Finally, the thing about the treaty is that even if someone signs it, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will abide by it.  That possibility of contradiction with the treaty puts citizens into a false sense of security just as the U.S. currently sat in a false sense of security because bin Laden hadn't hit us in a few years...but he still was and is out there wanting to destroy us regardless of any agreement

We've retreated in almost every war, or fight we've been in, usually we end up taking the area back, but the last few wars we've fought in, we've retreated more than we've advanced.

The DMZ dpes not protect anything, the DMZ is the physical embodiment of a stalemate. There are over 10,000,000 mines of ours between the two countries, and they aren't even necessary. The only reason they don't attack us is because we have nukes. The reasons we don't attack them are because they have a standing army of over 1,000,000. Those are career military persons, the ones that are not "weekend warriors." Also, they have the gourella techniques of fighting, we have proven time and time again that we can't fight that.

War techniques have not changed at all since Viet Nam. Just look at the war in Iraq. The only difference is the steriotype and the weapos.

We leave mines because we care. /me thumbs up.
When we destroy the civilians, we destroy the moralle, the less they want to fight, the more they will die.

Sure, a treaty won't prevent anything from happening, but it's more likly that it wont. We had NATO, that prevented the USSR and the rest of the eastern bloc from attacking us. The more people that sign a treaty will cause enough pressure on a country to follow the rules of that treaty. Say, five people versus one, the one is most likly going to lose, ei. WWII.