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/