Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (45351)	9/19/2002 8:44:35 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Looks like he couldn't answer that...!

To: Ilaine who wrote (45351)	9/20/2002 6:42:05 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If we don't use them, don't make them, don't export them, and contribute the most money towards cleaning up mines that others have made and used, why do you say we are the problem? I didn't exactly say the "the problem", I said "an obstacle". Somewhat different. But problem or obstacle, I'll start with this text.... "The U.S. has not used anti-personnel land mines since the Gulf war in 1991, has not exported them since 1992, and has not produced them since 1997," said Jody Wills of the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines (and one of only 10 women to receive a Nobel Peace Prize), in a January statement urging the United States to adhere to the Ottawa Treaty . "[The U.S.] leads the world in funding for mine clearance in other nations. It is only a small step away from truly embracing a ban on antipersonnel mines." Asked why the U.S. has not signed the treaty, Patierno replied that while the U.S. has no desire to use land mines it reserves the right to do so. This, it seems, boils down to an issue of military need. "Since 1992 sale of mines has been banned," said Patierno. "But we have not been able to sign the Ottawa Treaty because the land mine system used by the military for anti- vehicle purposes is protected by anti-personnel mines that would not comply with the Ottawa Treaty."<< allafrica.com In fact we do use them. We admit that they are used in a "land mine system" and we would be in violation of the treaty if we were to sign it. Further, we seemingly have no inherent objections to their use, since we wish to reserve the right to use them in the future. It's quite reaonsable to rephrase all of that into: We haven't used them since 1992 [though we have as part of a land mine system] because we merely haven't had the occasion to do so. With respect to the rationalization that they are part of a "land mine system". There's nothing to prevent deployment in the field of only the personnel land mines With respect to: "and contribute the most money". I would like to know by what measure, absolute dollars or dollars as a % of GDP? If we contribute more money than Somalia, that's not very impressive. In Afghanistan, our policy was that the loser is responsible for the removal of personnel land mines. Was that our policy post Vietnam conflict? jttmab