Landmine Abolition? Womens Rights? Stalling on Human Trafficking

[G_j]

That is the United States of Bush, always taking the higher road, promoting good will and human values around the globe! :sarcasm:

Published on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 by OneWorld.net

US No Longer Promoting Landmine Abolition

by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS - In 1994, the United States was the first nation to call for the elimination of landmines that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world.
But that was then. Today, Washington not only stands in opposition to an international treaty that bans the use and production of antipersonnel landmines, but intends to make new ones too.

..more..

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1226-02.htm

Published on Monday, December 26, 2005 by OneWorld.net

U.S. Opposes Litany of Global Treaties in 2005
by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS - Twenty-six years ago, the United Nations adopted a treaty that is often described by human rights experts as the international "Bill of Rights" for women.

Today that treaty has been endorsed by more than 170 nations. However, while the entire industrial world fully supports the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the United States is the only developed nation that continues to oppose it.
..more..

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1227-09.htm

Published on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 by the Chicago Tribune

U.S. Stalls on Human Trafficking
Pentagon has yet to ban contractors from using forced labor

by Cam Simpson

WASHINGTON - Three years ago, President Bush declared that he had "zero tolerance" for trafficking in humans by the government's overseas contractors, and two years ago Congress mandated a similar policy.

But notwithstanding the president's statement and the congressional edict, the Defense Department has yet to adopt a policy to bar human trafficking.

A proposal prohibiting defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor was drafted by the Pentagon last summer, but five defense lobbying groups oppose key provisions and a final policy still appears to be months away, according to those involved and Defense Department records.
..more..

[BushOut06]

1. Hmmmm...not really sure where to stand on this one

The landmine issue, that is. I can easily see both sides of the issue. As a former serviceman, I can tell you that landmines can be a valuable method to help protect your position if you have to remain in one position for a prolonged period. They can also help channel the enemy forces into a "kill zone", where you would have your lines of fire set up. In those cases, the positions of the landmines are carefully mapped out (after all, you don't want to step on your own mines). Afterwards, it's a simple matter of either extracting them or blowing them all up.

But if you're an army on the move constantly, landmines serve no real purpose. Randomly peppering an area with landmines does present a problem, because then you have no idea where they are located (unless we inserted some sort of GPS tracker in them, but then the enemy could detect them also). Then there are also the countries that aren't as technilogically advanced as we are, and much more indiscriminate in their usage. Then again, would these countries be apt to even abide by a landmine ban?

[acmejack]

2. I suggest the carnage wreaked among the innocents makes it's own case!

Abolition is the only way to stop this abomination. In SE asia there are literally thousands of maimed form left over mines. The new generation promises to be even harder to detect and disarm, due to the extensive use of non-metallic components.

But since we are cool with ignoring any treaty, proposal, or agreement, we might as well continue in our unconscionable path & ignore the wishes of the CIVILIZED world, of which we have ceased to be counted among. I mean WP, Napalm, cluster munitions, why not a few more horrors. Fits right in with Amerika's new, improved image.

[BushOut06]

3. I hate to use the cliche NRA argument...

But if you do ban landmines, how do you guarantee our future opponents won't use them? I really hesitate to ban what could be a very useful tool because if its indiscriminate use by others.

Actually I do think I recall reading about how the newer landmines our military is developing contain some sort of tracking device, whether it's a radio frequency or what I'm not sure.

[acmejack]

4. Give me a break!

That argument doesn't hold water. It can be used against anything you disagree with. Why should we not use nerve gas, someone might use it against us. Or Nukes?

They are an immoral weapon, period. Any of your pals get blown up by them?

[BushOut06]

5. Not really

Landmines have been an integral part of military strategy for quite some time. It wasn't until they started being used indiscriminately in various parts of the world that they became a huge problem. Landmines have been used to help defend stationary positions (ie military bases, camps) quite effectively.

I understand your argument, but using the same logic, you could make a case for outlawing practically any military weapon. We could call for an end to artillery (the biggest killer on the battlefield), for instance. We could call for an end to automatic weapons on the battlefield, they do some pretty grisly things to a human body. We could call for an end to shoulder-fired SAMs and RPGs.

Nerve gas & nukes are indiscriminate weapons no matter how they're used. Once you've deployed them, you have no control over them. Landmines are completely different in that regard.

I'm sorry, I know I'm going to be attacked for this position, but it's one that I'm sticking to.

[acmejack]

6. I'll not be drawn into a flame war with you.

which must be what you are angling for. You're right that you'll be attacked & deservedly so. Enjoy...

[BushOut06]

8. Actually that's not my intention at all

I have no intention of starting a flame war. I respect your opinion, as I can certainly see where you are coming from. I'm certainly not going to engage in any name-calling with anyone who shares a different opinion. I simply have a differing opinion on this issue, and just wanted to make it known. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, and let it go at that.

[G_j]

9. Fields of Nightmares

Export and Transfer of Landmines

United States officials have often claimed that U.S. mines are not a significant factor in the global landmine problem.43 It is likely that this argument will be used in part to justify any decision to renew production of antipersonnel mines. However, the United States exported over 5.6 million antipersonnel mines to thirty-eight countries between 1969 and 1992.44 Deminers in at least twenty-nine mine-affected countries have reported the presence of nine different types of U.S.-manufactured antipersonnel mines and four types of antivehicle mines, including both non-self-destructing and self-destructing types.45 A total of twenty-one states that have banned the weapon have declared possessing (and subsequently destroying) 2.9 million antipersonnel mines of U.S. origin in their stockpiles, more than any other single exporting state.


www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/4.htm

===

A Surgeon's Touch by Howard Zinn
The United States maintains a stockpile of more than ten million land mines and ... In the 1980s, Italy sold millions of land mines to Iraq and Iran, ...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Surgeon'sTouch_landmines.html

===
Fields of Nightmares

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Landmines_html/Fields_Nightmares.html

===
Landmines in SudanThe terrible irony of modern day peacekeeping for United States troops is that their lives are sometimes threatened by landmines manufactured, sold and ...

www.fiscalstudy.com/2005-global-photo/0426-landmines-in-sudan.php

[BushOut06]

10. I have no problem prohibiting their export

In fact, we really should take a much closer look at who we sell arms to, period. Not only do we sell arms to our adversaries, but how often have our own weapons come back to bite us in the ass?

IMHO, we shouldn't see any arms to countries that we don't have a defense treaty with. Even then, those arms sales need to be carefully scrutinized.

[librechik]

12. since WE'RE the major proponents of the damn things

who are we afraid of? If we Don't ban them how does that guarantee "they" won't be used against us. If we make them, tho, there are simply more. If we put out fewer, maybe there would be one less angry father determined to take revenge on us for his child's lost limbs.

The cycle of violence must be stopped somewhere. Is it with YOU?

Apparently not.

[BushOut06]

13. Maybe if we weren't so war-hungry...

...and didn't export them to every wanna-be dictator in the world, that might be a nice start?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

7. Don't forget the 'Convention on the Rights of the Child'

which has been ratified by everybody except the US and Somalia.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

[G_j]

11. & the International Criminal Court, Kyoto etc..

etc.. :-(

[G_j]

14. ~~