(Note: this is a re-post of a reply to another thread by Cali:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=15384&mesg_id=16779)
(Double Note: thread, not threat, lol. I'll learn how to spell one day.)
There are a lot of wise folks out there who are very upset by this article from the AP that's popping up everywhere (
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/24/national/w135403S69.DTL#ixzz0XpQ3JKDr), which seems to indicate that the President doesn't give a shit about landmines or the innocent people they cripple for life. I'm not all that wise, but it bothered the hell out of me that the administration would behave in a way that is at best tone deaf, and at worst criminal. Then something else began to bother me.
The more I think about it, the more I think this article is something that is designed to push our buttons. This is exactly the sort of thing that would get under our skin, isn't it? What sort of double-faced bastard would like landmines, after all? I propose that stirring hard feelings toward the President and discord in our ranks is the point of this article.
Look at how this is being delivered to us though. It's linked to SFGate. SF is our our kind of town, right? SF Gate, as far as I am aware here in the deep south, is a decent paper. The article, though, is just another AP article written by some guy named Desmond Butler. Not much info about the guy from the Google, except that the "Bush-era" designation probably came from him. His affection for the term can be seen in another article picked up by National Review by the same author that denigrates the President's dismantling of Bush's missile defense strategy in eastern Europe. (
http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=454 )
Writing the article to tie the President to the former Resident is nasty in and of itself, and I admit that it got my dander up to think that we're just brainlessly keeping "Bush-era" policies afloat. The article goes on to list a number of disappointed quotes from various people who's opinions (well, maybe not Reid's) we take seriously about how lamentable it is that we won't do something about landmines.
What's missing? The reasoning behind the decision, for one. There are no quotes from administration officials outlining their thought process. All we got was the news that we're not signing the treaty, just like Bush, the obvious implication being "more of the same" and a sense that we folks who are concerned about kids trying to get around without feet are being arrogantly ignored.
Is this fair, though? The US currently does not mine anything. There are weapons companies (defense contractors, lol) in the US that manufacture land mines, but I have a feeling (which may be wrong) that compared to stealth bombers and cruise missiles, landmine sales are small potatoes. Moreover, was the administration's reasoning provided to Mr. Butler, who then chose not to include it in the AP article? I don't know. Are there good reasons not to sign the treaty which may have been omitted by a writer out to stir shit among a bunch of bleeding hearts (excuse me, people who aren't fucked up enough to think long-lived, indiscriminate maiming machines buried underground in civilian areas are a valid foreign policy tool)? Well, there are two that occur to me.
The first is, of course, the Korean Peninsula. As has been thoroughly described by other posters, the point of the DMZ is to slow down NK for a few days in order to move a substantial force into position to fight. The ROK army and our forces in Korea could not hold back the NKPA for more than a few days, and this would buy valuable time. Moreover, the NK war machine has no independent access to fuel, and would likely only have reserves for a few weeks of full-on conflict, so any sort of successful holding action would allow the ROK to survive. I hesitate to say call anything a "win" that entails the utter devestation of everything within a hundred miles of the DMZ, though.
Second is the fact that it wouldn't make it though the Senate, again for reasons we are all familiar with. Same for the Kyoto Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, or any number of things you'd think a "free" people could get behind. It would be nice to see a push on these fronts, but apparently the President is one of those people who would rather not engage in futile fights, whether it's just or not. Personally, I think I'd say fuck em and push it anyway, but that's me.
In conclusion, let's look carefully at what the article's author, and some of those who are spamming the board with it, are trying to do. We have buttons that are easy to push, and there are those who want to sow discord by mashing them, and this is just the sort of thing I'd write to do so, were I so inclined. I could be wrong, maybe we did elect a guy who sees nothing wrong with indiscriminate landmine usage, but I've got my skeptic filter up just in case.
(Reply based on response to VMI Dem that has pertinent info from Democracy Now episode posted by EFarrari)
I just want to know what's going on. The state department guy sure didn't know what was going on. The Administration needs to say why we aren't talking the lead on not blowing innocent people up.
However, I would like to respectfully point out that as the HRW guy (Stephen Goose) says in the Democracy Now interview (and he is pissed), even though it is fucking stupid to quietly pass on the treaty, we are in compliance with most of the treaty stipulations. We aren't just throwing these things around like candy; he says we haven't used them in 18 years. We haven't sold any in 17. The place where our failure to sign hurts is that it is morally cowardly when our participation in the treaty would help keep up momentum and lend the movement additional credibility.
Articles that try to tie the President to Bush while coloring him as a warmonger are not helpful in that goal, but they sure are good at causing e-drama.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
