Re: Buckwheat's Lefty Betrayal - Won't Sign Land Mine Ban!
AnAmericanCitizen
Why on earth would anyone NOT want to sign a land mine ban, republican or
democrat?...AAC
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:21:58 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-administration-wont-sign-land-ban/?test=latestnews
>
>November 24, 2009
>Obama Administration Won't Sign Land Mine Ban
>
>The administration recently completed a review and decided not to
>change the Bush-era policy, a State Department spokesman said Tuesday.
>
>WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has decided not to sign an
>international convention banning land mines.
>
>State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the
>administration recently completed a review and decided not to change
>the Bush-era policy.
>
>"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.
>
>More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's
>provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines.
>Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan,
>Myanmar and Russia.
>
>Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy criticized the State Department's review
>of the land mine policy as "cursory and halfhearted."
>
>The senator described the decision to stand fast on the current policy
>as "a lost opportunity .... The United States took some of the
>earliest and most effective steps to restrict the use of land mines.
>We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines."
>
>Human rights groups had expressed hopes that the Obama administration
>would sign the treaty.
>
>Stephen Goose, the director of Human Rights Watch's arms division,
>said he was surprised by the announcement and called it disappointing.
>He said that his group had been pushing the administration to conduct
>a review of its policy but that the administration had given no
>indication that one was under way.
>
>"If one was already completed, it was not very extensive," he said.
>
>Kelly said that the United States would send an observer group of mine
>experts to a review conference on the treaty in Cartegena, Colombia,
>next week.
>
>A report this month by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
>found that mines remain planted in the earth in more than 70 countries
>and killed at least 1,266 people and wounded 3,891 last year. More
>than 2.2 million anti-personnel mines, 250,000 anti-vehicle mines and
>17 million other explosives left over from wars have been removed
>since 1999, the report said.
Firelock
> Why on earth would anyone NOT want to sign a land mine ban, republican or
> democrat?...AAC
The US doesn't want to sign the land mine ban because
a thick belt of land mines is one of the reasons North
Korea hasn't been more adventurous when it comes to
South Korea. We haven't produced any new ones in over
a decade, and aren't big users of them outside of the
Korean situation - there aren't many military situations
we get into these days where they'd be useful, except
in Korea where they're seen as downright essential.
--
Walt
Patriot Games
<NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Why on earth would anyone NOT want to sign a land mine ban, republican or
>democrat?...AAC
You'll NEVER get Buckwheat or the DemocRATs to admit this but the REAL
reason why they won't sign the ban is because it REQUIRES destroying
the entire inventory - of which ours is HUGE - and they were hoping to
SELL IT to a Turd World country...
(Bush refused to sign it because Bush, a true American, refuses to be
told what to do by ANY FOREIGN POWER.)
Jerry Okamura
inflict as much pain and suffering on the other side.
"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ap89h5dnnehajouq9...@4ax.com...
AnAmericanCitizen
Good answer. Thanks.....AAC
AnAmericanCitizen
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:02:30 -0800, AnAmericanCitizen
><NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Why on earth would anyone NOT want to sign a land mine ban, republican or
>>democrat?...AAC
>
>You'll NEVER get Buckwheat or the DemocRATs to admit this but the REAL
>reason why they won't sign the ban is because it REQUIRES destroying
>the entire inventory - of which ours is HUGE - and they were hoping to
>SELL IT to a Turd World country...
Could they actually do that?....AAC
Patriot Games
<NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:52:49 -0500, Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:02:30 -0800, AnAmericanCitizen
>><NoAm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Why on earth would anyone NOT want to sign a land mine ban, republican or
>>>democrat?...AAC
>>You'll NEVER get Buckwheat or the DemocRATs to admit this but the REAL
>>reason why they won't sign the ban is because it REQUIRES destroying
>>the entire inventory - of which ours is HUGE - and they were hoping to
>>SELL IT to a Turd World country...
>Could they actually do that?....AAC
Sure they could.
(Our current inventory is over 10,000,000 land mines...)
Firelock
The US certainly isn't perfect, but we've put a lot of effort
into making our landmines less of a problem. We build
them with iron in them specifically so mine detector gear
can find them when they're no longer needed, we equip
them with self-destruct mechanisms and mechanisms
that make them go inert if abandoned. We try to make
them so we can remove them after we're done with them,
and if we miss one it shouldn't blow anyone up a decade
later.
The worst landmines in the world, from a civilian point
of view, aren't those placed by formal militaries - formal
militaries place mine fields to protect access to critical
military positions, have the minefields covered by
fire and maintained by engineers, and know where
they put the blasted things. Militias and terrorist
groups, on the other hand, deliberately select mines
that are hard to find or remove, place them in scattered
ones and twos where civilians are most likely to encounter
them, and usually don't remove their mines once their role
in the conflict is ended.
--
Walt
Patriot Games
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Because land mines are intended to reduce the casualties on your side, and
>inflict as much pain and suffering on the other side.
True... But, we RARELY remove them when we leave....
And that's kind of a problem...
Jerry Okamura
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in message
news:pt7oh5trnt5tj3cr0...@4ax.com...
That is not a true statement. It would be correct to say that we do not
remove all of them, but it is not correct to say that we don't try to remove
them after we leave. And you can only do that, "if" you control the
territory that these land mines are on, or if the people who do control the
territory allow you to remove them.
AnAmericanCitizen
You should have quit while you were ahead, Jerry. He agreed with your original
statement....AAC
Patriot Games
Which reminds me... Buckwheat flatly rejected ANY form of biological
weapons monitoring as a Treaty (because it would apply to us [US])
that would be quite embarassing!
Another lefty betrayal...
Can someone explain how you get a Nobel Peace Prize for escalating a
War, refusing to destroy your land mines, refusing to promise not to
use land mines, refusing to reach an agreement with Russia on nuclear
weapons, AND refusing to allow your biological weapons to be
independently monitored?
Oh... Wait...
I forgot...
Affirmative Action.
ray
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
> >>That is not a true statement. It would be correct to say that we do not
> >>remove all of them, but it is not correct to say that we don't try to
> >>remove
> >>them after we leave. And you can only do that, "if" you control the
> >>territory that these land mines are on, or if the people who do control the
> >>territory allow you to remove them.
> >You should have quit while you were ahead, Jerry. He agreed with your
> >original
> >statement....AAC
>
> Which reminds me... Buckwheat flatly rejected ANY form of biological
> weapons monitoring as a Treaty (because it would apply to us [US])
> that would be quite embarassing!
>
> Another lefty betrayal...
>
> Can someone explain how you get a Nobel Peace Prize for escalating a
> War, refusing to destroy your land mines, refusing to promise not to
> use land mines, refusing to reach an agreement with Russia on nuclear
> weapons, AND refusing to allow your biological weapons to be
> independently monitored?
>
> Oh... Wait...
>
> I forgot...
>
> Affirmative Action.
At least now we know what a farce this stupid peace prize is. They are
handing them out to people that did absolutely nothing in life. We kind
of knew that when they gave Gore the prize for promoting this global
warming farce that is now leading him to becoming a billionaire. But
now we have concrete proof that the Nobel Peace Prize is worth about as
much as the prize you get out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Patriot Games
Yep, giving it to Yassir Arafast was bad enough.
Yep, giving it to Al Gore was the beginning of the end.
And giving it to Buckwheat was the last shred of credibility.
dracc...@gmail.com
> democrat?...AAC
>
>
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-administration-wont-...
Same reason GW Bush did not sign it we need them in Korea, you do have
a brain in there somewhere don't you?
dracc...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:02:30 -0800, AnAmericanCitizen
>
> >Why on earth would anyone NOT want to sign a land mine ban, republican or
> >democrat?...AAC
>
> You'll NEVER get Buckwheat or the DemocRATs to admit this but the REAL
> reason why they won't sign the ban is because it REQUIRES destroying
> the entire inventory - of which ours is HUGE - and they were hoping to
> SELL IT to a Turd World country...
>
> (Bush refused to sign it because Bush, a true American, refuses to be
> told what to do by ANY FOREIGN POWER.)
Maybe you should ask the last 3 Republican Presidents that same
question dickweed.
dracc...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:46:09 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>
> >Because land mines are intended to reduce the casualties on your side, and
> >inflict as much pain and suffering on the other side.
>
> True... But, we RARELY remove them when we leave....
>
> And that's kind of a problem...
So is your lack of intellect and basic concepts of thought but you get
along well enough.
dracc...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:47:32 -0800, AnAmericanCitizen
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:20:50 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>"Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.Com> wrote in message
Again Dumbass the same reason that all the Republican Presidents have
rejected the same treaty this is the policy of the United States for
Decades we like to keep our weapons options open.
Patriot Games
Learn how to use your newsreader, faggot.