Obama badly disappoints with land mines decision

President Barack Obama will collect his Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10 — two weeks after his administration announced a decision not to join the global treaty banning land mines. He shouldn't get away without having to reconcile the glow of Oslo with that deadly, heartless and inhumane decision, another sign that the president's peace prize may have been premature.

Land mines caused more than 5,000 casualties in 2008, many of them outside current war zones.

More than a third of the victims were children. If the United States can support treaties against the use of chemical weapons and other atrocities, surely it can ban devices that keep on killing the innocent years after a war is over.

More than 150 nations, including the majority of our NATO allies, have signed the treaty.

Even Iraq, Afghanistan and Colombia have signed. But not China. Not Russia. And not the United States.

It's a disgrace.

This country has a stockpile of more than 10 million land mines.

Ian Kelly, a spokesman for the State Department, told reporters that the United States "determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this convention."

We have not used land mines since the 1991 Gulf War. The notion that our security rests on them now is ludicrous — a distortion of reality unworthy of a president who claims to want to restore U.S. stature in the international community. U.S. officials backtracked a bit on their position last week after humanitarian groups exploded in rage.

They now say the policy again is "under review." What's left to review?

The civilized world agreed more than a decade ago that these weapons have no place in modern warfare.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13902275?nclick_check=1

so disappointed.

Not saying I agree, but that's why.

it's about $$$$$$$.

the korean DMZ is chock full o land mines.

and why Hillary as NY Sen and pres candidate had to betray her values and defend land mines as well.

Human Rights Watch challenges Israel's use of cluster bombs
Sunday February 17, 2008 11:19 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC News
The internationally-renowned organization Human Rights Watch has demanded an independent inquiry into Israel's use of cluster bombs during its 2006 invasion of Lebanon. An internal investigation carried out by the Israeli government recently released its findings, concluding that Israel did not violate international law when it dropped several thousand cluster bombs containing millions of bomblets all over southern Lebanon.

Lebanese child injured by Israeli cluster bomb

One of the lead authors of the Human Rights Watch report stated, "Ninety percent of the (bombing) strikes occurred in the last three days (of the war when) Israel knew a ceasefire was imminent. Many, many of those strikes occurred on towns and villages across south Lebanon. Munitions left behind by those attacks continue to kill civilians today." Already, over 200 people, both Lebanese civilians and internationals, have lost limbs or been killed by the unexploded bomblets left by the cluster bombs.

The report was released at the beginning of a conference in New Zealand that was convened for the purpose of building a campaign to end the use of cluster bombs worldwide. In fact, cluster bombs are illegal under the current laws of warfare as stated in international law.

The title of the report is "Flooding South Lebanon: Israel's Use of Cluster Munitions in Lebanon in July and August 2006”, and it contains data on hundreds of "indiscriminate and disproportionate cluster munitions attacks on Lebanon."

Human Rights Watch called on the United Nations to head up an investigation into the Israeli use of cluster bombs in Lebanon, to see if Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilian populations, as many of the Lebanese victims and their families are claiming.

If that is the case, Israel could be forced to stand trial in an international court of justice. But the Israeli government, along with the US government, have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the International Court of Justice, so the decision would hold no sway in those countries. The two are virtually the only countries in the world that have not agreed to the legitimacy of the international court body.
http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=52841

so i hardly see this as betraying her values.

heck, she won't even admit that the iraq invasion was wrong, even based on current knowledge.

bill fucking oreilly admits this. but she can't

He shouldn't be expected just to change stuff for the point of changing stuff.

:shrug:

Where's the change?

That destabilizing a situation which has held a cease fire in Korea for decades is not a good idea.

How about you explain to him your idea for breaking the stalemate there, because yours is better.

Said that this is something that is under review. Same crap with the Yoo thread old news and the legal reasons make sense.

They continue to believe the fucking lies.

This place is on my last raw nerve.

and FACTS. They prefer their own.

for what truth looks like.

"We have not used land mines since the 1991 Gulf War."

That is a lie.

We are using them in the Korean DMZ, where they have been used for decades to enforce the cease fire.

The same is NOT true of the DOJ's actions on war crimes and related matters.

Jeez.

by the looks of it, the same hand is in the puppet we call our president

he's been trying to prove them wrong.

but this one is wrong.

President didn't. Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted not to prohib their sale. Obama and Kerry (who was then still potentially runniong) voted against them.

This is a similar enough issue that I would have thought that he would be better on this.

...to avoid wandering South.

Enraged humanitarians for peace....