[Sixstrings]

"Why hasn't the U.S. signed an international ban on land mines?"

It makes strategic sense to reserve the right, as a last resort. For example, say Russia proper were invaded -- then landmines would be justifiable.

EDIT: from your article

The United States hasn’t used land mines on the battlefield in more than two decades. It has poured nearly $2 billion into mine clearance, helping the injured and other assistance since 1993, making it a commanding force in the global battle against antipersonnel land mines.

Well see, there ya go, US strategically reserves the right to use them but has not for over 20 years. I'd be interested to know all the cases we've used landmines -- my guess would be not much in Vietnam, if at all. Probably Korea, certainly WWII.

As that article says, the US has done a lot of good in the world spending billions to clean up minefields. Now there's new minefields in Ukraine -- it's not good, it's not justifiable, it's not like Russia has been invaded and there's a siege of St. Petersburg.

This is what these landmines do to innocent people, decades after:

[Keith_McClary]

So if you were POTUS what would you do, exactly?

My recommendation, POTUS should have:

* launched those missiles on syria after the nerve gas red line, and hit the assad regime hard, without US boots on the ground. *then* go talk to the russians.

* On Ukraine, do probing escalations same as Putin has done, and the Russians would back down and not push it so far:

- NATO on standby in Poland, massive wargames just like the Russians did, set up a command and control just over the Ukrainian border. (in NATO-speak, there's a defense command something or other that should have already been activated regarding this crisis)
- big mass rally speech in Poland, Kennedy / Reagan style, make east euros feel secure that we're behind them. Lay out the case for the new struggle in this century: totalitarianism vs. democracy and freedom
- Western ban on all arms sales to Russia, and general military gear like those training facilities the Germans built for them
- Vigorously address all of Russia supposed concerns and reasons for invading crimea, thereby leaving them with no justification. The POTUS should even more for protecting ethnic Russians than Putin is, POTUS should be publically stating Russia will never lose their naval base. Just remove all their reasons, for this invasion, because the state dept agrees with it all anyway.

* I wouldn't make a redline about Crimea. You'd have to feel the Russians out on that one -- if we KNOW they won't give it up, then the smarter thing to do is concede that and then have the West back up the rest of Ukraine. Possibly NATO forces in Ukraine. Russians can keep the peace in Crimea, we can keep the peace in the rest of the place. But never concede to the legality of the Russian occupation -- NATO involvement would be to just hold the line, at Crimea.

If any of these tough measure were taken, then Putin would have come to the table already, that's the reality here. Or even just a few asset freezes on the right oligarchs. All it took in Georgia was George Bush sending some navy ships. Putin's smart. He doesn't want confrontation with the US. But if we are weak then he will press for full advantage.

Ultimate solution in Ukraine? I don't know. Apparently sharing it is not going to work. And maybe the O admin has concluded this and will stick to the red line about Russia getting out of crimea. Someone may have to win. It's like another Syria, the Russians just make it impossible what can you do?

So you should have voted for the ultra-rightist candidate.

[Keith_McClary]

And the topic of this thread are Obama's 10 Putin untruths -- can anyone counter those, using complete paragraphs like the state department dude does.

Look, pathetic troll.

You already issued verdict to this comedy yourself - "10 Putin untruths" - a ministry is telling you what is truth and what is untruth, being essentially the "Ministry of Truth". No other explanations needed.

Looks outright ridiculous. Like Soviet Pravda explaining in the morning what is the party line today, and what is truth and what is untruth today. Have not seen anything like this for ages.

6 recognizes that US is becoming totalitarian. Funny he does not see this webpage as evidence.

[Sixstrings]

So you should have voted for the ultra-rightist candidate.

That would have been McCain, or Romney. I had no idea they would actually be right about Russia, I saw the same trends they did but I thought surely no.. cold war is over.. I saw what Russia did in Georgia and never thought they'd take it a step further than that, never to this degree.

It may still be okay. Maybe Putin won't do this again for another 6 years or so, maybe it's like a Georgia, maybe Russia will learn from this and not repeat it. Maybe it's just very heavy sabre-rattling.

In the interest of avoiding war, maybe the West should give another pass. Yet, how do we abandon west Ukraine? We're already tied in.. already funding them.. how do you extricate from that and just let Russia have it?

P.S. I like everything Harper has said about it

[Quinny]

Got a bit complicate this thread. Thought it was quite a simple question that was posed about the far right being involved in the new Ukrainian 'Government'.

'The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.'

Some people have voted they do believe this statement is correct, but I would have thought there might be some explanation as to how someone can believe so.

Suppose it could be that they are so far right, they don't think any of the parties involved are far right, or maybe they don't look beyond the headlines difficult to tell really.

[Sixstrings]

Some people have voted they do believe this statement is correct, but I would have thought there might be some explanation as to how someone can believe so.

And nobody has offered any explanation to prove the opposite. To analyze this "Putin untruth" on Obama's list, we would need to consider the following:

1. What were all the right wing groups that were associated with the uprising? I'd want to know about all of them, the crazy ones too, is that svboda with the one guy doing the heil hitler salute, who also stood next to mccain? Or what party is he, or is it a party at all?

2. Are any of these "far right groups" political parties that have current seats in the Rada? Isn't it still the same rada that was there before, until new elections are held? If so, then Obama is correct. (ergo, every one of you that voted no on the poll is just factually WRONG, and Obama is RIGHT)

When the new are elections are held, it's not consistent with democracy to ban anyone's free speech or ban any parties. Whomever Ukrainians elect is who they elect and that's democracy -- one vote for each ukrainian, whether they're east or west or crimean or right wing nutter or liberal or communist or party of regions or whatever.

[ROCKMAN]

Falling under the State Dept policy of "Do as we say...not as we do" folks need to be a tad cautious when it comes to bragging about US landmine policies. The first thing to do is that there’s a whole new world of definitions for “landmines”. Also if US forces are protected by minefields laid down by another country’s military force does that really mean the US isn’t utilizing landmines? Such as:

“THE DMZ of the Korean peninsula has the world’s highest density of landmines. They are estimated to be every 2.3 square meters for a total of 1.2 million, and there is a yearly average of twenty lives claimed by landmines. In April last year, the Donga Daily News ran a photo of soldiers sweeping the Namdae River in South Korea for landmines that were washed away from the annual monsoon season. Between 1996 and 2001, the military removed 1,407 landmines from the riverbanks — something to think about when you are fly fishing in this region.”

Also: The last antipersonnel mines rolled off U.S. production lines in 1997. However:
• The United States will decide in December 2005 whether it will begin the production
of a new antipersonnel mine called Spider.
• According to a media report, which the Pentagon has yet to confirm or deny, in May
2005 the U.S. Army was to begin deploying to Iraq a new remote-controlled
landmine system called Matrix, which relies on technology developed for Spider.
• The Pentagon has requested a total of $1.3 billion for development and production
activities for another new antipersonnel mine called the Intelligent Munitions
System, with a full production decision expected in 2008.
• There is concern that a United States proposal for an international prohibition on
export of landmines that do not self-destruct will pave the way for the resumption of
U.S. export of antipersonnel mines that do self-destruct.

[ralfy]

It makes strategic sense to reserve the right, as a last resort. For example, say Russia proper were invaded -- then landmines would be justifiable.

EDIT: from your article

The United States hasn’t used land mines on the battlefield in more than two decades. It has poured nearly $2 billion into mine clearance, helping the injured and other assistance since 1993, making it a commanding force in the global battle against antipersonnel land mines.

Well see, there ya go, US strategically reserves the right to use them but has not for over 20 years. I'd be interested to know all the cases we've used landmines -- my guess would be not much in Vietnam, if at all. Probably Korea, certainly WWII.

As that article says, the US has done a lot of good in the world spending billions to clean up minefields. Now there's new minefields in Ukraine -- it's not good, it's not justifiable, it's not like Russia has been invaded and there's a siege of St. Petersburg.

This is what these landmines do to innocent people, decades after:

Exactly! The problem is that what makes "strategic sense" will not necessarily protect "innocent people," and what might protect the latter won't necessarily make "strategic sense."

[Sixstrings]

Exactly! The problem is that what makes "strategic sense" will not necessarily protect "innocent people," and what might protect the latter won't necessarily make "strategic sense."

Right. So it's like WMD, is my point. Last resort, if your country is invaded and / or it's all out WWIII.

But for little regime changes and meddling like Russia is doing? Landmines are inappropriate in this case.

Anyway.. we've got more of this "you're no better" argument going on in this thread. This kind of reasoning is like seeing someone beating someone up and you say "hey, you can't do that" and then another bystander says "well you're no better, you got in a fight ten years ago."

Which of the logical fallacies is this? I used to have a list of them. This has to be one of them, the "2 wrongs don't make a right" thing.

[Quinny]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-tr ... on/5371539

Some people have voted they do believe this statement is correct, but I would have thought there might be some explanation as to how someone can believe so.

And nobody has offered any explanation to prove the opposite. To analyze this "Putin untruth" on Obama's list, we would need to consider the following:

1. What were all the right wing groups that were associated with the uprising? I'd want to know about all of them, the crazy ones too, is that svboda with the one guy doing the heil hitler salute, who also stood next to mccain? Or what party is he, or is it a party at all?

2. Are any of these "far right groups" political parties that have current seats in the Rada? Isn't it still the same rada that was there before, until new elections are held? If so, then Obama is correct. (ergo, every one of you that voted no on the poll is just factually WRONG, and Obama is RIGHT)

When the new are elections are held, it's not consistent with democracy to ban anyone's free speech or ban any parties. Whomever Ukrainians elect is who they elect and that's democracy -- one vote for each ukrainian, whether they're east or west or crimean or right wing nutter or liberal or communist or party of regions or whatever.

[ralfy]

Right. So it's like WMD, is my point. Last resort, if your country is invaded and / or it's all out WWIII.

The catch is that no one is limited in using them for defending one's country. The same goes for WMDs.

And landmine use won't prevent WW3.

But for little regime changes and meddling like Russia is doing? Landmines are inappropriate in this case.

The U.S. used landmines readily in Basra and other parts of Iraq.

Anyway.. we've got more of this "you're no better" argument going on in this thread. This kind of reasoning is like seeing someone beating someone up and you say "hey, you can't do that" and then another bystander says "well you're no better, you got in a fight ten years ago."
Which of the logical fallacies is this? I used to have a list of them. This has to be one of them, the "2 wrongs don't make a right" thing.

For me, it's not an issue of one military power being better than another. It's that military powers will be guided by realpolitik even if it goes against what is supposed to be "better."

In this case, the U.S. will argue that landmines harm innocent people but will continue using them for strategic reasons.

[Keith_McClary]

Whomever Ukrainians elect is who they elect and that's democracy -- one vote for each ukrainian, whether they're east or west or crimean or right wing nutter or liberal or communist or party of regions or whatever.

Nazi seizure of power
Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority, so Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party.[12] Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power).[13]

That's democracy.
We will soon see what kind of "free and fair" elections this coalition of skinheads and oligarchs conducts.

[Sixstrings]

We will soon see what kind of "free and fair" elections this coalition of skinheads and oligarchs conducts.

At least admit the reality that American diplomats have done a lot to ensure democratic government over there, fair elections, doing the right things.

America and Canada give those "human rights lectures."

Russia does not. Give America, and Canada a chance Keith. Don't be so negative.

(at the moment they've got bigger things to worry about -- Russian invasion, annexation, civil war)

[Quinny]

Think quotes got a bit mixed up here
(I do it all the time)

Whomever Ukrainians elect is who they elect and that's democracy -- one vote for each ukrainian, whether they're east or west or crimean or right wing nutter or liberal or communist or party of regions or whatever.

Nazi seizure of power
Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority, so Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party.[12] Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power).[13]

That's democracy.
We will soon see what kind of "free and fair" elections this coalition of skinheads and oligarchs conducts.

[Quinny]

6 you really just don't get it do you. There were previously elections, Close run thing admittedly, but according to observers as free and fair as can be accepted. Bush was elected in questionable circumstances, but the Dems didn't storm the White house with petrol bombs did they. They don't need a lesson in elections from the US - nobody does. Please stop starting trouble and stop supporting extremists!

[ROCKMAN]

"...the U.S. will argue that landmines harm innocent people but will continue using them for strategic reasons." Just like drone strikes. Just one more reason to do as best as possible to avoid military conflicts at least in civilian areas. Reminds me of a statement by a WWI general who envisioned the end of regional warfare. After all, with the advent of air power, what govt would subject its civilian population to such a threat? Obviously he was wrong...very wrong.