Donald Trump ditches Obama-era restrictions on use of landmines, citing 'great power competition'

No need for evidence - I believe you - was just checking - or rather requesting that you do a self check.

If landmines become legal they can then be used in all kinds of situations. Take Syria for example - a war - but a war in which US personnel are not much involved - but we as a nation are involved.

Should we have given the Anti Assad rebels landmines ?

 

Doesn't matter to me. :shrugs: If we're going to be involved in a war, then use what we got. Stop pussyfooting around and get it done. That is the main goal. Get. It. Done. With the exception of WMD's, as explained earlier, use whatever it takes to get the job done as soon as possible. That is what matters to me. The sooner its done the sooner we can clean up the mess and move on. It will save far more lives in the long run than restricting ourselves because we're only thinking short term.

 

I will disagree with you - I do not condone giving land mines to Al Qaeda and ISIS - simply on the basis that we were involved in the war in Syria.

 

Landmines are no problem if you stay off of them.

 

Kal,
that is not happening. And that is the core problem, and for that reason mines need to be banned!!!!!
Reg.

 

Clinton, Carter, maybe Kennedy or should we go back further? Why?
Obama did the right hing, in banning them, maybe so it seams are the slightly to the left more peaceful by nature than those on the right side of the fence. All those strong hardcore leaders, Trump, Erdogan, Xi, Abbott (ex), Putin, Kim, Net, they all are right wingers, terrible terrible people.
The world deserves peace, looking after others and the land. And what do we do? Just the opposite...........
I bet that many of our commentators in favor of mines have never ever spoken to a soldier returning from a war zone. Reading comics or magazines or even watching the news isn't the real deal....................
Reg.

 

Then perhaps we should clean up after ourselves instead of banning them? Isn't that an option?

 

Kal,
not realistic. History has proven, that the cleaning up method after a conflict is wishful thinking, best example?
The USA,
reg.

 

Remember: instinct over reason?
Institutions are required to establish rule of law, to avoid anarchy and war, the destroyer of life.

Human nature.... well more accurately, the "human condition", already examined (google it).

Human nature can be everything, from saint to devil (even in the same individual).

Competition for scare resources (economics) and preservation of one's own culture (politics) is the source of war, the destroyer of life.

The human capacity for Rationality or Reason leads us to envision an international rules based system, in order to avoid war, the destroyer of life.

Starjet thinks human nature is rational; what he really means is humans have the capacity for rational thought.

But that capacity is rarely complete, and is continually compromised by instinct.

Then his classical liberalism leads him astray, when he assumes his own individual rationality is superior to those with different beliefs, or those who wish to compete with him for scarce resources.

Can you finally admit, after being acquainted with all the facts, that Moslems have an equal right to sovereignty over the temple mount, as do Jews?

And that war is the ultimate irrationality?

 

Neither do I. In fact I fully believe that we could, with our present technology, conduct a war without once sending one single soldier to lay boots on the ground. But that would require something that you are against. Indiscriminate killing.

Look at it this way. How long have we been in Iraq? Since 2003. Yes, we pulled out briefly in 2009 but we ended up going back in. Since we invaded Iraq over a million civilians have been killed. But the initial invasion of Iraq itself took no more than 1 month and 1 week. In that time roughly 50,000 soldiers across all nations that joined in were killed in total across with roughly 100,000 civilians were killed. The longer we are in a war the more casualties there are.

So what would you prefer? A short but indiscriminate war? Or a war that lasts for years with millions dead?

 

Don't ask such silly questions - Do you walk to work or take your lunch ? I know you can to better.

If it is all about "quick" - we could just drop the bomb - we all recognize that in a war - civilians will be killed - and the point of this conversation is to minimize the killing.

Your argument is based on a flawed assumption - that land mines will lead to a short war - or even shorten the war at all.

The second problem is that you are speaking in general terms. Some conversations require context - and this is one of them.

So far you have argued for giving Al Qaeda and ISIS - Landmines - and encouraging them to use them when it comes down to specific application of the principles you have put forward.

You kind of said - well well ... not that .. but - this does not change what you have argued for... If Landmines were legitimized - they would a have been part of the arms we sent them and/or facilitated in the sending there-of.

This is reality we are speaking here - not some general platitude or prognosis. The application of the principles you have put forward - right here .. right now.

I told you that you would lose this argument - not even knowing how at the time - but just knew it was a lost argument - and that I would figure it out eventually.

Defend your position further .. why should we legitimize the use of land mines ? cause it is not just us that will then be using them.

If you have a specific target .. and you are in direct control of the explosive .. fine .. but that is not what we are talking about. Land mines you lay about across a certain boundary a geographic area ..

You are saying "it will help us" .. but - tell me how it will harm us - and the rest of the world ? - when everyone starts using land mines - because you have legitimized their use.

 

Throughout most of modern military history, most nations have used landmines and it was hardly the end of the world as we know it.

 

Clearly not - have you any other brilliant deductions you wish to share

 

Those aren't silly questions. :shrug:

Landmines are meant for defensive use. It allows our troops to sleep, to be cared for when they are hurt and waiting to be transported, and to rest and relax while waiting for their next order. Or they are used to separate one fighting group from another (a defensive action), such as in the Korea situation. By allowing our troops to rest and relax and sleep and not have to worry as much about being attacked from all angles this keeps our troops able to work to the best of their ability. When they are working to the best of their ability they are able to successfully complete their missions in a timely manner. A tired soldier is slower, more prone to mistakes. Do you see now how they can shorten a war?

And last I checked ISIS et al are still using land mines. Only we don't call them that, we call them IED's. But they are the same thing. Both explosives buried in the ground waiting for someone to go over them. Whether we use them or not, our enemies will. And that has nothing to do with us "legitimizing their use".

And btw, I never argued for giving ISIS landmines. We have in the past given them to Al Qaeda though. When they were fighting for us, and not against us.

Now, do you really you want to make this about context? Or do you simply want to make it about a specific thing like "think of the innocents!!!"? Because context for me is looking at the big picture. Not the individualized specific things. And I'm certainly not making some "general platitude or prognosis".

 

But you have ... that is the logical outcome of what you are arguing. We led a global effort to arm ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria - if landmines were legitimized - they would have been shipped along with the rest of the stuff ...

You are for legitimizing the use of landmines - that is the position you are arguing is it not ? It is not like there is some grey here .. its not like . OH .. we will legitimize them .. but only for us.

The reason we call them terrorists - is because they use IED's/landmines - indiscriminately - there is a difference between something you have control over and something you do not... careful to make that distinction. I don't recall landmines being used extensively in the war in Syria... you may be confusing a targeted use an incendiary device with a landmine.

 

Were they right wingers?

Are you saying that a soldier returning from a war zone would be against land mines?

 

If our governments would listen to soldiers returning from conflict zones they might be more careful when or whether to send them next. It might also help to reduce the suicidal rate of these brave young men and women.

No to mines !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You don't want to talk about it. Clearly then you acknowledge that pre-Obama landmine policies weren't restricted to the right-wing and you don't want to admit that you were wrong. It's just weird that you kept mentioning the right-wing as that is totally irrelevant. Anything to attack the right wing I guess.

Absolutely, but what the hell does listening to soldiers have to do with landmines?

 

Chris,
Obama center/leftish, Trump rightish, ok, got it?
I think we have to leave it there, no idea why you are so obsessed with the democrats....
Reg.

 

You are the one who made it left wing/right wing and your ridiculous whataboutisms!

 

You are right,
he is arguing for arguing sake, can't help him...
Reg.

 

I would give Muslims sovereignty over the Dome of the Rock. That's their sacred space.
The temple mount is Jewish - no Muslim has the "right" to tell Jews they can't worship
there. One of the most serious problems faced by the Palestinians is their refusal to
believe they were defeated. Being defeated has benefits - just ask the Japanese and
Germans. That world war was completely rational - by all sides. But defeat gave some
nations the chance to start again. Not so the Palestinians.

 

Watch the rise of the anti-vaccination movement as just one small example of how
reason is a fragile thing. Watch people support Bernie Sanders because they vote
from the heart - and not from head which says that vote might wind up being for
Donald Trump instead.
I don't see "reason" when people salute a flag, sing a hymn, wear a national costume,
watch a movie, go to an art gallery, admire a pretty woman, desire a fast car, love their
country, want kids or no kids, love alcohol, join the Marines, go on blind dates etc etc..

If my country is attacked I won't reason out the myriad issues surrounding the worth
of my country, I will help defend it. I will be a patriot because my country has done so
much for me, and I don't like the idea that someone is attacking it.

 

Yes, but you STILL haven't acknowledged the fact that landmine policies pre-dated Trump and Obama. And Clinton's policy was identical to Trump's yet you are yammering on and on about the right wing!

 

No, @m2catter was the first to bring up a political side. And it's not 'whataboutism' if I'm not excusing Tump's actions or saying that his actions are irrelevant based on the actions of someone else.