[BlackIvy2]

Blind

[Ruxpercnd]

Putz - I read with interest your listing of United States landmines. The nice thing about engaging in this forum is that I often learn something new (The Avro Arrow is incredible) and I get exposed to alternative viewpoints regarding America, a country I dearly love.

First Canada is to be absolutely commended for it's anti-landmine movement. Now that's what I call working for peace! Pictures of folks missing limbs are highly disturbing. I believe that most American citizens share Canada's position regarding landmines.

I noticed that in your references that there is a mention of a Canadian landmine version, the F1A1 version of the M18A1. What was that about? I kind of think that your references are a little slanted in that they say nothing about recent use of landmines by America.

Now let's talk about the real facts regarding American policy on landmines.
From http://www.icbl.org/lm/2004/usa (the highlights are mine) an excerpt:

"The Bush Administration announced the results of a two-and-one-half year policy review on 27 February 2004, abandoning the objective of joining the Mine Ban Treaty eventually and declaring its intent to retain antipersonnel mines indefinitely. The US apparently did not use antipersonnel mines in Yugoslavia (Kosovo) in 1999, or in Afghanistan since October 2001, or in Iraq since March 2003. It reserved the right to use antipersonnel mines during each of these conflicts, and deployed mines to the region at least in the cases of Kosovo and Iraq. Landmine Monitor has identified 74 mine casualties among US military personnel between 2001 and 2003.

US mine action funding totaled $421.4 million between fiscal years 1999 and 2003, the largest total for any government. In addition, the State Department reports that in the last five years several hundred thousand US citizens have contributed more than $14 million to mine action programs around the world. The Department of Defense spent over $250 million from 1999-2003 to identify and field alternatives for landmines. The RADAM program, which would have combined existing antipersonnel and antivehicle mines into a new “mixed system,” was cancelled in 2002. The Pentagon reported in May 2002 that it “will not be able to meet” the 2006 target date to develop and field alternatives to antipersonnel mines.

Congress has extended the 1992 legislative moratorium on export of antipersonnel mines several times, most recently until 23 October 2008. US antipersonnel mines stockpiled in Italy, Norway, and Spain were removed to comply with their Mine Ban Treaty obligations. The US cleared its protective minefields at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba in 1999, and now claims not to maintain minefields anywhere in the world. However, protective minefields from the Soviet era are incorporated into the perimeter defense at locations US forces occupy in Afghanistan. The US ratified CCW Amended Protocol II in May 1999."


There is much more on America's actions regarding the dis-use of landmines and helping victems that is expressed in this link.


The fact is that America has designated many millions of dollars to the clearing of landmines. We technically reserve the right to use these weapons. However, we have , defacto, banned them. So how about acknowledging just a little of truth? American citizens would not now tolerate the widespread use of landmines.

From my point of view, America's feelings towards landmines is quite opposite of what you are trying to portray!


Rev_Blair - I didn't know that the use of depleted uranium is illegal. Do you have any additional information backing this up?

[Canadaka]

From the National Post:
http://www.canada.com/national/national ... a15&page=2

- BMD pits us against the world. It's fine for George W. Bush to flaunt world opinion -- he's built a flourishing political career doing so. And, besides, Dubya leads a superpower. But a superpower Canada is not -- and our national tradition is charting an independent course, not merely providing a Manifest Destiny echo. A recent poll conducted for The Associated Press found a majority of Europeans -- about four out of five respondents in places like Germany and Britain -- were upset about the Bush Administration's pugilistic foreign policy. Paul Martin is right to pay heed to that.

- BMD is really unpopular in Canada. A poll involving more than 3,000 Canadians late last year, conducted by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, found a majority of voters opposed BMD. (In Quebec, the number jumped to almost 70%.) It would be politically foolhardy -- and a likely boost to separatism, as well -- for Mr. Martin to dismiss such an overwhelming rejection of BMD in his home province.

- BMD has no champion in Canada -- apart from the National Post, that is. Members of every political party represented in the House of Commons are opposed to, or uncomfortable with, missile defence. Even Conservative leader Stephen Harper -- who some had assumed would reflexively embrace the program -- refused to be cowed by a closed-door lecture from no less than George W. Bush last November. Mr. Harper more recently re-iterated his party's position, which is that the United States must spell out what is expected of us, and that the issue should be debated on the floor of the House of Commons.

To recap: BMD doesn't work. It would isolate Canada globally. Canadians are against it. World opinion is against it. It would fail if brought to a vote in Parliament. And -- most of all -- BMD makes the world less safe, not more. Prime Minister Martin -- in the hearts and minds of most Canadians, and in the eyes of the world -- made the right decision. And he deserves credit for doing so.