Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An example of DU trivialization . . land mines

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » Barack Obama Group Donate to DU
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 09:51 PM
Original message
An example of DU trivialization . . land mines
Posters post threads stating their horror that Obama continues Bush policies on land mines.

If you go over to the ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines you can get a fuller story:




http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Library/News-Articles/Universal/us-reaction-2dec09

Cartagena, 2 December 2009 -- In a statement Tuesday, the head of the U.S. delegation to the Second Review Conference of the Mine Ban Treaty informed participants that the Obama administration has begun a comprehensive landmine policy review. In the statement, the U.S. representative said, "The Administration's decision to attend this Review Conference is the result of an on-going comprehensive review of U.S. landmine policy initiated at the direction of President Obama."

This statement was contrary to the position first outlined by Department of State spokesperson Ian Kelly in response to a reporter's question during a briefing last Tuesday, November 24. Kelly's original announcement was followed by a fierce outcry from civil society, non-governmental organizations and the international community including the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Although members of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines welcomed the reversal in the U.S. position and their participation at the Review Conference, campaigners remain guardedly optimistic about the motives behind such an abrupt change.

"We are very pleased in that the U.S. has declared that a policy review of its position on the Mine Ban Treaty is ongoing and we view their participation in this conference as a good first step", said Sylvie Brigot, ICBL Executive Director. "The next step is to have a transparent and inclusive review done in consultation with NGO mine action experts and NATO allies in a timely manner. We also need the U.S. to recognize - and accept - that landmines are an outdated, increasingly obsolete weapon and that searching for an alternative for security purposes is no longer a relevant argument for not joining the treaty."



Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
firedupdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks grantcart...
I miss good information because I don't go near the naysayer threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, the Obama administration
doesn't jump as fast as the egocentric poster wants and that's a "disappointment" to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm getting a general idea that the O Admin leaves things be until
they can have a look at them, causing the one issue people to jump all over him.

This issue in particular is something they seem to just leave as is and will study it later and do what they think should be done.

I like that thoughtful approach, as opposed to simply making some 180 degree turn just to say they are doing something different.

That's the "change" these whiners don't acknowledge. Thoughtful plans, no knee jerk reactions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well a treaty is complicated

It will effect the Department of Defense and the Department of State and you would have to coordinate with the Attorney General.

Then you have to get 66% of the Senators in favor of it as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
euphoria12leo Donating Member (511 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
13.  At a press conference President Obama
was asked why there was no response from him. I can't remember what was going on at the time. I think it was about Blagojevich and his Senate seat. He said because "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." What I heard after that on MSNBC was, oh no he didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
excellent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Isn't one of our main considerations the 'No man Zone'
between South and North Korea which has land mines in it to protect the border between the two parts of the country. Or is that the reason given by Ian Kelly for Obama not going along with the ban.

I don't know nothing....I just hear things and sometimes I believe them. :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I think that is the main problem

ICBL seems to be saying that the US wouldn't have to worry about them because they are Korean mines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me.
There are times that what I read becomes a puzzle that has a few parts missing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. Coming from the Obama admin, "comprehensive policy review" signals good things to come
TY for sharing this with us here. This is wonderful news indeed.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. Unlike the thread in GD asserts ...

This is actually quite a diversion from Bush era policy.

We've acknowledged that the conference exists and sent observers and issued a statement.

I wish the US were able to sign and implement the treaty, but as you say and as some have a desperate need not to believe, such things aren't as simple as they may appear on the surface. Senator Leahy, despite his disappointment, knows that. He's simply doing his job in providing a little fire to the administration's pants not to forget the issue is still there.

And as an aside ... Just exactly when did it become acceptable to quote an writer/editor's comment and attribute it to someone else? Of course that's rhetorical ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. To be fair I think that Bush's policies were also Clintons
and that it was a basic bipartisan approach based on the strong feelings of the military.


It is a time for a review and, I hope, signing the treaty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. and that thread is now history
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » Barack Obama Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC