Bill Moyers: We Have a Nobel Peace Prize President Who Won't Ban Land Mines

[Better Believe It]

Bill Moyers: We Have a Nobel Peace President Who Won't Ban Land Mines
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
December 11, 2009

The Nobel Committee said Obama won the prize for his respect of international law and his efforts at disarmament, yet he won't even sign on to end a barbaric weapon.

The United States has not actively used land mines since the first Gulf War in 1991, but we still possess some 10-15 million of them, making us the third largest stockpiler in the world, behind China and Russia. Like those two countries, we have refused to sign an international agreement banning the manufacture, stockpiling and use of land mines. Since 1987, 156 other nations have signed it, including every country in NATO. Amongst that 156, more than 40 million mines have been destroyed.

Last year 5,000 people were killed or wounded by land mines, often placed in the ground years before, during wars long since over. They kill or blow away the limbs of a farmer or child as indiscriminately as they do a soldier. But still we refuse to sign, citing security commitments to our friends and allies, such as South Korea, where a million mines fill the demilitarized zone between it and North Korea.

Twelve years ago, at the time the treaty was first put into place, the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Jody Williams, an activist from Vermont who believes that by organizing into a movement, ordinary people can matter. She proved it, despite the stubborn refusal of her own country's government to do the right thing.

Last week, Jody Williams condemned America's continuing refusal to sign the treaty as "a slap in the face to land mine survivors, their families, and affected communities everywhere."

The Nobel Committee said that part of the reason it was giving the Peace Prize to President Obama was for his respect of international law and his efforts at disarmament. And twice in his Nobel lecture, the President spoke of how often more civilians than soldiers die in a war.

And still the land mine treaty goes unsigned by the government he leads. Go figure.

Read the full article at:

http://www.alternet.org/politics/144525/bill_moyers%3A_we_have_a_nobel_peace_president_who_won%27t_ban_land_mines

[TheWraith]

1. Because North Korea's army numbers at two million men.

And because the minefield in the DMZ is one of the few things that would substantially slow them down if they decided to walk across the border. We would be signatories if there were an exception for the defensive minefield in the DMZ.

[IndianaGreen]

3. That is such a bullshit argument worthy of Orwell's Big Brother

:puke:

[TheWraith]

9. I'm glad you could elevate the level of debate. nt

[cayanne]

18. Why not explain your reply?

Why do think it's bullshit Just saying so just doesn't make it so.

[Better Believe It]

19. Do you think landmines is the reason North Korean hasn't invaded the south?

[cayanne]

29. I don't know.

It could be.I f I was S Korea, perhaps I'd be glad they were there. I asked because I don't know whether this is bullshit or not.

[apocalypsehow]

30. Another scintillating contribution to a DU discussion once again on display! n/t.

[Garam_Masala]

32. Which are your preferred weapons for defense?

Or do you believe in just turning the other cheek
like mahatma Ghandi?

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. +100

[Better Believe It]

12. Nonsense: 1.9 million would get past the land mines .... maybe more.

Do you really think the Stalinist regime in the north would care if 100,000 died in the initial push?

The idea that a minefield has stopped a war between the United States and North Korea is rather simplistic at best.

[Ter]

38. 100,000 right off the bat

Is a HUGE loss.

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Yep

:thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

33. Wouldn't North Korea just bomb a path if they wanted to pass?

And then send in men with with metal detectors?

[Ter]

37. Doubt it

Because there are also TONS in Guantanamo, Cuba.

[mcablue]

2. Look

He's a victim of landmines in Afghanistan:

http://www.rawa.org/image4.htm

[grasswire]

4. some American landmine manufacturers

as posted by elehhhhny on another thread:

...our pension funds include holdings worth $53,375,394 in no less than five landmine manufacturers, including Honeywell. The others are Lockheed-Martin, which produces the M-26, ADAM, GEMSS, M-74 and CBU-78, as well as the WCMD delivery system (20); Raytheon, which manufactures the BLU-92B (21); Texas Instruments, which makes the M-87 and BLU-92B (22); and Rockwell, which also manufactures the BLU-92B as well as the M-87 (23).

Follow the money.

[TheWraith]

10. We don't export landmines.

So the implication that we're refusing to ban them for profit is, simply put, crap.

[snagglepuss]

13. The only crap is your post. Its totally idiotic. The Military Industrial Complex makes

massive profits simply selling to the US govt.

[Algorem]

14. those companies make them for charitable purposes only

[grasswire]

15. what the heck are manufacturers doing with them?

saving them for American schoolyards or something?

[wolfgangmo]

20. Cough.

Now there is a scary thought.

Given that the use of our armed forces within our borders and against our citizens is now allowed (thanks Republican Man - that's swell - now we can kill some Libruls) what if they decide to use them against the people?

It's food for thought.

[Forkboy]

21. LOL

:crazy:

[polichick]

6. imo there is NO EXCUSE for this. It's sickening, and the prez shouldn't talk about evil...

...if he's not willing to ban this evil weapon.

[theoldman]

7. There is a big difference between the way the US uses land mines

and the way some other countries use them. We use them as a border to protect our troops. We also know exactly where they are so we can dig them up when not needed. Other countries just scatter the mines and leave them for future generations to get killed. An IED is a mine. We don't use IED's.

[mcablue]

8. The US hasn't used mines since 1991. Why don't we use them if they are so awesome?

I ask.

[TheWraith]

11. There's very few practical uses for landmines.

They're an area denial weapon, and none of our other conflicts have had us pitted against, say, a numerically superior force (North Korea) or trying to restrict the movement of armored vehicles and missile launchers (Gulf War).

[harkadog]

22. The OP is wrong. We do use them in Korea.

[mcablue]

25. I believe South Korea, and not us, uses them near their border

US doesn't use them itself.

[harkadog]

28. Yes and the Korean War was not a war it was a UN "police action"

[Ter]

39. "Using" them means making them go off

We ave them laid out all over the Korean border and all over (surrounding) Guantanamo Bay, but the enemy never crosses, so technically they weren't "used." We lased used them against our enemies in '91.

[harkadog]

23. We have tens of thousand of mines along the border with N. Korea

And you actually believe we know where all of them are? People will say and believe anything.

[arcos]

31. Just like there's a big difference how the US tortuers and how other countries torture, right? nt

[Vidar]

17. Thank you, Bill

[freddie mertz]

24. Bill Moyers speaks truth again.

Thanks for posting this.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. The Senate won't ratify the treaty regardless of whether Obama signs it

And a signed treaty without ratification is like kind of like a strongly worded letter. The United States is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol but it is absolutely meaningless without Senate approval.

Obama doesn't want to debate land mines with Senate Republicans when he knows he's going to lose that debate. It doesn't matter if the mines are strategically necessary or not he will still lose that debate because fear is extremely powerful. If the Korea situation ever stabilizes then the politics will change drastically.

[Better Believe It]

35. So Obama can't and shouldn't challenge Republicans? Is he really that weak?

[Bad Thoughts]

27. We have a president, not a dictator? Quel domage! n/t

[Better Believe It]

36. Has President Obama been speaking in favor of a ban? Links please.

[David Zephyr]

34. K&R.

.