Comments on: Veterans Day, World War I, Land Mine Legacy http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/veterans_day_wo.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:33:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Deven http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/veterans_day_wo.html/comment-page-1#comment-51589 Deven Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:14:49 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/veterans-day-world-war-i-land-mine-legacy.html#comment-51589 Thaddeus, You are correct. Korea and the DMZ were reasons behind Clinton's original position. Note that the administration took an approach that was in line with your thoughts, I think: We will not sign; military find a way to solve the problem; by 2006 we will essentially be in line with the treaty. Others who know the details may be able to provide more on the background but that is how the articles seemed to explain the events. As for the more general issue Conservatarian and you bring up, I think I need to clarify. First, the amount of left over mines from such an old war is astonishing. Given the harms caused, finding ways to minimize the impact on civilians during and after a war has merit. Second, I see that the post seems to conflate guerilla style war and traditional war. My apologies. The irony I was trying to note is that the treaties do not seem to apply to these situations. The NY Times piece I think captures a different point: even for signatories having the U.S. say use mines but only if they are like ours changes the analysis. Put differently, is the question all mines are bad? Or is it: mines that harm civilians and remain active long after a war are bad? In any event, as always thanks to you both for engaging and asking great questions. -Deven Thaddeus, You are correct. Korea and the DMZ were reasons behind Clinton’s original position. Note that the administration took an approach that was in line with your thoughts, I think: We will not sign; military find a way to solve the problem; by 2006 we will essentially be in line with the treaty.

Others who know the details may be able to provide more on the background but that is how the articles seemed to explain the events.

As for the more general issue Conservatarian and you bring up, I think I need to clarify. First, the amount of left over mines from such an old war is astonishing. Given the harms caused, finding ways to minimize the impact on civilians during and after a war has merit. Second, I see that the post seems to conflate guerilla style war and traditional war. My apologies. The irony I was trying to note is that the treaties do not seem to apply to these situations. The NY Times piece I think captures a different point: even for signatories having the U.S. say use mines but only if they are like ours changes the analysis. Put differently, is the question all mines are bad? Or is it: mines that harm civilians and remain active long after a war are bad?

In any event, as always thanks to you both for engaging and asking great questions.

-Deven

]]> By: Maryland Conservatarian http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/veterans_day_wo.html/comment-page-1#comment-51588 Maryland Conservatarian Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:00:42 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/veterans-day-world-war-i-land-mine-legacy.html#comment-51588 Is Al Qaeda a signatory? Is Al Qaeda a signatory?

]]> By: Thaddeus Hoffmeister http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/veterans_day_wo.html/comment-page-1#comment-51587 Thaddeus Hoffmeister Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:31:57 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/veterans-day-world-war-i-land-mine-legacy.html#comment-51587 N. Korea, not Iraq, is the reason the U.S. did not sign the Ottawa convention on land mines. Furthermore, signing Ottawa would not stop insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters from using land mines in the future. However, signing Ottawa would place a lot of American service members on the DMZ in unnecessary danger. N. Korea, not Iraq, is the reason the U.S. did not sign the Ottawa convention on land mines. Furthermore, signing Ottawa would not stop insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters from using land mines in the future. However, signing Ottawa would place a lot of American service members on the DMZ in unnecessary danger.

]]>