Adian Tymes(hater of felines!) wrote:
Find a good use for cats, and get rid of all these dormant landmines. Actually, I was more wondering why the US wouldn't sign a treaty banning the more primitive landmines. I mean, if the US believes it is
resposibly using landmines, then it should have little problem asking the rest of the world to be responsible in the same way, no?
(end)
The U.S. is opposed to a world ban on landmines due to the situation with the Korean demiliterized zone. The landmines there would really slow down a massive North Korean advance, thereby saving many thousands of American and South Korean lives. I wish the Korean situation would fizzle out so a ban could be ratified by the United States.
Dossy(enemy to all cats!) replied:
Um, if the US believes it could even possibly do anything responsibly, then why not just stop building weapons of destruction and ask the rest of the world to be responsible in the same way?
Silly
(end)
Because we are obsessed with the notion of other nations secretly researching and building such weapons without our knowledge. This would give them the option of blackmailing the United States. I think obviously the U.S. does not want to miss the boat on the next technology to be a crucial equalizer.
If we had such a treaty for weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. and United Nations would be kept very busy with invading the rogue states who are in violation! We would have a Gulf or Afghan war every year...
Of course, all very powerful nations would be given "get out of jail free!" cards. We can't risk WWIII by invading folks who are too numerous and well-armed! And I seriously doubt the U.N. will mount a military expedition against the U.S. if we are found to be treaty violators! lol!
best wishes,
John
-- Click here for your very own create-a-date adventure from MatchMaker Go to http://ecard.matchmaker.com/dating.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:30 MDT