John Grigg wrote:
> Adian Tymes(hater of felines!) wrote:
> Find a good use for cats, and get rid of all these dormant landmines.
Ahem. And this is where attribution becomes important. I *quoted*
that line; I did not write it myself.
> 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?
Those lines, OTOH, I did write.
> (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.
You misread what I wrote. I acknowledge that the US wishes to maintain
using *its* mines; the Korean minefield is one of its justifications.
What I was wondering was, if it believes it can responsibly use mines
due to technical safety features and the like, but much of the rest of
the world wants to ban landmines due to bad use of mines without those
safety features and is miffed at the US for refusing to play along, then
why not simply ban mines without the safety features?
- Adrian, who currently has two very well loved cats in his house
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT