Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Unfortunately, that is not what the Treaty says, and Jodie Williams is
> vehemently against it being diluted by such technical exceptions. She
> wants them all gone, and won't accept any compromise. I could go on and
> on about her real motives, but thats another discussion...
<shrugs> So? Draft and sign an anti-landmine treaty with those
technical exceptions, and much of the wind is removed from these
protestors' sails. Can't please everyone 100%, but one can make
compromises.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:32 MDT