Ed Ofama... On Iran

[Pardalis]

So do I recognize the authority of the IAEA? Yes.

Good. So they are the ones pushing for sanctions and pressuring Iran to comply with the inspections, not only the US.

Their concerns are genuine, and not influenced by the US. So you can stop blaming the US for the escalation of tensions with Iran and their nuclear program.

 

[citizenzen]

Good. So they are the ones pushing for sanctions and pressuring Iran to comply with the inspections, not only the US.

Their concerns are genuine, and not influenced by the US. So you can stop blaming the US for the escalation of tensions with Iran and their nuclear program.

As I stated before, I'm fine with sanctions. If that were all the United States had in mind I could rest more easily. I also disagree with your notion that the U.S. is not "to blame" for escalating tension on this issue. Perhaps you haven't heard some of the rhetoric coming forth regarding this.

 

[WildCat]

I have searched in vain for the word "after" in Travis' post. Just can't find it. Woe is me. But with your help I'm sure it will magically appear.

That's because it was Varwoche who brought up Vietnam. And while you won't find the word "after" I'll hilite the important part for you:

I hesitate to derail the thread but fyi thousands of people have been killed or injured in Vietnam by land mines since the fall of Saigon.

Understand now?

 

[varwoche]

i have no problem with what iran is doing.
the 'fact' that they are building a bomb, is much like the 'fact' that saddam had WMD's.
even if they are....
they are a sovereign nation with nuclear armed hostile neighbours.
they have every right to defend themselves.

The logical extension of which is, you have "no problem" with any and all countries possessing nuclear weapons.

I don't even believe you have no problem. Only an apocalyptic maniac would have no problem with the notion of every country in the world possessing nukes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you have a more nuanced view than indicated by these disturbing comments.

 

[A'isha]

What are you on about? The US used mine fields around their bases (as they still do today), and the fields were meticulously mapped. The mines were thus able to be removed.

Except that they weren't.

These aren't the mines causing problems in post-war Vietnam.

Except that they are. Quang Tri province in Vietnam was once the northernmost province in the Republic of Vietnam. It's northern border is where the DMZ was. The 2009 BOMICEN/Vietnam Veterans of America Landmine and UXO survey said Quang Tri was the worst affected province in the country, with 83% of its land area being affected by UXO and landmines, with less than 0.1% having been cleared.

Landmines and Underdevelopment, describes one example of where these UXO and mines are located:

In Gio Linh district [of Quang Tri province] with a current population of 63,000, between three and four hundred thousand hectares of farm land remain uncultivated due to the presence of mines and ordnance. These areas tend to be on the periphery of what were formerly US bases. Doc Mieu, one of the largest US bases near the 17th parallel, was protected by a minefield and an electric fence over eighty kilometers long.

Vietnam has a far bigger problem with contamination from UXO than from landmines, but landmines - US landmines - are still a problem.

 

[bikerdruid]

The logical extension of which is, you have "no problem" with any and all countries possessing nuclear weapons.
.

actually, that's true.
if any whacko can have them, why not all whackos?
nobody seems too troubled by the idea that pakistan and india both have 'the bomb', and heck, we KNOW that they are crazy.

and who the hell is going to decide which sovereign nation has the right to protect itself against a hostile world, also so armed?
it ain't you and it ain't me.

 

[SezMe]

That's because it was Varwoche who brought up Vietnam. And while you won't find the word "after" I'll hilite the important part for you:

Understand now?

I do, thank you. I was responding to Travis sans the qualifier included with Varwoche's post. Repeating his original post which started the whole thing:

Children are getting their legs blown off by USA landmines?

You replied (in part):

They're all made in communist countries ....

which requires me to repeat a sentence from my #137:

From 1969 to 1992 the United States exported nearly four and a half million antipersonnel landmines to at least thirty-four different countries (including Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam and Iraq)

So, based on this and and ANTPogo's excellent post above that the unequivocal reply to Travis - whether augmented by Varwoche or not - is "yes". Do you agree?

 

[bikerdruid]

Children are getting their legs blown off by USA landmines?

probably,
but most certainly children have had legs blown off by mines bought from the united states by whatever despot was in favour with uncle sam at the time.,

 

[WildCat]

Except that they weren't.



Except that they are. Quang Tri province in Vietnam was once the northernmost province in the Republic of Vietnam. It's northern border is where the DMZ was. The 2009 BOMICEN/Vietnam Veterans of America Landmine and UXO survey said Quang Tri was the worst affected province in the country, with 83% of its land area being affected by UXO and landmines, with less than 0.1% having been cleared.

Landmines and Underdevelopment, describes one example of where these UXO and mines are located:



Vietnam has a far bigger problem with contamination from UXO than from landmines, but landmines - US landmines - are still a problem.

So why can't you find a direct quote claiming that it is US land mines? I'm sure that "the periphery of US bases" was a pretty popular place for VC to plant land mines.

 

[WildCat]

So, based on this and and ANTPogo's excellent post above that the unequivocal reply to Travis - whether augmented by Varwoche or not - is "yes". Do you agree?

I'm eagerly awaiting the evidence that supports your conclusion. Got any?

You're still 3rd and 10 from your own 20.

 

[A'isha]

So why can't you find a direct quote claiming that it is US land mines? I'm sure that "the periphery of US bases" was a pretty popular place for VC to plant land mines.

Because Vietnam doesn't track things regarding mines in that much detail at present (mainly due to UXOs being a more pressing issue). Studies are currently underway to try and rectify that.

But I'm sure that the fact that Jim Monan felt the need to detail the size and extent of the US-placed minefield around Doc Mieu is only because the NVA planted their own mines there, and has nothing to do with the US military's own mines.

If it helps you sleep better at night.

 

[SezMe]

I'm eagerly awaiting the evidence that supports your conclusion. Got any?

What is it that you would accept? You want a picture of the stars and stripes tattooed on the stump of bone sticking out of the end of a kids leg? A picture of an old woman who crawled back to the spot where her legs were blown off and collected all the pieces of shrapnel that was left over so you can read USA printed on them? Jesus, WildCat.

Hey, Travis! You still here? Do you think your question has been answered? I'm beginning to think WildCat is a hopeless case.

 

[IDB87]

yes, the american christian right are bloody scary.

Agreed.

Why don't you feel the same towards the Islamic government in Tehran? They're cut from the same cloth, and have more control over that country than the American Christian right does.

The world should move towards removing nuclear weapons - no country should have them, or should be developing them. Arguing that nukes are scary, and in the same breath advocating that one favored state should have them because one opposed state does is fallacious.

 

[IDB87]

As I stated before, I'm fine with sanctions. If that were all the United States had in mind I could rest more easily. I also disagree with your notion that the U.S. is not "to blame" for escalating tension on this issue. Perhaps you haven't heard some of the rhetoric coming forth regarding this.

What type of sanctions would you support?

The youth of Iran is our ally. Why do you think crippling them is the preferred route?

 

[IDB87]

i have no problem with what iran is doing.
the 'fact' that they are building a bomb, is much like the 'fact' that saddam had WMD's.
even if they are....
they are a sovereign nation with nuclear armed hostile neighbours.
they have every right to defend themselves.

This comment, juxtaposed with your avatar, strikes me as the definition of hypocrisy.

How can you be a champion for peace when you assert that a state (an oppressive theocratic state no less)has a right to procure the most destructive weapon ever devised by man?

Think of it like this: If Iran had nuclear weapons, whereas Israel did not, I would be 100% opposed to Israel obtaining nuclear weapons in "self-defense". The elimination of one country is much preferred to the elimination of both, as would certainly be the case if one decided to use those weapons.

Why the hell anyone supports states having these weapons is beyond me.

 

[citizenzen]

What type of sanctions would you support?

The youth of Iran is our ally. Why do you think crippling them is the preferred route?

Well, I wasn't thinking about taking away their skateboards.

But after looking up the statute that the IAEA is based upon, I'm satisfied with their process. It seems measured, it seems fair. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to say specifically what sanctions are best put in place here. But I am satisfied that if that statute is followed, they will find a suitable way to try to coax Iran back into the fold.

 

[Virus]

Perhaps you haven't heard some of the rhetoric coming forth regarding this.

Perhaps you haven't heard some of the rhetoric coming out of Iran.

"Death to America" is a popular choice.

 

[varwoche]

nobody seems too troubled by the idea that pakistan and india both have 'the bomb', and heck, we KNOW that they are crazy.

Oh really. People grounded in reality are indeed troubled by this circumstance.

Sheesh, it's like you're insisting that you favor an apocalyptic scenario whereas I'm trying (in vain) to give you the benefit of the doubt. I call BS one way or the other. A pacifist who zealously supports nuclear proliferation. Ya sure.

 

[citizenzen]

Perhaps you haven't heard some of the rhetoric coming out of Iran.

I'd urge them to tone it down as well.

 

[bikerdruid]

A pacifist who zealously supports nuclear proliferation. Ya sure.

in an ideal world there would be no nukes.
we don't live in that world, nor will we ever.
if any have some, they might as well all have them.