Donald Trump ditches Obama-era restrictions on use of landmines, citing 'great power competition'

Almost half of all UN resolutions have been directed at Israel.
148 nations disavow the Jewish connection with Herod's temple
mount. There is a clear and consistent bias with this body. And
why not, it's made up of people like you and me.
The UN was not going to speak with one voice concerning Israel
because Russia is pro-Arab in general and pro-Syria in particular.
China also caters to the Arab nations. And often, so does France
and England.
The SC will rarely speak with one voice. Nor will the General Assy.

 

Well Korea isn't the only country in the world which is threatened by invasion is it?

 

So many people on this forum in favor of the Jews, I sometimes think they (Jews) went through hell and back (Nazi Germany and concentration camps), but they don't really respect their neighbours, do they?
The world (or humans) is twisted !!!!
Reg.

 

I have apologized to Chris, as I have mixed comments up. I shouldn't try to answer different comments at the same time, sorry again,
reg.

 

Well, go to Israel and see for yourself.
Millions of Arabs live peacefully in Israel - descendants of those who refused
to leave when told to leave by the Jerusalem Mufti and the Arab militias.
Last week these Arabs refused to accept Trump's proposal which would see
them under West Bank control.
Street signs are in Hebrew and Arabic.
The temple mount, BUILD BY THE JEWS, is off limits to Jewish worship.
480,000 Palestinians come to Israel every year for medical or hospital
visitations.
About 450,000 Jews were driven out of seven Muslim nations after Israel
was created in 1948. They have no right of return.

 

And what about under Clinton?

 

I did answer that one in #185, and asked you to enlighten us. I don't know Clinton's stand on that one, do you?
Reg.

 

No, but from what you were saying, it sounded as if Obama was the one who made the change in land mine policy.

 

This was linked to my opening thread:
"Under a policy introduced in 2014, then-president Barack Obama had prohibited the military from using any landmines anywhere in the world except in defence of South Korea."
Reg.

 

Well okay then. So then were you critical of Clinton for not introducing such a policy?

 

Of course, I have already explained why - the Jews kept winning the wars they fought against the Arabs...but here's the thing, post 1946, according to the UN charter: The acquisition of territory by force is impermissible.

Note: despite the fact the UNSC was rendered toothless from the beginning, the UN itself has stubbornly persisted with it's mission to develop international law, even though such law is despised by Conservatives (because of the triumph of self-interested instinct over reason).

BS. didn't you read my history lesson? 148 nations know that Muslims have an equal right to sovereignty over the temple mount.

Some of us like to be acquainted with historical fact.

of course not; the UN comprises every nation on the planet.

But the UNSC WAS supposed to be able to "speak with one voice", but it cannot (I see you still don't understand why...I suppose it's like expecting a blind man to see...

Addressed above.

The Palestinians, being the weaker party, have certainly paid a high price for their blind attachment to their culture. Now, with Trump in charge, they have nothing...

It will be interesting to see how the jewish ideologues in the WB settlements, one of whom murdered his own prime minister, will prosper, with their equally delusionary cultural beliefs.

 

Once again. This was in tests on a single ICBM set up in ideal conditions when every variable was set up to favour success. The system is not even at the prototype stage let alone ready for production. If you think that the US can now defend itself from a nuclear attack then you must be delusional.

 

I can't remember why you think there's a "reason" why the SC can't speak with one voice,
but I will tell you - each nation has its own interests and sees things through its own eyes.
Institutions are not the reason why mankind fights - human nature is.

 

Actually, it’s the failure to follow human nature that leads to war—human nature is to choose to think, and to choose not to act on emotion, the method of beasts. In other words, to be human you must choose to be, otherwise you’re nothing but an instinctual beast. Breathing air doesn’t make you human, thinking and acting rationally does.

 

Certainly, and war can be a very rational thing.
Do I fight for my family and tribe?
Do I risk my life to defend my land?
Do I defend Communism? Do I defend liberal democracy?
Do we get involve in those "European entanglements"
Do we protect our sea lanes and trade?

Human nature can be quite violent. This has been explored
by so many psychologists and authors.

 

My family, right or wrong? Not if your rational.
My Country, right or wrong? Not if reason is your guiding light.
My tribe, no matter what? Not if you think before you act.
Do I defend capitalism or communism? What are the facts?
Do I interfere in the lives of others? What constitutes interfering? What is your relationship to the others?

Life requires thought, and the only time “fists” are neccessary is when force interferes with your right to think and act for yourself, self-defense.

Perhaps there are those intellectuals who see Jeffery Dahmer as essence of human behavior, I do not. However, human beings such as Jonas Salk, DaVinci, Michelangelo, Goodard, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley (Inventors of the transistor), Armstrong, Washington, Jefferson, Gates, Jobs, and Ayn Rand come to mind. (And many more, far more creators than murderers)

Ayn Rand: “The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness.”

“Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html

 

That "my family, right or wrong" is interesting because when you see your mother being attacked
certain instincts will kick in - you don't normally dissect whether your mother is worth defending
if she's being verbally or, worse, physically attacked. We wouldn't be here as a species if we
dissected why we should defend our partner, child, family, tribe. And we hope none of these are
going to assess MY worthiness if I am attacked.
The most brutal episodes in human history are those involved with fighting human nature.

 

And if she’s Eva Braun? Typhoid Mary? Diane Downs?

Perhaps a five your child might, but they haven’t reached the age of reason. Animals rely on instinct, the human mind relies on reason.

 

So the U.S. does not have 44 ABMs already deployed in Alaska with another 20 authorized?

Read the link genius.

 

Dur, the US can have a million ABMs but doesn't mean that they can intercept ICBMs! Loads of countries have got ABM systems

 

Actually only a handful of countries have ABM systems. And I don't know how you can persist in the claim given that the capability of our ABMs to shoot down ICBMs has been proven repeatedly in tests.

Now you will say that the tests were under perfect conditions. Note that ICBM testing is also under perfect conditions as well. Yet neither you nor anyone else doubts the ability of ICBMs to reach their targets. It works both ways.

Second, you I believe were the one that talked about the trajectories of the targets in tests being known. The launch sites for Chinese and Russian ICBMs are all known as well as are their likeliest targets. So they would only travel in a very limited number of trajectories. Next you'll bring up mobile ICBMs of which both the Russians and Chinese possess (a few in the case of the latter). That makes no difference. When it comes to ICBMs traveling 8,000 miles to hit targets in the U.S. it matters very little if they are launched from just outside the base security fence or 50 miles down the road.

 

Landmines can contaminate an area for much longer than 6 weeks - when it comes down to it but- the point was the indiscriminate nature of the killing.

The effects on an economy due to war are what they are - but this has little to do with the issue of using weapons that kill indiscriminately - such as land mines.

I am not an "anti-Trumper" - I trash Obama for his dirty deeds on a regular basis on this forum and trash the Russiagate clown show on a regular basis. Are you sure this is not coming from partisan bias rather than objective assessment of the issue ?

 

Until we rid ourselves of this gibbon, we will have to suffer together it seems. Our reputation globally will never recover though, the world now knows the true essence of a very powerful minority of Americans who hold the rest of us hostage every election cycle. We are a failed democracy and a corrupt Republic.

 

Lots of whining just because of one election.

 

Does my post really sound like I just made it up on the spot? I've held the same position for over 10 years. I'd direct you towards evidence of such but I'm not sure of this sites rules concerning linking to other forums. Though I do consider linking to other forums in bad taste.

The effects of a war has to be included when considering if you're going to use x weapon. The indiscriminate killing of someone is to be only briefly considered. And that only as far as "can we get X person" or "Y Group" without killing innocents? If "yes" then do it. If "no" then so be it.