NationStates Jolt Archive

:!: THE ISSUE! Should we ban LANDMINES? The answer! NO! lets analyze this situation.
The banning of landmines would effect nation on 2 fronts:
:arrow: first the obvious taking a necessary asset out of both offensive and defensive military actions.
:arrow: Second, alienating less economically stable nations because they do not have the assets to buy more up to date technology.
:arrow: The result! A bad idea, this could easily be the cause of a skizim in the UN.
:arrow: What we need to do. VOTE NO ON THE ISSUE! TAKE A STAND, HAVE SOME SELF RESPECT AND JUST VOTE NO.

This resolution is somewhat extreme and an outspoken leader pointed out it will only effect UN nations and not the 66% or so who are not in the UN. This would allow all sorts of diabolical dictators to have a distinct advantage in warfare against UN members.

But Nexum has voted yes for this resolution because it is the right thing to do. Too many civilians and casualties are created through the use of landmines and it will take decades to get rid of them all. And many of our neo-conservative oil industry influenced generals are wondering what the point is of taking over land is if it's filled with landmines!

Dont let the miss use of a FEW NEGLENT nations effect everyone. AT the LEAST lets re word the admendment so it would not allow landmines in non combat situations.

I would have to agree, the current proposal seems to be too rash. These rash proposals are oh so common lets not let this trend continue. Once I get admitted to the UN tomorrow im going to have to ad a vote of no. I hope you all fallow my decision.

Everyone is voteing but no one is posting! explane your reasoning for the benefit of others...
Max Cummings

Dont let the miss use of a FEW NEGLENT nations effect everyone.
Those neglegent nations are why most resolutions are passed...

Consider the sides we as UN members are being made to take - reactionary hippies vs. a bunch of arms dealers. Either we would neuter our military capabilities and alienate nations whose economies and leaders need to be brought under the caring wings of progressive Socialism, or we would ally ourselves to a mass of Bowling-for-Columbine style self defence nuts. Therefore, brethern, we need to redress the issues at true stake: UN voting. Far from being a chance to make a clear statement about what is best for the world, we are forced into polarisation; this is not the way to progress beyond such bourgeois motions and change our world. We need a rationalised system of voting, so as to be capable of truly allying ourselves to friends of our nations, rather than friends of our enemies.
That a motion so tending to villify two sides of an argument - each as deserving to be heard as the other - bespeaks the issues at the heart of our UN than any number of charters and decrees. Reform is needed, or the people will take it for themselves, and our world order will crash - and your nations will be left in the dust.

...Reform is needed, or the people will take it for themselves, and our world order will crash...
YES! this is what we must focus on...REFORM...STARTING WITH THIS VOTE, by voteing yes we are NOT alowing a happy middle to be reached, we are takeing the ideals of one intense ratical. DONT LET THIS ONE PASS, VOTE NO THEN REFORM! The options are right there infront of us, it is imparative that we use them to better the UN as a whole. I STRONGLY push for a vote of no on this issue. period.

OOC - I've seen the results of landmines... People who are NOT soldiers - children and very average people just minding their own buisness - Lost limbs, blinded and dead.

I've seen a 4 year old trying to play wiht other children even though both her legs were removed a year earlier because of a landmine.

Here is a link for those who are interested. (http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/3.3/focus/how_many_victims.htm)

IC - It is with regrete that we must take any action which will remove the use of landmines as a step forward. Those who still see a need for them and continue their use are ignoring the real victims - over 60% of all landmines kill non-combatants within the first year of their deployment and continue to be a threat upto 40 years after hostilities have ended.

While the militray value of landmines is noted, the cooperative nature of the UN would lead our people to aid any nation under the threat of aggression. Thus, when attacking a member of the UN, an aggressor is not attacking just one nation, but a co-operative whole. Even with the use of landmines such an endeavor would be far more costly to the attacking nation over any amount of time.

Look i dont want land mines but we dont need this many topics about it it is starting to annoy people and me so please no more its going to win and there going to band land mines!

:!: THE ISSUE! Should we ban LANDMINES? The answer! NO! lets analyze this situation.
The banning of landmines would effect nation on 2 fronts:
:arrow: first the obvious taking a necessary asset out of both offensive and defensive military actions.
:arrow: Second, alienating less economically stable nations because they do not have the assets to buy more up to date technology.
:arrow: The result! A bad idea, this could easily be the cause of a skizim in the UN.
:arrow: What we need to do. VOTE NO ON THE ISSUE! TAKE A STAND, HAVE SOME SELF RESPECT AND JUST VOTE NO.

1. I really don't care what it does to the military of nations. Noone should use landmined. Children's lives are more important.
2. Tiny nations shouldn't be making war with nations that could kick their arse. And we are left to clean up their careless landmine use afterward.
3. The only nations left in the UN after the torent of stupid resolutions would agree with this.
4. What the hell does selfrespect have to do with it? It's about the fact that landmines kill people, period.

...Reform is needed, or the people will take it for themselves, and our world order will crash...
YES! this is what we must focus on...REFORM...STARTING WITH THIS VOTE, by voteing yes we are NOT alowing a happy middle to be reached, we are takeing the ideals of one intense ratical. DONT LET THIS ONE PASS, VOTE NO THEN REFORM! The options are right there infront of us, it is imparative that we use them to better the UN as a whole. I STRONGLY push for a vote of no on this issue. period.

I'm sorry, but on this issue I will not compromise. Children are dying daily and the blood is on our hands. If you want to keep up this barbaric practice then leave the UN. No one will stop you, and I'm sure no one will care.

If you were to know anything about offensive maneuvers by reading Army FM7-8, you'd find that in ambushing the use of mass casualty producing weapons (claymore mines specifically) are highly effective and suggested to use in attacking the enemy. If you were you have any BASIC knowledge on Claymore mines, you'd find that they are targeted towards enemies and can usually only be detonated by a 'clicker' mechanism which would be in the hand of the side which deployed it. There is an interesting concept, allied controled claymore mines which MUST be detonated by those persons and are not automated nor triggered by the enemy. If you people were to have any KNOWLEDGE on the subject, than maybe you could speak on it. As has been brought up before, you people focus on anti-personnel mines which are fairly out of date as compared to modern ones and which are solely used for defensive purposes. You COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that there are anti-tank and TARGETED mines which do NOT KILL INDESCRIMINATELY. Please gain some knowledge on the subject before you speak.

Any nation in opposition to this resolution and will leave the UN if passed, please look into the Region- Conglomerate of Nations
We are opposed to the ban and are all willing to leave the UN if passed, maybe we could ban together in opposition and get something done about reversing such a decision.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

I think that nations have a right to defend themselves though any means needed. What we should do, is require more control of the landmines. Require that every mine is properly indicated on a map. Once the war is over, the maps will reveal the location of the mines, and they will be removed. Simple, yet fair.

Require that every mine is properly indicated on a map. Once the war is over, the maps will reveal the location of the mines, and they will be removed. Simple, yet fair.

But that doesn't work! The message of the exact locations of landmines would not get across to many of the citizens of the poorer, war-torn nations which suffer most from the use of landmines, so children and other non-combatants will continue to be crippled and killed by these barbarous weapons, as they could not be removed immediately - even with maps it takes time and huge resources to remove large minefields. And even if you could remove them all immediately at the end of the war, non-combatants could still be killed during the war - we should be doing all we can to minimize civilian casualties.

And those landmines which are remote-detonated, can you really ensure that they are 100% safe until they are ordered to detonate? What if they aren't detonated and just left in place (e.g. if they were placed to catch enemy troops who didn't actually pass that way)? I know bomblets from cluster bombs can remain unexploded by accident until disturbed, often by a small child interested in a brightly-coloured object lying on the ground, even though they are designed all to detonate on impact.

I dont know why people dont like landmines. They're like a really stressful game of hopscotch!

why vote if you dont want them dont use them but thoes that are under frequent ground attack could use them so why punish them buy saying yes to banning the mines......so im on the no side

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

For those who say land mines are wrong, let me place troops on your front lawn and then you tell me that you would not put land mines up. Its protection of your home, your family. Sorry if your child is to stupid to listen to you when you say don't play in the front lawn. That is why their is a back yard. Most people who are voting to remove land mines haven't expereince the situation of war at their door steps. They want to remove mines in other coutries not realizing that these measures are the only thing keep these weaker states alive. So simple put for those who vote to remove the mines open the door and say hello to the AK-47.

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

Who said their is anything wrong with death. Atleast it decreases the over population of the world.

I'll build them anyway, then plant them at day care facilities and school playgrounds throughout my nation, then annouce through all forms of media that toys and candy are out there for all children to get in a nation-wide easter egg hunt! :twisted:

Only after many children are killed or maimed by these "banned" devices will parents discover the truth of what has happened. And when they ask "Why? why?" I can with a clear conscience say, "The world originally didn't have a good reason to ban landmines, I have now given the world a good reason to ban them...so I can't do what I just did with them."

Dont let the miss use of a FEW NEGLENT nations effect everyone. AT the LEAST lets re word the admendment so it would not allow landmines in non combat situations.

I think you're being NEGLENT!

Interesting that none of the posts here actually address the question posed in the poll.

No, we will not withdraw from the UN if this resolution passes. I have seen several posts from nations that are frustrated by the rash of poorly-worded, feel-good resolutions that have been recently passed, and the reaction is often "We're pulling out of the UN!"

I submit that this precisely the wrong thing to do. Instead, nations that feel the the NS UN is on a seriously incorrect course should be doing all they can to recruit other nations, and to try to educate current members as to why these resolutions are so bad, even though they sound so right.

One possible compromise I've seen suggested is to withdraw your primary nation, and replace it with a puppet nation that you don't care about. That way, your carefully-administered primary nation remains healthy, and if your puppet nation's economy and civil rights get trashed by boneheaded UN resolutions, who cares?

Thoughts?

:?: Why in the world would you support this? "To slash military world spending". That is a bad thing for the members of the UN's economy. If you are like me and your countries top product is military weapons then this is bound to hurt your eeconomy. :evil:

The landmine issue is one that is obvicely rich nations V.S. poor nations. Landmines are a tool of war that have been proven to be an effect messure in defensive and offence movements. The only reason why this issue of banning them is even being adressed today is because rich nations choise to depleat the arsonal of poor nations so that even more unjust invasions can take place.
:arrow: Case in point: If landmines were banned then North Korea would be open to ground assults by american troops. What holds america back from invadeing from the south? A large LANDMINE FIELD.

Look at the issue people, dont let unjustice in this manner of rich vs poor continue. Vote NO safe the ones who really need the saveing...
Thank You
Max Cummings

I might just do that No Stinking Texas, and have tried to educate the unwilling ingnorant. In fact, that puppet idea sounds like a great one.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

I'll build them anyway, then plant them at day care facilities and school playgrounds throughout my nation, then annouce through all forms of media that toys and candy are out there for all children to get in a nation-wide easter egg hunt! :twisted:

Only after many children are killed or maimed by these "banned" devices will parents discover the truth of what has happened. And when they ask "Why? why?" I can with a clear conscience say, "The world originally didn't have a good reason to ban landmines, I have now given the world a good reason to ban them...so I can't do what I just did with them."

Newsflash: that isn't a good reason to ban landmines. That is a good reason to chuck your hind end in the klink for murder. Do you know what "Honest" criminals do to child killers?

I'm in a region with a group of friends, so I wouldn't want to set up a puppet state in their region, but perhaps somewhere else. The most difficult problem in reforming the UN is that apparently only a third of the members vote. That tells me people with an activist streak or an axe to grind are the primary voters (well, aren't they always).

In political science we talk about functional rationality. Once in a position, we tend to try and defend it whether it can be defended or not. Reference the resolution's author declaring in a post "I STAND BY THE RESOLUTION AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN" or something to that effect, in spite of the critizism heaped upon it.

People in the UN love the UN. Its the people outside the UN, who don't like it all, who want to change it. This is why reform always happens from within and why it is always done by former hardliners and moderates. Reference, Nixon goes to China, Lincoln frees the slaves, Sharon negotiates with the PLO (from time to time).

Granted, this doesn't hold over all cases, there are exceptions, but you aren't going to find industrial polluters in the EPA, gun-controllers in the NRA, or National Sovereignty Hacks in the UN. If you don't like the very thing the UN stands for, why would you join it?

Besides, I get to debate here and I haven't been a UN member for almost a week. What does the UN get me except heartburn I don't need?

First Blame... er. Citizen Matt

Ziliarns armories don't have any landmines. But we do have in stock:

Pressure Activated Explosives
Trip Laser detonators
Tension Sensing Explosives

and many more but none of these "mines"

:!: THE ISSUE! Should we ban LANDMINES? The answer! NO! lets analyze this situation.
The banning of landmines would effect nation on 2 fronts:
:arrow: first the obvious taking a necessary asset out of both offensive and defensive military actions.
:arrow: Second, alienating less economically stable nations because they do not have the assets to buy more up to date technology.
:arrow: The result! A bad idea, this could easily be the cause of a skizim in the UN.
:arrow: What we need to do. VOTE NO ON THE ISSUE! TAKE A STAND, HAVE SOME SELF RESPECT AND JUST VOTE NO.

I voted no, but compared to some of the other resolutions, this one isn't that bad.

This proposal has no clause for the use of "safe" mines, like the ones used by New North Balwyn. All our mines have a disarmament device that we can activate by a wide-radius radio signal, making the mines inert (great souvenirs, too). Many have said that our enemies can simply deactivate the mines in this way themselves, but the classification of the coding for the signal has never been comprimised, due to our highly efficient Secret Police.

-Foreign Liason Subsecretary General Alfred Bonk, ret., ONNBS, MBH, CMM, S MoS
Subsecretariat of Non-Active Foreign Affairs, Military Secretariat, Democratic Republic of New North Balwyn

Land mines don't just disappear after a war, but part of using them responsibly is destroying them when you're done with them. Not trying to pick them up (too dangerous), but destroying them. There are robots that can be set loose in a field of mines that will go around detecting and destroying mines, and there are also mine-proof vehicles that could be driven around if you don't trust robots.
Both of these are available free from me, so there's no excuse for just banning landmines.
Even if you use a mine-destroying vehicle, there might well be lone landmines scattered here and there, but there will also be unexploded bombs, tank shells, etc. If you or the enemy used DU-armored or -armed tanks, there will also be uranium scattered around.
Landmines are not the whole problem.

Smart mines aren't very useful, being too complicated and expensive to be used widely.

Just to play devil's advocate here: Why is the killing of children considered to be worse then the death of anyone else? What is your reasoning for allowing everyone in a nation to lose some protection in order to protect one group of people?

Just some thoughts.

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

The major flaws I see in the wording of the resolution is the following:

"For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines IN CONFLICTS carried out by UN counties is called for." [my emphasis]

"Land mines" lacks an effective definition in the proposal.

Thess loopholes would allow the usage of landmines (or various other explosive devices evading the land mine definition) for military purposes as long as they were deployed previous to conflict. It seems that some of my well-intentioned "military expert" comrade nations should prefer the present wording. I propose that those nations that hold to the ideals espoused in the current proposal vote no, with the intention of amending the language of said proposal.

To address the actual topic of this discussion, withdrawl from the UN due to disagreement with majority opinion is certainly an option for those not inclined to make full use of the political institutions of this body, but such an action seems incredibly rash and misdirected from my stand point.

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

See if you look closely you can see i said "WHY DONT WE BAN EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEATH". i did not say ban the things that have to do with childrens death. So why dont you learn how to read you look like an idot...

Landmines are just tools in the military, no different from bullets and artillery shells. The context of its use will determine the consquences of it laying and arming it.

In conventional military doctrine, minefields are laid as a defensive measure. It has to be clearly marked out (as stipulated by the Geneva Convention) and warning signs have to be placed prominently. The thing is, conventional mine warfare doctrine states that minefields should never be left alone, but should be protected by artillery, and machine guns. It is a quick, easy and effective way to form a defensive wall to stop the enemy from moving easily into your territory. The minefields are dug up after there is no need for them. Are they not useful in this context?

I think that it is pointless to talk about banning landmines, because you might as well ban all arms as they can kill innocent people well after any conflct is over. Examples are: unexploded Artillery Shells, Grenades and other munitions. Other examples are weapons and delivery sytems that are lost or stolen during conflict

There is no such thing as a safe and easy solution. There are mines abd munitions with mechanisms that render the device 'safe' after certain times. However there is no guarantee that such "safety" mechanisms will survive the conflict intact to do its job. A timer mechanism that detonates an unexploded land mine after a set period could fail.

Any concrete changes that will help the situation is to alter the strategic thinking of defence planners and how they should conduct themselves in time of war. However, is it asking too much if a desperate defender is ask to hold to moral values at the brink of oblivion?

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

See if you look closely you can see i said "WHY DONT WE BAN EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEATH". i did not say ban the things that have to do with childrens death. So why dont you learn how to read you look like an idot...

When you devide a sentance by commer the intetial noun carries the implication for the second half. You Implied children's deaths by the nature of the sentance. Learn to use grammer, you look like an idiot.

And yes, we also ban most things concering death, like heroine or drink driving.

Well, if you look at landmines from a cost-to-effectiveness point of veiw, they really are rather useless. Landmines are not only expensive to produce, but it also require a great deal of time and manpower to set up. While the alternatives are limited, I am confident that better means of defense can be found.

If landmines were so expensive, then why are they the primary defences of poorer countries like myself? The reason you lackies think landmines are problems is because they are so CHEAP to make. Maby its just my only booming industry {weapons}, but i currentally have more mines than i know what to do with. The only way mines could be considered ineffective is if the invading army doesnt go through mine field A, in which case they will go through fields B through F...

in all, mine fields are VERY effective.

(ooc)-im pulling out, making a puppet, and bringing that one in. the UN is really screwing up my country.

All right Rotovia, if you look befor i talk about banning i talk about war and how landmines are a tool of war so why dont we ban things haveing to do with war. haha so i still am right...and you still cant read...except that just as how i have excepted the fact that i cant spell, but people still see my point.

Well, if you look at landmines from a cost-to-effectiveness point of veiw, they really are rather useless. Landmines are not only expensive to produce, but it also require a great deal of time and manpower to set up. While the alternatives are limited, I am confident that better means of defense can be found.

BAH, what is with your stupidity? By the GODS! You really haven't read anything nor have the inborn knowledge of anything relating to landmines. Read the freaking threads! You'll find that your arguements in real life are null and void. In addition, read my other response to your ill-founded and unintelligent blurb!

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

I'll build them anyway, then plant them at day care facilities and school playgrounds throughout my nation, then annouce through all forms of media that toys and candy are out there for all children to get in a nation-wide easter egg hunt! :twisted:

Only after many children are killed or maimed by these "banned" devices will parents discover the truth of what has happened. And when they ask "Why? why?" I can with a clear conscience say, "The world originally didn't have a good reason to ban landmines, I have now given the world a good reason to ban them...so I can't do what I just did with them."

What the hell is wrong with you. I could give you anything in the world let you kill off people and then you say we should ban whatever I give you.

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

Hey move to New Jersey if you are breathing you can drive.

Well, if you look at landmines from a cost-to-effectiveness point of veiw, they really are rather useless. Landmines are not only expensive to produce, but it also require a great deal of time and manpower to set up. While the alternatives are limited, I am confident that better means of defense can be found.

I have to disagree on the point that it requires a great deal of time to set up. Give a well trained Enginer platoon a few two or three hours under the cover of darkness and you have a decent mine field in place.

A lot of manpower? - yes, for traditional mine fields. Nowadays, machine assisted mining methods are more prevalent.

However, I'll like to hear good suggestions for a better means for Area Denial Operations.

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

See if you look closely you can see i said "WHY DONT WE BAN EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEATH". i did not say ban the things that have to do with childrens death. So why dont you learn how to read you look like an idot...

When you devide a sentance by commer the intetial noun carries the implication for the second half. You Implied children's deaths by the nature of the sentance. Learn to use grammer, you look like an idiot.

And yes, we also ban most things concering death, like heroine or drink driving.

Learn to spell.

Oh yes, they defend your country and your people temporarily, this is true. But what about after the war? Numerous examples in the past have seen the governments of countries disregard their duty to clean up these landmines afterwards, leading to unacceptable civilian casualties long after the actual war is done. Mines can protect, but can just as easily turn against the country itself, thanks to corrupt governments that do not take the welfare of it's people as a major priority.
Who exactly will the landmines protect if everybody gets blown up by them?? :evil:

You have to remember that most countries that have these land mines may not be in WAR any more but the threat is till there. War between North and South Korea is over, but the conflict and threat still remain. This is also true for Africa and Middle East Countries. When war ends conflicts remain. Threats of attack and war still are open in these countries. So that these landmines are not their to protect from invading troops at the present, but from the near possible war due to conflict in the region. Imagine you and your neighbor are fighting and you place landmines between your houses. You both agree to end the war, but still their is conflict. So when you walk outside and take away the landmines the next morning you wake up with an AK-47 in your face.

And you have to remember that, in all those countries in Africa and the Middle East, while the officals sit back and wait for the next attack, innocent civilians who want nothing to do with the war are getting blown up, all because said officals don't want to mark where the mines are, which would aid the enemy!! Once again, I ask, what good is defending a country if all it's civilians are getting killed by it's own government??

All right Rotovia, if you look befor i talk about banning i talk about war and how landmines are a tool of war so why dont we ban things haveing to do with war. haha so i still am right...and you still cant read...except that just as how i have excepted the fact that i cant spell, but people still see my point.

We do so ban things conerning tools of war. Bio weapons, chemical weapons etc. And I am more than capable of reading your nonsensical arguements only because I am a child care volunteer. Idiot still remains your cross to dare.

Though I had a valid arguement here it may have resulted in an unessacary flame war.

I Recently posted a response to a similar topic I'll let you read my answer and decide where you think i stand.

"What are you thinking??? Land mines ae as sick and cowardly way to fight a war. You want to turn back an invasion forman alliance with fellow nations don't resort to cowardly tactics to delay the inevitable you fight to win or die trying. I've seen the damage they can do. Thank about in 50 years when a child lies helpless and bleeding in a field all alone with nothing but a stump for a left leg. Just beacuse you resorted to cowardly tactics to defend your nation. I would be more than glad to post 4 divisions for my Infantry to defend your country if it means that you won't use those subterrainean terrors."

Still if you had sent you 4 division there would be no need for land mines. Yet you have to realize in many countries that use land mines that no one is send troops. The UN and and other major countries do not want to get involved in any military conflict. So when you are left alone with no allies to help you what do you do. Be brave and die, and be smart and use other strategies and survive. Also you need to realize in these situations its usually a small country defending itself from larger country. Imagine if North Korea hadn't use land mines and gurilla warfare. We might have actually won the Korean war. You have to remember that when it comes to defending your home land people are willing to do anything to protect it.

All right Rotovia, if you look befor i talk about banning i talk about war and how landmines are a tool of war so why dont we ban things haveing to do with war. haha so i still am right...and you still cant read...except that just as how i have excepted the fact that i cant spell, but people still see my point.

We do so ban things conerning tools of war. Bio weapons, chemical weapons etc. And I am more than capable of reading your nonsensical arguements only because I am a child care volunteer. Idiot still remains your cross to dare.

Wow you really can't read. If you actually look at the text and really read it you would realize that when we talk about banning things having to do with war he obiously means ANYTHING to do with war. You attempted to take a narrow view of his response and refer to only Bio and Chemical weapons when it clears means ALL weapons. Plus if you really wanted to make a more valid point you should really memtion the attempt of nations to disarm nucular weapons, but still the point is very clear. So don't get all pissie and made becuase you are losing this debat. So he can't spell perfectly, he is still right.

Dahaka, you drooling simpleton.

First of all, I am enrolled in West Point. I know more of military tactics and weaponry than half of the people on Nationstates combined. Secondly, the threads posted here are little more than infantile bickering, as you are so apt at displaying.

I am the only person I have found that does not rely on CNN or outdated civil rights crusades for their information. Do not insult your betters, you quibbling cretin.

I am not concerbed with the "save the children" crusade. I am concerned with the idea that stuck up, over-inflated, delusional windbags such as yourself are trying to pass yourselves off as semi-intelligent human beings.

Now go outside and get a life. The computer screen has obviously started to adversely affect your mental capacities.

Oh, I'm sorry, were those words too big for you? I said that you are a moron, and the computer (that's the big thing in front of you) is not helping. Now go read a book. I'm late for my Historical Warfare class.

The landmine issue is one that is obvicely rich nations V.S. poor nations. Landmines are a tool of war that have been proven to be an effect messure in defensive and offence movements. The only reason why this issue of banning them is even being adressed today is because rich nations choise to depleat the arsonal of poor nations so that even more unjust invasions can take place.
:arrow: Case in point: If landmines were banned then North Korea would be open to ground assults by american troops. What holds america back from invadeing from the south? A large LANDMINE FIELD.

Look at the issue people, dont let unjustice in this manner of rich vs poor continue. Vote NO safe the ones who really need the saveing...
Thank You
Max Cummings

Er...sorry, but didn't the peace accords insist on the minefield (rather than N. Korea setting them up) and aren't they primarily to stop the North invading the South? (so the poor country is attacking)

looks like it's going to pass anyway *shakes head* :tantrum:

Numerous examples in the past have seen the governments of countries disregard their duty to clean up these landmines afterwards, leading to unacceptable civilian casualties long after the actual war is done.Yes, in the past. Before my mine-field-clearing machines were developed.
Mines can protect, but can just as easily turn against the country itselfMines can not just "turn against the country".
Who exactly will the landmines protect if everybody gets blown up by them?? :evil:Nobody's going to blow up everyone in his country with landmines...

i agree if the mines are just remembered and some moron doesn't just say "hmmmmm look at this empty field with craters. Lets go run and frolic about and hop on any lump we see." we wouldn't have to worry about this anymore and a mine is an inanimate object it cant just turn on the country that placed it there. :roll:

Dahaka, you drooling simpleton.

First of all, I am enrolled in West Point. I know more of military tactics and weaponry than half of the people on Nationstates combined. Secondly, the threads posted here are little more than infantile bickering, as you are so apt at displaying.

I am the only person I have found that does not rely on CNN or outdated civil rights crusades for their information. Do not insult your betters, you quibbling cretin.

I am not concerbed with the "save the children" crusade. I am concerned with the idea that stuck up, over-inflated, delusional windbags such as yourself are trying to pass yourselves off as semi-intelligent human beings.

Now go outside and get a life. The computer screen has obviously started to adversely affect your mental capacities.

Oh, I'm sorry, were those words too big for you? I said that you are a moron, and the computer (that's the big thing in front of you) is not helping. Now go read a book. I'm late for my Historical Warfare class.

My advanced appologies if this gets printed multiple times.

You charge people, specifically Dahaka, of being simpleminded and semi-intligent. You tell them to get a life and that the computer has melted their minds.

Your credential for this: you are a plebe.

I call on anyone with experience with the military to correct this deluded cadet.

My credentials: Father was a Lt. Colonel. Grew up in Europe at the end of the Cold War, Stutgart, Germany and Mons, Belgium. Lived on a military base for duration of Gulf War. Continue to read the trade journals: Army Times, Stars and Stripes, American Legion, and other military publications. Many friend are still in the military at all ranks. Including non-coms in Iraq, privates in Afghanistan, and many officer friends in Europe and America (many now inactive reservists).

In addition, I have read books of military doctrine from Xenophon to Schwartzkopf, hitting Ceasar, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Clauswitz, Rommel, and Patton. I do not get my information from CNN.

You tell these military men not to insult their superiors. They most assuredly do not insult their superiors, for they are superior to you. A cadet has no rank. A cadet is like a pup, with proper training he will one day be a good hound, but at the moment he is only good at making a mess.

Any officer in the military will tell you that the senior enlisted man is the best friend of a new officer. He is older, wiser, and more experienced than you. A smart officer will heed a Sergeant's advice.

When you get out in the real world of the military, the first thing you should do is talk to a sergeant. He will be more than happy to teach you the correct way of dressing down a subordinate. Resorting to words like cretin and moron only demonstrate a lack of knowledge in the English Language. Until then, you might do well where Muscles Are Required, but Intelligence Not Expected. (apologies to any good marines out there)

First Citizen Matt
St George's Isles

All right Rotovia, if you look befor i talk about banning i talk about war and how landmines are a tool of war so why dont we ban things haveing to do with war. haha so i still am right...and you still cant read...except that just as how i have excepted the fact that i cant spell, but people still see my point.

We do so ban things conerning tools of war. Bio weapons, chemical weapons etc. And I am more than capable of reading your nonsensical arguements only because I am a child care volunteer. Idiot still remains your cross to dare.

Wow you really can't read. If you actually look at the text and really read it you would realize that when we talk about banning things having to do with war he obiously means ANYTHING to do with war. You attempted to take a narrow view of his response and refer to only Bio and Chemical weapons when it clears means ALL weapons. Plus if you really wanted to make a more valid point you should really memtion the attempt of nations to disarm nucular weapons, but still the point is very clear. So don't get all pissie and made becuase you are losing this debat. So he can't spell perfectly, he is still right.

First off I gave examples of weapons that have been banned. Now obviously we can't ban all weapons, but we can ban ones that kill more civlians than troops and end up blowing limbs off children decades after the war is over.

I chose not to use the nuclear weapon arguement due to the fact THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BANNED IN MOST COUNTRIES they are only discouraged and rarely used.

I'm not pissy I'm loosing the debat. And what exactly is pissy? Can you restrict yourself to actual words.

He can't spell perfectly? No shit. At least we agree on one thing. As to wether he has one the debate.... I think the votes on the proposal speak for themselves.

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

Hey move to New Jersey if you are breathing you can drive.

Congradulations, you've successfully made the stupidest post in the thread.

And something tells me they don't let children drive.

I don't know what I can say that hasn't been already said. I see both sides of the debate, and I have to say, I think the advantage of mines really isn't worth losing a limb. I would vote no.

I don't know what I can say that hasn't been already said. I see both sides of the debate, and I have to say, I think the advantage of mines really isn't worth losing a limb. I would vote no.

I believe land mines should not be banned, because I believe that matters of defense should be left up to the government of the nation, not the UN and the what others think. If some nation's want to use nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be comfortable with it, but I wouldn't prevent it. Since there is a lot more worse implications of destruction and killing which are still considered legal(Nukes, neutron bombs, and nerve gas to name a few.). Personally I would rather see a much more effort into making steps of nuclear diasarmament, which can causes much more damage than a minefield.
Is there more advanced mines which are a less risk, yes. Is there still older mines which are more of a risk, yes. Mines can be a hazard to civilians, and it is a tragedy that innocent people die, but innocent people die a lot more in other ways, like shootings from guns, and car accidents. Innocent people will continue to die as long as people have the instict to fight amongst each other, but that doesn't mean that people have to force others to comply with their views, land mines can be used tactically to prevent invasions, but it's a doubled edged sword, but in some cases people are willing to take the risk.
In conclusion, land mines are a possibly risk to civilians, but they can be also used properly to help protect and defend nations in times of war and crisis. I choose to oppose this resolution, because in my opinion this resolution oversteps the United Nation's authority in interfering with it's member's political views. To me, it would be like the UN saying I had to ban all transporation except bycycles because they believed cars and planes were a "risk to innocent people".

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

Hey move to New Jersey if you are breathing you can drive.

Congradulations, you've successfully made the stupidest post in the thread.

And something tells me they don't let children drive.

They do let children drive, just like every state dose...haha your not an adult till 18 but you can get your licence at 16....

:arrow: oh my god, cry me a river. Children die under any sercemstance, why dont we ban everything that has to do with death. Cars are the number one killer of children in the united states, why are we not baning cars. We have to except a certen amount of death in the situation that landmines are used for, waite i cant think of the name of it....oh yeah....WAR! so..untill we ban everything that kills people the simple fact is that landmines should stay, they as stated by many are useful in both offence and defencive attacks. keep landmines, show your power to choise, vote no!

We do ban most things that harm children. Underage drinking, drugs ad sex. And as for cars we place increadabley tight laws on them. And learn to spell, you look like and idiot.

Hey move to New Jersey if you are breathing you can drive.

Congradulations, you've successfully made the stupidest post in the thread.

And something tells me they don't let children drive.

They do let children drive, just like every state dose...haha your not an adult till 18 but you can get your licence at 16....

Incorrect again my ignorant friend. You are no longer a child one over 10 years of age (Or 14 in some instances) However you are not an adult (majorty member) until 18. Meaning that minors drives cars, not children.

All right Rotovia, if you look befor i talk about banning i talk about war and how landmines are a tool of war so why dont we ban things haveing to do with war. haha so i still am right...and you still cant read...except that just as how i have excepted the fact that i cant spell, but people still see my point.

We do so ban things conerning tools of war. Bio weapons, chemical weapons etc. And I am more than capable of reading your nonsensical arguements only because I am a child care volunteer. Idiot still remains your cross to dare.

Wow you really can't read. If you actually look at the text and really read it you would realize that when we talk about banning things having to do with war he obiously means ANYTHING to do with war. You attempted to take a narrow view of his response and refer to only Bio and Chemical weapons when it clears means ALL weapons. Plus if you really wanted to make a more valid point you should really memtion the attempt of nations to disarm nucular weapons, but still the point is very clear. So don't get all pissie and made becuase you are losing this debat. So he can't spell perfectly, he is still right.

First off I gave examples of weapons that have been banned. Now obviously we can't ban all weapons, but we can ban ones that kill more civlians than troops and end up blowing limbs off children decades after the war is over.

I chose not to use the nuclear weapon arguement due to the fact THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BANNED IN MOST COUNTRIES they are only discouraged and rarely used.

I'm not pissy I'm loosing the debat. And what exactly is pissy? Can you restrict yourself to actual words.

He can't spell perfectly? No shit. At least we agree on one thing. As to wether he has one the debate.... I think the votes on the proposal speak for themselves.
You can't see who won the debate just by the votes that are for or against the proposal because we have been debateing the conntent of one of my first posts, and weather or not im right about what i said in that post, as well as gramer, and your nit picking. To my knolage my first post was not the text of the proposal so you cant get an acurate idea of who won and lost...oh yeah you who likes to point out my spelling if you look above you can see that you used "one" and not the proper won. Good job child care specialist

Child: An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance...also seen as a minor

Child: One who is childish or immature.

We find people under both defenations to be driveing cars...thank you

They do let children drive, just like every state dose...haha your not an adult till 18 but you can get your licence at 16....OOC: You can get a license at 14 in South Dakota.

Pro-Landmines! Landmines help to keep the riff-raff out of your country! (Also useful against small children, animals, and people too stupid to notice the "Warning: Landmines" signs) :wink:

All right Rotovia, if you look befor i talk about banning i talk about war and how landmines are a tool of war so why dont we ban things haveing to do with war. haha so i still am right...and you still cant read...except that just as how i have excepted the fact that i cant spell, but people still see my point.

We do so ban things conerning tools of war. Bio weapons, chemical weapons etc. And I am more than capable of reading your nonsensical arguements only because I am a child care volunteer. Idiot still remains your cross to dare.

Wow you really can't read. If you actually look at the text and really read it you would realize that when we talk about banning things having to do with war he obiously means ANYTHING to do with war. You attempted to take a narrow view of his response and refer to only Bio and Chemical weapons when it clears means ALL weapons. Plus if you really wanted to make a more valid point you should really memtion the attempt of nations to disarm nucular weapons, but still the point is very clear. So don't get all pissie and made becuase you are losing this debat. So he can't spell perfectly, he is still right.

First off I gave examples of weapons that have been banned. Now obviously we can't ban all weapons, but we can ban ones that kill more civlians than troops and end up blowing limbs off children decades after the war is over.

I chose not to use the nuclear weapon arguement due to the fact THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BANNED IN MOST COUNTRIES they are only discouraged and rarely used.

I'm not pissy I'm loosing the debat. And what exactly is pissy? Can you restrict yourself to actual words.

He can't spell perfectly? No shit. At least we agree on one thing. As to wether he has one the debate.... I think the votes on the proposal speak for themselves.
You can't see who won the debate just by the votes that are for or against the proposal because we have been debateing the conntent of one of my first posts, and weather or not im right about what i said in that post, as well as gramer, and your nit picking. To my knolage my first post was not the text of the proposal so you cant get an acurate idea of who won and lost...oh yeah you who likes to point out my spelling if you look above you can see that you used "one" and not the proper won. Good job child care specialist

I'll address your stupidity one point at a time so as not to confuse you.

1. Yes we can judge who won by the total vote count as were debating the land mine proposal. Well I was, I cannot speak for you though. Irregardless od sidetracks the proposal was at the heart of the debate.

2. I used the one instead of won yes. However, at least I spelt it correctly.

3. I'm a registered Child Care Volunteer, I have no intention of doing it as a career.

Child: An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance...also seen as a minor

Child: One who is childish or immature.

We find people under both defenations to be driveing cars...thank you

However you were claiming that because they were legal minors they were children. Which is incorrect. You cannot introduce alternate definatitions if you are argueing based on law.

This resolution has forced Ferrussia out of the United Nations, and we strongly urge other nations to follow suit.

Link (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=100563) to our IC withdrawl.

if you look for the most part, we are not debateing the landmine issue at all...we have been going back and forth about gramer spelling sentince structure and various other aspects of writeing...so i still dont see how we are debateing the issue voted on considering landmines...I never questioned weather or not you spelled it correctly...i just questioned where you come off talking about typeing mistakes and spelling when you do it your self... you did it again in your last post with "od"

The def. of a child in the eyes of the law is always changeing as well though...for the most part one def is not excepted...there for useing multipul instinces of what a child is is not too much of a digression from the topic of law reguarding weather or not its a "child" driveing...

How did we dive into a conversation about children and minors? I agree with Albino Sloths in that the definition of a child in the eyes of the law is changing each day. I recall the word 'juvenile delinquint' to have been of popular use in earlier years.

Each minor is monitored in some way by law and if a pattern forms among a small, scattered group of minors - or as you will, in statistics - should 'screw up,' many minors suffer the consequences. Thus the New York driving law reform, where the age allowed for a minor to receive a license was raised from 16 to 18. Isn't that beautiful? *cough* Of course minors can't be judged individually by authoritarian figures! That would take up too much time! Though how balanced/truthful those statistics would become..

Anyway, landmines should be used in moderation or a standard for their use should be applied, as I mentioned in another thread. If we are to be so rash with a resolution we should ban antipersonell mines. Landmines up to modern technology, although safer, should still be used strictly and wisely! I vote 'No.'

Landmines are a valued force of righteousness against all the fascist pigs which the un seems to bend over backwards to please. The dictatorship of Morporkistan calls on the UN to shoot all of the leaders of these "groovy" hippie states at once and declare marshal law. We of Morporkistan already have many landmines set around our border to keep those stupid foreigners out of our beautiful nation. We call any nation who disagrees to step forward and feel our eternal wrath.


And remember:
"Long live the orangutan"

Landmines are a valued force of righteousness against all the fascist pigs which the un seems to bend over backwards to please. The dictatorship of Morporkistan calls on the UN to shoot all of the leaders of these "groovy" hippie states at once and declare marshal law. We of Morporkistan already have many landmines set around our border to keep those stupid foreigners out of our beautiful nation. Morporkistan calls on any puny nation who disagrees with Morporkistan to step forward and feel our eternal wrath.


And remember:
"Long live the orangutan"

i think most of us here can agree that abolishing the landmines is a bad idea and there is no reason to if citizins would just pay some attention to the warnings.

This resolution is somewhat extreme and an outspoken leader pointed out it will only effect UN nations and not the 66% or so who are not in the UN. This would allow all sorts of diabolical dictators to have a distinct advantage in warfare against UN members.

But Nexum has voted yes for this resolution because it is the right thing to do. Too many civilians and casualties are created through the use of landmines and it will take decades to get rid of them all. And many of our neo-conservative oil industry influenced generals are wondering what the point is of taking over land is if it's filled with landmines!

Fo' sheezy, mah beezy!

(I concur with you whole-heartedly, my brother.)

But some people just dont understand getting rid of them will only leave the less guarded countries undefended and thats the point the mines are there to protect the land from being taken over, so that makes most countries leave them alone due to the fact they dont want to lose any of their troops in a field of mines

...I appreciate the opportunity to have a massive advantage over neighboring nations in wartime as a result of this resolution. So I say vote Yes on this resolution, as it will make my future annexations so much more easy-going.

yes but only in your advantage. and like i said if they are banned you might have more to worry about other weapons that could do just as bad, because the UN isn't going to sit around and let the non-UN members abuse the things we abolish and we will strike back with a stronger force.

Interesting.

Here is yet another reason I am not a member of the NS UN and never will be.

If one is going to ban landmines because of the destruction they cause "decades after the war is over", mustn't one also ban ALL other exploding weapons? Shouldn’t ALL artillery shells be banned? They do not always explode on impact. How about morters? They also do not always explode when initially launched. Then there are the bombs dropped by airplanes; they can weigh several thousand pounds and not explode when hitting their intended target. In places Iraq is still covered with unexploded ordinance from Gulf War I and not all of it is in plain view.

So, if you are going to ban one because of the damage they do after the war is over, you must ban ALL exploding weapons for the same reason.

I think banning landmines is a good idea, altough they are very usefull during war, they are a treath to innocent people. The only way that the use of landmines would be acceptable is when those who would use them would keep record of the exact locations of the mines in order to remove them after they're not needed anymore, but i don't think that would really work out because i doubt that many nations would actually remove them. So banning is the only option.

Interesting.

Here is yet another reason I am not a member of the NS UN and never will be.

If one is going to ban landmines because of the destruction they cause "decades after the war is over", mustn't one also ban ALL other exploding weapons? Shouldn’t ALL artillery shells be banned? They do not always explode on impact. How about morters? They also do not always explode when initially launched. Then there are the bombs dropped by airplanes; they can weigh several thousand pounds and not explode when hitting their intended target. In places Iraq is still covered with unexploded ordinance from Gulf War I and not all of it is in plain view.

So, if you are going to ban one because of the damage they do after the war is over, you must ban ALL exploding weapons for the same reason. Ok, you're right about the morters and artillery shells, but banning landmines is a beginning. Don't you think that saving the lives of hundreds of innocent people is worth it? It's a known fact that landmines kill more people then the other things you described, so as it seems logicall to me, you dismiss of that treath.

But some people just dont understand getting rid of them will only leave the less guarded countries undefended and thats the point the mines are there to protect the land from being taken over, so that makes most countries leave them alone due to the fact they dont want to lose any of their troops in a field of mines

A minefield won't stop a big powerfull militairy nation, because they have more manpower than there are landmines. Landmines are OLD, if my troops would step on them, i would just bombard them away. It wouldn't stop Arrogantia. They are not necessairy anymore, they are almost useless compared to the state of the art weaponry that is at hand today. They only kill innocent people.

Interesting.

Here is yet another reason I am not a member of the NS UN and never will be.

If one is going to ban landmines because of the destruction they cause "decades after the war is over", mustn't one also ban ALL other exploding weapons? Shouldn?t ALL artillery shells be banned? They do not always explode on impact. How about morters? They also do not always explode when initially launched. Then there are the bombs dropped by airplanes; they can weigh several thousand pounds and not explode when hitting their intended target. In places Iraq is still covered with unexploded ordinance from Gulf War I and not all of it is in plain view.

So, if you are going to ban one because of the damage they do after the war is over, you must ban ALL exploding weapons for the same reason. Ok, you're right about the morters and artillery shells, but banning landmines is a beginning. Don't you think that saving the lives of hundreds of innocent people is worth it? It's a known fact that landmines kill more people then the other things you described, so as it seems logicall to me, you dismiss of that treath.

Let me tell you what Finland said when criticized by Sweden, Norway, etc. for not signing the landmine ban: "That's easy to say, because we're YOUR landmine." And it's true. In order to get to Sweden, the Russians have to go through Finland. So land-locked countries surrounded by friendly neighbors are all for "thinking of the children" when it comes to other people's landmines. Landmines are a terrific deterrent and any kid dumb enough to go into a minefield has really stupid parents.

Big powerful nations are all for getting rid of them, insisting they don't work anyway ... which should make any small nation suspicious.

saying that shows great disrespect to your troops and even so land mines become a neusance and i bet that after you loose enough troops and ground units you would give in and withdraw your advances.

Interesting.

Here is yet another reason I am not a member of the NS UN and never will be.

If one is going to ban landmines because of the destruction they cause "decades after the war is over", mustn't one also ban ALL other exploding weapons? Shouldn’t ALL artillery shells be banned? They do not always explode on impact. How about morters? They also do not always explode when initially launched. Then there are the bombs dropped by airplanes; they can weigh several thousand pounds and not explode when hitting their intended target. In places Iraq is still covered with unexploded ordinance from Gulf War I and not all of it is in plain view.

So, if you are going to ban one because of the damage they do after the war is over, you must ban ALL exploding weapons for the same reason. Ok, you're right about the morters and artillery shells, but banning landmines is a beginning. Don't you think that saving the lives of hundreds of innocent people is worth it? It's a known fact that landmines kill more people then the other things you described, so as it seems logicall to me, you dismiss of that treath.

But, why wait? What about all the children that will die while you are banning one weapon at a time? Why not just do it all in one fell swoop and save all those lives?

*Clears throat*
Did no one hear me say I have free mine-destroying robots and vehicles? Who needs to ban landmines when you can get the equipment to destroy them when you're done with them for free?

exactly! the only reason they are being banned is because people dont pay attention. every landmine field is marked and if people dont see that mabey they should blow up!

All right...it has come to the last plee. People who voted FOR the issue, look over what everyone who opposes it has said and see the truth. Landmines are not in need of a banning. There are so many arguments against it and so little for, just read and VOTE NO!
Thank you...

Morporkistan believes that we must take immediate action and mine the UN head office

if the UN could ban land mines, what would be next? guns? knives? how about the UN bannig 4th grade hallway fights? this is ridiculus. anyone who wants to ban mines is welcome to visit my minefields to set them off.

But some people just dont understand getting rid of them will only leave the less guarded countries undefended and thats the point the mines are there to protect the land from being taken over, so that makes most countries leave them alone due to the fact they dont want to lose any of their troops in a field of mines

Ditto. It's amazing most people cannot realise this.

I'll build them anyway, then plant them at day care facilities and school playgrounds throughout my nation, then annouce through all forms of media that toys and candy are out there for all children to get in a nation-wide easter egg hunt! :twisted:

Only after many children are killed or maimed by these "banned" devices will parents discover the truth of what has happened. And when they ask "Why? why?" I can with a clear conscience say, "The world originally didn't have a good reason to ban landmines, I have now given the world a good reason to ban them...so I can't do what I just did with them."

Newsflash: that isn't a good reason to ban landmines. That is a good reason to chuck your hind end in the klink for murder. Do you know what "Honest" criminals do to child killers?

Well until you can do anything about it, that's what is going to happen inside my borders, as well as ethnic cleanse any people who might be from your location.

I'll build them anyway, then plant them at day care facilities and school playgrounds throughout my nation, then annouce through all forms of media that toys and candy are out there for all children to get in a nation-wide easter egg hunt! :twisted:

Only after many children are killed or maimed by these "banned" devices will parents discover the truth of what has happened. And when they ask "Why? why?" I can with a clear conscience say, "The world originally didn't have a good reason to ban landmines, I have now given the world a good reason to ban them...so I can't do what I just did with them."

What the hell is wrong with you. I could give you anything in the world let you kill off people and then you say we should ban whatever I give you.

Ok, if you don't want your children possibly killed by landmines, I'll go ahead and conduct bio-experimentation within my own borders to determine what happens when you remove 1 arm and attach to another person's body where a leg should be and see if everything turns out ok. That way we can compromise on this "landmine" issue.