Landmine Ban Treaty Bill (Law'd)

[DownWithTheLeft]

Another awful piece of European trash.  No reason our great nation should be getting involved

[DownWithTheLeft]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

[DownWithTheLeft]

I support this of course. Anyone who thinks landmines should be used in warfare is a massive HP.

That is irrelevant, we should not enter a treaty to deprive ourselves of a means of defense just because the country the sponsor lives in happens to think its a good idea

What are you trying to say? I'm not following here.

What I am trying to say is that treaty does nothing more than tie us down.  As we have seen from other treaties, they often do not work and while we hold up our end of the bargain, other nations do not or do not sign the treaty (ex. Kyoto is decent in principle but as long as China and India kept polluting excessively it does not matter what we do and we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage).  This treaty locks us into an agreement that limits the tactics we can use to defend our nations with no promise that these tactics will not be used against us.  There is no advantage to signing this treaty, only disadvantages.

[DownWithTheLeft]

with that thinking we would never have any international agreements ever.

Please, don't get me that excited

[DownWithTheLeft]

I know I'm talking to air here, but how about a bill that just says the United States won't use landmines if people are some up in arms about them?  Why a ridiculous international statue

[DownWithTheLeft]

You do have this thing about treaties DWTL.  The very word is like Kyptonite to you.

This is quite treaty, I don't know if you've seen Team America but they all remind of the scene where Hans Blix tells Saddam that he is going to write him a very nasty letter telling him he is a bad, bad man if he does not stop making weapons.  Really all treaties do are sign pointless agreements, just making a law that we do not adhere to certain practices would acheive the same goal without being bound by the rest of the world if circumstances arise that cause us to need to change that law.

[DownWithTheLeft]

You do have this thing about treaties DWTL.  The very word is like Kyptonite to you.

This is quite treaty, I don't know if you've seen Team America but they all remind of the scene where Hans Blix tells Saddam that he is going to write him a very nasty letter telling him he is a bad, bad man if he does not stop making weapons.  Really all treaties do are sign pointless agreements, just making a law that we do not adhere to certain practices would acheive the same goal without being bound by the rest of the world if circumstances arise that cause us to need to change that law.

You know, one can withdraw from treaties. It's not like a contract without a termination date, where if you want out, your ass gets sued for breach.

You can withdraw from them, but then what would the point of getting into in the first place be?  Its much easier never to get involved.  Not signing a treaty is better for our international standing than backing out of one we signed.

[DownWithTheLeft]

What is the difference between passing a bill (which you say is OK), and repealing it, and entering into a treaty, and then withdrawing from it?

If we create a law and repeal, that just says that we changed our position.  Entering a treaty and decided to back out of it could damage our international standing.

[DownWithTheLeft]

What is the difference between passing a bill (which you say is OK), and repealing it, and entering into a treaty, and then withdrawing from it?

If we create a law and repeal, that just says that we changed our position.  Entering a treaty and decided to back out of it could damage our international standing.

Wouldn't neglecting to ratify a treaty that most of the world (and our allies) are a party to be just as damaging to our international standing?

Not at all, especially on this issue.  If it were something pressing, say like a war resolution or something, then that might be the case, but this certainly is not a pressing issue in society

[DownWithTheLeft]

*sighs and continues to await arrival of PiT and others*

Nay

[DownWithTheLeft]

*sighs and continues to await arrival of PiT and others*

Nay

*others*?

You mean, like, Opebo (or whatever will be the outcome there) replacing Meeker as least active regional Senator?

Hey, if it winds up being the only declared candidate