US won't join landmine treaty (old thread please lock)

  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-641bd8d21037b
deactivated-641bd8d21037b

514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 deactivated-641bd8d21037b
Member since 2009 • 514 Posts

Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(

GabuEx
because long after a war is over, they can still be waiting to kill someone, most likely civilians. God American politics p*ss me off.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#103 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

The US utilizes smart mines - they destruct after a certain amount of time so they are not left active in a land for years.

Avatar image for JwresB
JwresB

217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#104 JwresB
Member since 2008 • 217 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Thank God we haven't turned into complete pansies yet.

SpartanNapoleon

Yea start putting landmines infront of your house to prepare for the enemy invasion. Just hide them under the ground so the enemy can't see them. Then when the war is over just hope none of your kids step on them while they are playing in the backyard.

If I put landmines infront of my house and my kids were playing in the backyard. Then how would they step on them?

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#105 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
It is unfortunate, but not surprising the U.S. has taken that stance for quite some time.
Avatar image for DivergeUnify
DivergeUnify

15150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 DivergeUnify
Member since 2007 • 15150 Posts
Why is our country so arrogant in thinking we can just do whatever we please. This is why people hate us.Tauruslink
Because we can. We're an independent nation
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#108 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Why is our country so arrogant in thinking we can just do whatever we please. This is why people hate us.DivergeUnify
Because we can. We're an independent nation

Yar, while I think US foreign policy is one of a jerk at times, so are many nations, and nobody is obliged to join that treaty. It is a choice, perhaps the other nations could setup an embargo to encourage joining, that would be their choice. Otherwise everyone just moves on.
Avatar image for one_plum
one_plum

6825

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 one_plum
Member since 2009 • 6825 Posts

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Why is our country so arrogant in thinking we can just do whatever we please. This is why people hate us.DivergeUnify
Because we can. We're an independent nation

I believe the attitude is more than just "we're an independent nation"...

Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

Would signing that treaty be beneficial or detrimental to the U.S.?

Avatar image for theunloved
theunloved

1441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#112 theunloved
Member since 2006 • 1441 Posts

I'm glad we don't join. Land mines are necessary to protect out troops at bases, point bases, etc. Keeps the bad guys from getting near. Yes, their evil, but at least we know how to use them and do what we can to avoid civilian casualties. And unlike many nations, we don't leave them lying around later.

Avatar image for Flamecommando
Flamecommando

11634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#113 Flamecommando
Member since 2003 • 11634 Posts

Thank God we haven't turned into complete pansies yet.

Pirate700

Yup.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#114 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(

heysharpshooter

They can be used properly, so that left overs won't blow up innocent people. We have the technology now to make them safer than ever. Most of the incedents involving landmines are with very old ones from earlier wars. I think the US should do more to make them safer, and offer to clean up their left overs, but an outright ban is too far IMO.

my thoughts exactly.

also, I forgot where i read it, but I remember reading something about how unexploded ordinance is far more harmful than leftover landmines. Its not 100% relevant, but there are better things to worry about and so long as landmines provide are an effective tool I dont think we should outright ban them.

I also dont think the US should be demonized simply for refusing to sign this.

Avatar image for Democratik
Democratik

662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#115 Democratik
Member since 2009 • 662 Posts
unfortunate
Avatar image for MetallicaKings
MetallicaKings

4781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#116 MetallicaKings
Member since 2004 • 4781 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(

heysharpshooter

They can be used properly, so that left overs won't blow up innocent people. We have the technology now to make them safer than ever. Most of the incedents involving landmines are with very old ones from earlier wars. I think the US should do more to make them safer, and offer to clean up their left overs, but an outright ban is too far IMO.

make landmines safer.....i think Ive finally heard everything
Avatar image for Frattracide
Frattracide

5395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#117 Frattracide
Member since 2005 • 5395 Posts

People's reactions to this are kind of confusing. I think people associate the term "land mine" with a passive device that detonates indiscriminately when operated by its victim. While the majority of mines in the world today are deployed in this fashion, mines currently fielded by the U.S. are mostly command detonated. The claymore being the most prominent example of this type of mine. Mines like claymores are deployed for the duration of an operation and then retrieved after words. While the U.S. does have an inventory of passive mine systems, they are not extensively utilized in current conflicts. Besides all this, the U.S. adheres to the Hague and Geneva conventions which prohibit excessive use of force as well as the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. ALL U.S. munitions are deployed with respect to those treaties.

As to the question, "How do you make a mine that only targets the enemy?" (which should really be "How do you make a passive mine system that only targets the enemy?)

There are a few ways to do it:

For vehicles, you can use acoustic sensors to identify sound signatures produced by enemy equipment like tanks or helicopters. you could also use cameras to identify specific vehicles.

For people, Command detonation is the best method, but, since mines are used to deny enemy access to a specific region anyway, informing the local populace and posting signs is a good start. Mines that deactivate after a certain criteria is met (an expiration time, for instance) are also helpful. In either case, mapping mines and recovering them after they have become operationally moot is something responsible nations have been doing for a while.

Avatar image for Setsa
Setsa

8431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#118 Setsa
Member since 2005 • 8431 Posts
While I think landmines are a pretty gruesome means of dealing death... war is war : /
Avatar image for Nonstop-Madness
Nonstop-Madness

12873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#119 Nonstop-Madness
Member since 2008 • 12873 Posts
The US doesn't care because they have vehicles which can drive over landmines and not even affect them plus NATO tried to take way our cluster bombs ... how are we suppose to F.S.U without cluster bombs ????
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#120 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

People's reactions to this are kind of confusing. I think people associate the term "land mine" with a passive device that detonates indiscriminatelywhen operated by its victim. While the majority of mines in the world today are deployed in this fashion, mines currently fielded by the U.S. are mostly command detonated. The claymore being the most prominent example of this type of mine. Mines like claymores are deployed for the duration of an operation and then retrieved after words. While the U.S. does have an inventory of passive mine systems, they are not extensivelyutilized in current conflicts. Besides all this the U.S. adheres to the Hague and Geneva conventions which prohibit excessive use of force as well as the indiscriminatetargeting of civilians. ALL U.S. munitions are deployed with respect to those treaties.

As to the question, "How do you make a mine that only targets the enemy?" (which should really be "How do you make a passive mine system that only targets the enemy?)

There are a few ways to do it:

For vehicles, you can use acoustic sensors to identify sound signatures produced by enemy equipment like tanks or helicopters. you could also use cameras to identify specific vehicles.

For people, Command detonation is the best method, but, since mines are used to deny enemy access to a specific region anyway, informing the local populace and posting signs is a good start. Mines that deactivate after a certain criteria is met (an expiration time, for instance) are also helpful. In either case, mapping mines and recovering them after they have become operationally moot is something responsible nations have been doing for a while.

Frattracide

The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.

Avatar image for Frattracide
Frattracide

5395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#121 Frattracide
Member since 2005 • 5395 Posts

The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.

-Sun_Tzu-

So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#124 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

So the banning of a pathetic excuse of a weapon that inflicts massive collateral damage on innocent bystanders years after actual conflicts end = turning into pansies?

Sure.

brandontwb

If they are needed for our adventage yes. Welcome to war. It's not pretty.

I hope you die in a mine explosion :).

that is not very nice.

and considering the pace at which the US fights wars at, I severely doubt anyone has been killed by a US landmine that has been set upin the last 30 years.

out of curiosity, did Russia sign this treaty? Theyre the ones with the surplus muntions, selling them to African and Middle East warlords. Or was this NATO-only?

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#125 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I see no reason to ban them. They are used in war. Rather the landmine stopped the enemy than a fight ensued. Less loss of life that way....SapSacPrime
You mean less loss of American soldiers lives am I correct? no regard for the innocent people many of which are children that stumble across these weapons then?

So tell me when the last time an innocent person died as a result of a US land mine. Tell me when the last time the US even deployed a land mine. We should really be arguing on facts instead of this emotional response from the assumption that the US military deploys land mines indiscriminately. They don't. They simply want the option left open in case they need it to protect their soldiers from conflicts that Nato sends them to. Nato deploys a heavily disproportionate number of US troops when they decide military action is neccessary. Of course, people living in countries who only send a handfull of troops in to Nato engagements as a token gesture aren't going to care if their countries have land mines at their disposals. They don't risk loosing a large number of troops and they get to look good in world opinion by signing this treaty. I, for one, am completely happy that the US is willing to allow our troops to protect their own lives when Nato asks for our help.
Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#126 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world.
Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#127 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]If they are needed for our adventage yes. Welcome to war. It's not pretty.

mrbojangles25

I hope you die in a mine explosion :).

that is not very nice.

and considering the pace at which the US fights wars at, I severely doubt anyone has been killed by a US landmine that has been set upin the last 30 years.

out of curiosity, did Russia sign this treaty? Theyre the ones with the surplus muntions, selling them to African and Middle East warlords. Or was this NATO-only?

No. Niether Russia or China are signing the treaty. It seems the US is held to a double standard.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#128 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I see no reason to ban them. They are used in war. Rather the landmine stopped the enemy than a fight ensued. Less loss of life that way....psychobrew
You mean less loss of American soldiers lives am I correct? no regard for the innocent people many of which are children that stumble across these weapons then?

So tell me when the last time an innocent person died as a result of a US land mine. Tell me when the last time the US even deployed a land mine. We should really be arguing on facts instead of this emotional response from the assumption that the US military deploys land mines indiscriminately. They don't. They simply want the option left open in case they need it to protect their soldiers from conflicts that Nato sends them to. Nato deploys a heavily disproportionate number of US troops when they decide military action is neccessary. Of course, people living in countries who only send a handfull of troops in to Nato engagements as a token gesture aren't going to care if their countries have land mines at their disposals. They don't risk loosing a large number of troops and they get to look good in world opinion by signing this treaty. I, for one, am completely happy that the US is willing to allow our troops to protect their own lives when Nato asks for our help.

exactly

the mass-banning of landmines is a non-practical gesture of goodwill that we will would later regret.

The US, being far away from the rest of the world, is fairly safe. But what if East Europe or Asia decided to invade, idunno...Germany, France, or any other nation. Theyre gonna be begging for landmines then.

Avatar image for MetroidPrimePwn
MetroidPrimePwn

12399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#129 MetroidPrimePwn
Member since 2007 • 12399 Posts

Well of course we didn't join the landmine treaty, that would set us back in our plans to build a nuclear landmine equipped moonbase.

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#130 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
out of curiosity, did Russia sign this treaty?mrbojangles25
No, they didn't.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#131 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.

Frattracide

So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.

Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines.
Avatar image for EMOEVOLUTION
EMOEVOLUTION

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#132 EMOEVOLUTION
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

treaties are worthless.. it's just putting up a facade with no intentions of keeping them.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#133 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

I am gonna say one last thing before I go. I will use the same argument I use concerning gun control; we need smarter regulations, not more.

Landmines are a useful weapon that can be safely used and planned out to present a minimal threat to civilians. The cure to the current ails is not to ban mines, but to regulate them more.

Just like with guns; do not ban them, simply make smarter rules and keep those responsible for their useon a tighter leash.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#134 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.

-Sun_Tzu-

So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.

Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines.

we also have a large stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should we get rid of those too?

*dear god I think that is the most conservative statement I have ever made. Sorry :oops: But I stick to it

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#135 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. fidosim
There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.
Avatar image for tzar3
tzar3

12393

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#136 tzar3
Member since 2006 • 12393 Posts

If I ever was a soldier, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be maimed or lose a nut or both in an explosion... or die for that matter. Landmines are necessary when it comes to war unfortunately. We gotta use whatever we have. And landmine accidents are not a problem here in the US but it sucks for the other countries that have to suffer from it.

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#137 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
[QUOTE="fidosim"]Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. -Sun_Tzu-
There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.

Those would not be easy to remove.
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#138 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. duxup
There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.

Those would not be easy to remove.

I think a few thousand busloads of school children would clear them out

Avatar image for Tannerr33
Tannerr33

896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

#139 Tannerr33
Member since 2004 • 896 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. duxup
There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.

Those would not be easy to remove.

Not to mention if the US did try and remove them NK would probably spin it in a way that convinces their people that the US and SK are getting ready for a land invasion.

Avatar image for Frattracide
Frattracide

5395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#140 Frattracide
Member since 2005 • 5395 Posts

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.

-Sun_Tzu-

So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.

Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines.

As far as I'm aware, the only truly passive landmines the U.S. fields are currently in between North and South Korea. All other landmines in the U.S. inventory are either command detonated, incorporate a self destruct safety feature or are used for E.O.D training purposes only. Now, it would make sense not to sign a treaty that would require us to remove land mines from a demilitarized zone but this is irrelevant to my original point. Which was that the U.S. does not field mines irresponsibly

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#141 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.mrbojangles25

Those would not be easy to remove.

I think a few thousand busloads of school children would clear them out

Oh I think there are more than anti personnel, also sparking a war with the north might not e the best of ideas.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#142 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Frattracide"] So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.

mrbojangles25

Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines.

we also have a large stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should we get rid of those too?

*dear god I think that is the most conservative statement I have ever made. Sorry :oops: But I stick to it

If the U.S. were to sign a treaty that says that they will get rid of those stockpiles, then yeah they should, but I personally am not really taking a position on the matter one way or the other. All I'm saying is that the treaty would not be moot - it would effect U.S. policy vis-a-vis landmines.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#143 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

Well of course we didn't join the landmine treaty, that would set us back in our plans to build a nuclear landmine equipped moonbase.

MetroidPrimePwn

Read all of those, I loved this quote:

"Fortunately, the United States came down off their explosion high and realized that nuking an orbiting planetary body for no particular reason might cross the line between "illustrating our technical prowess" and "cartoonish supervillainy,""

:lol:

Avatar image for leviathan91
leviathan91

7763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#144 leviathan91
Member since 2007 • 7763 Posts

Neither would China or Russia. And does the US even use land mines anymore?

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#145 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60846 Posts

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

Well of course we didn't join the landmine treaty, that would set us back in our plans to build a nuclear landmine equipped moonbase.

chessmaster1989

Read all of those, I loved this quote:

"Fortunately, the United States came down off their explosion high and realized that nuking an orbiting planetary body for no particular reason might cross the line between "illustrating our technical prowess" and "cartoonish supervillainy,""

:lol:

the writers at Cracked.com really are some of the best

Avatar image for mariahalynalew
mariahalynalew

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#146 mariahalynalew
Member since 2009 • 25 Posts
You might be interested in this article: it's a discussion with Zack Hudson from the USCBL. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5249-SF-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d7-After-Cartagena-A-conversation-with-Zach-Hudson-from-the-United-States-Campaign-to-Ban-Landmines