|
|
Post by Brooke Gentile on May 15, 2018 13:25:36 GMT
@matt
I feel as tho the answer to the question "Even if these things were used for war, why would they ever be created to never be disarmed?" is that at the time they were thinking of the benefits it had to the present and not looking ahead to the challenges and danger it led to in the future. When these landmines were created they were used to destroy and enable army targets as they pass over or near it. This was used as an amazing defense mechanism, but sadly is something that cannot be disarmed. In my opinion I do not feel that when the landmines were created they thought about the consequences that people would face in the future as a result to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 15, 2018 13:57:49 GMT
@makayla @hunter
I believe that the incentive for oil will drive more countries to get to this resource so they can capitalize it. Oil itself is such a valuable resource that it will cause disputes over who gets it. And as we can see with Iran currently in the US, oil will cause price changes and it will be a necessary thing that countries need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 15, 2018 14:05:40 GMT
@hunter
If the US would be involved I think the ability for clean up were be tremendously better. Just the amount of resources that the us could put into this, it would change the land mine scene for the better. Even if the US would even just put more funds into this project it would again make the landmines go away quicker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on May 16, 2018 1:37:00 GMT
@hunter in regards to your question " Do you believe that if the US was more involved in Angola that they would benefit more? Why or why not?". I believe that U.S. involvement would be able to get Angola de-mined quickly because of the large U.S. resources, however, it would not help them in the long run. When The United States gets involved in a foreign country, it takes them a really long time to disconnect from that country. The United States become a puppeteer parasite, who controls the host country without needing to be fully present. This symbiotic relationship that would be started would leave Angola indebted to the U.S. who would hold Angola accountable for repayment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meghan Miller on May 16, 2018 2:04:35 GMT
@laura I would call the Ottawa Treaty a success, they may not have gotten every country to sign the treaty but it started a movement that reduced mines by a large amount. The goal of this treaty was to reduce the number of landmines that are active and to also reduce the number of land mines that will be used in future combat. No treaty is perfect or will completely cure a problem, ie Treaty of Versailles and the Paris Agreement, however, this treaty is functioning to do what it was created to achieve. The de-mining of 25 countries and the agreement of 157 countries. the Ottawa Treaty is currently a success and is continuing to increase that success.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on May 16, 2018 12:10:12 GMT
Landmines that are left behind from conflicts have been a major problem for many countries in post-war years. One of the countries that is having a big problem with them is Angola. Angola has been in peace-time for 30 years now, and yet they still have horrible repercussions from the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. Landmines are causing great roadblocks on the road to recovery from the war, where, as ‘The World Weekly’ article said “....tens of thousands of landmines left behind by both sides. Thirty years on, live mines restrict the expansion of commercial farming, kill and injure civilians, and hamper the government’s plans to attract tourism.” There are so many landmines that are still active and could be tripped at any moment that it is almost impossible for this country to progress and recover from their previous war-torn state. Landmines are generally such a problem that there is a treaty that was created to keep countries from using landmines in conflicts. The Ottawa Treaty has made many countries see somewhat eye-to-eye when it comes to landmines and they are no longer used by many countries. Some countries comply, though they haven’t signed onto the treaty. I think that the reasoning behind this is probably a mix of feeling bad for the countries so affected by the landmines and fear of being criticized and lambasted for using them, but mostly the latter. Landmines are an easy and effective way to attack, and I’m sure that plenty of countries would still be using them if it was not so frowned upon just because they would get so many repercussions for doing so. I think that major countries like the United States have not signed onto the Ottawa Treaty because we’re selfish. We never know when we’re going to get into a fight and using landmines is a very effective and easy way to win a fight. It’s a readily available weapon that is very effective, and even though there are bad repercussions for countries after the fighting has ended, we are more worried about winning the fight than what happens afterward. You say that America hasn't signed the Ottawa Treaty because we are selfish, in what ways are we selfish? I think it might be possible that America produces and exports landmines to war torn countries, tantalizing them with a stealthy weapon only to devastate their economy however this is only a theory. Do you think that might be another plausible reason? |
|
|
|
Post by Chloe Fetter on May 16, 2018 12:14:17 GMT
@laura I would call the Ottawa Treaty a success, they may not have gotten every country to sign the treaty but it started a movement that reduced mines by a large amount. The goal of this treaty was to reduce the number of landmines that are active and to also reduce the number of land mines that will be used in future combat. No treaty is perfect or will completely cure a problem, ie Treaty of Versailles and the Paris Agreement, however, this treaty is functioning to do what it was created to achieve. The de-mining of 25 countries and the agreement of 157 countries. the Ottawa Treaty is currently a success and is continuing to increase that success. Do you think there is a better way to reach an agreement to disaster like this other than being restricted to the confines of a treaty? Perhaps, there could be a international de-mining group which would in turn create room for more jobs. Is this feasible or is a treaty the 'best' way to solve issues like the landmine issue? |
|
