You cannot have it both ways.... - Granite Grok

You cannot have it both ways….

We will only allow you to do what we need you to do. Hey, whaddya mean we cannot put conditions on how you’d help us???

From Mainichi Daily News:

A draft treaty for a ban on cluster munitions was adopted in Dublin on May 30, despite vocal protests from the United States, which is not a signatory, in what is being viewed as a victory for the Oslo Process — a demilitarization conference spearheaded by volunteer countries and non-governmental organizations.

The treaty calls for an immediate and total ban on the weapons, which are either dropped by air or fired by artillery, scattering hundreds of smaller bomblets in mid-air. Many of these fail to explode on impact and pose a lasting threat to civilians and military personnel alike.

One would think that most of the pacifist nations, and those nations that cannot develop,afford, or deploy them, would be against this.  Me?  When it comes to war, you play to win.  And in some of these types of diplomatic situations, it is a game of "pin the US to the donkey". 

Background – we have not signed such a treaty in the past, and it is not likely in the short term.  Thus, since we would possess such weaponry and would not disclose where it was kept, including onboard naval assets that could respond to disasters, we would not be able to do what the world really wants us to be – "super disaster repair man!" with our military forces.  Once again, spend our treasure their way and hamstring us when it comes to protecting our blood.

Well, here’s a case in which, when ganged up on, the US decides to turn the table: 

However, the U.S. countered that any ban on the weapons could interfere with its peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts.

Participants were shaken by a letter U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent to NATO member countries in early May, asking them to come up with a treaty that would not affect joint operations. Several NATO members taking part in the Oslo Process have admitted Rice asked them to ensure the treaty did not outlaw two factors: production and storage of cluster munitions, and various types of support for the weapons’ use.

Eventually, Japan, Britain and Germany proposed a new clause in the draft treaty, allowing signatories to take part in military operations with countries that have not signed on.

Prior to the changes, a sober-faced Stephen Mull, the U.S. acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs, said: "If the convention passes in its current form, U.S. military vessels would be technically unable to involve themselves in peacekeeping operations, or provide disaster relief or humanitarian assistance as we’re doing right now in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and the typhoon in Burma, not to mention everything that we did in Southeast Asia after the tsunami in December of 2004."

When asked if the U.S. would back out of humanitarian missions rather than remove cluster munitions from its ship, Mull said it was a possibility

If the world decides to outlaw something that we value…


helps us to protect our own, and goes contrary to our national interest, it should understand "hey, everything’s a trade off".  If I do something that you want me to do, but then say I can’t carry what I want in how to do it, why should I want to please you? Remember, decisions have consequences.

Reality sets in – don’t bite the hand that saves you:

"It’s still important that the most militarily capable countries in the world should be able to respond to emerging humanitarian disasters as quickly as possible, with as few impediments as possible. And that’s why we think this kind of blanket ban is a mistake," Mull said.

Most participants at the Dublin conference were infuriated by what they saw as a U.S. threat.

Oh, the ignomy of it all – we want all that free help but we don’t like your weapons.  How DARE to decide to go against our say so!

My answer – go pound sand.  You don’t like it – build your own damn navy. And air force.  And get your own charitable citizenry to pay for it.  Sorry, but I just get the "angers" when I see this type of entitlement – how DARE the US not help us!

[snip]

Americans dealing with the cluster munitions issue in the United States face a similar lack of interest. In November last year, the U.S. Campaign Against Landmines and Congressman Jim Moran, a Democrat from Virginia, organized a rally against cluster mines, pressing for the adoption of an international ban with the U.S. as a signatory and urging the U.S. government to take part in the Oslo Process.

Heh:

Only 30 people turned up, most of them having something to do with the organization of the event. Moran was the only Congressman. There were no ordinary citizens and the U.S. media ignored the event.

[snip]

"American lawmakers just aren’t interested," a frustrated Moran said. "They don’t realize how serious a problem this is."

Wrong.

[snip]

Bills proposing a ban on cluster munitions have repeatedly been submitted to the U.S. Congress, but none have ever passed. Why won’t the U.S. Congress move on this issue? Moran believes it’s because Americans see the weapons as protecting the sons and daughters they are sending to overseas battlefields, and he says this belief makes many legislators wary of regulating cluster munitions. Furthermore, with the U.S. at war, Moran says debate about regulating cluster munitions even sees some compare the importance the lives of U.S. military personnel and those of citizens of the countries in which they are fighting.

Cold hearted Americans – wanting to protect their own over others. My thoughts exactly – our policy should always be to protect our citizen / soldiers first.

>