There are people against landmine bands still?

I did not know that...

I don't even think we use landmines anymore.  Why would he be against this....

I think it's one of two reasons.

Either signing the treaty would cause politically far more internal trouble than it's worth, or the US military is either actively using landmines, or is reserving the option to use them at some point.

Either way, it's honestly disgraceful. The human suffering caused by landmines, both during and after conflicts far exceeds their tactical value, IMO.

The only thing that Obama actually does is sustaining his Honeymoon period with the media and the people, he has done little compared to his messiah like campaign, and his Nobel Peace Prize was a farce. Im not a hater but looking from abroad he seems to just be a good populist

Come on... Obama just sent an additional 34,000 troops abroad to maintain peace. I'm pretty sure he deserved the Peace Prize.

* goes to the store to buy a new sarcasm meter *

That's the thing... I don't get those reasons.

I can't think of anyone who would hit obama hard for signing the ban....

and in additon, at least public record seems to show we haven't activly used Landmines since 1991.

Though we apparently do have a large stock of them. 

The thing is... it's stupid.  Landmines are out of date, and i can't see us ever deploying them again.

They're just explosive reminders of how you screwed up someones country and they tend to kill more civilians then enemies.

I can't see the US fighting any wars in the future that don't involve building back up the people they broke down... making landmines stupid.

The only reason i could see to use them would be defense... and if the US was invaded i'd guess they'd abandon such a treaty anyway.

All that comes to mind is....

Maybe we SELL a lot of landmines...

Since it includes not only stockpiling and using... but trade.

Edit:  Nope.. don't sell landmines either...

It's really a confusing position.

I didn't even know Bush went away from the Clinton stance.

Reason stated....

"We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention."

commitment to friends and allies?  Not many people are still pro landmine.  Does it involve Iraq, India or Pakistan?

I bet they're regretting giving him the Nobel Peace Prize now...

To be honest, I don't accept those reasons either - I just figured the US administration would use similar excuses to justify their stance on the treaty.

And I can't really think of any good reason Obama wouldn't sign the treaty either - unless someone has him by the balls somehow. Hell, not signing it puts US in the prestigious company of China, Russia, Pakistan and Myanmar - not exactly the most humane company you'd want to associate with.

Maybe you've got something there.

Currently afterall... the war in Afghanistan relies HEAVILY on the cooperation of Pakistan.

It could of been part of a calculated effort to not piss off Pakistan.

You know, I can see that. Pakistan both makes and uses land mines, and giving silent approval or something similar would be more inconvenient if the US would've officially laid off the mines.

Then again, I don't think the US will ever manage to completely pacify Afghanistan, at least by itself - but that's another thing entirely.