Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 3877/7006
(29-May-2008 at 07:31)


Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

>The link.<

In a rare piece of good news, 111 countries have agreed on the text of a treaty to ban the use of cluster bombs. While this is good news, there are some countries that refuse to stop using this weapon:-
United States
Russia
China
India
Israel
Pakistan

I would be totally ashamed to see my country aligned with countries such as Russia, China, Israel, and Pakistan on an issue that revolves around the prevention of civilian deaths in war, and it raises questions for me.

1) What possible defence is there for using a weapon that everybody knows kills more civilians than it does troops? Bear in mind that the USA also refused to ban land-mines, but to be fair they stopped using them anyway.

2) The UK is banning the use of cluster bombs. Though I am not a big fan of Gordon Brown I have to give him credit for getting this through, but the next question is US stockpiles of cluster bombs on UK soil. My view is that GB should grow some balls and tell the US to take them away. Is there any good argument for leaving them there?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4567/4829
(29-May-2008 at 14:38)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
>The link.<

In a rare piece of good news, 111 countries have agreed on the text of a treaty to ban the use of cluster bombs. While this is good news, there are some countries that refuse to stop using this weapon:-
United States
Russia
China
India
Israel
Pakistan

I would be totally ashamed to see my country aligned with countries such as Russia, China, Israel, and Pakistan on an issue that revolves around the prevention of civilian deaths in war, and it raises questions for me.
Easy for countries with no need for cluster bombs to denounce them. The whole thing is a meaningless political stunt with no moral or practical relevance. War is inherently dangerous, and just like any other weapon in the world there are risks associated with use.

The reaction to cluster bombs is driven not by fact, but by emotion. Unexploded munitions have a ressemblance to mines which have alread been villanized to the point of pathology. Case in point, have you even contemplated what happens if you don't use cluster bombs? We would have to use much larger conventional bombs to have the same wide area effect. You think that wont cause increased civilian casualties?

The best response (if you are really concerned about the externalities of cluster bombs) is to simply take efforts to minimize risks. Develop better bombs which have all their bomblets explode. Or like we have already done, package the bomblets with bright colors and skulls/crossbones on them as warnings in case some malfunction.

However, such obvious compromises are ignored, I suspect because the real intentions of people behind this ban fall into one of two categories: Those who oppose war in general and naively think that you can end it by banning weapons. or Those who like sticking fingers in the eye of the U.S./Israel and to a much lesser extent Russia, China, and Pakistan.



Quote:
1) What possible defence is there for using a weapon that everybody knows kills more civilians than it does troops? Bear in mind that the USA also refused to ban land-mines, but to be fair they stopped using them anyway.
We haven't stopped using them. They are all along the 38th parallel in Korea. Not to mention we use them in Iraq as well (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005...usint10214.htm)

Mines are an important deterrent for assaulting a position. It also allows you to close off approaches without utilizing extra manpower.

The only change in our mine usage is that we are now using mines designed to deactivate automatically after a set period of time, or ones which can be turned off remotely. Same effectiveness, zero risk. That is the far more sensible approach than an outright ban. More evidence that people are driven by one of the two above mentioned motivations.

Our official landmine position:
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/30044.htm

Quote:
2) The UK is banning the use of cluster bombs. Though I am not a big fan of Gordon Brown I have to give him credit for getting this through, but the next question is US stockpiles of cluster bombs on UK soil. My view is that GB should grow some balls and tell the US to take them away. Is there any good argument for leaving them there?
If they are our bombs and we have a general military cooperation treaty then they can, will, and should do nothing. They can whatever they want with their own bombs or bombs we've sold them. Pretty stupid of them to waste all that ordinance though. I imagine they will simply not buy more and wait to activate the ban once they've run out.

Last edited by Royal Assassin3, 29-May-2008 at 14:40.
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3878/7006
(29-May-2008 at 17:34)


Quote:
Easy for countries with no need for cluster bombs to denounce them.
Right...111 countries, representing all the advanced nations on the planet, can manage without cluster bombs, but for some bizarre reason the USA can't? This would be a more effective argument if you could tell us specifically what it is that Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, and the USA have in common that makes it impossible for them to live without cluster bombs.


Quote:
The reaction to cluster bombs is driven not by fact, but by emotion.
It is driven by the fact that cluster bombs, like land-mines, kill lots of civilians. Some of us are concerned by that, others such as you are obviously not.


Quote:
Case in point, have you even contemplated what happens if you don't use cluster bombs? We would have to use much larger conventional bombs to have the same wide area effect. You think that wont cause increased civilian casualties?
Why do you have to drop any bombs on civilians?


Quote:
We haven't stopped using them. They are all along the 38th parallel in Korea. Not to mention we use them in Iraq as well (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005...usint10214.htm)

Okay, then I thought the USA had done the right thing for once, but it seems I was wrong. You must be so proud of that.

Curse HRW for misleading everybody....

'The last time the U.S. used antipersonnel mines was in the Gulf War in 1991'

It is revealing that you quote my question " What possible defence is there for using a weapon that everybody knows kills more civilians than it does troops?" and then fail to address it at all.



Quote:
If they are our bombs and we have a general military cooperation treaty then they can, will, and should do nothing.
They may be your bombs, but the United Kingdom does not come under US jurisdiction. One day you might understand that the USA does not rule the world. If cluster bombs are banned from British soil, that includes American ones.


Quote:
Pretty stupid of them to waste all that ordinance though. I imagine they will simply not buy more and wait to activate the ban once they've run out.
They will all be gone within 8 years. I guess we just care about civilians more than you do...


A new link as AFP seem to have removed theirs.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4570/4829
(29-May-2008 at 18:53)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Right...111 countries, representing all the advanced nations on the planet, can manage without cluster bombs, but for some bizarre reason the USA can't? This would be a more effective argument if you could tell us specifically what it is that Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, and the USA have in common that makes it impossible for them to live without cluster bombs.
Of that group, the majority are underdeveloped countries that could neither afford, nor deploy cluster bombs, so it's no skin off their back. All the more so if they are enemies of some major power which does use them.

Of the "developed" countries, Britain is probably the only one which engages in significant combat operations these days. So again, no big deal for them.




Quote:
It is driven by the fact that cluster bombs, like land-mines, kill lots of civilians. Some of us are concerned by that, others such as you are obviously not.
Guns kill lots of civilians too. So do conventional bombs. So does seemingly harmless shrapnel.

If you want to reduce civilian casualties you need to stop wars, not try to ban weapons. Indeed, quite the opposite. The overwhelming power of modern military technology (and the willingness to use it of good countries like the U.S.) is a large part of why wars are so small and rare these days.

Quote:
Why do you have to drop any bombs on civilians?
You try not to, but sometimes badguys place civilians at risk when choosing their locations.


Quote:
It is revealing that you quote my question " What possible defence is there for using a weapon that everybody knows kills more civilians than it does troops?" and then fail to address it at all.
I didn't respond to that because it is patently absurd. The military doesn't keep a weapon by weapon kill count, so there's nothing to compare against. All you have are a few unsubstantiated (and likely exaggerated) casualty figures from particular incidents (like Lebanon). I wouldn't be surprised if they are survey based.

Never the less, I find it unlikely that there are more people using yellow unexploded bomblets as soccer balls than there are people in the troop formations that cluster bombs are dropped on.


Quote:
They may be your bombs, but the United Kingdom does not come under US jurisdiction. One day you might understand that the USA does not rule the world. If cluster bombs are banned from British soil, that includes American ones.
And one day you will understand that treaties give both parties certain rights and obligations. Laws or changing perceptions and desires of one country are irrelevant unless the treaty is renegotiated.

Case in point: Japan has a no nuclear law yet that does not prevent the U.S. from exercising our right to maintain nuclear aircraft carriers in Japan or even base nuclear missiles there. Territory on military bases is like embassy land. It may be on foreign soil but legally it is governed by the laws of the occupying country. The most the other country can do is make requests.

Quote:
They will all be gone within 8 years. I guess we just care about civilians more than you do...
It seems I'm right. I figured they'd leave time to use up their bombs rather than simply throw them in the trash.
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Research Group
Posts: 1371/1382
(30-May-2008 at 00:39)


The problem with cluster bombs is what RA3 said in the beginning... they are like land mines when they dont detonate...

and so far cluster bombs have a failure rate of anywhere from 10-40% (i read it in the news i dont have an actual source but im sure they did)
Thats a huge failure rate, and although mines are horrible... if RA3 is right with the new ones that can deactivate then im okay with them. the only problem i have is once deactivated people can run in, dig them up and steal their explosives for personal use... Not so hot still!

Regardless the point remains, if there are cluster bombs with as high as 40% failure rate in detonation, to me, thats more harm than good vs conventional weapons that explode all the same, and when they do, they dont leave little bomblets in the rubble that although are brightly coloured, cant be seen because the rest of the bomblets went off scattering rubble everywhere.

Originally Posted by ra3:
However, such obvious compromises are ignored, I suspect because the real intentions of people behind this ban fall into one of two categories: Those who oppose war in general and naively think that you can end it by banning weapons. or Those who like sticking fingers in the eye of the U.S./Israel and to a much lesser extent Russia, China, and Pakistan.
Ladies and gentlemen i give you the only time in the history of RA3 (im guessing but i think its safe to say) that he has related to all 5 of those countries regarding the same cause as to which they are all sharing the same opinion. And its not about commodities.

Quote:
The reaction to cluster bombs is driven not by fact, but by emotion. Unexploded munitions have a ressemblance to mines which have alread been villanized to the point of pathology. Case in point, have you even contemplated what happens if you don't use cluster bombs? We would have to use much larger conventional bombs to have the same wide area effect. You think that wont cause increased civilian casualties?
How about just dropping several smaller bombs that are accurate rather than a cluster bomb dropping even more even smaller bombs that aren't accurate and have a low detonation rate compared to the norm. Sure it might be harder and require better logistics or be more complex, but who said an innocent life isn't worth a little bit more effort?
You know something is fucked up when the biggest 5 countries in terms of conflict within the last 100 years (minus germany/britian who both agreed to banning it) all agree that a weapon that fails for averages sake 1/4 is still necessary to keep vs ALL the other kickass weapons they have.
Thats the thing that bothers me most, the fact that of all the kickass non-sense explosions that weapons in the american arsenal can make, a cluster bomb is still worth the risk to civilian life at its fail rate.

I'm 1970's pimp smooth...

Last edited by Money Mathews, 30-May-2008 at 00:43.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Money Mathews Add Money Mathews to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3879/7006
(30-May-2008 at 04:33)


Quote:
Of that group, the majority are underdeveloped countries that could neither afford, nor deploy cluster bombs, so it's no skin off their back.
Undeveloped countries such as Canada, Australia, and the entire EU? Sure, none of us can afford cluster bombs. Obviously the only reason 111 countries agreed on this is through pure envy of the USA cluster bomb stockpile.


Quote:
Guns kill lots of civilians too.
Which is why most countries do the sensible thing and ban them too.


Quote:
If you want to reduce civilian casualties you need to stop wars, not try to ban weapons.
The UN tries to do that, but some countries are so aggressive they ignore the UN, go right ahead, and start wars. By amazing coincidence they also want to keep their cluster bombs.


Quote:
The overwhelming power of modern military technology (and the willingness to use it of good countries like the U.S.) is a large part of why wars are so small and rare these days.
So small and rare?

There are more wars now than there has ever been. Do you know how many wars are going on right now? Over 40. On to that we can add another 50 or so that have started and ended since 1990.


Quote:
You try not to, but sometimes badguys place civilians at risk when choosing their locations.
I guess it has never crossed your mind that in those circumstances dropping bombs or firing shells is not the cleverest of solutions. Much better just to kill the civilians, right?

Perhaps you should learn from the British...

'British artillery units had a similar vetting process although it gave observers more responsibility than lawyers. Its no-strike list included schools, mosques, and hospitals. “We couldn’t fire on [such a site] irrespective of who was in it. Even if you called for fire, it couldn’t happen. They were no-fire zones,” said Colonel Baldwin.299 Unlike the U.S. forces, the British required forward observation even in the case of counter-battery fire. Either a human or the video of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or drone, had to confirm visually that no civilians were present. “At no time did we fire where we couldn’t see,” Baldwin said.

Some countries don't view civilians as expendable...


Quote:
All you have are a few unsubstantiated (and likely exaggerated) casualty figures from particular incidents (like Lebanon). I wouldn't be surprised if they are survey based.
There are sources other than the US military.

'Handicap International, a charity based in Brussels, Belgium, that helped campaign for the treaty, says it has records of 13,306 confirmed casualties due to leftover bomblets in 23 countries, of whom 5475 died. It estimates that 132 million explosive remnants are currently lurking in nine heavily affected countries such as Laos and Lebanon.'

That is records held by one charity.


Quote:
Never the less, I find it unlikely that there are more people using yellow unexploded bomblets as soccer balls than there are people in the troop formations that cluster bombs are dropped on.
The problem is that caring nations such as Israel and the USA don't drop them on troop formations. They drop them on populated areas.

USA

'The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the coalition´s conduct of major military operations in March and April, Human Rights Watch said. U.S. and British forces used almost 13,000 cluster munitions, containing nearly 2 million submunitions, that killed or wounded more than 1,000 civilians.'

'In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and injured 109. A hospital director in the southern Iraqi city told Human Rights Watch that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war. Human Rights Watch obtained hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and Nasariya indicating 2,279 civilian casualties in March and April, including 678 dead and 1,601 injured.'

'While the U.S. Air Force continued this trend in Iraq, the U.S. Army launched tens of thousands of cluster submunitions in populated areas. '

'ground troops consistently used these area effect weapons in residential neighborhoods, virtually guaranteeing loss of civilian life.'



Israel

'(Beirut, July 24, 2006) – Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions in populated areas of Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said today. Researchers on the ground in Lebanon confirmed that a cluster munitions attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed one and wounded at least 12 civilians, including seven children.'


Quote:
Territory on military bases is like embassy land. It may be on foreign soil but legally it is governed by the laws of the occupying country. The most the other country can do is make requests.
Wrong. And coming from somebody who claims to be a law student quite disturbing.

Embassies, consulates, and military bases are extraterritorial, a status defined under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is not the same as sovereignty. The receiving nation grants extraterritoriality to people or places, and can remove it at any time they please.

In other words, the UK can do a lot more that 'make requests'. We can shut your bases down and expel all the personnel.


Quote:
Case in point: Japan has a no nuclear law yet that does not prevent the U.S. from exercising our right to maintain nuclear aircraft carriers in Japan or even base nuclear missiles there.
You don't have a right. You have permission from the Japanese government, probably because they find it useful to use somebody else's nukes as a deterrent.


Quote:
It seems I'm right. I figured they'd leave time to use up their bombs rather than simply throw them in the trash.
'The treaty agreed in Dublin calls on members never to "develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions". Use must halt immediately and members must destroy stockpiles within 8 years.'

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.

Last edited by Voice of Reason, 30-May-2008 at 04:41.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4447/4773
Donated $9.31
(30-May-2008 at 05:02)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
So small and rare?

There are more wars now than there has ever been. Do you know how many wars are going on right now? Over 40. On to that we can add another 50 or so that have started and ended since 1990.
I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm going to have to arrest you on this one. According to this report there has been a steady decline in the number of conflicts (internal and international) since the late 1980s. There's still a lot of conflicts going on, but to say that 'there's more than there has ever been' is simply not correct.

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 10/31
(30-May-2008 at 07:07)
Eh, next thing you know they'll be banning the sheep launcher...
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by pudge Add pudge to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3880/7006
(30-May-2008 at 08:23)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Nimon: View Post
I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm going to have to arrest you on this one. According to this report there has been a steady decline in the number of conflicts (internal and international) since the late 1980s. There's still a lot of conflicts going on, but to say that 'there's more than there has ever been' is simply not correct.
By 'now' I was actually meaning 'in this historical period' or 'these days' rather than 'on May 30th', the point being that the rise of the USA as a military power was not accompanied by a decline in armed conflicts as RA3 suggests, it has in fact been accompanied by a rise in violence.

It is an interesting link though. A comparable study is from UNDP, here, were we apparently see differing figures and differing trends compared to CIDCM. The UNDP shows higher levels of conflict, and more steady.

"The overall number of armed conflicts around the globe declined between 1999 and 2002, and has held steady at around 30 active conflicts each year since 2002 (see Table 2)."

However... did you download the PDF from CIDCM? In the introduction it says

"Has the magnitude of armed conflict declined? The answer is yes when judged by falling numbers of internal wars and their average death-tolls across the last 20 years. But when we tabulate the number of states engaged in armed conflicts, either their own or multilateral wars as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the long-run trend is up. A larger portion of the global community of states is involved now than in any other time in the past six decades (see chapter 11)."

If you go to Chapter 11 it tells us that

"The share of countries with direct involvement in armed conflicts has risen slowly since the end of World War II (see Figure 11.1)"

In other words, more countries are involved in armed conflict of some description now, which supports my comment and contradicts RA3.

The fall in casualties, meaning deaths in battle, reflects a change in the character of conflict. It is now generally of lower intensity, and rarely interstate, which is possibly a reflection of the UNs involvement preventing interstate wars. Most conflicts against a state are now carried out by coalitions or bodies such as Nato or the UN.

I expect violence in general to reduce in the future, simply as a result of ageing populations - violence is a young mans game.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4573/4829
(30-May-2008 at 23:39)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
Which is why most countries do the sensible thing and ban them too.
From military use?


Quote:
The UN tries to do that, but some countries are so aggressive they ignore the UN, go right ahead, and start wars. By amazing coincidence they also want to keep their cluster bombs.

So small and rare?

There are more wars now than there has ever been. Do you know how many wars are going on right now?
Yeah, that Indo Bangladesh Border conflict in which 17 people died was quite an impressive war. Almost all of those are indeed small, with the rare major conflict which is usually a civil war of some sort, a type of war which world police USA doesn't actively prevent.

I will admit I'm surprised about the second Congo war. I can't believe that a war of that magnitude didn't make the papers. It certainly puts the Iraq war in its proper context.

Quote:
I guess it has never crossed your mind that in those circumstances dropping bombs or firing shells is not the cleverest of solutions. Much better just to kill the civilians, right?

Perhaps you should learn from the British...

'British artillery units had a similar vetting process although it gave observers more responsibility than lawyers. Its no-strike list included schools, mosques, and hospitals. “We couldn’t fire on [such a site] irrespective of who was in it. Even if you called for fire, it couldn’t happen. They were no-fire zones,” said Colonel Baldwin.299 Unlike the U.S. forces, the British required forward observation even in the case of counter-battery fire. Either a human or the video of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or drone, had to confirm visually that no civilians were present. “At no time did we fire where we couldn’t see,” Baldwin said.

Some countries don't view civilians as expendable...
And of course the British using those methods (which are remarkably similar to U.S. methods by the way) never kill any civilians?

Not to mention, don't you see the flaws in Britain's excessively restrictive methods? If you're taking fire and prohibited from firing back until visual confirmation (or from firing back at all if the badguys hole up in a mosque, school, etc.) you are sacrificing your soldiers on the off chance that there may be civilians near where the badguys are.

Not to mention you increase the chances that badguys will exploit such weaknesses creating even more potential for civilian death.



Quote:
'Handicap International, a charity based in Brussels, Belgium, that helped campaign for the treaty, says it has records of 13,306 confirmed casualties due to leftover bomblets in 23 countries, of whom 5475 died. It estimates that 132 million explosive remnants are currently lurking in nine heavily affected countries such as Laos and Lebanon.'

That is records held by one charity.
So you think less than 5500 badguys have been killed by cluster bombs? Or 13,306 wounded?


Quote:
The problem is that caring nations such as Israel and the USA don't drop them on troop formations. They drop them on populated areas.
Areas populated by enemy troop concentrations yes.


Quote:
Wrong. And coming from somebody who claims to be a law student quite disturbing.

Embassies, consulates, and military bases are extraterritorial, a status defined under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is not the same as sovereignty. The receiving nation grants extraterritoriality to people or places, and can remove it at any time they please.

In other words, the UK can do a lot more that 'make requests'. We can shut your bases down and expel all the personnel.
They CAN do whatever they want. They also CAN simply drop a bomb on all our bases. Of course, either situation would result in proportional consequences to the nation violating the agreement.

Quote:
You don't have a right. You have permission from the Japanese government, probably because they find it useful to use somebody else's nukes as a deterrent.
It's our right to do what is specified in our agreements. They can revoke permission and we would have the right to defend our continued occupation of the bases depending on the specifications in the treaty. Of course, in all such situations we would probably withdraw and seek less violent punishments for the offending ally.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Research Group
Posts: 1372/1382
(31-May-2008 at 00:11)


RA3, i love how you bypass my post regarding all the comments i made about the bomblets...

further:
Originally Posted by ra3:
So you think less than 5500 badguys have been killed by cluster bombs? Or 13,306 wounded?
the real question is not if its killed more bad guys than civilians, god willing it will be better than a 1-1 ratio of combatants vs civillians killed by these. The question is more, for the amount of times they have been used and for which situations, did these people have to die, and since its because of leftover bomblets as said in the report... im gonna retype your question as follows, if im outta line lemme know.

New RA3 quote: "So you think less than 5500 badguys have been killed by left over bomblets? Or 13 306 wounded?
The answer is yes, i believe that once they got a cluster bomb dropped where ever it was, the other bad guys decided it wasn't a good idea to go back... or at least more than enough of them decided that, and probably a hell of a lot less than that number of bad guys got killed by leftover cluster bombs.

Then of course it the other question, would more/less civillians have died during the explosion if another weapon was used? The answer is i dont know, but judging on the ban of these weapons, im gonna say the general consensus is probably not.

I'm 1970's pimp smooth...

Last edited by Money Mathews, 31-May-2008 at 00:13.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Money Mathews Add Money Mathews to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1520/1675
(31-May-2008 at 02:26)


i oppose to the word "bad guys"

RA3, ranking the life of different humans is disturbing, but if you are going to do it I would propose ranking the lives of civilians over that of soldiers, because soldiers CHOOSE to put themselves in harm's way, while civilians never asked for any mayhem.

Also, take the time to reverse the situation. What if Iraq had invaded and occupied the US, with whats left of the United States military helping them out. You'd only have civilians and rebels left. Do you think your native rebels wouldn't act the same as the insurgents in Iraq? Would you approve massive use of cluster bomblets by the Iraqi forces? Wouldn't it piss you off that these same Iraqi forces also proclaimed to be a force of good and help?

"Observers worldwide have been expressing great pity for the people of Gaza [...] This pity may be a natural emotional reaction, yet it is unethical and immoral." - Adi Dvir, Ynetnews editor
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Peppie Add Peppie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3882/7006
(31-May-2008 at 06:13)


Quote:
From military use?
If the military are shooting civilians, then yes - they are not responsible enough to have a gun in their hands.


Quote:
a type of war which world police USA doesn't actively prevent.
You really have to curb that ego. There is no US world police. That is just a result of extremist 'we rule the world' nationalism. It is obvious that you are never, ever, going to understand that the USA is not the worlds government.


Quote:
And of course the British using those methods (which are remarkably similar to U.S. methods by the way) never kill any civilians?
They kill a lot less civilians than the USA does, mainly because of the US habit of cluster bombing civilians. It is not only the UK - most militaries are a lot more careful about civilian deaths than the US. They also have a much better record in terms of friendly fire, which is not just a coincidence.

Remember this incident?

'The crew of an Australian F/A-18 Hornet refused to bomb a target assigned by the US command system because the allocated target could not be verified.

"At the end of the day, these decisions are made by a young pilot flying the aircraft at very high speed, often in difficult conditions at night, who must make an assessment of the information available, and then make the decision to release the weapon," Brigadier Hannan said.

"In this case the pilots made that assessment, decided that the information didn't support the justification for the use of the weapon, and aborted the mission."

The Prime Minister, John Howard, said it was a reminder that Australian forces were independent, and were following their rules of engagement.'


The USA is in a very small minority in it's willingness to attack unknown targets, and it is this shoot first, think later trigger-happy thinking that lies behind the US use of inhumane weapons such as cluster bombs, and DU weapons, and white phosphorous weapons.

When a cluster bomb is used, you have no control over who it is going to kill. For this reason, most countries in the world will not use them. You, and you country, apparently don't care who they kill, as long as they kill somebody.


Quote:
Not to mention, don't you see the flaws in Britain's excessively restrictive methods? If you're taking fire and prohibited from firing back until visual confirmation (or from firing back at all if the badguys hole up in a mosque, school, etc.) you are sacrificing your soldiers on the off chance that there may be civilians near where the badguys are.
Which is a lot better than sacrificing civilians by firing back on the off chance that some 'bad guys' (AKA 'people defending their country against a US invasion...') might be there. When we look at the record... well, those brutal, fuck-the-civilians, methods used by the US military aren't working too well are they? Especially compared with the British record.


Quote:
So you think less than 5500 badguys have been killed by cluster bombs? Or 13,306 wounded?
Who cares? That is not an excuse for killing innocent civilians FFS! You are an extremely callous individual. When are you going to actually give a positive reason why cluster bombs are a good idea? So far, all you have done is regurgitate the same old routine excuses for killing civilians.


Quote:
They CAN do whatever they want. They also CAN simply drop a bomb on all our bases. Of course, either situation would result in proportional consequences to the nation violating the agreement.
Quote:
They can revoke permission and we would have the right to defend our continued occupation of the bases depending on the specifications in the treaty.
You don't have any right to place your troops on foreign soil. The USA does not rule the world.

The decision lies with the receiving country. They decide whose troops can be based in their country. If they decide they don't want American bases in their country anymore, then tough shit - the Americans move out. If the US decides to defend this imaginary right to send US military into a foreign country, then you are committing an act of war. Unauthorised entry of a foreign military does happen, and it has a name. It is called an 'invasion'.

I can see you are destined for a stellar career as a lawyer...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 79/284
(06-Jun-2008 at 22:03)


Quote:
Also, take the time to reverse the situation. What if Iraq had invaded and occupied the US, with whats left of the United States military helping them out. You'd only have civilians and rebels left. Do you think your native rebels wouldn't act the same as the insurgents in Iraq? Would you approve massive use of cluster bomblets by the Iraqi forces? Wouldn't it piss you off that these same Iraqi forces also proclaimed to be a force of good and help?
I understand what you're trying to get at. However, I will play devil's advocate and say you must also use the same logic that if extremists invaded USA or UK (or whomever), do you think that they give a shit whether they kill men, women, or children? Do you think they give a shit when they strap a bomb to their chests and blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace? They think they are going to Heaven and everyone they've killed is going to hell. Man, woman, and child.

I agree that it is horrible that innocent people die like that, and that our military has to scrutinize targets a little better. You also have to understand that the insurgents put those innocents in that position. That's what they do. They hide in schools and temples and use civilians out of cowardice. They would not show us the same courtesy.

Refusal to comprimise only succeeds in driving the devil's bargain. However, when one comprimises one's morals, they become the devil's bargain.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Blind Seer Add Blind Seer to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 7603/8194
(06-Jun-2008 at 22:38)
Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Blind Seer: View Post
They think they are going to Heaven and everyone they've killed is going to hell. Man, woman, and child.
Actually, I suspect they think the innocents will end up in heaven as well, which makes it less horrible to kill them.
Quote:
I agree that it is horrible that innocent people die like that, and that our military has to scrutinize targets a little better. You also have to understand that the insurgents put those innocents in that position. That's what they do. They hide in schools and temples and use civilians out of cowardice. They would not show us the same courtesy.
If USA was invaded and occupied, don't you think a US resistance would hide in houses all over the place? That's what resistance groups have done all the time. The occupants also have always used this as an excuse for oppression of the occupied population, usually leading to more resistance. It's a vicious circle, started by the invader.
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 82/284
(06-Jun-2008 at 22:46)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Bernel: View Post
Actually, I suspect they think the innocents will end up in heaven as well, which makes it less horrible to kill them.
Not if they are from a different sect of Islam than they are.

Originally Posted by Bernel: View Post
If USA was invaded and occupied, don't you think a US resistance would hide in houses all over the place? That's what resistance groups have done all the time. The occupants also have always used this as an excuse for oppression of the occupied population, usually leading to more resistance. It's a vicious circle, started by the invader.
Yes, however as I've stated in my previous post, if the extremists would not show civilian establishments (schools, churches, Synagogues) the same courtesy that we do for theirs. They would burn them down, along with whomever is in there regardless.

Refusal to comprimise only succeeds in driving the devil's bargain. However, when one comprimises one's morals, they become the devil's bargain.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Blind Seer Add Blind Seer to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1529/1675
(06-Jun-2008 at 23:31)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Blind Seer: View Post
Not if they are from a different sect of Islam than they are.



Yes, however as I've stated in my previous post, if the extremists would not show civilian establishments (schools, churches, Synagogues) the same courtesy that we do for theirs. They would burn them down, along with whomever is in there regardless.
What is interesting is that you assume that a middle east force occupying some country is by default comprised of religious fanatics who dont have any regard for human lives. Dont buy into the stigma.

"Observers worldwide have been expressing great pity for the people of Gaza [...] This pity may be a natural emotional reaction, yet it is unethical and immoral." - Adi Dvir, Ynetnews editor
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Peppie Add Peppie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3902/7006
(07-Jun-2008 at 04:35)


Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Peppie: View Post
What is interesting is that you assume that a middle east force occupying some country is by default comprised of religious fanatics who dont have any regard for human lives. Dont buy into the stigma.
Of course. All Muslims are religious fanatics. The White House says so, so it must be true. That's why it is okay to cluster bomb them - they are not really humans.


Quote:
You also have to understand that the insurgents put those innocents in that position. That's what they do. They hide in schools and temples and use civilians out of cowardice. They would not show us the same courtesy.-Blind Seer
As the insurgents where not doing that prior to the invasion, I would say that the invaders put them in that position. What do you actually expect them to do when their country is occupied by an alien military? Gather in a field and wait for the USAF bomb?

BTW... does your handle have anything to do with Tiresias?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.

Last edited by Saint Sinner, 10-Jun-2008 at 00:55.
Edit reason: fixed quote tags
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 284
(Post has been warned)
(07-Jun-2008 at 04:53)


tongue Re: Cluster Bomb Treaty: USA is out of step with the world again...

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post

As the insurgents where not doing that prior to the invasion, I would say that the invaders put them in that position. What do you actually expect them to do when their country is occupied by an alien military? Gather in a field and wait for the USAF bomb?
Why not? They all want to die and be martyrs, right?

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
BTW... does your handle have anything to do with Tiresias?
Not sure what Tiresias is... My handle is from MTG (Magic: The Gathering).

Refusal to comprimise only succeeds in driving the devil's bargain. However, when one comprimises one's morals, they become the devil's bargain.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Blind Seer Add Blind Seer to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3904/7006
(07-Jun-2008 at 06:45)


Quote:
Why not? They all want to die and be martyrs, right?
What on earth makes you think they want to die? They may be willing to die to defend things that are important to them, but that usually earns a medal in a national military...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
end of day? lx2 Respectable General Discussions 28 07-May-2004 22:08
What's Wrong With The US? Drizzt Respectable General Discussions 2452 28-May-2003 15:39
Greatest Hockey Nation in the World The Nephilim Polls Heaven 86 24-Feb-2003 14:53
Utopian History liebs19 The Lunatic Asylum 5 27-Jun-2001 10:21


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 10:07.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.