U.S. & Russia refuse to sign cluster bomb ban

[DiamondDave]

And WHY would we do that? WHY would we sign a treaty that takes chem weapons out of our quiver if IT IS GOING TO SAVE A SINGLE MARINE'S LIFE?


this is the arbitrary shit that Im talking about.

Because there are other technologies and advanced weapons that do a better job without the cruel and inhumane deaths that come from things such as mustard gas... such as fucking cluster bombs..

Plus it usually takes a really big delivery system to have an attack from a cluster bomb... some whacko can walk into an elementary school with a backpack delivery system of mustard gas and cruelly kill thousands.... also why we have such a fear for a country like Iran to gain nuke technology...

Does this mean I prefer or want someone to walk in and bomb a school with hand grenades instead? No... Does supporting cluster bombs mean I condone any senseless death of a child? No... Does supporting advanced effective explosive weaponry mean I should inherently support nasty chemical agents? No.....

But it sure makes for a nice little soap box for your irrationality to stand on

 

[RetiredGySgt]

oh well that makes landmines ok then.




I'll ask you since divecon seems to have pussed out. If you can rationalize cluster bombs and landmines then why should we lose a single marine life when we could mustard gas Falluja and be done with it? Why not be openly brazen about using phosphorus weapons? Phosphorus IS a chemical, yes? The point IS to kill, yes? Whats keeping your hand off the mustard gas button?

Retarded as usual. We maintain those weapon systems we need while TRYING our best to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. My personal opinion is we should have leveled that city and a couple others.

Land mines are effective and WORK, so do cluster munitions. They have a specific purpose and are used in that purpose. Mustard gas or any lethal gas is a hinderance to the friendly forces as well as the enemy and is easily countered by the enemy military. It has no purpose that is not better carried out by some other safer system to friendly forces and in the mean time safer to civilians.

We do NOT chose our weapons based on whether or not they can or will kill civilians. We pick them based on needs and purpose and those systems are needed. Poison gas is not.

I do however believe we should return to the use of Napalm. It is effective and deadly. It saves lives.

 

[Shogun]

Because there are other technologies and advanced weapons that do a better job without the cruel and inhumane deaths that come from things such as mustard gas... such as fucking cluster bombs..

Plus it usually takes a really big delivery system to have an attack from a cluster bomb... some whacko can walk into an elementary school with a backpack delivery system of mustard gas and cruelly kill thousands.... also why we have such a fear for a country like Iran to gain nuke technology...

Does this mean I prefer or want someone to walk in and bomb a school with hand grenades instead? No... Does supporting cluster bombs mean I condone any senseless death of a child? No... Does supporting advanced effective explosive weaponry mean I should inherently support nasty chemical agents? No.....

But it sure makes for a nice little soap box for your irrationality to stand on

Who the hell are you to inject emotion into killing strategies, dude? CRUEL AND INHUMANE? are you fucking kidding me? YOu are defending landmines and cluster bombs for christs sake with the sole purpose of killing and you want to bring up CRUELTY and INHUMANE? give me a fucking break.

As to your delivery of cluster bombs, It seems that we saw all too well how easy they were to use against civilian populations the last time Israel attacked Lebennon so, please, spare me the weak ass rationalization.

Face it. you can't defend cluster bombs without injecting your OPINION of what constituted "humane" much in the same way anti-gun liberals have to inject the same when pointing out Assault weapons. Your excuses for cluster bombs, landmines and phosphorus weapons is a joke given your backtracking at using dirty bombs and mustard gas EVEN when the latter two totally minimizes the risk of American military life.

 

[Silence]

Retarded as usual. We maintain those weapon systems we need while TRYING our best to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. My personal opinion is we should have leveled that city and a couple others.

Land mines are effective and WORK, so do cluster munitions. They have a specific purpose and are used in that purpose. Mustard gas or any lethal gas is a hinderance to the friendly forces as well as the enemy and is easily countered by the enemy military. It has no purpose that is not better carried out by some other safer system to friendly forces and in the mean time safer to civilians.

We do NOT chose our weapons based on whether or not they can or will kill civilians. We pick them based on needs and purpose and those systems are needed. Poison gas is not.

I do however believe we should return to the use of Napalm. It is effective and deadly. It saves lives.

wow. I knew you were a nutter but damn, you just suprised me.

 

[DiamondDave]

Who the hell are you to inject emotion into killing strategies, dude? CRUEL AND INHUMANE? are you fucking kidding me? YOu are defending landmines and cluster bombs for christs sake with the sole purpose of killing and you want to bring up CRUELTY and INHUMANE? give me a fucking break.

As to your delivery of cluster bombs, It seems that we saw all too well how easy they were to use against civilian populations the last time Israel attacked Lebennon so, please, spare me the weak ass rationalization.

Face it. you can't defend cluster bombs without injecting your OPINION of what constituted "humane" much in the same way anti-gun liberals have to inject the same when pointing out Assault weapons. Your excuses for cluster bombs, landmines and phosphorus weapons is a joke given your backtracking at using dirty bombs and mustard gas EVEN when the latter two totally minimizes the risk of American military life.

Yes shogun.... I support bullets and grenades and cluster bombs.... they are designed for effective and quick killing of the enemy

This is not the case with a weapon such as mustard gas... which has more effective and better alternatives SUCH AS CLUSTER BOMBS


But you are simply trying to rant against anything to get a little rise in your shorts, per usual

 

[Andrew2382]

It's called "conventional warfare"

I suggest you look the term up

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sooo.. whats so ineffective about MUSTARD GAS? That shit seemed to work in ww1, right? There is nothing FAIR about killing, yes? Hell, why don't we just drop irradiated dirty bombs and let the teeth and hair of our enemies fall out untili the geiger counter stops clicking, eh dude? I mean.. killing is killing and who can debate the EFFECTIVENESS of strategies that dont cost a single American life?

More retarded shit from an idiot. You only use radiation that will persist when absolutely forced to and then only in areas you do not need later for your own use. There is a reason we still have not fought a nuclear war, one that will disappear when the religious nut jobs get nukes.

Again for the stupid, the military only uses those systems it needs too with consideration on what that system will do to friendly forces as well.

Poison gas and radiation are dangers to FRIENDLY forces. There are better more effective means to get the job done. Further both systems can and are countered by enemy military forces further reducing their effectiveness.

 

[Shogun]

Retarded as usual. We maintain those weapon systems we need while TRYING our best to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. My personal opinion is we should have leveled that city and a couple others.

Land mines are effective and WORK, so do cluster munitions. They have a specific purpose and are used in that purpose. Mustard gas or any lethal gas is a hinderance to the friendly forces as well as the enemy and is easily countered by the enemy military. It has no purpose that is not better carried out by some other safer system to friendly forces and in the mean time safer to civilians.

We do NOT chose our weapons based on whether or not they can or will kill civilians. We pick them based on needs and purpose and those systems are needed. Poison gas is not.

I do however believe we should return to the use of Napalm. It is effective and deadly. It saves lives.

No more a hinderance than a fucking LANDMINE FIELD. No more a hindrance to those with the latest gas mask that some desert dweller wont have. Your excuses are laughable.

Tell me, how many Marines would have died has we chose to mustard gas the city of Falluja instead of enter it and check every door? Indeed, I'm giving you a SPECIFIC example of how Mustard gas is THE best option for minimizing home team casualties and you, again arbitrarily, insist that there are better weapons. name them. Because we lost Marines in that fight that could have been avoided using banned weapons despite your excuses for why we don't ban cluster bombs.

 

[Silence]

It's called "conventional warfare"

I suggest you look the term up

the term seems like an oxymoron because IMO there is nothing conventional about war. But I do see your point. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are not the same as bombs and should not be placed in category.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No more a hinderance than a fucking LANDMINE FIELD. No more a hindrance to those with the latest gas mask that some desert dweller wont have. Your excuses are laughable.

Tell me, how many Marines would have died has we chose to mustard gas the city of Falluja instead of enter it and check every door? Indeed, I'm giving you a SPECIFIC example of how Mustard gas is THE best option for minimizing home team casualties and you, again arbitrarily, insist that there are better weapons. name them. Because we lost Marines in that fight that could have been avoided using banned weapons despite your excuses for why we don't ban cluster bombs.

Wrong as usual. That you can not see the difference is YOUR problem not mine. Using your logic we should outlaw bullets, grenades, explosives, artillery, tanks, every implement of war. We should just surrender to any enemy and accept what ever they chose to do to us cause ANYTHING we use can and will kill civilians.

Grow the fuck up.

Land mines restrict movement and when properly defended deny routes of advance to the enemy. They kill no one that does not eneter said mine field, which in the present day use is always well marked unless expediantly laid as an emergency, and then they usually have a short life span designed to explode after x amount of time.

Cluster bombs stop enemy advances, they shred enemy defenses. They kill and wound enemy troops while denying avenues of approach. They are not used on civilian targets by us and are only emplyed in urban areas if absolutely needed to stop an advance.

Gas can not stop an advance, nor can radiation. It also can not kill a prepared and properly equipped enemy soldier. It is ineffective and of no real military use. Radiation may deny long term use to an enemy, BUT it also does the same to US.

Contrary to the current liberal retards view we do not have a military purpose for maiming and killing civilians, we avoid it where ever possible If a city is a big enough threat we can flatten it with bombs and shells. Otherwise we will do what always gets done in war, send in the infantry to TAKE the property we need taken. Artillery, aircraft and ships can not take a single piece of ground, nor can gas or poison or radiation.

 

[Shogun]

Yes shogun.... I support bullets and grenades and cluster bombs.... they are designed for effective and quick killing of the enemy

This is not the case with a weapon such as mustard gas... which has more effective and better alternatives SUCH AS CLUSTER BOMBS


But you are simply trying to rant against anything to get a little rise in your shorts, per usual

"better" according to your OPINION, certainly not of those opinions of the men who lost their lives going door to door in Falluja.


And, you are simply trying to avoid the fact that you are injecting your rationalized opinion into a subject where your pro-cluster, con- gas OPINION has no logical basis. You stated that you WANTED to MINIMIZE American deaths.. so, tell me, how many Iraqi military personnel did Saddam lose when Gassing all those Kurds? Inistead of, say, trying to sieze the town and inspect each door for IEDs? If you can accept cluster bombs and landmines then you should be able to accept dirty bombs and mustard gas since they are CLEARLY superior given your standards thus far.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"better" according to your OPINION, certainly not of those opinions of the men who lost their lives going door to door in Falluja.


And, you are simply trying to avoid the fact that you are injecting your rationalized opinion into a subject where your pro-cluster, con- gas OPINION has no logical basis. You stated that you WANTED to MINIMIZE American deaths.. so, tell me, how many Iraqi military personnel did Saddam lose when Gassing all those Kurds? Inistead of, say, trying to sieze the town and inspect each door for IEDs? If you can accept cluster bombs and landmines then you should be able to accept dirty bombs and mustard gas since they are CLEARLY superior given your standards thus far.

When you learn some military reality we can have an intelligent conversation with you, until then all you are doing is ranting about shit you have no clue about.

 

[Shogun]

More retarded shit from an idiot. You only use radiation that will persist when absolutely forced to and then only in areas you do not need later for your own use. There is a reason we still have not fought a nuclear war, one that will disappear when the religious nut jobs get nukes.

Again for the stupid, the military only uses those systems it needs too with consideration on what that system will do to friendly forces as well.

Poison gas and radiation are dangers to FRIENDLY forces. There are better more effective means to get the job done. Further both systems can and are countered by enemy military forces further reducing their effectiveness.

friendly forces A) dont' need to enter an irradiated Falluja for a goddamn thing and B) can be equipped with PPE just like gas masks that protects against mustard gas. So, WRONG ANSWER.

Why do you insist on letting poor Marines die just because your conscious wont allow the chem weapons option, dude? All options on the table, right buddy?

 

[DiamondDave]

friendly forces A) dont' need to enter an irradiated Falluja for a goddamn thing and B) can be equipped with PPE just like gas masks that protects against mustard gas. So, WRONG ANSWER.

Why do you insist on letting poor Marines die just because your conscious wont allow the chem weapons option, dude? All options on the table, right buddy?

Your ignorance and your objective of only wanting to argue is showing more, shogun

There are reasons to enter a battle won territory... unless your objective is to only make it a glass parking lot or a smoldering crater for the next 500 years

And MOPP gear is not all protective... even MOPP 4 is only additional protection.... and hinders the effectiveness and the advancement of the soldiers greatly

 

[Shogun]

Wrong as usual. That you can not see the difference is YOUR problem not mine. Using your logic we should outlaw bullets, grenades, explosives, artillery, tanks, every implement of war. We should just surrender to any enemy and accept what ever they chose to do to us cause ANYTHING we use can and will kill civilians.

Grow the fuck up.

Land mines restrict movement and when properly defended deny routes of advance to the enemy. They kill no one that does not eneter said mine field, which in the present day use is always well marked unless expediantly laid as an emergency, and then they usually have a short life span designed to explode after x amount of time.

Cluster bombs stop enemy advances, they shred enemy defenses. They kill and wound enemy troops while denying avenues of approach. They are not used on civilian targets by us and are only emplyed in urban areas if absolutely needed to stop an advance.

Gas can not stop an advance, nor can radiation. It also can not kill a prepared and properly equipped enemy soldier. It is ineffective and of no real military use. Radiation may deny long term use to an enemy, BUT it also does the same to US.

Contrary to the current liberal retards view we do not have a military purpose for maiming and killing civilians, we avoid it where ever possible If a city is a big enough threat we can flatten it with bombs and shells. Otherwise we will do what always gets done in war, send in the infantry to TAKE the property we need taken. Artillery, aircraft and ships can not take a single piece of ground, nor can gas or poison or radiation.

there IS NO difference if the end result is dead motherfuckers. Sorry, im just not interested in some "if you cant see the difference" bullshit. come on, military man, why would you let a single marine die using cluster bombs when his life could be spared by using MUSTARD GAS? I thought you people factored in the minimization of OUR deaths in this equation?


and, you can't defend minefields when we still have kids blowing legs off from mines laid back in the 50s. sorry.




Cluster bombs stop enemy advances, they shred enemy defenses. They kill and wound enemy troops while denying avenues of approach. They are not used on civilian targets by us and are only emplyed in urban areas if absolutely needed to stop an advance.

you think MUSTARD GAS can't do the same damn thing? I suggest you read up on ww1.



Gas can not stop an advance, nor can radiation. It also can not kill a prepared and properly equipped enemy soldier. It is ineffective and of no real military use. Radiation may deny long term use to an enemy, BUT it also does the same to US.

How many motherfucker from Falluja was a "well equipped enemy soldier"l, dude. come on.. you gotsta do better than this. Not a single American had to die in Falluja has we gassed that place or dropped a dirty bomb. THAT is the fact.


and your ego stroking really doesn't impress me. You people cry about taking nukes off the table but then don't have the balls to apply the same standard to gas and radiation even though both would save more lives than your cluster bombs and landmines. Again, you are no better than liberals who couldn't point out an assault rifle in a lineup but just "know" they are bad.

 

[DiamondDave]

"better" according to your OPINION, certainly not of those opinions of the men who lost their lives going door to door in Falluja.


And, you are simply trying to avoid the fact that you are injecting your rationalized opinion into a subject where your pro-cluster, con- gas OPINION has no logical basis. You stated that you WANTED to MINIMIZE American deaths.. so, tell me, how many Iraqi military personnel did Saddam lose when Gassing all those Kurds? Inistead of, say, trying to sieze the town and inspect each door for IEDs? If you can accept cluster bombs and landmines then you should be able to accept dirty bombs and mustard gas since they are CLEARLY superior given your standards thus far.

Minimizing friendly deaths is just one criteria which is included in the decision of weaponry


But nice try... your ignorance on this subject sure does not stop your megalomania fed delusions of mental superiority

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there IS NO difference if the end result is dead motherfuckers. Sorry, im just not interested in some "if you cant see the difference" bullshit. come on, military man, why would you let a single marine die using cluster bombs when his life could be spared by using MUSTARD GAS? I thought you people factored in the minimization of OUR deaths in this equation?


and, you can't defend minefields when we still have kids blowing legs off from mines laid back in the 50s. sorry.




Cluster bombs stop enemy advances, they shred enemy defenses. They kill and wound enemy troops while denying avenues of approach. They are not used on civilian targets by us and are only emplyed in urban areas if absolutely needed to stop an advance.

you think MUSTARD GAS can't do the same damn thing? I suggest you read up on ww1.



Gas can not stop an advance, nor can radiation. It also can not kill a prepared and properly equipped enemy soldier. It is ineffective and of no real military use. Radiation may deny long term use to an enemy, BUT it also does the same to US.

How many motherfucker from Falluja was a "well equipped enemy soldier"l, dude. come on.. you gotsta do better than this. Not a single American had to die in Falluja has we gassed that place or dropped a dirty bomb. THAT is the fact.


and your ego stroking really doesn't impress me. You people cry about taking nukes off the table but then don't have the balls to apply the same standard to gas and radiation even though both would save more lives than your cluster bombs and landmines. Again, you are no better than liberals who couldn't point out an assault rifle in a lineup but just "know" they are bad.

Gas was very ineffective even in WW1, It has no real military use except for terror purposes. It can not deny a prepared enemy from advancing, it won't kill very many of a prepared enemy and it can not deny terrirtoy to them.

Go ahead Shogun, read up on WW1 and provide us some of those major earth shattering offenses that succeeded because of gas attacks. Sure in WW1 they killed troops but not for long, both sides quickly learned the limits and defenses of gas.

Here let me throw you a bone. The military did not agree to quit using gas for any humane reason at all. They did it because it has very little practical military use anymore.

And here is another bone for ya. We most likely have DIRTY bombs in our arsenal. And if needed we will use them. But they are very inefficient and are just as restricting to us as the enemy.

Fools got rid of napalm. Civilian fools. It IS still effective and should still be used. It has a military use.

If we wanted to take your city with no major loses to our ground forces we do not need gas, nor radiation. Neither will do the job. We have much better systems for that. When we send in the troops to built up urban areas it is a political decision usually. Though there are times you may militarily need a semi intact urban area. But even ground troops are going to tear up the city.

And ONLY ground troops are going to be able to verify you have taken said city.

 

[Shogun]

Minimizing friendly deaths is just one criteria which is included in the decision of weaponry


But nice try... your ignorance on this subject sure does not stop your megalomania fed delusions of mental superiority

Hey, I used the criteria that YOU provided earlier in the thread. Way to run and hide from the failure of your position, dude. I'm sure calling me names will minimize your laughable backpeddling.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hey, I used the criteria that YOU provided earlier in the thread. Way to run and hide from the failure of your position, dude. I'm sure calling me names will minimize your laughable backpeddling.

Funny.. I don't remember stating it was the only criteria... YOU did..

but nice try

epic fail

 

[Shogun]

Funny.. I don't remember stating it was the only criteria... YOU did..

but nice try

epic fail

scroll up. It was the criteria given thus far as if it was what settled the issue. I'll dig up post numbers if you need to see them.