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

[DiveCon]

sure it does. Not a single Marine who goes door to door needs to worry about an IED if we just gas the entire city population. YOU don't want to admit the application because it shits all over your position on cluster bombs but it's there.

no, you are a moron

 

[Shogun]

no, chemical weapons do NOT have their purpose

They had all KINDS of purpose in ww1. What the hell do you mean they do not have a purpose. Tell me, where does your "no softer, gentler way to kill someone" opinion all of a sudden jump the tracks in order to avoid the use of Chem weapons?

 

[Shogun]

no, you are a moron

Hey, avoid the question, bitch. It's cool.

 

[Silence]

thats why they are making them better
if you knew what you wewre talking about on this subject, you would understand why a blanket ban on a type of munition isnt always the answer

I love how whenever you disagree with someone on something it's because that person doesn't know what they are talking about.

I read the article.....did you?

92 nations signed on to this ban, including what has been deemed a training ground for terrorists. Isn't it funny that that country can hear the story of the victims of these devices and change their stance for the good of their citizens but the U.S. can't.

I suppose if these bombs were left lying around the streets of the U.S. and it were AMerican children whose legs were being blown off it might be a different story. But who gives a fuck about the children in other countries as long as we get to play war with all our toys.

 

[Shogun]

We used White Phosphorus in the taking of Felluja so what the hell is wrong with a little Mustard Gas, eh? We used a bastard half step brother of NAPALM there too. So what's got you so squeamish about Chem Weapons?

 

[WillowTree]

come on guys,, We don't use Jet Aeroplanes to kill civillians do we? then hide out in caves and mountains,,?? remember our cowardly masked terrorists use their civillians as shields. hell no I wish we didn't have to use such weapons, but we can't tie our hands behind our backs either,, the enemy has no such restrictions on who, what, why, where, and how they kill.

 

[DiveCon]

I love how whenever you disagree with someone on something it's because that person doesn't know what they are talking about.

I read the article.....did you?

92 nations signed on to this ban, including what has been deemed a training ground for terrorists. Isn't it funny that that country can hear the story of the victims of these devices and change their stance for the good of their citizens but the U.S. can't.

I suppose if these bombs were left lying around the streets of the U.S. and it were AMerican children whose legs were being blown off it might be a different story. But who gives a fuck about the children in other countries as long as we get to play war with all our toys.

if a weapons system is banned based on such a wide parameter as "cluster bomb", that could be claimed that some of the newer weapons systems should be banned because they have more than one charge within them
yet they leave no unexploded ordinance on the ground

 

[user_name_guest]

Who believes WWIII is long over due between our two nations. Maybe it's going to be (like wrestling) a triple threat match between China, Russia, and the World War Champion of the World The United States.

 

[sylverfoxx]

so do IEDs....do we support the use of those too?

I prefer IUD`s myself.

 

[Xenophon]

I would perfer that the U.S. not be in favor of bombs which apparently are a danger to civilians and children in particular.

You think iron bombs are safe for civilians and children?

 

[Xenophon]

which is why we still lay fucking LANDMINES, eh?

Did you know not a SINGLE landmine civilian casualty the last 20 years was from a US mine?

They are all from Soviet era mines.

 

[DiveCon]

You think iron bombs are safe for civilians and children?

she must believe the media and the dems when they lied about us targeting civilians

 

[Xenophon]

Trying to ban effective weapons only prolongs combat and ultimately makes it worse for all sides.

There is nothing 'fair' about killing.

 

[xsited1]

As usual, the Germans have the best solution for killing people with bombs:

At long last, German scientists have answered one of mankind's most fervent prayers: They've invented an environmentally friendly way to blow stuff up.

LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News this week reported that most military and industrial explosives generate toxic gases when they're detonated. Moreover, the explosives themselves often are toxic and can pollute the air and ground if they don't explode completely. And then there's the pesky problem that explosive compounds tend to be, well, unstable, which can result in accidents.

But now there are "safer, more environmentally friendly explosives" made from compounds called tetrazoles. According to a researcher at the University of Munich, the green explosives have great potential, "especially for large caliber naval and tank guns."

STLtoday - The green bomb

 

[Lycurgus]

I would perfer that the U.S. not be in favor of bombs which apparently are a danger to civilians and children in particular.

I think it would be hard to find those who would disagree with your sentiments. Sadly though, as already mentioned, there is no clean way to fight a battle.

You know at times what get's lost in some of these type of debates is that those who have experienced tragic and violent death up close and personal are the ones who would like to avoid it the most. However, often times they are also the same ones who understand that we have to stay strong, we must keep all options open and they understand that sadly at times, we have to take some life, to prevent much larger numbers being taken at a later date. When they express these facts, sadly they get labeled hawks, war mongers and so on. Yet they are the ones who would like to avoid it the most. They have had to kill and they have experienced real loss.

Hopefully the day will come when these type of options are so far down on the list, we almost forget about them.

 

[Silence]

she must believe the media and the dems when they lied about us targeting civilians

who said anything about "targeting" civilians. you cons can't even have an actual conversation that doesn't involve putting down the opposing viewpoint.

No one INTENDS for civilians and children to be hurt by these bombs (or so I would think) but it's the reality because many do not detonate and they are left lying around and when disturbed later they explode..... they are small and apparently colorful and therefore children may think they are a toy and pick them up.

 

[DiamondDave]

silence

It is not like we are painting Hello Kitty or Scooby Doo on them in hopes of kids finding them if they so happen to go unexploded...

There are reasons to use cluster bombs... and if you would ever see combat, you would understand more the reasons why... the use of these weapons can save more of our troops, end battles quicker, etc....

No weapon will be without the threat of a civilian death... but it does not mean we go back to a sharpened pointy stick and a freaking rock on a string... or resort to only using harsh language against or enemy

 

[glockmail]

I would perfer that the U.S. not be in favor of bombs which apparently are a danger to civilians and children in particular.

I wasn't aware that the USAF had a policy of targeting civilians and children.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

oh ok.. so we shouldn't blanket ban chemical weapons then? I mean, THEY HAVE THEIR USES, right? Who cares HOW the enemy dies as long as they die, yes?

Actually we do use chemical weapons. Ever hear of CS? My GOD even the Police use it.

 

[Silence]

silence

It is not like we are painting Hello Kitty or Scooby Doo on them in hopes of kids finding them if they so happen to go unexploded...

There are reasons to use cluster bombs... and if you would ever see combat, you would understand more the reasons why... the use of these weapons can save more of our troops, end battles quicker, etc....

No weapon will be without the threat of a civilian death... but it does not mean we go back to a sharpened pointy stick and a freaking rock on a string... or resort to only using harsh language against or enemy

92 nations signed this ban. apparently there are ways to wage war that don't include bombs which have the reputation these bombs do.

I wasn't aware that the USAF had a policy of targeting civilians and children.

more bullshit rhetoric because no one said anyone was targetting civilians and children but if you read the article it states that 98% of cluster bomb victims are civilians and of that 98%, 27% are children. If you're okay with that statistic so be it. I personally think the U.S. should LEAD the world in preventing civilian casualties and injury, even if it means giving up using these types of bombs.