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

[CSM]

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

IEDS and suicide bombers seem to be very effective against civilian targets. Then, of course, there is the ever popular flying planes into buildings and firing rockets across borders from civilian population centers. Fortunately these types of weapons dont have the reputation that cluster bombs do or they would be banned too!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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



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.

I suggest you JOIN the military and serve as an infantryman in a few war zones and then come tell us all how much you support the lose of cluster bombs, napalm and land mines.

Remind me? Were you one of those whining cause 4000 American soldiers had died? How many more you think will die in the next war if we do not have cluster munitions? Ohh wait, that is different, YOU do not think about that shit.

Hell lets just ban war, then no civilians will ever die to war. Of course they will die to a hell of a lot of other words that mean the same thing, now won't they?

 

[DiamondDave]

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



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.

Many nations will go with it as it brings our military strength down more than it brings down theirs...

Again... no weapon ever made or that will ever be made will be 100% safe for civilians or prevent any civilian casualties...

It does not mean you do not make your weapons for your military to benefit your future military success

Cluster bombs have a very practical reason for being in our arsenal... again, we're not going to get the enemy out of an entrenched area by asking "pretty please with sugar on top"

 

[Silence]

IEDS and suicide bombers seem to be very effective against civilian targets. Then, of course, there is the ever popular flying planes into buildings and firing rockets across borders from civilian population centers. Fortunately these types of weapons dont have the reputation that cluster bombs do or they would be banned too!

this is typical bullshit rhetoric. other nations torture, other nations cut off the hands of theives, other nations stone women for daring to go outside without a proper cover on....do you suppose that just because OTHERS do it than America should do it too?

I thought we were the nation above all others? i thought we were the example to FOLLOW?

I guess it's a do as I say not as I do nation that you want to live in.

I suggest you JOIN the military and serve as an infantryman in a few war zones and then come tell us all how much you support the lose of cluster bombs, napalm and land mines.

I can't join the infantry...they don't allow women to serve in combat, remember? and even if they did I wouldn't. I don't believe in war...perhaps that shapes me opinion.

Remind me? Were you one of those whining cause 4000 American soldiers had died? How many more you think will die in the next war if we do not have cluster munitions? Ohh wait, that is different, YOU do not think about that shit.

you cons sure are defensive. You think it's YOUR way or the highway. there are people out here who don't see the world as you do and that's okay too. You're constant attacks only serve to prove that your way is wrong because so far your way certainly hasn't made the world ANY safer now has it?!

and yes I bitched about the 4,000 dead (and it's actually more like 4,500 according to recent reports) because those men and women didn't need to die in a war that was ill conceived, poorly planned and negligently carried out by the administration. They weren't properly equiped, they weren't properly trained for what they'd be dealing with and they certainly weren't lead correctly. The administration was short sighted and it cost lives and tore apart families. YES I have a problem with that. I don't believe in spilling innocent blood for what amounts to nation building.

Hell lets just ban war, then no civilians will ever die to war. Of course they will die to a hell of a lot of other words that mean the same thing, now won't they?

I'm for banning war. I already said I'm against war and it's been proven that war doesn't solve problems. if it did we wouldn't have problems in the world now would we, not considering that somewhere in the world there is ALWAYS a war going on.

Trying to solve problems with your fists is a temporary fix. you might subdue your enemy briefly but the chances are they will go away, train harder, find bigger and more powerful weapons and come back and hit you again.

Trying to work out differences, finding common ground and mutual solutions...that is what will solve the worlds problems. Not guns, not bombs and certainly not war.

 

[Silence]

let me be clear...there ARE times when you have to use force. WWII comes to mind. BUT war isn't and shouldn't be the first line of defense when dealing with an enemy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Where you are wrong is that war is indeed a necessity when dealing with the evils in this world... and more effectively eliminating your enemy helps ensure the decreased loss of your populace and soldiers... cluster bombs, whether you like them or not, are a necessity in war..

But when some peacenick starts talking about being for "banning war" or "war not solving any problems", you can pretty much discount any analysis of what is proper or needed in order to effectively fight a war....

And when someone thinks that if you HAVE to go into war, that you only wait for proper planning or "the right time", they fail to realize that something else can always be planned... and they fail to realize that waiting for "the right time" can leave you with nothing else than dead civilians in smoldering craters

Evil is not eliminated thru 'kumbaya' wishes... there sometimes is not a mutual solution... just like cancer, you do not talk to it or negotiate with it, you cut it out and eliminate it

 

[Andrew2382]

Unfortunately radicals don't respond to anything but force, diplomacy just doesn't work sometimes.

 

[CSM]

let me be clear...there ARE times when you have to use force. WWII comes to mind. BUT war isn't and shouldn't be the first line of defense when dealing with an enemy.

Because diplomacy has been so darn effective in the past, right?

Your criticism of my sarcastic remark ("this is typical bullshit rhetoric. other nations torture, other nations cut off the hands of theives, other nations stone women for daring to go outside without a proper cover on....do you suppose that just because OTHERS do it than America should do it too?

I thought we were the nation above all others? i thought we were the example to FOLLOW?

I guess it's a do as I say not as I do nation that you want to live in.") no doubt made you feel a lot better but once again you miss the point.

The point is that weapons of war are lethal (some more than others) to both combatants and civilians.

I would add that the utopian ideal of maintaining what you perceive to be the moral high ground will result in your extinction. I do not say that maliciously...I say that because there will ALWAYS be someone (or some nation or some organization) that will take advantage of your weakness. they will not hesitate to use WHATEVER MEANS AVAILABLE to subdue (yes even kill, maim, eradicate, subjugate and otherwise make life miserable for) their enemies.

This discussion is going to end up with the old philosophical debate about sheep vs. wolves. You are obviously a sheep. "Defang the wolves and all will be well" cry the sheep while the wolves continue to prey on the rest of the herd. For some sheep, that is very disconcerting and they have an overwhelming urge to DO something so they advocate defanging the sheep dog. They will even find the poor, disfigured wolf pup that the sheep dog savaged and present it as a compelling reason for defanging said sheep dog. I will leave it to you to figure out what happens once the sheep dog has been defanged.

For me, I want my sheep dog not only fanged with a full head of teeth but armored and with a radio so he can call in the rest of the sheep dogs when needed.

Be content that you are morally superior to the sheep dog but don't complain when the wolf has you by the throat.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because diplomacy has been so darn effective in the past, right?

Your criticism of my sarcastic remark ("this is typical bullshit rhetoric. other nations torture, other nations cut off the hands of theives, other nations stone women for daring to go outside without a proper cover on....do you suppose that just because OTHERS do it than America should do it too?

I thought we were the nation above all others? i thought we were the example to FOLLOW?

I guess it's a do as I say not as I do nation that you want to live in.") no doubt made you feel a lot better but once again you miss the point.

The point is that weapons of war are lethal (some more than others) to both combatants and civilians.

I would add that the utopian ideal of maintaining what you perceive to be the moral high ground will result in your extinction. I do not say that maliciously...I say that because there will ALWAYS be someone (or some nation or some organization) that will take advantage of your weakness. they will not hesitate to use WHATEVER MEANS AVAILABLE to subdue (yes even kill, maim, eradicate, subjugate and otherwise make life miserable for) their enemies.

This discussion is going to end up with the old philosophical debate about sheep vs. wolves. You are obviously a sheep. "Defang the wolves and all will be well" cry the sheep while the wolves continue to prey on the rest of the herd. For some sheep, that is very disconcerting and they have an overwhelming urge to DO something so they advocate defanging the sheep dog. They will even find the poor, disfigured wolf pup that the sheep dog savaged and present it as a compelling reason for defanging said sheep dog. I will leave it to you to figure out what happens once the sheep dog has been defanged.

For me, I want my sheep dog not only fanged with a full head of teeth but armored and with a radio so he can call in the rest of the sheep dogs when needed.

Be content that you are morally superior to the sheep dog but don't complain when the wolf has you by the throat.

 

[Silence]

Unfortunately radicals don't respond to anything but force, diplomacy just doesn't work sometimes.

This is true and there is no denying that there IS a place for force. BUT it should be the last resort not the first card pulled from the deck, except under extreme circumstances.

Now, when Bush went into Afghanistan following 9/11 I was all for it, although admittedly I thought our target probably should've been Saudi since I believe the majority of the highjackers AND Osama are in fact Saudi nationals. I believe in making people pay for their crimes....

However, going into a war that was based on faulty intel and not reevaluating that war once it was KNOWN that the intel was in fact faulty is a problem. Not making sure our military are properly equiped? that' a problem. Not providing training both before the war and transitional training to reenter a peacetime life after the war? also a problem.

If your only goal is beating back the enemy then you're looking at the short term goal and not the long term consequences. There will always been radicals...the key is to gain the trust and cooperation of those who have not yet been brainwashed by these radicals. The way you do this is show that we are NOT what they say we are. That we do in fact care about others in the world, that we aren't selfish, greedy and corrupt.

I suppose my view is colored on violence having grown up in a house where my father got his way with his fists. It made me resentful and rebellious. I did what he wanted but not out of love or cooperation but rather out of fear and I personally think fear breeds contempt and contempt breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence.

We should be trying to stop the hatred that people feel towards us....not make it worse.

and IMO signing the ban on cluster bombs might've been one more step towards our goal of leading by example.

When a country like Afghanistan seems to be ahead of us on humanitarian efforts, I see that as a real problem.

 

[Shogun]

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.

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?

 

[Shogun]

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

There is nothing 'fair' about killing.

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?

 

[Shogun]

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

AND, so too could using Mustard gas and Radiation save ALL of our troops from even engaging the fucking enemy.. So, let's see you rationalize the use of THESE weapons. For fucks sake, you people are like the negative opposite of gun haters who use flakey, arbitrary personal opinions to justify their illogical input.

 

[del]

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?

the u.s. position is only to use chemical weapons to retaliate to a similar attack, with the exception of defoliants and riot-control. we've signed a treaty to that effect.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Much for the same reason why we do not execute people by dipping them in boiling oil anymore....

 

[Shogun]

Come on you big pussies.. don't pick on Silence and insist that war is hell and shit while totally avoiding the same kind of rationalized excuse for Mustard Gas! Come on you heartless motherfuckers.. Tell me about how we should be sening dirty bombs into enemy territoty and SAVING AMERICAN MILITARY LIVES. Tell me about how necessary chemical weapons are..

 

[Shogun]

the u.s. position is only to use chemical weapons to retaliate to a similar attack, with the exception of defoliants and riot-control. we've signed a treaty to that effect.

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.

 

[Shogun]

Much for the same reason why we do not execute people by dipping them in boiling oil anymore....

ok, WHY is that? Let's say your jack bauer fantasy comes true and the ONLY way to save some lives is to boil a sand ****** in oil and then roll him in salt.. Tell me, what do you do? This IS, after all, the same excuse we use for waterboarding.

 

[del]

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.

no, this is the stupid shit you're ranting about.
knock yourself out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

let me be clear...there ARE times when you have to use force. WWII comes to mind. BUT war isn't and shouldn't be the first line of defense when dealing with an enemy.

BUT you would deny our troops the means to carry out those wars that ARE needed because you don't like them. This one is a no brainer.