cluster bomb ban

[pedro durruti]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7423714.stm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Cononclubom.png/800px-Cononclubom.png

This is a pretty useless treaty because these things generally don't add up to much and are never agreed to by the main producers and users of the weapons, but I guess the gesture it makes will be good enough, and even if it's futile it's better than not doing anything. might as well keep international government busy and pretend like it has hopes for taming the superpower beasts of the world. it looks like it's basically signed by europe, most of the west, and basically every country that doesn't have any cluster bombs. us, china, russia and india don't sign it. these are pretty ****ed up bombs, if you read about them on the article it says each bomblet is as big as a can, with about 200 of them in a typical bomb, so they are spread over large distances and can cause a lot of damage and apparently can be like landmines and injure or kill civilians after being dormant. the us needs to get its act together man, not at least ostensibly agreeing to this treaty is just disregard for civilians and the pathetic action of a war state which is supposed to be the most responsible one. these bombs are useful against militaries, but the risk is too much to neglect, and using them except under strict circumstances is careless. war is a giant hell but an ethical military should minimalize civilian casualties the best it can by even dismantling its effective, destructive weapons. that's what i think.. but some of you might disagree. this is sort of like the question of whether you think hiroshima can be justified, without regard to historical speculation of whether or not it would have saved more lives or not. i can see cluster bombs at vital to some military's arsenal, and helpful for the overall good or whatever, but they are pretty reckless bombs.

[Iscariot]

maybe instead of whining about things like cluster bombs we should be encouraging their use in modern warfare

if we still fought wars like we did 50 years ago we would have been done with iraq a year after occupying

[siva_chair]

All bombs are reckless if used improperly.

Not all of them dropped result in civilian loss of life, either.

[pedro durruti]

maybe instead of whining about things like cluster bombs we should be encouraging their use in modern warfare

if we still fought wars like we did 50 years ago we would have been done with iraq a year after occupying

how did we fight wars 50 years ago?
All bombs are reckless if used improperly.

Not all of them dropped result in civilian loss of life, either.
hehe thanks for the tautology, but i think the point of this treaty is that these bombs when used "properly" are still resulting in civilian casualties.

[1338 h4x0r]

Hi, I'm a twelve year old Cambodian kid

I heard that Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize and I'd love to give him a big hug

Problem is I only have one arm

[Against Miik!]

Weapons bans are dumb and pointless. I mean, cats out of the bag, technology is out there.

Also I don't know if you said this because I'm not reading that thing you call a paragraph but I believe the U.S. is not included on this list of countries.

[Iscariot]

how did we fight wars 50 years ago?

with napalm and cluster bombs and carpet bombing tactics

you know the things we aren't allowed to do anymore to effectively defeat the enemy because a few civilians might get hurt along the way

i mean after all the purpose of war is to not hurt civilians right

[1338 h4x0r]

Weapons bans are dumb and pointless. I mean, cats out of the bag, technology is out there.

Good point

[siva_chair]

hehe thanks for the tautology, but i think the point of this treaty is that these bombs when used "properly" are still resulting in civilian casualties.

Yeah it's called war. It happens unfortunately.

I see no problem cluster bombing Taliban infested caves.

[pedro durruti]

with napalm and cluster bombs and carpet bombing tactics

you know the things we aren't allowed to do anymore to effectively defeat the enemy because a few civilians might get hurt along the way

i mean after all the purpose of war is to not hurt civilians right
vietnam was a farce and a horrible way to wage war and "defeat the enemy"!! there is no inherent purpose of war, although it's mostly about conquest.. but yeah! it's usually to dismantle a state and its military, not its people, unless you are thinking war is genocide..
Also I don't know if you said this because I'm not reading that thing you call a paragraph but I believe the U.S. is not included on this list of countries.
yeah, i did, and neither did china, russia or india. that was a paragraph and your doctor knows it man.. paragraphs go like that all the time.. i've read a paragraphs that go on for five pages.
Yeah it's called war. It happens unfortunately.

I see no problem cluster bombing Taliban infested caves.
yet militaries, ones such as the us's, must and can take precautions. yes, cluster bombing afghani caves is decent, but they should make sure their duds aren't explodable, yes, technology!

[Iscariot]

vietnam was a farce and a horrible way to wage war and "defeat the enemy"!! there is no inherent purpose of war, although it's mostly about conquest.. but yeah! it's usually to dismantle a state and its military, not its people, unless you are thinking war is genocide..

killing civilians is just an inevitable byproduct of waging a military conflict

roe only makes it more difficult for the troops on the ground to defeat the enemy because they have to take that moment of hesitation to identify their target and that moment could mean their demise in a high pressure situation

blowing up vast areas known to harbor enemy activity and mowing down anything that moves within those areas is the most effective way of striking down the enemy

[siva_chair]

vietnam was a farce and a horrible way to wage war and "defeat the enemy"!!

Yeah because the unchecked spread of oppressive Soviet communism was definitely more desirable!

You should talk to some Vietnamese refugees about what happened there. You'd probably be suprised to find that lots of them wished the US would have stayed involved.

there is no inherent purpose of war, although it's mostly about conquest.. but yeah! it's usually to dismantle a state and its military, not its people, unless you are thinking war is genocide..

Depends on what you mean by conquest.

yeah, i did, and neither did china, russia or india. that was a paragraph and your doctor knows it man.. paragraphs go like that all the time.. i've read a paragraphs that go on for five pages.

It was horribly punctuated, wasn't indented, and just an all around general eyesore to read. I'd say it was a pretty crappy excuse for a paragraph.

yet militaries, ones such as the us's, must and can take precautions. yes, cluster bombing afghani caves is decent, but they should make sure their duds aren't explodable, yes, technology!

They do take precautions. I'd venture to say that the US military is the most watched and scrutinized military in the world.

Technology isn't infallible and foolproof. What the hell kind of fantasy land are you living in?

[pedro durruti]

roe only makes it more difficult for the troops on the ground to defeat the enemy because they have to take that moment of hesitation to identify their target and that moment could mean their demise in a high pressure situation

blowing up vast areas known to harbor enemy activity and mowing down anything that moves within those areas is the most effective way of striking down the enemy
it's also the most effective way to commit murder, but if you want to be ruthless and as destructive as possible, which can create its own difficulties and strife among the invaded population, i suppose it's effective.. i don't know how each soldier should act in every situation, that's ridiculous, but rampage is a heedless and inhuman way of carrying out war.

[Iscariot]

it's also the most effective way to commit murder, but if you want to be ruthless and as destructive as possible, which can create its own difficulties and strife among the invaded population, i suppose it's effective.. i don't know how each soldier should act in every situation, that's ridiculous, but rampage is a heedless and inhuman way of carrying out war.

humanity has no place on the battlefield

[Against Miik!]

Yeah it's called war. It happens unfortunately.

I see no problem cluster bombing Taliban infested caves.

Except we don't bomb caves usually.

Heard an eyewitness account of the situation over there. One soldier said that on a very regular basis they would receive mortar fire. Sometimes it was from the mountains, other times it would come from a village. Having no time to assess where exactly the fire was coming from, they would fire back into the village, hitting buildings, whatever. Maybe they got em, maybe they didn't, but they sure took out a lot more with it.

Due to lack of resources, they would be unable to go in an count the the dead, take records of everything. So most of the time, these encounters would go unreported.

He later went on to talk about how they would round up citizens, and once they discovered that they were obviously not terrorists, they would take them out into the desert with nothing but the clothes on their backs and just leave them there. Again, a very regular occurrence.

So I don't see things like that as an inevitable side effect of war.

[pedro durruti]

Yeah because the unchecked spread of oppressive Soviet communism was definitely more desirable!

You should talk to some Vietnamese refugees about what happened there. You'd probably be suprised to find that lots of them wished the US would have stayed involved.
that's fallacious. should i be surprised about what the viet cong thought about the soviet union? and vietnam was hardly a threat, just like the crumbled soviet union wasn't either. the vietnam war probably crippled the us, but not too much because she's such a huge machine. isn't this one of the reasons the us's power is marked as declining beginning in the 1970's?
It was horribly punctuated, wasn't indented, and just an all around general eyesore to read. I'd say it was a pretty crappy excuse for a paragraph.
ah don't be so formal! if it was horribly punctuated, it was because it was written in one gulp or so, but not incoherent certainly. indentation, and a lot of writing conventions are just conventions. if it makes your eyes sore, then put on some glasses or something, just get used to it so it doesn't bother you.
Depends on what you mean by conquest.
i mean hardly anything!

[pedro durruti]

humanity has no place on the battlefield
haven't you read any war literature? humanity is the only thing you can cling on to.. unless you're a psychopath like the guy in platoon

[Iscariot]

haven't you read any war literature? humanity is the only thing you can cling on to..

name one humane aspect of war

is it humane when enemy snipers sit in the hills two miles away and pick off us troops during guard changes

is it humane when suicide bombers drive trucks filled with explosives into public buildings

is it humane when an IED explodes beneath an unshielded vehicle killing everyone inside while an insurgent films it from a half a mile away to show to his buddies back at their base camp

you seem to believe that the us is the only country that uses questionable tactics in war

i believe that for every one cheap tactic they use we should use two

there is no other way to win

[Against Miik!]

Well I mean we could just blow the whole place into the ocean that would solve things pretty fast.

I really think we could do it.

[pedro durruti]

name one humane aspect of war

is it humane when enemy snipers sit in the hills two miles away and pick off us troops during guard changes

is it humane when suicide bombers drive trucks filled with explosives into public buildings

is it humane when an IED explodes beneath an unshielded vehicle killing everyone inside while an insurgent films it from a half a mile away to show to his buddies back at their base camp

you seem to believe that the us is the only country that uses questionable tactics in war

i believe that for every one cheap tactic they use we should use two

there is no other way to win
there are only traces of humanity in war, but you never find it in war itself.. i don't seem to believe anything, the us is just a highly accountable government, and compared to other countries, the us is a nation of saints.. why do you think that absolute destruction is at all effective? there are giant, harmful consequences in that.. think about how the world would react to purely blatant brutality. the nazis and khmer rouge did it because they were entirely unprincipled and had nothing to lose, but governments like the us actually care. even if there were no other way, why would you, if you were yourself a soldier, see anyone in the country you were invading as inferior? put them in your shoes, and see how you would feel if someone ruthlessly killed your sister or mother or best friend because "it's effective". even if it was an effective way to lead straight to conquest and a black heart, why the hell would you condone it?

[Against Miik!]

Well you see the most conservative estimates put the Iraqi civilian death toll at around 100,000 and some have it much higher so I mean you can think what you want but the US does the same thing every other country has ever done but we do it with a smile on our face so it doesn't look as bad.

and the whole US highly accountable thing just made me lol

[siva_chair]

Except we don't bomb caves usually.

We most certainly do bomb caves.

Heard an eyewitness account of the situation over there. One soldier said that on a very regular basis they would receive mortar fire. Sometimes it was from the mountains, other times it would come from a village. Having no time to assess where exactly the fire was coming from, they would fire back into the village, hitting buildings, whatever. Maybe they got em, maybe they didn't, but they sure took out a lot more with it.

They don't cluster bomb as a response to mortar fire. That would be a complete waste of resources on so many different levels.

Due to lack of resources, they would be unable to go in an count the the dead, take records of everything. So most of the time, these encounters would go unreported.

He later went on to talk about how they would round up citizens, and once they discovered that they were obviously not terrorists, they would take them out into the desert with nothing but the clothes on their backs and just leave them there. Again, a very regular occurrence.

So I don't see things like that as an inevitable side effect of war.

I'm pretty skeptical of your eyewitness accounts on the basis that I too have heard many eyewitness accounts that pretty much contradict what you have just said. Not only does marching innocents out in the desert seem like a waste of time and resources for the military, but it also seems counterproductive to rooting out insurgents/terrorists.

See, for instance, the Anbar Awakening.

Also: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Plk8fRSsrgc

Pay close attention to the part where they talk about the whole "Help us, we help you."

that's fallacious. should i be surprised about what the viet cong thought about the soviet union? and vietnam was hardly a threat, just like the crumbled soviet union wasn't either. the vietnam war probably crippled the us, but not too much because she's such a huge machine.

Wtf are you talking about? The crumbled Soviet Union? In the mid-1960's? Go learn some history.

And no, Vietnam wasn't directly a threat to us, but Soviet expansion was. Plus, I wasn't talking about the Viet Cong. They were the Soviet sympathizers. I am talking about the tons of Vietnamese civilians that suffered extreme brutality under the Communist regime. I happen to work with quite a few that managed to escape to the US and they all say the same thing: the Communists were evil and treated them like garbage.

isn't this one of the reasons the us's power is marked as declining beginning in the 1970's?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

ah don't be so formal! if it was horribly punctuated, it was because it was written in one gulp or so, but not incoherent certainly. indentation, and a lot of writing conventions are just conventions. if it makes your eyes sore, then put on some glasses or something, just get used to it so it doesn't bother you.

Or you could demonstrate that you have writing skills above a 3rd grader and go ahead and use proper grammer, punctuation, and other such conventions.

[Against Miik!]

Well nothing gives one account more credibility than the other I suppose so there is just no point in arguing that. And I wasn't talking about cluster bombs. I'm talking about mortar fire returned with mortar fire.

If you wanna say that everything is just peachy keen over there and all the problems are caused by the insurgency, well, ok.

[siva_chair]

Well you see the most conservative estimates put the Iraqi civilian death toll at around 100,000 and some have it much higher so I mean you can think what you want but the US does the same thing every other country has ever done but we do it with a smile on our face so it doesn't look as bad.

I like how there is the air of assumption that all those civilian deaths are at the hands of the US.

and the whole US highly accountable thing just made me lol

Umm go ahead and laugh but there are more eyes watching and criticizing the US's every move in the war than on any other conflict going on in the world.

Ever hear much about the various military regimes around the world constantly suppressing human rights and butchering their own people? No, because everyone is so focused on the US's ****ups that none of that stuff gets any attention. Everyone focuses on the bad things that have happened in Iraq since the US went in that they forget about the many good things that have come of it.

[siva_chair]

Well nothing gives one account more credibility than the other I suppose so there is just no point in arguing that. And I wasn't talking about cluster bombs. I'm talking about mortar fire returned with mortar fire.

What the hell else are they supposed to return fire with? Or are they supposed to sit there with their thumbs up their asses and get shot at some more?

If you wanna say that everything is just peachy keen over there and all the problems are caused by the insurgency, well, ok.

I never once said that, but it is clear to me that the insurgency IS the root cause of this all. They want chaos and disorder, just as the VC in Vietnam wanted that. Why? Because it makes the US look bad. Believe it or not we are there to help. Once again, I refer to the Anbar Awakening. That is a perfect example of how cooperating with the US leads to a much better environment and overall stability.

Now, do I think we should have went all gung ho into Iraq the way we did? No. But the reality is that we are there now and it is our responsibility to make it better. If the Iraqi people want the violence to cease they would be wise to cooperate.

[mph4ever]

Ever hear much about the various military regimes around the world constantly suppressing human rights and butchering their own people? No, because everyone is so focused on the US's ****ups that none of that stuff gets any attention. Everyone focuses on the bad things that have happened in Iraq since the US went in that they forget about the many good things that have come of it.

i'd have to agree, the war effort acts like a huge smokescreen everywhere you go, but mainly in america. the rest of the world has a fair grasp on what the objectives are and can take what is happening in iraq with a pinch of salt

[guitrguy]

if we still fought wars like we did 50 years ago we would have been done with iraq a year after occupying

You mean disabling laser targeting systems, and hope for a on target hit?

[Independent_CA]

This is a stupid idea, not because of what it's aiming to achieve, but because it won't work at all.

Banning weapons like this which have plenty of practical use value to military forces everywhere is a waste of time. It's like trying to ban killing from war. It won't ever happen.

[GreyHam]

I never once said that, but it is clear to me that the insurgency IS the root cause of this all. They want chaos and disorder, just as the VC in Vietnam wanted that. Why? Because it makes the US look bad. Believe it or not we are there to help. Once again, I refer to the Anbar Awakening. That is a perfect example of how cooperating with the US leads to a much better environment and overall stability.



yes, thats the first thing on their minds... 'our country is occupied, me wife child and goat have all been killed by cluster bombs...by God ill make these americans look bad in the international community if its the last thing i do!'

[EinzingerIsGod]

with napalm and cluster bombs and carpet bombing tactics

you know the things we aren't allowed to do anymore to effectively defeat the enemy because a few civilians might get hurt along the way

i mean after all the purpose of war is to not hurt civilians right

Right because only a few civilians die in that stuff. Check your facts. Ever since WWI civilian casualties have made up the majority of casualties caused by war.

And 50 years ago was just about the midway point between Korea and Vietnam. Pick your poison; neither operation was a military success so I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of "back then things were better".

[siva_chair]

i'd have to agree, the war effort acts like a huge smokescreen everywhere you go, but mainly in america. the rest of the world has a fair grasp on what the objectives are and can take what is happening in iraq with a pinch of salt

Oh sorry I forgot: The rest of the world is soooo much more enlightened than the US. My bad. :rolleyes:

yes, thats the first thing on their minds... 'our country is occupied, me wife child and goat have all been killed by cluster bombs...by God ill make these americans look bad in the international community if its the last thing i do!'

The insurgents don't want stability in Iraq. As long as there is chaos, there is justification for taking up arms against the US. Like I said before, when the Iraqis work with the Americans, great things come to their area: Hospitals, schools, ect.

It is the same tactic the VC and the NVC used in Vietnam. They knew the US media would get ahold of the ugly crap that goes on in war and this would foster lots of anti-war sentiment at home. It is a very effective guerrilla tactic. What better way to get the US out than to use it's own bleeding heart against it?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Right because only a few civilians die in that stuff. Check your facts. Ever since WWI civilian casualties have made up the majority of casualties caused by war.

And 50 years ago was just about the midway point between Korea and Vietnam. Pick your poison; neither operation was a military success so I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of "back then things were better".

I think he's getting at the fact were not carpet bombing city's to win.

While the % of civilian deaths may have gone up, I have yet to see any evidence of this, I'd bet those stats are distorted because of WWII.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Collective punishment is a war crime. The issue really boils down to whether or not it should be, because cluster bombs inevitably fall in with other weapons that do not allow you to aim at precise targets.

edit: hypothetically I think cluster bombs should remain legal under the condition that they're used in an area that it is known there are no civilians, like a military airfield, but using a cluster bomb on a village because you know there are enemies somewhere in it is already a war crime under the 4th Geneva Convention.

[pedro durruti]

Wtf are you talking about? The crumbled Soviet Union? In the mid-1960's? Go learn some history.

And no, Vietnam wasn't directly a threat to us, but Soviet expansion was. Plus, I wasn't talking about the Viet Cong. They were the Soviet sympathizers. I am talking about the tons of Vietnamese civilians that suffered extreme brutality under the Communist regime. I happen to work with quite a few that managed to escape to the US and they all say the same thing: the Communists were evil and treated them like garbage.
i'm speaking retrospectively, that the cold war was largely a war of nuclear imagery fought through proxy nations who were basically puppeteered in the megalomanic struggle between the us and ussr. there was an intense amount of propaganda of the perceived threat of the ussr but the power always stayed in check even when all the tension began to spill over in something like the missile crisis. you're right that i should learn some history but i do know what i am talking about a little, you just misread my words and jumped the gun.

why was soviet expansion into vietnam a threat, if vietnam itself wasn't? and as a historical incident which is frozen and unchanging in the past i would say that us aggression in SE asia was mostly a bad thing. i don't doubt the ruthlessness of the communists but neither do i doubt us ruthlessness. you'll find stories from both sides of murder, rape and absolute destruction of humanity. as cruel as the communists were vietnam was a horrible and malicious mishandling on part of the us. its chief authors and too many in america's military were indifferent towards human suffering because of a larger goal of victory in an even larger farce of a war. if you want to talk about people who think the war is justified you should keep in mind also vietnam vets, who probably like a lot of wars have a lot of patriots among them, but an extremely alienated and shattered group, generation, class, etc.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
us global power
socioeconomicpoliticalculturalpsychological
Or you could demonstrate that you have writing skills above a 3rd grader and go ahead and use proper grammer, punctuation, and other such conventions.
I don't see how i haven't demonstrated everything that matters in typing intelligibly except a care for formal pretensions in writing that's meant to be colloquial. maybe you could demonstrate that you aren't an aristocrat and go ahead and stop being an ***

[Against Miik!]

edit: hypothetically I think cluster bombs should remain legal under the condition that they're used in an area that it is known there are no civilians, like a military airfield, but using a cluster bomb on a village because you know there are enemies somewhere in it is already a war crime under the 4th Geneva Convention.

This is really what it comes down to. As I said, you can't ban the technology. Its already out there. Thats like trying to stop wars in general by banning guns or bows and arrows or arms of any kind. It can't be done. The best we can do is ban the improper use of these weapons (which is the case now). We just have to be sure we follow through with the punishments for improper use. It's a bit difficult to lay down any kind of repercussions on a country like the United States. I mean, who would enforce them? Nobody. What are you gonna do, put up a trade embargo? Yeah, I'd like to see that happen.

[1338 h4x0r]

It is the same tactic the VC and the NVC used in Vietnam. They knew the US media would get ahold of the ugly crap that goes on in war and this would foster lots of anti-war sentiment at home. It is a very effective guerrilla tactic. What better way to get the US out than to use it's own bleeding heart against it?

Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

[siva_chair]

i'm speaking retrospectively, that the cold war was largely a war of nuclear imagery fought through proxy nations who were basically puppeteered in the megalomanic struggle between the us and ussr. there was an intense amount of propaganda of the perceived threat of the ussr but the power always stayed in check even when all the tension began to spill over in something like the missile crisis.

Yeah see it stayed in check because we kept it in check. It certainly wouldn't have stayed that way if we would have just let unbridled Soviet expansion take place. That was the whole point of Vietnam as well as the Korean conflicts.

you're right that i should learn some history but i do know what i am talking about a little, you just misread my words and jumped the gun.

To be honest it is quite difficult to understand some of your posts due to the way you format your posts.

why was soviet expansion into vietnam a threat, if vietnam itself wasn't?

Same reason any Soviet expansion was a threat to the US and it's allies interests.

and as a historical incident which is frozen and unchanging in the past i would say that us aggression in SE asia was mostly a bad thing.

It is easy to say that now, but I really doubt that Soviet aggression was preferable, judging on the level of authoritarian brutality that the Soviets tended to bring with them.

i don't doubt the ruthlessness of the communists but neither do i doubt us ruthlessness. you'll find stories from both sides of murder, rape and absolute destruction of humanity. as cruel as the communists were vietnam was a horrible and malicious mishandling on part of the us.

There are quite a few notable differences in the manner in which the US and the Soviets handled nations. The US didn't make a habit of setting up gulags and systematically mow down civilians with gunship helicopters.

its chief authors and too many in america's military were indifferent towards human suffering because of a larger goal of victory in an even larger farce of a war. if you want to talk about people who think the war is justified you should keep in mind also vietnam vets, who probably like a lot of wars have a lot of patriots among them, but an extremely alienated and shattered group, generation, class, etc.

I'm not saying the war was a good thing by any means or that it was fought in the best way. And I think it is abysmal how the Vietnam vets were treated after returning home.

The point is that the Soviets needed to be checked.

us global power
socioeconomicpoliticalculturalpsychological

Which I would hope you would agree is certainly better than Soviet global power. The US being a liberal democratic nation and all.

I don't see how i haven't demonstrated everything that matters in typing intelligibly except a care for formal pretensions in writing that's meant to be colloquial. maybe you could demonstrate that you aren't an aristocrat and go ahead and stop being an ***

Because your sh!t is like a giant run on headache.

Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Ahh wisdom spoken some 2500 years ago that still rings true. :chug:

[Smokey D]

This isn't stupid at all. It's less effective than it could be, sure, but that's not a reason not to implement it.

To those who argue governments should be able to wage war in whatever way they want, I'd respond with saying that people should be able to get compensation from governments who do particularly evil things. And if cluster bombs suddenly became essential to the winning of a war (as opposed to the ten million other ways we have developed of killing people), realpolitik would ensure that the treaty was abrogated.

As it stands, cluster bombs are an anti-civilian technology. I'm not saying that a situation might arise where civilians are not legitimate targets. I concede that total war is a possibility (although a rather theoretical one since the development of nukes). But the fact is that any state capable of using cluster munitions is probably using them on a state that does not warrant total war and on targets that in the absence of total war cannot be considered legitimate targets under any morality.

But also, it's pretty laughable to say that Vietnam was a threat to US interests. This can be deduced from the fact that the US lost the war in Vietnam and US interests weren't actually compromised. In fact, Vietnam was a stabilising influence in a region reeling from dissolution of European imperialism and the power politics of the superpowers.

[pedro durruti]

Yeah see it stayed in check because we kept it in check. It certainly wouldn't have stayed that way if we would have just let unbridled Soviet expansion take place. That was the whole point of Vietnam as well as the Korean conflicts.
Yes, they were to prevent a diametrically contradicting ideology of the free market from spreading to certain areas in a war that was waged in order to avoid direct military confrontation. the us certainly had a physical threat that was under the influence of soviet hegemony but the cold war was a product of ideological struggle and that's where most of its shape existed. it was extremely competitive and intimidating struggle so appearance consumed much of what the war surmounted to. the power struggle was militaristic but cold war violence manifested through satellite battlegrounds and two idiots in a mexican standoff who had confetti and space rockets in their guns.

the conception of the cold war came in an interesting context that devastated a lot of the world, right after a "hot war" that scared the **** out of everyone. it was a conflict with ideology largely in the foreground. they just wanted control, and you may not be able to doubt the fear this knowledge invoked. domestic policy took on ideological cores in red scares since marx; red scare, mcarthyism. which had a profound affect on our politics with reverberations even today, distinct from european countries, and earlier was filled with political/cultural propaganda. economic interests were the most significantly threatened and outright total war was the last thing that was desired. the territorial aggression was just a front filled with empty space filled with abstract ideological tension and third world corpses.. and big bombs on jupiter
To be honest it is quite difficult to understand some of your posts due to the way you format your posts.
what do you mean format? my style in messy enough to be incomprehensible?
Same reason any Soviet expansion was a threat to the US and it's allies interests.
what's the difference whether or not some coloreds get some guns and socialized their political economy? i tell you this, the us doesn't care that much about peoples being terrorized or violated by a totalitarian government if there's no beneficial outcome for them.. in profits or otherwise
If the reality of a communist vietnam were a threat they probably wouldn't have had guerrilla hole people as a primary army. the vietnamese had no more impressive a military than the soviet union already had because they were the ones that provided most of it.
It is easy to say that now, but I really doubt that Soviet aggression was preferable, judging on the level of authoritarian brutality that the Soviets tended to bring with them.
that does not mean commit a genocide of your own and rape a group's geography
There are quite a few notable differences in the manner in which the US and the Soviets handled nations. The US didn't make a habit of setting up gulags and systematically mow down civilians with gunship helicopters.
yeah they mostly used napalm. well in the americas it was mostly terrorist death squads. disposing oppressive regimes while maintaining a hypocrisy filled regime is robbed of any ethical justification for the violence american policies have produced.
Like cluster bombs.
He-he
I'm not saying the war was a good thing by any means or that it was fought in the best way. And I think it is abysmal how the Vietnam vets were treated after returning home.

The point is that the Soviets needed to be checked.

You haven't made that entirely apparent. the vets were treated poorly everywhere. did the government that broke them even help them? most of them came from working class ranks or were a minority of some kind and pawns thrown into a slaughterzone.
Which I would hope you would agree is certainly better than Soviet global power. The US being a liberal democratic nation and all.
of course I would I'm a western leftist from the most anarchist city in america
Ha ha ha
it's sort of its own city-state
And similar to Netherlands, with fewer gays than San Francisco
But more hermaphrodites :)
Because your sh!t is like a giant run on headache.

Why, are you drunk again? stop abusing me!
it's just the angry juice
I hope :(

[Dr Hooch]

All bombs are reckless if used improperly.

Not all of them dropped result in civilian loss of life, either.

All bombs are reckless if used improperly.

Cluster bombs are reckless even if used properly.

[Smokey D]

Also gotta point out that the history of US intervention in Asia, except Japan, was not one promoting enlightened liberal democracies. The US installed regimes as ruthless to their own citizens as anything the Soviets backed.

[1338 h4x0r]

What about General Suharto

[EinzingerIsGod]

While the % of civilian deaths may have gone up, I have yet to see any evidence of this, I'd bet those stats are distorted because of WWII.

Those stats are by no means distorted by WWII. They are strengthened by WWII for sure. They are also strengthened by Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both with the Soviets and the US), all the military interventions in South America, Iraq Wars I and II, genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, etc.

Modern warfare is indiscriminate and seeks destruction of infrastructure as a more decisive way to victory in comparison to the destruction of military personnel as it used to be.

[siva_chair]

Those stats are by no means distorted by WWII. They are strengthened by WWII for sure. They are also strengthened by Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both with the Soviets and the US), all the military interventions in South America, Iraq Wars I and II, genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, etc.

Modern warfare is indiscriminate and seeks destruction of infrastructure as a more decisive way to victory in comparison to the destruction of military personnel as it used to be.

Umm ancient warfare was also fought in a similar manner. Infrastructure has always been a target.

Very little about war has really changed throughout history. Only the technology.

[1338 h4x0r]

Cluster bombs are really non-picky though

[siva_chair]

Cluster bombs are really non-picky though

Well so is fire to a village of grass huts....

[1338 h4x0r]

Yes, but the grass huts don't keep burning down decades later. That is a very important distinction between arson and dud bombs.

[siva_chair]

Yes, but the grass huts don't keep burning down decades later. That is a very important distinction between arson and dud bombs.

Hey bombs only blow up once.

Anyway, the point was that war has always been fought pretty much in the same manner, just with different tools.

[Iscariot]

war always results in death

the only thing that has changed over the years is the way the public reacts to these deaths

[1338 h4x0r]

Hey bombs only blow up once.

Unfortunately, cluster bombs often blow up years after the war, on civilians, and are hard to clean up.

Hey legs are only blown off once.

[siva_chair]

Unfortunately, cluster bombs often blow up years after the war, on civilians, and are hard to clean up.

Hey legs are only blown off once.

Yeah that sucks. No one is denying that one.

Should we ban mines as well?

[Against Miik!]

Just because atrocities in times of war are inevitable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to perfect the process to maximize success while minimizing casualties, especially civilians.

[siva_chair]

Just because atrocities in times of war are inevitable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to perfect the process to maximize success while minimizing casualties, especially civilians.

No one said otherwise.

But the point is that clusterbombs have a high strategic value to them.

[1338 h4x0r]

You're beginning to remind me of the character Burke from Aliens

"This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it."

[siva_chair]

You're beginning to remind me of the character Burke from Aliens

"This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it."

Except I hadn't said anything about money. I was talking about winning wars.

War is ugly, but I don't see it going away any time soon, and anything that will help my side win I am for. Of course I think that we should use wisdom and be responsible in how we wage war (this includes avoiding civilian casualties of course), but to think that all civilian causualties can be avoided is just naive and unrealistic.

[Against Miik!]

So I guess we are back to where we started with the question, is the use of cluster bombs ethical?

Apparently a lot of countries don't think so. The US does, or does not care.

[Iscariot]

i personally don't care how many people die over the course of a war

the entire purpose of a war is to kill the enemy so w/e

[1338 h4x0r]

err...ok

[Against Miik!]

i personally don't care how many people die over the course of a war

the entire purpose of a war is to kill the enemy so w/e

Well, I agree, to an extent. But you have to define the enemy, and at least make sure you are making the right people pay.

In the last few skirmishes the US has been involved in, this is questionable.

[siva_chair]

So I guess we are back to where we started with the question, is the use of cluster bombs ethical?

Apparently a lot of countries don't think so. The US does, or does not care.

It is hardly such a black and white issue.

Can cluster bombs be justified in their use? Of course.

Are they always used ethically and justly? Of course not.

[1338 h4x0r]

Except I hadn't said anything about money. I was talking about winning wars.

Hint: most wars are not about ideals.

[siva_chair]

Well, I agree, to an extent. But you have to define the enemy, and at least make sure you are making the right people pay.

In the last few skirmishes the US has been involved in, this is questionable.

So the Taliban, Al Qaeda, authoritarian dictators, ect. are questionable enemies?

I'm sorry but pretty much every organization the US has declared a war on pretty much deserves to be wiped out, IMO. The methods used and collateral damage caused are really the issue.

[Iscariot]

So the Taliban, Al Qaeda, authoritarian dictators, ect. are questionable enemies?

I'm sorry but pretty much every organization the US has declared a war on pretty much deserves to be wiped out, IMO. The methods used and collateral damage caused are really the issue.

basically this

[siva_chair]

Hint: most wars are not about ideals.

Sure they are. They might be economic ideals, but they are ideals nonetheless. The bedrock of any conflict is over ideals.

[1338 h4x0r]

Sure they are. They might be economic ideals, but they are ideals nonetheless. The bedrock of any conflict is over ideals.

If you can call "I WANT THAT LAND" an ideal, maybe in a loose sense

[siva_chair]

If you can call "I WANT THAT LAND" an ideal, maybe in a loose sense

Usually there has to be a reason to "want that land" that stems from some sort of ideal before people go to war over it.

[1338 h4x0r]

Not really

Case in point: The Hundred Years War

Plenty of wars have been fought over, or at least been instigated by greed.

[siva_chair]

Not really

Case in point: The Hundred Years War

Plenty of wars have been fought over, or at least been instigated by greed.

Greed stems from an ideal, tbh.

[Against Miik!]

So the Taliban, Al Qaeda, authoritarian dictators, ect. are questionable enemies?

I'm sorry but pretty much every organization the US has declared a war on pretty much deserves to be wiped out, IMO. The methods used and collateral damage caused are really the issue.

Sure maybe they deserve it, but many could say the same about the current and past US administrations.

The question isn't whether or not they deserve it though, its whether or not it is our role to wipe them out, whether or not they are really our enemy, and if they are, why are they are enemy? You have to take that into consideration.

Remember, most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, our allies. Basically, watch the first 5 minutes of the movie The Kingdom to figure out why that happened, and then ask yourself if we are taking the right course of action.

[Iscariot]

citing the kingdom as proof of guilt against the us is just ****ing stupid

[Against Miik!]

Its not if it has the story right. Have you seen it? The first five minutes is not part of the over dramatized Jamie Foxx thriller. It gives a very accurate and compelling account of our relationship with the Saudis through the cold war up until 9/11.

[siva_chair]

Sure maybe they deserve it, but many could say the same about the current and past US administrations.

Yeah except there is a huge difference between an elected democratic republic and brutal tyrants who kill and terrorize their own people. If you really think there is a valid comparison between the US and the enemies that it has declared war on, you are blind.

The question isn't whether or not they deserve it though, its whether or not it is our role to wipe them out, whether or not they are really our enemy, and if they are, why are they are enemy? You have to take that into consideration.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"--Edmund Burke

Or if you prefer comic books: "With great power comes great responsibility"--Uncle Ben Parker

If we do nothing to help the down trodden and oppressed, then we let the bad guys win.
Remember, most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, our allies. Basically, watch the first 5 minutes of the movie The Kingdom to figure out why that happened, and then ask yourself if we are taking the right course of action.

I never said we are taking the right steps to acheive our goals neccessarily, but the fact still remains that our targets are justified enemies and they do deserve to be neutralized.

I personally think that the US should give the middle finger to the Saudis. Unfortunately it seems the almighty dollar trumps what this country was founded on: Liberty and it's defense.

[1338 h4x0r]

Greed stems from an ideal, tbh.

Which is?

[siva_chair]

Which is?

The belief that "I need what you have" or "I deserve this more than you do" or "I'm entitled to this over you" or many of the other possible reasons one could give. Hell, it could even be over survival. Regardless, greed itself is a product of some ideal.

[Against Miik!]

Yeah except there is a huge difference between an elected democratic republic and brutal tyrants who kill and terrorize their own people. If you really think there is a valid comparison between the US and the enemies that it has declared war on, you are blind.


There is no difference if they do the same things, just give it different names. Both sides have legitimate political goals. The fact that one is said to be in the name of freedom, and the other is called terrorism, is due only to the fact that we generally only hear the side of the American media and political rhetoric.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"--Edmund Burke

Or if you prefer comic books: "With great power comes great responsibility"--Uncle Ben Parker

If we do nothing to help the down trodden and oppressed, then we let the bad guys win.

Those are some nifty quotes, but at what expense should we take them into consideration?

I never said we are taking the right steps to acheive our goals neccessarily, but the fact still remains that our targets are justified enemies and they do deserve to be neutralized.

I personally think that the US should give the middle finger to the Saudis. Unfortunately it seems the almighty dollar trumps what this country was founded on: Liberty and it's defense.

k cool

[siva_chair]

There is no difference if they do the same things, just give it different names. Both sides have legitimate political goals. The fact that one is said to be in the name of freedom, and the other is called terrorism, is due only to the fact that we generally only hear the side of the American media and political rhetoric.

Sorry but oppression and authoritarian rule isn't a legitimate political goal if you ask me. Sorry but I'll take the side that is more conducive to liberty over a tyrant oppressor any day.

If you really believe that an oppressive theocratic/authoritarian dictatorship is no different than a democracy of any kind, then you need to wake the hell up.

Those are some nifty quotes, but at what expense should we take them into consideration?

Well I'd say we should do everything in our power to take them into consideration. I feel that it is the US's job to spread liberty any way that it can. This doesn't mean I think we are doing a great job of that with some of the things we do these day, but I do think that the US SHOULD be doing that. Of course, I'm a sucker for liberty and the ideals that the US was founded on. Makes me sad to see what we have become sometimes.

I may not be a fan of how we go about doing things, but I support, for the most part, the targets we choose to try and erradicate. I don't believe the US has ever attacked a benign government or organization that is for the liberty of the people.

[Against Miik!]

I just simply believe that the targets we choose to eradicate are not helping to spread liberty, at home or abroad.

[siva_chair]

I just simply believe that the targets we choose to eradicate are not helping to spread liberty, at home or abroad.

I disagree. Erradicating Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ect is a very good thing. Our problem stems not from our target, but from the fact that we didn't seem to learn from our errors in handling the Vietnam war. We are fighting an unconventional war with conventional standing army tactics. This is why Special Forces units have had great successes (in Vietnam all the way to the present day). They fight unconventionally with minimal civilian casualties and indeed part of their job is to win the "hearts and minds" and act as a force multiplier.

So it isn't our choice of targets, it is our overall methods that could improve. I would fully support the war in Iraq if we would have went about it differently.

[Against Miik!]

Well you are forgetting a lot of things there. That reasoning would make sense in a vacuum, in a movie even. Terror groups like Al Qaeda are not irrational threats. They have reasons for the things they do, and their reasoning can be directly attributed to our presence in the region. Lets also not forget that this is the same al Qaeda that we helped build many years ago.

Its a difficult situation, the fact that we have to deal now with our mistakes in the past. It is only crucial that we don't attempt to deal with them by making the same mistake all over again.

Its the same issue with our current economic situation. The fed is trying to fix a shitty dollar by pumping out more money and lowering interest rates. The whole problem came from an inflated money supply and artificially low interest rates to begin with.

[siva_chair]

Well you are forgetting a lot of things there. That reasoning would make sense in a vacuum, in a movie even. Terror groups like Al Qaeda are not irrational threats. They have reasons for the things they do, and their reasoning can be directly attributed to our presence in the region. Lets also not forget that this is the same al Qaeda that we helped build many years ago.

Sorry but in no way can they justify what they do or even their existence to someone who supports liberty for all people. Sure, they have gained significant numbers due to blowback from our intervention in the area, but these same kinds of groups would most certainly exist despite our presence or lack thereof in the region (albeit perhaps to a lesser degree, we really have no way of knowing for certain).

Using the region as an example, Islamic fundamentalists and jihadists existed way before the US got involved in the region. Hell, oppressive faction wars have existed amongst the Islamic nations for centuries before the US even was established.

Its a difficult situation, the fact that we have to deal now with our mistakes in the past. It is only crucial that we don't attempt to deal with them by making the same mistake all over again.

And I agree with that, but I don't think turning our backs on the people that are being oppressed by said groups is the answer, and I don't think compromising with tyrants is very wise either. Appeasement doesn't work for erradicating tyrants.

I'm very conflicted when it comes to interventionist policy vs non-interventionist policy, actually. I do believe interventionism can be for good, but often times it is used irresponsibly. Same kinda rings true with non-interventionism.

Its the same issue with our current economic situation. The fed is trying to fix a poopty dollar by pumping out more money and lowering interest rates. The whole problem came from an inflated money supply and artificially low interest rates to begin with.

Preaching to the choir here buddy. I am most definitely not a fan of the Federal Reserve.

[Against Miik!]

I don't consider non-interventionism to simply mean we ignore everything and we'll be fine (not saying you are). Even my boy Ron Paul doesn't believe that (which a lot of people think he does). It means going to war legally, and using force only when it is in the best interest of the people of the country you swore to serve as president.

Our disagreement is based on whether or not the war on terror is one of those times. I can only ask, in hindsight of course, is the US as a nation better of than we were before 9/11? Is the rest of the world? Iraq? Afghanistan?

I think the obvious answer has to be no. You could make an argument that all are on the right track, but things will only get better if we reach the desired end to this conflict, and it is questionable as to whether or not we will.

By doing what we've always done, we will get what we've always got, and since the glory days after WWII, that is a lower standard of living in the US, and a diminished opinion of us from the rest of the world.

[siva_chair]

I don't consider non-interventionism to simply mean we ignore everything and we'll be fine (not saying you are). Even my boy Ron Paul doesn't believe that (which a lot of people think he does). It means going to war legally, and using force only when it is in the best interest of the people of the country you swore to serve as president.

Our disagreement is based on whether or not the war on terror is one of those times. I can only ask, in hindsight of course, is the US as a nation better of than we were before 9/11? Is the rest of the world? Iraq? Afghanistan?

I think the obvious answer has to be no. You could make an argument that all are on the right track, but things will only get better if we reach the desired end to this conflict, and it is questionable as to whether or not we will.

By doing what we've always done, we will get what we've always got, and since the glory days after WWII, that is a lower standard of living in the US, and a diminished opinion of us from the rest of the world.

And I agree with that for the most part as well. I too am a Ron Paul supporter. I believe war should be done through the legal channels, and I also believe that tyranny and oppression should be something that the US should try in every way possible to fight. I think it is our responsibility.

One thing I am not very happy about is the media's portrayal of this war. Like everything else, it is so determined to report on the negative stuff, they often fail to mention the positive effects of this war on Iraq. Schools are being built, people are being allowed to vote for the first time, some people are recieving medical care for the first time in their lives, ect. It is very disheartening that the only image people seem to have of this whole thing are those that Corporate media show them.

[Against Miik!]

Its odd that they don't show those things, although not much has been reported about Iraq at all recently.

The media does show a bit of restraint though, like they report just enough of the bad to make us think they are being responsible reporters, but don't quite go all the way. There is a lot of good going on over their, but also a lot of bad, and by bad, I mean worse things than they are showing us.

[siva_chair]

Its odd that they don't show those things, although not much has been reported about Iraq at all recently.

The media does show a bit of restraint though, like they report just enough of the bad to make us think they are being responsible reporters, but don't quite go all the way. There is a lot of good going on over their, but also a lot of bad, and by bad, I mean worse things than they are showing us.

Well I don't know about that one. Most of all the eyewitness accounts that I have heard (I have so many friends over there right now....) have said that the media isn't painting an accurate picture at all. Of course there is going to be bad sh!t that happens that we don't hear about, but I don't think it is anything like genocide or indescriminate murdering of civilians on any sort of widespread scale.

I know why they don't report the postives. Because they have a political agenda, obviously. Postives reflect good on the military and says nothing about the media, while reporting the negatives gives the illusion that the media is doing the right thing and exposing lies and corruption or that they are some "champions of truth" for the people and whatnot.

[EinzingerIsGod]

So the Taliban, Al Qaeda, authoritarian dictators, ect. are questionable enemies?

I'm sorry but pretty much every organization the US has declared a war on pretty much deserves to be wiped out, IMO. The methods used and collateral damage caused are really the issue.

I'll grant you that many of the US adversaries have been legitamate but it has to be noted that the US only engages these enemies when there is some sort of financial gain.

[siva_chair]

I'll grant you that many of the US adversaries have been legitamate but it has to be noted that the US only engages these enemies when there is some sort of financial gain.

Oh no countries acting in their own economic interests!!!!! This has to be a unique phenomenon that only happens in America!!!!

Besides, America, while powerful and rich, doesn't have the resources to go after all the bad guys. Have to pick and choose our battles, so it is wise to choose ones that will help with your continued existence.