A sad day for Western ideology and justice!

[iGas]

US pushing UN to lift ban on cluster bombs, say campaigners

An unexploded bomblet from a cluster bomb dropped by a US warplane in Afghanistan. The US refused to sign the 2008 convention on cluster munitions. Photograph: Thorne Anderson/Corbis Sygma

The use of cluster bombs will be given backing under plans being drawn up at an international treaty conference, according to opponents of the weapons which maim and kill civilians, notably children, long after they have been dropped.

The bombs are banned under the 2008 convention on cluster munitions, which was adopted by the UK and more than 100 other countries. But the US refused to sign and is pressing for a protocol to be added to the UN convention on certain conventional weapons (CCW) to provide legal cover for the use of cluster munitions.

The US is being supported by other cluster bomb manufacturers – including Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan – at negotiations due to end in Geneva on Friday. The move is also backed by a number of signatories to the 2008 convention, including France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Australia, conference observers said...

Hypocrisy at its finest.

The US running around the world preaching democracy/Western ideologies, and then turn around and sells/use weapons indiscriminately that kills and maim civilians (same effect as land mines), because it supports the American arms manufactures.

The rest of the images are NSFW!

http://www.venik4.com/2009/09/un-finds-israeli-war-crimes/

http://medya.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2009/01/06/israel-massacres-children-01.jpg

http://cdn-english.alshahid.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/yemen-civ-bom.jpg?59dea9

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k1emUDHowIs/TA0duADSl0I/AAAAAAAABEI/vYOt1BSxFss/s1600/cluster_bomb_victim.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjjYaIi7wnUuM_eLE_JkAvTYOsjN3PA7C6XoiAZ2C6gDTMzZqvSQ

 

[bfdd]

I see no issue with unbanning weapons. I think it's silly to set "rules" of war.

 

[JTsyo]

certain conventional weapons (CCW)

Really? they had to make that an acrynom? CCW already stands for close combat weapon and conceal carry weapon.

I don't have a problem with cluster munitions in general but they should have a fail-safe self destruct in case they don't function. I know the US is demilling some of the older ones that are not as reliable. (ie M483 artillery round)

 

[Macamus Prime]

Dismissiveness incoming in 3, 2,... oh, wait, it already hit.

NM my silly little count down.

 

[DesiPower]

Either we fight or we don't fight, I prefer we don't fight, but if we do we need to keep all options open. This is nothing more than mind numbing left wing propaganda to influence uneducated, uninformed, naive people or the young people in schools going age who are just getting matured enough to understand things. Anyone spreading these around should be ashamed and save the earth his part of the oxygen.

 

[bfdd]

Dismissiveness incoming in 3, 2,... oh, wait, it already hit.

NM my silly little count down.

but I like count downs 🙁

really though, i just see no need for "rules" in war. someone will always break them and they don't really serve any purpose but to make war look less devastating and horrible. not to mention don't you agree it's silly that certain countries have to play by different rules? I mean Iran isn't allowed to have nukes but we are? Fuck it I say.

 

[cybrsage]

Some of the rules of warfare make a lot of sense. For example, not shooting a pilot who ejected from a jet which is going down. If a pilot knows he will be killed when he ejects, he will not eject. Instead, he will attempt to crash him plane into your troops' position, killing as many as he can.

Another is that you must accept surrender. If enemy troops know you will kill them if they surrender, they will instead fight to the death and kill many more of your own troops in the process.

Many rules are to benefit your own side.

 

[-Slacker-]

but I like count downs 🙁

really though, i just see no need for "rules" in war. someone will always break them and they don't really serve any purpose but to make war look less devastating and horrible. not to mention don't you agree it's silly that certain countries have to play by different rules? I mean Iran isn't allowed to have nukes but we are? Fuck it I say.

Let's see you say that after china invades your ass, kills almost everyone you know or care about with napalm and detonates a neutron bomb just far enough from your location so that you don't die right away, but have to go through torturous days, or weeks of vomiting your own bowels before you bite the dust.

 

[Zebo]

but I like count downs 🙁

really though, i just see no need for "rules" in war. someone will always break them and they don't really serve any purpose but to make war look less devastating and horrible. not to mention don't you agree it's silly that certain countries have to play by different rules? I mean Iran isn't allowed to have nukes but we are? Fuck it I say.

I agree with you. War is cruelty and the crueler it is sooner it's over which is a good thing. Which is why it should never be taken lightly like these assholes do today and fail with half ass war. Problem is with cluster bombs, long after war is over and peace was made you continue killing people. That's unjust and a violation of any kind of peace agreement. Imagine if we were still killing German and Japanese kids as they went into the forests playing hide and seek or whatever. JMO.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think it's silly to set "rules" of war.

Cool, biological weapons rock!

Sociopath!

 

[RightIsWrong]

For those that claim that there should be no rules, I have a couple of questions.

1. It is perfectly okay to perform constant 9/11 style attacks against civilian populations if you declare that you are at war first?

2. It is perfectly okay to attempt mass assainations against lawmakers and leaders once you declare that you are at war first?

3. Torture, beheading, rape, plundering and pillaging, chemical warfare including the poisoning of water and food supplies are perfectly acceptable once war is declared?

4. Nuclear and other WMD are perfectly acceptable to deploy even in urban environments once war is declared?

 

[Lemon law]

As Zebo said, war is cruely on an organized and massive scale. But in terms of cluster bombs and land mines, can't we at least agree, that such weapons be made temporary in event of war with a timing device.

But all over the world, and 20 years or more after the war is over, such weapons are killing and maiming innocent civilians for the sin of simply stepping on them.

Regardless of which side won the war, such weapons kills friends and foes alike for no reason.

 

[JEDIYoda]

US pushing UN to lift ban on cluster bombs, say campaigners


Hypocrisy at its finest.

The US running around the world preaching democracy/Western ideologies, and then turn around and sells/use weapons indiscriminately that kills and maim civilians (same effect as land mines), because it supports the American arms manufactures.

The rest of the images are NSFW!

http://www.venik4.com/2009/09/un-finds-israeli-war-crimes/

http://medya.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2009/01/06/israel-massacres-children-01.jpg

http://cdn-english.alshahid.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/yemen-civ-bom.jpg?59dea9

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k1emUDHowIs/TA0duADSl0I/AAAAAAAABEI/vYOt1BSxFss/s1600/cluster_bomb_victim.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjjYaIi7wnUuM_eLE_JkAvTYOsjN3PA7C6XoiAZ2C6gDTMzZqvSQ

Whats your point?? We all agree that war is not pretty! Nor is the aftermath of war...so go figure! Nobody won a war who fought fair!!

 

[Howard]

Who is responsible for collateral damage experienced after a war? The attacker or the defender? The winner or the loser? The good guy or the bad guy?

Biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc. don't just kill the enemy you see.

 

[bfdd]

Let's see you say that after china invades your ass, kills almost everyone you know or care about with napalm and detonates a neutron bomb just far enough from your location so that you don't die right away, but have to go through torturous days, or weeks of vomiting your own bowels before you bite the dust.

such is life. it would suck, no doubt about that, but why should I only look at it at that perspective?

I agree with you. War is cruelty and the crueler it is sooner it's over which is a good thing. Which is why it should never be taken lightly like these assholes do today and fail with half ass war. Problem is with cluster bombs, long after war is over and peace was made you continue killing people. That's unjust and a violation of any kind of peace agreement. Imagine if we were still killing German and Japanese kids as they went into the forests playing hide and seek or whatever. JMO.

I agree it does suck that these horrific weapons can have lasting effects, hopefully there will be a day when we don't need to turn them upon ourselves. Right now though there remains still those who would rather screw with others and kill than just try to work together and get along regardless of differences. It's sad that the institution of government has been used in the ways it has throughout history.

 

[woodie1]

For those that claim that there should be no rules, I have a couple of questions.

1. It is perfectly okay to perform constant 9/11 style attacks against civilian populations if you declare that you are at war first?

2. It is perfectly okay to attempt mass assainations against lawmakers and leaders once you declare that you are at war first?

3. Torture, beheading, rape, plundering and pillaging, chemical warfare including the poisoning of water and food supplies are perfectly acceptable once war is declared?

4. Nuclear and other WMD are perfectly acceptable to deploy even in urban environments once war is declared?

1. YES

2. YES

3. YES

4. YES

One thing I don't get - why wait until someone declares war? That takes all the fun out of it.

But, once war is declared then one should do whatever it takes to win. Never understood why we don't do that anymore.

 

[cybrsage]

For those that claim that there should be no rules, I have a couple of questions.

1. It is perfectly okay to perform constant 9/11 style attacks against civilian populations if you declare that you are at war first?

2. It is perfectly okay to attempt mass assainations against lawmakers and leaders once you declare that you are at war first?

3. Torture, beheading, rape, plundering and pillaging, chemical warfare including the poisoning of water and food supplies are perfectly acceptable once war is declared?

4. Nuclear and other WMD are perfectly acceptable to deploy even in urban environments once war is declared?

Depends on the type of war being fought, to be honest (other than roture and rape, they serve no useful purpose). If the US, Russia, and China were to wage a three sided full on war, all the above would be needed simply to give a chance of survival.

 

[Throckmorton]

Rightwingers support scorched-earth warfare. Except when it's was General Tecumseh Sherman scorching you slave-owning fascists' earth.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Let's see you say that after china invades your ass, kills almost everyone you know or care about with napalm and detonates a neutron bomb just far enough from your location so that you don't die right away, but have to go through torturous days, or weeks of vomiting your own bowels before you bite the dust.

I agree its time for american woman and children to experiance real war here in America . Nothing like a good bloodbath to enlighten the ignorance of population control. I guess we know were he stands on hitler and the jews of judea.

 

[Zebo]

Depends on the type of war being fought, to be honest (other than roture and rape, they serve no useful purpose). If the US, Russia, and China were to wage a three sided full on war, all the above would be needed simply to give a chance of survival.

Sure it does. If you're going to turn people into psychopathic killers, rape is a moral booster for this personality type. Ask Japanese with their comfort women.

And torture we been through this before. Everyone in theater says it works. Everyone in ivory towers with PhDs says it doesn't. I trust experience over philosophy.

 

[cybrsage]

Sure it does. If you're going to turn people into psychopathic killers, rape is a moral booster for this personality type. Ask Japanese with their comfort women.

You support my point. No military based on psychopathic killers has been successful since the dark ages.

And torture we been through this before. Everyone in theater says it works. Everyone in ivory towers with PhDs says it doesn't. I trust experience over philosophy.

It depends on your goal for torture. If it is to inflict pain and galvanize the population against your cause, then it is highly successful. If it is to obtain reliable information, not so much. At a certain point, it has been shown that people under torture will say whatever they think will make you stop torturing them. Truth or lie is irrelevant at that point. You cannot trust their info to be true.

 

[cybrsage]

Rightwingers support scorched-earth warfare. Except when it's was General Tecumseh Sherman scorching you slave-owning fascists' earth.

Actually, it was Northern Democrats who actively worked to get northern soldiers to desert and to defect to the South. Wrong group of people to use as your example.

Also, the southernors were not fascists. They voted for their leaders (or planned to after the war ended).

I think you are one confused, sad soul.

 

[woolfe9999]

I agree with you. War is cruelty and the crueler it is sooner it's over which is a good thing. Which is why it should never be taken lightly like these assholes do today and fail with half ass war. Problem is with cluster bombs, long after war is over and peace was made you continue killing people. That's unjust and a violation of any kind of peace agreement. Imagine if we were still killing German and Japanese kids as they went into the forests playing hide and seek or whatever. JMO.

Nice theory, but all empirical evidence says you're wrong. Fewer and fewer people are dying every year in warfare on this planet, and lower percentages of civilians are dying in relation to military personnel. That is because these "assholes" that you talk about urge restraint. If your theory was correct, the restraint would be causing more death in the longrun, not less.

WWII and its 50 million+ dead was all the lesson we needed. We don't need another.

- wolf

 

[Zebo]

It's just lull before the storm. Those assholes wasted ~ 7 million lives since WW2 for nothing. Korea waste. Vietnam waste. All the little south American proxy wars waste. Iraq waste. Afghanistan waste. etc etc etc. No war we have been in was necessary i.e. defensive peril to warrant it like WW2 and all of them have potential of setting off WW3. Then you'll see again the type of numbers real war gives.

 

[cybrsage]

You need to define necessary a bit differently than you do. You currently define it as "will take over the world and kill all our womenz", which is silly.

Take the first Iraq war, for example. Had Saddam been able to control the region's oil supply, he would have been able to control the US economy. This is bad. Allowing another nation that much control over your nation is something to avoid. We used our military to prevent Iraq from having excessive control over the US economy. That is a good use.

Libya? Same thing. The free flow of oil must continue.

Afghanistan...it was to send a message. You cannot attack the US (or harbor those who do) without being invaded. It was to send a message to all the others who were emboldened by the attack. They lost their desire to do the same after they saw the Afghani government toppled...then the Iraqi government toppled.

The biggest thing Bush did for the US was to give the world the message that if the US says they are going to invade you unless you do XYZ that means the US IS going to invade you and there is nothing you can do to stop us unless you actually do XYZ.