Cluster bombs likely to leave deadly legacy.

[Piano Man]

Title says it all

 

[Leon]

Cluster boms are very effective against ground troops, so the only thing they can to is to improve the failure rate, as this article suggests.

 

[Piano Man]

Its a little late for that now, don't you think?

 

[Piano Man]

I know they are effective against ground troops, but we used them in the cities as well. Granted, the troops were in the city, but that doesn't mean we should use cluster bombs there.

 

[LH]

More Iraqis are going to die from Iraqi mine feilds than from US cluster bomblets.

 

[Jani]

And more irrelevant justification is coming from pro-war camp. So if Iraqis are killed because of land mines it's ok to few more with cluster bombs. This more argument sounds like two little kids who are arguing whose father is bigger and stronger.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Jani
And more irrelevant justification is coming from pro-war camp. So if Iraqis are killed because of land mines it's ok to few more with cluster bombs. This more argument sounds like two little kids who are arguing whose father is bigger and stronger.

No, its not irrelevent justification. The Iraqi regime's method of denying the coalition's forces use of an irea was with dumb, pressure activated mines. The coalition's method of denying use of an area (in theory, temporarily) is to drop cluster bombs. Which would you rather see used in your country:
-buried minefield, OR
-cluster bombs, most of which explode, some don't, but they have a bright yellow stripe on them.

The ability to deny an enemy the usage of certain bits of terrain, temporarily or semi-permanently, is a crucial one in warfare. I think what a lot of people dont understand is that, while there is a (some would call it slippery) slope between overly indiscriminant weapons and truly discriminant (read: inneffective) weapons, you have to stand somewhere in the middle if yu want an effective military. On one side is Nuclear Carpet Bombing With B-52's, and on the other end there is Open Hand Slapping Only. The USA's position is to use weapons which give it a highly effective force that minimizes civvie casualties wherever possible. Many people decry the civilian casualties of airstikes, but the alternative is a ground assualt, and those get pretty messy when there are RPGs, cannon rounds, 40mm grenades, and civilians in the same area. Never mind the machine gun fire.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Jani
And more irrelevant justification is coming from pro-war camp. So if Iraqis are killed because of land mines it's ok to few more with cluster bombs. This more argument sounds like two little kids who are arguing whose father is bigger and stronger.

No, its not irrelevent justification. The Iraqi regime's method of denying the coalition's forces use of an irea was with dumb, pressure activated mines. The coalition's method of denying use of an area (in theory, temporarily) is to drop cluster bombs. Which would you rather see used in your country:
-buried minefield, OR
-cluster bombs, most of which explode, some don't, but they have a bright yellow stripe on them.

The ability to deny an enemy the usage of certain bits of terrain, temporarily or semi-permanently, is a crucial one in warfare. I think what a lot of people dont understand is that, while there is a (some would call it slippery) slope between overly indiscriminant weapons and truly discriminant (read: inneffective) weapons, you have to stand somewhere in the middle if yu want an effective military. On one side is Nuclear Carpet Bombing With B-52's, and on the other end there is Open Hand Slapping Only. The USA's position is to use weapons which give it a highly effective force that minimizes civvie casualties wherever possible. Many people decry the civilian casualties of airstikes, but the alternative is a ground assualt, and those get pretty messy when there are RPGs, cannon rounds, 40mm grenades, and civilians in the same area. Never mind the machine gun fire.

Or, for those with ADD:

Game, set, match. Mookow 1, Jani 0.

Thanks for playing!

 

[Jani]

Fact: But in some places, the war will not be over and rebuilding cannot begin until the deadly waste of war is cleaned up. Because of the U.S. use of ?cluster bombs,? the war will almost certainly continue to claim victims after the fighting stops, as unsuspecting civilians stumble across the live explosives scattered throughout the country.

Answer: More Iraqis are going to die from Iraqi mine feilds than from US cluster bomblets.

Nice syllogism there. One thing justifies another. :beer:

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Or, for those with ADD:

Game, set, match. Mookow 1, Jani 0.

Thanks for playing!

well on a moral relativist's scoreboard i suppose. :disgust:

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I know they are effective against ground troops, but we used them in the cities as well. Granted, the troops were in the city, but that doesn't mean we should use cluster bombs there.

If you look at the other alternatives, custer bombs get the job done and result in fewer casualties that other methods of "area denial" in this particular instance.

Think about it. Should we have used a large amount of conventional iron bombs, artillery strikes, napalm, a MOAB? All of the other alternatives would have resulted in greater civilian deaths.

I think that article is little more than pandering to the antiwar crowd as proof of America's immorality and yet utterly ignores the larger picture that The USA saved more civilian lives than would have been lost through inaction.

 

[SnapIT]

Bombs kill people? Nah, that has to be wrong, i thought they spread flowers and peace...

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Bombs kill people? Nah, that has to be wrong, i thought they spread flowers and peace...

Not as well as you spread manure.

Put forth a rational and coherent argument or go back to bed.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Jimbo


I think that article is little more than pandering to the antiwar crowd as proof of America's immorality and yet utterly ignores the larger picture that The USA saved more civilian lives than would have been lost through inaction.

Wow, being bombed and shot turns out to be better for your health than not being bombed and shot.

Technology amazes me.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Bombs kill people? Nah, that has to be wrong, i thought they spread flowers and peace...

Not as well as you spread manure.

Put forth a rational and coherent argument or go back to bed.

If this is not a personal flame i don't know what is...

You know Jimbo, it's pretty obvious that bombs kill people, that was what they were designed to do... i was just trying to be a bit sarcastic, please forgive me, it was a HORRIBLE thought...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Jimbo


I think that article is little more than pandering to the antiwar crowd as proof of America's immorality and yet utterly ignores the larger picture that The USA saved more civilian lives than would have been lost through inaction.

Wow, being bombed and shot turns out to be better for your health than not being bombed and shot.

Technology amazes me.

And here i have been ingesting extra vitamins when i could just be a healthy suicide bomber "bombs don't kill people, terrorists kill people"...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Jimbo


I think that article is little more than pandering to the antiwar crowd as proof of America's immorality and yet utterly ignores the larger picture that The USA saved more civilian lives than would have been lost through inaction.

Wow, being bombed and shot turns out to be better for your health than not being bombed and shot.

Technology amazes me.

it's not so much our technology as the horrible conditions in place in Iraq.

Sacntions would have killed 10,000 the month we were at war. How many civilians death in that period? @ 1,500. How many were killed by Iraqi forces INTENTIOANLLY? Plenty from all reports, artillery strikes, mortars being fired into crowds where no US soldiers were present (Basra), the hanging of a woman for WAVING at american troops, desrters and those willing to surrender being shot, etc.. Yes in a society that values your life that little our war is safer for you, that is amazing and only reinforces the justification of our action.

Being ignored by Jani is an honor, like most anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-war people he ignores the facts.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Jani
Fact: But in some places, the war will not be over and rebuilding cannot begin until the deadly waste of war is cleaned up. Because of the U.S. use of ?cluster bombs,? the war will almost certainly continue to claim victims after the fighting stops, as unsuspecting civilians stumble across the live explosives scattered throughout the country.

Answer: More Iraqis are going to die from Iraqi mine feilds than from US cluster bomblets.

Nice syllogism there. One thing justifies another. :beer:

Fact 1: We are at war with Iraq
Fact 2: In a war, generally speaking, your soldiers attempt to kill the enemies soldiers, and vice versa.
Fact 3: In some cases, the US decided to use cluster bombs against Iraqi forces holed up in urban areas
Fact 4: In the opinion of people that know much more about warfare than you and me, dropping those cluster bombs was the most efficient method of taking out those Iraqi forces while minimizing both coalition and civilian casualties. Remember, due to #2, one way or another you have to take out their forces. Against an enemy known to hold children in front of them while fighting, ground attacks get messy fast in terms of civilian casualties.
Fact 5: As a result of the coalition using cluster bombs, there will be a non-zero number of Iraqi civilian casualties. If the coalition had instead gone in on the ground, there would have been a non-zero number of Iraqi civilian casualties.

Question: In reference to #5, which would have created more civilian casualties? Ground or air assaults (including the usage of cluster bombs)?

Answer: No one knows, nor will they ever know for sure. However, I tend to trust the men and women who make up the world's finest fighting force to make judgment calls while executing their orders (which, in this conflict, included orders to minimize civilian casualties) on the field of battle, and I also tend to give them some leeway, since we have the luxuries of time, knowledge, and a lack of personal danger, while they are taking fire, need to make snap decisions with imperfect knowledge, and then they have to defend those decisions afterwards.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Jani
Fact: But in some places, the war will not be over and rebuilding cannot begin until the deadly waste of war is cleaned up. Because of the U.S. use of ?cluster bombs,? the war will almost certainly continue to claim victims after the fighting stops, as unsuspecting civilians stumble across the live explosives scattered throughout the country.

Answer: More Iraqis are going to die from Iraqi mine feilds than from US cluster bomblets.

Nice syllogism there. One thing justifies another. :beer:

Fact 1: We are at war with Iraq
Fact 2: In a war, generally speaking, your soldiers attempt to kill the enemies soldiers, and vice versa.
Fact 3: In some cases, the US decided to use cluster bombs against Iraqi forces holed up in urban areas
Fact 4: In the opinion of people that know much more about warfare than you and me, dropping those cluster bombs was the most efficient method of taking out those Iraqi forces while minimizing both coalition and civilian casualties. Remember, due to #2, one way or another you have to take out their forces. Against an enemy known to hold children in front of them while fighting, ground attacks get messy fast in terms of civilian casualties.
Fact 5: As a result of the coalition using cluster bombs, there will be a non-zero number of Iraqi civilian casualties. If the coalition had instead gone in on the ground, there would have been a non-zero number of Iraqi civilian casualties.

Question: In reference to #5, which would have created more civilian casualties? Ground or air assaults (including the usage of cluster bombs)?

Answer: No one knows, nor will they ever know for sure. However, I tend to trust the men and women who make up the world's finest fighting force to make judgment calls while executing their orders (which, in this conflict, included orders to minimize civilian casualties) on the field of battle, and I also tend to give them some leeway, since we have the luxuries of time, knowledge, and a lack of personal danger, while they are taking fire, need to make snap decisions with imperfect knowledge, and then they have to defend those decisions afterwards.

The low number only reinforces the care they say they took in targeting, and shows their moral and technical superiority over their enemy.


In other related news the US offered formal thanks to the citizens of Iraq who took it upon themselves to rid all hosptials and schools of weapons and torture devices.....
Victims whose children were used as human shields were given 3 dollars and a sack of grain, DOUBLE what they would have recieved normally under Saddam.