TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Cluster bombs

Cluster bombs

Well, I see US might have begun to drop cluster bombs on Iraqi towns. Those bombs are prohibited by geneva convention because of the fact they are very deadly when used against civilians. Iraq accused the US of dropping those bombs on a city and killing 14 civilians, while the US replied that its forces aren't dropping cluster bombs over cities. Nowhere they denied that the bombs are being dropped elsewhere though.

yeah and I saw footage on tv, civilians holding intact cluster bombs in their hands!

outrageous.

Re: Cluster bombs

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I see US might have begun to drop cluster bombs on Iraqi towns. Those bombs are prohibited by geneva convention because of the fact they are very deadly when used against civilians. Iraq accused the US of dropping those bombs on a city and killing 14 civilians, while the US replied that its forces aren't dropping cluster bombs over cities. Nowhere they denied that the bombs are being dropped elsewhere though.

Where are they prohibited in the geneva conventions? Also they're anti-armor cluster bombs (as opposed to being anti-personnel bomblets) being dropped on Iraqi armor positions outside of baghdad. Why would the US drop cluster bombs in cities when we're hesitant to even drop precision guided weapons in cities? Doesn't make much sense does it?

Also the brits are using them too ... didn't hear much criticism directed at them Ah but yes the americans are of course targeting civilians cuz we're evil.

Cluster bombs weren't exactly outlawed in the Geneva Convention. They're just really controversial because of their appearance. I'm not sure about today, but in the first Gulf War, cluster bombs looked like yellow sacs, and civilians would often pick them up by mistake, becasue humanitarian aid (food) was stored in a pouch with the same appearance. The civilians would pick up unexploded bombs, thinking that they were food, and kill themselves.

Under the Geneva Convention, equipment deployed in the battlefield must not be lethally effective after a Peace Treaty has been signed. Cluster bombs usually don't explode when they fall, so when the war is over, there are many active ones left around.

They are designed to explode however. If weapons are banned under the geneva convention due to lethality after the war then the use of bombs, missiles, everything would be banned because there's always the chance for duds to be dropped. The geneva conventions don't ban cluster bombs.

IF they do ban cluster bombs then how come land mines aren't banned??? At any rate, the US will likely dispose of any leftover unexploded munitions ..

Re: Re: Cluster bombs

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Where are they prohibited in the geneva conventions? Also they're anti-armor cluster bombs (as opposed to being anti-personnel bomblets) being dropped on Iraqi armor positions outside of baghdad. Why would the US drop cluster bombs in cities when we're hesitant to even drop precision guided weapons in cities? Doesn't make much sense does it? Also the brits are using them too ... didn't hear much criticism directed at them Ah but yes the americans are of course targeting civilians cuz we're evil.

couldnt agree more!!

Not to forget but Israel used them in Lebanon-to devestating effect. Oh well the only lebanese the IDF killed were terrorists. And Phosporous bombs as well. I suspect we shall be seeing them used by Uncle Sam as well before this is over.

All this talk about avoiding killing civilians is a farce, a public relations scam. And every arab who turns on the news throughout the middle east knows this for a fact when Al-jazeera takes a trip to an Iraqi hospital.

Modern war american style is a one sided slaughter. I only wish there were "embedded" reporters with the Iraqi soldiers to see how one sided this is.

And then america has the temerity to label soldiers who fight without uniform or are suicide bombers as being terrorists. What is Iraq supposed to do?

That soldier who blew up a bunch of soldiers was a patriot. He will be the first of many. I can guarantee that even after Saddam and his lads are kaput the USA is going to taste first hand what happened to Israel in Southern Lebanon courtesy of Hezbollah.

Or better yet, to let the arabs use cluster bombs and phosporous bombs on US troops. Then the US public could see what it is really like to fight a modern war with primitive weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert All this talk about avoiding killing civilians is a farce, a public relations scam. And every arab who turns on the news throughout the middle east knows this for a fact when Al-jazeera takes a trip to an Iraqi hospital.

Okay now think about it logically what does killing a civilian do for the US? It really pisses off the surrounding countries as well as other countries that belive it's the only reason we get up in the morning, gives the peace activists ammunition(which they love, it gives them something to be taking a stand against.), and more importently in the long term it pisses off the other civilians, in the country the US is planning on rebuilding. Hence why iraq govt has been trying to maximize this number while the US has been trying to minimize it. Putting military depots/bases in hospitals schools mosques etc, human shields around targets of intrest, terrorist bombers feigning being civilians, fake surrenders, dressing up as civilians, hiding behind civilans taking pot shots, holding back civilians in war zones then releasing them in a big wave during combat, taking shots from civilian buildings then fleeing etc etc etc. Actually come to think of it your a prime example of iraqi pr victory in this regard.

quote:

Modern war american style is a one sided slaughter. I only wish there were "embedded" reporters with the Iraqi soldiers to see how one sided this is.

Gee your right those naughty Yanks shouldn't be using all those tanks, planes, and snazzy uniforms instead they should be using only what the iraqis have, becuase its just not fair otherwise!

quote:

And then america has the temerity to label soldiers who fight without uniform or are suicide bombers as being terrorists. What is Iraq supposed to do?

So they should be exempt from the international laws of war while you rag on the US to be perfect?

quote:

That soldier who blew up a bunch of soldiers was a patriot. He will be the first of many. I can guarantee that even after Saddam and his lads are kaput the USA is going to taste first hand what happened to Israel in Southern Lebanon courtesy of Hezbollah.

Maybe in your clearly fucked up mind he's a patriot to every sane person out there he's a murderer. Then again I guess if being a good Muslim like he wrote about involves killing us infidels. Then I could be persuaded into calling him a martyr after we fry the bastard. His family's excuse for the murders was that he was being made fun of... boo hoo. You sure sound cheerful at the prospect of future terrorism taking place against the US are you signing up or just cheering from the sidelines?

quote:

Or better yet, to let the arabs use cluster bombs and phosporous bombs on US troops. Then the US public could see what it is really like to fight a modern war with primitive weapons.

Again harping on the it's not fair arguement... well maybe the US should have dropped off war referees on dday to make those damn Germans up in those pillboxes get down and on the beach and force them to wait for the US troops to get off their transports and in a good position before shooting at them. Man what they did in reality was SO CHEAP!

quote:

Originally posted by rupert All this talk about avoiding killing civilians is a farce, a public relations scam. And every arab who turns on the news throughout the middle east knows this for a fact when Al-jazeera takes a trip to an Iraqi hospital.

Dude, you are just as bad as shlomo or tiesto14 ever was in your rhetoric. Yes a public relations SCAM. Our TRUE objective is to KILL civilians. Why we haven't carpet bombed baghdad or basrah I don't know. Why we even BOTHER using precision guided weaponry I DON'T KNOW! Jesus christ we've only killed about 500-600 civlians (according to johnsmith's body count site) and we've managed to kill many many times more republican guard units who have gotten in the way of our objective of killing civlians!! Goddammit try as we might, those civlians are just SO hard to hit! You're so blinded by your anti-Americanism that you have no grasp of reality. Much like GodlessCommie said what POSSIBLE gain would the US have by killing civlians??? We have EVERYTHING to gain by avoiding their deaths.

Well please explain this to me smartguy. If we don't care about avoiding civlian casualties WHY are we using bombs filled with concrete to bomb Baghdad to limit collateral damage????

quote:

Modern war american style is a one sided slaughter. I only wish there were "embedded" reporters with the Iraqi soldiers to see how one sided this is.

Yes then perhaps we would get a clearer glimpse of how the Iraqis are using hospitals, schools, and civilian areas to fight from. Maybe we would get a glimpse of how they are forcing civilians and their own forces to fight under the threat of death. Gee I wonder why they keep all the reporters cordoned off in Baghdad and only show them what they want them to see. Jesus christ even Al-Jazeera got banned!!

quote:

And then america has the temerity to label soldiers who fight without uniform or are suicide bombers as being terrorists. What is Iraq supposed to do? That soldier who blew up a bunch of soldiers was a patriot. He will be the first of many. I can guarantee that even after Saddam and his lads are kaput the USA is going to taste first hand what happened to Israel in Southern Lebanon courtesy of Hezbollah.

Agreed, the Iraqis should continue to enlist more "patriots" who use pregnant women civilians to draw in American troops before blowing up their suicide bombs. Their nobility is bringing out a tear in my eye ... how pathetic

quote:

Or better yet, to let the arabs use cluster bombs and phosporous bombs on US troops. Then the US public could see what it is really like to fight a modern war with primitive weapons.

Hmmmm this seems something similar to what the Kurds would have said about Iraq when they gassed them. Or how about those who revolted in the Basrah uprsing in 1991. It seems to me that Iraq had ZERO inhibitions with fighting a modern war against those with primitive weapons and THEN carrying that fight to civilians. I don't think your argument holds much water.

You seem to be like one of those 25% people in France who wish the US operation to fail. As IF their suffering under Saddam Hussein wasn't enough, let's cause lots of casualties among civilians and the american forces, and then RETURN those civlians to the rule of Saddam!!! If you think that way then YOUR true purpose isn't the welfare of the Iraqi people, your true purpose is your hatred for America. It's pathetic that people think that way. I can understand a desire to limit civlian casualties, but a desire for Saddam Hussein to win???? That's just plain ignorance.

Fine just bring it.

I didnt say the americans seek to deliberately kill civilians. Did I. What I did say was that avoiding killing civilians is a farce.

Which it is. If there is an Iraqi unit entrenched in a house or building or something and there are civilians nearby. Do you honestly expect me to believe that they wouldnt call down an airstrike or artillery and wipe them out. If civilians are in the area well too bad. If you cared about the civilians you wouldnt INVADE their country in the first place. All of those people who died from accidental missile strikes are dead not because of Saddam but because of the USA.

That is what this is an invasion, just like invading Panama and Vietnam.

Oh, then America talks about how its liberating the country finally putting an end to his wicked evil regime. Sure most of the punters in that country probably think good riddance to bad rubbish if Saddam goes but I am sure that they hate your lads just as much.

Well why didnt Uncle Sam invade when Saddam was killing the most people. When he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians. Yes America really cares about WMD. The americans provided intelligence to the Iraqi army so that they could better use said weapons on the Iranians. Why didnt America invade when Saddam ethnically cleansed the marsh arabs? When they used WMD on the Kurds? Because america doesnt care about them. Its not in americas interest. Saddams crimes and WMD are a pretext. For america to start talking about human rights giving crocodile tears to those people who have been murdered is sickening.

America doesnt care about democracy, it cares about getting governments in place that are loyal and compliant. Did america care about the civilians in Nicaragua who were being attacked by terrorists trained and funded in the USA? What about the democratically elected government of Chile which the americans helped overthrow to replace with a Pinochets dictatorship? No, thats fine because were doing it. If there was any real reciprocity the Nicaraguans should have had the opportunity to bomb America in retaliation.

What do you think every right wing military dictatorship sponsored by the USA does to its people.

Is all of what I said rhetoric. I could go on page after page after page of american atrocities waged against the poor and the weak of this world. But no one would listen, and to be blunt I doubt many americans really would care.

It just amazes me how people cant see what they do is wrong. Its wrong for someone to attack an american but it is perfectly okay for an american to do the same thing. Its like I said before its Doublethink.

Do you want to know why most of the world hates the United States? Because they are afraid of it.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Fine just bring it. I didnt say the americans seek to deliberately kill civilians. Did I. What I did say was that avoiding killing civilians is a farce. Which it is. If there is an Iraqi unit entrenched in a house or building or something and there are civilians nearby. Do you honestly expect me to believe that they wouldnt call down an airstrike or artillery and wipe them out. If civilians are in the area well too bad. If you cared about the civilians you wouldnt INVADE their country in the first place. All of those people who died from accidental missile strikes are dead not because of Saddam but because of the USA.

Avoiding killing civilians is a farce???? How can you still continue that argument?? YES we have hestitated from killing civilians because we HAVEN'T indiscrimantly bombed baghdad. NO we don't launch indiscriminnt artillery strikes into Baghdad. If we Sooo cared about the lives of our soldiers why don't we just BOMB baghdad into oblivion??? Why even BOTHER with military checkpoints when it just results in the possible deaths of our soldiers??? NEVER in military history as a nation in a major conflict taken such care in avoiding civilian casualties. Can you prove a counter-example??? The Iraqis STILL have anti-aircraft artillery ... don't you think that by day 17 we would have BOMBED them to nothingness if they weren't located in civilian territories??? And NOT invading a country for the express purposes of avoiding civilian casualties is a RETARDED reason. Then EVERY single war in the history of the planet is wrong because civilians die! All those innocent civilians who die AREN'T because the US invaded, it's because Saddam has chosen to be a coward and hide his forces behind them. Your cause and effect relationship is in error.

quote:

That is what this is an invasion, just like invading Panama and Vietnam. Oh, then America talks about how its liberating the country finally putting an end to his wicked evil regime. Sure most of the punters in that country probably think good riddance to bad rubbish if Saddam goes but I am sure that they hate your lads just as much.

Yes that explains why everybody in Iraq is protesting their love for Saddam and expressing desire for a return to his rule. Gimme a break ... you think the people of Iraq are better off under Saddam Hussein than even the most STRICTEST military rule of the us???

quote:

Well why didnt Uncle Sam invade when Saddam was killing the most people. When he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians. Yes America really cares about WMD. The americans provided intelligence to the Iraqi army so that they could better use said weapons on the Iranians. Why didnt America invade when Saddam ethnically cleansed the marsh arabs? When they used WMD on the Kurds? Because america doesnt care about them. Its not in americas interest. Saddams crimes and WMD are a pretext. For america to start talking about human rights giving crocodile tears to those people who have been murdered is sickening.

Well if you remember your history lessons, America was involved in something called the COLD WAR!!!! I'm sorry if we didn't pay much attention to Iraq at the time but all things cosidered since Europe and the rest of the world wasn't plunged into nuclear holacaust I think we did pretty well! Of course you wouldn't remember america's involvment in that matter since everything america has done for the world goes in one ear and right out the other. Jesus christ ... i wish we had abandoned europe.

quote:

Is all of what I said rhetoric. I could go on page after page after page of american atrocities waged against the poor and the weak of this world. But no one would listen, and to be blunt I doubt many americans really would care. It just amazes me how people cant see what they do is wrong. Its wrong for someone to attack an american but it is perfectly okay for an american to do the same thing. Its like I said before its Doublethink. Do you want to know why most of the world hates the United States? Because they are afraid of it.

So go on for page after page about the wrongdoings of America. While you're at it though, please provide 1 page ... no 1 PARAGRAPH of what good Iraq has done for the world. Then compile a list of what good America has done for the world over the past century. So the world is afraid of America now???? FINE personally I'm sick of the shit we get from the rest of the world and I would like nothing better than for us to forget about everyone else.

actually, anti-personnel landmines are banned by the OTTAWA treaty (or ottawa declaration, signed right here in our nation's capital, =P) in 1996... unfortunately america didn't sign, and is suspected of using them in iraq... amnesty international is monitoring their use constantly... check out www.amnesty.org and in all fairness, the UK didn't sign either and are suspected of using them too.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng...1256B66005B6D54 <-- an explaination of the ottawa treaty.

the treaty does not explicity ban cluster bombs, but if a bomb turns out to be a dud, then essentially it becomes a landmine.

indiscriminate weapons are banned by the genevea convention here:

"Under the Geneva Convention, Article 51 (4) Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, including:

"those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective" and "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol".

Consequently, in each case, the attacks "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.""

quote:

Originally posted by mr. poopyhead actually, anti-personnel landmines are banned by the OTTAWA treaty (or ottawa declaration, signed right here in our nation's capital, =P) in 1996... unfortunately america didn't sign, and is suspected of using them in iraq... amnesty international is monitoring their use constantly... check out www.amnesty.org and in all fairness, the UK didn't sign either and are suspected of using them too. http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng...1256B66005B6D54 <-- an explaination of the ottawa treaty. the treaty does not explicity ban cluster bombs, but if a bomb turns out to be a dud, then essentially it becomes a landmine. indiscriminate weapons are banned by the genevea convention here: "Under the Geneva Convention, Article 51 (4) Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, including: "those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective" and "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol". Consequently, in each case, the attacks "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.""

Actually Britain was a signatory. However, if you remember previous discussions, the reason why the US has not signed the Ottawa treaty is because the US currentely uses thousands of land mines in the DMZ of Korea in order to disuade the million man + army of the N. Koreans from invading South Korea. In that respect I think that it's a good decision and a good deterrant ... much like MAD was a good nuclear deterrant for avoiding a full out war between the Soviet Union and the United States.

And additionally cluster bombs are not indiscrimant in the sense that they are meant to target clusters of army vehicles in a given range. They are no different from regular bombs except their damage radius is larger. The same effect could probably be achieved with a 4000 pound bomb as opposed to a 500 pound bomb. However, these weapons are anti-armor as opposed to anti-personnel.

Well, the fact they're initially meant to be anti-armor weapons doesn't mean they're ineffective against civilians.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, the fact they're initially meant to be anti-armor weapons doesn't mean they're ineffective against civilians.

Well then you might as well ban bullets, artiller, mortars, and ALL bombs from the battlefield . Every bomb has a potential to be a dud. Shall we ban all bombs from warfare now? Anti-personnel mines are singled out because they are specifically designed to injure not kill many people. The reasoning behind that is that an injured soldier utilizes more resources than a dead one. The US is not using anti-personnel cluster bombs or mines, and we ARE being discriminant in our targets. Therefore we are not violating the geneva convenctions and in this case we are not even violating the ottawa treaty despite not having signed it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.