Cluster Bombs

[herbie]

Canada is one of 120 countries that have banned and condemned the use of cluster munitions. The USA now says it will supply those to Kiev.

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and ask the USA to reverse it's decision?

[Aristides]

Nasty weapons but a decision made more difficult because Russia has been using them. I'm not sure what we expect if we require Ukraine to continually fight with one hand tied behind its back. Lack of modern aircraft etc. The best way to end it is convince Russia as soon as possible that it cannot win.

[Moonbox]

30 minutes ago, herbie said:

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and ask the USA to reverse its decision?

Trudeau should keep his dumb mouth shut and let smarter people tell him what to say.

Worrying about using cluster weapons in Ukraine when Russia has used them liberally is nonsense.  

[Army Guy]

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

Canada is one of 120 countries that have banned and condemned the use of cluster munitions. The USA now says it will supply those to Kiev.

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and ask the USA to reverse it's decision?

Not sure why you think Justin or Canada has the Inter national reputation or pull to get that down... When most NATO countries think we are free loaders, and only interested into looking at inventive ways not to pay the agreed % of GDP

As NATO firms up military spending target, Canada is trying to broaden what counts: sources | Radio-Canada.ca

[CdnFox]

This is a total non issue for us.  The US didn't sign that, ukraine didn't sign that, Russia didn't sign that, they're already being used.

This is the biggest "non story" since the depleted uranium  issue came up.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and ask the USA to reverse its decision?

If there wasn’t a war, and if Russia wasn’t already using this kind of munitions, then i would say of course he should.  
 

But, they’re fighting for their lives.  Kill as many Russians as it takes for them to leave.  

[herbie]

So you're all saying is for him to NOT stand up for his ideology even if it's the policy of other NATO members too?
Or let Britain do it and appear like their underling colony?

And what's with the all-out war mentality - they did so we should too? Ukraine's out to kick Russia out, not force Russia's unconditional surrender.

The USA's now conditionally limited the policy. They'll stop sending cluster bombs once they can ramp up regular 155mm shell production.

[CdnFox]

Nato isn't fighting the war.   The us has bombs, the ukraine needs bombs, nothing illegal about it, send the bombs. Nobody cares.

I'm sure justin will make the appropriate squaks of disapproval once he's cleared it with biden.  But that's it. 

If he pushes too hard biden's gonna be like "Hey - next time you get scared by a balloon i'm not going to shoot it down for you if you don't behave.... "

[Perspektiv]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Ukraine's out to kick Russia out, not force Russia's unconditional surrender.

You will never kick out a foe like Russia out, unless you force it to its knees and provide them with an exit ramp in negotiations. 

[myata]

11 hours ago, herbie said:

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and (ask) demand

Russia, the fascist aggressor to stop using them and get out of Ukraine. Corrected, enjoy.

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

Canada is one of 120 countries that have banned and condemned the use of cluster munitions. The USA now says it will supply those to Kiev.

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and ask the USA to reverse it's decision?

Russia has been using these from the beginning of the war. How come nobody was complaining about it until now?

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

So you're all saying is for him to NOT stand up for his ideology even if it's the policy of other NATO members too?
Or let Britain do it and appear like their underling colony?

And what's with the all-out war mentality - they did so we should too? Ukraine's out to kick Russia out, not force Russia's unconditional surrender.

The USA's now conditionally limited the policy. They'll stop sending cluster bombs once they can ramp up regular 155mm shell production.

Which nation would get the most traction by releasing a statement, Canada or the UK...I think your over estimating Canada's reputation on the inter national stage...And we are their underling, by choices made by this nation.. If you don't play a any real role in global affairs how do you expect to be taken seriously on the global stage.

It is a weapon of war, an effective one for many reasons, hence why it was invented...why not use it...

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It is a weapon of war, an effective one for many reasons, hence why it was invented...why not use it...

The traditional concern is that the weapons can be dangerous long after the war is over.

But this is on their land, and they're willing to take that risk with full knowledge of it, and obviously they're prepared to take the steps necessary after the war to address that. 

 

That's their choice - it's not like they're bombing other countries with them.

[TreeBeard]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

So you're all saying is for him to NOT stand up for his ideology…

If it’s just his ideology, then he should shut his yap.  If it’s the position of Canada, then maybe he could say something about it, if the Russians weren’t killing people indiscriminately.

Once Russia leaves Ukraine, then Canada can make noises about getting rid of cluster bombs.  
 

Ukraine should tell Canada to shut up.  If Canadians were being killed, would we be on a high horse preaching about how we would never do this?   We’d be begging the USA to use nukes to defend their little buddies to the North!

Edited July 11, 2023 by TreeBeard

[Moonbox]

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If it’s just his ideology, then he should shut his yap.  If it’s the position of Canada, then maybe he could say something about it, if the Russians weren’t killing people indiscriminately.

It's a meaningless position - just empty virtue-signaling.  With Ukraine trying to penetrate 30km-deep minefields, the question of unexploded ordinance in Ukraine is sort of moot.  

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Ukraine should tell Canada to shut up.  If Canadians were being killed, would we be on a high horse preaching about how we would never do this?   We’d be begging the USA to use nukes to defend their little buddies to the North!

Ukraine can't tell anyone to shut up, else they risk losing material support.  The best we can hope for is that the Americans or our own politicians scold Trudeau for his vapid platitudes.  

Edited July 11, 2023 by Moonbox

[WestCanMan]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Canada is one of 120 countries that have banned and condemned the use of cluster munitions. The USA now says it will supply those to Kiev.

Should Trudeau stand up at the NATO meet and ask the USA to reverse it's decision?

1) He won't "stand up" ever

2) This is a surprisingly open-minded post from a leftist. I thought that you were supposed to follow the group-think about "Evil Russians who colluded with Trump", etc...

[herbie]

The treaty was signed long before Trudeau and endorsed by 123 countries, one of which was us. The PM is obligated to voice any objections. Only 4 NATO nations did not sign onto the treaty. So there's gonna be multiple objections, no one's going to "STFU".
But as there's clauses that allow cooperation with nations that aren't in the treaty, that's all that will happen. Ukraine isn't a NATO member, nor a signatory to the cluster weapon treaty.

Gee there's probably millions of gallons of napalm leftover from Vietnam war days. Anyone going to suggest using that as it was 'highly effective'? Don't think so, so labelling objecting to violating international treaties as "virtue signalling" is pretty crass.

BTW I'm proud to be a citizen of one of the 123 "left" signatory countries. Some people can't keep their left/right obsession out of a discussion, eh?

 

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

The treaty was signed long before Trudeau and endorsed by 123 countries, one of which was us. The PM is obligated to voice any objections.

He's not obligated to say anything.  He (or Canada rather) are only obligated by the treaty to not use them.  

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Gee there's probably millions of gallons of napalm leftover from Vietnam war days. Anyone going to suggest using that as it was 'highly effective'? Don't think so, so labelling objecting to violating international treaties as "virtue signalling" is pretty crass.

It's virtue signaling because it's nothing but a platitude.  His words carry no weight, and Ukraine's use of cluster weapons will not alter Canada's support.  The idea that Ukraine should abstain from using weapons that Russia has been freely using against them, on their own territory, is beyond goofy.  

1 hour ago, herbie said:

BTW I'm proud to be a citizen of one of the 123 "left" signatory countries. Some people can't keep their left/right obsession out of a discussion, eh?

It's hard for me to keep track of whether or not I'm a lefty or a righty with so many folk here falling into lazy reductionist framing.  

[Aristides]

If someone invaded my country and was using cluster munitions, I would damn well want to use them in return.

[herbie]

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't use them. I'm pointing out that the NATO nations that signed the treaty are obligated to make sure that is known. We're one of them.

I asked people for their opinions.

Shit, if someone was invading my country I'd be mixing rubber cement and gasoline in my shed to burn them out of their trenches because we're not supposed to use real napalm....

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, herbie said:

I'm pointing out that the NATO nations that signed the treaty are obligated to make sure that is known.

Why would they be obligated? under what law or the like would that 'obligation' come from?

We're not obligated to comment about how someone is violating a treaty they never signed.

[herbie]

You're being butt stubborn just to spite your face now. Arguing that there's no law that says you have to absolves ones responsibility to do so.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

You're being butt stubborn just to spite your face now. Arguing that there's no law that says you have to absolves ones responsibility to do so.

No, this is basic common sense and you're screwing it up.  You claim there is a 'responsibility'.  Well - responsibility doesn't just appear out of thin air.  Something CAUSES you to be responsible - a law, a condition of a contract, a commitment you made of some sort, or a promise - something creates a 'responsibility'.

So if there's a responsibility as you say - where does it come from? I see nothing that imparts ANY responsibility on Canada in this matter at all, so i'm wondering where you do.

[Army Guy]

On 7/11/2023 at 6:51 PM, herbie said:

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't use them. I'm pointing out that the NATO nations that signed the treaty are obligated to make sure that is known. We're one of them.

I asked people for their opinions.

Shit, if someone was invading my country I'd be mixing rubber cement and gasoline in my shed to burn them out of their trenches because we're not supposed to use real napalm....

 it's not written in the conventions or inter national law... it is just a treaty we agree to sign on to not to employ those weapons in a conflict. Which can be undone by simple agreement to take our signature off that treaty... 

Justin also signed a NATO agreement to spend 2 % then told the world nah i not going to do that...there are no real global consequences to using them... other than a hit to our nations reputation on the world stage ..

[herbie]

Not quite that simple a comparison, the two things have nothing to do with each other. Aside from the USA telling others you must do this, but we'll do as we please.
Only Russia and TRUMP are deplorable enough to just rip up treaties so callously.