Cluster Bombs

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, herbie said:

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.
 

The US isn't doing any such thing - they use cluster munitions and they're saying Ukraine can if they want,  they're not telling anyone what they must or must not do.  So i'm wondering why you think WE should be telling people what they can't do?

 

[herbie]

Oh the USA is using cluster bombs, won't sign a land mine treaty, tore up nuclear proliferation deals and is militarizing outer space. Such honourable things!
And as suckhole Canadians, we must emulate their every move?

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Oh the USA is using cluster bombs, won't sign a land mine treaty, tore up nuclear proliferation deals and is militarizing outer space. Such honourable things!
And as suckhole Canadians, we must emulate their every move?

War is war.

If there are going to be rules, then everyone must abide. If one party does not abide then all is open.

[herbie]

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

War is war.

If there are going to be rules, then everyone must abide. If one party does not abide then all is open.

Well I just pointed out someone who won't abide, didn't I?

So belittling any attempts to make rules by anyone else must be the way to go. Who dares defy King Shit?

Lucky the Geneva Convention was done by previous generations who held common sense above assholiness.

[Army Guy]

40 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh the USA is using cluster bombs, won't sign a land mine treaty, tore up nuclear proliferation deals and is militarizing outer space. Such honourable things!
And as suckhole Canadians, we must emulate their every move?

Not sure on what the issue is, there is no honor in war, nor is their certain weapons that are more honorable way to kill someone...dead is dead, when a nation declares war it tells it soldiers to close with and destroy our enemies, you can do that with a spoon, hammer, forklift, tank, or from space either way it ends up with the same result our enemies are stacked up like cord wood, dropped into a hole and buried...if your lucky... for many, some farmer might find your remains some 50 to 100 years later... 

Cluster munitions are documented killing more civilians than soldiers... almost every weapon kills more civilians than soldiers....   Fact is every conflict since the dawn of time civilians have died at a far higher rate than soldiers...Banning one weapon or system is not going to change that.... a new more effective one will take it's place...Have you seen what chemical weapons do to a person, they are not banned...and they kill everything that breaths air...in a very horrible way...

banning a few weapons is not going to change warfare or make it more human... it does the exact opposite...

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

And as suckhole Canadians, we must emulate their every move?

Canada chooses to be suckholes by failing to provide for their own national security

Canada deemed a 'military free rider' in WSJ op-ed

'Nations of the G-7 have an obligation to lead the way. If Canada doesn’t want to play that role, then the G-7 should consider a replacement.'

In a scathing op-ed, The Wall Street Journal has taken aim at Canada’s lack of defence spending and its missed NATO targets.

According to WSJ, Canada ranks sixth from NATO’s bottom in spending on defence as a share of GDP and its spending on military equipment is seventh lowest.

Noting Canada’s contributions to the Allied effort in Second World War, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes that “somewhere along the way (Canada) began to think of its membership as largely a place to rub shoulders with global powers and a platform for making moral pronouncements.”

For its part, the WSJ op-ed noted that while Ottawa could find its voice to speak out against cluster munitions, “asking its citizens to meet their actual obligations to the cause of freedom is apparently too much to ask.”

The WSJ op-ed also took aim at Trudeau’s 2021 mandate letter to Anita Anand, the Minister of National Defence of Canada, referring to the letter as a “cultural manifesto.”

In it, Trudeau said Anand’s immediate priorities were “to build an inclusive and diverse Defence Team, characterized by a healthy workplace free from harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct and violence.”

Those priorities, important as they may be, don’t hold the same urgency on Ukraine’s front lines, the op-ed notes, while also highlighting Russia’s increasing naval activity in the Arctic.

Writing that now is not the time to be shirking on defence spending, the op-ed notes that “Canada has also long been a free-rider off the U.S. military, which it knows stands guard over North America."

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-deemed-a-military-free-rider-in-wsj-op-ed

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Well I just pointed out someone who won't abide, didn't I?

So belittling any attempts to make rules by anyone else must be the way to go. Who dares defy King Shit?

Lucky the Geneva Convention was done by previous generations who held common sense above assholiness.

Easy now. This is a discussion..

I made a viable comment. If rules are not used by one side,  the the rules are useless.

The Geneva convention is being broken with every war by one side or the other. Don't be naive.

If there was no assholiness, then there would be no war .

Edited July 14, 2023 by ExFlyer
spelling corection

[herbie]

I know, and I agree with what you're saying. How many allied lives were save by the atom bomb? How many US lives saved by the use of napalm?

My objection are entirely to those who think we have to STFU and not speak objections to what others are doing? Do we STFU about Russia targeting daycares and hospitals, to Saddam using mustard gas or to Syria using fuel-air on its enemies because "war is war"? Of course we don't!

Not like there was zero opposition in the US House over sending cluster bombs to Ukraine either.

I already stated that if it were a last resort weapon for us, in deperation we'd ignore out own signing. Just like Hiroshima and Dresden, but this Ukraine war doesn't yet meet the terms of a "total" war

[Dougie93]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

I already stated that if it were a last resort weapon for us, in deperation we'd ignore out own signing. Just like Hiroshima and Dresden

neither Hiroshima nor Dresden violated the relevant laws of armed conflict

bombardment falls under the statutes of the Hague Conventions

the Hague Conventions stated that so long as the enemy was defending the target

unrestricted bombardment was lawful

it is only unlawful under said laws of armed conflict to bombard an undefended target

[Dougie93]

59 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure on what the issue is, there is no honor in war, nor is their certain weapons that are more honorable way to kill someone...dead is dead, when a nation declares war it tells it soldiers to close with and destroy our enemies, you can do that with a spoon, hammer, forklift, tank, or from space either way it ends up with the same result our enemies are stacked up like cord wood, dropped into a hole and buried...if your lucky... for many, some farmer might find your remains some 50 to 100 years later... 

Cluster munitions are documented killing more civilians than soldiers... almost every weapon kills more civilians than soldiers....   Fact is every conflict since the dawn of time civilians have died at a far higher rate than soldiers...Banning one weapon or system is not going to change that.... a new more effective one will take it's place...Have you seen what chemical weapons do to a person, they are not banned...and they kill everything that breaths air...in a very horrible way...

banning a few weapons is not going to change warfare or make it more human... it does the exact opposite...

it's important to understand that the laws of armed conflict do not prohibit the killing of civilians per se

the laws of armed conflict only state that ;

your strikes must be a military necessity

that they must be proportionate to the threat

and that you are not deliberately targeting civilians as an operational imperative

so long as those thresholds are met, killing of civilians in war is lawful

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh the USA is using cluster bombs, won't sign a land mine treaty, tore up nuclear proliferation deals and is militarizing outer space. Such honourable things!
And as suckhole Canadians, we must emulate their every move?

We're not using clusterbombs, we did sign the land mine treaty and we're not involved in any proliferation deals.  How are we "emulating" them?

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

the laws of armed conflict only state that ;

your strikes must be a military necessity

that they must be proportionate to the threat

and that you are not deliberately targeting civilians as an operational imperative

Oh yes... Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay would've never overstepped those terms would they... everyone can "justify" any behaviours at any time. Even I said such in previous posts.
Even to keeping your mouth shut when others do things you don't like, bur that doesn't make what they're doing moral or "right" (as in correct - not as in politics).

They spoke up. That it didn't matter isn't the point, that they should have and did is.
 

Edited July 14, 2023 by herbie

[Dougie93]

30 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh yes... Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay would've never overstepped those terms would they... everyone can "justify" any behaviours at any time. Even I said such in previous posts.
Even to keeping your mouth shut when others do things you don't like, bur that doesn't make what they're doing moral or "right" (as in correct - not as in politics).

They spoke up. That it didn't matter isn't the point, that they should have and did is.
 

the argument against cluster munitions is not really a legal issue

the laws of armed conflict do not prohibit their use

even if Ukraine was signatory to the CCM, which they are not

the laws of armed conflict only protect those who follow the law

so as the Russians use cluster munitions, they are not protected from retaliatory use against them

the argument against using them is much more practical

in that, the Ukrainians are not going to be dropping these bombs on Russia

rather, they will be dropping them on Ukraine

so it becomes Ukraine's burden, in terms of the decades long UXO clearance operation to come in the wake

thus, this might actually be a signal by Ukraine

that they no longer expect nor intend to take back the Donbass & Crimea

they may be calculating that as being an unattainable objective

thus the use of cluster munitions is in essence scorched earth

the Ukainians don't plan to have to clear this UXO

because they expect that the territory that they are going to bomb with them

has been de facto annexed for all time by now

so it will be the Russians problem to clear this UXO in the end

Edited July 15, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

55 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh yes... Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay would've never overstepped those terms would they...
 

Arthur Harris & Curtis LeMay were quite different

in terms of Harris, his marching orders came from Churchill

Winston's overriding strategic imperative at the time being ; keeping Stalin onside

Stalin demanded that the British do something in the West, while the Soviets bled in the East

Dresden for example was to appease Stalin

because Dresden was a staging area for German forces bound for the East

Canada too signed up for this terror bombing option, but for different reasons

because MacKenzie-King feared that Quebec would revolt in the face of attrition

so bombing was Canada's plan to keep Canadian boots off the ground for as long as possible

thus on the British side, it was pure political calculation

whereas in the case of General LeMay, he believed that attempts to make war more humane were misguided

General LeMay believed that the longer a war went on, the more people were killed

so bringing the war to an end as soon as possible, by any means, including nuclear weapons,was paramount

Edited July 15, 2023 by Dougie93

[August1991]

On 7/11/2023 at 1:14 PM, Army Guy said:

....

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

If the purpose of this war is regime change - taking out Putin - then this escalation is an obvious step.

=====

The wars of 1914-1945 started by a dramatic event - like the sinking of the Titanic.

And like the Napoleonic Wars - or the Thirty Years War.

But at the time, everyone thought the escalation was minor.  Or they thought it would be a short war.

[Dougie93]

Just now, August1991 said:

If the purpose of this war is regime change - taking out Putin - then this escalation is an obvious step.

but Putin is the one who initiated the war

thus he is what ?

trying to overthrow himself ?

[August1991]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but Putin is the one who initiated the war

thus he is what ?

trying to overthrow himself ?

In your opinion.

Many people view the history of Crimea, the Donbass, Galicia differently.

And more critically, they view the world differently: a world where people negotiate.

====

Our elite diplomats politicians could have avoided this terrible civil war; that now has horrific potential for the rest of us.

Edited July 15, 2023 by August1991

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

In your opinion.

Many people view the history of Crimea, the Donbass, Galicia differently.

And more critically, they view the world differently: a world where people negotiate.

====

Our elite diplomats politicians could have avoided this terrible civil war; that now has horrific potential for the rest of us.

that's a sadly pedestrian analysis for one of your intellectual measure

methinks you are simply overcome by your priggish Canadian anti-Americanism

the Canadian pathology which only harms itself

[August1991]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

that's a sadly pedestrian analysis for one of your intellectual measure

methinks you are simply overcome by your priggish Canadian anti-Americanism

the Canadian pathology which only harms itself

On the contrary. I'm very pro-American. I admire the US Constitution - its first amendments.

Heck, while Americans are often loud, I generally like them. 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Heck, while Americans are often loud, I generally like them. 

sneering from your absurd Canadian high horse, most ridiculous prigs on the face of the earth

[August1991]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

sneering from your absurd Canadian high horse, most ridiculous prigs on the face of the earth

Leftist Americans! See yourself!

=====

Truthfully, I have no idea what is going on but I have a suspicion:

Biden wants to take Putin down. Why? Because competitive people like Biden are like that.

Moreover, Putin is supposedly anti-gay - so Biden has many westerners on his side.

Lastly, Biden (and the US Democrats) are now like Putin: my way or the highway. Except Putin only wants to control Russia, Biden and the US Democrats want to control/change the world.

[August1991]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:30 PM, 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?

Absolutely.

=====

Lester Pearson - a soldier in World War I - won a Nobel Prize because he managed to make leaders of other countries negotiate. 

[BeaverFever]

It’s unfortunate that Ukraine wants to use them and it is our moral responsibility to make our views known but that’s all. We said our piece and didn’t make a big deal out of it and didn’t make it a deal -breaker for our continued support . Done.  
 

As has been pointed out, neither Ukraine nor USA have signed the treaty on cluster munitions. Furthermore the reason cluster munitions are controversial is because of the risk the unexploded bomblets pose to the civilian population ie the Ukrainian people in this case so Ukraine using cluster munitions at the risk of harming Ukrainian people while defending said civilians from a murdering and  invading army that is already using cluster munitions is a different situation than when USA was dumping cluster munitions on places like Iraq and Afghanistan and killing locals. 

Edited July 16, 2023 by BeaverFever

[herbie]

14 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s unfortunate that Ukraine wants to use them and it is our moral responsibility to make our views known but that’s all. We said our piece and didn’t make a big deal out of it and didn’t make it a deal -breaker for our continued support . Done.  

One person, just one who can see the point I was making and respond to that point.

What Churchill or Truman did 80 years ago or if some other country didn't sign the treaty isn't relevant to 'if we have a duty to speak up cuz we agreed to it'.

[August1991]

On 7/14/2023 at 10:12 PM, BeaverFever said:

It’s unfortunate that Ukraine wants to use them and it is our moral responsibility to make our views known but that’s all. We said our piece...

So many young boys have died. mothers/wives changed.

This is an escalation in an avoidable civil war - with potential horrific world effects.

====

I was in Crimea in 2014. Russia. I flew from Moscow. Obama was president.

=====

This war (2021) is a result of the Biden administration. It could have been avoided.