Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ykickamoocow

The Usual Suspects - The W#nker Nations

Recommended Posts

the better the weapons the sooner the conflict is over

The Germans thought something similar before they attacked France in 1914. Look how well that little conflict turned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is pure baloney, there is no need for cluster bombs at all. They are nothing more than an indiscriminate killing tool, with no accuracy guarantee at all. Bombs may be nasty, but they are easier to control.

Half correct. They indiscriminately maim and kill anything that is in the area they are dropped in. When correctly deployed, the occupants of the target area are an opposing force. Hence there is discrimination as to what they hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they spread over a wide area? oopsie we have dead civilians.

If they where used on something like an airbase, a military depot, ETC I would agree with you, but they are far too indiscriminate to be used in any urban environments (which is where the majority of the war in iraq is being fought)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a bit more reading and it appears the initial motivation for this treaty was to stop the use of cluster bombs that cause an unacceptable level of civilian casualties. I think this intent is good.

The posted article implied the treaty imposed a blanket ban on cluster bombs. My objection to this was that there are some scenarios in which cluster bombs fill a legitimate and important role. It is my opinion that deficiencies in this type of weapon should be improved upon, rather than an outright ban. After reading other sources, it appears that this is actually what the treaty is trying to achieve. The definition they have used for banned cluster munitions does not include munitions that meet all of the following: [1]

  1. Each munition contains fewer than 10 explosive submunitions
  2. Each explosive submunition weighs more than four kilograms
  3. Each explosive submunition is designed to detect and engage a single target object
  4. Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-destruction mechanism
  5. Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature

[1] http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/S...MayRev1_000.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to die, I don't want my mates to die.

Then dont do war...but then again we arrive to the REAL stuff again...world cant live without wars I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Germans thought something similar before they attacked France in 1914. Look how well that little conflict turned out.

The two Atomic bombs used in Japan proved the Germans to be right, without thoses bombs probably the war would have extended for several more years while after that Japan surrendered in a few days, some people believe that while killing thousands thoses bombs also saved many lives by shortening the war and there others who believe that without that experience the world could have lived a worse situation like the when the Cuban crisis the world was just a blink away from the atomic war and just the knowledge we gto from Japan persuated thoses countries from using the atomic bombs again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Germans thought something similar before they attacked France in 1914. Look how well that little conflict turned out.

Sorry Ykick, for every example you can dig up that disputes that, and you could have used many others (Vietnam is a good example, napalm didn't work), there's many others that back it up - with clusters in mind in particular, if they're used (for a tactical example) on landing strips they prevent troops being re-supplied, this helps to shorten conflict - your battles are being won faster. Sadly, many on here are right, they are used too often without thought for innocent people.

But we'll all just back what we choose, so a pointless argument. No offence.

As Ecap said, and I agree, that war is a horrible reality that's not going to go away, so unless Governments say, "we'll not fight anyone, ever" then all countries will try to be in a position to protect their people (or interests.....), and many will use whatever means they have to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAIT...

I'm a little confused

Can someone tell me... "What is a winker ( ;) ) nation????"

Are they being flirtatious ??? or Just real friendly??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problems with the use of this type of munition. They have a legitimate use - as is explained in the article. We're talking war here! It isn't glamorous. It's no sunshine and lollipops exercise. When the situation arises where you would want to use this weapon, you are trying to maim or kill an advancing force as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That's what it does.

Ok, it isn't glamorous but they are making World War I and II look glamorous these days.

On the matter I think Spain voted for the ban but I heard we produce and sell that type of bombs. I hope we stop that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of those that do (and have signed) have the luxury of relying on America to bail them out in the event of a war.

Agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the United States will no doubt welcome a provision that allows states that adopt the treaty to "engage in military cooperation and operations with States not parties to this Convention." That would let signatories partner with the Americans in military and humanitarian operations, despite U.S. use of cluster munitions, without penalty

Isn't this the most glaring example of hypocrisy. Countries sign up against use of cluster bombs but can align, without penalty, with countries militarily (e.g. US) that do use such weapons. Presumably military cooperation could involve one of the partners' use of such weapons.

So why are countries signing this agreement? To make themselves feel better morally? As long as they don't use them but it's okay if one of their allies use them. It smacks of the same double standards as countries who are vehemently "opposed" to nuclear weapons (won't name them) but are covered by the so called umbrella protection of other nuclear weaponed states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of those that do (and have signed) have the luxury of relying on America to bail them out in the event of a war.

I dont think Australia rely on the USA to bail us out in the event of war as history says that when it comes down to it the USA are very unwilling to go to war. America is very happy to attack nations which they perceive are weaker (Vietnam and Iraq) but when there is a serious war going on (WW1 and WW2) the USA try and avoid it. If Australia was attacked i know we could count on New Zealand's and England's help but i wouldnt be holding my breath for the USA to help us out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think Australia rely on the USA to bail us out in the event of war as history says that when it comes down to it the USA are very unwilling to go to war. America is very happy to attack nations which they perceive are weaker (Vietnam and Iraq) but when there is a serious war going on (WW1 and WW2) the USA try and avoid it. If Australia was attacked i know we could count on New Zealand's and England's help but i wouldnt be holding my breath for the USA to help us out.

It was an isolationist policy that you can blame, but you cannot deny that once we enter, we go in to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was an isolationist policy that you can blame, but you cannot deny that once we enter, we go in to win.

Yes but the USA periodically go into the isolationist phases at very inconvenient times. The USA are not the type of allies which you can always expect to help you in your time of need. They will only help if they perceive that it is in their best interest to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but the USA periodically go into the isolationist phases at very inconvenient times. The USA are not the type of allies which you can always expect to help you in your time of need. They will only help if they perceive that it is in their best interest to do so.

I cannot contest that. All nations act in their best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot contest that. All nations act in their best interests.

Not always. Lets look at WW1 and all the countries which were nowhere near the battle and were not in danger but still decleared war on Germany.

Australia

Canada

India

New Zealand

South Africa

None of those countries were anywhere near the battle but they still decleared war on Germany to help out the Allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We didn't go into the damn war out of our own volition. The damn crown declared war on our behalf :S

Well i dont know alot about Indian history so i will have to take your word for it. All the others though were independant countries capable of making their own decisions. They still decided to go to war with Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would South Africa have brought to the battle?

Dont know. But i am certain that Australia, New Zealand and Canada all had free will. All 3 countries were not at risk and yet they still decided to declear war on Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i dont know alot about Indian history so i will have to take your word for it. All the others though were independant countries capable of making their own decisions. They still decided to go to war with Germany.

A little history lesson for you:

- Canada was "automatically" at war when Britain was at war in 1914.

- At the time Canada had a regular army of only 3,110 men and a fledgling navy, but within a few weeks more than 32,000 men gathered at Valcartier Camp and within two months the First Contingent, Canadian Expeditionary Force, was on its way to England in the largest convoy ever to cross the Atlantic.

-saw action near St. Eloi and at Polygon Wood in the Ypres Salient in France in December 1914.

and in February 1915, the 1st Canadian Division reached France.

I am from Newfoundland, Canada. At the time Newfoundland was still a separate British self governing colony. Newfoundland hsad very strong ties with Canada at the time and a suggestion that Newfoundland's men should be incorporated into the Canadian Expeditionary Force had earlier been politely but firmly rejected.

Newfoundlanders fought in WW1 ... refer to the Battle of Beaumont Hamel

Dont know. But i am certain that Australia, New Zealand and Canada all had free will. All 3 countries were not at risk and yet they still decided to declear war on Germany.

I do not agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The american nation never helps anyone. They try and kid ignoramuses that Iraq was about Saddam but anyone with a brain knows that it was not. Pol Pot committed atrocities in Cambodia far worse than Saddam did in Iraq, and the US never stepped in once. Why? because Cambodia never had any national resources they could get their hands on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The american nation never helps anyone. They try and kid ignoramuses that Iraq was about Saddam but anyone with a brain knows that it was not. Pol Pot committed atrocities in Cambodia far worse than Saddam did in Iraq, and the US never stepped in once. Why? because Cambodia never had any national resources they could get their hands on.

Tell that to the tsunami victims.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dis_tsu_...i-funds-pledged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funds, and military support are a totally different matter. Please don\'t tell me you are in the portion of yanks that are seriously dumb enough to think this war is about helping iraq, because if you believe that it is truly an insult to your intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...