quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
In theory America will become a safer nation because a terrorist stronghold has been eliminated, and then the coalition will continue to attack terrorist throughout the world. Whether that will work or not is anyone's guess because no one's ever tried it. Actually it's hard to determine because it has to be based on how thorough a job is done. Regardless, it will be more effective than doing nothing and just allowing the action to stand unpunished.
Giving terrorists the idea they can do what they want without fear of reprisal doesn't work. Before this action, terrorists have received little more than a "slap on the wrist" when their "punishment" is compared to their crimes. An unprovoked attack on US embassies, and an attack on the USS Cole that got a couple of Tomahawk missles fired into some deserted terrorist training camps. It's time they pay the price for their actions, and it's time those who harbor them find it unpleasant to do so.
The IRA isn't a good example in this situation because we aren't dealing with an internal problem or the right to freedom from an oppressive rule. No one was under American rule prior to September 11, and no one will be under our rule when it's over. Killing the IRA "on site" may not have worked, but neither has the negotiation process eliminated the problem. People still die.
About cluster bombs, I wasn't being evasive as to why they are used. I've posted it many times. They are more effective against certain targets, particularly soft targets, than any other ordnance. Cluster bombs are more efficient in killing troops than large bombs. They are also more effective against transport units, airfields, and supply depots.
I doubt those who are opposed to the bombing would be less offended if a big bomb killed civilians. It was a big bomb that hit the Red Cross station, not a cluster bomb. The people are just as dead, and it was just as unintentional. 
You can gang up on me if you like, I know you just need me to show you the "light". 
Y'know, I like you more and more, Ronn_Bman! [img]smile.gif[/img] You are not at all aggressive or inflammatory, and you make good, well reasoned points. I have also come to the conclusion that you do not really wholeheartedly approve of this war yourself, although you feel that since it has started it must continue. Am I correct?
I think most of us 'anti' people feel, about the cluster bombs, is that they are attractive to children, and children are likely to pick them up.
Calling these weapons "effective against 'soft targets'" is a somewhat roundabout way to say they are designed to kill
people out in the open. Troops, of course, being the initial target.
But they are, as you say, designed to cover a wide area when the carrier releases them. This is all well and 'good', I suppose, if only troops are killed - but that is not the case. Cluster bombs are an appalling weapon. Why not continue to use 'smart' missiles on troops? Surely they would kill as many troops and be far less danger to civilians and their children?
I take your point about the amout of civilian deaths that COULD have been inflicted if that was the US intention.