quote:
Originally posted by Fljotsdale:
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.
Fljotsdale you flatterer! [img]redface.gif[/img]
Actually on the "wholehearted" issue you're partly right. I find it hard to ignore the loss of innocent life, and the idea of Afghan children playing with bright yellow, unexploded cluster bombs is particularly chilling, but I was in favor of military action from the beginning.
Terrorism in the past few decades has progressed from small isolated incidents by individuals, to well orchestrated networks that can achieve military style results anywhere in the world. The escalation must be stopped now. I've posted it before and believe strongly that once terrorist get and detonate a nuclear device, it will be too late. Things will go bad very quickly without concern for innocents on all sides. I know it sounds like a doomsday scenario, but what happened on September 11th, would have been thought impossible by many 3 months ago.
I have thought for years, since the bombing of the US Marine Barricks in Beirut, that those countries that allow terrorist to operate within their borders should be "encouraged" to stop by more than economic pressure. I was amazed when Bush proposed action against nations that "harbor, support, and feed" the terrorists. I honestly think it's a good idea, whether or not it will work is another matter.
My main concern is that this will not be followed through on. The US and UN always seem to quit before completing a job. Stopping at a certain latitude or longitude, or creating "no-fly" zones won't accomplish this goal. If civilians are affected so drastically, it seems only fair that afterwards their country be given back to them and not left in the hands of those who initiated the hostilities to begin with. That to me would be infuriating
The Western Civilization has become so "civilized" it's forgotten what real warfare is, that it is death and destruction and not smart bombs from hundreds of miles away that only injure combatants. I'm not claiming to know personally, and I know you actually lived through the Second World War, so I don't presume to know more than you. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I do know that to win a war, you must fight a war. The term "police action" is popular, but in all of the police actions of the last 56 years, many have died with little achievement of the desired result.
This is why I say, it must be done correctly and completely.
[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]