Why?

Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: What WoMD are we going to use against Saddam? Do you know something that I don't?

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?[/QUOTE]You are saying we should fight only with those weapons that the UN allows Iraq?

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man.

[ 03-05-2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: What WoMD are we going to use against Saddam? Do you know something that I don't?

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?[/QUOTE]You are saying we should fight only with those weapons that the UN allows Iraq?

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man. [/QUOTE]I remember reading an unsubstantiated report that upwards of 30,000 Taliban were killed because of bombs in the U.S. air campaign in Afganistan.

Regardless, I think you are SERIOUSLY downplaying the devestation of bombs. As I recall one stray bomb during the gulf war killed hundreds of Iraqi as they hid in a shelter.

Also clusterbombs have a long lasting residual effects on population, although the EU and UN have called for a moritorum on these weapons, the U.S. still uses them.

Bombs don't just kill a few people, especially when hundreds of bombs are falling day in and day out.

I think you may benifit from some perspective as well.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: What WoMD are we going to use against Saddam? Do you know something that I don't?

Well, maybe bombs aren't WoMD (though in my oppinion they are) but we are going to bomb them with that kind of missiles Saddam isn't allowed to have. Or not?[/QUOTE]We will not use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against Iraq. Those are the weapons of mass destruction we hear so much about, and those are the weapons Iraq is not allowed to have, and they are also not allowed to have delivery devices for WoMD, so to answer your question, "no we will not bomb Iraq with the kind of weapons they are not allowed to have."

Now if you are talking about the Al-Samoud missiles, our missiles do far exceed the distance of the Al-Samoud II's. Iraq is not allowed to have missiles whose range exceeds 150K because of their history of attacking and invading their neighbors, and their history of using chemical and biological while attacking. This was a term of the ceasefire the Iraqis agreed to.

We will also use the NO-Fly Zone which Iraq isn't allowed to use, too. That zone was set up post-Gulf War in the North after Iraq began killing the Kurds... again. The southern No-Fly Zone was set up to protect the Shiites who were being massacred. The Iraqis submit to this because when they don't, their pilots die and their planes are destroyed.

We will also use some weapons the Iraqis never showed interest in.... weapons designed to minimize civilian casualities. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I remember reading an unsubstantiated report that upwards of 30,000 Taliban were killed because of bombs in the U.S. air campaign in Afganistan. The Taliban were the enemy, we were aiming at them. Regardless, I think you are SERIOUSLY downplaying the devastation of bombs. As I recall one stray bomb during the gulf war killed hundreds of Iraqi as they hid in a shelter. I don't think anyone here is saying bombs aren't devastating. They are after all bombs. Also clusterbombs have a long lasting residual effects on population, although the EU and UN have called for a moritorum on these weapons, the U.S. still uses them. The US and EU and UN don't always agree. The US doesn't use cluster bombs against population centers, but they are an essential weapon against soft targets which includes soldiers, vehicles, airfields, lightly armored vehicles, etc. Bombs don't just kill a few people, especially when hundreds of bombs are falling day in and day out. Today's bombs accidentally kill far fewer innocents than would have ever been thought possible. There was a time when entire civilian populations centers were killed purposely by both Allies and Axis. To claim that today's war weapons aren't perfect is to be correct but to ignore the fact that more effort goes into trying to save innocents during war now than at any other time in history is to completely ignore the truth. We don't live in a perfect world, and while we all wish we did, it doesn't make sense to pretend we do.

[ 03-05-2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Timber Loftis]

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Good Points Ronn. I like bombs. We're sending bombers to N.K. I like that a LOT better than sending troops. While there may be more residual collateral damage, we are less likely to loose troops.

Except where combined arms are concerned. Though the "soldier spotter/ airplane shooter/bomber" combo developed as "combined arms" warfare in Vietnam certainly has come a long way, there are still too many deaths caused by "friendly fire." The term "friendly fire," BTW, goes up there with Military Intelligence on the list of oxymorons.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I don't think anyone here is saying bombs aren't devastating. They are after all bombs.

As for what YOU think are weapons of mass destruction, I think you need to learn a little bit about "scale" killing a couple or a dozen people with a single bomb is far different from killing tens of thousands or even millions.....get a bit of perspective man.

Um, I was replying to this in case you didnt notice.

anyway, continuing off-topic...I am continually suprised that any person who considers themselves "of conscience" would support using clusterbombs after surmising the historical and imperical facts about them. Here is site that is related to a documentry that aired on PBS a while back. They clearly have a long-lasting and devestating impact in any Nation they are used.

http://www.itvs.org/bombies/bombs.html
Warning-grim scenes of children who found the baseball sized "bombies"!

Cluster bombs are small explosive bomblets carried in a large cannister that opens in mid-air, scattering them over a wide area. The bomblets may be delivered by aircraft, rocket, or by artillery projectiles. The CBU (cluster bomb unit) 26, which was widely used in Laos, is an anti-personnel fragmentation bomb that consists of a large bombshell holding 670 tennis ball-sized bomblets, each of which contain 300 metal fragments. If all the bomblets detonate, some 200,000 steel fragments will be propelled over an area the size of several football fields, creating a deadly killing zone. Because the fragments travel at high velocity, when they strike people they set up pressure waves within the body that do horrific damage to soft tissue and organs: even a single fragment hitting somewhere else in the body can rupture the spleen, or cause the intestines to explode. This is not an unfortunate, unintended side-effect; these bombs were designed to do this. During its wars in Indochina, the U.S. dropped enormous amounts of cluster bombs. A B-52 bomber fitted with two Hayes dispensers could drop 25,000 bomblets on a single bombing run. It's estimated that some 90 million CBU-26 bomblets were dropped on Laos (and the CBU-26 is just one of 12 different kinds of cluster bombs that have been recovered there to date). Because cluster bombs disperse widely and are difficult to target precisely, they are especially dangerous when used near civilian areas. In addition, they are prone to failure: if the container opens at the wrong height, or the bomblets don't fuse properly, or their descent is broken by trees, or they land on soft ground - they may not detonate. With a high dud rate estimated to be 10 to 30 percent, unexploded cluster bombs lay on the ground becoming, in effect, super landmines, and can explode at the slightest touch. They have proven to be a serious, long-lasting threat, especially to civilians, but also to soldiers, peacekeepers and bomb clearance experts. Children, who are sometimes attracted to the bomblets' bright colors and interesting shapes, represent a high percentage of victims. Cluster bomblets become less stable - and more dangerous - as time passes. In Laos, nearly every day people are still being killed from bombs dropped 30 years ago. With an estimated 10 million (or more) unexploded cluster bombs, it could be many decades - or even centuries - until the killing is over. There are many different kinds of cluster bombs. The WDU-4, used in Indochina, contained 6,000 barbed metal darts which were released overhead. Eyewitness accounts tell of the WDU-4 literally nailing people to the ground. The CBU- 41 has bomblets filled with naplam, the CBU-89 disperses mines, and the Honest John carries 368 bomblets filled with sarin nerve gas. The CBU-87, widely used by the U.S. during the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, and the war in Afghanistan, has three kill mechanisms: anti-personnel (for people), anti-armor (for tanks), and incendiary (setting the target area on fire). The B1 bomber can carry enough cluster bombs to turn an area the size of 350 football fields into a killing zone. The Consequences Wherever they been used - Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Ethiopia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, unexploded cluster bombs have created problems for civilians: During the Gulf War over 30 million cluster bomblets were dropped on Kuwait and Iraq and, in the following months, unexploded bombs killed 1,600 civilians and injured another 2,500. According to a recent study by the Red Cross, children in Kosovo are five times more likely to be killed or injured by a NATO-dropped unexploded cluster bomb than by a Serbian landmine. Today, in Afghanistan, reports indicate that the U.S. use of cluster bombs is causing the same kinds of tragic consequences for civilians there as they did in other countries. Because cluster bombs are area weapons with a wide dispersal pattern, they kill living things indiscriminately, including civilians. And their high-failure rate means that the killing of innocent people will continue long after the bombs stop dropping. Cluster Bombs Today Their current use in Afghanistan is helping to focus the world's attention on cluster bombs. Many feel that their impact on civilians is unacceptable and a breach of international humanitarian law. More than 50 international organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Mennonite Central Committee, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Committee to Ban Landmines have called for a moratorium on cluster bomb use. And, in spite of the fact that cluster bombs are one of the favorite and most deadly weapons in the U.S. and NATO arsenals, on December 13, 2001 the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for an immediate global moratorium on their use to be followed by an outright ban.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: The Taliban were the enemy, we were aiming at them.

Actually Al-Queda and terrorists are the Enemy along with the Taliban leadership who supported Al queda.

This has nothing to due with the moral implications of obliberating thousands of conscript soldiers who cared little about Al queda and typically served the Taliban out of fear and poverty.

Whether they were hard-core loyalists or poor conscripts, I call the kind of bombing that kills thousands without recourse or defense "mass destruction".

[Timber Loftis]

With a 10-30% dud rate (assuming its accurate), I will agree that cluster bombs should not be used. But, you should also agree that in combat there should be a way to attack soft targets. If not cluster bombs, how else to ferret the enemy out of rugged terrain and/or vegetative cover?

[Animal]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: With a 10-30% dud rate (assuming its accurate), I will agree that cluster bombs should not be used. But, you should also agree that in combat there should be a way to attack soft targets. If not cluster bombs, how else to ferret the enemy out of rugged terrain and/or vegetative cover?

I'm sure the US must have a stash of Agent Orange left over from Vietnam. That stuff worked real well, just ask some Vietnam vets. Only problem is, it couldn't tell the difference between vegetation and skin. Actually, it's starting to sound a lot like a chemical weapon, but the US would never use a weapon like that.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: With a 10-30% dud rate (assuming its accurate), I will agree that cluster bombs should not be used. But, you should also agree that in combat there should be a way to attack soft targets. If not cluster bombs, how else to ferret the enemy out of rugged terrain and/or vegetative cover?

While I am no expert on military topics, (unless fairly avid wargaming counts),
Fuel air bombs will kill alot of people over a large area, and while still technically causing mass destruction, the only residual effects are fire and ash.

Also what about *gasp* ground forces.