Cluster Bombs and Food Packages

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


May I respectfully suggest that an option might be to use weaponry that is rather less inimical to civilians than cluster bombs?

If you are trying to avoid civilian casualties, why use weapons that you cannot control? These bombs are a very far cry from the 'smart' weapons that the US govt was making such a point of in the early days of this ridiculous and tragic 'war'.

---

Other options may be possible, but nothing is going to eliminate civilian casualties. No matter how desirable it is, it is an impossibility with today's technology.

"Smart" weapons are only a small percentage of weapons used. They are used on precision targets and in populated areas to minimize the possibility of civilian injury, but they don't always work. We are proud of them for the possibility they represent, and they are a great tool, but they are nothing more or less than a weapon of war.

Weapons of war are weapons of destruction. These weapons are not as indiscriminant as they were even a generation ago, but they are still intended to kill.

[skywalker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


Yorick, I think you should apologize for that post, I think it's a pretty bad insult, I would certainly feel hurt if anyone suggested that I was siding with Bin Laden or supporting his actions.

---

Neb! Being one who had been accused in a similar way weeks ago, I wholeheartedly agree with you. He does owe Cheetah a BIG apology. Those kind of accusations are totally unnecessary and callous.

[Chewbacca]

Carpet bombing, cluster bombs, egad!
Lets bring back napalm while were at it!
Its a shame there is no jungle in Afganistan or we could de-foliate as well. Agent orange anyone?

ok, I'm being sarcastic, but its in the spirit of irony that bombs and food are being dropped simultaneously and are packaged in the same color. Time to sat I told ya so... Well, well if we hadnt rushed into war, normal supplies of relief could be getting into Afganistan. To think my favorite charity is "Food, not Bombs". That has a new meaning to me now.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
To my mind, the use of cluster bombs removes all credibility from the American and British govts claims to be proceeding with due care and respect for civilian lives.

What utter nonsense. No-one is forcing them to use these disgusting weapons.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

---

Due care and respect doesn't mean they figured out a way to completely eliminate civilian casualties. After a month of bombing, the number of civilian casualties is incredibly low. If they were indiscriminately bombing, the number could easily be into the thousands by now.

A bomb drops into an Afghan city and accidently kills 10 people. If we wanted to kill people in cities do you think 10 at the time, or even a thousand, is the best we could do? Of course not, you are just appalled by the loss of human life as am I, but it's important to keep things in perspective.

While no one is "forcing" them to do it, Osama Bin Laden certainly forced "our hand". Before September 11th, we were using the smartest bombs of all in Afghanistan...no bombs. The only coalition force in Afghanistan prior to September 11th was distributing food. September 11th changed things in a way no previous terrorist attack on American's had. Put the blame where you will.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Due care and respect doesn't mean they figured out a way to completely eliminate civilian casualties. After a month of bombing, the number of civilian casualties is incredibly low. If they were indiscriminately bombing, the number could easily be into the thousands by now.

A bomb drops into an Afghan city and accidently kills 10 people. If we wanted to kill people in cities do you think 10 at the time, or even a thousand, is the best we could do? Of course not, you are just appalled by the loss of human life as am I, but it's important to keep things in perspective.

While no one is "forcing" them to do it, Osama Bin Laden certainly forced "our hand". Before September 11th, we were using the smartest bombs of all in Afghanistan...no bombs. The only coalition force in Afghanistan prior to September 11th was distributing food. September 11th changed things in a way no previous terrorist attack on American's had. Put the blame where you will.

---

Sorry, Afghani civilians are not, and never will be, Osama bin Laden. As for the civilian numbers, there is no guarantee whatsoever they are accurate. After the barefaced lies America told about civilian casualities in the Gulf War, I am afraid I have turned a wee bit cynical.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Sorry, Afghani civilians are not, and never will be, Osama bin Laden. As for the civilian numbers, there is no guarantee whatsoever they are accurate. After the barefaced lies America told about civilian casualities in the Gulf War, I am afraid I have turned a wee bit cynical.

---

No the Afghan civilians are not Osama and are not responsible for what he's done, but their government is responsible and harbors this one man to the detriment of their innocent population.

There is no way of knowing if the casualty numbers are correct, but even if you take the Taliban's count, it's still incredibly low for a month of sustained bombing proving civilians are not the targets, and in fact, are being avoided.

In the Gulf War, if the numbers were inaccurate, I don't believe it was only the fault of the US. The US wasn't alone in the Gulf war, and estimates of the dead are just that, estimates, until someone "on the ground" can make a count.

Are you more inclined to believe Sadam or the coalition? Hopefully the coalition. Are you more inclined to believe the coalition or neutral observers after the Gulf War? The observers because they have been there. Coalition forces were never on the ground in Baghdad.

Innocents die in war. Wars shouldn't be started, but when they are started, innocents die, and not all the technology in the world today can change it.

It's kind of like radical cancer treatments, the cancer is targeted, with the knowledge that healthy tissue will be destroyed, in the hope of saving life.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Honestly Ronn, how will this help keep America safe? This is just going to make people more pissed off with the west, not happier with them. The British government had a clear shoot to kill policy on the IRA for 30 years, did it work? No it didn't, the attacks got worse. The only way they have been reduced is by actually listening to what they want. Whenever I say this in arguments people always respond with "What, give in?". You know that is not what I mean so if anyone says that then I will be forced to throw brussel sprouts at them.

Also could you just answer Silver Cheetah's question - why use cluster bombs instead of other bombs? I am honestly quite curious as to the answer. Sorry if this seems like we are ganging up on you a bit... it isn't intentional (right, lets get him! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Honestly Ronn, how will this help keep America safe? This is just going to make people more pissed off with the west, not happier with them. The British government had a clear shoot to kill policy on the IRA for 30 years, did it work? No it didn't, the attacks got worse. The only way they have been reduced is by actually listening to what they want. Whenever I say this in arguments people always respond with "What, give in?". You know that is not what I mean so if anyone says that then I will be forced to throw brussel sprouts at them.

Also could you just answer Silver Cheetah's question - why use cluster bombs instead of other bombs? I am honestly quite curious as to the answer. Sorry if this seems like we are ganging up on you a bit... it isn't intentional (right, lets get him! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

---

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".

[Fljotsdale]

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

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 ]