Cluster Bombs and Food Packages

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
You missed my point a bit Ronn, the people were killed by falling crates not from eating the food. It may sound daft but it is incredibly dangerous to just drop stuff on people in the first place. That is the problem with aid drops in general. It happens in most wars, the aggressors say they are being humanitarian by dropping food. Yet it does very little but kill people anyway. What is needed is ground aid - but you can't let people in due to the war.

The point I was trying to make about the pork is that the West has an incredibly bad reputation for not understanding other cultures very well. This reputation is, IMHO, deserved due to mistakes like this. That error could easily have been avoided but it is obvious that no one was even consulted about the aid. If they had of been it is almost certain that is the first thing they would have picked up on.

And finally, what I meant about the cluster bombs is that if they weren't being dropped on civilians then why do the civilians need warning? The war coalition has shot itself in the foot in more than one way due to this. It is the first outright admission that in bombing military targets they have to bomb civilians as well. Whilst the announcements prove that it is not being done without compassion, it is still being done.

---

I did miss your point entirely on the food drops, sorry, but ground aid was being given from the UN, with the US as the largest contributor, prior to September 11th.

No, the pork MRE's were not in keeping with the beliefs of Islam, but can't you see the greater good in trying to feed the population? They don't understand our beliefs anymore than we understand their's. Why are we expected to be perfect. It's not reasonable. I don't believe dropping food behind enemy lines had ever been tried before in war time, so the effort wasn't perfect, but we've learned and haven't dropped a pork meal on Afghanistan.

Cluster bombs are targeted at the Taliban military, and not civilians. Military units are not always located miles and miles away from civilians. People where I live are within "arm's reach" of a military base. An attack on that base that injured civilians would not, necessarily, be an attack on civilians. Do you have any idea how many civilians work and live on military bases? Civilians in large numbers work on military bases and spouses and children actually live on military bases. The fact that the complaint against cluster bombs is that innocents are injured by unexploded bomblets proves civilians are not targeted. Targets of these bombings don't have to worry about the bright yellow or red packaging of unexploded bomblets because they are dead.

A war cannot be fought without deaths, both military and civilian. The hope is that civilian deaths can be minimized because they are innocent and their deaths achieve no goal.

Civilian deaths are a waste of human life, but even today's advanced technology can't provide a way to spare the innocent when war comes.

If innocents were never killed, then we would not be at war today. The world would be a better place.

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

[Fljotsdale]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



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 ]

---

Flattery?! You ain't seen nothin' yet, lol!!

Anyway, I can see where you are coming from, Ronn_Bman, and I wish I thought it would work. But it won't. I'm positive of that. One solution is for people to get round a table and talk. I very much doubt they will do that either.

The best way, I have come to think over the last few days, is for the Islamic nations themselves to deal with bin Laden and the Taliban and the al-Qaida and other so-called Islamic terrorists. I think we should encourage them to do so, by whatever methods we can..... but I doubt that will happen either.
I guess I am just very pessimistic about this war. I think it is going to escalate and get away from us... I just hope fear of that will keep heads cooler than they might be.

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

[Argus]

Sorry for seemingly posting this topic and running, but I don't have internet access on the weekend.

Thanks for all of your responses, especially Ronn_Bman.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fljotsdale:
[QB]The best way, I have come to think over the last few days, is for the Islamic nations themselves to deal with bin Laden and the Taliban and the al-Qaida and other so-called Islamic terrorists. I think we should encourage them to do so, by whatever methods we can.....

---

That idea is one I can get behind completely!

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Silver Cheetah]

I say again, this war is *not* going to be the first step in eradicating terrorism. Quite the opposite, I would say, for reasons I have already stated.

America doesn't know where bin Laden is. Britain doesn't know where bin Laden is. If bin Laden has any sense at all, the Taliban don't know where bin Laden is either.

bin Laden has been the world's most wanted man for quite a while now. We couldn't catch him before September 11th, and we're unlikely to catch him now. Basically, our human intelligence is non existent as far as bin Laden goes.

America and Britain's intelligence forces appear to have no muslim expertise and no muslim operatives in the field. How, then, is it proposed to track down bin Laden, especially given electronic intel doesn't really cut it in this particular situation?

How does decimating the Taliban and Afghani civilians make America safe against terrorism? Getting rid of the Taliban is attractive for a number of other reasons, but let's just be practical here. You get rid of a very bad government, and (hopefully!) put the mechanisms in place to replace it with a better coalition government and back it up with aid. All well and good. The Taliban might have provided a base for Osama, but they never funded him. More the other way round, it seems to me.

Cutting off money supplies to terrorist organisations as is being done (as far as possible - obviously many holes will remain unplugged) seems a far more useful tactic, in the long run, than bombing a country.

Yes, you will say, our bombing of the Taliban will deter states all over the world who have previously funded terrorist groups from continuing to fund them. Well, hopefully.

However, the money markets are funny things - there is a great lack of transparency and it is possible to hide almost anything in the enormous volume of transactions that take place daily. If the degree of transparency that is required to starve terrorists of funding was achieved, that same transparency would mean capitalism itself would have to take on new forms.

It would need to be reinvented for clarity, for honesty, transactions taking place more openly, rather than covertly. Certain offshore havens might have to go, or at least, open their books to governmental scrutiny of some sort. Who is to scrutinise? And who is to scrutinise the scrutinisers, to make sure corruption doesnt creep in?? It's all pretty unlikely, frankly.

Moving away from money and back to bombing for a moment (hard to completely separate the two, admittedly...) There will still be an awful lot of people in Afghanisatn sympathetic to bin Laden, even after the Taliban government 'falls', not to mention the millions that are now rallying to his course as a result of the bombings, people who have lost their moderateness, and moved closer to what we call fundamentalists.

Result is you've created an awful lot MORE potential terrorists - a lot of those who have lost their more moderate values are young men who want to fight.

I keep making this last point, and people keep ignoring it. Is it not a valid point, or too stupid to even bother replying to, or something? (If I've missed a reply, maybe you could point me to it..... thanks!)

Yours, puzzled...

PS. A poll taken yesterday by the Observer newspaper showed that 43% of the British public do not believe that bin Laden will ever be caught.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
I say again, this war is *not* going to be the first step in eradicating terrorism. Quite the opposite, I would say, for reasons I have already stated.

America doesn't know where bin Laden is. Britain doesn't know where bin Laden is. If bin Laden has any sense at all, the Taliban don't know where bin Laden is either.

bin Laden has been the world's most wanted man for quite a while now. We couldn't catch him before September 11th, and we're unlikely to catch him now. Basically, our human intelligence is non existent as far as bin Laden goes.

America and Britain's intelligence forces appear to have no muslim expertise and no muslim operatives in the field. How, then, is it proposed to track down bin Laden, especially given electronic intel doesn't really cut it in this particular situation?

---

Removing the terrorists ability to act on a large scale is more important than killing Osama. If his network can be destroyed, then even if he lives to the ripe old age of 100 he will be ineffective. Erradicating what Osama represents is more important than the death of one man.

Their will always be those who try to achieve their political goals through terror, but if you can reduce them to radical individuals acting alone, the can be contained. A person with the capability of orchestrating something on the scale of September 11th, is a danger to every man, woman, and child in the world.

You don't believe this is the first step and I do, but the truth is neither of us really know. Only history will answer this question.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
How does decimating the Taliban and Afghani civilians make America safe against terrorism? Getting rid of the Taliban is attractive for a number of other reasons, but let's just be practical here. You get rid of a very bad government, and (hopefully!) put the mechanisms in place to replace it with a better coalition government and back it up with aid. All well and good. The Taliban might have provided a base for Osama, but they never funded him. More the other way round, it seems to me.

Cutting off money supplies to terrorist organisations as is being done (as far as possible - obviously many holes will remain unplugged) seems a far more useful tactic, in the long run, than bombing a country.

Yes, you will say, our bombing of the Taliban will deter states all over the world who have previously funded terrorist groups from continuing to fund them. Well, hopefully.

However, the money markets are funny things - there is a great lack of transparency and it is possible to hide almost anything in the enormous volume of transactions that take place daily. If the degree of transparency that is required to starve terrorists of funding was achieved, that same transparency would mean capitalism itself would have to take on new forms.

It would need to be reinvented for clarity, for honesty, transactions taking place more openly, rather than covertly. Certain offshore havens might have to go, or at least, open their books to governmental scrutiny of some sort. Who is to scrutinise? And who is to scrutinise the scrutinisers, to make sure corruption doesnt creep in?? It's all pretty unlikely, frankly.

---

I'm answering this in parts because you are almost as "long winded" as I am...lol

It makes America safe by reducing terrorist training grounds and safe havens, and it deters others from offering similar accommodations. I have a rather "long winded sermon" on this a page or two back (I think it's in this thread).

The money, for all the reasons you mention, isn't as important as the safe harbors because it can't really be controlled. We should continue to take all we can find, but realize we will never get it all. But it's like taking money from a drug dealer, it hurts a little, but there's alot more where that came from.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
[QB]Moving away from money and back to bombing for a moment (hard to completely separate the two, admittedly...) There will still be an awful lot of people in Afghanisatn sympathetic to bin Laden, even after the Taliban government 'falls', not to mention the millions that are now rallying to his course as a result of the bombings, people who have lost their moderateness, and moved closer to what we call fundamentalists.

Result is you've created an awful lot MORE potential terrorists - a lot of those who have lost their more moderate values are young men who want to fight.

I keep making this last point, and people keep ignoring it. Is it not a valid point, or too stupid to even bother replying to, or something? (If I've missed a reply, maybe you could point me to it..... thanks!)
QB]

---

Yes, some people will hate the West, the US in particular, enough to become terrorists due to our retaliation in Afghanistan, but people already hate us enough to do that without bombing. They hated us that much when we were only buying their oil and supplying food to the hungry (I realize it goes deeper than that [img]smile.gif[/img] ). They hated us for our very presence, well, not all but some and those are the one's in question. That problem should be addressed, but the actions of September 11th, cannot be addressed with words alone.

What would really cause a huge increase in terrorism recruitment is the lack of action by those terrorized. Can you imagine how that would look to "would be" terrorist? Everybody loves a "winner" and if Osama can make it look like he's succeeding in the name of his god, without fear of reprisal, he will himself achieve godlike status. Do we want to help prove this point?

According to the Muslim News Network (I can't remember the name) and based on his statements there, he already believes he's the only one who can speak for Allah in the Middle East, and that those, including Muslims, who act against his desires, by joining the coalition effort, will be punished by Allah. He is telling other Muslims that they are wrong in God's eyes, and asks for supporters to wage war on Muslims who do not follow his way of thinking.

Also, the freedom of Palestine is no longer enough! According to his last taped message, the Freedom of Palestine must now take place without the UN, or any Western involvement.

"Come and join Osama's winning team! Here everyone's a winner and a hero. You've seen our glorious successes and know none dare to oppose us."

That "recruiting poster" is more frightening to me than those who will "turned" by the bombings.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Gaelic]

Oh boy, I have been gone too long.

1. The guy in charge of coloring the cluster bombs and the guy in charge of coloring the food packets are not likely the same guy. It was a mistake which has been fixed.

2. The food being dropped is not "pathetic airline food." The standard issue MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) issued to US soldiers has over 3000 calories in it. It is enough to sustain the average person doing moderate physical activity for a day. The meals being dropped are special versions with more food and over 5000 calories per day. This is likely enough to sustain the average Afghan adult male for 2 days. Hardly airline food.

3. Turn the other cheek does not work in war or politics. Ask Poland if you don't believe me.

4. The stated objectives of the bombing included both the death or apprehension of bin Laden AND the suppression or destruction of terrorist organizations and the governments that sustain them. The Taliban fits this objective perfectly and ought to be destroyed.

5. This is not about being on America's side, or Bush's side, or Blair's side. This is about rooting out and destroying criminals and their organizations. The bombing, to include cluster munitions, is part of that. I guarantee that additional ground forces will be employed at some stage. This will occur after the bombing has destroyed as much Taliban equipment and infrastructure as is possible. Once we are done with the Taliban, we will hopefully move on to Iraq as well. If another country does not like that, so be it. America can do things alone, but then we do it completely our way.

6. Last, and I know I will be flamed for this, in war civilians sometimes die. It is regretable, but it happens. For those that are upset about the Afghan civilians who have been killed in the bombing, point the finger at Osama and Omar. They bear the responsibility for their deaths as sure as if the choked the life out of them themselves.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaelic:
Oh boy, I have been gone too long.

1. The guy in charge of coloring the cluster bombs and the guy in charge of coloring the food packets are not likely the same guy. It was a mistake which has been fixed.

2. The food being dropped is not "pathetic airline food." The standard issue MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) issued to US soldiers has over 3000 calories in it. It is enough to sustain the average person doing moderate physical activity for a day. The meals being dropped are special versions with more food and over 5000 calories per day. This is likely enough to sustain the average Afghan adult male for 2 days. Hardly airline food.

3. Turn the other cheek does not work in war or politics. Ask Poland if you don't believe me.

4. The stated objectives of the bombing included both the death or apprehension of bin Laden AND the suppression or destruction of terrorist organizations and the governments that sustain them. The Taliban fits this objective perfectly and ought to be destroyed.

5. This is not about being on America's side, or Bush's side, or Blair's side. This is about rooting out and destroying criminals and their organizations. The bombing, to include cluster munitions, is part of that. I guarantee that additional ground forces will be employed at some stage. This will occur after the bombing has destroyed as much Taliban equipment and infrastructure as is possible. Once we are done with the Taliban, we will hopefully move on to Iraq as well. If another country does not like that, so be it. America can do things alone, but then we do it completely our way.

6. Last, and I know I will be flamed for this, in war civilians sometimes die. It is regretable, but it happens. For those that are upset about the Afghan civilians who have been killed in the bombing, point the finger at Osama and Omar. They bear the responsibility for their deaths as sure as if the choked the life out of them themselves.

---

You have been gone too long

The only slight disagreement I have is with the first sentance of your last point.

#6. "...in war civilians sometimes die."


I disagree not with the idea, but the wording because "in war, civilians always die." It can't be prevented.