Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn March 10th Congress passed an omnibus budget bill that created a permanent ban on nearly all US cluster bomb exports. The legislation states that cluster munitions can only be exported if they leave behind less than one percent of their submunitions as duds, and if the receiving country agrees that cluster munitions "will not be used where civilians are known to be present." President Obama signed the bill into law the next day.
For background, cluster bombs, a favorite munition of the Bush Administration, are especially gruesome weapons of terror, dispersing hundreds of small bomblets over a wide, indiscriminate area. Each of these sub-munitions is supposed to detonate when it hits the ground, spraying deadly shrapnel. The Friends Committee on National Legislation has done a unique and harrowing service with a new tool combining google maps with a customized overlay that allows you to find out what a cluster bombing would do to your neighborhood. How wide an area would be sprayed with deadly shrapnel? How many unexploded bomblets would litter the area, waiting for the touch of a hand or foot? Expected civilian casualties? Find out here.
This video shows what cluster bombs have done to real people.
Now that Congress has banned the export of cluster bombs, it's time to take the next step and join most of the rest of the world in banning the use of these deadly weapons. That's what the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S. 416) seeks to do. Introduced in February, nearly twenty percent of all Senators have already signed on to S. 416. Are your senators on board? If not, urge them to co-sponsor and work for the legislation's passage. Click
The United States is one of only a handful of nations which didn't sign the Oslo ban on cluster bombs late last year, and which has employed the weapons in recent wars, so this legislation could have a major impact in stemming civilian casualties.
PS: If you happen to have a lot of time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. If you have no idea what Twitter is and want to know, read this piece by my friend Deanna Zandt.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"...that created a permanent ban on nearly all US cluster bomb exports."
posted by Peter Rothberg on 03/30/2009 @ 10:26am
Nothing is permanent.
This thread is gonna be a good one.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 10:40am
Thank you, Mr. Rothberg! I called, and it felt good. God bless the Society of Friends!
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2009 @ 10:42am
Thank you JAKOB! And please call me Peter....
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/30/2009 @ 10:45am
good luck. i'm always skeptical of efforts to ban conventional weapons...
they're all pretty awful, you know.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/30/2009 @ 10:46am
thanks Peter!
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 11:25am
Oh, boy....wait til Larry shows up.
You may not know this, PETER, but our local right-winger lvlib/antisoc MADE cluster bombs...proudly.
And will happily tell you that they are ONLY used on bad guys...only....with maybe a FEW "collateral casualties", but...c'est la guerre.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 11:36am
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 11:36am
He probably won't show just for spite, because if he does, this thread will take off like a rocket.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 11:56am
I'm sure, like so many things, he easily resolves the conflict between the teachings of Christ and blowing up kids.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 11:57am
I'm sure, like so many things, he easily resolves the conflict between the teachings of Christ and blowing up kids.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 11:57am
Like so many things Mask, you distort or lie about what I say. I have never posted that it is a good thing to see children blown up.
However, I remain a supporter of the use of Cluster Bombs because I would rather see them continued in use rather than seeing more of our own troops killed.
If you folks think that reasoning is wrong, than simply go on record and state that you would rather have more US men and women killed in combat.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:16pm
And another correction Mask. I didn't just participate in the manufacture of Cluster munitions, I was part of the design team.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:17pm
However, I remain a supporter of the use of Cluster Bombs because I would rather see them continued in use rather than seeing more of our own troops killed.
If you folks think that reasoning is wrong, than simply go on record and state that you would rather have more US men and women killed in combat.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Oh sure Larry - because those are the ONLY 2 options, right? Either we continue to make, and use, cluster bombs...
...OR...
...we have "more US men and women killed in combat."
No other options - no other choices, right Larry?
Is that the 'false dichotomy' you've constructed to salve your conscience for helping to create a weapon who's proven kill ratio is on the order of 95% civilian vs 5% targeted enemy?
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:36pm
"If you folks think that reasoning is wrong, than simply go on record and state that you would rather have more US men and women killed in combat."
i would rather have more US men and women killed in combat than innocent civilians (of any nationality).
you heard it from me first.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 12:38pm
Here's where Larry nit picks the numbers - as if 40 or 50% civilian casualties is so much more accurate...
...and acceptable.
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:41pm
Larry, the souls of all those innocents will be standing next to Jesus when he calls you to account. They are the last thing you'll see, and their screams, the last thing you'll hear...
...just before your judgement is pronounced.
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:42pm
Is that the 'false dichotomy' you've constructed to salve your conscience for helping to create a weapon who's proven kill ratio is on the order of 95% civilian vs 5% targeted enemy?
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:36pm
That is simply a fictional number that has no basis in fact.
Show me one official report showing any such figures because of US dropped cluster bombs.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:52pm
Larry, the souls of all those innocents will be standing next to Jesus when he calls you to account. They are the last thing you'll see, and their screams, the last thing you'll hear...
...just before your judgement is pronounced.
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:42pm
My conscience is clear before the Lord regarding the work in helping our soldiers survive in war.
Until Christ ends all wars, He has not only permitted, but commanded govts to take up the sword against evil.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:54pm
lillian, that number is actually 98% civilians, according to the red cross.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 12:57pm
"Until Christ ends all wars, He has not only permitted, but commanded govts to take up the sword against evil."
this particular comment disqualifies antisocialist from engaging in any substantive debate on virtually any issuse whatsoever.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 1:01pm
"Until (Allah) ends all wars, He has not only permitted, but commanded govts to take up the sword against evil."
-Osama Bin Laden
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 1:16pm
It's called war. Cluster bombs are very effective - they kill the bad guys in a combat theater thereby reducing our casualties. Pretty simple. BTW, darladoon, antisocialist is right on the button.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/30/2009 @ 1:23pm
"if you folks think that reasoning is wrong, than simply go on record and state that you would rather have more US men and women killed in combat."
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:16pm
Logical fallacies 101
False dichotomy In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two--and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends!
You also threw in a little Ad populum (look it up).
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 1:31pm
War is a brutally violent business and cluster munitions are used (as a former Army munitions officer, I know of what I speak)to disrupt mass attacks and deny territory (don't forget the particularly nasty cluster "minefields" that are "supposed" to self detonate on command). These weapons, per US doctrine, are not used in high density civilian areas (can't speak for other countries like Russia), but the cold hard reality is that whenever we unleash the military (a political decision), people will die (enemy combatants, US soldiers, and unfortunate civilians caught in the way). The only way to minimize this damage in the long run, is to make it end quickly, which is what these weapons (along with many other very nasty types) have the ability to do.
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 1:32pm
"It's called war"
oh.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 1:36pm
helping to create a weapon who's proven kill ratio is on the order of 95% civilian vs 5% targeted enemy?
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lillian, that number is actually 98% civilians, according to the red cross.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
-----------------------------
Again no statements supported by documented proof from reliable impartial sourses = baseless BIASED rehtoric devoid of reason and facts.
They cleared jungle clearings quite well in Vietnam, reduced American casualties exponentially when their use in that solely Democrat war began. Understandable why ENEMIES of the U.S.A. would be so vehemently against their use!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:46pm
"They cleared jungle clearings quite well in Vietnam..."
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:46pm
Cluster munitions not really designed for that RIO.
You mean the Daisy Cutter? That was a fuel-air munition.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 1:51pm
I forgot my own rule, I believe I posted it on friday.
"Questioning the DoD will get you labeled as a child beating, dope smoking, kitten stomping, soldier killing* commie"
* I added this in light of the previous comments on this thread.
Applying logic to any given question must mean you hate America and it's soldiers.
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 1:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:17pm
I stand corrected, Larry. You "just designed" them.
But, you didn't deny my post, though you called it a distortion and lie.
I didn't say you would say "it was a good thing" to blow up children...
I said you resolve any conflict between the teachings of Christ and blowing up kids.
And you do, don't you? Any problem with a person calling themselves a Christian dropping a cluster bomb where there is the POSSIBILITY of "collateral damage" of civilians under the age of 18?
(Here's where Larry will contradict something...his previous position or what he said was a "distortion and lie")
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 1:54pm
My bleeding heart dreams of a day when we can get our monkey-kill-move-kill fix virtually instead of with actual clusterbombs.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 12:32pm
hmmmm.......
wouldn't it be better to get that "fix" playing basketball?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 1:55pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:46pm
RIO on Vietnam is always a storehouse of fun...and contradiction too. He supported the war, loves the munitions used in it, but blames the loss in Vietnam on Democrats...
while it was Nixon a Republican who ran the show from 1969 until 1973 and the troop withdrawals.
And expects nobody to notice his backflips!...heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 1:57pm
***off topic***
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 12:32pm
I watched you video, though I am no fan of war games it was good. The 14 & 15 year old boys I work with loved it, and assured me it was "da shinzit".
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 1:58pm
If you folks think that reasoning is wrong, than simply go on record and state that you would rather have more US men and women killed in combat.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:16pm
hmmmm.........
wouldn't it be better to stop putting them into combat?
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 2:00pm
The 14 & 15 year old boys I work with loved it
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 1:58pm
the wheels on the bus go round and round.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 2:01pm
Vietnam
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 1:46p
the wheeeeelss on the bussss gggo rounddd and rond.,,,
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 2:03pm
wheels on the bus Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 2:01pm
Frosty you make social commentary fun. Somebody should cluster bomb your neighborhood for getting that song stuck in my head. I'll get antisocialist working on the logistics
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 2:08pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 2:00pm
See, FROSTY, here's where you get confused....
there's the 4100+ GIs that Larry thought it was necessary to kill to put a pro-Sharia Shiite government in Iraq...
and then there are the imaginary "millions of GIs" that those of us socialist peaceniks "want to die".
His few thousand are easily outweighed by the millions he imagines us wanting to die....ergo, he's more moral, Saint Augustinian-wise.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 2:09pm
"Frosty you make social commentary fun. Somebody should cluster bomb your neighborhood for getting that song stuck in my head."
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 2:08pm
He plays Polka music. Squishes an accordian all the time.
Try listening to Bad Girlfriend by Theory of a Deadman.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 2:20pm
War is a political decision, but when the decision is made (rightly or wrongly), our soliders deserve to use the weapons required to complete the mission as quickly and with as little loss of US military lives as possible....period. No other military in the history of mankind has sought to minimize the damage to innocents and I dare anyone to make the claim that any member of the US military has deliberately sought to kill non-combatants - remember, these are our sons and daughters who have to live with the consequences of their actions, regardless of the pinhead politicians that put them in that place to begin with
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
I stand corrected, Larry. You "just designed" them.
I said you resolve any conflict between the teachings of Christ and blowing up kids.
And you do, don't you? Any problem with a person calling themselves a Christian dropping a cluster bomb where there is the POSSIBILITY of "collateral damage" of civilians under the age of 18?
(Here's where Larry will contradict something...his previous position or what he said was a "distortion and lie")
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 1:54pm
1. No I said I did both. I directed parts of the manufacturing and assembly and I participated in the design effort.
2. There is no conflict with Christ's teaching to resolve. That was and is my point. Jesus never commanded the end to war. Quite the opposite. He commanded the use of govt bearing the sword to destroy evil. He will Himself come back one day and lead the final battle against Satan and evil.
And Jesus said that wars and the evidence of wars was a necessary part of bringing this current time of mankind to an end.
Matthew 24:6 "And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
the word for must in the greek text is dei=which means "it is necessary"
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 2:24pm
No other military in the history of mankind has sought to minimize the damage to innocents and I dare anyone to make the claim that any member of the US military has deliberately sought to kill non-combatants - remember, these are our sons and daughters who have to live with the consequences of their actions, regardless of the pinhead politicians that put them in that place to begin with
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
they don't care about that Proud. For them, everything our military does is evil (except when our soldiers die-then they are paying the price for supporting our evil govt).
And notice, they continue to dance around the fact that they would rather see more of our men and women die than to see a single civilian unfortunately die as collateral damage. Those civilian deaths are tragic; but for these haters, it's only American evil.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 2:31pm
Regarding war & religion.
Wasn't it Bill Maher who said that 9/11 was just a well planned and executed fundamental religious initiative?
(If I am wrong let me know, about the quote not the premise, I mean I am sure you will argue with the premise for rest of this thread).
I like Gordon Sumner's thought; "Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one."
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 2:34pm
Good points Anti-S! I could certainly guarantee none of them (or their children - both my kids are in the National Guard, one is deploying next year) ever put on the uniform to defend their rights to moronic self-expression.
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:35pm
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:35pm
I'd tell you what you can do with that thought but a lady doesn't use that kind of language in mixed company. Suffice it say it has to do with you putting it up an orifice, and then copulating with yourself, then your mother, then a sheep.
p.s. I was a reservist.
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 2:39pm
aw, a thread just for you captain clusterbomb! I hope my atheism is misguided and satan has a speciasl place reserved for your murderous soul. Nothing to hear but the wails of the women and children your weapon has maimed or killed for all eternity. Naught but their mangled corpses to gaze upon until time itself ceases. Only their blood to quench your vampiric thirst until the fabric of spacetime is torn asunder. Alas, you will just rot like the rest of us, hopefully sooner rather than later. And please, clean the 40 year old virgin's gimp cage before a neighbor notices the redolence eminating from your basement. What do you feed that thing fish heads?
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 2:41pm
And what thought would that be Misheley? Do you have an argument or do you resort to name calling to highlight your lack of intelligent thought?
P.s. Congratulations on your service, in whatever capacity it was
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:42pm
"I dare anyone to make the claim that any member of the US military has deliberately sought to kill non-combatants" IgnorantLibertarian
yeah libertarian, there are no sociopaths in the millitary- they have somehow found a way to eliminate all deviant tendencies endemic in our species. Why they are more gods than men! Ever hear of my lai for starters asshat?
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 2:46pm
I stand corrected - individual soldiers have either been (as you would attribute to all soliders)sociopaths, or probably more aptly, young people put in an insane position who "lost it" in a moment of stress and panic (easy to do when your enemy hides in the general public - the reason why they don't qualify for POW status btw). My point, in regards to things like cluster bombs, is that doctrine dictates when they are used. In circumstances like Mai Lai, the offenders have been tried and convicted, hardly representatitive of the military as a whole.
BTW - can't anyone on this site have a debate without resorting to name calling. I know the internet allows people anonimity, but please people - make a rational point without insults
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:53pm
i never said they were representitive of the military as a whole- you made an absurd statement and i corrected it. Sorry about the name calling- i have no ill will towards you per se, it was spillover from my bile directed at the satanic reverend.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 2:57pm
My lack of intelligent thought? Go back a reread some of my posts. I resorted to an ad hominem attack after you made the gross logical leap of assuming that anybody who posted a moral or logical opposition to cluster bombs had never served in the military. You also made the assumption that you, and your children had a moral superiority by virtue of their military service. Thereby insulting anybody on this board who may have a dissenting opinion.
Lack of intelligent thought, yep...
besides, I'm Hevea brasiliensis, your polyvinyl acetate.
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 3:01pm
Also, you incorrectly ascribe a hatred of the military to me which i do not possess. Many of my family members are either active or retired military, but the deification of soldiers solely by virtue of them being soldiers is absurd. There are good and honorable men in the service, and there are brigands and sociopaths as well, with most falling in the vast middle, just like society as a whole. I would just love for the department of defense to live up to its moniker, or else we should rename it to the the department of offense or dept. of imperial power projection. The soldiers don't choose the wars, the masters do.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 3:03pm
snow, I just loathe his pompous hipocracy. He is a walking paradigm for megalomania and cognitive dissonance. But god is on his side. Better not tell osama.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 3:06pm
I'm newish, but I sense a deep and unabiding history between Anti and entropy. Too many personal details to be otherwise.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 2:58pm
History:
Entrenched, extreme, right versus left.
Matter versus anti-matter.
Tone deaf stubborness versus anger management issues.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/30/2009 @ 3:06pm
I chose to believe the best of people, regardless of being in the military or not. Regardless of how one feels about Iraq or military conflict in general, give the people in the military the benefit of the doubt and don't judge all their service based on the actions of a few "bad actors". Just by the act of volunteering, they earned the right to be called patriots
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 3:09pm
haha love it bench- i'm in a anger management program! for real this time!
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 3:13pm
I could certainly guarantee none of them (or their children - both my kids are in the National Guard, one is deploying next year) ever put on the uniform to defend their rights to moronic self-expression.
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:35pm ______________________________________
BTW - can't anyone on this site have a debate without resorting to name calling. I know the internet allows people anonimity, but please people - make a rational point without insults
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:53pm
So which part of your first post proves your claim of rationality without an insult? Your first post consisted mainly of moral posturing and the assumption that the self expression of those who may not have served in the military is "moronic". You then proceed to berate everyone about doing exactly what you have done.
Just so you know this logical fallacy is known as "tu quoque" .
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 3:13pm
"BTW - can't anyone on this site have a debate without resorting to name calling. I know the internet allows people anonimity, but please people - make a rational point without insults"-------Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:53pm
It also allows for MONUMENTAL HYPOCRISY apparently...
"...ever put on the uniform to defend their rights to moronic self-expression."----Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:35pm
LOL...or is "moronic" a compliment?
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 2:24pm
Then where did I "distort or lie" about you?
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 3:22pm
@ Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 3:21pm
Considering the source, and my lack of intelligent thought I would say in this particularly narrow case "moronic" can be interpreted as a compliment.
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
LOL...or is "moronic" a compliment?
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
crazy wisdom....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/30/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
Okay, but think we won't see PL "resort to name-calling" or "insults"?
I wouldn't bet on that.
BTW, remember this is the same guy who called LARRY (lvlib/antisoc) a "LEFTIST"!?!??!?! for defending Clinton.
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/27/2009 @ 08:51am
Israel Bombed Sudan posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 03/26/2009 @ 10:08am
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 3:39pm
Remember, according to PL, I have a lack of intelligent thought.
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 3:51pm
Somebody should cluster bomb your neighborhood for getting that song stuck in my head.
Posted by Misheley at 03/30/2009 @ 2:08pm
i bet their's a plan somewhere to do just that.
humans is funny littl critters.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 4:29pm
Saint Augustinian.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 2:09pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_of_Lions
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/30/2009 @ 4:38pm
"No other military in the history of mankind has sought to minimize the damage to innocents"
i know it's only late march, but this quote will be in the running for QUOTE OF THE YEAR.
an utterly astounding statement. now, whether it is true or false is completely irrelevant. i'll leave it to the author to figure out why.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 5:05pm
No other military in the history of mankind has sought to minimize the damage to innocents and I dare anyone to make the claim that any member of the US military has deliberately sought to kill non-combatants -
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/30/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
A few spring instantly to mind...
Dresden - 40,000 dead
Hamburg - 50,000 dead
Hiroshima - 140,000 dead
Nagasaki - 80,000 dead
A third of a million dead - nearly all civillians.
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 6:05pm
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ma Lai?
Posted by syfriendly at 03/30/2009 @ 6:19pm
don't forget tokyo... or wounded knee.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 6:39pm
A few spring instantly to mind...
Dresden - 40,000 dead
Hamburg - 50,000 dead
Hiroshima - 140,000 dead
Nagasaki - 80,000 dead
A third of a million dead - nearly all civillians.
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 6:05pm
In none of those instances that you cite did we deliberately target civilians. Each of those targets were military centers.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 7:00pm
A few spring instantly to mind...
Dresden - 40,000 dead
Hamburg - 50,000 dead
Hiroshima - 140,000 dead
Nagasaki - 80,000 dead
A third of a million dead - nearly all civillians.
Posted by Lillian at 03/30/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh yea, I forgot what Demoncrat Presidents FDR and TRUMAN concieved to do against civilian populations in WWII (400,000 american dead)! Thanks for the illustration! Say I think JFK and LBJ started escalation and owned Vietnam didn't they for 7 or 8 of its 14yrs (58,000 american dead?
But, we do know that FDR-Truman saved at least 1,000,000. American servicemens lives by not invading Japan, and before the Demoncrat congress defunded, cut, and ran from vietnam the north was pounded almost into submission, but we'll never know now how it would have really ended! Intresting thing history.
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 7:02pm
"In none of those instances that you cite did we deliberately target civilians. Each of those targets were military centers"
how can one adequately describe the sheer stupidity of the above comment? palin-esque? bachmann-esque?
we dropped two massive atomic bombs on two major metropolitan centers, and we didn't "deliberately target civilians"?
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 7:10pm
Darla,
Read some history instead of relying upon your personal views
Hiroshima during World War II At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without Prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority .
The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city.
The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the the population was approximately 255,000
http://tinyurl.com/cqkqaw
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 7:28pm
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
http://tinyurl.com/cqkqaw
In his memoirs Truman claimed that using atomic bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives. Other officials mentioned the same or even higher figures. Critics have assailed such statements as gross exaggerations designed to forestall scrutiny of Truman's real motives. They have given wide publicity to a report prepared by the Joint War Plans Committee (JWPC) for the chiefs' meeting with Truman. The committee estimated that the invasion of Kyushu, followed by that of Honshu, as the chiefs proposed, would cost approximately 40,000 dead, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing in action for a total of 193,500 casualties.
Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had "said up to the last that it wouldn't go off."
http://tinyurl.com/cnrup9
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 7:33pm
bloody bloody men you goddamn vampires.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 7:38pm
Dresden
"The US Air Force Historical Division wrote a report in response to the international concern about the bombing, which was classified until December 1978. This said that there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers in the city supporting the German war effort at the time of the raid. According to the report, there were aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabrik Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); an optical goods factory (Zeiss Ikon AG); as well as factories producing electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel AG); gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke); and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler). It also said there were barracks, and hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot.
The USAF report also states that two of Dresden's traffic routes were of military importance: north-south from Germany to Czechoslovakia, and east-west along the central European uplands. The city was at the junction of the Berlin-Prague-Vienna railway line, as well as the Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig. Colonel Harold E. Cook, a US POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."
http://tinyurl.com/599c3
Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 7:41pm
bomb the industriasl complexes rather than using incendiary weapons or the atom to create a firestorm eh? Your thirst for human blood knows no bounds- "vampires in the middle of the night- killing innocent people- is that your appetite?"
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 8:08pm
anti, you are an asshole.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 9:14pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/30/2009 @ 2:58pm: Putting bangers into the military is usually the best thing that can ever happen to them. Once they meet their DI (new mother) they get focused real quick. End up making good soldiers and later, good productive citizens.
Enola Gay. Yes a whole lot of innocent people were killed but the mindset in 1945 was much different. The two bombs killed about 250,000 people combined. The thing is, it ended the war and there would be no invasion of Japan. It was estimated the invasion would have cost 1 million US casualties and 12 million Japanese casualties. The event that guarenteed the bomb would be used was Okinawa 1945, where about 7600 Americans were killed, 32,000 wounded, and over 100,000 Japanese soldiers killed. "Unfortunately approx. 42,000 Okinawan civilians, caught between the two opposing armies, perished from artillery fire and bombing." It was realized invasion would be Okinawa times 100. The atomic bombs, as awful as they were, saved millions of lives.
WWII was probably the most epic war ever fought because all sides knew it was going to be a fight to the finish, with no quarter.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/30/2009 @ 9:25pm
No wonder anti has so much jesus in him. After actually helping to design cluster bombs I think that praying for the rest of your life might be in order for some. Wow.
Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore,
It's already overcrowded from your dirty little war,
Well Jesus don't like killin' no matter what the reason for,
And your flag decal won't get you into heaven any more...
Posted by ficheye at 03/30/2009 @ 9:35pm
pyette- utter horseshit. the japanese were ready to surrender, albeit not unconditionally. We put 250 thousand people into a gawldurn amerikun made partticle accelerator in order to intimidate the great red menace. vampires.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 10:22pm
nice ficheye. i wish that these bloodsuckers would get what they deserve ala peter tosh's downpressor man. Alas there will be no divine intervention. we shall have to deal with them ourselves. right here. on planet earth. Drive a stake through the heart of these vampires.
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 10:27pm
"The atomic bombs, as awful as they were, saved millions of lives"
this will have to be in the running for quote of the year as well.
bombs, saving lives. utterly brilliant.
and of course, those bombs? they were certainly not intended to kill civilians. not at all. they were those so-called 'freedom bombs.'
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 11:41pm
and please don't assume that i don't know what you are talking about, pyeatte. i know what cost-benefit is.
but that's not the point.
some sh*t head argued that the united states was NOT deliberately intending to kill civilians when they dropped not one, but TWO, atomic bombs on two major cities.
they were only intending to kill infrastructure. that's the most offensive, ridiculous, absurd thing i have ever heard.
Posted by darladoon at 03/30/2009 @ 11:43pm
I wrote a bunch of really meaningful philosophical stuff, but it didn't make the grade
Mark Twain famously said "History doesn't actually repeat itself... it just rhymes"
With this unflappable pride in the machines of war, voiced by a verbose 'man of god', I fear that he may be right.
Onward christian soldiers. Get the hell out of my yard.
Posted by ficheye at 03/31/2009 @ 01:47am
According to some kool-aid slathered wingnuts who posted a few days ago, removal of Saddam becaus he was so brutal to the Iraqi people was the reason for the Iraq invasion and therefore the war is a success....
According to Bush admin. et al...it was necessary to invaded Iraq because they possessed WMDs and this was a threat to the US.
So, o-kay, the US invaded for the welfare of the Iraqi people....
Or, Iraq had WMDs so the US had to invade....
The US leadership, both civilian and military, is so concerned over the welfare of Iraqi citizens yet they won't stop using cluster bombs...
The US leadership, both civilian and military, justifies invading Iraq because they may use WMDs on us, yet the US uses cluster bombs as well as white phospherous on Iraqis....
The hypocrisy is just stinking.
Posted by koroviev at 03/31/2009 @ 02:23am
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 7:02pm
LOL....again, gotta love RIO's paradoxical mind-set.
First, he attacks FDR and Truman for the WW-2 bombings cuz they're Democrats...
then he defends the bombings cuz he loves a good bombing of the bad guys!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 06:08am
BTW, Larry (antisoc)....again...
given what you wrote, where did I "distort or lie" about your position on the reconcilliation of your Christianity and your "regretable acceptance" of civilian casualties of youth?
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 06:10am
"Onward christian soldiers. Get the hell out of my yard."
Posted by ficheye at 03/31/2009 @ 01:47am
Lol ...
Posted by V at 03/31/2009 @ 08:54am
Posted by V at 03/31/2009 @ 08:54am
I missed that....those 10 words may be the perfect summary of Larry.
ROFL!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 09:00am
given what you wrote, where did I "distort or lie" about your position on the reconcilliation of your Christianity and your "regretable acceptance" of civilian casualties of youth?
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 06:10am
You claimed I would have to resolve a conflict with Christ's teachings and the bombing of children.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:07am
TO PETER ROTHBERG:, As one constantly on the watch for fallacious statements designed to manipulate readers, I have to say your comment that cluster bombs were "a favorite weapon of the Bush Administration" is a ridiculous and intelligence-insulting claim. Cluster bombs have been in existance since at least the Vietnam war. The Israelis used them as well, and the Russians (their own version) in Afghanistan. To argue at your level, the are a Democratic as well as a Republican favorite.
In fact cluster bombs,like all artillery-aerial-like weaponry, are indicriminate but unfortunately serve specific purposes depending on the combat situation. We need them in our arsenal. Tell your people to concentrate on banning nuclear weapons if you want to solve a real problem.
(Besides, remember the time we lowered one on a pallet to a Taliban regiment in the Parvan Valley and they came in the open thinking it was a supply misdrop? Instant transformation from 1500 6' people to 3000 3 footers)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/31/2009 @ 09:31am
"Onward christian soldiers. Get the hell out of my yard."
Posted by ficheye at 03/31/2009 @ 01:47am
Lol ...
Posted by V at 03/31/2009 @ 08:54am
The big JC had his back before he was an itch in daddy's abstinence-only pants yo.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 09:20am
What are you folks smoking? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:37am
You claimed I would have to resolve a conflict with Christ's teachings and the bombing of children.----Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:07am
NO, I said-"he easily resolves the conflict between the teachings of Christ and blowing up kids." Present tense, not future tense....and you do.
1. Is there an "apparent" conflict between the teachings of Christ and the conduct of war? Yes...hence St. Augustine needing to create the "just war" resolution.
2. Do you have a similar reconciling of the "supposed" pacifist/peaceful teachings of Jesus and moral support for war. Yes.
3. Do you support the use of weapons in war-time that "on occasion" result in civilian "collateral damage", including children? Yes.
Ergo, you "easily resolves the conflict between the teachings of Christ and blowing up kids."
What you don't like is how I PHRASED it, which points that out.
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 09:47am
There was a t-shirt that was fairly popular in the 70s in certain circles that closely defines the main subject of this debate. Superimposed over a cool looking skull it stated simply:
Kill em all. Let God sort them out.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/31/2009 @ 10:03am
"Tell your people to concentrate on banning nuclear weapons if you want to solve a real problem"
i think they are concentrating on both.
Posted by darladoon at 03/31/2009 @ 11:36am
Two words: Korean border.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/31/2009 @ 3:52pm
Two words: Korean border.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/31/2009 @ 3:52pm
Two words: Pucker Factor.
That is the real deal. If the North launches the rocket they now have on the pad at Musudan-ri, it will hold my attention like stone for escalation by a truly, honestly, certified, bonafied Crazie.
Posted by Benchrest at 03/31/2009 @ 4:48pm
Posted by entropy at 03/30/2009 @ 10:22pm: Sorry but the Japanese were Not about to surrender and the issue of conditional or unconditional was not relevant because unconditional was the only acceptable outcome to the public, politicians and military. After the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese military still would not surrender so Roosevelt ok'd the second a week later with the same result except for the Emperor who took over and said surrender. At this point the Japanese were afraid we had a production line open and there would be a third then a fourth - unending. What they didn't know was we were unable to build any more weapons for several months because of the necessary production rate of fissionable material was not yet there. It was a very tense moment because if they had not surrendered and another bomb was not forth coming they would have thought it was just a "two-shot" and nothing more - meaning they would not have surrendered and the war would have continued.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/31/2009 @ 6:43pm
What are you folks smoking? I have no idea what you are trying to say. Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:37am
Pastor, I don't like war. I don't like bombs. The argument about the necessity for these things will wage on long after we are both gone. But I am free to say 'I don't like killing'.
I don't like the fact that 'christianity' embraces destruction so willingly as it's culture forges it's way ahead to armageddon, the necessary end predicted in the gospels.
So, symbolically, I am saying - get out of my world and stop trying to force your moral values on me by proxy of both your actions and your philosophy, which, in my mind, don't seem either moral or valuable.
Ergo:
Onward christian soldiers - get the hell out of my yard.
Enough with that 'marching as to war' crap.
Posted by ficheye at 03/31/2009 @ 9:07pm
These threads are always fun aren't they boys in girls?
Despite LVL's previous claim that you can only have it one of two ways it has been repeated multiple times that this is not the case. But I will address your claim directly LVL with some numbers.
Now would I rather see honorable young men and women who signed up to put their lives on the line for their country die or would I rather see innocent women, children and men die? Well the innocent people didn't have a choice. If I choose to to go to war I know the potential consequences of my actions and accept those consequences as a part of my decision. Innocent people do not have a choice. They are where they are and have no good way to get anywhere else. Otherwise I guarantee you war zones would NEVER be populated.
So let's rephrase your original question. Would you rather see the deaths of innocent civilians who have no choice in where they are because of the continued use of cluster bombs or the deaths of soldiers who chose their circumstances because of the end of the use of cluster bombs. This is still a false dichotomy but I'll give it you either way.
I have more than one family member in the military by the way in case that gains my opinion more respect from you. Since you seem to think if you didn't serve your opinion is meaningless. I have family members in the military and I still stand by my statement. They choose to be there. The innocent civilians in Iraq didn't choose to be invaded. Same with the civilians in Afghanistan. I know that these things are used on murderers as well but if our aim is to decrease civilian impact of war then it would help if we stop using indiscriminate weapons.
Finally I ask you, how many Americans died in Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians? Afghanistan? No need to worry.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2009 @ 11:33pm
As I briefly alluded to before, I'm pretty sure there's exactly one reason why the US hasn't backed the agreement against landmines: the Korean border. Mainly, the government is very concerned that if given the opportunity, North Korea will invade South Korea. Absent a HUGE committment of troops, the landmines currently sitting on that border are about the only real means we have to prevent this from happening.
<i>Posted by ficheye at 03/31/2009 @ 9:07pm </i>
So...militaristic Christianity=bad? I...agree.
That said, I'm not entirely sure that's what Liberty's defending. The argument I understand him to be making is the theological equivalent of arguments that are often employed under just war theory (which is why just war theory developed initially as a theological concept). Essentially, in a perfect world, no wars would exist; I think pretty much everyone is agreed on that. However, we clearly don't live in a perfect world, which means we often have to choose between the lesser of two evils. As such, there will be circumstances where war is the lesser of two evils. The catch, and I think this is your real problem with Liberty, is that I think this probably puts a higher burden both on the initiation and the execution of war than Liberty has often suggested. War isn't like business; it's not supposed to be maximally efficient economically. It's supposed to be maximally efficient with respect to not killing civilians and not doing more than necessary to achieve those goals that justify the war to begin with.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/01/2009 @ 10:46am
Onward christian soldiers - get the hell out of my yard.
Enough with that 'marching as to war' crap.
Posted by ficheye at 03/31/2009 @ 9:07pm
You do realize that the song is about spiritual war, not physical war?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:22am
Peter, I don't think your proposal to ban cluster bombs goes far enough. You forgot regular bombs, guns, and sharp sticks. Surely, you are not in favor of these, but by your omission of these lethal weapons from your ban proposal, you leave me with the distinct impression that you support these inhuman devices.
I think to be consistent, we should foreswear the use of all lethal weapons and vow to fight all future wars only with the use of sharply worded communiques.
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 2:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:22am
Larry, still have an open question for you....
How did I "distort or lie" about your view on Christian morality and war and "collateral damage" among children???
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:22am
"Enough with that 'marching as to war' crap."
Maybe I can help clarify. The song goes 'marching AS to war', (emphasis mine), which means 'as if' you were going to war, meaning with a firm resolve, steadiness of purpose, etc etc. It's called poetic license. It does NOT say "marching TO war", as in 'pick up a gun and start shooting people who disagree with you'. See the nuanced difference, fishy?
Interesting to note that Lincoln, Obama's putative idol, put this nation through an incredibly bloody war for ideological, moral, and nationalistic purposes alone, and he never shrank from using any weapon in his arsenal. He would have laughed aloud, I think, at the childishly naive moralizing of today's left with regard to cluster bombs and other supposedly inhuman weapons.
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:23pm
that Lincoln, Obama's putative idol, put this nation through an incredibly bloody war for ideological, moral, and nationalistic purposes alone----Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:23pm
Backpedal Alert!
So, PONTI, that seems to indicate you think we SHOULDN'T have fought the Civil War???
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:36pm
"So, PONTI, that seems to indicate you think we SHOULDN'T have fought the Civil War???"
No, MASK...that's not what I said. I said that Lincoln put this country through an incredibly bloody war for ideological, moral, and nationalistic purposes alone. Whether you agree with that decision or not is up to you. I neither agree nor disagree with it, it was a decision that was made in the context of the time. Second-guessing the decision is pointless. Looking back, it seems to have worked out okay on balance. The country was saved, slavery was ended, etc. But the cost was enormous. Who is to say that it needed the carnage it entailed in order to make these desirable changes?
The point is, the left of today seeks to aggrandize itself by opposing virtually all American war efforts on some pseudo-moral grounds that anti-war is, in itself, the only defensible position. But certainly, Lincoln, supposedly the hero of our leftist President, was certainly not anti-war. Merely pointing out the contradiction.
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:49pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 3:52pm
"Will you at least admit that some of us on the left understand the need for war and are merely concerned with 'on whom' and 'how' it is conducted?"
I do admit that.
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 4:16pm
I neither agree nor disagree with it, it was a decision that was made in the context of the time.---Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:49pm
So you would have been completely "neutral" if the South had left the Union and maintained slavery?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:32pm
You do realize that the song is about spiritual war, not physical war? Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:22am
Wow. That never occurred to me (sarcasm here). It might help if you weren't such a literalist. I was speaking symbolically. I saw the word AS, Mr. ponti. I get the difference and take no offense to your unfortunate assumption. Might as well address you both. Now to you....
I think, however, that the line has been blurred a bit, especially considering the example of your own christian motivations , and the damage you have brought into this world by your actions, albeit in the service of the military. I would think that you, as a christian, would be against killing in general, but clearly I'm wrong about that. I hate to bring up the tired example of the crusades, but there has been lots of killing done by christians in the name of god, to point out an action that was verifiably driven by a religious obsession.
I will use symbology on occasion. Sometimes it's the only way to respond to disturbing statements like "the childishly naive moralizing of today's left with regard to cluster bombs and other supposedly inhuman weapons." Inhuman? Cluster bombs? Supposedly? A weapon that makes a human look like he came out of a food processor?
There's no arguing with those who like treating others like that. It's the great american pastime... convenience! It's way the hell easier than getting your hands dirty and actually shooting someone... but maybe you did some of that too. It's your business. I won't trouble you too much about it. If you can live with yourself, don't worry... be happy.
Posted by ficheye at 04/01/2009 @ 7:39pm
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 3:50pm </i>
Classic; will someone please archive this? :D
<i>Posted by ficheye at 04/01/2009 @ 7:39pm </i>
I certainly take your point. I admit that I have SOME sympathy with their claim in that I think there is some naivete in discussing cluster bombs without even considering the contexts in which they are currently employed (see, e.g., Korea). At the same time, I do agree that people's willingness to basically poo-poo the serious moral concerns that these weapons evoke is disturbing, especially when done from religious premises. Though there are some interesting line-drawing issues one could pose (many times, a shot with a rifle will hardly kill instantly), these are certainly disturbing weapons.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/01/2009 @ 9:45pm
The problem that I see here is the unexploded bomblets, a testament to their poor design. When the main cannister drops down towards the target, it begins to spin, and as it does releases the bomblets, which float down via little parachutes. They haven't undergone much stress up to that moment, so every damn one of 'em should explode when they get close to the earth. But they don't. So little 'Jimmy-usta-hava-face' picks it up. I have some serious curiosity about what antisocialist said to his god when he was designing these weapons.
I won't say there's never going to be a time when we need to get some bad guys who won't come out of their cave or whatever. It's the collateral damage akin to land mines, but curiously, even worse, shredding the innocent child or other people looking for salvage or food.
I don't see that there's any response that can be made to excuse the killing of innocents due to the inefficiency of a weapon attributable to it's hasty or poor design. I'd prefer that they were never made, but that's just silly me.
Posted by ficheye at 04/01/2009 @ 10:12pm
The use of cluster bombs has been absolutely devastating to the children of Iraq. Tens of thousands of children have been killed or maimed by these insidious weapons. is it my understanding that the UN is about to ban them. Also, I understand the US and the UK are the only military forces in the world using them.
Also, phosperous bombs. Again, devastating to the children, burning some to a crisp. Burns, sometimes and usually extensive, is a horrible way to die or be wounded. Again, only used by the US & UK, again, about to be banned by the UN.
We have so much to be ashamed about with this unforgiveable war, the use of these weapons is at the top of the list!
Posted by Dickzx at 04/02/2009 @ 2:50pm
I'm probably too late to add my $.02 here, but in the off-chance that some might read it, I will.
During Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, cluster bombs were used with the *apparent* purpose of targeting civilians, especially children. From what I remember, the predominant type of cluster bomb used, was termed the "present" bomb, because the bomblets were encased in brightly-colored shiny metal. Some were in the shape of apples, I was told. These bright, shiny colors, and intriguing shapes were very attractive to children, who would pick them up...and lose a hand, arm, face, etc. "Collateral" damage? I don't think so.
And, if I remember correctly, this type of cluster bomb was manufactured in the US.
Posted by DiMAndrews at 04/03/2009 @ 09:09am
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:32pm
"So you would have been completely "neutral" if the South had left the Union and maintained slavery?"
If you want to pose hypothetical questions, MASK, you'll have to be a little more specific. Would I be living in Europe as my ancestors did at the time? Would I be black, white, or something in between? Would I be raised in the South, the North, or the Border states? If I was raised in the South, would you condemn me if I did not rise above my social conditioning to recognize the evil of slavery, or do you condemn the entire male population of the antebellum South as genetically-determined racists?
Or do you mean if I, with my 20th Century morals, ethics, and upbringing, was transported back in time, like a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, back to 1861, would I join the Union Army or the Confederate Army, or would I simply stand idly by while soldiers were slaughtered wholesale by 'inhumane' weapons like smoothbore cannon? And recognizing that the 'Civil War' (actually, it was a war of secession) was started by Lincoln NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FREEING SLAVES, but rather to preserve the Union....would I have fought for the specific purpose of freeing the slaves ANYWAY, knowing that that was NOT the purpose of the war? MASK, the problem with you is that you're not even educated or free-thinking enough to ask the right questions, much less intelligently evaluate an answer. Sheesh.
Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 09:50am
Cluster bombs evolved from the Daisy cutter, a WW1 artillery weapon. The Germans developed this further in WW2 with the Tellermine. This was a landmine weapon designed to launch into the air about 1 meter and explode after being stepped on. Very effective in a radius of about 20 meters. The cluster bomb is a very natural progression of these. Excellent weapon against aircraft on the ground as well as troop concentrations. Cheaper than smart bombs, why would you give them up? By the way Truman was right, drop the Bomb end the war no nonsense. To invade Japan to avoid this is madness.
Posted by NEliterite at 04/03/2009 @ 12:50pm
Drop the Cluster Bombs on our enemies, and help our boys live! The military exists to kill people and break things. Removing these weapons only lowers the deterence value of our standing military. Lets let the activists who oppose militray weapons pick up a rifle and stand at post, take a hill, bridge, or defend against an enemy onslaught and they would soon be crying for their mama's and for the Airforce, Marines,Army and Navy to "cluster" the enemy! Let them deal with seeing their buddies getting the hell blown out of them and lets see what thay have to say then!
Posted by mike63 at 04/04/2009 @ 07:30am
Posted by mike63 at 04/04/2009 @ 07:30am
Mike,no one here is saying they may never need to be used. It's just that the bomblets don't all blow up.
If you went down to the reservation and bought a bunch of fireworks for 4th of July and half of them didn't go off, wouldn't you be pissed?
Same deal here. And a hell of a lot more expensive. In this surreal world, if I have to pay tax money to make those bombs every damn one of them should blow up after they are dropped. It's pretty much guaranteed that all of the locals are standing WAY back at that moment.
Plus, they need to be dropped where a bunch of kids won't be blown up in an effort to get 10 or 20 bad guys.
I think if you would read a bunch of the other posts you would get a better idea of what the 'general' opinion against using cluster bombs is. Don't just assume a bunch of 'peace freaks' are whining.
Posted by ficheye at 04/04/2009 @ 4:58pm
Posted by NEliterite at 04/03/2009 @ 12:50pm: Your right, it was Truman who "dropped the bomb", Roosevelt had just died. In the discussions concerning the use of the bomb Oppeneimer said "implicit in its development was its use." Another reason for ending the war quickly, besides massively reducing calualties, was because Russia was getting ready to invade Japan from the north. Had the invasion by the US and Russia happened, Japan would have been ravaged, reduced to rubble and partitioned, because Russia wanted a big chunk. All that was prevented even though Russia still invaded some of the small northern islands and hold them to this day.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/05/2009 @ 3:33pm
Something tells me that antisocialist hasn't watched children die before and isn't qualified to justify war, so his position can be ignored. Here's what can't be ignored. Anyone who actually thinks that God wants governments to wage war is a psychopath. If that person also happens to be a military contractor, he should be picked up for questioning and observation by the DHS and excluded from any type of government contracting. Where are FBI agents when you need them.
Posted by Milhaus at 04/05/2009 @ 8:04pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 5:29pm :
Wouldn't the world be nicer if Hitler and Dubya had played/"been better at" that game and learned a thing or two?
Well to compare the two in any way is completely unfair. Hitler was driven to do what he did by his experiences steming from WWI and the treatment of Germany after the war. He never would have been able to take power had it not been for that.
Bush was simply reactive to 9-11 as any president would have to be. Prior to 9-11 the Bush presidency was starting to looking like it might be a rather boring stretch with the only excitement being the usual pedestrian American political scandals that plague both sides.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/05/2009 @ 10:07pm