The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >   Reply to this topic

US Opposes Oslo Cluster-Bomb Ban treaty

Abc
post 23.Feb.2007, 10:49 PM
Post #1
Joined: 2.Oct.2006

WASHINGTON -- The State Department said Friday cluster bombs should be preserved as a military option, rejecting a call for a ban on the weapon by 46 nations meeting in Norway.

"We take the position that these munitions do have a place and a use in military inventories," spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The U.S. chose not to attend the ...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...;ncl=1113753732
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...uster+%2B+bombs
Go to the top of the page
+
Craptastical
post 23.Feb.2007, 11:00 PM
Post #2
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 21.Feb.2007

QUOTE (abc)
WASHINGTON -- The State Department said Friday cluster bombs should be preserved as a military option, rejecting a call for a ban on the weapon by 46 nations meeting in Norway.

"We take the position that these munitions do have a place and a use in military inventories," spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The U.S. chose not to attend the ...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...;ncl=1113753732


Hrm. Part of the article reads:

QUOTE
Countries opposed to the Oslo conference say cluster bombs are being discussed under the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the convention has produced a treaty the U.S. has signed and forwarded to the Senate for ratification. He did not provide details on what the treaty says about cluster bombs.


I wonder what was signed. I hope that there's a ban on cluster munitions, it will absolutely amaze me if they aren't seen as having the same problems as land-mines.

Disclosure: I was in the Army for four years, and I too see how cluster bombs are a useful in war-time. That doesn't mean that it's right for anyone to use them, think napalm, or nukes, or...
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 23.Feb.2007, 11:21 PM
Post #3
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

And...I see you ignored that Russia and China were not interested, because that did not fit with your standard program of "The US is f*cking everything up..."

:roll:

Cluster munitions are a VERY powerful tool...but in warfare, there is always undetonated ordinance. All too often, civvies will be effected in the aftermath. More proof that war is hell.
Go to the top of the page
+
Craptastical
post 23.Feb.2007, 11:33 PM
Post #4
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 21.Feb.2007

QUOTE (.braderunner)
And...I see you ignored that Russia and China were not interested, because that did not fit with your standard program of "The US is f*cking everything up..."


Not ignored, just for a lot of things these days I am completely disgusted with how the US (yes, my country) is messing up, so when I see that the US is involved in something else I disagree with it tends to stick ouot like a sore thumb.

Something occurred to me... Is it possible that one of the three decided not to participate and that decision rippled to the other two? ie. if one of them says "I'm going to keep using foo in warfare" then the others say "fine, we will too".

QUOTE (.braderunner)
Cluster munitions are a VERY powerful tool...but in warfare, there is always undetonated ordinance. All too often, civvies will be effected in the aftermath. More proof that war is hell.


Agreed
Go to the top of the page
+
Roger O. Thornhill
post 24.Feb.2007, 03:38 AM
Post #5
Joined: 12.Oct.2005

Such a surprise that the countries that don't do any of the heavy lifting would sign a ban. Ah, how comfortable it must be on the sidelines.

:twisted:
Go to the top of the page
+
Muttlestar Galactica
post 24.Feb.2007, 04:22 AM
Post #6
Joined: 4.Jan.2006

So what is the alternative ordnance to cluster bombs?
Go to the top of the page
+
Coalbanks
post 24.Feb.2007, 04:33 AM
Post #7
Joined: 16.Jun.2006

All explosives are dangerous, WW1 artillary rounds are still killing people in France & Belgium. Likewise WW11 ordanance and over a much larger area. Much of SE Asia is a minefield and will always be unsafe. Cluster bombs are just much worse than single pieces of explosives.Do countries that are so much better equipped/trained than the local "insurgeants" really need cluster bombs?
Go to the top of the page
+
Muttlestar Galactica
post 24.Feb.2007, 04:55 AM
Post #8
Joined: 4.Jan.2006

Yes, I am at a loss as to reason why cluster bombs are needed outside of initial, disabling strikes...airstrips, base camps etc...
Go to the top of the page
+
Thebinary1
post 24.Feb.2007, 10:25 AM
Post #9
Joined: 4.Nov.2006

QUOTE (Mutley Goes To Holyrood)
So what is the alternative ordnance to cluster bombs?


Not easy to answer because the "Cluster Bomb" is unique in itself. However, another type of bomb that could possibly cover as big an area as cluster bombs is Napalm. However, in terms of destructive power - cluster bombs are more effective than napalm. Then again, nukes are more effective than cluster bombs.
Go to the top of the page
+
Swedeofile
post 24.Feb.2007, 10:50 AM
Post #10
Joined: 16.Jan.2005

Is a ban is really realistic? If China and Russia don't sign what would uit achieve? Besides removing a weapon from the arsenal of the US.
I wonder how many signee's never even had cluster-bombs? So what is their signing worth? Id ban car-bombs first! It is just as usless a weapon and does as much damage. Iam sure the US, China, and Russia will sign that one!
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 25.Feb.2007, 12:37 AM
Post #11
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

QUOTE (Thebinary1)
Not easy to answer because the "Cluster Bomb" is unique in itself. However, another type of bomb that could possibly cover as big an area as cluster bombs is Napalm. However, in terms of destructive power - cluster bombs are more effective than napalm. Then again, nukes are more effective than cluster bombs.
Next thing you know...they will want to ban fuel air explosives :twisted:
Go to the top of the page
+
Word Up
post 25.Feb.2007, 08:18 PM
Post #12
Joined: 18.Nov.2005

Oh gee, what a surprise. The most barbaric, mass-murdering, war-mongering thug regime in the modern world is against banning bombs that kill today, tomorrow; bombs that 20 years from now still kill little children playing. Is anyone surprised?
Go to the top of the page
+
High Priestess Kang - Slu...
post 26.Feb.2007, 04:20 AM
Post #13
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 14.Jul.2006

Because suicide bombing is so dignified, right?

Next agenda pusher, please.
Go to the top of the page
+
Word Up
post 26.Feb.2007, 10:50 AM
Post #14
Joined: 18.Nov.2005

My dear sweet Kang. Every time you show a glimmer of intelligence and I think, "Gee, she's not so dumb after all," you torpedo that assertion to smithereens. It is as if you pulled your logic straight out of a box of cornflakes.

You need to take your head out of the bucket of poo and start thinking with it. I know ... you think that's an original thought, but I assure you, it isn't.

So let me ask you the following:

1. Which nation-state - powerful or weak - uses suicide as its weapon of choice?

2. Is the US doing a fine job of exterminating, torturing and imprisoning all individuals who employ suicide bombing as their weapon of choice?

3. So are you saying the US invaded Iraq because it thought suicide bombers were there?

4. Then what is the excuse for invading and/or invervening in Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Vietnam, Phillipines, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, Chile, Congo, Angola, Haiti, El Salvador, Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Libya ... & many more. Oh that's right Kangster, suicide bombing. Duuuuhhhhh.

5. Which nation on this planet has invaded and intervened in more sovereign nations which was officially at peace with it than the United States of America.

6. Which nation on this planet is headed by a more notorious criminal gang than the one headed by George W. Bush.

7. Is suicide a first resort or the very last?

My dear Kang, since you are so "concerned" with suicide bombers, perhaps you can make the suggestion to give the suiciders some tanks, Tomohawk missiles, Apache helicopters, Caterpiller bulldozers, F-14 fighter jets, guided laser systems, satellite photos ... throw in a few nukes ... and I assure you, suicide bombing would end immediately.

Of course my suggestion is simpler, not to mention, cheaper: stop pushing people around and into a corner and they will have no reason to end their lives, desperately attempting to take a few of the neighborhood bullies with them.
Go to the top of the page
+
Swedeofile
post 26.Feb.2007, 11:06 AM
Post #15
Joined: 16.Jan.2005

Word Up
Your turning into another Trow! Becareful, you are angry all the time and it appears to be blinding you to any sort of balanced opinions. Kang is not evil and does not seserve abuse.

The US administration is not evil either and certainly not by any sensable standard the worst in the world by a long shot.

The real discussion is about cluster-bombs being bammed. It looks like no country with power is on-board with the ban aso the US is not terrible for not signing. Why would or should they sign away a valid weapon? Especailly as it would do nothing but give potential enemies an advantage?
But getting beligerent achieves nothing and makes you appear to be an extremist.
Go to the top of the page
+

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: