US rejects ban on cluster bombs AFP

I'm happy we aren't going stop using cluster munitions. They do indeed have a solid place in the US armory. They have proved to be useful in close air support situations where there is a large group of enemy troops advancing and a smaller group of US troops or special operations soldiers who are pinned down. The dropping of a few cluster bombs on the advancing enemy soldiers eliminates them and saves US soldier's lives. There is nothing better to destroy your enemy's air fields and their base support facilities then cluster bombs.

I do object to the dropping of these weapons on civilian areas. The option to use them in other areas though should always be available.

Baldimo wrote:

I'm happy we aren't going stop using cluster munitions. They do indeed have a solid place in the US armory. They have proved to be useful in close air support situations where there is a large group of enemy troops advancing and a smaller group of US troops or special operations soldiers who are pinned down. The dropping of a few cluster bombs on the advancing enemy soldiers eliminates them and saves US soldier's lives. There is nothing better to destroy your enemy's air fields and their base support facilities then cluster bombs.

I do object to the dropping of these weapons on civilian areas. The option to use them in other areas though should always be available.

Were all the young children who lost their lives, or who have been mutilated by this evil weapon, your enemies?
It doesn't surprise me that US administrators refuse to ban the use of cluster bombs; they made millions selling them to the Israeli's, for use against innocent civilians, during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon

It's not only cluster bombs, what about DU munitions (radio-active Depleted Uranium) the US has used prolifically in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans; thousands have died as a result of this nuclear weaponry which goes on killing for thousands of years, if areas where it was used is not decontaminated?
DU ammunition also affects American military personnel who handle it, or move through areas where it has been used, they are innocents not aware of the deadly dangers associated with handling this insidious weapon, which the UN declared a Weapon of Mass Destruction; many members of the US military have fallen victim of this dastardly weapon, however in spite of all the evidence of the deadly affects of DU the US Government has denied them assistance.
Baldimo your post reminds me of all those in Germany who denied any knowledge of the "Final Solution," you're a sorry excuse for a human being!

The following is taken from an article by, Charlmers Johnson titled:
"Awaiting The Real Toll".
Depleted uranium, or Uranium-238, is a waste product of power-generating nuclear-reactors. It is used in projectiles like tank shells and cruise missiles, because it is 1.7 times denser than lead, burns as it flies, and penetrates armor easily. But it breaks up and vaporizes on impact-making it potentially very deadly. Each shell fired by an American tank includes ten pounds of DU. Such warheads are essentially "dirty bombs," not very radioactive individually but nonetheless suspected of being capable in quantity of causing serious illnesses and birth defects. Simply by insisting on using such weaponry, the American military is deliberately flouting a 1996 United Nations resolution that classifies DU ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction.
Follow this link to read the complete article
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/05/we_404_01.html

It figures that you missed the part of my post at the end where I said I didn't approve of using them in civilian areas. Instead I provided an instance where I do approve of there use.
Your bias shows when you use a source such as motherjones. Got anything else? You don't see me using Limbaugh as a source do you?

A Nazi? Isn't that way over used and meaningless now a days? I thought the left didn't like the idea of using nazi to desribe those they don't agree with?

Baldimo wrote:

It figures that you missed the part of my post at the end where I said I didn't approve of using them in civilian areas. Instead I provided an instance where I do approve of there use.
Your bias shows when you use a source such as motherjones. Got anything else? You don't see me using Limbaugh as a source do you?

A Nazi? Isn't that way over used and meaningless now a days? I thought the left didn't like the idea of using nazi to desribe those they don't agree with?

I didn't miss any of your post, it disgusted me, it's attitudes like yours that have besmirched that once respected country, America.
It seems you are also short sighted, there was no mention of Nazi's in my post?
My source is unimportant, I've been posting about DU munitions since "Desert Storm," I can introduce many sources condemning Depleted Uranium, even some US sources, after all it has been declared an illegal weapon of mass destruction.

Baldimo your post reminds me of all those in Germany who denied any knowledge of the "Final Solution," you're a sorry excuse for a human being!

What other weaponry should we eliminate from our arsenal to appease you and our enemies?

What other weaponry should we eliminate from our arsenal to appease you and our enemies?

woiyo wrote:

What other weaponry should we eliminate from our arsenal to appease you and our enemies?

It isn't about appeasing anyone - it's about the idea that you don't litter civilian areas with cluster rounds. Not hard to understand that it does more damage than it helps out.

When 'doing something right' equals appeasing the enemy, you have a serious problem with your moral position, man.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

What other weaponry should we eliminate from our arsenal to appease you and our enemies?

It isn't about appeasing anyone - it's about the idea that you don't litter civilian areas with cluster rounds. Not hard to understand that it does more damage than it helps out.

When 'doing something right' equals appeasing the enemy, you have a serious problem with your moral position, man.

Cycloptichorn

I have stated this several times and will continue to do so. Have you read that I approve of the use of cluster bombs on civilians? I have stated where I thought their use was fine and where I didn't think it was fine.

Several of you are having a diconnect between what I am saying and you think I mean. Reread and then lets have an intelligent conversation on the issue.

Baldimo, You say you have stated where cluster bombs could be used. Please tell us why the use of cluster bombs in the past have killed innocent people, and how in the world they can use them "safely?" * Kill innocent lives.

What makes you think innocents aren't in non-populated areas?

cicerone imposter wrote:

What makes you think innocents aren't in non-populated areas?

If there is a gun battle going on between enemy forces and US soldiers I would hope that the inncoents get out of there to prevent from getting hit by a straw bullet let alone some close air support.

In my approved situations what would you use to save the lives of US solders who are pinned down by a larger force?