US rejects ban on cluster bombs AFP

To save the lives of our soldiers, they need the right equipment to fight this type of war which isn't being provided.

Why does it make you conservatives so blind to the realities?

The rhetoric used by Bush and company is "support our troops," but that's only cheap lip service. Did you see the recent report on how our soldiers are treated at our hospitals in the US?

Most experts challenging Bush surge talks about the lack of proper equipment and training. Don't you guys read this stuff?

You conservatives must take your blinders off.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You hope? Wow, that'll surely ensure no innocents gets killed by those cluster bombs.

Thats the best I can offer. Sorry your not getting the answer you want. I see the use of such weapons as more useful then harmful. How many innocent people have been killed by US cluster bombs in the last 5 years? I'm sure you have some #'s somewhere.

You didn't answer my question though. Can you think of something that is better to use then cluster bombs when providing close air support to US soldiers?

0 Replies

Baldimo, We live in a world where international agreements save lives. Why is it that conservatives see no value in such agreements?
We do not live in "isolation" in this world. To think otherwise is pure ignorance and stubbornness.

0 Replies

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

Then do NOT go to war.

Apparently, we have a different definitiaon of HOW one should fight a war, once you decide you need to go to war.

Cluster bombs are very effective in killing PEOPLE in a wide area as compared to conventional bombs.

Soldiers are poeple just like civilians are people. When you decide to go to war, PEOPLE get killed. Most are killed on purpose (soldiers) some just "get in the way" (civilians).

I don't like war. I did not like it when I fought in one and I like it less now. However, when a Government decides it MUST go to war, that Govt must do everything in it's power to defeat the enemy and protect it's soldiers.

I civilians getting killed concerns that govt, then they should NOT have gone to go to war.

You can not pick and chose the weapons to use at the risk of our soldiers to protect civilians.

You question my moral position in a discussion about WAR where killing people and destroying property is the consequence??? That's the silliest thing I ever heard!

Reminds me of Arlo Guthrie's statement in Alices Restaurant..

" You want to know if I'm moral enough to join the Army and kill"

0 Replies

I reject the notion that once a nation has committed to war, they are absolved of moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary deaths, outright.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I reject the notion that once a nation has committed to war, they are absolved of moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary deaths, outright.

Cycloptichorn

You come up with those #'s for the amount of civilians killed by US released cluster bombs?

The US military avoids civilian deaths at great cost in money and sometimes at the cost of our own troops. The stand off against Sader comes to mind.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I reject the notion that once a nation has committed to war, they are absolved of moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary deaths, outright.

Cycloptichorn

You come up with those #'s for the amount of civilians killed by US released cluster bombs?

The US military avoids civilian deaths at great cost in money and sometimes at the cost of our own troops. The stand off against Sader comes to mind.

Look, that was CI you asked for those numbers, not I.

It was not I that contended that the military should not try to avoid killing civilians, but Woiyo. This is the second time that you've become confused about who is saying what to whom - in the same post!

I like this topic, but I don't like answering for other people's questions or positions!

Cheers tho

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I reject the notion that once a nation has committed to war, they are absolved of moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary deaths, outright.

Cycloptichorn

You come up with those #'s for the amount of civilians killed by US released cluster bombs?

The US military avoids civilian deaths at great cost in money and sometimes at the cost of our own troops. The stand off against Sader comes to mind.

Look, that was CI you asked for those numbers, not I.

It was not I that contended that the military should not try to avoid killing civilians, but Woiyo. This is the second time that you've become confused about who is saying what to whom - in the same post!

I like this topic, but I don't like answering for other people's questions or positions!

Cheers tho

Cycloptichorn

I'm sorry for the mistake.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I reject the notion that once a nation has committed to war, they are absolved of moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary deaths, outright.

Cycloptichorn

You come up with those #'s for the amount of civilians killed by US released cluster bombs?

The US military avoids civilian deaths at great cost in money and sometimes at the cost of our own troops. The stand off against Sader comes to mind.

Look, that was CI you asked for those numbers, not I.

It was not I that contended that the military should not try to avoid killing civilians, but Woiyo. This is the second time that you've become confused about who is saying what to whom - in the same post!

I like this topic, but I don't like answering for other people's questions or positions!

Cheers tho

Cycloptichorn

I'm sorry for the mistake.

No worries, just thought it was funny Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I reject the notion that once a nation has committed to war, they are absolved of moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary deaths, outright.

Cycloptichorn

What moral responsibility did Truman have when considering the use of 2 nukes?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

To save the lives of our soldiers, they need the right equipment to fight this type of war which isn't being provided.

Why does it make you conservatives so blind to the realities?

The rhetoric used by Bush and company is "support our troops," but that's only cheap lip service. Did you see the recent report on how our soldiers are treated at our hospitals in the US?

Most experts challenging Bush surge talks about the lack of proper equipment and training. Don't you guys read this stuff?

You conservatives must take your blinders off.

I don't know which units are not being deployed with the proper equipment but I never saw someone that didn't have the right stuff. Now I did see soldiers that had been issued equipment but lost it and had a hard time getting new equipment issued to them but that isn't the fault of the Army, it was the fault of the soldier who was being lazy and didn't make sure they had all of their stuff.

Care to post some current stories of soldiers not having the right equipment? I would love to see them as would the rest of us. There has been mention of this lack of equipment since Bush started his push to get more troops over there. Please oh please provide some recent stories.

0 Replies

Baldimo, Here's the latest one I could find in "Search." Your inability to see the problems of this war is offensive.

Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A01

The Army is working to fill a shortfall in Iraq of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs -- including a rising threat from particularly lethal weapons linked to Iran and known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFP) -- that are now inflicting 70 percent of the American casualties in the country, according to U.S. military and civilian officials.

The additional protection is needed for thousands of U.S. reinforcement troops flowing into Baghdad, where these devastating weapons -- used primarily by Shiite fighters -- are particularly prevalent, the officials said.

U.S. Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan lack more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee armor kit, known as FRAG Kit 5, according to U.S. officials. The Army has ramped up production of the armor, giving priority to troops in Baghdad, but the upgrade is not scheduled to be completed until this summer, Army officials said. That is well into the timeline for major operations launched last week to quell violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, which the U.S. military now views as the top security threat in Iraq.

0 Replies

On May 2004 the US Senate approved US$618 million funding for the production of 300 M1114s per month from May through October, and 450 per month, from October 2004 till March 2006. $610 million were also allocated for armor kits for existing tactical vehicles. According to Major General John Sattler, Director of Operations for CENTCOM, the US Army initial assessments were that 1,000 up-armored Humvees will be sufficient for patrol, convoy protection and transportation in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as opposition forces in both countries changed their ambush tactics and IED techniques, the numbers where updated, calling up for 2,500 more M-1114 up-armored Humvees. Currently, production of 2,000 more vehicles are on contract, and expected to be delivered in theater by December 2004, with approximately 4,500 up-armored humvees scheduled to be operational in the theater. In addition, 8,000 up-armored kits are on ordered and being installed to protect windshields and doors for additional vehicles, including trucked and soft skinned Humvees. In September 2006 Armor Holdings announced it will provide the US Army M1114 Up-Armored HMMWV with supplemental armor components to increase the vehicle's IED protection levels. According to company sources, the contract worth is $183 million. The armor components will be delivered in 2007.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-04/up-armored-humvee.htm

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Baldimo, Here's the latest one I could find in "Search." Your inability to see the problems of this war is offensive.

Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A01

The Army is working to fill a shortfall in Iraq of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs -- including a rising threat from particularly lethal weapons linked to Iran and known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFP) -- that are now inflicting 70 percent of the American casualties in the country, according to U.S. military and civilian officials.

The additional protection is needed for thousands of U.S. reinforcement troops flowing into Baghdad, where these devastating weapons -- used primarily by Shiite fighters -- are particularly prevalent, the officials said.

U.S. Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan lack more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee armor kit, known as FRAG Kit 5, according to U.S. officials. The Army has ramped up production of the armor, giving priority to troops in Baghdad, but the upgrade is not scheduled to be completed until this summer, Army officials said. That is well into the timeline for major operations launched last week to quell violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, which the U.S. military now views as the top security threat in Iraq.

You see the difference between this story and ones like it in the past? This one doesn't say they don't have armor it says they don't have the new armor, which is way different then before. Of course they don't have the new stuff yet, it's new. I never once saw an unarmored humvee that was mission capable when I was deployed and I was at several bases across Afghanistan. I can't speak for those in Iraq but from what I know and what I have seen, I believe Iraq had the priority then for such parts.

The new armor is in response to the new weapons that have begun to be used in Iraq. This happens in a war, we find a way to prevent from getting killed and the enemy finds a way to continue killing troops. It has happened in every war since the dawn of time. This is nothing new and to make a huge issue out of it has nothing to do with the troop's safety as it is a political issue with some of you.

0 Replies

Baldimo, Here's a clue for you: our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for over four years now. Small detail.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Baldimo, Here's a clue for you: our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for over four years now. Small detail.

Yes I know this. Its the reason I joined. I'm telling you the complaint went from having no armor which was corrected about 2 years ago to now not having the new armor. It says so right in the article you posted.

Quote:

U.S. Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan lack more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee armor kit, known as FRAG Kit 5, according to U.S. officials.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

What your saying is, that there is no good use for Cluster Bombs? I mentioned close air support of friendly troops or even destroying air fields on enemy bases, and my post made you sick? You have deep issues and no understanding of the military or how it works.

Who declared DU ammunition an "illegal weapon of mass destruction" and when?

Its people like you who think the military should still be fighting with sling shots and spears. Yet I'm sure you still claim to support the troops when it comes to this war, you just don't support them when it comes to using effective weapons against an enemy.

I did my time in the British Army, our emphasis was winning hearts and minds, we didn't act like a bunch of Rambo's.

In answer to your question: Who declared DU ammunition an "illegal weapon of mass destruction" and when?
It was a 1996 United Nations resolution that classifies DU ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction, however it made no difference to the US Military, they're deliberately flouting the resolution; I wonder if the soldiers are aware of the risk in handling the munitions, incidentally the US also supplied cluster bombs to the Israeli's, for their recent invasion of Lebanon, they killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians?

As for the rest of your post, you're right about not supporting the troops, they are well aware of the world objections to this US aggression yet they still go to Iraq kicking doors in, encroaching on family privacy and abusing innocent civilians.
Before you rave on about insurgents and terrorists I reiterate what I have said many time in the is forum, it is a very fine line between a terrorist and a patriot and from where I am standing you are the invaders and terrorists in Iraq, the other side are the patriots fighting to free their country from US occupation and aggression.

0 Replies

Baldimo, I didn't send one soldier into Iraq or Afghanistan to fight a war; our president and congress does. It's their responsibility from day one of sending them half way around the world to fight a war properly equipped and trained. We're still hearing about lack of equipment and training. That you think you're being provided by the proper armour in Iraq seems ludicrous when our soldiers are still being killed in their humvees. If you feel safe, good for you!

Many active soldiers are now saying the war in Iraq cannot be won. I'm sure you have a different take on that too!

0 Replies

From the Washington Post:

Equipment For Added Troops Is Lacking
New Iraq Forces Must Make Do, Officials Say

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; Page A12

Boosting U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 would create major logistical hurdles for the Army and Marine Corps, which are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply the extra forces, U.S. officials said.

The increase would also further degrade the readiness of U.S.-based ground forces, hampering their ability to respond quickly, fully trained and well equipped in the case of other military contingencies around the world and increasing the risk of U.S. casualties, according to Army and Marine Corps leaders.

Hey, Baldimo, who should I believe, you or the Washington Post?

0 Replies

anton wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

What your saying is, that there is no good use for Cluster Bombs? I mentioned close air support of friendly troops or even destroying air fields on enemy bases, and my post made you sick? You have deep issues and no understanding of the military or how it works.

Who declared DU ammunition an "illegal weapon of mass destruction" and when?

Its people like you who think the military should still be fighting with sling shots and spears. Yet I'm sure you still claim to support the troops when it comes to this war, you just don't support them when it comes to using effective weapons against an enemy.

I did my time in the British Army, our emphasis was winning hearts and minds, we didn't act like a bunch of Rambo's.

In answer to your question: Who declared DU ammunition an "illegal weapon of mass destruction" and when?
It was a 1996 United Nations resolution that classifies DU ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction, however it made no difference to the US Military, they're deliberately flouting the resolution; I wonder if the soldiers are aware of the risk in handling the munitions, incidentally the US also supplied cluster bombs to the Israeli's, for their recent invasion of Lebanon, they killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians?

As for the rest of your post, you're right about not supporting the troops, they are well aware of the world objections to this US aggression yet they still go to Iraq kicking doors in, encroaching on family privacy and abusing innocent civilians.
Before you rave on about insurgents and terrorists I reiterate what I have said many time in the is forum, it is a very fine line between a terrorist and a patriot and from where I am standing you are the invaders and terrorists in Iraq, the other side are the patriots fighting to free their country from US occupation and aggression.

If you did your time in the British Army then you know about the SAS? Do they win hearts and minds or do they get into positions where close air support is useful to keep them from getting killed?

Their fighting to free their country from US occupation and aggression? If thats so then how come they are killing more of their own countrymen then they are US soldiers? Everyday we hear about another bomb going off over in Iraq. Who is most often killed in these stories? Iraqis are the victims and have been the major victims for the last year or so. US soldiers are getting killed but the # is always dropping from month to month. While there are still some months that are worse then others, the over all # has declined.

How many Iraqis were killed today? 10
How many US soldiers? 0

0 Replies

US rejects ban on cluster bombs AFP

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know