USA, Russia and China will not sign cluster bomb agreement - How typical.......

[OY]

"(CNN) -- More than 100 nations agreed Wednesday on a treaty that would immediately ban all cluster bombs."

"Some of the world's top producers, users and stockpilers of cluster munitions are absent from the conference, including the U.S., Israel, China, Russia, India and Pakistan, according to Human Rights Watch."

Interesting that the countries mentioned here are all in some kind of a dispute, always.



Read more here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...omb/index.html

[_Richard_]

North Korea was there?

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Interesting that the countries mentioned here are all in some kind of a dispute, always.

Perhaps that is the reason they want to have effective weapons systems.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Oystein

"(CNN) -- More than 100 nations agreed Wednesday on a treaty that would immediately ban all cluster bombs."

"Some of the world's top producers, users and stockpilers of cluster munitions are absent from the conference, including the U.S., Israel, China, Russia, India and Pakistan, according to Human Rights Watch."

Interesting that the countries mentioned here are all in some kind of a dispute, always.



Read more here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...omb/index.html

Why not post it all?


"Other countries -- like the United Kingdom, Denmark, France and Japan -- had sought exceptions for certain cluster munitions within their arsenals, Human Rights Watch said."


Gee looks like they are against them unless it's the ones they use... lol


So it's not like there was anyone in full support of it and at least the US is building safer cluster bombs, that un-arm if they don't hit a target. Take this one for example..

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow

[D Ghost]

no surprise there

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by crockett

So it's not like there was anyone in full support of it and at least the US is building safer cluster bombs, that un-arm if they don't hit a target. Take this one for example..

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow

safer cluster bombs - now that is great

[OY]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Perhaps that is the reason they want to have effective weapons systems.

Sure it is - but at what cost?

"Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, said: "It is regrettable that the U.S. and a handful of other states continue to insist on their need to use a weapon that the rest of world is banning because it causes unacceptable harm to civilians."

Come to think of it - why not use NAPALM still too? That is pretty effective!

[OY]

Originally Posted by crockett

Why not post it all?

Because most peeps on GFY cant read or are too lazy to do it. I am just helping them out

"During the 34-day war in Lebanon in 2006, the United Nations estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets, 1 million of which may not have exploded, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

More than 250 civilians and bomb-disposal operators have been killed or injured by them in southern Lebanon since the war ended."

[Vick!]

Why not fucking ban all the weapons at the first hand? I mean all weapons, bombs and stuff kill humans in one or another way. Banning one and allowing other is like taking one gun and handing over another to some criminal.

War should be banned by UN. How? I don't know.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Because most peeps on GFY cant read or are too lazy to do it. I am just helping them out

"During the 34-day war in Lebanon in 2006, the United Nations estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets, 1 million of which may not have exploded, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

More than 250 civilians and bomb-disposal operators have been killed or injured by them in southern Lebanon since the war ended."

Yes this is the exact reason why the US military is the worlds leader in building safer munitions that deactivate after a certain amount of time. This means it's less likely to have a battlefield littered with live ordnance years or decades after a war has come and gone.

Can anyone name any other country that is doing the same?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Vick!

Why not fucking ban all the weapons at the first hand? I mean all weapons, bombs and stuff kill humans in one or another way. Banning one and allowing other is like taking one gun and handing over another to some criminal.

War should be banned by UN. How? I don't know.

ummm yea maybe we can go back to beating each others brains out with big sticks.

[OY]

Originally Posted by Vick!

Why not fucking ban all the weapons at the first hand? I mean all weapons, bombs and stuff kill humans in one or another way. Banning one and allowing other is like taking one gun and handing over another to some criminal.

War should be banned by UN. How? I don't know.

"We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk." Eleanor Roosevelt

[Celeb Fan]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Some of the world's top producers, users and stockpilers of cluster munitions are absent from the conference, including the Israel

god damn jews are at it again

[OY]

Originally Posted by crockett

Yes this is the exact reason why the US military is the worlds leader in building safer munitions that deactivate after a certain amount of time. This means it's less likely to have a battlefield littered with live ordnance years or decades after a war has come and gone.

Can anyone name any other country that is doing the same?

Good one Crockett.

Safe weapons!

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Vick!

Why not fucking ban all the weapons at the first hand? I mean all weapons, bombs and stuff kill humans in one or another way. Banning one and allowing other is like taking one gun and handing over another to some criminal.

War should be banned by UN. How? I don't know.

The U.N. is finished, done with ... The USA took care of that

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Sure it is - but at what cost?

"Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, said: "It is regrettable that the U.S. and a handful of other states continue to insist on their need to use a weapon that the rest of world is banning because it causes unacceptable harm to civilians."

Come to think of it - why not use NAPALM still too? That is pretty effective!

Again why direct it at the US? The US is the world leader at actively seeking and developing safer weapons. Meaning safer for civilians once the weapon has been used.

In ww2 it took hundreds of bombers flying over cities dropping thousands of bombs to take out targets killing hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the war.

A little over 50 years later, we have weapons that can be launched to hit a specific target with one bomb per target accuracy in most cases. Is there still civilian deaths of course and yes that sucks, but it's nothing like what has gone on in the past.

While I may not agree with the way our military is used or the politics behind it, there is no other military in the world that has worked as hard as ours has at keeping civilian casualties as low as possible.

You think the Russians or the Chinese give a fuck about civilian casualties? Would you rather us still need to level entire cities with hundreds of bombers killing thousands in the process?

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

The U.N. is finished, done with ...

If only that were true.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Good one Crockett.

Safe weapons!

If you understand what that meant you would no longer have a reason to bitch.. Safer means it deactivates after it's used and it only explodes if it hits a target. Understand?

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by crockett

If you understand what that meant you would no longer have a reason to bitch.. Safer means it deactivates after it's used and it only explodes if it hits a target. Understand?

Hope that one day a shitload of those are dropped on your country ... Then we will see how SAFEthey are ....

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

If only that were true.

Don't worry... Between the USA and ISRAEL , it is a done deal ... You should know

[OY]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

The U.N. is finished, done with ... The USA took care of that

USA should look at this quote:

"He who did well in war just earns the right, To begin doing well in peace." Robert Browning

[OY]

Originally Posted by crockett

If you understand what that meant you would no longer have a reason to bitch.. Safer means it deactivates after it's used and it only explodes if it hits a target. Understand?

I do understand the concept and it would be lovely if it worked.

Now, I do not just "bitch" at the US - I am in fact a US Citizen by birth and love this country, however, the double standard so often applied by the US bothers me and I would like to see it changed. At this moment in time the US is pretty equal to China and Russia which has no regard to human rights. That I think is sad.

[directfiesta]

[OY]

And this one is for the Chinese:

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Jeannette Rankin, First Woman Member of Congress

[OY]

This one reminds me of something that is going on TODAY!

"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God."
Adolf Hitler

[mikeyddddd]

Originally Posted by Vick!

Why not fucking ban all the weapons at the first hand? I mean all weapons, bombs and stuff kill humans in one or another way. Banning one and allowing other is like taking one gun and handing over another to some criminal.

War should be banned by UN. How? I don't know.

War will soon be replaced by Rollerball.



linkhotten

[sandman!]

i bet half the countries signing that shit dont even have cluster bombs

LOL

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by sandman!

i bet half the countries signing that shit dont even have cluster bombs

LOL

They all have them .. but most of them had them dropped on them .... Maybe the USA would want a few raining on them ?


Idiot

[slavdogg]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Now, I do not just "bitch" at the US - I am in fact a US Citizen by birth and love this country, however, the double standard so often applied by the US bothers me and I would like to see it changed. At this moment in time the US is pretty equal to China and Russia which has no regard to human rights. That I think is sad.

So why dont u fuckin move to RUssian or CHina if they're pretty equal to the US ??

In fact, other than what u've read on CNN, what else do u know about russian or China and have u ever been to either of the 2 countries ?

[slavdogg]

Originally Posted by Oystein

This one reminds me of something that is going on TODAY!

"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God."
Adolf Hitler

So you're also a Hitler sympathizer ?

Have u killed any Jews lately ?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Yet the majority of that map and the ords/mines it represents are munitions from the ex USSR/Russia and China. Not many M16's or much US military surplus in Africa or the Middle East with the exception now of course of Iraq and Afghan.

Yet of course the USA gets the blame game again..

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Sure it is - but at what cost?

"Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, said: "It is regrettable that the U.S. and a handful of other states continue to insist on their need to use a weapon that the rest of world is banning because it causes unacceptable harm to civilians."

Come to think of it - why not use NAPALM still too? That is pretty effective!

why are you such a fucking moron?

"at what cost" ???

really?

how about "at the cost of giving a potential enemy a tactical military advantage"

seriously man.... what world do you live in when you can't understand something so painfully simple? no one is saying its right.. but any fucking moron with an IQ over 10 can understand the logic and reasoning.

[sandman!]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

They all have them .. but most of them had them dropped on them .... Maybe the USA would want a few raining on them ?


Idiot

i would like someone to try to cluster bomb the usa we would level their country

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by crockett

Yet the majority of that map and the ords/mines it represents are munitions from the ex USSR/Russia and China. Not many M16's or much US military surplus in Africa or the Middle East with the exception now of course of Iraq and Afghan.

Yet of course the USA gets the blame game again..

It is not the " blame the USA " game .... As stated, the 2 other major powers - arms manufacturer are not on board either...

The USA, or Russia to that effect have not necessarely used them on countries, but they do manufacture and sell them for profit ... So they end up being used in Africa at large ,,,

The USA are using them/providing them to Ethiopia ( against Somalia ) as well as Nigeria ( gov troops to bomb the so-called insurgents / terrorists / Al-Quaeda .... And they sometimes supply both sides of the conflict.

Now, contrary to China and Russia , the USA claims to be the liberator, the freedom spreader, the human rights defender, the world police taking care of the bullies , so by not signing this agreement it shows the true face of the country

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by sandman!

i would like someone to try to cluster bomb the usa we would level their country

Type of answer that brought you collapsing towers ... Bring them on !!!!!!

[crockett]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

It is not the " blame the USA " game .... As stated, the 2 other major powers - arms manufacturer are not on board either...

The USA, or Russia to that effect have not necessarely used them on countries, but they do manufacture and sell them for profit ... So they end up being used in Africa at large ,,,

The USA are using them/providing them to Ethiopia ( against Somalia ) as well as Nigeria ( gov troops to bomb the so-called insurgents / terrorists / Al-Quaeda .... And they sometimes supply both sides of the conflict.

Now, contrary to China and Russia , the USA claims to be the liberator, the freedom spreader, the human rights defender, the world police taking care of the bullies , so by not signing this agreement it shows the true face of the country

So you could have the same argument against Nuclear weapons and it's pretty obvious no one is giving up Nukes so does that make everyone 2 faced and inhumane? Because they won't give up a tactical advantage?

btw how would the "world police" take care of the bullies if they had to give up any weapons that might kill civilians?


Oh wait we already have that... it's called the UN and we all know how well they stop the conflicts they get involved with.



Look he has a gun but probably no ammo likely mandated by the UN rules of engagement..

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by crockett

Look he has a gun but probably no ammo likely mandated by the UN rules of engagement..

his gun shoots rainbows and happiness... because we all understand and have learned countless times throughout history, thats exactly what keeps despotic psychopaths in check.

[GetSCORECash]

Has anyone ever looked at the amount of weapons Brazil creates and sells. it's easy to pick on the US as it is one of the biggest weapons manufacturer, but little Israel is a huge player in sale of weapons.