cluster bombs are ok by US
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/ap_on_go_co/cluster_bombs

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.

But Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said, "The rules of engagement properly belong with the Department of Defense and the commander in chief." Stevens argued that the amendment would restrict "the ability of our military to use these munitions to protect our people."


Any one find any credibility in that statement for the use of cluster bombs on civilians?

Re: cluster bombs are ok by US
 

Sure, when the alternative are nukes - which could really ruin a person's day.

Re: cluster bombs are ok by US
 

I see no mention (other than yours) as to our "using them on civilians".

Re: Re: cluster bombs are ok by US
 

Get some new glasses buddy.............pictues were published and posted all over the world on this. In Iraq, in urban areas, which civilians inhabit or will inhabit after the fighting. And we all know only half of them go off when used, the other half act as mini land mines often in the rubble in which children play.



From the article:

You are right. Near civilian targets with as high as 40% unexploded, left for civilians to find during cleanup. Yep, since we did not drop them on civilians directly, but only on certified enemy combatants, we can continue this policy.

I don't agree with that premise.

I took issue with the claim that we drop these on civilians as practice. I still see no evidence of that. Our investigation of Israel using them in Lebanon only proves my contention that this is NOT our policy, if it were there would be nothing to investigate.

You can't win, daddy.
Lets drop old marshmallows on them.
:rolleyes:
Good thing we have so many weapons experts on here...

They dress as civilians and hide among civilians, and the civilians hide them too. Yes, use them. You are judged by the company you keep, and if you let terrorist him among you, well, if you die, you made the choicehttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/ar15.gif

We choose candor over ignorance.

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm
We just want the truth.

I've always said, use what you have to, just be open and honest about it. I'm not asking too much am I?

What did they lie about?


Edit: I just read the story.

" The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs, and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were "remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental damage. "

i don't see how our military tactics (which should be used to OUR advantage which means they may have to remain secret) fall under the category "let's-tell-everyone-the-truth-and-be-open-and-honest-about it"??

How big of a lie?

That should be the question.

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~dklh/candor.jpg

War is about killing people. Mercilessly and brutally if that's what it takes. That's the reality and also the reason war should be a last - not a first - resort.

You also don't win wars with one hand tied behind your back. I'd think Vietnam would've taught us that once and that Iraq is teaching it to us again.

I say let the military devise whatever terrible implements of death they want, but we exercise discretion in their use. If the military thinks there's something to be gained by dropping cluster bombs on civilian targets, then they should be held accountable for it.

On a related note, aren't a lot of "terrorists" technically "civilians" since they're not formally part of any recognized military body?

bingo. couldn't have said it better myself.

When?

Before or after they lie about it?

I agree with most of what you said, and I don't disput that war is an ugly thing.

Who invented the term 'collateral damage' ? Arnold ? Apparently its a fact of war that has to be taken into account.

However, if a bunch of those cluster fuchs were dropped in my back yard where my kids are playing, I would be rather upset.

Probably the same people that invented "outsourcing" (layoffs), "downsizing" (layoffs), "reduced market share" (lost business), "think outside the box" (has become so overused as to be "inside the box"), "neutralize" (kill), "eliminate" (kill) and all the other stupid words/phrases that only obfuscate things.

Misinformation and lies are unfortunately intertwined with politics and all things political (including military action). I say try to catch people in lies from the outset, but sometimes you can't catch 'em until later - after the damage is done. Fact of life, unfortunately.

Exactly why I was against the war in Iraq to start with.

Unfortunately that leads to the following rationale.

Yea, that's why I asked the question. It's kind of a slippery slope.

I hope you are right.

There are so many instances of Geneva Convention violations that we have committed or supported, let's hope our own use of cluster bombs against civilians is just speculation.

But I'm curious; what did we use in Fallujah? There are rumors we dropped white phosphorus and cluster bombs there. The rumors appeared not only on blogs, but in some non-US news media.