Cluster Bombs (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2024, 12:18:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Cluster Bombs (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should the US ban cluster bombs?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 21

Author Topic: Cluster Bombs  (Read 7704 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« on: May 30, 2008, 10:47:14 AM »

States which are not warmongering aggressor empires have no problem banning these.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2008, 11:36:04 AM »

Absolutely.  They are unecessary and brutal.  Just another black mark on this country's foreign and military policy.

111 nations signed the agreement.  The U.S., China and Russia did not.  Ridiculous.  It's not like the Chinese and Russians have Gatling Guns and we are left with muzzleloaders. 

The US, China, and Russia do not plan to use these things against each other.  Your Gatling gun comment is apropos, as the purpose of cluster bombs is not unlike that of the Gatling gun - used by viciously exploitative empires to slaughter essentially unarmed victims ('fuzzy wuzzy' to the British, Chechans to the Russians, Tibetans to the Chinese, and of course the list for america would go on and on).
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2008, 02:52:08 PM »

Thankfully no politician that could ever get elected here would be able (or willing) to sign such an agreement.

And opebo's perfectly correct here.

If you understand that I am correct, I don't see why you say 'thankfully' about the prospect of the status quo being continued.  The aggressive, brutalizing activities of the Empire are highly damaging to your interests as a working class american - they only benefit a tiny elite, while harming the rest of us.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2008, 03:00:32 PM »

Absolutely.  They are unecessary and brutal.  Just another black mark on this country's foreign and military policy.

111 nations signed the agreement.  The U.S., China and Russia did not.  Ridiculous.  It's not like the Chinese and Russians have Gatling Guns and we are left with muzzleloaders. 

Hmm.

CBUs were extensively used in Viet Nam to clear landing field for choppers in the jungle (ever hear of daisy cutters).



Yes, I have.  In fact, our church sponsored a medical missionary who treated a number of children who'd lost limbs because of unexploded daisy cutters. 

Hmm.

You previously said "unneccessary," and implied their only use was killing.  If you have an alternate, quick, and effective means of clearing landing fields for helicopters, I (and the armed forces) would like to hear of them.

Here's one - stop attacking third world countries.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2008, 11:03:50 PM »

Until China, Russia, and Pakistan do so, we cannot afford to give up anything.
And this was the thought process that led to WWI.

Maybe so, but we cannot be too careful.

Absolute nonsensical paranoia, but typical of american foreign policy.  Of course said paranoia provides the perfect cover for said policy's real motivation.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 10:33:47 AM »

What do you think the policy's real motivation is?

Dominating weaker countries, forcing capitalism upon them and thus sucking them dry.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 12 queries.