[Unknown Target]

apparantly Ghadaffi is using cluster munitions which has a few of the human rights groups up in arms

Good thing no one's looking at America's ordinance stores then. /sarcasm

[Mustang19]

We're America, we don't need your international treaties. ****, you can buy landmines, cluster munitions and your own pet detainees in the gun section at Wally World.

[chief1983]

Just cause we have it doesn't mean we use it.  I mean, if that were true, we'd have nuked someone by n-, er, nevermind.

[jr2]

Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back to try to play nice makes as much sense as Vietnam.  Oh, wait, nevermind, that caused (among other things) Vietnam.    You don't fight wars to be fair or nice.  You fight to win.  If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.

[Mustang19]

Well its not that, banning cluster bombs is unfair since mainly rich countries use them. It's also a little retarded, since an bomb is a bomb and there is nothing particularly inhumane about cluster ordnance other than that there's more bomblet duds lying around afterward... but artillery shells go dud too.

Also I'd be surprised if NATO isn't using cluster munitions too. Tomahawks are supposed to carry bomblets.

[jr2]

A-10s (I'm sure others as well) use ClusterBombUnits (I think that's what the term was anyway).

[Grizzly]

Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back to try to play nice makes as much sense as Vietnam.  Oh, wait, nevermind, that caused (among other things) Vietnam.    You don't fight wars to be fair or nice.  You fight to win.  If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.

Isn't being fair and nice a method of winning wars? I seem to recall that napalming the **** out of everything didn't really help the American cause in Vietnam.

[headdie]

playing nice means that there is less resentment amongst the population of the target country when you do win

[Delta_V]

The reason some countries have banned cluster munitions isn't because they're somehow less humane to use against enemy troops.  The problem is sometimes not all of the bomblets explode when they hit the ground, so after the war, you end up w/ unexploded ordinance that can hurt civilians.  Basically the same reason people oppose landmines.

[Mustang19]

But it's not like regular unitary warhead bombs and artillery shells are much more humane. I mean if you're going for that you might as well oppose high explosives in general.

[General Battuta]

But it's not like regular unitary warhead bombs and artillery shells are much more humane. I mean if you're going for that you might as well oppose high explosives in general.

They're a lot easier to track down if they don't go off.

[Mustang19]

I don't think there's a lot of "tracking down" going on in these third world conflicts though. If a shell lands in your mud hut and doesn't explode you're probably not going to be able to do anything about it until it blasts through the roof one day. At least when bomblets go boom you might only lose a hand or an arm.

[General Battuta]

When you've got one centralized failure point and you know where it is it's a lot easier to keep kids and whatever from playing with it (as opposed to 400 ICM submunitions scattered across a couple square kilometers.)

This means a lot less kids who lose a hand or an arm or a leg.

[Mustang19]

When you've got one centralized failure point and you know where it is it's a lot easier to keep kids and whatever from playing with it (as opposed to 400 ICM submunitions scattered across a couple square kilometers.)

This means a lot less kids who lose a hand or an arm or a leg.

I find your repeated use of concrete examples to explain concepts to me to be condescending. 

[General Battuta]

What can I say, i put the whore into metaphwhore

[jr2]

Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back to try to play nice makes as much sense as Vietnam.  Oh, wait, nevermind, that caused (among other things) Vietnam.    You don't fight wars to be fair or nice.  You fight to win.  If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.

Isn't being fair and nice a method of winning wars? I seem to recall that napalming the **** out of everything didn't really help the American cause in Vietnam.

Fighting a war with one hand...   If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.

EDIT: Although, yeah, that probably wasn't a good idea.  I just got what you meant.  I meant that we should have pushed north where the enemy was coming from, knocked them out quickly, and helped rebuild maybe.  Instead we sat there and let it drag on.  At the very least, if we decided we didn't want to fight N Vietnam, we could have just taught the S Vietnamese to take care of themselves and supplied them like we eventually ended up doing in the end, except we cut off their supplies and they all died (the ones suspected of opposing the communist North I mean)

[JCDNWarrior]

Well, the whole reason behind rebuilding the country you attacked has to do with all the no-bid contracts and possibly strenghtening your hold over a country. Or in other words, occupation.

In my opinion, as usual, I've noticed that it seems that in the 21st century, instead of physical troops occupying countries, they only beat them into submission, so central banks and mercenary groups can come in. (For instance, in Libya, first things the rebels set up were oil lines to sell to the West, as well as central banks to take monetary control over the country). Much more efficient than physical force. They'll just very slowly tax those people into submission.

With, apparently, over 700 U.S bases over the world, who's to say what precedent this way of taking over, sets?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12969004
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42245997
(Just a few sources on above's stuff)

[Mustang19]

You don't even see the big picture man. The rebels are tools of the bourgeoisie deceived into overthrowing the glorious Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahamabangalama. Before you know it the IMF and CIA will own everything.

Seriously though, Russia 1991/Iraq 2003. That's whats going to happen, everyone knows it. That's all. No one even suggested otherwise.

[Nemesis6]

You don't even see the big picture man. The rebels are tools of the bourgeoisie deceived into overthrowing the glorious Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahamabangalama. Before you know it the IMF and CIA will own everything.

RussiaToday, is that you?

[Mustang19]

Russian state propaganda? On my YouTube?