Cluster Bombs-US Refusal To Ban

[~Wild Child~]

US refuses to ban cluster bombs

Last Update: Saturday, February 24, 2007. 10:49pm (AEDT)

The United States has rejected an international call to ban the use of cluster bombs, despite 46 other countries calling for a ban on the weapons.

Groups such as the Red Cross and the United Nations are opposed to cluster munitions because of the high proportion of civilians killed by the weapons.

But the US State Department says cluster bombs have a place in armed conflicts as long as countries follow proper rules of engagement.

Forty-six nations at a conference in Norway have called for a treaty to ban such weapons by next year.

But some of the world's major military powers did not attend, including the US, Russia and China.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1856214.htm

[Steelers]

So, the USA want the rest of the world to listen to them, but they don't listen to the rest of the world. Disgraceful.

[~Wild Child~]

So, the USA want the rest of the world to listen to them, but they don't listen to the rest of the world. Disgraceful.

My thoughts exactly.

[~Wild Child~]

Hopes high for ban on cluster bombs

JOHN ACHER IN OSLO
Last updated: 24-Feb-07 00:24 GMT



FORTY-SIX countries including Britain pledged yesterday to aim for an international ban on cluster bombs, blamed for thousands of civilian casualties around the world.

The declaration, which came ten years after a landmark global ban on landmines, said the planned 2008 pact should "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians".


"Almost all of the countries signed on to this declaration, which is a starting point for reaching a ban on cluster munitions in 2008," said Raymond Johansen, a senior foreign ministry official from Norway, which hosted the gathering.

Used in conflicts from Vietnam to Iraq, cluster bombs are blamed for killing and maiming thousands of civilians, and for sowing horror decades after they are dropped in combat, as unexploded bombs can be set off years later.

Mr Johansen said Norway hoped the cluster bomb pact would enjoy the same kind of success as the Ottawa convention that banned anti-personnel landmines, which has been ratified by 153 states.

Big cluster munitions-producing states, including the United States, Russia and China, did not attend the two-day Oslo conference, and Poland, Japan and Romania declined to back the declaration.

Jody Williams, who won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for the landmine initiative, said that she believed the effort would succeed.

"When we started the landmine campaign way back in 1992, people said 'go home little girl, nothing will ever happen'," she said.

"Within five years, we had captured the public conscience and had a treaty banning landmines. I believe there will be a treaty on clusters."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=294892007

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

despite the civilian casualties, cluster bombing is a highly effective militray tactic at destroying and demorolizing your enemy. Being a large military state america has the right to not want to ban them.

They haven't told the world, were not banning them so you shoudn't so listen to us. There just saying we won't ban them.

cluster bombing isn't used that often anyway due to collateral damage.

[Steelers]

despite the civilian casualties, cluster bombing is a highly effective militray tactic at destroying and demorolizing your enemy.

Nukes are also a highly effective military tactic for destroying and demoralising the enemy......

[Capital_Shark]

46 countries agree to ban cluster bombs, but the US, Russia and China didn't even rock up. How many of those 46 other countries are even significant apart from Britain? My guess is not many. Probably countries that don't even use cluster bombs or have a significant enough of a military and standing on the world stage to be involved in anything that would require the use of a weapon that packs more of a punch than a sling shot. But lets not focus on that, it could detract from the fact we've got an excuse to bag the US and war :ok:

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

Nukes are also a highly effective military tactic for destroying and demoralising the enemy......

Yes but not every country has acess to nukes. Many do have acess to cluster bombing and other forms of conventional bombing that they may need to use to defend themselves or press claims.

I'm not saying lots all start blowing each other up cause its cool. I'm just saying that i feel america and in fact any country has the right if the feel necessary to use this form of tactics in a combat situation. It causes less environmental harm than a nuke at least.

A interesting note, the two atomic bombs dropped on japan caused around 110,000 deaths and 70,000+ injured. More japanese civilians were killed by conventional bombing and carpet bombings on the previous day.

[Nathalie]

The US is wrong wrong wrong. Full-stop. Bottom line is, if you want others to do something you should lead by example. Not be like 'You're not allowed to hurt us but we can hurt you if we want, ner ner ner' :p

[Capital_Shark]

The US is wrong wrong wrong. Full-stop. Bottom line is, if you want others to do something you should lead by example. Not be like 'You're not allowed to hurt us but we can hurt you if we want, ner ner ner' :p

But its not like the USA called for the ban then didn't follow it themselves.

[Nathalie]

But its not like the USA called for the ban then didn't follow it themselves.


I thought that's exactly what happened... :dizzy:

[Capital_Shark]

I thought that's exactly what happened... :dizzy:

From the opening article:

The United States has rejected an international call to ban the use of cluster bombs, despite 46 other countries calling for a ban on the weapons.

Groups such as the Red Cross and the United Nations are opposed to cluster munitions because of the high proportion of civilians killed by the weapons.

Not the US that called for the ban.

[Nathalie]

I meant that I thought the US said they didn't want to ban them for themselves. No, I get what you mean now :D

I still think the US (Bush in particular) is a tad too trigger happy.

[~Wild Child~]

From the opening article:



Not the US that called for the ban.
But the red cross...and the UN..and 40 other countries have called for it.
America can state all they want..that 'under proper rules of combat'...that cluster bombs are ok. Obviously they are not.

Does'nt America care at all about civilian casualties? And if they do..they need to fall in line with everyone else.

[~Wild Child~]

'I still think the US (Bush in particular) is a tad too trigger happy.'


I agree Nathalie with your statement. Thats also how I view Bush. Way to trigger happy. :(

[Capital_Shark]

But the red cross...and the UN..and 40 other countries have called for it.
America can state all they want..that 'under proper rules of combat'...that cluster bombs are ok. Obviously they are not.

Doesn'tAmerica care at all about civilian casualties? And if they do..they need to fall in line with everyone else.

Like I said in another post, who are these 46 other countries that agreed? China, Russia and the US didn't even turn up to the meeting about the ban. 3 of the largest militaries in the world. My guess is the other countries agreement to this ban will be insignificant as they're not the ones targeted by the ban.

Civilian casualties is a side effect of war. You'll never have two military forces battle it out without there being civilian casualties.

[Capital_Shark]

I meant that I thought the US said they didn't want to ban them for themselves. No, I get what you mean now :D

I still think the US (Bush in particular) is a tad too trigger happy.

Bush is a Texan ffs, its in his blood.

Regardless of that, his trigger happiness began after 3000 or so innocent civilians, fire fighters and police officers were killed after a gutless terrorist attack (google September 11, 2001). He then went after the people responsible. If your not hell bent on the destruction of the Western way of life or committing crimes against humanity, you should be fairly safe from Bush and his trigger happy ways.

[~Wild Child~]

Like I said in another post, who are these 46 other countries that agreed? China, Russia and the US didn't even turn up to the meeting about the ban. 3 of the largest militaries in the world. My guess is the other countries agreement to this ban will be insignificant as they're not the ones targeted by the ban.

Civilian casualties is a side effect of war. You'll never have two military forces battle it out without there being civilian casualties.

The declaration, which came ten years after a landmark global ban on landmines, said the planned 2008 pact should "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians".

Unacceptable harm to civilians, is what it is all about though.
Britan is also another 'super power'..and they are coming to the party. IMO the countries who didnt bother to show up..really don't care bout the 'unacceptable number of human casualities'. :(

[Nathalie]

If idiots didn't start wars in the first place, then millions of innocent people wouldn't die. Der.

Just wondering if any country (in particular, the US) even bothers to try and think of an alternative solution to war, or their first reaction is 'yeehaw!!! Let's go drop some bombs!!'

[Capital_Shark]

The declaration, which came ten years after a landmark global ban on landmines, said the planned 2008 pact should "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians".

Unacceptable harm to civilians, is what it is all about though.
Britan is also another 'super power'..and they are coming to the party. IMO the countries who didnt bother to show up..really don't care bout the 'unacceptable number of human casualities'. :(


Yeah, I was after a little more than Britan :ok:

I'm sure they care about the civilian casualties, but they probably care a little more about winning whatever battle they get into. And don't try and compare cluster bombs to land mines. And unacceptable to who? Obviously not the countries that didn't sing up to this agreement. I'll bet its the countries that don't have cluster munitions that sign up and reckon the casualties are unacceptable.

[~Wild Child~]

Oslo - Forty-six nations adopted a declaration on Friday calling for a 2008 treaty banning cluster bombs, said officials for the Norwegian government and two non-governmental groups.

Of the 49 nations attending a conference in Oslo on cluster bombs, Poland, Romania and Japan did not approve the final declaration, said Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen and officials for Human Rights Watch and the Cluster Munition Coalition.

The gathering was snubbed by some key arms makers - including the US, Russia, Israel and China - but organisers said other nations needed to forge ahead regardless to avoid a potential humanitarian disaster posed by unexploded cluster munitions.

A declaration presented on the last day of the meeting urged nations to "conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument" to ban cluster bombs.

The treaty would "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of those cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians," said the declaration.

Cluster bombs are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles which scatter them over vast areas, with some failing to explode immediately. The unexploded bombs can then lie dormant for years after conflicts end until they are disturbed, often by civilians.

As many as 60% of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, said the Cluster Munition Coalition.

Children attracted to unexploded bombs

The weapons have recently been used Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon, it said. The UN estimated that Israel dropped as many as four million bombs in southern Lebanon during last year's war with Hezbollah, with as many 40% failing to explode on impact.

Children can be attracted to the unexploded bombs by their small size, shape and bright colours, activists say.

Friday's declaration urged countries take steps at a national level before the treaty takes effect. Norway has already done so, while Austria announced a moratorium on cluster bombs at the start of the conference.

"It is non-binding. It is not a legal document. But it is a statement of political will," Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch said of the declaration.

Norway hopes the treaty would be similar to one outlawing anti-personnel mines, negotiated in Oslo in 1997.

The US, China and Russia have refused to sign the landmine treaty and oppose the Norwegian initiative on cluster bombs. They did not send representatives to the meeting.

Australia, Israel, India and Pakistan also did not attend. Those nations say the weapons should be dealt with in other arenas, such as the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, known as CCW.

Goose said the major powers don't need to be involved for the treaties to have an impact. Activists say the point is to stigmatise the weapons.

"If you need proof that you can conclude a treaty without the United States, Russia and China, look at the landmine treaty," he said.

Goose said even though major powers have rejected the treaty, they have stopped deploying land mines, and that the number of civilian casualties have been cut in half since 1997.






http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2074144,00.html

[Capital_Shark]

If idiots didn't start wars in the first place, then millions of innocent people wouldn't die. Der.

Just wondering if any country (in particular, the US) even bothers to try and think of an alternative solution to war, or their first reaction is 'yeehaw!!! Let's go drop some bombs!!'

Yeah :ok: we should have just TALKED out our problems with Hitler. Come to some sort of agreement. Maybe find some middle ground, instead of 6 million Jews, hows about we give you Poland, let ya gas 1.5 million Jews and run experiments towards your Ayrian nation on another half million, is that cool Adolf? This way we don't need to start a war. Yeehaw!

[~Wild Child~]

'As many as 60% of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, said the Cluster Munition Coalition.'


This statement alone..60% of victims are children, is about the saddest thing I have ever read. I find this totally unacceptable..as any other human being would. :cry:

This number of dead children cannot and should not be seen as acceptable...even by Bush :cry: But then I guess Bush is always right :nope:

[Capital_Shark]

'As many as 60% of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, said the Cluster Munition Coalition.'


This statement alone..60% of victims are children, is about the saddest thing I have ever read. I find this totally unacceptable..as any other human being would. :cry:

This number of dead children cannot and should not be seen as acceptable...even by Bush :cry: But then I guess Bush is always right :nope:


This number of dead children? ITS NOT A NUMBER, ITS A PERCENTAGE. All it means is that if 10 people die from unexploded cluster bombs, 6 of 'em were kids. Take the blinkers off.

This article backs up what I said, no real significant nation came to the party on this ban.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

'As many as 60% of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, said the Cluster Munition Coalition

This statement alone..60% of victims are children, is about the saddest thing I have ever read. I find this totally unacceptable..as any other human being would.

This number of dead children cannot and should not be seen as acceptable...even by Bush But then I guess Bush is always right

Why? America only droped cluster bombs in vietnam, the other bombs are from other nations attacking each other, pakistan and india, china and tibet, kosov and bosnia/yugsolvia. Lebanon and Israel. Maybe the other nations should do what the commonwealth government did a few years ago, a huge education program through media and schools about touching unexploded arnaments from world war 2. I know not to touch stuff and i learnt that when i was 13 so i'm sure asian kids can be taught the dangers as well, perhaps these nations should invest more in solving their issues at home rather than globally. Besides the bombs dropped on their country in conflicts such as Lebanon, Kosov were brought on by their attacks on other nations. You sow the seeds of your own downfall.

The world falling apart isn't all bushes fault, i hope you don't have this one sided view of the current state of the globe, again this is the world according to micheal moore though :D

[~Wild Child~]

Cluster Bombs: The Realpolitik of U.S. Foreign Policy

by Robert Weitzel

Defense Secretary Gates said that serial numbers and other markings found on bomb fragments constituted “pretty good” evidence that Iran was providing weapon technology and material to Iraqi insurgents. White House spokesman Tony Snow said he was confident the weaponry was coming with the approval of the Iranian government.



But Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, disagreed saying, "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this."



That a government supplies sophisticated munitions—overtly or covertly—to countries of strategic or imperialistic interest is realpolitik; that its signature on a bomb fragment that has decapitated a Vietnamese or Afghan or Iraqi or Iranian or Kosovar or Lebanese child is reality, though it is hardly ever the stuff of breaking headline news.



That a government exports and expends munitions that continue to kill civilians long after “mission accomplished” has been declared is also hardly ever newsworthy. But in the case of cluster bombs it is the reality on the ground.



Cluster bombs are dropped from planes or fired as rockets and contain up to 644 bomblets that disperse mid-air, scattering “steel rain” over a 20,000 square meter area (roughly the size of two football fields). The bomblets, which look like a soft-drink can or a D battery, explode on contact and spray deadly razor-sharp shrapnel up to ten meters.



Other than the obvious danger at the time of impact, up to a quarter of the bomblets fail to explode, creating a minefield for civilians long after the fighting has moved on. Young children are especially vulnerable because they are attracted to the shape and color of the bomblets as playthings.



The U.S. military released 297 million cluster bomblets over Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Thirty years later these bomblets continue to kill farmers in their fields and children unfortunate enough to find a “plaything.” The signature of the U.S. government is on each and every fragment as it enters their bodies, finally accomplishing its deadly mission.



In the 1980s, the U.S. government supplied Saddam Hussein, its surrogate in the Middle East, with cluster bombs and poison gas in his 8-year war with Iran. The current Iranian government could make a valid case for U.S. involvement by using the serial numbers on the cluster bomblets that continue to pose a deadly threat to its people 20 years later.



Of the 290,000 bomblets dropped during the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo, 30,000 failed to detonate on impact. In the twelve months following the cessation of hostilities, 151 civilians—many of them children—were killed by U.S. autographed bomb fragments.



Human Rights Watch estimates that there are over 5000 unexploded cluster bomblets still on the ground in Afghanistan five years after the downfall of the Taliban regime.



During the first Gulf War the United States and Britain dropped 54 million cluster bomblets, and as many as 2 million during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There are an estimated 13 million unexploded bomblets on the ground or hanging from trees in both urban and rural areas.



A total of 30 U.S. troops were killed by unexploded bomblets in 1991 and 2003, while Iraq Body Count, an antiwar organization that maintains a database of civilian deaths, estimates that cluster munitions have killed 200 to 372 Iraqi civilians so far.

The “steel rain” of U.S. cluster munitions devastated the Nader neighborhood of Hillah in 2003. Abdul Jewad al-Timimi, with his wife and six children, hoped to escape the bombing by fleeing to his parents’ house. Caught in the open as cluster bomblets exploded around them, the family took shelter in a trash-filled canal.



Mr. al-Timimi remembers hearing the final explosion that ripped their 2-month old baby, Jacob, from his wife’s arms and tore him in two. Their other five children were killed instantly by the blast. Mr. al-Timimi and his wife mercilessly survived.



In his grief and rage, al-Timimi told a reporter, “I wished that the person who started this war . . . could be brought before me so I could kill him six times or kill six of those close to him.”



Does he know that the shrapnel that ripped his children apart carried the signature of the U.S. government?



In 2006, Israel dropped 4 million bomblets during its 34-day invasion of southern Lebanon, almost all of which were dropped in the final 72 hours. An estimated 350,000 failed to explode and continue to kill and maim civilians.

The United States is the world’s largest manufacturer and exporter of cluster munitions and Israel’s major weapons supplier. Predictably, the U.S. government seal is all over the bomb fragments in Lebanon.



Regardless of the international protest over the use of cluster munitions, the U.S. continues to buttress its foreign policy, and that of its strategic allies, with the bestselling bomb that “stays the course” until it finally reports “mission accomplished” long after the world’s attention has turned to another battlefield and yet another reason for using them.



In the pragmatic, amoral world of realpolitik, the Iranian government may very well be supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons. But then, any number of countries could be the culprit. Realpolitik has many faces.http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12207

[Poida]

This number of dead children? ITS NOT A NUMBER, ITS A PERCENTAGE. All it means is that if 10 people die from unexploded cluster bombs, 6 of 'em were kids. Take the blinkers off.

This article backs up what I said, no real significant nation came to the party on this ban.
Percentage doesnt matter. Any amount of kids that die is really sad and unacceptable. If a kid loses a limb its unacceptable let alone one kids life or more.

[jenny]

Bush is a Texan ffs, its in his blood.

Regardless of that, his trigger happiness began after 3000 or so innocent civilians, fire fighters and police officers were killed after a gutless terrorist attack (google September 11, 2001). He then went after the people responsible. If your not hell bent on the destruction of the Western way of life or committing crimes against humanity, you should be fairly safe from Bush and his trigger happy ways.
No normal person likes WAR but
Seriously I totally agree with sharkey here, some have short memories in this world..We lost Australians as well as other nationalities in the 9/11 attacks. And they had to respond. Reverse the situation, what would happen if we went into lebabnon etc and committed that dredful...disgusting attack! Iraq is in a stae of civil war now, and the people doing the most killing are the insurgents............ take them out and the Iraq government may just be able to get on with having a demorcratic country..
As for Cluster Bombs ...Thats the way it is.....whether it be, immoral, disgusting etc, its the way it is...And nothing will change..Probably will get worse...I'm just grateful we live in the best country in the world..And we HAVE to make sure it stays that way, at any cost, IMO! :dead:

[Capital_Shark]

Percentage doesnt matter. Any amount of kids that die is really sad and unacceptable. If a kid loses a limb its unacceptable let alone one kids life or more.

Welcome to the world. Life isn't fair. Wars have consequences and unfortunately the young and innocent are not excluded.

[Poida]

Welcome to the world. Life isn't fair. Wars have consequences and unfortunately the young and innocent are not excluded.
War isnt fair either, War isnt necessary at all especially to families of anyone whos been in war.

[~Wild Child~]

Why? America only droped cluster bombs in vietnam, the other bombs are from other nations attacking each other, pakistan and india, china and tibet, kosov and bosnia/yugsolvia. Lebanon and Israel. Maybe the other nations should do what the commonwealth government did a few years ago, a huge education program through media and schools about touching unexploded arnaments from world war 2. I know not to touch stuff and i learnt that when i was 13 so i'm sure asian kids can be taught the dangers as well, perhaps these nations should invest more in solving their issues at home rather than globally. Besides the bombs dropped on their country in conflicts such as Lebanon, Kosov were brought on by their attacks on other nations. You sow the seeds of your own downfall.

The world falling apart isn't all bushes fault, i hope you don't have this one sided view of the current state of the globe, again this is the world according to micheal moore though :D

Well according to my dad..and many other VETS...the injuries that they saw inflicted on the innocent...changed their views on any war. In my role of nursing...I took care of alot of returned soldiers..and listened to some of their stories..and stayed with them while they cried...especially over the children who suffered...because of war and weapons.

[Poida]

Well according to my dad..and many other VETS...the injuries that they saw inflicted on the innocent...changed their views on any war. In my role of nursing...I took care of alot of returned soldiers..and listened to some of their stories..and stayed with them while they cried...especially over the children who suffered...because of war and weapons.
Exactly. War doesnt solve anything at all. It makes situations worse.
Not to mention puts families through unessecary hell.

[jenny]

We have our Democracy because of the Brave men and women who fought in all Wars...War is DIRTY...there are no clean wars...One would have to be a very sick puppy to like War! But if thats what it takes to keep us free, thats the way it will be! And everyone here can thank a soldier and his family for giving us the freedom to post on this subject here today.
ALWAYS SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

[Capital_Shark]

War isnt fair either, War isnt necessary at all especially to families of anyone whos been in war.

To say war isn't necessary at all is ridiculous. Tell me how things would be today if there was no war against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

[Poida]

I take no further part as Im just gonna have my views ridiculed as usual.

[Nathalie]

To say war isn't necessary at all is ridiculous. Tell me how things would be today if there was no war against Hitler and Nazi Germany.


They shouldn't have started their war in the first place *shrugs*

If they weren't such @$$holes then there wouldn't be so many casualties. That said, you can't change history.. and I wouldn't change things only because if you changed one thing, a whole lot of things could change.. possibly not for the better.

[~Wild Child~]

We have our Democracy because of the Brave men and women who fought in all Wars...War is DIRTY...there are no clean wars...One would have to be a very sick puppy to like War! But if thats what it takes to keep us free, thats the way it will be! And everyone here can thank a soldier and his family for giving us the freedom to post on this subject here today.
ALWAYS SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Speaking to the vets I did talk to..really did'nt want my thanks..they wanted the war to stop...and alot regretted being any part of it. It still haunts them today. And to me...when I hear comments like these from any soldier, who has partaken in war.....it says alot.

It says alot more than the politicans and their policies...

Yes everyone here supports the troops...in everyway possible.

[Capital_Shark]

Exactly. War doesnt solve anything at all. It makes situations worse.
Not to mention puts families through unessecary hell.

Doesn't solve anything at all? Puts families through unnecessary hell? Are you listening to yourself?

War has solved a lot of things. Its kept our country a free and democratic place to live.

What about the unnecessary hell Jewish families went through in Nazi Germany?

They shouldn't have started their war in the first place *shrugs*

Well in a perfect world that'd be cool, but unfortunately when a nutter like Hitler or Saddam get in power, things have to be done.

[Poida]

Doesn't solve anything at all? Puts families through unnecessary hell? Are you listening to yourself?

War has solved a lot of things. Its kept our country a free and democratic place to live.

What about the unnecessary hell Jewish families went through in Nazi Germany?



Well in a perfect world that'd be cool, but unfortunately when a nutter like Hitler or Saddam get in power, things have to be done.
See im sick of my views getting ridiculed. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Just dont keep making it look like im saying something bad.
You can have your debate. Im out of here. :(:(

[jenny]

Speaking to the vets I did talk to..really did'nt want my thanks..they wanted the war to stop...and alot regretted being any part of it. It still haunts them today. And to me...when I hear comments like these from any soldier, who has partaken in war.....it says alot.

It says alot more than the politicans and their policies...

Yes everyone here supports the troops...in everyway possible.
My mums uncle was one of the "Rats of Toobruk" famous for the way they dug in against the German General in Africa..there have been movies etc made about them...He never ever spoke of the war at all, it scarred him until the day he died. BUT...he fought bravely, and got the job done..Wars will always be around unfortunately Michel, BUT we are isolated here, we also need strong allies..Because if we are ever invaded , we are screwed :dead:

[Capital_Shark]

Speaking to the vets I did talk to..really did'nt want my thanks..they wanted the war to stop...and alot regretted being any part of it. It still haunts them today. And to me...when I hear comments like these from any soldier, who has partaken in war.....it says alot.

It says alot more than the politicans and their policies...

Yes everyone here supports the troops...in everyway possible.

Thats fair enough, if any of them were impressed with what they witnessed you'd seriously question their mental state before going to the war. I dunno what war you talking about, but surely no one could say that Australia would be better off today had we not fought for our freedom.

[~Wild Child~]

Thats fair enough, if any of them were impressed with what they witnessed you'd seriously question their mental state before going to the war. I dunno what war you talking about, but surely no one could say that Australia would be better off today had we not fought for our freedom.
I am speaking of many different wars. Being in nursing the scope of people you deal with..is huge.
Many world war vets..and also Vietnam Vets...really resent their governments for sending them there.
It was probably listening to them so much..that influenced my beliefs and views...and so they should.

Its hard when you have a soldier..with Alzheimers, pretty much on their death beds...and there most vivid memories..are that of children being..mutiliated.

I don't have any articles to back up what I am saying...but my guess would be that after seeing the realities of war first hand...it's is enough for these guys to advocate..for no more wars.

It does'nt make them weak..it makes them search for different solutions.

In a way..this topic also makes me want to see a woman in power...it's just my opinion..but women will always advocate also for a peaceful solution..anything other than war. I know I will probably be bombarded..and called a feminist for some of my views..but nothing could be further from the truth.

Hypotheticaly..it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women held power for a while...I honestly believe the wars..would be no more.

[Queenslander]

Hypotheticaly..it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women held power for a while...I honestly believe the wars..would be no more.

What would happen if another 9/11 type event was to happen? I'm not saying you are wrong however I am sure that action would be taken against the groups that brought an act of terrorism.

[Nathalie]

Hypotheticaly..it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women held power for a while...I honestly believe the wars..would be no more.


There probably wouldn't be any wars in the first place.

[Capital_Shark]

What would happen if another 9/11 type event was to happen? I'm not saying you are wrong however I am sure that action would be taken against the groups that brought an act of terrorism.

Exactly, people who are willing to sacrifice themselves to fly a plane into a building to kill nothing but civilians, simply cannot be reasoned with and I'm sure regardless whether it were a male or female in charge, would see that a 'chat' would not solve a damn thing.

I don't have any articles to back up what I am saying...but my guess would be that after seeing the realities of war first hand...it's is enough for these guys to advocate..for no more wars.

But I could advocate an anti war stance, and to some extent do, without having to see children mutilated or have first hand experience of a war zone. I'm all for any option other than war and believe all avenues should be explored beforehand. However I can understand that sometimes there just isn't any other option.

[jenny]

We must never ever let this happen to anyone else..EVER!
9/11: Hell On Earth
11 September 2001
This is a long post...but i think its worth the read
Aside from being awoken by a phone call from Helsinki, September 11th started out like any other day. Allu, a colleague from our office in Finland, was calling to tell me about a problem with some of our servers in London. A customer was demanding that the problem be fixed immediately, and given the precarious nature of our company’s finances, we didn’t have the luxury of being able to piss off customers that other companies might enjoy.

I quickly threw on some clothes, skipped the shower, and began my daily commute by walking the two blocks to the 77th Street subway station. According to my computer’s clock, I arrived in the office at 8:37AM, not much earlier than I would have otherwise, though the minor difference seemed more jarring given the manner in which I was awoken.

Our office, located in Fashion Towers (an undeservedly pretentious name), sits in the heart of the Garment District, midway between Times Square and Madison Square Garden. Like many cash-strapped technology startups, we share our space with another company, in our case, a software consulting firm. Several people were already in the office when I sat down, logged in, and tried to diagnose the problem in London.

John, our CFO, sat in an invisible corner of an office at the other side of the floor. He usually arrived bright and early, leaving his home in New Jersey at 5:00AM. His presence ensured fresh-brewed coffee, for which I was always thankful. John shared the room with Mike, the CEO, and Brian, the President, both of whom had also just arrived. Chua, an engineer with the consulting company, sat at his desk in the row next to mine, exchanging instant messages with Vic, a friend who works in lower Manhattan.
“Holy ****!”

As was our morning ritual, Chua and I traded a few remarks about baseball while I scanned my morning e-mail. There was nothing urgent to read, so I connected to the servers in London and tried to diagnose the problem. I checked our system’s code, file permissions, account names and passwords, losing myself in the problem, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary until a rather loud “Holy ****!” came from Chua.

An explosion ripped through the top of one of the World Trade Center towers, and Vic saw it from his window at work. 1993 all over again, I thought. Our office has no TV or radio, so Vic was our news media. He supplied us with updates from the TVs that hung from the ceiling above him: what he assumed was a bomb turned out to be a small plane. An accident, surely. Then the small plane became a passenger plane. I called my girlfriend Elizabeth to relay the news, and when she turned on the TV, she saw the second plane hit. Two planes, one into each tower; this was obviously no accident.

I put down the phone and shouted the news to my officemates. Everyone gathered in the main room and stood around stunned, muttering various phrases of disbelief. Several of us went out to the fire escape, to see if anything was visible from the roof. We walked up one flight and saw a vertical service ladder to the next level. We climbed it, found another, and climbed once more. On the roof, we could see both towers pouring smoke, the smoke swept by the wind towards Brooklyn. The crackling roar of a plane streaked overhead — it was a much different sound from a passenger plane — and we looked up to see an F-14 fighter patrolling the skies of New York.

Across 7th Avenue, we saw dozens of people on the roof of another office building. I looked around, and almost every roof that could be seen was hosting more and more people. Everything seemed in slow motion up there on the roof; the smoke drifted upward and eastward slowly, the fire seemed to be a stationary bright orange glow. We knew we were witnessing something horrific, but we had no idea how historic it would become. Nor did we realize that our city was about to become permanently disfigured.
Brink of Collapse

I went downstairs to call a few people and see what they’d heard. My mom and Elizabeth both pleaded with me to leave the building. Being a few blocks from another symbol of New York — Times Square — wasn’t safe, they said, and they were right. But the reality of what happened had not yet set in, so it was easily overruled by the reality of working for a company that’s been on the brink of collapse for months. One angry customer in Helsinki very well might end up scuttling our pending bridge loan. No bridge loan, no job. Not for me, not for anyone. I felt as though the fate of company fell on my shoulders.

Working a bit more on the problem, I decided to leave the minute it was fixed, thinking it could be fixed soon. The phone rang; it was Allu in Finland. He was calling to ask the status of the problem, I assumed. The network had slowed considerably, and I kept getting kicked off the servers in London. But Allu wasn’t interested in any of that. Instead, he had news. I yelled out each item as he reported it: The Pentagon was struck by a helicopter and was on fire. The Mall in Washington was on fire. The West Wing of the White House had been struck. There were still hijacked planes in the air. The prime suspect: Arab terrorist Osama bin Laden.

I got off the phone, feeling as though I’d gotten the wind knocked out of me. What the hell was happening? Were we at war? Too fidgety to sit, I didn’t know what to do, so I went to the kitchen to look out the window and make sure that the Empire State Building was still there. I stood staring at the building, wondering if a plane would hit it next. Looking out the window, everything seemed so vivid. The sun was bright, the sky clear, and from up where I was, the city seemed peaceful.
A Dull Shock

It was the clarity of a dull shock setting in; something huge was happening, but nobody knew what it was. While I stood staring out the window, people in the next room shouted new information: The White House was not hit. A plane buzzed the Capitol Dome. The Mall was not on fire. The Pentagon was hit by a plane, not a helicopter. The line between fact and rumor was fluid, so aside from what we could see from the roof, we were skeptical of everything; yet, because of what we could see from the roof, everything seemed plausible.

Back in the main room, Chua reported another message from Vic: one of the towers had collapsed. I ran back up the fire escape and climbed the ladders to see for myself. Too much smoke obscured the view, so it was difficult to tell; even the people who had been on the roof weren’t sure, but were fairly convinced that a tower did collapse. For a second, the wind broke the smoke, laying to rest all doubt: only one tower remained.
Time to Get Out

I ran back downstairs to get my things and get out. The more I saw and heard, the more obvious it became that midtown Manhattan was probably not the safest place in the world to be. If there were more strikes planned, our area was a likely next target. I gathered my work and my laptop, hurriedly stuffed them into my bag, and tried to understand the magnitude of what was occurring.

David, our Vice President of Engineering, came down from the roof and said the second tower had just collapsed. He agreed that it was time to go. But we still had our problem to fix, so David and I decided to go to his apartment and finish the work. We rode the elevator downstairs, stepped out onto Seventh Avenue, and tried calling friends and relatives to tell them that we were safe, but cell phones were virtually useless; only one in twenty tries resulted in a call.

It seemed that every office building in Manhattan was being evacuated. At street level, there were so many people scurrying in every direction that it was impossible to avoid bumping into someone every few seconds. The sidewalks were so packed, people took over the streets as well. The subways, our normal ride home, were shut down. Empty taxis were nowhere to be found. Buses were squeezed full; there was no hope of getting on, which didn’t matter anyway, since every intersection in Manhattan was gridlocked. We, like the tens of thousands of New Yorkers we tried to avoid bumping into, had no choice but to walk home.
The Safest Route Home

We planned in advance what we assumed would be the safest route for our three-mile walk. We couldn’t go up Seventh because we’d hit Times Square. Sixth was too close to Times Square. Fifth was too much a symbol of wealth. Much further east and we’d be at Grand Central, another possible target. So we chose Madison and started walking east on 37th to get there. At Madison, we headed north.

Along the way, an occasional lone person stood crying, wandering the street broken and in no particular direction. I could only guess who they had lost. Dear friends, close parents, beloved sons and daughters, siblings that seemed like extensions of themselves; these people had just had love ripped from their lives irrevocably. From now on, their lives would always be measured in two parts: the part before September 11th, and everything after. Each time I saw someone crying, I wanted to go over and be of some comfort, but didn’t know how. I walked by with an exhale and tears welling up in my eyes.

At 42nd Street, we overheard a man talking about Grand Central being closed: no trains were going into or out of Manhattan. At 46th, we went east one block to Vanderbilt, where we saw a pickup truck with its door open and the radio tuned to 1010 WINS, a local news station. Several dozen construction workers were gathered around listening, and we stopped to join them. Another plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania. All bridges and tunnels leading into Manhattan were closed. Manhattan was once again a true island for the first time in well over a century.

People talked in a low murmur. Watching people interact during this morning mass exodus, it occurred to me that this was one of those events that made all New Yorkers equal. I’d seen hints of it before, under much more benign circumstances: The 3-foot blizzard that shut down the city for a week. Hugging fellow fans in the Yankee Stadium bleachers when Jim Leyritz hit the 15th-inning homer against Seattle in ‘95.
Death Without Discrimination

This had an element of that unity, but it was obviously a much more sinister equalizer. Mailroom clerks, CEOs, cafeteria cooks, stock traders, receptionists; they were all killed. Wealth couldn’t buy a ticket out. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim; the planes and toppling buildings dispensed death without discrimination. I stood there listening to the radio, thinking about the shared experiences that bring New Yorkers together. A sudden hush of the mumbled discussions brought me back out of my head.

I looked up to see two Arab men dressed in Islamic garb walking down the street. They received steely stares from the quieted men whose eyes followed them as they walked by. The looks these Arab men received worried me. I knew they would get that and possibly much worse over the coming days and weeks, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, either one of them might serve as a convenient proxy for Osama bin Laden in some angry eyes.

But they rounded the corner and were gone, and everyone’s attention once again returned to the radio. After we’d heard the same news story twice, it was time to move on. At 47th, we walked east to Park, and once again walked north. At 51st, we found an empty cab. There were now many empty cabs, probably because none of them were moving. But it was hot, so we decided to hop in, cool off in the air conditioning, and listen to more news.

A half-hour later, we found ourselves at 54th and Park, an average of one block every ten minutes. We paid for the cab and got out, feeling like tourists considering the price for that distance, but at least we weren’t sweating anymore, and we gathered from the news that the morning assault on our city and our country had subsided.
A River of People

We walked east, this time to Second Avenue, and again headed north. The 59th Street Bridge was closed to vehicles, but a wide river of people narrowed to the on-ramp and flowed over the bridge to Queens. Below the Roosevelt Island Tram, five MTA buses sat, lined up and empty, with their drivers outside announcing that they could not leave the borough of Manhattan. Police officers struggled to clear the street as fire engines from the suburbs raced down Second Avenue with sirens blaring, about one every thirty seconds.

At 69th Street, we arrived at David’s apartment with every intention of solving the problem with our servers in London. But first, we turned on the TV to hear the latest and were bombarded with images neither of us will ever forgot.
Burned into our Memory

We saw smoke rising from the black gash sliced into the side of the tower by the first plane. We saw the second plane glide into the tower with no apparent resistance and the explosion it forced out the other side of the building. We saw people jumping from the towers by the dozens, their bodies doing slow cartwheels in the air as they hurtled towards the ground. We heard the screams of the crowd reacting.

We watched a tower buckle at the top and saw the cloud of dust and ash blow out of the point where it crumbled. We saw the huge antenna being dragged down by the top of the tower as it rode the falling building to the ground. We saw the smoke and debris flare out from the tower and rain down on the street. We saw rolling clouds hundreds of feet high burst from the collapse into the streets, chasing down frantic pedestrians.

We saw the ghostly look of people wearing the same sheet of grayish-white ash that all of lower Manhattan wore. We saw them walk out of the haze of dust, zombie-like, some of them with their faces wiped clean, looking like masks against the soot that covered the rest their bodies.

We saw people sitting on curbs, clothes dripping with streaks of blood, while rescue workers stood above, pouring water on their wounds. We saw people crying, holding their trembling hands to their faces in shock as they struggled to squeak out a sound. We saw a seven-story skin of one of the towers atop a five-story pile of rubble.

We saw our magnificent city turned into a war zone. We saw our own people, the guys we stood next to on the subway twice a day, the women on line ahead of us at the bank, the firemen from the station down the street, the cops who protect our neighborhoods, and the ambulance and EMS workers who save our lives daily, we saw these people killed in front of our eyes, with the cameras rolling, live on national TV.
Our Little Problem

It was impossible to focus on anything other than what we were seeing, so we sat silent and appalled, watching and rewatching the same images, burning them into our memory. We’d forgotten about our little server problem. When we remembered, a half-hour or so of work fixed it. What would otherwise have been the major event in my day was nothing more than a minor distraction, a little irritant, one that kept me from the reality that seemed so close and yet so distant.

That night, I had a fitful sleep. Every so often, I’d wake up, not quite aware yet, and then I’d feel the memory of the day’s events wash over me like warm water. Each time, there would be seconds of consciousness where life as I knew it was exactly the same as it was before the first plane hit. And then memory would creep back. It was the relief of waking up from a nightmare played in reverse.

My dreams that night were all exactly the same: the image of the second plane coming around to hit the tower, and how it tilted to the left just before it hit. It tilts and curves around to hit the tower squarely, as if hitting it on the corner or with only part of the plane would not cause sufficient death.

It’s the tilt that gets to me. There’s a person behind that tilt. A person who decided to die and take thousands of lives with him. There’s a consciousness behind that tilt, one filled with evil, one built of horror, but it’s a consciousness that started life as we all did. So what happened? What went wrong?
Faith

I’ve always had a certain faith in every human. I’ve always believed that people at their core were good. And although I believe in God, I’ve never been one to think too much about whether there is a Satan. The concept seems so outmoded, so medieval. But after witnessing Hell on Earth, after seeing the images of evil played out again and again, after breathing the burnt jet-fuel air, after seeing missing persons posters so often that I recognize the names and faces, after realizing that I was now instinctively looking to the sky every time a plane flew by, after living, breathing, dreaming, and seeing nothing but destruction and death, after all these things, how can I be so sure that there is no Satan? How can I be so sure that he didn’t show himself to the world on the morning of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001?

brainterminal.com

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

Many world war vets..and also Vietnam Vets...really resent their governments for sending them there.


This is saddening but ive yet to met a vet that was resentfull.

Considering World War 2 was volunteer and career soldiers, they knew what was coming so they really can't be resentfull if you voluntered.

However Vietnam was different and i cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to have the mental scars that these brave men and women would cary. But i am gratefull and ever so indebtited to these men and women, wars may not always have clear objectives, may not always have 100% humaity and humility, may not always be 100% right, they may at times not even be for the right reasons but there are a part of life.

Hearing things like, if a women was in power there would be no wars or all wars would end, is irresponsible to even considering mentioning and quite absurd to actually have that though process.

Many wars have been fought through history they may have not always been for the perfect reasons, but in them were fights for freedom, honour, respect and understanding, many wars had to be fought to prevent evil things occuring and to give people greater oppurtunities.

But right now, the current global war on terror is a war we have to have, we are fighting a enemy hellbent on the destruction of our way of life, they will not sit at a peace table and discuss with us, they will not compromise, they will not accept ceasfires, they will never stop until they or we are gone, this does not mean we need to have fullscale wars and this does not reflect each person of a particular race or religion or country, but the fundementilists that do not understand peace. i understand the stance many take against conflicts and i know through many of my arguments i must sound like a war junkie, but i am not, i just understand the need for sacrifice for the greater good, i might offer, that this sacrifice, i am and would be willing to make for my country and for anyones freedom.

Civilian casualities are a terrible cost and burden of war, but i ask what is the point of living if you don't have freedom, if you are oppressed, if you are living in poverty, if you are a slave, persectuted for your beliefs and values. I don't know about the rest of you, but if i lost these things or was deprived of these things, i would not have much to live for in my life. This leads to why many are recrutied in to terrorist cells as they are offered a purpose and some hope. By fighting to give every man, woman and child the rights and freedoms they deserve as human beings, clean water, shelter, clothing, education, employment, freedom of speech etc, rights guranteed to people by the un, is that not worth fighting for.

Poida, your thoughts are not rejected or ridiculed, you offer little assurtions other than personal feelings in them, wars are wrong they shoudn't happen they cause great pain and suffering but the have happened and some were right.

Sharkey is constantly refering to nazi germany to counter your arguments, this is justifible on his behalf and i back his stance here.

But many wars have been necessary.

American Civil War- Abolishment of slavery
1st Gulf War- Liberation of a invaded country
2nd Gulf War- (forget the wmd argument)Liberation of oppressed peoples
Bosnia/Serbia/Yuguslavia Conlfict- Religous persectution of peoples

You are more than welcome to join the debate poida, noone is personally attacking you, they are countering your argument, so do join it makes it more interesting and your argument is just as valid as the next.

Ps. very touching argument jenny, thanks for posting it.

[~Wild Child~]

This is saddening but ive yet to met a vet that was resentfull.

Considering World War 2 was volunteer and career soldiers, they knew what was coming so they really can't be resentfull if you voluntered.

However Vietnam was different and i cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to have the mental scars that these brave men and women would cary. But i am gratefull and ever so indebtited to these men and women, wars may not always have clear objectives, may not always have 100% humaity and humility, may not always be 100% right, they may at times not even be for the right reasons but there are a part of life.

Hearing things like, if a women was in power there would be no wars or all wars would end, is irresponsible to even considering mentioning and quite absurd to actually have that though process.

Many wars have been fought through history they may have not always been for the perfect reasons, but in them were fights for freedom, honour, respect and understanding, many wars had to be fought to prevent evil things occuring and to give people greater oppurtunities.

But right now, the current global war on terror is a war we have to have, we are fighting a enemy hellbent on the destruction of our way of life, they will not sit at a peace table and discuss with us, they will not compromise, they will not accept ceasfires, they will never stop until they or we are gone, this does not mean we need to have fullscale wars and this does not reflect each person of a particular race or religion or country, but the fundementilists that do not understand peace. i understand the stance many take against conflicts and i know through many of my arguments i must sound like a war junkie, but i am not, i just understand the need for sacrifice for the greater good, i might offer, that this sacrifice, i am and would be willing to make for my country and for anyones freedom.

Civilian casualities are a terrible cost and burden of war, but i ask what is the point of living if you don't have freedom, if you are oppressed, if you are living in poverty, if you are a slave, persectuted for your beliefs and values. I don't know about the rest of you, but if i lost these things or was deprived of these things, i would not have much to live for in my life. This leads to why many are recrutied in to terrorist cells as they are offered a purpose and some hope. By fighting to give every man, woman and child the rights and freedoms they deserve as human beings, clean water, shelter, clothing, education, employment, freedom of speech etc, rights guranteed to people by the un, is that not worth fighting for.

Poida, your thoughts are not rejected or ridiculed, you offer little assurtions other than personal feelings in them, wars are wrong they shoudn't happen they cause great pain and suffering but the have happened and some were right.

Sharkey is constantly refering to nazi germany to counter your arguments, this is justifible on his behalf and i back his stance here.

But many wars have been necessary.

American Civil War- Abolishment of slavery
1st Gulf War- Liberation of a invaded country
2nd Gulf War- (forget the wmd argument)Liberation of oppressed peoples
Bosnia/Serbia/Yuguslavia Conlfict- Religous persectution of peoples

You are more than welcome to join the debate poida, noone is personally attacking you, they are countering your argument, so do join it makes it more interesting and your argument is just as valid as the next.

Ps. very touching argument jenny, thanks for posting it.
That is your opinion...you are entitled to it. To you..it might be absurd to suggest a female in power, may just have an answer, that the present politicans do not have...

You suggesting that that hypothetical is absurd..shows a little bit of a narrow mind...someone who won't consider any other alternative to war. To call my thoughts absurd..is probably a little uncalled for. And I can understand Poida's view that he is being a little unfairly spoken to..I guess it's not so much what is being said...but how it's being delievered. I feel the exact same way as he does...It's a little mean...to call someone else ideas and opinions absurd..no matter how much they differ from yours.

You also may yet to have met a resentful war veteran...and I hope you never do either...but I have...and it is nothing short of distressing.

Nathalie...Your comment about 'maybe no wars may have been started in the first place'...
I could'nt agree more. A woman in power...could not do worse..then the present politicans are doing.

[Poida]

Theres nothing wrong with just offering my feelings into the discussion.
Thanks Michel :):)

[Queenslander]

Unfortunately there are no simple answers to war, because to put it simply we are human, and as humans we are not perfect.


Great post Hoppy2007Dragons, I couldn't agree more. :D

[Capital_Shark]

You suggesting that that hypothetical is absurd..shows a little bit of a narrow mind

It isn't a little narrow minded to think that a woman wouldn't carry out a war? Not only does that suggest blokes are just suckers for a blue, but it also suggests that women lack that ability to lay down some force.

I'm not Egyptologist but how friggin peaceful was Cleopatra?

[~Wild Child~]

Unfortunately there are no simple answers to war, because to put it simply we are human, and as humans we are not perfect.


Great post Hoppy2007Dragons, I couldn't agree more. :D

I do'nt see whats so great about Hoppy calling my ideas...absurd.

[Poida]

I do'nt see whats so great about Hoppy calling my ideas...absurd.
I wouldnt worry about it. People always gotta put down others views.

[Queenslander]

Let this be a clean debate about issues. Agreeing/Disagreeing with others is natural.......Thats why there are wars people!

No one should be getting "put down" about comments posted.

If anyone has complaints PM a member of the mod team.

[Nathalie]

It isn't a little narrow minded to think that a woman wouldn't carry out a war? Not only does that suggest blokes are just suckers for a blue, but it also suggests that women lack that ability to lay down some force.

I'm not Egyptologist but how friggin peaceful was Cleopatra?

Nope not narrow-minded. Not that women wouldn't carry out a war at all, I just think that there is less chance of war happening if women were in charge. And not all blokes are suckers for a blue but more are than women. Just speaking from observation.

And Michel, I still love ya :D hehe

[Ryan]

I'm not Egyptologist but how friggin peaceful was Cleopatra?
Which Cleopatra? - There were 7!
Heres abit of 'Egyptology' for ya:
Cleopatra VII the last Egytion Pharaoh, married her younger brother and then ended up pissing off on a cruise down the nile with Julius Caesar (King of Rome) and got pregnant!

[Capital_Shark]

Well this is starting to delve into 'who's more trigger happy? Boys or girls?' and tbh any woman who makes it to being the head of a country like America is gonna have to have balls of steel and a killer instinct to get past the 'blokes and their mates' mentality, so I think she'll have to be a different kind of woman to the peaceful, home-making mother figure, 'words not weapons' cliche female. On top of that it'll depend on what circumstances arise during their time in power. And lets be honest, the majority of people we come across are probably not exactly country leading types, so to base the argument on 'most blokes I know like to fight more than the women I know' doesn't have much relevance.

Without sounding like a newly appointed member of the moderating team, this thread is about cluster bombs and banning them. I'm trying to get this conversation on topic because when it comes to men vs women, women are simply standing up for their rights, blokes are just being down right sexist, so I'm on the losing side before the argument begins.

[Poida]

Which Cleopatra? - There were 7!
Heres abit of 'Egyptology' for ya:
Cleopatra VII the last Egytion Pharaoh, married her younger brother and then ended up pissing off on a cruise down the nile with Julius Caesar (King of Rome) and got pregnant!
Lol trying to remember from history wasnt she the one who got killed when Marc Antony booted her pregnant stomach?

[Capital_Shark]

Which Cleopatra? - There were 7!
Heres abit of 'Egyptology' for ya:
Cleopatra VII the last Egytion Pharaoh, married her younger brother and then ended up pissing off on a cruise down the nile with Julius Caesar (King of Rome) and got pregnant!

7 ey? Well I'll take the most violent to help my point get across lol

[~Wild Child~]

Nope not narrow-minded. Not that women wouldn't carry out a war at all, I just think that there is less chance of war happening if women were in charge. And not all blokes are suckers for a blue but more are than women. Just speaking from observation.

And Michel, I still love ya :D hehe

:D
Trust a woman to enter the debate..and calm things down :clap: Thank you Nathalie.

Hoppy...You would make a great politican. :)

GO THE GIRLS :D

[Nathalie]

I'm trying to get this conversation on topic because when it comes to men vs women, women are simply standing up for their rights, blokes are just being down right sexist, so I'm on the losing side before the argument begins.

I never said that... and I don't think that anyone else did either :laugh:

And yes, let's get this topic back on track :D

[dee13]

I think its absolutly amazing that, Peoples opinions on war and religion bring out the worst in everybody. Lets face it, everytime I have heard a debate or a discussion about the 2, it usually ends up in an arguement or someone being offended.


"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
No religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace."

John Lennon

WOW.... the world would be almost perfect without religion and war.

[Nathalie]

Reminds me of that Simpsons ep...

...'can you imagine a world without lawyers?' And everyone's holding hands, singing, happy, there's a rainbow, and even the sun is smiling :lol!:

[~Wild Child~]

I think its absolutly amazing that, Peoples opinions on war and religion bring out the worst in everybody. Lets face it, everytime I have heard a debate or a discussion about the 2, it usually ends up in an arguement or someone being offended.


"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
No religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace."

John Lennon

WOW.... the world would be almost perfect without religion and war.

I just posted that song in Favourite songs thread..some here..may find some benefit in listening to it.

[dee13]

People spend so much time and energy focussing on the negatives in the world and what other people are doing. Instead of just being themselves.

Its a pity cos people would find life so much better if they ignored the crap in the world.

[Capital_Shark]

I think its absolutly amazing that, Peoples opinions on war and religion bring out the worst in everybody. Lets face it, everytime I have heard a debate or a discussion about the 2, it usually ends up in an arguement or someone being offended.


"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
No religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace."

John Lennon

WOW.... the world would be almost perfect without religion and war.

Be pretty boring too don't ya think? If everyone agreed. I don't think there was what I'd call an argument in this thread, just a debate with people stating their different points of view.

Imagine how dull it would be if everyone followed the same footy team.. Sorry, you can have your circle of hand holding friendship, love and total agreement, I'll stick to my world of diversity and learning from listening to other's opinions and ideas. A little tolerance, understanding, acceptance and a willingness to go a little outside your comfort zone is all thats needed.

[Capital_Shark]

People spend so much time and energy focussing on the negatives in the world and what other people are doing. Instead of just being themselves.

Its a pity cos people would find life so much better if they ignored the crap in the world.

lol they do say ignorance is bliss. Just stick ya head in the sand and let the world pass you by. Would be less stressful, I agree.

[dee13]

Be pretty boring too don't ya think? If everyone agreed. I don't think there was what I'd call an argument in this thread, just a debate with people stating their different points of view.

Imagine how dull it would be if everyone followed the same footy team.. Sorry, you can have your circle of hand holding friendship, love and total agreement, I'll stick to my world of diversity and learning from listening to other's opinions and ideas. A little tolerance, understanding, acceptance and a willingness to go a little outside your comfort zone is all thats needed.
In regards to war, Millions of innocent people would have went on to live happy lives. But thats not what I am about. I know war is out there.

Has it affected my day today? No, so why argue about something that doesn't involve me.

When it directly affects me, then I will worry about and deal with it, IF and WHEN it happens.

[dee13]

lol they do say ignorance is bliss. Just stick ya head in the sand and let the world pass you by. Would be less stressful, I agree.
And I acknowledge that war is out there. That there are people hell bent on proving that they are better than the next person, That America needs to prove "THERE NUMBER 1", That extremist will continue to kill and terrorise the world, That no one will ever agree on religious issues....

But, I have control of my thoughts and feelings and I choose not to let those issues dictate my life to the point that I cant talk about it without getting upset or offended.

I had a great day today then I came home to my family who also had a great day. Thats all I care about.

[Capital_Shark]

In regards to war, Millions of innocent people would have went on to live happy lives. But thats not what I am about. I know war is out there.

Has it affected my day today? No, so why argue about something that doesn't involve me.

When it directly affects me, then I will worry about and deal with it, IF and WHEN it happens.

I see your point, you don't wanna debate this stuff, thats your choice, as it is everyone else's choice who want to debate this stuff.

If I only talked about things that effected my day, I'd be on some rant about being woken up by a c0ckatoo early this morning, but I thought I'd branch out a little.

[Steelers]

I dunno how this branched out to debating about the ethics of war (especially the one in Iraq at the moment), because it really has nothing to do with Cluster Bombs (except for the fact that they are used in wars). Surely Armed Forces around the world can 'defend' their freedom in other ways, instead of raining explosives over towns in order to kill 1 or 2 rebel leaders. They have guided missiles and stuff these days, why do they need to use these cluster bombs? Especially considering the fact that a quarter of them don't blow up. Most third world countries don't have the luxury of phoning up a hotline when they find an unexploded bomb, and thats if they find it before it does harm...

Basically topics like 'Defending our freedom' and 'Fighting terrorism' shouldn't really be used when defending the use of cluster bombs, because there are many other weapons out there to use against the terrorists.

[Ryan]

Has it affected my day today? No, so why argue about something that doesn't involve me.

When it directly affects me, then I will worry about and deal with it, IF and WHEN it happens.
If you are living in a democratic country with luxuries like freedom of speech and the ability to vote for your leader - then you have been directly affected by war. Saying is hasn't is an insult to any soldier who died fighting for our freedom and protecting our way of life.

As for cluster bombs, mabey we should disarm the entire army of any explosives and outfit them with cap guns and water pistols, at least then no-one would get hurt in war :whatd:

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

I didn't mean to upset you michel or offend you, i apoligise for this.


But you first posted

Hypotheticaly..it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women held power for a while...I honestly believe the wars..would be no more.

to call someone else ideas and opinions absurd..no matter how much they differ from yours.

Just because something differs from mine, doesn't make it absurd, but to say i honestly belive the wars would be no more if women held power, well quite frankly it is absurd, and is more narrow minded than my opionion. Thats like me saying that if men were in power all the whinging in the world would stop. :D (no offence, thats all i could think of that is a sterotype of women just as gun-ho is a sterotype of men)

To you..it might be absurd to suggest a female in power, may just have an answer, that the present politicans do not have...

Did i say this no, i suggested that a female in power would more likely make the same response as bush to an attack on your soil and you people, as no matter who u are or what sex you are, diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists. Your looking at the issue from your perspective as a woman in power, ie u in power from your arguments.
I'm suggesting any women in power.

Nope not narrow-minded. Not that women wouldn't carry out a war at all, I just think that there is less chance of war happening if women were in charge. And not all blokes are suckers for a blue but more are than women. Just speaking from observation.

Good post nathalie, i hope this is what michel is trying to suggest but just wording it differently, this i agree with to an extent.

Theres nothing wrong with just offering my feelings into the discussion.
Thanks Michel

Did u miss my post poida, i too enjoy your posts.

Great post Hoppy2007Dragons, I couldn't agree more.

Thanks Queenslander.

do'nt see whats so great about Hoppy calling my ideas...absurd

Again i don't mean to offend you michel, i just felt that it is very dangerous to make that inital assumption.

It isn't a little narrow minded to think that a woman wouldn't carry out a war? Not only does that suggest blokes are just suckers for a blue, but it also suggests that women lack that ability to lay down some force.

Cheers sharkey, my point pretty much.

Hoppy...You would make a great politican.

Given your great hate for politicans, i don't know if this is a compliment but i'l ltake it as that. :D

They have guided missiles and stuff these days, why do they need to use these cluster bombs

The shockwave from a bunker buster is more dangerous than a cluster bomb.

instead of raining explosives over towns in order to kill 1 or 2 rebel leaders

Generally speaking if their is a rebel leader in the town, then the town will 85% be rebels or insurgents or whatever you want to call them, the most effective way to eliminate them, a bomb that has a widespread radius.

Lastly, i don't mean to offend anyone with any of my comments, this is a debate, agreed it has gone off topic, but we are arguing that happens. I can get a little heated, im sure many have noticed :D but its all apart of debating. Its just i'm very interested in world topics, given i live in the world, also as of late my mate is being shipped to east timor and i have become more interested in understanding reasoning behind conflict which has lead me to some of my viewpoints. :D

[Nathalie]

I have a good post?? Yayyyyy me :D

:lol!: Look at me. THIS is what I post about hahaha.. oh dearie me. Methinks it's time for bed!! :p

[aspher]

In regards to war, Millions of innocent people would have went on to live happy lives. But thats not what I am about. I know war is out there.

Has it affected my day today? No, so why argue about something that doesn't involve me.

When it directly affects me, then I will worry about and deal with it, IF and WHEN it happens.

People not giving a damn about others or issues which don't affect them directly is what's wrong with this world.

[~Wild Child~]

Given your great hate for politicans, i don't know if this is a compliment but i'l ltake it as that. :D

Umm I did'nt say I hated politicans...only some of their policies. That is an assumption of yours. I like Hillary..and she is a politican..like Pauline Hanson..she is a politican... Rudd...another favourite...blah blah blah..

Just because something differs from mine, doesn't make it absurd, but to say i honestly belive the wars would be no more if women held power, well quite frankly it is absurd, and is more narrow minded than my opionion. Thats like me saying that if men were in power all the whinging in the world would stop. :D (no offence, thats all i could think of that is a sterotype of women just as gun-ho is a sterotype of men)

Quote by Hoppy
'Hearing things like, if a women was in power there would be no wars or all wars would end, is irresponsible to even considering mentioning and quite absurd to actually have that though process.

All I did really say was...it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women were in control
I'm not irresponsible ...or absurd, to consider this. And neither is my thought process :ok: That really is just an insult. :(


I understand that we differ greatly on this Hoppy..but it's a sensitive topic..and we need to consider others feelings..before things like this are stated.

But I also understand that people can become passionate about the things they believe in...but at the end of the day..we all want whats best..for our country..and the world in general..so I guess that is all that really matters.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

All I did really say was...it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women were in control
I'm not irresponsible ...or absurd, to consider this. And neither is my thought process That really is just an insult.

Well no you didn't your wording is as this

Hypotheticaly..it would be interesting to see the state of the world..if women held power for a while...I honestly believe the wars..would be no more.

Although you have thrown the word hypothetically and interesting to see. This statment clearly suggests that you deep down believe that if a women was in power there would be no wars. A clear straight forward statment.

Well to have a thought process that basically says, that if women were in power = no violence in the world. that is irresponsible and a dangerous assumption to make. And is a black and white though process. I'm not saying that your absurd to think this, but to think that this is almost perfectly true and accurate if it happened well that is.

Ps. i'm not meaning to offend you, but i have meet some women that are more violent than any man ive meet and if women were in power wars would still happen maybe not as much and maybe with more attempts at diplomacy but they would happen. Margret Thatcher is a good example.

[~Wild Child~]

Well no you didn't you wording it as this



This statment clearly suggests that you deep down believe that if a women was in power there would be no wars.
No mention of it would be interesting to see, a clear straight forward statment.

Well to have a thought process that basically says, that if women were in power= no violence in the world. that is irresponsible and a dangerous assumption to make. And is a black and white though process. I'm not saying that your absurd to think this, but to think that this is almost perfectly true and accurate if it happened well that is.

Ps. i'm not meaning to pffend you, but i have meet some women that are more violent than any man ive meet and if women were in power wars would still happen maybe not as much and maybe with more attempts at diplomacy but they would happen. Margret Thatcher is a good example.

I believe some of your thoughts are black and white too. I also think some of your thoughts are dangerous and irresponsible also. I don't have the answers....but then... neither do you. The male/female debate has been going on for just about forever...and I think it will continue on...forever.

I just believe that women would bring a totally different perspective to the table.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

I don't claim to have all the answers, so i don't know where that came from.

I don't disagree that they would bring a different perspective, but wars woudn't just all suddenly stop. Thats what i'm arguing.

[~Wild Child~]

I don't claim to have all the answers, so i don't know where that came from.

I don't disagree that they would bring a different perspective, but wars woudn't just all suddenly stop. Thats what i'm arguing.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I believe that all wars would just suddenly stop...regardless of what the solution is...it will take many years to achieve.

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

That i can agree with.

[Capital_Shark]

So many people taking offense and people starting their posts with an apology 'just in case', this is ridiculous. Pucker up a bit. Focus on their argument, not their so called 'insults.' Have you lot ever watch question time in parliament? Discrediting the opposing person is just as important as discrediting their argument. This thread deadset has about 4 pages of sook because a couple people flip the script when someone strongly disagrees with what they've said. God help us when the season starts and people give some stick to the losing supporters, any prolonged losing streaks and I can see the suicide rate jumping off the scales!

[Nathalie]

Have you lot ever watch question time in parliament?


I remember once when we went on band tour with school, and we went to Canberra.. we went to Parliament House, into the viewing gallery and some of us (not me) started pulling faces at John Howard. No wonder he gave us all funny looks :lol!: And I guess that's why the viewing galleries probably have tinted windows now :laugh:

[Ryan]

I remember once when we went on band tour with school, and we went to Canberra.. we went to Parliament House, into the viewing gallery and some of us (not me) started pulling faces at John Howard. No wonder he gave us all funny looks :lol!: And I guess that's why the viewing galleries probably have tinted windows now :laugh:
This one time, at band camp.................... :p

[jenny]

Dont hate me ladies...But Margret Thatcher was Prime Minister of England when, she and George Bush Freed Kuwait from the invading Iraqi Forces :!:



After 'Desert Storm,' Barely a Footprint Was Left in the Sand

by Daniel Pipes
Los Angeles Times
August 4, 2000


Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait early in the morning on Aug. 2, 1990. This unprovoked and blatant act of aggression prompted that very rarest of phenomena: an international consensus. Almost without exception, every government publicly denounced Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's invasion and called for his troops to leave immediately. Prodded by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain ("Don't be wobbly now, George"), President Bush took advantage of this agreement to stitch together an expeditionary force made up of 29 states.

Nearly everyone at the time agreed that the Gulf War was a huge event, perhaps an epochal turning point. Bush spoke about it leading to the start of a "new world order" in which coalitions would come together to prevent Iraqi-style use of force. Pundits expected that the war assured Bush four more years of the presidency just as it meant that Hussein would soon be gone, perhaps followed by the breakup of Iraq. Analysts predicted that a new, American-oriented era had begun in the Middle East, with more democracy, human rights and economic competitiveness. Many agreed with Henry Kissinger that victory over Iraq offered "a historic opportunity" to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In retrospect, one can only marvel at how little of this came about. Subsequent efforts to impose a new-world-order style solution on crises failed in places like Somalia and Bosnia.

Hussein made a unique string of mistakes, and his futile conventional war appears to have ended an era, not started one. Other than Turkey and Israel, the Middle East continues to boast fewer real elections, fewer human rights and fewer industrial exports than almost any other region.

The Arab-Israeli conflict did change after the war, especially with the Madrid Conference of October 1991 and the Oslo process of two years later, with its seven agreements between the Palestinians and Israel in as many years. But it would be hard to characterize these as making any real progress toward resolving the conflict.

While Israel has shown itself hugely flexible, giving up on one traditional position after another (especially concerning the Golan Heights and Jerusalem), the Syrians and Palestinians have basically stuck with the old outlook, showing themselves yet unwilling to accept the Zionist state. Nearly all signals betray a continuing intent to destroy Israel. This hardly counts as peacemaking.

And Iraq? The regime is far weaker and the central government no longer controls the whole country, but in its essentials--with Hussein still in power and the borders unchanged--it remains preposterously unchanged.

Looking over the past decade finds just one major consequence of the war, and it is an ironic one. Fearing a repeat of the Iraqi invasion, the other Arabic-speaking states of the Persian Gulf have nestled closer to the United States, permitting troops to be stationed on their territory, as well as many other intimate military acts.

While this new relationship has benefited both sides, it has also spurred an intense growth in anti-Americanism. Osama bin Laden epitomizes this phenomenon. A U.S. comrade-in-arms in Afghanistan against the Soviets during the 1980s, today he stands accused of sponsoring a global terrorist operation that aims to kill Americans.

In all, when one recalls how important the war was thought to be, it is astonishing to observe how minor its legacy now appears. The code name given to the war against Iraq was Operation Desert Storm. As Gulf expert Patrick Clawson notes, it is symbolically fitting. A desert storm blinds and can suffocate but, once it passes, the desert is there as ever, hardly changed. So it was with the crisis that began 10 years ago. It felt hugely important, and it would have been had Hussein prevailed. But once we survived it, the whole episode left most everything in its old place, hardly changed.

[jenny]

Although you have thrown the word hypothetically and interesting to see. This statment clearly suggests that you deep down believe that if a women was in power there would be no wars. A clear straight forward statment.
Hence the post below Hoppy!

[Nathalie]

This one time, at band camp.................... :p


I KNEW someone would write that :laugh: but it wasn't camp. It was a tour from Melbourne to Canberra and back.

[~Wild Child~]

Quote by Jenny
'Dont hate me ladies...But Margret Thatcher was Prime Minister of England when, she and George Bush Freed Kuwait from the invading Iraqi Forces :!:'

aww No one here hates anyone..just cause their views differ. :(

I did say in another thread, last week..that Margaret Thatcher..I believe, has more male hormones..than female hormones :p

[jenny]

:satan:
She's a gutsy chicky babe, that one ;)

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

i think she has more than a little guts :D something else perhaps, that shoudn't be there, lets just leave it at what michel said and say hormones. :!:

[Ryan]

I KNEW someone would write that :laugh: but it wasn't camp. It was a tour from Melbourne to Canberra and back.
So, are you a band geek? :naughty:

[Ryan]

Cluster bomb ban signed by 93 countries
From correspondents in Oslo
December 05, 2008 03:55am


NINETY-THREE countries have signed a landmark treaty banning cluster bombs, seen as one of the biggest international humanitarian agreements clinched in the past decade, host country Norway said overnight.
"We are on track," Norway's deputy minister of foreign affairs, Raymond Johansen, said at the end of the two-day signing ceremony in Oslo.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), an umbrella organisation grouping some 300 humanitarian aid groups, said four or five additional countries may sign the text today.

The treaty was also to be sent to the United Nations in New York, where other countries will be able to sign it.

Major arms producers such as China, Russia and the United States have however refused to sign the treaty, unlike most European countries.

Afghanistan, Laos and Lebanon, three countries heavily affected by cluster bombs, also put their names to the document. Iraq has meanwhile said it would sign "as soon as possible".

The ban outlaws the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions, and requires signatories to assist victims of the weapons.

"This is the biggest humanitarian treaty of the last decade," Richard Moyes of the CMC said.

Dropped from warplanes or fired from artillery guns, cluster bombs explode in mid-air to randomly scatter hundreds of bomblets, which can be just eight centimetres big.

Many bomblets fail to explode can kill and maim long after a conflict ends.

When the treaty was hammered out in negotiations in May in Dublin, it was agreed upon by 107 countries. Organisers attributed the difference between that number and the 93 that have signed the document so far to bureaucratic reasons.

The treaty must be ratified by at least 30 countries before it can go into effect. Norway, which played a key role in obtaining the ban, has already launched the ratification process, as have Ireland, Sierre Leone and the Holy See.

[Ryan]

Fresh article for a classic thread, some good posting here ;)

[Nathalie]

The US is wrong wrong wrong. Full-stop. Bottom line is, if you want others to do something you should lead by example. Not be like 'You're not allowed to hurt us but we can hurt you if we want, ner ner ner' :p

But its not like the USA called for the ban then didn't follow it themselves.

I don't even remember writing this LOL

[Ryan]

I don't even remember writing this LOL
You may have been pregnant, so your excused :)