Area Impact Munitions

reply to post by BlueRaja


as the pictures and video from fullajah have shown the city was blanketed in the stuff - somewhat indiscriminately ; but this has been discussed to death elsewhere with both sides argueing as for the hows and whys.

one mans insurgent is another mans freedom fighter


flame throwers : not exactly dropped by aircraft or arti shells - usually someone is behind the sights pulling the trigger and can see what they are firing at.


edit:

war crimes arn`t clear cut either - the events at Abu Ghraib would constitue war crimes if it had been us servicemen and women being abused in that way - but its `FINE` for when the US are doing it themselves - notice how little is now mentioned.

the winners write the history books and now one is `the good guy` anymore.

[edit on 31/1/08 by Harlequin]

You really brought up, what I think, is one of the key points. The very high failure rate of cluster munitions, some claim as much as 30% fail to explode on impact. I cant remember the weight but an article I read claimed that cluster munitions dropped from a single air delivered bomb spread across the equivalent of 4 football / soccer pitches. In the final days of the most recent Lebanon conflict Israel fired of thousands of munitions some what indiscriminately, effectively creating a minefield across South of the Tyre river. It is this lack of discrimination and large scale spread that suggests they could be considered a WMD, despite the fact they lack the devastating effect of either a nuclear or thermobaric explosion. Should states that have signed the Ottawa (anti-land mine) treaty be made to stop using cluster munitions?

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by northwolf

 

Theres no banning of flame throwers by the Geneva Convention, so I don't understand why the need to ban WP which is similar.

And where did i call for a ban on anything? War is cruel, get over it... I find it silly to ban weapon systems that are effective, just for the sake of politics. Ottawa is a prime example, our army was forced to abandon the one weapon that they need the most in case of a war againts Russia (most probable enemy on a long term)

reply to post by northwolf


During the first world war 90% of casualties were soldiers, 10% were civillians. In modern day war fare we have a reversal with on average 10% soldiers to 90% civilian. Admittedly this has a great deal to do with the change in tactics, where by civilians are often targeted on purpose as part of intra-state conflicts that are often ethnically motivated. How ever, the fact cannot be ignored that modern technology has removed the immediacy of killing. Weapons that allow armies to attack from a far so as to protect their own troops but with little thought to the resulting collateral damage. We are in an age where in war soldiers cannot (be allowed to) die but civilian deaths go uncounted.

yes war is cruel but in its modern persona it overwhelmingly effects the innocent, it is for this reason that land mines have been banned.

I know the problems with land mines, and i see the need to restrict their use... but we have 0 landmines placed and we would only use them to stop a far more powerful invader. Not to blow up farmers and school kids, there is a big difference to use land mines in a civil war and a frontal war between two moder armies... luckily AT mines are still allowed, file + AT-mine trigger = a big antipersonel mine...

Thats fine if the boarder has been fixed for a long period of time in pre-existing nation states. Unfortunately the majority of the world was carved up by various empires with little regard for existing communities. During conflicts it has been these boarders that have been a key point of contention, during peace time people often traverse these boarders unofficially. Even as a boarder protection landmines put civilians at high risk.

But I digress, as Finland has signed the Ottawa treaty should it be stopped from using cluster munitions?

No, as our dear neighbour has not signed the treaty and uses cluster munitions in large scale. As we have no 100km+ weapon systems, we are most likely using those cluster munitions on our own soil, so we are allso responsible of clearing them.

Or if we are invaded, it's the illegal invaders burden... and i couldn't care less (since i would either be dead or fighting a very bloody insurgency that would make Iraq look like playground)

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

as the pictures and video from fullajah have shown the city was blanketed in the stuff - somewhat indiscriminately ; but this has been discussed to death elsewhere with both sides argueing as for the hows and whys.

one mans insurgent is another mans freedom fighter

[edit on 31/1/08 by Harlequin]

So by pictures and video you saw, do you know what the target was that was being attacked vs. say the battery conducting the firing, with forward observers and UAV providing imagery for targeting?

As for the insurgent vs. freedom fighter. If they are fighting against their fellow countrymen, and sovereign(and legitimately elected) government, what category do you think they most likely fall under?

reply to post by BlueRaja

So by pictures and video you saw, do you know what the target was that was being attacked vs. say the battery conducting the firing, with forward observers and UAV providing imagery for targeting?

firstly the commanders on the ground were calling for `shake and bake` missions - which is drop WP in a large area to force anyone/everyone out and then use HE on them

source

watch the video as well - it gives a good view of what actually happened - the picture of the women burnt whilst praying in her home is rather disturbing. The US has also not agreed to nor acknowledges protocol 3 of the CCWC - source which outlaws the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets - which does go round in circles , the US says it can use them as and when needed but the rest of the world has outlawed it - so does that make it a war crime and a crime against humanity just because the US doesn`t acknowledge the protocol?

As for the insurgent vs. freedom fighter. If they are fighting against their fellow countrymen, and sovereign(and legitimately elected) government, what category do you think they most likely fall under?[/

well the government is so`legitimate` as 1/2 the candiadates were not allowed to stand for election becuase the US didn`t deem them appropriate , the present leader was voted in with what 10% of the vote? and is so hated that he will never leave the `green` zone the people of iraq see him as an american puppet, and the people fighting are not only sectarian in nature (suuni vs shi`a - which hussein kept under control) but also fighting the invaders in many many numbers - they want the US out now.

reply to post by Harlequin


Do you suppose that they were using forward observers and imagery, to know where to shoot at? They'd be firing HE indescriminately too, if they weren't. Seeing as how I was there during that time, I know they were using UAVs, etc.. for targeting.

You can spin the legitimacy of the government however you want, but more Iraqis participated in voting, than occurs here in the US, and under the threat of death.

well at this point we have to agree to disagree - and not to drag this thread off topic; lest we get away from the OP and into the events in fullajah in 2004 and the voting in iraq

just to throw a random fact in, in the 2004 election only 2% of the electorate voted in Anbar due to the way the election was 'rigged' to bring to power those who were 'seen fit' to take such positions...... aaah democracy.