Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess people like you will always hide behind the 'All's fair in love and war.' excuse. My father, other family members in war, sure, but I certainly don't support blowing up innocent civillians with all sorts of weapons, including cluster bombs that kill children years later - why don't you start thinking about the children of other people for a change? - you and your family are no more worthy of life than they are.
And I guess people like you will always believe that if we lay down all our weapons then nobody will bother us, and that we can all live in peace and harmony.
I do think of the "children of other people", despite my own dislike of children.
But when I do think of those children, I think of those of my people, i.e American people. What, you think our soldiers are made from robots? Made one by one in some assembly plant in Chicago or something? They are the sons and daughters of our own countrymen.
THOSE "children'" come first.
I dont support restricting the weapons our soldiers use that might bring them home faster, because once one weapon is restricted or "banned" then whats the next weapon in line?
Fighter jets? After all, these big bad planes drop bombs over other countries and their "innocent" civilians.
Attack missiles? Many of these are positioned so that another country cannot strike against us. Since not every nation has the technology we do, thats an unfair advantage and should be banned too?
Tanks? They run over things and make such an awful mess of a nice field of daisies and buttercups. Maybe we ought to just ban them all, huh? Use rock-paper-scissors to settle major international disputes? Or since that one involves sharp objects, maybe just a good old game of eenie meenie minie moe?
It would seem to me that a "War on Terror" (Insurgency) has made people forget what conventional warfare really is. In conventional warfare, you don't just ban every weapon that might cause civilian casualties. Ever look at the number of civilian losses in WWII? Look back at the War Between the States, specifically Antietam - 23,000 casualties in a single day.. That is almost 5 times what we have lost in roughly 5 years of war in Iraq.
What if World War III broke out tomorrow and the US had to fight China or Russia, or both? Wouldn't you want every weapon possible to get the job done faster? Or would you rather us just nuke 'em?
Good! Cluster bombs are a useful tool. Anything that kills terrorists is fine with me. If there's some collateral damage, well, that's war.
America is a terrorist nation. We've killed more people on foreign soil in the past 50 years then any other country, using your logic that means 9-11 was justified. Ok then, but I don't know why you hate America.
Using the same logic, do you honestly think it would be justified for any country to develop and use nuclear and/or chemical weapons against civilians?
sorry man, we have already done that before. you will have to come up with a different arguement.
America is a terrorist nation. We've killed more people on foreign soil in the past 50 years then any other country, using your logic that means 9-11 was justified. Ok then, but I don't know why you hate America.
I dont hate america. I just hate people from other nations that think it is alright to come here and try and change us.
the UN can go suck on a loaded pistol barrel and pull the trigger for all I care.
sorry man, we have already done that before. you will have to come up with a different arguement.
Didnt see it - maybe I missed it. Regardless of any moral compass, when push comes to shove, I think almost all countries will use nuclear / chemical weapons agains the enemy's civilians - it has been done in the past and with newer weapons, the trend is unikely to abate. The arguments made within any country are always the same.
Didnt see it - maybe I missed it. Regardless of any moral compass, when push comes to shove, I think almost all countries will use nuclear / chemical weapons agains the enemy's civilians - it has been done in the past and with newer weapons, the trend is unikely to abate. The arguments made within any country are always the same.
the way I see it, war is supposed to be terrible, war is not supposed to be fun and games.
if war was always fun and games, new wars would be starting up everyday.
the more frighting wars are, the less they will happen. if cluster bombs are 1 of those implements of wars that make wars less desireable to start, then I am all for their use in war.
America is a terrorist nation. We've killed more people on foreign soil in the past 50 years then any other country, using your logic that means 9-11 was justified. Ok then, but I don't know why you hate America.
Are you high?!?!?! Where in my post does it say anything that I hate America. If anything, you are an America hating $%^&*! Get a life and move out if you think America is a terrorist nation.
yeah, I am a vet, so don't start with me. your jist? maybe you should do some more research. I know what munitions do to people. and, I don't have to go far to see it either, just to my local va hospital/nursing home. you are wrong. all's fair in love and war? you need to think about that statement. you're wrong about that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colddiamond102
I read and comprehended very well, thank you. You dont like cluster bombs, feel that they are a dirty weapon, and that Bush should have signed the agreement.
Thats about the gist of it, correct?
Now, I am going to ask you something a bit personal. Have you ever, ever had someone you love in the line of fire from an overseas enemy? There is no sympathy for an enemy, because its almost certain they'll have no sympathy with us.
Have you ever had to wonder if someone is going to come home, much less come home alive the next time you see them? Has a childhood friend ever given personal items to you to keep so that you can give them to his mother/wife in case he doesnt make it home again?
Have you ever watched someone come home from their first deployment and have that shell-shocked look in their eyes?
I did, do, and have. And because of that, I stand by the statement that I support ANY WEAPON that will keep my friends and loved ones safe or make their jobs easier. I support any weapon that might make our enemies think twice about engaging my friends and loved ones in combat.
You see, I can attach faces and names to quite a few soldiers. I cannot attach a face to a person from another country that we are fighting with, and the only name I can attach to said person is "Enemy".
There's an old saying that rings true.
All's fair in love and war.
And dammit, I want our soldiers to have an unfair advantage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe we ought to just ban them all, huh? Use rock-paper-scissors to settle major international disputes? Or since that one involves sharp objects, maybe just a good old game of eenie meenie minie moe? 
