Vietnam beat the USA. The most bombed piece of land is in Laos. The Vietnamese beat the US ruling class and its supporters. America had massive air superiority. Many more Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, died than Americans did. They are all tragic though dont forget the matter of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge supported by Britain, USA and China, not by Russian and Vietnam.
Bimblinghill in your universe did America not drop two atomic bombs on Japan which caused Japan to surrender and thus bring closure to WW2 saving millions of lives? In your universe did General MacArthur not threaten China with nuclear weapons which brought closure to the Korean war saving millions of lives? In your universe did the First Gulf war not last 100 hours? All of this was made possible because of air power.....in my country we had something called the Battle of Britain...wiki that.
For starters, bin the high-handed dismissal of differing opinions as being plucked from the net. If you offer some background for your supposedly more grounded opinions, you will have more credibility. Secondly, read my previous comment about the importance of air power. Thirdly, if you are so keen on 'total war' and nuclear weapons, I'm glad your fingers are nowhere near the nuclear button. The modern world is very different to that of 1945, there are many nuclear powers other than the west.
As people the Afghans and Arabs people have changed very little in thousands of years. Your idea of hearts and minds gets people killed. You cannot bring Christian values and 'democracy' to a people so set in their ways. Hearts and minds may of worked in Malaysia where the British were already appreciated by the local people for defeating the Japanese during WW2 but it doesnt work in the Middle East. Oh and I suggest you read a few more books, your wiki knowledge is appalling.
Assuming that people are different under the skin is racist. We all start from the same raw materials and most people act in own their best interests most of the time. We must offer hope and civilised values. And, we would do well not to attempt to foist our 'Christian' values on anybody as it is all to obvious what crimes have been committed in the name of that ideology. I suggest you have a long hard think about what you are supporting, your moral compass is wildly askew.
this is just quakers/communist/greenpece propaganda. they wouldn't think twice about bombing us with them or worse, why do u think iran are really building nukes? so why should we not use them as it means theyl only get used on us!!!
Its usually students and the like who complain and make a fuss about war etc . And until they get a job they shouldn't be allowed to say what bombs or missiles are dropped on who or where .
I personally think anyone within the 30% tax bracket should be allowed to write personal messages on the fuckas
This is bull why ban them? there helpful in time of need and this video is stupid trying to say that they hurt people YES ALL BOMBS HURT CIVILIANS WHO ARE SITTING UNDERNEATH THEM but without them we'd have no form of deffence against a large force....
Yes the cluster bombs obviously would kill anyone getting bombed by them. The problem is that some of the bombs don't explode on contact with the ground. And explode later when someone accidentaly sets them off.
Beside we would still have a very capable military without them. Especially since the modern battlefields are in cities where accurate bombs are more preferable to clusterbombs. To reduce the collateral damamge. Were not in WW2 anymore.
They are designed to not go off. Its no accident. Its to prevent an enemy reusing and rebuilding a strategic location. Its a weapon with a deadly two fold function. The correct way to reduce civilian casualties through these devices is education and also better inteligence for the people dropping the bombs. If an area has been hit with clusters, its been marked for a reason.
I put my name to a land mine petition. It never stopped the Russians, the Burmese or any terrorist group from using them. There is always going be pressure groups who move onto the next weapon that causes terrible wounds. These types of petitions do of course have very good intention but they also put our own soldiers lives as risk by restricting the ordinance they can use. Terrorists operate with no restrictions, if they had cluster bombs they would use them. When are we going to wake up?
If we ban them, we cut international trade and prevent countries that lack the technology from acquiring them. How would terrorists use them without warplanes? Landmines are a simple technology and were never going to disappear entirely. I'm still glad that we don't use them any more though, how much more difficult would they make the re-construction of Afghanistan?
Unethical countries manufacture the weapons and sell them to highest bidder. There is no way for the 'West' to stop this. There are many unethical countries who do posses the technology to deliver cluster bombs. A number of African and Middle Eastern countries instantly spring to mind.
Many countries were bombed during WW2, all with delayed action devices designed to kill rescue workers. The problem in Afghanistan is that the country doesnt have the resoures to clear the ordinance.
Well, there are few countries in the world that I'd describe as 'ethical' as a whole, although all countries can be divided into forces pushing for either more or less ethical policies. A treaty will not prevent access to these weapons, but it will make them harder to get. Countries that continue to use them can have economic and political pressure applied against them. Imagine what would happen to any country that used chemical weapons.
Terrorists could bury them as booby traps after modifying them. Like a big complicated IED. That's if they were able to get their hands on them of course.
what? this doesn't even deserve a reply pixel, no one else is laughing well except you and the other faccists who believe that war is a good thing, I'm standing up for people's freedom and lives. To laugh down on that is the equivelent or laughing down on freedom -period,fullstop,whatever,- so you can live a law governed war world, but I like the world without war.
a 14 year old has no concept of war (as proven by your comment) go home shaun
hey shaun form the youtube who also lives in the uk and also claims to make short sketches who logs on and posts identical comments to the other shaun.
sorry, in my previous reply I said sorry for insulting you, I now see i was wrong. you deserve to be called a dick
WHAT GIVES YOU THE FUCKING RIGHT TO KILL INNOCNET PEOPLE YOU SICK NAZI DICK GO SHOOT YOURSELF
the reason i say nazis is because they sought after a pure race, and by killing people you are lowering their chances of continuing as a race (much like what the nazis did)
sign the petition and jump off a bridge, this petition will save lives
yeah she did, when i was about 1 1/2, I see you've still got yours
-BURNED-
don't post open comments like that, you look like a dick. and i don't recall being gay so stfu
I also hope you die tomorow, I hope you die a horrible death and never read this, because by disagreeing with the messages here your saying that to others, so yes rexon64, I guess i am a prick because i don't want people to die, I guess I'm a "FAG" because I value human life, and WOULD value yours,but value is like respect
I didn't cry, why are all your comments derrilivent from the argument, did your mom drop you on your head as a baby? did she abuse you?did she drink and take drugs while pregnant?
no?
then maybe she was given nuclear poisoning by that "single nuke"
If you want to just curse then fuck off, your opinion is worth shit here REXON, talk about REAL issues or just plain fuck off.
and if you reply to this with some gay little comment then be my guest, I can't stop you
I think the problem is more of innapropriate deployment of the bombs. I dont think a ban would be a good idea, more of a restriction as such. For example they are only allowed to be used in the most extreme situations which they really are needed for, as opposed to just using them as a replacement for a standard bomb.
yes but the extreame situation has already been put in place and has been for several years just after the 2nd world war...i think anyway...and the government think that it is worst case scenario and that theyve tried everything but they havent reali...wars disgust me and the people who A. start them and B. the ones who dont finish them sensibly...
If the treaty is signed now it means that the next victim won't lose his leg. If you don't sign, then he loses his leg. you've got to have an IQ above 30 to understand that
Why are there so many idiots on youtube (you have to be god to answer that)
"you've got to have an IQ above 30 to understand that"
I PRE-insulted you and you still made that comment, you fool
it's PREVENTION
if you sign then they won't be a victim. think about it, THINK that thing your meant to do before you type
(sorry if this is insulting but I'm sick of people replying to me on this video if they can't even think about what I'm saying, look at who gets the thumbs ups and the thumbs downs, don't argue with me, people seem to think I'm right, your wasting time.)
The UK hasn't used cluster bombs for 5 years as it has been proven to be an ineffective weapon in the type of warfare in which they are currently engaged. Cluster bombs cost 98% civilian lives. The 'lefty liberal morons' you refer to include the UK government and MoD who have signed up to this much needed treaty.
Its easy to sign away the right to use a weapon we don't currently need,still if we do have need of them in future we can always employ a less media friendly ally to deploy them for us and keep our own hands clean .
go learn stuff before you say it,you clearly have a warped and limited concept of war and warfare and therefore your opinion is worth shit. clusterbombs kill people,they don't act as a shield, they don't scare people away,they provoke war and they give that country a violent image.I'm guessing that carrying a knife must keep you safe then?WRONG cause what're you gonna do with that knife
"I dunno...stab someone?"
correct, and that is not safety, it's DANGER (the opposite)
God forbid a country engaged in armed conflict should have a 'violent image' that would simply never do...there are no good or bad weapons they are all neutral the same principles should govern the use of all of them,military necesity tempered by moral responsiblity,i would condemn the use of tear gas and rubber bullets in the wrong circumstances just as i would condone the use of cluster bombs,land mines or napalm if the situation demanded it .
the truth of the matter is that signing anything will not change anything. we will never change it. the human race is a violent and hate filled species. of course we can be nice at times but when you watch the news do you ever hear of any good news??
lol true, even tho ppl sign it, there still wil be voilence, and ppl wont even pay atterntion to this. quoted 'As long as there are men, there will be war'
yeah you know, I haven't, but I've seen em and been in em and the crime is pretty high there.
but council estates in comparison with the rest of towns is so small it's pretty much negligible, but people act like it's the end of the world. people have a twisted view on things, if one man gets stabbed then EVERYONE is gonna get stabbed. If you believe these people then you're an idiot.
looking at your other comments, you ARE an idiot.
"will cost english lives"?wtf, how are cluster bombs saving us
Cluster bombs induce notion of hate as they are left behind many years after a war has been fought. From Asia to Europe they have been used, more recently then most would think. We need to keep educating ourselves on weapons and stand up for what is right. Ban Clusters
Yea right, no cluster bombs and then its all smiley faces and sun shine.
So your saying forces should just use one big fat 2000lb dumb bomb instead? Because that how it would work out. Cluster bombs are highly effective against targets such as air fields and factorys; without them it will only drag out the fight.
HotFuzz: That may be the rationale that has led to us bombing villages, but does that actually protect us? What will motivate a suicide bomber to kill UK civilians? Civilian casualties overseas motiviate people to try to kill us. We need to strike a balance. I'm not a pacifist and I think war is sometimes necessary, but if they make us less safe then we are doing something wrong.
"If they make us less safe then we are doing something wrong" not necessarily wars are an inherently dangerous business but that is not in its self sufficient reason to avoid them,lacking the moral courage to accept such risks might be though .
Moral courage is at the heart of the issue. Do we have the courage to re-think the way we fight? Cluster bombs are part of it but I'm also thinking of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and post war reconstruction. If we grasp the nettle here we might find ourselves in a safer world. If it doesn't work out like this we still have 1 or 2 weapons to choose from. It would not be impossible to un-ban them if we find that our hands are too tied, but if we don't take this step then we will will never know.
We shouldnt re-think the way we fight we should re-think why we fight,if it is necessary to fight then we shouldn't place arbitrary artifical constraints on how we do it,Von Clausewitz was right the only mercy in war is victory .
We should indeed think carefully why we fight. Half the problems of the world are the result of numbskulls not thinking things through (I refer to Bush/Blair). The constraint of a cluster bomb ban is not arbitrary, it is a reaction to their high civilian casualties and long-term effects on countries. It detracts from any victory, and weakens our hand, if we can't offer a peaceful future for the people we aim to liberate. Also, have you heard any generals complaining about the land-mine ban?
No you dont because the M18A1 Claymore Anti-Personnel Mine is more often command-detonated by the US military and is still in service today.
Although last I heard insurgent forces in Iraq and Afgnaistan werent goverened by strict laws in how they can deploy road side bombs or booby traps with little or no regards to civilians who live nearby.
The Ottawa landmine treaty allows command-detonated weapons, but the US isn't a signatory. Veterans groups are campaigning for them to sign.
Of course we can't do anything about insurgent tactics. However, as I've stated elsewhere, I think more ethical methods of fighting will help us beat them in the end. We must choose strategy over tactics. Ban clusters.
Any suggestions how we can fight an enemy with no ethics, ethically? No one can find ethics in death or destruction. Its unethical to even try to measure it or put rules around what each side can or cannot do. In war there is no assurance of a clean death. Millions of people have been crippled by shrapnel from artillery shells, far more than ever will be maimed by clusters, yet I can find no petition to ban artillery?
When our ethics are no better than those of our enemies, we are doomed to lose. We don't deliberately target civilians, insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan do. We behave better than they do, but we can improve our efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Clusters cause proportionately more civilian casualties than artillery. One day maybe, artillery shells will be banned, but it will be a long slog and it will only happen a step at a time. One day our ethical standpoint could be 'we do not kill'.
With urban guerrilla warfare there will always be civilian casualties regardless of the weapon used. This is the way insurgents have chosen to fight.
In Vietnam 58 thousand service men and women lost their lives. If you are happy that the way to win is to go in on the ground like in Vietnam and once again bring in "the draft" then you know nothing of history. Air delivered ordinance saves lives and its the reason why people have time to start campaigns such as this.
The US deployed millions of tonnes of cluster bomblets during the Vietnam Conflict particularly in Laos which wasnt even involved in the conflict and Cambodia. The 3 countries combined have over 100,000 survivors of cluster bombs and landmines and many thousands more have died and continue to die because of them. Clearly air delivered ordnance saved neither US nor local lives, failed to win the war and continues to kill to this day.
For starters Laos and Cambodia were supply lines for weapons and men, that is why they were bombed. You are infering those countries were bombed just for the sake, which isnt true. Secondly, you make is sound as though there were no deployments of anti personel mines made by north vietnamese forces, which is rubbish.
You have totally missed my point. If there are no soldiers on the ground there can be no casualties on the ground. That is why the US prefers to drop bombs.
Do you really think covering a nation and those surrounding it with bomblets that will kill for generations is a) acceptable and b) any way in our interests? The US lost the Vietnam war if I remember correctly, largely because there was huge resistance. Why did people flock to the Vietcong cause? Because they won the propaganda war. Tactics like cluster bombs, napalm etc hand the enemy a massive and often decisive weapon. We are doomed to lose if we don't win hearts and minds.
The US lost because of the inability to strike early on in the war and secondly though a bad choice of tactics later on. 58 thousand lost their lives. Of those people the majority were just like you and me, they were drafted into the US military. Use of Airpower means that the US can fight these wars with out conscription and with out massive casaulties on the ground. Why should soldiers fight to rules put to them by people who have never experienced war i.e. the Wiki generation?
The idea that air power can win wars is a fallacy. It's impossible to win without gaining air superiority, but there comes a point where going in on the ground is required to achieve anything meaningful, unless the solution you are aiming for is total anihilation of anything living, but I think genocide is a little out of fashion these days. Those civilians are people just like you and me. And, no I haven't experienced war, but I have friends in Iraq. What about you?
Absolutely the troops should be protected too, but this is a different if equally important issue. Banning cluster bombs protects the lives and rights of civilians not terrorists (as well as our troops and own civilians and relief workers who also get injured and killed from them whilst working in the affected countries).
When they petition to stop terrorist from making IEDs, which kill and mane our Heroes in Uniform, I will sign it. But where are all the peace loving, human rights activist when some of our troops are tortured to death? Where are they? Where are they when a soldier gets wounded or killed by a terrorist IED? Why do they petition and protest for the rights of terrorist, but not the rights of our soldiers? Why?
Supporting the troops is more worthwhile. They keep us safe. God bless our troops.
There have been many human rights activists and aid workers who have died in Iraq and elsewhere. Some have been beheaded. I would love to help stop IEDs (but I can't) and I do support our troops. We need to win the battle for hearts and minds or we will be forever fighting terrorism. To do this, we need the high moral ground, and that means not killing civilians. Cluster bombs kill disproportionate numbers of civilians.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
cluster bombs save money on fuel for planes. a cluster bomb makes less journeys to drop bombs and pick them up and drop more again... because there are loads in one bomb.. thus saving fuel thus saving the environment. duznt that make the world a better place 4 evry1 :)
depending on weather the civilians are in a country we are at war with or not. kill the civillians and maybe were more likely to win the war. hitler nearly won and he killed a few civillians.
Under the international humanitarian law civilians can never be target of military operations. That is why cluster bombs will be banned, they are ilegal weapons.
Cluster bombs have been proved time and time again to have low military utility - they were designed for a type of warfare that no longer exists. Any weapon whose victims are 98% civilian should be banned. Great work!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
DONT SIGHN!!!!!!!!. if we dont use cluster bombs we will have to use more normal bombs to flatten poorer countries. thus costing the tax payer more money.....
oh this makes me so mad, obama was against clusterbombs what the hell is going on here? go to commondreams for today and read "soon to be a thing of the past" damn murderous bastards
If these weapons weren't such a huge problem, why are over 100 governments set to sign this Treaty on December 3rd in Oslo?! Indiscriminate weapons do nobody any favours. Cluster bombs kill and injure disproportionate amounts of innocent people both during and many decades after a conflict. Everyone sign the People's Treaty, we have the power to make a difference!!
Fortunately, it's not all lies. Thanks to campaigning work and the People's Treaty, 100 governments around the world have agreed to sign the Treaty to ban cluster bombs this December 3rd in Oslo.
I can think of any number of reasons why a government might sign,they don't own any of these particular weapons,they don't actually involve themselves in armed conflict,they have a better weapon or a rebranded version of the old one ready to go,as a meaningless sop to a concerned public who will be placated by the knowledge that we will only kill our enemys in a 'nice' way,take your pick .
iroscoe: By that logic, it would be pointless banning any weapons, such as biological of chemical weapons. However, the treaties that banned these have been largely successful; they have rarely been used in recent decades and the mere suggestion that a country might use them can enable other countries to gain support for a war against them.
We can ban weapons that cause disproportionate civilian casualties, and reduce the horror of war. It's a step forward.
I don't really see your point chemical weapons were not banned during world war 2 yet were not used,mainly due to the fear of retaliation which is the same reason we are disinclined to employ our current superior form of WMDs (nuclear weapons),fear is a better guarantor than good intent .
There was an agreement between the axis and allies not to use chemical weapon.. against alll the odds, it held. The British did keep a stock to defend against a German invasion and the Nazis merrily poisoned millions of innocent civilians. Fear is indeed a guarantor of non use, but other methods can be effective as well. Most countries would likely comply with the treaty, and others would find them difficult to access when international trade dries up. There would be fewer innocent deaths.
There was a treaty that predated the formation of either bloc and was often followed more in breach than observance,the Japanese used them frequently agaibt the Chinese as did the Italians in Abyssinia the common denominator being neither of them feared retaliation in kind,unlike the Germans who wrongly assumed we had nerve agents as deadly as theirs so never used them,also the USA didn't ratify the Geneva protocols till 1975 most other powers inserted official 'reservation' clauses.
OK, you're right that they were used, I should have been more specific. Chemical weapons were not used by the allies, nor against the western allies. I'm aware of their use in Ethiopia and China. Fear of retaliation probably played the major part in WWII on the axis side. However, there were many tactics used during the 'total war' of WWII that would not now be considered acceptable by most countries. I believe that we can, and should, move cluster weapons into this category.
Ask General Petraus or Colin Powell if you should have unrestricted open warfare and they will say no as professional commanders. That's why they are in charge and teenage racist boys aren't.
Wars aren't just wars as they are fought under rules of law both military and international humanitarian. You can't just go for it on the battle field with whatever you have at your disposal. If you take that arguement then you accept nukes and gas etc.
To Twinkers, I sincerely hope that although at the moment it would be stupid and impractical to ban bullets the human race can look forward to a day when they are banned and erradicated.
well the only thing I can see is them making better cluster bombs making sure they go off 100% of the time, other than that there isnt a reason to ban cluster bombs. Whats next? Bullets?
this wouldnt make a difference. Its really up to the military if they want to not use clusters. The only way they would stop is if they cease to do what they are designed for, to kill. Even if 'we' had control of its use, its not going to "save lives" since they'd just use something else. This is war people
The really great thing about you tube and forums like this is that everyone can talk. Get it out there then come back at it and maybe, just maybe there might be a bit of intelligent comment get added that is not about being a 14 year old so called tough guy and based on some fact and experience, nor=t racism and xenophobia. Better get the dictionary for that one.
cluster bombs are best for clearing mass armys, and are not a precession weapon, there effective weapons, but there not used properly currently as Iraq etc require a scalpel not a grenade
Because they obviously feel the situation doesn't warrant the adverse reaction their use would bring,or the fact that not all 'cluster bombs' serve the same purpose some are specialised anti armour or anti runway munitions which are no longer applicable to either conflict,a conflict with either Iran or North Korea will certainly seem them used .
Good to see you kids talking to each other even if its based on garbage and no field experience. Interesting comment about only used in Afghanistan and Iraq. try adding Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Falklands, West Sahara, Angola, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Congo, Georgia, Israel, Kuwait, Monenegro, Serbia, Siera leonne, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, Chechenya, Nagorno Karabakh and in total, 30 countries. You are getting an education tonight. Again, buy a history book
Good for what? Aeriel inaccuracy. Generally miss their targets then lay about waiting on random victims? Check the bombing data from any cluster strike. You look at the point that they were fired to then check the data from those who have to clear them. Raely do the two match up. Whats this mean? Missed the enemy, made a huge problem. How does that help win a war and if you do win the local people hate you as they have to live with the nightmare. There is a way to create fundamentalists.
Yes i'm sure the military of many of countries around the world are investing millions of taxpayers money in groundbreaking technology that is "Good for nothing" and "aerially inaccurate". The military serve a purpose and they do their job well. Who are you to question this?
Maybe take a visit to Walter Reed Military Hospital and ask a few injured vets about clusters. You will find universal revulsion. Professional soldiers do not target civilians. Pity about the bombing of Kosovo by NATO killing the people they were supposed to be saving. The cluster bombing of Laos 35 years ago killed millions. Laos was a neutral country. What did they do to deserve that. Buy a history book then spend some time in cluster strikes zones and see if you still like them. If you live
If we ban cluster bombs... we have to build more regular bombs to kill the bastards... that costs more money..... :O DONT SIGN THE PETITION CRAP THING
The comments regarding the use of cluster bombs really do not do justice to those who post them. Adolescnt boys with no better life than to surf the web hardly make for any form of intelligent comment. That being said I'd like to add a few thoughts that might be useful. Firstly one wondeful comment about clearing AlQuaeda out of caves. Interesting, clusters do not get into caves Any professional military usually like to be able to pursue an enemy once engaged. If clusters are used it stops this
this is a stupid video, clusters are a weapon of war they are meant to kill, not necessarily innocents but I wish people would think less about the children of terrorists stepping on clusters and more about our men who need the help of clusters. Our own people should come first, that is what other countries do and that is the policy we should adopt
I get pissed off by the 'children of terrorists' argument. Do you have any idea what proportion of people in these places actually support terrorism? Have a look at the results of the Pakistani election in the Northwest Frontier (one of the key breeding grounds for terroism) and you'll get the idea. That is: only a small proportion of people anywhere support terrorism.
I cannot agree more with this campaign!Although you may really believe that clusters are effective, they are not. They dont save lives but destroy generations of ppl well after the war.
I ask you this, and please do comment:
Have you ever met a victim of a cluster bomb?
Do you know what it is like to live near fields of Unexploded Ordinates?
We know how to organize warfare, but do we know how to act when confronted with peace?
Its not like we go out to bomb innocents is it!!!
By using the cluster bomb we have an effective method of clearing large area of caves etc in Afghanistan. This is used in the war against TERROR (or would you rather we just left al qaeda
With cluster bombs, we bomb innocents for years later whoever we hit in the first place.
As for the war against terror, the definition is too vague to allow it ever to be won (if 9/11 had been an act of war rather than terrorism, would we have gone to war on 'war'?). We need a bit of more sophisticated thinking or we will be tangled in it forever. Being seen to take steps to avoid civilian casualties would help win hearts and minds.
No, keep it for klansmenn and other fascist scum. How many filthy klansmenn does the world need? As many as you like as long as they are all DEAD!!!!!
great video. Signed the petition. The tactical aspect of killing innocent civilians (even long after a conflict has ended) does not make any sense what so ever.
u see if we air strike like the cluster bomb it saves our soilders lives usually if a squad leader dosent like what he sees like a heavily defended building that they cant take with out lots of casualties usauay that means air strike but cluster bombs are too unacurate i do agree to get rid of cluster bombs but we still need air strike we could just use laser guided artelary stikes which are so acurate they could probably hit a fly so basically we do need air strikes just not cluster bombs.
thumbs up if u saw Obama's signature at @0:40
vballscout367 7 months ago
no promises now...lol. thanksthe best thanks for the perceptive and kind words
chick5581 3 years ago
Vietnam beat the USA. The most bombed piece of land is in Laos. The Vietnamese beat the US ruling class and its supporters. America had massive air superiority. Many more Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, died than Americans did. They are all tragic though dont forget the matter of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge supported by Britain, USA and China, not by Russian and Vietnam.
freewillunfree 3 years ago
Bimblinghill in your universe did America not drop two atomic bombs on Japan which caused Japan to surrender and thus bring closure to WW2 saving millions of lives? In your universe did General MacArthur not threaten China with nuclear weapons which brought closure to the Korean war saving millions of lives? In your universe did the First Gulf war not last 100 hours? All of this was made possible because of air power.....in my country we had something called the Battle of Britain...wiki that.
chiggy79 3 years ago
For starters, bin the high-handed dismissal of differing opinions as being plucked from the net. If you offer some background for your supposedly more grounded opinions, you will have more credibility. Secondly, read my previous comment about the importance of air power. Thirdly, if you are so keen on 'total war' and nuclear weapons, I'm glad your fingers are nowhere near the nuclear button. The modern world is very different to that of 1945, there are many nuclear powers other than the west.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
As people the Afghans and Arabs people have changed very little in thousands of years. Your idea of hearts and minds gets people killed. You cannot bring Christian values and 'democracy' to a people so set in their ways. Hearts and minds may of worked in Malaysia where the British were already appreciated by the local people for defeating the Japanese during WW2 but it doesnt work in the Middle East. Oh and I suggest you read a few more books, your wiki knowledge is appalling.
chiggy79 3 years ago
Assuming that people are different under the skin is racist. We all start from the same raw materials and most people act in own their best interests most of the time. We must offer hope and civilised values. And, we would do well not to attempt to foist our 'Christian' values on anybody as it is all to obvious what crimes have been committed in the name of that ideology. I suggest you have a long hard think about what you are supporting, your moral compass is wildly askew.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
this is just quakers/communist/greenpece propaganda. they wouldn't think twice about bombing us with them or worse, why do u think iran are really building nukes? so why should we not use them as it means theyl only get used on us!!!
jonnyhahn 3 years ago
Its usually students and the like who complain and make a fuss about war etc . And until they get a job they shouldn't be allowed to say what bombs or missiles are dropped on who or where .
I personally think anyone within the 30% tax bracket should be allowed to write personal messages on the fuckas
ToxicWhirlpool 3 years ago
ToxicWhirlpool: yeah, that's great, let the rich people decide everything. I'm sure a return to feudalism will be just great for all of us.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
This is bull why ban them? there helpful in time of need and this video is stupid trying to say that they hurt people YES ALL BOMBS HURT CIVILIANS WHO ARE SITTING UNDERNEATH THEM but without them we'd have no form of deffence against a large force....
mike98998 3 years ago
Yes the cluster bombs obviously would kill anyone getting bombed by them. The problem is that some of the bombs don't explode on contact with the ground. And explode later when someone accidentaly sets them off.
Beside we would still have a very capable military without them. Especially since the modern battlefields are in cities where accurate bombs are more preferable to clusterbombs. To reduce the collateral damamge. Were not in WW2 anymore.
AnAverageAzn 3 years ago 3
They are designed to not go off. Its no accident. Its to prevent an enemy reusing and rebuilding a strategic location. Its a weapon with a deadly two fold function. The correct way to reduce civilian casualties through these devices is education and also better inteligence for the people dropping the bombs. If an area has been hit with clusters, its been marked for a reason.
chiggy79 3 years ago
They call it 'area denial', and it is a deliberate tactic. I'm sure you'll agree with me how shameful that is.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
I put my name to a land mine petition. It never stopped the Russians, the Burmese or any terrorist group from using them. There is always going be pressure groups who move onto the next weapon that causes terrible wounds. These types of petitions do of course have very good intention but they also put our own soldiers lives as risk by restricting the ordinance they can use. Terrorists operate with no restrictions, if they had cluster bombs they would use them. When are we going to wake up?
chiggy79 3 years ago
If we ban them, we cut international trade and prevent countries that lack the technology from acquiring them. How would terrorists use them without warplanes? Landmines are a simple technology and were never going to disappear entirely. I'm still glad that we don't use them any more though, how much more difficult would they make the re-construction of Afghanistan?
bimblinghill 3 years ago
Unethical countries manufacture the weapons and sell them to highest bidder. There is no way for the 'West' to stop this. There are many unethical countries who do posses the technology to deliver cluster bombs. A number of African and Middle Eastern countries instantly spring to mind.
Many countries were bombed during WW2, all with delayed action devices designed to kill rescue workers. The problem in Afghanistan is that the country doesnt have the resoures to clear the ordinance.
chiggy79 3 years ago
Well, there are few countries in the world that I'd describe as 'ethical' as a whole, although all countries can be divided into forces pushing for either more or less ethical policies. A treaty will not prevent access to these weapons, but it will make them harder to get. Countries that continue to use them can have economic and political pressure applied against them. Imagine what would happen to any country that used chemical weapons.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
Terrorists could bury them as booby traps after modifying them. Like a big complicated IED. That's if they were able to get their hands on them of course.
GBlair88 3 years ago
i communicate to my family typing and using the audio preview at the bottom its better and makes me laugh TRY IT OUT!
icedood3000 3 years ago
kissing game
dont worry dis isnt scary
hold you breath
copy and past dis
add this 2 1 video if you can hold ur breath ur a good kisser
DAZ757 3 years ago
I see from the recent comments that the racist teenage boys have paid us a visit again. Go back to watch some porn, there's adults talking!
bimblinghill 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
SamdeSquirell programs computer's for his job thats why he is such a sad ass prick. lol
pixelpipelines 3 years ago
what? this doesn't even deserve a reply pixel, no one else is laughing well except you and the other faccists who believe that war is a good thing, I'm standing up for people's freedom and lives. To laugh down on that is the equivelent or laughing down on freedom -period,fullstop,whatever,- so you can live a law governed war world, but I like the world without war.
a 14 year old has no concept of war (as proven by your comment) go home shaun
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago
Ha SamdeSquirell Your the biggest twat going.
MediaShorts 3 years ago
hey shaun form the youtube who also lives in the uk and also claims to make short sketches who logs on and posts identical comments to the other shaun.
MediaShorts, meet pixelpipelines. pixelpipelines, meet MediaShorts
Twat (notice how there isn't an s)
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago
Why just cluster bombs?
NottzLawson 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cluster bombs 4ever!!!
Acibeb 3 years ago
sorry, in my previous reply I said sorry for insulting you, I now see i was wrong. you deserve to be called a dick
WHAT GIVES YOU THE FUCKING RIGHT TO KILL INNOCNET PEOPLE YOU SICK NAZI DICK GO SHOOT YOURSELF
the reason i say nazis is because they sought after a pure race, and by killing people you are lowering their chances of continuing as a race (much like what the nazis did)
sign the petition and jump off a bridge, this petition will save lives
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago
Ha m8 your a Fucking FAG. ohh did mommey take away your dumy? Little prick
REXON64 3 years ago
yeah she did, when i was about 1 1/2, I see you've still got yours
-BURNED-
don't post open comments like that, you look like a dick. and i don't recall being gay so stfu
I also hope you die tomorow, I hope you die a horrible death and never read this, because by disagreeing with the messages here your saying that to others, so yes rexon64, I guess i am a prick because i don't want people to die, I guess I'm a "FAG" because I value human life, and WOULD value yours,but value is like respect
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 2
If this petition doesn't save lives nothing will:)
btw, it's nice how you explain your insults:) i now care a lot more:)
Acibeb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok we will use a SINGLE nuke instead! :D
REXON64 3 years ago
that was about as funny as saying
"lets drive plains into their towers :D"
you're a dick for thinking nukes are a laughing matter on an anti-war (or anti bomb) video
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 2
Dont Fucking cry about it you SAD CUNT"!
REXON64 3 years ago
I didn't cry, why are all your comments derrilivent from the argument, did your mom drop you on your head as a baby? did she abuse you?did she drink and take drugs while pregnant?
no?
then maybe she was given nuclear poisoning by that "single nuke"
If you want to just curse then fuck off, your opinion is worth shit here REXON, talk about REAL issues or just plain fuck off.
and if you reply to this with some gay little comment then be my guest, I can't stop you
but btw pirated footage? DOUCHE
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I HATE YOU
doyoutakecard 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cum'on people everybody go to BILLBOBBLYBOTTOMS VIDZ AND TRY AND MAKE THE RIHANNA ONES TO 100 MILLION.
COPY & PASTE THIS EVERYWHERE FOR THE VIEWS AND TO GIVE HIM A BIG SURPRISE and if you don't something bad will happen to you!
pnetilidie 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i bet there after info like signitures to clone identitys
gingerbollox666 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wepons are a good thing deppendied on how they are used!!!
kcpod12481 3 years ago
I think the problem is more of innapropriate deployment of the bombs. I dont think a ban would be a good idea, more of a restriction as such. For example they are only allowed to be used in the most extreme situations which they really are needed for, as opposed to just using them as a replacement for a standard bomb.
turalsndor 3 years ago
yes but the extreame situation has already been put in place and has been for several years just after the 2nd world war...i think anyway...and the government think that it is worst case scenario and that theyve tried everything but they havent reali...wars disgust me and the people who A. start them and B. the ones who dont finish them sensibly...
buffyXXangelus 3 years ago
That didn't touch me. And I can't see how a signature can turn purple and hook onto someone's leg.
PC336 3 years ago
it's prevention.
If the treaty is signed now it means that the next victim won't lose his leg. If you don't sign, then he loses his leg. you've got to have an IQ above 30 to understand that
Why are there so many idiots on youtube (you have to be god to answer that)
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 5
how is he/she a victim if they don't lose any legs?
Acibeb 3 years ago
"you've got to have an IQ above 30 to understand that"
I PRE-insulted you and you still made that comment, you fool
it's PREVENTION
if you sign then they won't be a victim. think about it, THINK that thing your meant to do before you type
(sorry if this is insulting but I'm sick of people replying to me on this video if they can't even think about what I'm saying, look at who gets the thumbs ups and the thumbs downs, don't argue with me, people seem to think I'm right, your wasting time.)
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lefty liberal morons, do u expect our soldiers to use harsh words against the rag heads?. banning cluster bombs will cost english lives
ukhiphopisdabest 3 years ago
The UK hasn't used cluster bombs for 5 years as it has been proven to be an ineffective weapon in the type of warfare in which they are currently engaged. Cluster bombs cost 98% civilian lives. The 'lefty liberal morons' you refer to include the UK government and MoD who have signed up to this much needed treaty.
dangerousgroundtv 3 years ago
Its easy to sign away the right to use a weapon we don't currently need,still if we do have need of them in future we can always employ a less media friendly ally to deploy them for us and keep our own hands clean .
iroscoe 3 years ago
go learn stuff before you say it,you clearly have a warped and limited concept of war and warfare and therefore your opinion is worth shit. clusterbombs kill people,they don't act as a shield, they don't scare people away,they provoke war and they give that country a violent image.I'm guessing that carrying a knife must keep you safe then?WRONG cause what're you gonna do with that knife
"I dunno...stab someone?"
correct, and that is not safety, it's DANGER (the opposite)
clusterbombs=warcrime
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 3
God forbid a country engaged in armed conflict should have a 'violent image' that would simply never do...there are no good or bad weapons they are all neutral the same principles should govern the use of all of them,military necesity tempered by moral responsiblity,i would condemn the use of tear gas and rubber bullets in the wrong circumstances just as i would condone the use of cluster bombs,land mines or napalm if the situation demanded it .
iroscoe 3 years ago
the truth of the matter is that signing anything will not change anything. we will never change it. the human race is a violent and hate filled species. of course we can be nice at times but when you watch the news do you ever hear of any good news??
musmetallica 3 years ago
lol true, even tho ppl sign it, there still wil be voilence, and ppl wont even pay atterntion to this. quoted 'As long as there are men, there will be war'
bond532 3 years ago
the media tells you that the world is full of sick evil people... but STATISTICS show that crime is going down.
don't believe everything you see, look into it cause the world is a better place than you think
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 4
Crime is going down? have u ever lived on a council estate or in forest gate se london. obviously not
ukhiphopisdabest 3 years ago
yeah you know, I haven't, but I've seen em and been in em and the crime is pretty high there.
but council estates in comparison with the rest of towns is so small it's pretty much negligible, but people act like it's the end of the world. people have a twisted view on things, if one man gets stabbed then EVERYONE is gonna get stabbed. If you believe these people then you're an idiot.
looking at your other comments, you ARE an idiot.
"will cost english lives"?wtf, how are cluster bombs saving us
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 2
television ,radoi , newspaper - it's all propaganda. Don't believe in everything they say.
wojtek3016 3 years ago 5
Cluster bombs induce notion of hate as they are left behind many years after a war has been fought. From Asia to Europe they have been used, more recently then most would think. We need to keep educating ourselves on weapons and stand up for what is right. Ban Clusters
sarashawesh 3 years ago 7
Yea right, no cluster bombs and then its all smiley faces and sun shine.
So your saying forces should just use one big fat 2000lb dumb bomb instead? Because that how it would work out. Cluster bombs are highly effective against targets such as air fields and factorys; without them it will only drag out the fight.
woods767 3 years ago
It's not lack of weapons that drags out the fight, it's the relentless spiral of hate. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ban clusters.
bimblinghill 3 years ago 2
can i like press a button or do i have to actualy do anythin?
blahdob 3 years ago
Follow the link in the details at top right then fill in the form.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
wtf those villages hide terrorists
HotFuzz456 3 years ago
London probably hides terrorists, but use of cluster bombs would hardly be appropriate.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
yeah but the entire reason we bomb villages is to STOP london getting bombed. so that would pointless. Good point tho. Next.
HotFuzz456 3 years ago
you sir are an idiot.
end of.
nitra1000 3 years ago
wrong
SamSycamore 3 years ago
post was meant as a raply to HottFuzz456
nitra1000 3 years ago
HotFuzz: That may be the rationale that has led to us bombing villages, but does that actually protect us? What will motivate a suicide bomber to kill UK civilians? Civilian casualties overseas motiviate people to try to kill us. We need to strike a balance. I'm not a pacifist and I think war is sometimes necessary, but if they make us less safe then we are doing something wrong.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
"If they make us less safe then we are doing something wrong" not necessarily wars are an inherently dangerous business but that is not in its self sufficient reason to avoid them,lacking the moral courage to accept such risks might be though .
iroscoe 3 years ago
Moral courage is at the heart of the issue. Do we have the courage to re-think the way we fight? Cluster bombs are part of it but I'm also thinking of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and post war reconstruction. If we grasp the nettle here we might find ourselves in a safer world. If it doesn't work out like this we still have 1 or 2 weapons to choose from. It would not be impossible to un-ban them if we find that our hands are too tied, but if we don't take this step then we will will never know.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
We shouldnt re-think the way we fight we should re-think why we fight,if it is necessary to fight then we shouldn't place arbitrary artifical constraints on how we do it,Von Clausewitz was right the only mercy in war is victory .
iroscoe 3 years ago
We should indeed think carefully why we fight. Half the problems of the world are the result of numbskulls not thinking things through (I refer to Bush/Blair). The constraint of a cluster bomb ban is not arbitrary, it is a reaction to their high civilian casualties and long-term effects on countries. It detracts from any victory, and weakens our hand, if we can't offer a peaceful future for the people we aim to liberate. Also, have you heard any generals complaining about the land-mine ban?
bimblinghill 3 years ago
No you dont because the M18A1 Claymore Anti-Personnel Mine is more often command-detonated by the US military and is still in service today.
Although last I heard insurgent forces in Iraq and Afgnaistan werent goverened by strict laws in how they can deploy road side bombs or booby traps with little or no regards to civilians who live nearby.
chiggy79 3 years ago
The Ottawa landmine treaty allows command-detonated weapons, but the US isn't a signatory. Veterans groups are campaigning for them to sign.
Of course we can't do anything about insurgent tactics. However, as I've stated elsewhere, I think more ethical methods of fighting will help us beat them in the end. We must choose strategy over tactics. Ban clusters.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
Any suggestions how we can fight an enemy with no ethics, ethically? No one can find ethics in death or destruction. Its unethical to even try to measure it or put rules around what each side can or cannot do. In war there is no assurance of a clean death. Millions of people have been crippled by shrapnel from artillery shells, far more than ever will be maimed by clusters, yet I can find no petition to ban artillery?
chiggy79 3 years ago
When our ethics are no better than those of our enemies, we are doomed to lose. We don't deliberately target civilians, insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan do. We behave better than they do, but we can improve our efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Clusters cause proportionately more civilian casualties than artillery. One day maybe, artillery shells will be banned, but it will be a long slog and it will only happen a step at a time. One day our ethical standpoint could be 'we do not kill'.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
With urban guerrilla warfare there will always be civilian casualties regardless of the weapon used. This is the way insurgents have chosen to fight.
In Vietnam 58 thousand service men and women lost their lives. If you are happy that the way to win is to go in on the ground like in Vietnam and once again bring in "the draft" then you know nothing of history. Air delivered ordinance saves lives and its the reason why people have time to start campaigns such as this.
chiggy79 3 years ago
The US deployed millions of tonnes of cluster bomblets during the Vietnam Conflict particularly in Laos which wasnt even involved in the conflict and Cambodia. The 3 countries combined have over 100,000 survivors of cluster bombs and landmines and many thousands more have died and continue to die because of them. Clearly air delivered ordnance saved neither US nor local lives, failed to win the war and continues to kill to this day.
dangerousgroundtv 3 years ago 4
For starters Laos and Cambodia were supply lines for weapons and men, that is why they were bombed. You are infering those countries were bombed just for the sake, which isnt true. Secondly, you make is sound as though there were no deployments of anti personel mines made by north vietnamese forces, which is rubbish.
You have totally missed my point. If there are no soldiers on the ground there can be no casualties on the ground. That is why the US prefers to drop bombs.
chiggy79 3 years ago
Do you really think covering a nation and those surrounding it with bomblets that will kill for generations is a) acceptable and b) any way in our interests? The US lost the Vietnam war if I remember correctly, largely because there was huge resistance. Why did people flock to the Vietcong cause? Because they won the propaganda war. Tactics like cluster bombs, napalm etc hand the enemy a massive and often decisive weapon. We are doomed to lose if we don't win hearts and minds.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
The US lost because of the inability to strike early on in the war and secondly though a bad choice of tactics later on. 58 thousand lost their lives. Of those people the majority were just like you and me, they were drafted into the US military. Use of Airpower means that the US can fight these wars with out conscription and with out massive casaulties on the ground. Why should soldiers fight to rules put to them by people who have never experienced war i.e. the Wiki generation?
chiggy79 3 years ago
The idea that air power can win wars is a fallacy. It's impossible to win without gaining air superiority, but there comes a point where going in on the ground is required to achieve anything meaningful, unless the solution you are aiming for is total anihilation of anything living, but I think genocide is a little out of fashion these days. Those civilians are people just like you and me. And, no I haven't experienced war, but I have friends in Iraq. What about you?
bimblinghill 3 years ago
your mom hides terrorists.
what? naa I was just guessing...wait a second, so were you!
by your logic that means we should cluster bomb your mom unless you prove her innocent, wait, we don't have enough time.
BOMBS AWAY DUMBASS
- just agree with the majority and your mom won't die, ban clusters-
SamdeSquirell 3 years ago 2
Absolutely the troops should be protected too, but this is a different if equally important issue. Banning cluster bombs protects the lives and rights of civilians not terrorists (as well as our troops and own civilians and relief workers who also get injured and killed from them whilst working in the affected countries).
StormCat00 3 years ago 5
When they petition to stop terrorist from making IEDs, which kill and mane our Heroes in Uniform, I will sign it. But where are all the peace loving, human rights activist when some of our troops are tortured to death? Where are they? Where are they when a soldier gets wounded or killed by a terrorist IED? Why do they petition and protest for the rights of terrorist, but not the rights of our soldiers? Why?
Supporting the troops is more worthwhile. They keep us safe. God bless our troops.
RomelTheDesertFox 3 years ago
There have been many human rights activists and aid workers who have died in Iraq and elsewhere. Some have been beheaded. I would love to help stop IEDs (but I can't) and I do support our troops. We need to win the battle for hearts and minds or we will be forever fighting terrorism. To do this, we need the high moral ground, and that means not killing civilians. Cluster bombs kill disproportionate numbers of civilians.
bimblinghill 3 years ago 3
omg this video is retarded thats not what they use cluster bombs for
deth6662007 3 years ago
beautiful video...disgusting acts
I wil sign the petition....but the US govt dont care what people think/feel anyway..they will still keep bombing relevant to their business interests
eclecticfire73 3 years ago 3
Ha,come back when you learn what a cluster bomb is and when it is used...
barracuda546 3 years ago
WTF????
Misslucy000 3 years ago
How about stopping wars instead.
waveoflight 3 years ago 5
Hello Its Not The Same Thing As Banning A T.v Show
This Is Used In War This Will Help Us Why Ban It Ok It kills People But Theye Will Just Use Somthing Else Or Just Keep Getting PWND!
JDC151 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cluster bombs save money on fuel for planes. a cluster bomb makes less journeys to drop bombs and pick them up and drop more again... because there are loads in one bomb.. thus saving fuel thus saving the environment. duznt that make the world a better place 4 evry1 :)
love922007 3 years ago
You may be the dumbest person on YouTube.
waveoflight 3 years ago 2
depending on weather the civilians are in a country we are at war with or not. kill the civillians and maybe were more likely to win the war. hitler nearly won and he killed a few civillians.
love922007 3 years ago
Yeah, Hitler was great, we should do what he did.. WHAAT!!! Did you think about that before you wrote it?
bimblinghill 3 years ago
Under the international humanitarian law civilians can never be target of military operations. That is why cluster bombs will be banned, they are ilegal weapons.
bamboleo33 3 years ago 4
Cluster bombs have been proved time and time again to have low military utility - they were designed for a type of warfare that no longer exists. Any weapon whose victims are 98% civilian should be banned. Great work!
dangerousgroundtv 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DONT SIGHN!!!!!!!!. if we dont use cluster bombs we will have to use more normal bombs to flatten poorer countries. thus costing the tax payer more money.....
love922007 3 years ago
POINTLESS MURDER. SIGN THE PETITION.
joshuablackman 3 years ago 2
oh this makes me so mad, obama was against clusterbombs what the hell is going on here? go to commondreams for today and read "soon to be a thing of the past" damn murderous bastards
dellsprospects22 3 years ago
why the hell would you want to ban cluster bombs?! what have they done to you!?
xSkitZx 3 years ago
Cluster bombs ftw
xXxRandomxXxLordxXx 3 years ago
If these weapons weren't such a huge problem, why are over 100 governments set to sign this Treaty on December 3rd in Oslo?! Indiscriminate weapons do nobody any favours. Cluster bombs kill and injure disproportionate amounts of innocent people both during and many decades after a conflict. Everyone sign the People's Treaty, we have the power to make a difference!!
StormCat00 3 years ago 3
No we don't, it's all lies!
AnthraxMuffin 3 years ago
Fortunately, it's not all lies. Thanks to campaigning work and the People's Treaty, 100 governments around the world have agreed to sign the Treaty to ban cluster bombs this December 3rd in Oslo.
StormCat00 3 years ago 3
I can think of any number of reasons why a government might sign,they don't own any of these particular weapons,they don't actually involve themselves in armed conflict,they have a better weapon or a rebranded version of the old one ready to go,as a meaningless sop to a concerned public who will be placated by the knowledge that we will only kill our enemys in a 'nice' way,take your pick .
iroscoe 3 years ago
Well that sucks
MgPinky 3 years ago
iroscoe: By that logic, it would be pointless banning any weapons, such as biological of chemical weapons. However, the treaties that banned these have been largely successful; they have rarely been used in recent decades and the mere suggestion that a country might use them can enable other countries to gain support for a war against them.
We can ban weapons that cause disproportionate civilian casualties, and reduce the horror of war. It's a step forward.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
I don't really see your point chemical weapons were not banned during world war 2 yet were not used,mainly due to the fear of retaliation which is the same reason we are disinclined to employ our current superior form of WMDs (nuclear weapons),fear is a better guarantor than good intent .
iroscoe 3 years ago
There was an agreement between the axis and allies not to use chemical weapon.. against alll the odds, it held. The British did keep a stock to defend against a German invasion and the Nazis merrily poisoned millions of innocent civilians. Fear is indeed a guarantor of non use, but other methods can be effective as well. Most countries would likely comply with the treaty, and others would find them difficult to access when international trade dries up. There would be fewer innocent deaths.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
There was a treaty that predated the formation of either bloc and was often followed more in breach than observance,the Japanese used them frequently agaibt the Chinese as did the Italians in Abyssinia the common denominator being neither of them feared retaliation in kind,unlike the Germans who wrongly assumed we had nerve agents as deadly as theirs so never used them,also the USA didn't ratify the Geneva protocols till 1975 most other powers inserted official 'reservation' clauses.
iroscoe 3 years ago
OK, you're right that they were used, I should have been more specific. Chemical weapons were not used by the allies, nor against the western allies. I'm aware of their use in Ethiopia and China. Fear of retaliation probably played the major part in WWII on the axis side. However, there were many tactics used during the 'total war' of WWII that would not now be considered acceptable by most countries. I believe that we can, and should, move cluster weapons into this category.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
cluster bombs rule, how else can we kill thousands of towel heads at once
nickyknucklez1 3 years ago
You're joking ... right?
bazamah 3 years ago
My previous comment was a reply to nickyknucklez1
bazamah 3 years ago
what do you think
nickyknucklez1 3 years ago
I think you're joking ;-)
bazamah 3 years ago
Ask General Petraus or Colin Powell if you should have unrestricted open warfare and they will say no as professional commanders. That's why they are in charge and teenage racist boys aren't.
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 4
Wars aren't just wars as they are fought under rules of law both military and international humanitarian. You can't just go for it on the battle field with whatever you have at your disposal. If you take that arguement then you accept nukes and gas etc.
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 3
To Twinkers, I sincerely hope that although at the moment it would be stupid and impractical to ban bullets the human race can look forward to a day when they are banned and erradicated.
0606018m 3 years ago 2
well the only thing I can see is them making better cluster bombs making sure they go off 100% of the time, other than that there isnt a reason to ban cluster bombs. Whats next? Bullets?
tw1nk3rs 3 years ago
this wouldnt make a difference. Its really up to the military if they want to not use clusters. The only way they would stop is if they cease to do what they are designed for, to kill. Even if 'we' had control of its use, its not going to "save lives" since they'd just use something else. This is war people
IdarkphoenixI 3 years ago
so basically th only way to save lives is to stop wars
imprisoner3 3 years ago
LOL the cluster bomb off worms xD
matty78920 3 years ago
The really great thing about you tube and forums like this is that everyone can talk. Get it out there then come back at it and maybe, just maybe there might be a bit of intelligent comment get added that is not about being a 14 year old so called tough guy and based on some fact and experience, nor=t racism and xenophobia. Better get the dictionary for that one.
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 3
If clusterbombs are such good weapons, why are they not used anymore in either Iraq or Afghanistan by USA who has more than 1 billion stockpiled?
thebanbus 3 years ago
cluster bombs are best for clearing mass armys, and are not a precession weapon, there effective weapons, but there not used properly currently as Iraq etc require a scalpel not a grenade
JackNikopol 3 years ago
Because they obviously feel the situation doesn't warrant the adverse reaction their use would bring,or the fact that not all 'cluster bombs' serve the same purpose some are specialised anti armour or anti runway munitions which are no longer applicable to either conflict,a conflict with either Iran or North Korea will certainly seem them used .
iroscoe 3 years ago
No, just cut one bad and disfunctional weapon system out of the arsenal. Simple
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 2
Get this simple thought in your heads, they don't do what they are meant to do. That is why they need banning. That is a military perspective.
CBUBAN60 3 years ago
I didn't get it! Does it mean we have to sign aload of checks or sign our life alway!??
StoneageBC 3 years ago
Good to see you kids talking to each other even if its based on garbage and no field experience. Interesting comment about only used in Afghanistan and Iraq. try adding Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Falklands, West Sahara, Angola, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Congo, Georgia, Israel, Kuwait, Monenegro, Serbia, Siera leonne, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, Chechenya, Nagorno Karabakh and in total, 30 countries. You are getting an education tonight. Again, buy a history book
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 5
is it cool to kill someone else children??
callum0913 3 years ago
"we should throw all our weopons into the sea. only then will we know true world peace."
-James Forell
LushonFeare 3 years ago
its a dog eat dog world. Remember that
wil6817 3 years ago
-.- If we were in their situation would they help? No...
MgPinky 3 years ago
Americans banning bombs? :O
next it'll be raining pigs....
DeadlyPoisonedCandy 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
support are troops by any means copy and paste this if you support are troops
ntfc2008 3 years ago
i used one with youre mum for a dildo, went well, woulnt say i dropped it though :) does this please you :) like it did me :)
alecTHElion 3 years ago
Good for what? Aeriel inaccuracy. Generally miss their targets then lay about waiting on random victims? Check the bombing data from any cluster strike. You look at the point that they were fired to then check the data from those who have to clear them. Raely do the two match up. Whats this mean? Missed the enemy, made a huge problem. How does that help win a war and if you do win the local people hate you as they have to live with the nightmare. There is a way to create fundamentalists.
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 3
Yes i'm sure the military of many of countries around the world are investing millions of taxpayers money in groundbreaking technology that is "Good for nothing" and "aerially inaccurate". The military serve a purpose and they do their job well. Who are you to question this?
RepoDemo 3 years ago
I thought cluster bombs were pretty good at what they're for.
Fuel1 3 years ago
Maybe take a visit to Walter Reed Military Hospital and ask a few injured vets about clusters. You will find universal revulsion. Professional soldiers do not target civilians. Pity about the bombing of Kosovo by NATO killing the people they were supposed to be saving. The cluster bombing of Laos 35 years ago killed millions. Laos was a neutral country. What did they do to deserve that. Buy a history book then spend some time in cluster strikes zones and see if you still like them. If you live
CBUBAN60 3 years ago 3
If we ban cluster bombs... we have to build more regular bombs to kill the bastards... that costs more money..... :O DONT SIGN THE PETITION CRAP THING
Bloomazz 3 years ago
The comments regarding the use of cluster bombs really do not do justice to those who post them. Adolescnt boys with no better life than to surf the web hardly make for any form of intelligent comment. That being said I'd like to add a few thoughts that might be useful. Firstly one wondeful comment about clearing AlQuaeda out of caves. Interesting, clusters do not get into caves Any professional military usually like to be able to pursue an enemy once engaged. If clusters are used it stops this
CBUBAN60 3 years ago
I don't see a petition to ban car bombs on youtube, they kill far more people, so why should we ban Cluster bombs?
Abe2269 3 years ago
this is a stupid video, clusters are a weapon of war they are meant to kill, not necessarily innocents but I wish people would think less about the children of terrorists stepping on clusters and more about our men who need the help of clusters. Our own people should come first, that is what other countries do and that is the policy we should adopt
jw7892 3 years ago
well said mate CBUBANO60 hasnt replyed to yo comment because he knows your right
ntfc2008 3 years ago
I get pissed off by the 'children of terrorists' argument. Do you have any idea what proportion of people in these places actually support terrorism? Have a look at the results of the Pakistani election in the Northwest Frontier (one of the key breeding grounds for terroism) and you'll get the idea. That is: only a small proportion of people anywhere support terrorism.
bimblinghill 3 years ago
banning cluster !!! wtf wt type of fagg comes up with this hippys world peace fag
tynddol 3 years ago
rofl.. cluster bombs are the way forward WOOT go free speech!
daveoncoke 3 years ago
Ban cluster bombs? you cant ban a war device god dammit.
Ironsjack 3 years ago 2
inb4 mustard gas
NukkaNair 3 years ago
I cannot agree more with this campaign!Although you may really believe that clusters are effective, they are not. They dont save lives but destroy generations of ppl well after the war.
I ask you this, and please do comment:
Have you ever met a victim of a cluster bomb?
Do you know what it is like to live near fields of Unexploded Ordinates?
We know how to organize warfare, but do we know how to act when confronted with peace?
sarashawesh 3 years ago
Its not like we go out to bomb innocents is it!!!
By using the cluster bomb we have an effective method of clearing large area of caves etc in Afghanistan. This is used in the war against TERROR (or would you rather we just left al qaeda
latounga1 3 years ago
With cluster bombs, we bomb innocents for years later whoever we hit in the first place.
As for the war against terror, the definition is too vague to allow it ever to be won (if 9/11 had been an act of war rather than terrorism, would we have gone to war on 'war'?). We need a bit of more sophisticated thinking or we will be tangled in it forever. Being seen to take steps to avoid civilian casualties would help win hearts and minds.
bimblinghill 3 years ago 2
Cluster bombs can also save our soldiers lives'
cheecko1 3 years ago 2
Haha, who needs cluster bombs when you have Depleted Uranium?
demon4411 3 years ago
ohhh suuuuuuure ban cluster bombs so they can bring out the nukes
nice idea
19jojo93 3 years ago
i'm with this guy
JoeRice 3 years ago
ill sign, on one condition, we use a nuke instead? deal?
kenpipe07 3 years ago
dam rite im with this guy :D
powderdman 3 years ago
[sarcasm]If you can start a petition to get terrorists and warmongering dictators banned, I may consider signing this petition ; )[sarcasm/]
TheREAL5m0k3y 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
KEEP THE CLUSTER BOMB FOR NIGGERS
KLANSMENN 3 years ago
Shut the fuck up, you piece of shit.
matty1072 3 years ago
No, keep it for klansmenn and other fascist scum. How many filthy klansmenn does the world need? As many as you like as long as they are all DEAD!!!!!
NO PLATFORM FOR RACISTS AND FASCISTS!!
Redveg993
Redveg993 3 years ago
LOL
Ironsjack 3 years ago
great video. Signed the petition. The tactical aspect of killing innocent civilians (even long after a conflict has ended) does not make any sense what so ever.
flx80 3 years ago
We do not need violence in the country. Need peace for our soldiers
Nolank2 3 years ago
u see if we air strike like the cluster bomb it saves our soilders lives usually if a squad leader dosent like what he sees like a heavily defended building that they cant take with out lots of casualties usauay that means air strike but cluster bombs are too unacurate i do agree to get rid of cluster bombs but we still need air strike we could just use laser guided artelary stikes which are so acurate they could probably hit a fly so basically we do need air strikes just not cluster bombs.
tgmjack 3 years ago
i agree with ya
mrevillemon 3 years ago