Lets stop dropping land mines (or any bombs at all)

[Graeme the mad]

Does no one else here object to the bombing of afghanistan?
THERE IS NO POINT TO IT.
THe only thing it does is make things very very slightly easier for our soldiers - but only very slightly: they are not even bombing the taliban front lines.
The Us and britain are too scared to send in soldiers in any large number when these will get the job done alot better than any bombs. This is a real worry since it show how much they really do care for afghan civilians - sh1t all.
Cluster bombs are just landmines dropped from the air, lots of civilians have been killed by normal bombs and on top of this very little aid is being dropped. I realise that civilians must die in a war - Im not one of these lets not go to war ever people. What I do object to is civilians dying without reason: with the money going into this bombing so many food parcels could be dropped from the air - preferably with instructions in the languages spoken in afghanistan.

I realise that no one is allowed to say this in the US but im in Britain so its okay - the president is an idiot and this great war against terrorism is one very huge, ill thought out shambles.

 

[Strik]

Yeah I totally agree with graeme the MAD. What is there to bomb in afghanistan. The country is in ruins. Anything of little importance is destroyed, what else is left. If the US and UK keeps bombing they will only kill innocent civilians.

IT HAS TO END NOW!!!!

They will never get OSAMA this way. You'l probably make more OSAMA's.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

uh-oh the mods are gonna be pissed......

 

[Graeme the mad]

R u seriously suggesting the mods will eb annoyed: if they are I say this to them:

THIS IS A WAR FOR DEMOCRACY: THE RIGHT FOR ALL TO VOICE AND ARGUE THEIR OPINIONS. IF TO WIN THIS WAR WE MUST STOP ALL VOICING THEIR OPINIONS THEN WE HAVE NOT WON AT ALL

(neither have we won if every person in afghanistan starves to deat/is hit by a bomb)

 

[.:KNAS:.]

look at the håkan erikson thread, and the terrosrists fighting terrorists thread, everybody got pissed at them.... but i say bomb the **** outta them, and then send in ground forces

 

[Graeme the mad]

WHY BOMB THE **** out of them????? - do you really believe this, if so you make me very, very angry: believe it or not they have done nothing to USA (im reerring to the afghans)- send in troops and establish a government, fine my me however jsut killing people for the sake of it is not exactly that nice.

Im not saying what the terrorists fighting terrorists guy said: he was a bit mad

 

[.:KNAS:.]

u dont see them carpet bombing cities do u? and i saw on the news the other day that american special forces where in in afghanistan

 

[Strik]

Hey just keep the discussion a bit more to the thread. Bombing afghanistan is a waste of money (2 million dolaar bomb on a 10 dollar tent) and is useless, cause there is nothing important to bomb there anyway. Bombing afghanistan would only have effect if you knew where OSAMA is, andthen throw a bomb on him. But the fact is they don't know where he is.

Osama hit innocent people with his airplane bombings, can you let the US and UK justify it by doing the same?

I SAY NO

 

[.:KNAS:.]

they say two wrongs dont make i right.... i beg to differ, if i give u the wong password to somethhing and when u r typing it u accidentaly misspelled, and got the right password, then i made a wrong, then u made a wrong, and then it was right. so two wrongs does make a right.

 

[Graeme the mad]

U know thats crap .:knas:.

What reasons are theree for dropping clusterbombs for instance - these act exactly like landmines - days later a child walks voer them and bang - bits of child everywhere

 

[Strik]

Splatter bonus

eehhh seriously this is ofcourse terrible

 

[.:KNAS:.]

the purpose of the cluster bomb is to spread a large number of small bombs over a specific area, to create as much widespread damage as possible. this is mainly used against airfields. cluster bombs are in most cases not mines, however in somecases the bombs doesnt go off because of some problem. sometimes they do us mines as to make it harder to repair the airfields.....

 

[joespaniel]

Do you have an alternative, Graeme?

Im not trying to start an argument, I happen to be opposed to any more bombing, but I do still see a necessity in destroying al-Quaida.

You seem to have forgot that this is not a war for democracy. Its a war to destroy terrorists. Its not a war against Afghanistan, its a war against a government that supports terror.

Cluster bombs are exactly what KNAS said they are. Used against runways and troop concentrations. Not too many kids around military runways and trenches, I would wager.

The airforces of the US and UK have been bombing Taliban front line positions, the problem is that they are now hiding in mosques and hospitals. They have also bombed ammo dumps (in caves) and caches of weapons.

I dont think a massive ground campaign is the answer either. The point of this is not to destroy the military of the Taliban.

I would suggest that air operations be limited to targets of opportunity now. The troops will have to go into the mountains and find them.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I have seen zero evidence that the USAF is using delayed fuses on CBUs. Graeme you are insane, well I guess you already knew that.

Lefty Scaevola
Uncertified Lobotomist

 

[Graeme the mad]

Why not destroy the taliban, they are an anti-democratic terrorist supporting government? - the British government has a plan for putting in a new government in their place and im sure the US does too.
I suggest a ground attack is the only real way - relying on the Northern alliance to do it for us is risky (something the US does seem to have realised at least) - thats why frontline position arent being heavily bombed.
Their isn't much to bomb in Afghanistan that will acoomplish results.
By throwing out the taliban and establishing a new government relief efforts for civilians could start properley: though the taliban are probably eggagerating results it is a fact that many civilians have now been killed, this must stop, we need these people on our sides.

US and Britain are very concerned about losses if they do such a thing but I think it is outweighed by tjhe overthrow of the taliban and teh establishment of a decent government before the nporthern alliance takes over

 

[Knight-Dragon]

"Why not destroy the taliban, they are an anti-democratic terrorist supporting government? - the British government has a plan for putting in a new government in their place and im sure the US does too."

I think that's what the present war is all about - to destroy the vermin that is the Taliban. And Osama. However to destroy them is probably next to impossible militarily. It's going to have to be a ground war and a war for the hearts and minds of Muslims not just in Afghanistan, but all over the Muslim world.
We shld start with Saudi Arabia and make them stop their religious schools spewing out anti-Western rhetoric. Haven't you noticed most of the terrorists are Saudis? So is Osama. The Saudi religious schools are bringing up whole generations of youngsters with a burning hatred of the West.
And I am sure the British and American govts have plans. The smart thing in this case is not to announce to the whole wide world what plans they have but to work behind the scenes to set those plans into action. Telling the media is also telling the Taliban; and that would be the dumb thing to do - informing the enemy what we're doing so that they can take measures.

 

[Dell19]

I don't think its right to blame one country and it doesn't explain why, at least three people deided to leave England to fight for the taliban...Unless they came from SA first.

I agree that countries shouldn't plant land mines which is mentioned in the title...because they leave areas uninhabitable for ever effectively. Usin bombs against the taliban has some benefits but eventually they will send in ground troups.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Does no one else here object to the bombing of afghanistan?
THERE IS NO POINT TO IT.

Of course there is.
The objective is to destroy Taliban and El Queda bases and training facilities, as well as Taliban military equipment.

THe only thing it does is make things very very slightly easier for our soldiers - but only very slightly: they are not even bombing the taliban front lines.

I'm affraid your misinformed, Greame.
Allied a/c have been hitting Taliban military forces for over a week.

The Us and britain are too scared to send in soldiers in any large number when these will get the job done alot better than any bombs.

A childish statement by you.
Why risk ground forces at this time?
I'm amazed how little value you place on allied lives, that you would squander them so cheaply.
You wouldn't be a relation to Douglas Haig, would you?

This is a real worry since it show how much they really do care for afghan civilians - sh1t all.

The allies go to redicuolous lengths to avoid civilian causualties.
Too bad we can't say that about the Taliban and El Quida.

Cluster bombs are just landmines dropped from the air, lots of civilians have been killed by normal bombs and on top of this very little aid is being dropped.

Who told you cluster bombs are being dropped?
Who said civilians have been harmed?
No one but our Taliban friends.
Man, Goebbels used to love naieve people like you, dear boy.

I realise that civilians must die in a war - Im not one of these lets not go to war ever people. What I do object to is civilians dying without reason: with the money going into this bombing so many food parcels could be dropped from the air - preferably with instructions in the languages spoken in afghanistan.

This IS being done, more food than bombs is dropped every night!
This might be the most convoluted and un-informed thread I have yet seen!

I realise that no one is allowed to say this in the US but im in Britain so its okay - the president is an idiot and this great war against terrorism is one very huge, ill thought out shambles.

We can say what we like, and your thoughts are neither acurate nor well thought out.
It seems as if you just made things up as you went along, and just posted them, hoping for answers.
What a bore.
Could you not think of something better than this?

uh-oh the mods are gonna be pissed......

About this?
Hardly.
It's like the ramblings of a high strung teenager.
What I don't care for (and will not permit, btw) is things such as "America sucks", "IT's America's fault this happened" and other such drival.
Interesting discourse of ideas is welcome, but this was just silly. :crazyeyes

 

[Whiskey Priest]

Listen ther is no such thing as a moral war. Just because the positive consequences outweigh the negetive consequences does not mean that it is moral. This type of thinking is called utilitarianism and is not a moral philosophy (thats not to say that it is evil).

so what I am trying to say is, go to war if you want, but don't walk around talking about you're "moral highground"

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

It only takes one party to make a war, it takes two to make interesting.

The morality and legality of warfare has been hashed out in long debates by the persons reponsible for their nations' security. The laws they have made for conducting war have remained fairly static in the past 70 years because they are pretty much what they had to be. Any more restrictive and they would not have been accepted by those resposible for the protection of their citizens. 9/11 was a war crime. Accidental civilian casualties in Afghanistan are lawful. If accidental collateral damage were unlawful, the law of war would cease to exist as not being accepted by any significant amount of nations, and there would be no international rules for conducting warfare at all. The law of warfare is largely ground in pragmatism, and many part of could not be different without defying reality.