98 Percent of Cluster Bomb Victims are Civilians
by Ann De Ron

Ninety-eight percent of registered victims of cluster bombs are civilians, Handicap International, a UK-based NGO said in a report published Thursday.
The report Fatal Footprint was launched in several countries ahead of an international conference on conventional weapons starting in Geneva Nov. 7

Among others the report cites the case of Adnan's family. He was not quite seven years old when it happened. On August 11, 1999, shortly after some of the worst of the fighting in Kosovo in the Balkans, he went swimming with his family in a lake a few kilometres from their village.

He picked up a yellow metal can on the bank and took it to show to his family. Adnan's older brother Gazmend dropped the can. The explosion killed him and his father immediately, and their sister died the next day.

Adnan was wounded on his left arm and leg. Today his left arm is still weak. He remains disturbed, and gets bad grades at school.

Adnan is one of 11,044 victims of cluster munitions in 23 countries registered by Handicap International in its report. The large majority of the victims are boys and young men.

"Until now we only had stories of victims -- now we have hard figures that show that these bombs kill mainly civilians," Handicap International Director General Angelo Simonazzi said at the launch.

Cluster bombs continue to kill long after they are dropped. Illustrating this, Simonazzi showed a striking picture from Vietnam of unexploded cluster munitions lying among recently replanted paddies.

Handicap International estimates that there are more than 100,000 victims of cluster bombs worldwide. More than 360 million sub-munitions of this kind have been dropped. Arsenals around the world contain an estimated stock of 4 billion pieces, Handicap says. This year they were used in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.

"The U.S. and Israel have used old stocks in Iraq and Lebanon -- which helps to explain why so many sub-munitions have not exploded immediately on impact," says Simonazzi.

"In Iraq the coalition forced led by the U.S. have used 13 million cluster sub-munitions," says Hildegarde Vansintjan of Handicap International Belgium. "Assuming that one out of ten do not explode on impact, there are a million bombs lying around. The coalition troops give very little information."

During the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon, Israel dropped about 4 million cluster sub-munitions, according to Handicap. Unexploded bombs now lie all over the place.

In Lebanon, Handicap has listed 494 registered victims till Oct. 9. In Israel the organisation lists 13 victims of cluster munitions dropped by Hezbollah.

Handicap International is lobbying for an international ban on cluster munitions, following the 1997 treaty against landmines - that many countries have not signed.

The European Parliament had urged EU member states in October 2004 to vote an immediate moratorium on cluster bombs, and Belgium took the lead this year in becoming the first country to vote a law that forbids cluster munitions. The law entered into force Jun. 9.

About 20 other countries are taking similar steps. But there is little hope that there will be sufficient support for a worldwide ban next week at the Geneva conference. Large producers like the United States, China, India and Russia oppose a ban.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1103-09.htm

So what?

So what?
I see you had a good weekend.

So what?

America's evil man, dont you get it?

If you didnt look closely you could draw that conclusion, but Ive alway felt America to be a great country, ran by assholes for sometime now.

since it's inception.

and keep in mind prea is an elitist dick who doesn't think about what it would like to be in the middle of a war zone and afterward.

when elephants fight, it is always the grass that suffers.

when elephants fight, it is always the grass that suffers.
Except for the elephant with a tusk ramming through it's ribcage. But who cares about that?

The elephant wanted to fight.

Pish posh, now back to the cluster bombs!

*munches popcorn with anticipation*

have you ever seen a cluster bomb go off? its pretty cool

It probably is from 5 miles up, looking down.

I see you had a good weekend.
100% of the combatants dress in civilian clothing, so why would I care?

If the general populace of Iraq isn't turning the offenders over of their own volition, then I contend they're to be held responsible too.

It probably is from 5 miles up, looking down.
Actually side-angle shots are quite cool, too.

I would sympathize with you 500, if there was a better way of differentiating the civilians from those would are attepting to kill our soldiers.

Cluster bombs are pretty cool to watch, but even better is the Instant LZ (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm) or Daisy Cutter as they're known today.

Cluster bombs are pretty cool to watch, but even better is the Instant LZ (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm) or Daisy Cutter as they're known today.
Wow, daisy cutters are fairly cheap. They're only around $27,000 a piece. If I ever become super rich, I'm going to "sponsor a cutter" for use in some third-world nation comprised of swarthy individuals to keep them under the power of our imperialistic thumb FOREVER. Muhawahahahaha!!!

Right, FT? :) Wanna go partners on a "cutter for a brother"? C'mon...I know you're thinking about it....

If the general populace of Iraq isn't turning the offenders over of their own volition, then I contend they're to be held responsible too.
colective punishment...sigh.

So then 9/11 was justified, right? I mean, America didn't hand over all the war criminals and imperialists that have been fucking with the middle east so therefore all Americans are guilty of their crimes, right?

Hey this is fun. Hitler was justified too right? I mean no doubt there were jewish criminals and terrorists. Therefore Hitler had to 'punish' all of them because they didn't hand over the ones responsible.

No, my little narrow-minded friend, for it seems that you've managed to miss the point....again. Sigh.

Things are going badly in Iraq not because, as some claim, the United States is arrogant and lacking in humility, but because it's self-effacing and compassionate.

The Bush Administration's war in Iraq embraces compassion instead of the rational goal of victory. Such an immoral approach to war wantonly sacrifices the lives of soldiers and emboldens our enemies throughout the Middle East to mount further attacks against us, and as long as the politicians are able to dictate war policy, it always will.

Regardless of whether the Iraqi dictatorship should have been our initial target in the war against totalitarian Islam, when in the nation's defense a President sends troops to war, morally he must resolve to soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding our forces and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers, and on currying favor with the locals (some U.S. soldiers were even ordered to grow moustaches in token of their respect for Iraqi culture, others are now given cultural sensitivity courses before arriving in Iraq). Since the war began, Islamic militants and Saddam loyalists have carried out random abductions, devastating ambushes, and catastrophic bombings throughout the country. Those attacks on U.S. forces (including those engaged in reconstruction efforts) have gone unpunished has emboldened the enemy.

The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, and the same logic applies to the people living in Iraq currently, who are being protected by their new government and are being aided by ours. If they don't give up the people responsible for acts of terrorism, then it's my contention that they should be treated as terrorists themselves. The terrorists don't bother to wear uniforms and the people don't bother to give them up, so what (may I ask you) are our options?

Things are going badly in Iraq not because, as some claim, the United States is arrogant and lacking in humility, but because it's self-effacing and compassionate.

I think I have truly heard it all now.

The Bush Administration's war in Iraq embraces compassion.....

Nope. It seems that I had NOT heard it all.

But NOW , with -------The Bush Administration's war in Iraq embraces compassion....." I truly HAVE heard it all.

600,000 dead.....yet the US has been-- "self-effacing and compassionate"..........?!?!?!?!

Whew. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Things are going badly in Iraq not because, as some claim, the United States is arrogant and lacking in humility, but because it's self-effacing and compassionate. First of all...Bwahahahahaaaaaaa. But enough with the jokes...

Regardless of whether the Iraqi dictatorship should have been our initial target in the war against totalitarian Islam, when in the nation's defense a President sends troops to war, morally he must resolve to soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding our forces and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers, and on currying favor with the locals (some U.S. soldiers were even ordered to grow moustaches in token of their respect for Iraqi culture, others are now given cultural sensitivity courses before arriving in Iraq). Right because 4 million people who used to have schools, hospitals, roads and sewers certainly wouldn't blame and take up arms against the invading force that destroyed all their schools hospitals, roads and sewers...

The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, and the same logic applies to the people living in Iraq currently, who are being protected by their new government and are being aided by ours. If they don't give up the people responsible for acts of terrorism, then it's my contention that they should be treated as terrorists themselves. The terrorists don't bother to wear uniforms and the people don't bother to give them up, so what (may I ask you) are our options? Gee thats funny...wasn't Saddam just sentenced to death because he massacured 180 Shiites because a few of them tried to overthrow him through assassination and the rest wouldn't give them up?....

(might I add that the Iraqi generals wanted to overthrow Saddam after Gulf War 1 and the US, even with forces already in the region, refused. Saddam was only in power because thats where the US wanted him.)

No, my little narrow-minded friend, for it seems that you've managed to miss the point....again. Sigh. I got the point exactly. You think its OK when the US uses collective punishment as a tactic but bad when Saddam does the same thing.

600,000 dead.....yet the US has been-- "self-effacing and compassionate"..........?!?!?!?!
I think the point Prae is getting across is that we aren't be as hardline as we could be. The number of deaths has and had a potential to be much higher than it already is.

I could murder 20 people by lunchtime today. But I'm such a kind and compassionate person I think I'll only kill 5. You should really give me credit for being so nice...

I could murder 20 people by lunchtime today. But I'm such a kind and compassionate person I think I'll only kill 5. You should really give me credit for being so nice...
That is far from compassionate, Prae is just a dick, but my interpretation of his point still stands.

Prae is just a dick No one will argue with that.

but my interpretation of his point still stands. Right and my point is that hes a two faced hypocrite. They aren't mutually exclusive. Just lets you figure how much weight their argument holds.

I could murder 20 people by lunchtime today. But I'm such a kind and compassionate person I think I'll only kill 5. You should really give me credit for being so nice...

its kind of like government spending. We were going to spend 20 billion, but we only spent 10, we just saved you 10 billion!

The Bush Administration's war in Iraq embraces compassion instead of the rational goal of victory. Such an immoral approach to war wantonly sacrifices the lives of soldiers and emboldens our enemies throughout the Middle East to mount further attacks against us, and as long as the politicians are able to dictate war policy, it always will.

Regardless of whether the Iraqi dictatorship should have been our initial target in the war against totalitarian Islam, when in the nation's defense a President sends troops to war, morally he must resolve to soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding our forces and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers, and on currying favor with the locals (some U.S. soldiers were even ordered to grow moustaches in token of their respect for Iraqi culture, others are now given cultural sensitivity courses before arriving in Iraq). Since the war began, Islamic militants and Saddam loyalists have carried out random abductions, devastating ambushes, and catastrophic bombings throughout the country. Those attacks on U.S. forces (including those engaged in reconstruction efforts) have gone unpunished has emboldened the enemy.
This makes me wonder - what exactly do you think we should be trying to achieve in Iraq? What should our ultimate goal be over there?

I could murder 20 people by lunchtime today. But I'm such a kind and compassionate person I think I'll only kill 5. You should really give me credit for being so nice...
Yeah, that's it!!! :rolleyes:

This makes me wonder - what exactly do you think we should be trying to achieve in Iraq? What should our ultimate goal be over there?
We should be concentrating on the total annihilation of all known terrorist cells as quickly, expediently, and cheaply as possible. No more warnings, no more political fluff; just all out eradication of the enemy. When they (the terrorists) use the people of a given town for cover, we eliminate everyone. We should be charged with sending out a message that carries with it an ultimatum, and in that ultimatum, we stress our new objective - we'll no longer accept a lackadaisical attitude on the part of your average Iraqi; either turn in people you know to be loyal to Saddam, or you can die with them. If you come to us for help, we WILL help you. If you don't, you'll be used as cannon fodder - which is exactly what you are for the terrorist already. The choice is yours.

We should be concentrating on the total annihilation of all known terrorist cells ........When they (the terrorists) use the people of a given town for cover, we eliminate everyone.

I'm curious.

When the last 4 year old has been bayonetted and the last 80 year old toothless woman is shot in the head, should your forces then proceed with killing all the livestock and burning the buildings also?

I mean, you know; just to make sure your "message" gets through...............??

We should be concentrating on the total annihilation of all known terrorist cells as quickly, expediently, and cheaply as possible. No more warnings, no more political fluff; just all out eradication of the enemy. When they (the terrorists) use the people of a given town for cover, we eliminate everyone. We should be charged with sending out a message that carries with it an ultimatum, and in that ultimatum, we stress our new objective - we'll no longer accept a lackadaisical attitude on the part of your average Iraqi; either turn in people you know to be loyal to Saddam, or you can die with them. If you come to us for help, we WILL help you. If you don't, you'll be used as cannon fodder - which is exactly what you are for the terrorist already. The choice is yours.Okay. And what do you think will be the end result of that? What is the ultimate objective we should be trying to achieve?

either turn in people you know to be loyal to Saddam, or you can die with them

Just switch "loyal" to "unloyal" and it sounds suspiciously like something Saddam would have said back in the day.

When the last 4 year old has been bayonetted and the last 80 year old toothless woman is shot in the head, should your forces then proceed with killing all the livestock and burning the buildings also?



i think the livestock should be killed and buildings burnt prior to bayonetting the 4 and 80 year olds. feed the fear first, plus you would have a fire to throw the bodies onto.

just a thought.

Just switch "loyal" to "unloyal" and it sounds suspiciously like something Saddam would have said back in the day.
With the key difference being that we're there to offer these people their freedom - Saddam never was. If they join us, everyone wins. This concept isn't rocket science; the impetus is totally different now being that the parameters have changed, and everyone stands a lot to gain if we work together. We're offering them a chance to better their lives, which, admittedly, is a concept foreign to these people, but that doesn't mean we should give up.

We should be concentrating on the total annihilation of all known terrorist cells as quickly, expediently, and cheaply as possible.
Prea - Define terrorist.