Posted on 07/20/2023 7:16:45 AM PDT by bitt
Ukrainian forces began firing US-provided cluster bombs on Russian forces in southeastern Ukraine.
Using cluster bombs in battle is a war crime.
Joe Biden continues to destroy America’s reputation in the world.
The Washington Post reported.
Ukraine has begun firing U.S.-provided cluster munitions against Russian forces in southeastern Ukraine in a push to break up well-fortified Russian positions that have slowed Ukraine’s summer offensive, according to Ukrainian officials familiar with the matter.… pic.twitter.com/Q9oYqfQzTr
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 20, 2023
The Biden administration decided two weeks ago to send thousands of cluster bombs to Ukraine despite these bombs being banned in 120 countries.
A year ago then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Russia’s alleged use of cluster bombs was a war crime.
It’s like Joe Biden and his handlers are doing their best to destroy America’s reputation in the world today and make us the bad guys.
1. With respect to weapons banned by international treaty to which we are signatories, signatories retain the right to retaliate in kind.
I hope this is clear enough. But, international treaties are NOT agreements to unilateral disarmament. All countries retain the right of self defense.
2. With respect to weapons banned by international treaty to which we are NOT signatories, we’re good guys we shouldn’t use weapons against countries that have joined in those bans.
The argument is similar to treating all POWs humanely, to NOT initiating war, and to not using military weapons against our own population.
“”””. With respect to weapons banned by international treaty to which we are NOT signatories, we’re good guys we shouldn’t use weapons against countries that have joined in those bans.””””
I don’t think our soldiers and sailors want to die because a country doesn’t have some of our most effective weapons and you want us to only match weapon systems with whatever enemy we are facing at the time.
If either side thinks it will soon achieve a complete victory, a cease fire is impossible. Obviously, neither Trump nor DeSantis think this as both think a cease fire is possible.
If we thought Russia would eventually win, our position should be similar to China’s, to have Russia weaken itself as much as possible in this war to diminish its influence in either Europe or Asia after the war. Our position should also be to strengthen our next line of defense and to isolate Russia in the world economically and politically.
You, on the other had, are confident that Russia, which was defeated in Afghanistan, will beat Ukraine. And, that Russia, which then collapsed and lost the Cold War, will be able to survive in a renewed Cold War.
Hope springs eternal.
I was an officer, and when I talked with my soldiers about Geneva, I told them the theory behind it, and I also told them that my responsibility to comply with Geneva was more than theirs.
No one is talking about the Geneva Convention.
We are talking about legal weapon systems, in this case, used legally by both Russia and Ukraine in their war.
Why are we not staying out of this?!
That's the question that the regime refuses to answer. It's clear that almost everyone in Washington is getting enough juice out of this that they're willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. So far, only Donald Trump and RFK junior seem willing to speak out against this endless and pointless slaughter. Strange days indeed.
Ukraine is totally dependent upon the US
The US lost in Afghanistan
Not sure that bodes well for Ukraine.
I talked about Geneva when trying to explain why we would show restraint. And I’m not nobody.
Let’s take a step back and see if you have any idea of what’s going on. Why do we have a posse comitatus law? Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to fire-bomb suspects like at Waco, rather than restrict law enforcement to police-type weapons? Is there a reason for self-restraint?
Ditto, Geneva, why would we commit ourselves to treating POWs humanely? Shouldn’t we go back to enslaving, executing or holding POWs for ransom? Shouldn’t we allow torture of POWs? (I’m not saying water-boarding is torture.)
Ditto, weapons bans. Why should we or why shouldn’t we join into conventions that ban weapons, such as chemical weapons (which we have joined)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
Now, the relevant case: should we used weapons such as anti-personnel mines, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons, against countries that don’t have or which could have, but have banned these weapons?
Currently we don’t use anti-personnel mines except in Korea (where we face an adversary that hasn’t signed the ban).
The international ban on cluster bombs is recent. Since its adoption we are using them in Ukraine where Russia has used them.
This issue goes beyond the current conversation: Our long-standing policy on nuclear weapons has been deliberately unclear. We do not forswear first use, but say we reserve use “for extreme circumstances to defend the United States, its allies, and partners.” Perhaps we can’t get Russia to join with us in forswearing first use.
Bkmk
“Using cluster bombs in battle is a war crime.”
No, it isn’t.
L
Maybe the US lost in Ukraine. But, you admitted it. You lost in Afghanistan. So please explain why you lost in Afghanistan but you’re going to win in Ukraine?
Another thing you admitted is that you collapsed at the end of the Cold War. So please explain why you collapsed in the Cold War but won’t collapse in a new Cold War.
Russia has never lost to an invader. King Charles of Sweden, Napoleon of France, Hitler of Germany had great victories, but the Russian people would not be defeated. The invading armies as they got deeper and deeper in Russia eventually were defeated.
On the other hand, Russia has lost at the edges and subsequently collapsed; after its a war with Japan, losing to Germany in WWI, and most recently losing in Afghanistan.
You are rambling, there is nothing about CBs that make them a war crime, period.
ansel12. It’s looks as though you are unable to speak to the matter.
So, I will answer the questions for you.
1. Why do we have a posse comitatus law? Because we don’t want to turn matters of law enforcement into matters of war.
2. Why do we treat all POWs humanely? Because it encourages soldiers on the other side to surrender.
3. Why do we join in prohibitions of certain weapons and retain the right to use those very weapons in retaliation? Because we are pragmatic as well as idealistic.
4. Even though we haven’t joined in the anti-personnel mines ban, why do we only use anti-personnel mines on the Korean border? Because North Korea uses anti-personnel mines.
5. Even though we haven’t joined in the (relatively recent) cluster bomb ban, we do we supply cluster bombs to Ukraine? Because Russia has been using cluster bombs.
6. We haven’t we renounced first use of nuclear bombs. This answer is unknown but it could be because the other nuclear powers aren’t willing to join in a no first use agreement.
The world is actually pretty simple when you think things through. Our position on most things is driven by our interests as the world’s only super-power.
There is nothing illegal or a war crime about cluster bombs, even the activist organizations don’t get as silly as that.
You guys wait 17 months to get worked up about CBs while Russia used them and committed war crimes with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.