The supply of cluster munitions to Ukraine will have serious consequences for the country’s civilian population for decades, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen wrote in a tweet on July 9.
@Dazza So, leave the war in Ukraine lop-sided so we can absolutely ensure that the majority of those killed are Ukrainian civilians instead of Ukrainian civilians AND Russian soldiers? What kind of sense does that make?
I see your point but There’s no clear answer here.
The article raises a valid point that Cambodia has extensive history from these weapons spilling over from the Vietnam war and causing civilian fatalities way after the war ended.
My point here is that just because a war crime(s) is committed one the Russian side, that doesn’t give free reign to the Ukraine side to do the same.
@Dazza There are legitimate concerns about using cluster munitions but Ukraine is well aware of the problems they create. And unlike a 3rd world country like Vietnam, they will be better suited to mitigate those threats post-war. In the meantime, none of this matters if they lose because Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.
Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.
Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they’ll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.
If you truly believe this drivel, you’re doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.
So they took a vote and the people decided that they’re okay with this? Or did the administration unilaterally decide this like when they decided to cancel elections and restrict labor rights?
@BartsBigBugBag Just the fact that you asked those questions tells me everything I need to know. There’s no point in trying to answer. You won’t believe it anyway.
For me the difference is using cluster munitions in defense of your country. It’s not by choice, it’s by necessity. Like most nuclear powers will use nuclear weapons in existential defense. Rightfully in my opinion.
It might be time to start considering that the Ukrainian military doesn’t expect to get all its land back. In that case, they might not give much of a fuck about the destruction caused to the future inhabitants.
The US cluster munitions have a lower failure rate than the Russian versions, and also aren’t camouflaged. Also, it’s Ukraine’s choice. They probably made a difficult decision concluding they can save more lives by using them now.
It’s the US’s choice to hand them out and puts the US’s allies (Canada, etc.) in an awkward position because the treaty we signed gives us the international obligation to sanction anyone using cluster munitions.
It’s just difficult to fathom that the largest economy in the world with the greatest amount of military spending in the world doesn’t have enough manufacturing capacity to build more normal bombs than a failed Russian state.
Built on top of an artificially stimulated real estate industry. It’s not necessarily useful GDP, although I do agree that China’s economy is likely larger than the true GDP numbers indicate solely because of the RMB’s centralized control deflating Chinese currency value.
Whether or not you agree with the US sending them more cluster weapons, they’re already on use. The Cambodian PM seems completely uninformed if he thinks this is an escalation.
do i understand correctly that you are implying ukraine, a country attempting to frame itself as a modern developed democracy, should base its policies on those of russia
You think most modern developed democracys wouldn’t busy these kind of weapons out if they were being attacked by them? It just helps that most modern developed democracys haven’t faced being invaded since WW2.
im unaware of the specific part of thr CCM that says ‘unless we get attacked’, and marking something as a warcrime usually doesnt come with the caveat ‘unless there is a war’
i also like to think that bombing several voters for every enemy combatant wouldnt sell all that well to said voters
im kidding of course, what with a third of the casualties of cluster bombs being children
kids cant vote whether theyre alive or a red chunky smear
im glad that your second favourite option, after modeling foreign policy and military tactics on those of russia, is modeling it after third graders
if a third of the folks youre killing being children is just the price youre willing to pay at least grow a spine and say so instead of pretending that russia is making you resort to shamelessly partaking in borderline warcrimes instead of using any other weapon
Two things:
Yes but the people who suffer the most with these weapons is the civilians.
Just because they are already being used, doesn’t mean more should be used.
Agree. Russia is guilty of using cluster munitions, and they started the war. They need to stop on both counts.
@Dazza So, leave the war in Ukraine lop-sided so we can absolutely ensure that the majority of those killed are Ukrainian civilians instead of Ukrainian civilians AND Russian soldiers? What kind of sense does that make?
I see your point but There’s no clear answer here.
The article raises a valid point that Cambodia has extensive history from these weapons spilling over from the Vietnam war and causing civilian fatalities way after the war ended.
My point here is that just because a war crime(s) is committed one the Russian side, that doesn’t give free reign to the Ukraine side to do the same.
@Dazza There are legitimate concerns about using cluster munitions but Ukraine is well aware of the problems they create. And unlike a 3rd world country like Vietnam, they will be better suited to mitigate those threats post-war. In the meantime, none of this matters if they lose because Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.
Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they’ll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.
If you truly believe this drivel, you’re doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.
I mean they have been bombing refugee coridors, so they clearly support killing noncombatants.
So they took a vote and the people decided that they’re okay with this? Or did the administration unilaterally decide this like when they decided to cancel elections and restrict labor rights?
@BartsBigBugBag Just the fact that you asked those questions tells me everything I need to know. There’s no point in trying to answer. You won’t believe it anyway.
And in the meantime Russia will have more time to drop even more cluster bombs
What’s worse, 8000 Russian and 2000 Ukrainian (US)? Or 12000 Russian? (Made up numbers to illustrate a point I haven’t seen made yet)
What are these numbers? Lives lost? Bombs dropped?
I think Vietnam and Ukraine are both 2nd world actually? idgi honestly
Russia should be held accountable in both cases.
For me the difference is using cluster munitions in defense of your country. It’s not by choice, it’s by necessity. Like most nuclear powers will use nuclear weapons in existential defense. Rightfully in my opinion.
Imagine nuking yourself to own the Russians lol
I’m sure the people who are going to be blown up in decades to come will appreciate that at least we held Russia accountable.
why is this even meaningful in this case
like now we blame Russia, now what
Ukraine’s still fucked to shit
But you wouldn’t nuke your own country, right?
You would nuke your enemy, right?
Not a chance.
So you would give up your nukes?
I don’t have any nukes. I’m not a state, nuclear or otherwise.
Yo mama so big shes a state, nuclear or otherwise.
I’d like to think that Ukraine could do better than Russia…
But then I guess they’re getting the cluster munitions from the US, so maybe not?
Not to mention all the depleted uranium.
It might be time to start considering that the Ukrainian military doesn’t expect to get all its land back. In that case, they might not give much of a fuck about the destruction caused to the future inhabitants.
The US cluster munitions have a lower failure rate than the Russian versions, and also aren’t camouflaged. Also, it’s Ukraine’s choice. They probably made a difficult decision concluding they can save more lives by using them now.
It’s the US’s choice to hand them out and puts the US’s allies (Canada, etc.) in an awkward position because the treaty we signed gives us the international obligation to sanction anyone using cluster munitions.
It’s just difficult to fathom that the largest economy in the world with the greatest amount of military spending in the world doesn’t have enough manufacturing capacity to build more normal bombs than a failed Russian state.
Using GDP PPP as measure, the size of China’s economy surpassed that of the USA as far back as 2014. It is currently about 25% larger.
Built on top of an artificially stimulated real estate industry. It’s not necessarily useful GDP, although I do agree that China’s economy is likely larger than the true GDP numbers indicate solely because of the RMB’s centralized control deflating Chinese currency value.
Source
Whether or not you agree with the US sending them more cluster weapons, they’re already on use. The Cambodian PM seems completely uninformed if he thinks this is an escalation.
do i understand correctly that you are implying ukraine, a country attempting to frame itself as a modern developed democracy, should base its policies on those of russia
You think most modern developed democracys wouldn’t busy these kind of weapons out if they were being attacked by them? It just helps that most modern developed democracys haven’t faced being invaded since WW2.
im unaware of the specific part of thr CCM that says ‘unless we get attacked’, and marking something as a warcrime usually doesnt come with the caveat ‘unless there is a war’
i also like to think that bombing several voters for every enemy combatant wouldnt sell all that well to said voters
im kidding of course, what with a third of the casualties of cluster bombs being children
kids cant vote whether theyre alive or a red chunky smear
We wouldn’t even be providing these weapons if they hadn’t been attacked first?
im glad that your second favourite option, after modeling foreign policy and military tactics on those of russia, is modeling it after third graders
if a third of the folks youre killing being children is just the price youre willing to pay at least grow a spine and say so instead of pretending that russia is making you resort to shamelessly partaking in borderline warcrimes instead of using any other weapon
“Warcrimes are okay when the other side does them too.”