Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Debate

Alpheus

Alpheus — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Unless superpowers US, Russia and China offer their consent to the ban, the cluster bomb treaty has little significance. At the same time, I dont see how the world would be a safer place by just banning cluster munitions. There are other ways to foster war and unrest.

Kelly

Kelly — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

these all are the shenanigans no one sticking to. treaties are always subject to put away when the self interests strike with them. I ask what is the good outcome of passing a treaty when the world’s biggest powers and those who involved in using it tremendously are not willing to destroy their arsenal? this nothing but a drama that will end soon and I find nothing special nor too optimistic about this treaty.

Dave

Dave — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

yes this treaty is of great importance. this is surely a great step and valuable contribution to the humanitarian law. may be US, Russia and china... or the other influential countries are saying no to destroy their arms embargo, but 111 nations signing the deal will surely put pressure on the remaining ones to adopt the treaty. Well beginning is half done. be optimistic!!!!

Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I am afraid it won’t. the Bush administration won’t accept it. the reason is simple coz Bush administration doesn’t care about ppl despite knowing that cluster bombs mainly harm civilian populations, the a*****es in the White House don’t care. ***** you, GWB. As US will not assign the treaty, russia will do the same and so does China. hence the treaty will be in the doldrums, no surprises!!!

Khalil

Khalil — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I’m sure the remaining three nations viz. US, Russia, and china must have a very good reason and moral explanation for still manufacturing these killing and amputating machines. And there is none that they can come out with, but the power supremacy that they don’t want to lose anyway no matter how catastrophic they are to the innocent ppl.

Nick

Nick — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Oh! this is insane to sign any treaty like that. Yes, if all the nations are that much bothered about war then let’s ban the war altogether, I mean come on this is war how can you ban any weapon at all? Everything is fair. There are no rules at all except of kill your enemy. you can avoid using nukes to some extent but after a limit you can use it, as soon as it kill your enemy. That’s what war was, that’s what war is and will be. The treaties like these are hypocritical, it’s like saying “Kill them, but don’t kill them too much”.....:-)

Alpheus

Alpheus — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Nick

Absolutely pal! Why ban Cluster bombs when you can ’ban the war’ altogether! Absurd to believe that peace depends entirely on this treaty when almost every country is developing nuclear bombs that can kill million times more people than cluster munitions.

Ken

Ken — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Nick

like other ppl here it seems that you too missed the cardinal issue. I mean the signatory nations are not against the use of any mean to protect them from any invasion, but these nations are against weapons that could kill civilians years after the war that push the use of these weapons ended. I mean the one we witness in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Use of cluster bombs is not as destructive as it is in the case of nuclear one. They are interested in blocking the use of the cluster bombs. Great!!! But how about banning the nuclear one?

Refat

Refat — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

This is not a matter of surprise that China, Russia, and the US opposed the move to ban the use of cluster bomb. Three countries more interested in making and selling arms than they are concerned with their own people, let aside the other nationals. Whenever there is a global initiative to make the world a better place, those are among the countries always opposing. What is surprising? nothing of course, but this is surely not encouraging to world that is hungry for caching the weapons of mass destruction.

Tim

Tim — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The world is calling for ban on nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons. Why? because they kill indiscriminately - enemy combatants and civilians alike. Their effects are long lasting. They are considered inhuman.

Same is with land mines. They keep maiming unsuspecting people living in war zones or that were war zones even decades after they were laid as we see in Cambodia and Afghanistan. The same logic goes for cluster bombs that explode years after being dropped sometimes. Curious playful children are especially at risk.

Logan

Logan — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

It is farcical to even consider this as a ban when the major users of cluster bombs such as the USA not endorsing it. The USA is the world’s largest user of such munitions. What difference would it make if say New Zealand endorses a ban on cluster bombs while the USA is bombing Iraq and Afghanistan with them routinely?

Sahar

Sahar — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The US does not want any country to have nuclear weapons when it is sitting over thousands of them. It now has backed off from signing the treaty banning cluster bombs whose victims are mainly children and the innocent. This shows US’s true intentions.

Salman

Salman — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I think yes. If not directly then it might have an indirect effect on those who has opposed it. I am optimistic that one day they would realise how isolated they stand when it comes to opposing such a noble cause. Countries with conscience can never allow that.

Sofie

Sofie — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I am happy that over a hundred countries supported the ban including majot military countries excluding the top three rascals - USA, China and Russia. Apart from these countries that are inherently barbaric in nature the world showed that they want peace and they want to see happy smiling faces of healthy children.

Shazil

Shazil — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Just like landmines cluster bombs keep killing and maiming even after the war is long over. Unlike landmines that can be laid with plans and charted to withdraw after the conflict is over, there is no way of knowing which of the mini bombs in the cluster have not exploded. Without the major users of the inhuman ammunition who unfortunately fight most of the wars like the US, banning its use by minor countries won’t have much effect.

Jean vincent

Jean Vincent — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

It is 111 countries against a handful. How long can those countries opposing its ban would remain opposed to it? China and Russia perhaps because they have no soul because of their past and present. We can hope that the United States to see reason and join hands with the world.

Jan

Jan — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Cluster bombs were used during the Iraq invasion in 2003. When the American troops advanced, they had to negotiate around the unexploded ones. They knew that they would be at risk of being maimed or killed up the small bombs that remained unexploded. When they know that they are a great risk even in peacetime, why haven’t they endorsed the ban? This shows American hypocrisy.

Meredith

Meredith — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I agree with Sofie. The ban is definitely something to be proud of for those who endorsed the treaty banning cluster bombs. I mean how long can we continue to see children and innocent civilians who have nothing to do with wars (past or present) being killed and maimed? We have seen enough with landmines. Now please stop this.

Evita

Evita — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The United States - one of the world’s largest cluster bomb makers boycotted the Dublin conference. With it Russia and China (understandably). But India and Pakistan too? Shameful. At least, I am happy to see whole of Europe endorse it. It goes on to show that Europeans are the world’s best people.

Rodney

Rodney — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t have much problem with China, India, Israel or Pakistan not endorsing the ban for they are not bombing other countries or their own people with them. However, the problem lies with Russia and USA not endorsing the ban for the simple reason that these two countries routinely use them - USA the biggest offender where it uses it in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia in the breakaway republic of Chechnya. These two countries have an unenviable record when it comes to stockpiling inhuman and WMDs.

Salim

Salim — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The jerks who think killing innocent children is OK need to see a shrink. This is crazy that someone would not support a ban that is precisely due to its inhuman consequences much after the war. Those countries are godless countries.

Puneet

Puneet — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I saw a program in Discovery called Future Weapons where they showed that the Americans are making smarter cluster bombs that will explode after pin pointing the target and those who can’t locate their targets would destroy themselves.

If that is the case then why do we need a ban?

Abby

Abby — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

It was sickening to say the least to see Hillary Clinton voted against any treaty banning cluster bombs. She is a woman and has a daughter too. Imagine she lived in Baghdad in “democratic” Iraq and went for shopping with her daughter for her wedding and suddenly her daughter hits what looked like a small rock and blew her leg up.

Guigui

Guigui — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

My heart sank for the first time in years when I read that the countries who matter didn’t sign the treaty. I was so happy when so many countries signed the treaty banning export of land mines. This has to stop some day. We can’t continue having and using such inhuman weapons.

RODNEY (U.A.E.) - Israel did and does use cluster bombs. It used it in Lebanon in 2006 and innocent people including small kids are continuing to die or getting crippled.

Alexandre

Alexandre — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Cluster bombs explode after many days of drop. But cluster bombs are very useful weapons in destroying enemy formations, armored columns etcetera. The reason why some countries have not signed the ban treaty is these countries think that they might need this weapon in the future. There is a lot of research going on to make these bombs safer so that they do not explode after a certain time like 24 hours after dropping. Thanks.

Natasha

Natasha — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Over a hundred countries opposed the second Iraq war. Could it stop? Power lies in the hands of a very few. It wasn’t surprising therefore to see those who have it have not endorsed the treating to ban cluster bombs. What difference would it make other than sending a strong political statement across the board?

Ali

Ali — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I can agree that the superpowers like USA, Russia and China can have many reasons not to ban them. What about Israel? They have nukes, they have chemical and biological weapons and they are not willing to give up cluster bombs as well. They use it extensively while bombing targets in Lebanon and Syria.

Timur

Timur — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Russian bombers use such easy and effective weapons while carrying out bombings in Georgia, Chechnya and elsewhere. Their quality is so poor that it makes them the most dangerous in the world. They land way off target and don’t explode on impact making them killers of unsuspecting people esp children.

Vero

Vero — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Absolutely unacceptable numbers of innocent civilians have been killed or maimed, sometimes years after the bombs have been dropped and the number is going up every day. This is happening from Europe to Middle East to Africa to Afghanistan. This is unacceptable. The majors should owe up to this responsibility. Banning is just a part of it. Cleaning the mess is another and yet another is rehabilitating the victims.