Russia used cluster bombs in Georgia

[Kapitan]

A year ago now we had a WW2 mine find its way up the thames river shall we ban mines too?

Last week we had an unexploded shell in shoebury ness shall we ban these too?

Nuclear bombs were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki shall we ban these as well?

At the end of the day to achieve peace you must first go to war Albert Einstiene once said "i know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought with but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

War is part of human life the earliest man was found with a spear in his rib cage if we dont use weapons to our own advantage then we will be over run and taken war involves everybody civilian or millatry, its the civilians who make the weapons the millatry who use them so by killing both you defeat the country in hand cut the supply you have achieved a major goal thats what donetz tried to do with his u boats.

You can easily sit in your arm chair saying how bad war is and that we shouldnt use this that and the offical statistics realsed by BIAS sources didcate that x amount is a dud weapon and crap like that most people are clueless as to what the thing does.

There was a legislation past with the UN security council stating that air craft should stay in the area untill the weapon is detonated or if it does fail report the location back to thier CO first put into practice in the Afghanistan war used sucsessfully in iraq untill thier air defence systems started to shoot them down so to get round it they put in GPS locators so they can find where the weapon is when they eventually get there.

If you dont like CBU's dont read about them dont listen about them blank them USA used CBU's to carpet bomb most of the afghan areas dropped from B52's

War is a fact of life and its people who protest about it that makes it even harder for the troops personally if i was incharge of a country and anti war actavist activly protesting around millatery sites i would have them executed on the grounds of treason and sabotage.

[SUBMAN1]

Everyone uses CBU's. Not a big deal. The reports that they were used on civilians disturbs me a bit, but civilians is a legitimate target in war, not barred by the Geneva convention. Break the will of the civilians and you break the will of the people to fight back.

An example is the US firebombing German civilians in WWII.

The funny thing is, no one gives the US credit these days for carefully working around civilians. They don't have to do this. They just do it because they care. So they use more expensive bombs in place of cheaper ones that could possibly do collateral damage.

Russia has no such qualms. They don't have to either.

-S

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

so Shakasvilis person and actions arent that significant in this

Nonsense. It is very much about this autocratic Trottel. Most other leaders in his place would have acted with much more caution and spiking emotion. Ein Trottel wie er im Buche steht - and his people have to pay for his lack of scruples. That they still support him does not earn them my respect at all. They should bring him to court instead - and this is my private opinion on the man - I am not defending the Russians call here. That they do not like him, too, is pure coincidence in this case.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

And that post is precisely the reason why you're not in charge

Btw, I don't mind war, personally I think it's got to be the one of most thrilling sport on earth even if a bit cheap compared to alpinism. But anyway when I practice any sport I never try to involve bystanders.

Oh and the WWII comparison is total BS, it was a full scale war where indeed the people was the backbone of the military. Here Russia would eat the whole Georgian army no matter the will of the Georgian people and Georgia could cover Russia with cluster bombs it wouldn't change that fact. If they targetted civilians it's pure hatred nothing else, support that as much as you want.

One man with a strong will and determination can defeat an army.

i dont support the attacking of civilians but according to western democracy everyone has the right of free expression and speech the ossetians are trying to embrace the way the want to live along side russia so why is georgia challenging this personally the clap trap the americans give out is more BS than ever.

[August]

On the other hand we have the thousands of Georgians driven out of their homes in their own country because Russia wants control of those provinces.

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

but civilians is a legitimate target in war, not barred by the Geneva convention.

Break the will of the civilians and you break the will of the people to fight back.
-S

Civilians ARE NOT a legitimate target, and nor are unarmed soldiers. They are both protected by the Geneva Convention:

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are part of international humanitarian law – a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals.
They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches"; those responsible for breaches must be punished.

The Geneva Conventions have been acceded to by 194 States and enjoy universal acceptance.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0...evaconventions

[Kapitan]

The geneva convention is only applicable to those countries that have signed it and as south ossetia hasnt signed the geneva convention there fore civilians are legitimate targets.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

The geneva convention is only applicable to those countries that have signed it and as south ossetia hasnt signed the geneva convention there fore civilians are legitimate targets.

Georgia signed it, there fore it is applicable.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Georgia signed it, there fore it is applicable.

The break away republic which is recognised by the UN has not

[AntEater]

This does not give you free reign in how to use force.
In fact, a geneva convention signatory is first and foremost bound herself.
No matter who the enemy is.
Non state actors were not yet in consideration in the 19th century, but even the geneva convention recognizes the forces of a "levee en masse" as combatants.
This was included especially to protect revolutionary forces.
Used as an analogy, this means that even partisans, freedom fighters, terrorists or however you wish to define irregular, non state combatants fall under the protection of the Geneva convention.
You don't get a free reign just because your enemy is not a recognized state.
The geneva convention even binds you if the enemy is a recognized state but has declined to sign the convention. The convention limits first and foremost the means of warfare of the signatory state. It is not a mutual agreement on force limitation, but rather, a one sided declaration of limited use of force.

But as previous posters said, cluster munitions are not generally outlawed in international law.
Many believe they should and many states, not including the US and Russia, have signed a treaty which is supposed to limit their use, but even there almost all signatory states left themselves legal loopholes.
Germany signed the treaty but has declared it will keep her existing cluster munitions for national defense until a new generation of cluster weapons becomes available that have a much lower dud rate.

And regarding its use on civilians, there were civilian deaths on both sides, but I suppose neither side had hurting civilians as their prime objective.
The war was simply too short for "Bomber Harris" style terror bombing.
The georgians had to overcome quite substantial defenses in the initial attack. These were in a city, hence civilian deaths from cluster munitions. The russians, despite georgian propaganda, had the main aim of dismanteling the georgian military. In a non-desert area, there's always a good chance of area weapons hitting civilians.
But sides simply had other objectives in this war, at least on command level. On the ground, I suppose both sides committed atrocities (you can't send the Vostok battalion somewhere and expect a clean war!) but these were not the primary objective.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

The break away republic which is recognised by the UN has not

Doesn't matter. You sign it, you behave accordingly.

[SUBMAN1]

Someone explain firebombing Dresden, or nuking Hiroshima then? I am puzzled.

I am guessing this is meant to protect civi's who are not citizens of a given country taking part in the fighting.

-S

[JHuschke]

However, I do hope Russia wins the war but I think anyone has the right to use any type of weapon in war. It's a war right? U.S. doesn't need to tell other countries what to do..it can become a war for America. I assure you, it would be a win for Russia if there was a war between them and the U.S. Having fought in Iraq for years there aren't enough troops and enough resources to fight back. Of course there are reserves but even that wouldn't be enough.

Don't try to involve yourselves in a war blaming a country for starting a war when it was defending itself.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Someone explain firebombing Dresden, or nuking Hiroshima then? I am puzzled.

I am guessing this is meant to protect civi's who are not citizens of a given country taking part in the fighting.

-S

If I remember correctly, the involved countries are still bickering and bitching about that.
Furthermore, the version of the Geneva Convention in question is from 1977. (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.)

[CaptHawkeye]

Ya know, the idea that we can have a "controlled war" or "moderated war" is a very modern idea. All throughout history people have never done that, or shown much motivation for it. It's just a contemporary notion that one can wage a "civil" war that's come from the "self-esteem" hand holding society we run these days. War is hell. No amount of Geneva Conventions or Rules will change it. It some ways, it should not be changed.