The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants - Page 7




View Poll Results :Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?
Unlawful 6 37.50%
Lawful 10 62.50%
Neither Combatants or NonCombatants 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
June 25th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
As I already said, breathing or consuming it is dangerous just like breathing or consuming lead. That's why the United States has ceased to use lead bullets for the military. But outside of depleted uranium shells, there isn't much else capable of piercing modern tanks. Tungsten, although heavy is too brittle to pierce armor as well as depleted uranium. Depleted uranium can be dangerous, however it isn't illegal.
You are partialy correc. No international treaty currently bans the production or use of DU weapons. Indeed, DU weapons are not chemical or biological weapons, therefore they cannot be considered to be illegal under the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1996 Chemical Weapons Convention. They are not nuclear weapons either and thus cannot be banned under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However:

However, the use of DU weapons goes against established principles of humanitarian law, notably principles of the Geneva Conventions and some UN guidelines relative to:

-the protection of civilian populations (See Articles 48 and 51.4 above)
-the limitation of unnecessary human suffering (Art.35.2)
-the limitation of damage to the environment (Art. 35.3 and 55.1)


Law, International or internal is based on basic principles. And all laws should respect this principles. I think that in a short period of time we will have a treaty that bans this weapons, the sad part is that some countries will never ratify it.....
June 25th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corocotta
Law, International or internal is based on basic principles. And all laws should respect this principles. I think that in a short period of time we will have a treaty that bans this weapons, the sad part is that some countries will never ratify it.....
The sad part is that some folks expect "some countries" to sacrifice the safety and effectiveness of their servicemen by abiding by whatever new concept of what makes a weapon/weapons system too mean to be used in combat.

And based off of the information you posted, it appears that Pershing was entirely correct.
June 25th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
I was saying that the use of some weapons are against customs of war, such us cluster bombs used in build-up areas http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...legalbombs.htm and DU ( because it produces illness when inhaleted) http://www.idust.net/
--
Boots
June 25th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
if U.S can justify their use of DU rounds, than terriosts probably can justify their own use of some new kinds of dirty bomb
June 25th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
if U.S can justify their use of DU rounds, than terriosts probably can justify their own use of some new kinds of dirty bomb
Care to attempt to justify that comment?



staurofilakes, we have already established that certain munitions should not be and are not used in certain areas (METTT-C dependent), and DU rounds can also be harmful to your health if they hit you.
June 25th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
[quote="Redneck"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster


staurofilakes, we have already established that certain munitions should not be and are not used in certain areas (METTT-C dependent), and DU rounds can also be harmful to your health if they hit you.
Well, then we kind of agree. By the way, I am not staurofilakes any more...hehehe
June 25th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
if U.S can justify their use of DU rounds, than terriosts probably can justify their own use of some new kinds of dirty bomb
Care to attempt to justify that comment?



staurofilakes, we have already established that certain munitions should not be and are not used in certain areas (METTT-C dependent), and DU rounds can also be harmful to your health if they hit you.
ya, DU is pretty harmful right? (proven), and it brings some bad environmental effect after using it,

so does terriosts' dirty bombs, kill ppl, bring radiactive effects

same thing to me
June 25th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
ya, DU is pretty harmful right? (proven), and it brings some bad environmental effect after using it,

so does terriosts' dirty bombs, kill ppl, bring radiactive effects

same thing to me
By "ppl" do you mean "people?" If you do not feel like putting the effort into using or at least attempting complete sentences and typing out full words, I will consider the offending posts spam and remove them. Once again, this is a forum for discussion, not an instant messenger conversation, and the purpose of these discussions is to communicate.


As for your allegation that DU rounds nd terrorist bombs are the same thing, aside from the fact that you are apparently operating under a very striking misconception about the range and effects of the "fallout" from DU munitions, the targets of our servicemen firing these rounds and those attacked by terrorists are completely different. Your argument might begin to possibly have some footing if we had soldiers firing SABOT rounds into civilian buses for the heck of it, but as it stands they are anything but the same thing, or even similar.
June 25th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
ok,

correct me if i understand you wrong,

you believe that it is ok for "men of justice (probably U.S)" to use DU (or other kinds of weapons that have some bad environmental effects) on the bad guys (terriosts)

ok, how about this

those terriosts consider you are the bad guy and they are the men of justice, to kill the infedal on earth for their holy war,

now both sides are happy, as they can all justify their own using of these kinds of dirty weapons,

good theory
June 26th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
One of the big things that you fail to understand is that the United States uses depleted uranium rounds in order to insure the safety of American service men as much as possible when going up against armored targets. Depleted uranium rounds are used almost exclusively for attacks against armored, military targets.

A terrorist dirty bomb is intended to kill or maim as many civilians as possible.

As for whether or not American service men are willing to be exposed to depleted uranium. They rather prefer the danger of having an A-10 give them close air support to having a T-72 or terrorist position breathing down their neck. Despite using depleted uranium rounds, A-10s are consistently one of the most valued planes for CAS by infantrymen.