Hi there, Chuck
If you haven't heard, Russia has been dropping cluster bombs on innocent civilians in the Georgian republic which has killed and wounded many innocent people. Many countries have already banned the use of this wide area, non-surgical weapon. Survivor Corps is one of the lead organizations in the movement to ban cluster bombs and to assist survivors of this terrible weapon. I've put together this social media news release which explains everything.
I would be grateful if you could blog about this very important subject, it would help many people. Please let me know if you are able to help and send me the link to your post. Thanks so much.
Dani Sevilla, Survivor Corps
From My Position:
Cluster Munitions are used by the United States. Although we don't use them on civilian populations, they are incredibly effective against enemy Infantry strong points, Armored formations, and for terrain denial missions.
The most casualty producing weapon in the contemporary operating environment is the improvised explosive device. It is made form anything that goes boom and makes shrapnel. Do you plan to protest the use of any explosives in warfare? How about banning warfare altogether?
To ban the use of a weapon, any weapon, in war is futile. It is trying to bring about civility in the most un-civil and inhumane actions one society can inflict on another. If the Russians won't back down after NATO, the EU, and the UN condemn them for invading Georgia, why should they care about nations protesting their use of cluster munitions? The majority of countries that have banned the use of Cluster Munitions have also banned the use of nuclear weapons. I find it laughable, as they actually have neither.
We've banned the use of chemical weapons, yet retain the right of first use of nuclear weapons. So in a nuclear attack, we stand to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, even if we don't hit a "civilian" target.
War is not clean. War is not pretty. People die. It doesn't matter what they did in life, whether they were students, teachers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers or Indian chiefs--once they are dead, they are just dead people.
I think what disturbs me most is the entire concept of war without civilian casualties. It further separates the warrior class from the rest of the society, and in effect says "Even though the military action is simply an extension of diplomacy by other means, and the military is sent to fight by the same government that represents those civilians, it is only okay to kill the guys in the funny green suits. You can't kill the civilians, they are protected."
I don't espouse the wanton killing of civilians, but at the same time I hate the idea that wars are fought solely by Armies, as though we choose to go and fight each other. The Armies wouldn't exist without the support of the populace, they are armed, equipped, fed, and paid through the taxes of the population, and the people who make up the army are the sons and daughters of the populace.
"It is good that war is so horrible, lest we become too fond of it."
--Robert E. Lee
Sorry, but i don't support you. A civilian (insurgent/terrorist/whatever) used an IED to cripple me. Civilians are just as capable of killing as soldiers--and far less discriminatory in their actions.