posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 01:30 PM
here's a question. whats gonna happen? NOTHING.
since the UN did nothing for 12 years to saddam i seriously doubt they'll do anything to the US other than "bad boy!".
the UN doesnt enforce jacksh!t so they can ban this that and the other thing but as long as the UN does absolutely nothing to REALLY enforce their
bannings and policies the UN is nothing more than a paper tiger.
i still find it amazing people STILL thinking along the lines that killing people of one kind is ok but not another. as if killing someone one way is
more humane than another. the banning of certain weapons makes no sense. they ban them on the premise that they cause "unecessary harm" when any
weapon can do that. one can construe war as unecessary harm but i dont see anyone banning war. so it makes little sense to me for these bannings.
its like saying "you can have war but you cant be all out blood thristy savages, you have to be nice to them to some extent" which makes little
sense to me. no country has every followed the rules to the letter and i doubt any country ever will. the rules set up are self defeating if you
follow them and rest assured the enemy more than likely will not follow them himself. these "war crimes" trials and such are a farce. they punish
those who have never fired a shot, only ordered the killing of others and yet they dont punish those who go out and actually do the killing. this
punishment by proxy is sad and the logic people use makes no sense to me, i dont see any consistency. all i see are people trying to insert logic and
rules in a chaotic illogical thing. they use open ended logic and moral relativism for their own ends and they think these "rules" and bannings
will make war somehow more humane and people will suffer less.
in war there are no half measures. if you REALLY want to end suffering in a war, ban war, not a particular weapon. banning a weapon is nothing more
than a token effort and really does nothing in the long run, people will just find other weapons to use, better weapons, more effective weapons. all
you're doing is encouraging people to create bigger, deadlier "conventional" (nothing conventuional about war i assure you) weapons.
these bannings and "rules" are nothing more than half measures, they dont ease the suffering and they arent enforced very well either.
basically this "banning" some people are refering to is pretty much an agreement among those who signed it. by signing it they agreed not to make
napalm. woopty doo for them, the US didnt sign it and therefore didnt agree not to make, have or use napalm. but you can keep calling it a banning
all you want.