SBu
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,523
- Reaction score
- 636
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'
It's my understanding that Ukraine never signed or ratified the 'Convention on Cluster munitions'. Neither has Russia, China, or the US by the way. The only states that are really worth mentioning that have signed it are Germany, France, Britain, and Australia. The rest are fluff unless you think there is a big risk from Botswana.
So when you say "banned" weapons, it really depends on how you look at it. Not banned for Ukraine because they didn't sign it, or banned because a handful of powerful nations signed it and a somewhat large number of smaller less powerful states signed it.
Just pointing out that just because you may see/hear some media outlets use that term, doesn't mean that it is precisely true...or even mostly true for countries around the world.
89 parties to the convention out of 196(ish) total countries, so a little less than half.
It would, on the other hand, be banned to have targeted civilians intentionally (although the inherent right to self defense would allow to fire back at enemy fire originating from a populated area...although the legality can get murky here).
There you go again. It's the Ukrainian army using banned weapons and killing people.
(Berlin) – Ukrainian government forces used cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city in early October 2014, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of cluster munitions in populated areas violates the laws of war due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon and may amount to war crimes.
Ukraine: Widespread Use of Cluster Munitions | Human Rights Watch
I WONDER WHY YOU GUYS SWALLOW THE CAMEL AND CHOKE ON THE FRUIT FLY?????
It's my understanding that Ukraine never signed or ratified the 'Convention on Cluster munitions'. Neither has Russia, China, or the US by the way. The only states that are really worth mentioning that have signed it are Germany, France, Britain, and Australia. The rest are fluff unless you think there is a big risk from Botswana.
So when you say "banned" weapons, it really depends on how you look at it. Not banned for Ukraine because they didn't sign it, or banned because a handful of powerful nations signed it and a somewhat large number of smaller less powerful states signed it.
Just pointing out that just because you may see/hear some media outlets use that term, doesn't mean that it is precisely true...or even mostly true for countries around the world.
89 parties to the convention out of 196(ish) total countries, so a little less than half.
It would, on the other hand, be banned to have targeted civilians intentionally (although the inherent right to self defense would allow to fire back at enemy fire originating from a populated area...although the legality can get murky here).