"The 1980's are calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

True. However if you click through to that report it is referencing ALL cluster munitions, not just US ones and especially not just the ones we are sending Ukraine.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS22907.pdf

From your link:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if the US can't make them fast enough, neither can anyone else.

So, this leaves us, particularly the Ukrainians, with a problem. If we can't supply the Ukrainians with the weapons they need, what are our choices?
1. Do nothing, and hope that somehow the Ukrainians are able to muddle on.
2. Find a replacement weapon system that does the same job, but you don't have to worry about running low on ammo any time soon.
3. Sell the Ukrainians cluster bombs.

Apparently, the cluster bombs are a "drop-in" solution and don't require a lot of training to deploy. A new weapon system could potentially require a lot of training and would almost certainly require soldiers to be pulled out of the fucking country for training. No telling how many Ukrainians are already outside of the country learning new gear. That's got to be a headache to deal with. You've got to figure out how to get the troops out of the field (and possibly replaced in combat, possibly not), sent to another country, worry about them doing something stupid in another country (because soldiers always do that), and then have those folks, either train other forces in Ukraine on how to use the new gear, or actually use the new gear in combat.

I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to say that what Ukraine is enduring is worse than what happened during the Troubles, and I don't know enough of Irish history to know how bloody the fight for independence a little more than a century ago, but it certainly wasn't pretty. How would you feel if, 100 years or so ago, there was an American who said, "Oh, yes, the Irish should be free from the British, but I don't think that we should send them any guns. They might kill innocent people with them."?

Look, I get the objections to cluster weapons. They're evil, nasty things, and every nation should outlaw them. That's not going to happen any time soon, though. Just like Russia isn't going to leave Ukraine any time soon. And the idea of a nation, invading another nation in an unprovoked manner, and using cluster bombs, is utterly repellent. The leader of any nation who does that, should be brought before the Hague (W, I'm looking in your direction, Obama too). But that's not what's going on here, is it?

What's going on here is that Ukraine, a nation that is fighting for its very existence, is asking for them. None of us here, have as accurate an idea of what is going on in Ukraine as the Ukrainians do. Granted, it can be hard to think rationally when you have death raining down from the skies on you daily, and you know multiple people who've died fighting the war. What right do we have to tell the Ukrainians how to conduct their own affairs at this time? Are we going to stop selling the Ukrainians weapons? Not on your life. So, what are we to do? Lives, lots of lives, hang in the balance here.

Because talking to Putin isn't going to accomplish anything. And I know that there are those out there who say that the US basically forced Russia to invade because of us putting our bases every where. Funny how if I were to suggest that the US had no choice but to invade Cuba because of Chinese military bases being constructed there, people would rightly say that I was nuts, but some don't apply the same rationale to Russia and Ukraine. Why is it, somewhat, "rational" in the minds of certain people to say that Russia basically had no choice to invade, but if you flipped that to the US invading Cuba, that's nothing but Yankee Imperialism.

This war is going to go on as long as Putin's still breathing and there's a Ukrainian able to pick up a gun. If it continues after him, depends upon who replaces him. Who knows when Putin's going to die? This war could drag on for years if not properly managed, and if Ukrainian forces get pushed back too far, then the rest of the world is going to step in far more aggressively than it has done so to date. Not merely seizing assets and training Ukrainian forces on NATO gear. But actual forces fighting.

I don't know if cluster munitions will get us to that point quicker or not. But I do know that if the Ukrainians don't get as much gear as they can use, we will get to that point. And a whole lotta of the stuff we've said here is going to look "cute."

Their guns didn't generally come from abroad but ignoring that point, you might be surprised at what I'd say about this. The ideals of Irish rebels, their violence and the results have not been altogether positive to say the least.

Other then that, you're making some considered points which deserve a better response than I can manage on my phone right now. So more on this tomorrow.

Irrelevant. Since millions of Irish had migrated to other parts of the world and were sending back money to Ireland. Not all of it went for weapons, of course, some of it just enabled people to survive long enough that they could join the fight.

Name a revolution where this wasn't the case. Seriously. Name one. After the American Revolution, French General Lafayette, when he found out that the United States was still going to allow slavery was appalled and said that he'd have never helped us had he known we weren't planning on giving it up. And fuck, we're still dealing with the consequences of that, 250 years later. And while we joke that we might have been better off had we stayed under British rule, there's no way to know that. But it's going to be hard. Very fucking hard to convince me that the Ukrainians will be better off as a vassal state of Russia, or anything less than fully independent.

Good, I look forward to it.

And look, I get that there are ideals that we all have to hold to about how nations and individuals act that we know are unreachable, but if we don't try for them, then things aren't going to get better. But we also have to recognize that we can't give up very meaningful progress, just because we feel uncomfortable about things needed to bring them about. It's not always like that, and we won't always get it right, of course, but we're not the ones fighting and dying ATM. So we need to think about what we're doing here if we're going to deprive the Ukrainians of a tool that they think they need to defend themselves. Yeah, sure, there's a good chance that they'll regret the use of some of the weapons in the coming decades after the war. (Again, they're still digging up millions of tons of shit from WWI in parts of Europe.) But what guarantee is there that they'll live long enough to have those regrets without those weapons? I don't know. And I also don't know a better alternative than just giving them the stuff that they want (provided that it's not nuclear, chemical, or biological, though I'm not quite as strong about objecting to giving them nukes as I am chemical or biological weapons).

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fox-news-sunday-audio/id418152882

Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee says we have pledges from the Ukrainian government that these munitions won’t be used on civilians and I’m just… duh? Like I’m sure it was really hard negotiating to get them to agree not to use these munitions on their own population. Give that dude (or dudette) a raise.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66133527

Read the article. It doesn't matter if they are used correctly, or if they have a low dud rate.

RUSSIAN MILITIA HAS LINKS TO AMERICAN NEO-NAZI AND ANTI-TRANS FIGURES

This may require a separate thread, but I'll deal with this issue first.

I'm not trying to convince you of that or of anything about the American situation. Just the Irish one, which you introduced to the conversation. There as in most cases of national struggle, there were potential outcomes other than "what happened" and "remain under the boot".

Much was achieved with non-violence. The examplar was Daniel O'Connell who stated that Irish freedom was not worth one drop of human blood. He successfully achieved Catholic Emancipation in 1829.
James Connolly during the Dublin lockout in 1913 predicted prophetically that "if you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs".
Connolly later hitched his wagon to that of the nationalists who rose against the British in 1916. Though they are now venerated as national heroes, their politics was extremely distatesteful, ranging from hard-right proto-fascism (blood and soil, a fanatical glorification of the Great War - Pearse) to semi-theocracy (DeValera).
Those guys used the crisis to supplant more moderate voices. But some form of Home Rule was already on the table. Counterfactuals are difficult but who knows what would have happened had negotiation proceeded on that basis? A less appealing form of words from a constitutional point of view. But we'd perhaps have avoided the burning of our cities and the Tans firing into sports stadiums. There might have been a less poisonous relationship with the north, no civil war, no economic war with Britain, an avoidance or mitigation of the 70 years we spent as a priest-dominated backwater.
In any event non-violent tactics such as resistance to conscription in 1917 and non-cooperation with British rule thereafter (led by the trade unions) played arguably as important a role as did military action. (Doubtless Collins' crippling of British intelligence via assassination was important it must be said.)

And that's without starting about the Troubles. No, it's not anything like Ukraine. But I remember as a child in the 1980's the windows would occasionally break as bombs were set off a few miles away. Those bombs used materials that came from abroad. It would have been better had they not been sent.

So, it may have limited applicability to the Ukrainian situation, but your presumption that I don't apply the same standard to Irish nationalist violence that I do elsewhere is wrong.

Ukraine has a right to defend itself, and in a desperate situation fighting against a much larger and well armed foe it's hard to criticize them for using any weapons they can get their hands on.

At the same time, all the "well actually these cluster bombs aren't bad because technically..." chat in this thread has real strong vibes of the kind that accompanied discussion of how Guantanamo bay wasn't technically breaking any rules.

Response mainly to @Tuckerfan but also to other points over the past couple of pages. No, I'm not getting into quote pyramids.

1. It goes without saying - or should - that Putin and his generals are the primary criminals here. Whatever the complex history, aggression is the "supreme international crime". They ought to (but won't) be in the dock for that and for a great many other things. However, rote condemnation of that by and to people who already agree about it, achieves little and the demand for it to demonstrate fealty is basically McCarthyism. Our primary responsibility is to our own conduct and most of us (including me) are from countries which are supplying the Ukrainian side.

2. Ukraine needs these weapons as it is running out of ammunition. Okay, but what the fuck? They weren't properly stocked with ammunition prior to the offensive? They had plenty of time to prepare and appeared to delay starting it to ensure they had this stuff right. That indicates that the offensive is going terribly. We already know that they are making very limited gains and have trouble with manpower. So what if this rubicon is crossed and there is no breakthrough? What next? Cluster bombs are terrible but that's not as important as winning the war. How far can that argument be pushed? If they are insufficient? Supply troops? MoAB's? Chemical weapons? Tactical nukes? It's all very well that Putin's bluff is being called on his nuclear threats and that is true, right up until the point until it isn't.

3. Winning at all costs is something I can't get behind. Beyond the aforementioned risk of terminal nuclear war, Ukraine is (understandably, perhaps) in a state of political lockdown at the moment. Their infrastructure is being destroyed, they are rounding up draft-dodgers and sending many thousands to their deaths. At some point, particularly if proves impossible to achieve military success, their interests diverge from those of their backers. Their concerns are for great power conflict, long-term attrition and/or neutering Russia whatever the costs to Ukraine. But unpalatable though it might be, a negotiated peace might be the least worst outcome, better than protracted and bloody stalemate. Putin clearly has a bloody nose and the argument that he would inevitable return for more should be challenged.

4. Declarations of humanitarian concern for the effects of cluster munitions land as completely insincere from people who also support terror bombing. As shown by @Ancalagon's uncritical repetition of Biden's claim, it appears to be merely a reflexive parroting of the official narrative, something which happens again and again. We're all supposed to get with that program or we're Putin supporters. If as @Demiurge states, truth is the first casualty here, and it's permissible for those nominated as "good guys" to say anything - false, contradictory or hypocritical in pursuit of victory, then fine. But one shouldn't expect anyone interested in reality to play along.

5. The defense of Ukraine is appropriate and you make the point that the west is helping them only with what they "ask for". But the vehemence with which this argument is forwarded is in surreal contrast to the apathy or opposition with which other peoples struggling for freedom are regarded. You yourself celebrated theft of weapons meant to help the Houthis in Yemen (no - the US is not playing both sides, they're only helping the Saudi bombing campaign). Should the Palestinians be given cluster bombs to prevent their territories being annexed? The very question is too outrageous even to ask. It's all too convenient how the volume of advocacy on these issue lines up almost precisely with ruling class interests, taking cues from the same quarter.

6. The word "genocide" is being thrown around liberally. The accusation is a potent propaganda tool. But there is no such thing happening in Ukraine if the word has any meaning. The crimes against humanity that we know of or attempts at annexation - terrible though they may be - are not equivalent to the physical extermination of the people of Ukraine. And if those things do rise to the level of genocide then there are many, many other such events occurring in the world - which again, the same people take little or no interest in.

Then provide some actual evidence of their low failure rate (still unacceptable even if true and far from the only issue) rather than demanding I prove a negative, while immediately believing the claim of a guy who has no reason to be honest about this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66154909

What do you suppose is happening to the Ukrainians who were forcibly re-settled into Russia and refuse to drop their language and culture? Do you think they are just being left alone, not bothered anymore, once they’re out of Ukraine?

No, I do not. What's your point?

Even a failure rate of 1.5% seems like it would result in a whole fuckton of unexploded ordinance. And even though it's being used against military targets now, the militaries will move, the unexploded ordinance will not, and it will end up in areas occupied by civilians.

It may be that using cluster munitions is the lesser of several evils, but it certainly isn't something that should be shrugged off.

Sweden in NATO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/10/turkey-nato-summit-eu-sweden/

Putin is a master strategist.

So you deny that Russia is attempting to engage in genocide in Ukraine mainly because you're using a conveniently narrow definition of genocide, but also even if they are you still don't give a shit because similar things are also happening elsewhere?

You are not a good person.

No one is "shrugging it off," everyone involved knows it's not an optimal solution and there'll be a price to pay down the road. It's just that all the current alternatives are worse.

And Turkey in the EU is the cost.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/10/europe/erdogan-turkey-nato-eu-sweden-intl/index.html

Out of curiosity why do you not support Turkey being a NATO member?

NATO and the EU are not one and the same.

So are you saying if NATO accepts Turkey that will fast track them into the EU and that's not a good thing?

Where did I say I wouldn't give a shit?

No way are Turkey getting into the EU. @Murderface is full of shit.

Here:

what·a·bout·ism
/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/

noun
BRITISH

1. the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

I'm just pointing out what CNN is saying.

Turkey is already part of NATO and is holding up Sweden being part of NATO. Erdogan is saying the price of Sweden getting into NATO is Turkey gets into the EU.

That doesn't remotely say what you claim.

And your hypocrisy isn't "a different issue". It's the very heart of the matter.

Fuck you're right, my bad, duh

Well I guess that would depend if Turkey is able (or willing) to comply with the huge amount of rules and regulations they would have to adopt to join the EU

Turkey's treatment of the Kurds alone seems like it would keep the country from meeting the Copenhagen Criteria.