this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
43 points (97.8% liked)

Canada

10273 readers
442 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Epilektoi_Hoplitai@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I understand the gravity of this consideration, and it's commendable to abide by our Convention obligations — but at the same time it's pretty rich to be lecturing Ukraine on the immorality of using against the invader the same weapons which Russia has been using against their schools, hospitals and residential areas since literally the first day of the war.

[–] leigh@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I read this more as a condemnation of the US (as opposed to Ukraine) for enabling further use of an indiscriminate weapon that will have civilian consequences for decades to come. But alas, it’s what I expect from those warmongers to our south. 😔

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia is not bound by that treaty, and have been using them since they invaded. As such, not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.

Putin loves it when Ukraine's allies don't offer more support because of 'moral' issues. Russia has no morals, and so time and again they get the upper hand because they can do whatever the fuck they want.

[–] leigh@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.

I strongly disagree with you here. I’m not against providing any weapons to Ukraine, I just believe there are better options than cluster munitions — options which won’t still be killing civilians in the decades to come. I don’t believe that cluster munitions are in any way essential to Ukraine’s defence.

Ukraine and its allies can’t do anything (short of surrendering, which I certainly don’t advocate) to stop Russia’s use of them, and there will be long-term consequences. But that doesn’t make it a good — or even neutral — idea to add on additional long-term consequences. The more unexploded ordinance, the more danger to residents in the future.

[–] maporita@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I think we should let the Ukrainian military decide what weapons they need.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Russia has been using cluster munitions since they invaded, so the point of the treaty is already moot. It would've been a better look to just not say anything. Not supplying them to the Ukraine only gives russia an advantage.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

You know a country is in an existential struggle when they're choosing to use cluster munitions in their own territory. That's brutal.

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I thought they were illegal under international law. Looks like they aren't. Maybe I'm thinking of cluster mines. The benefit better outweigh the cost. That's a tricky equation.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I thought they were illegal under international law.

The article said that 100 countries have signed a treaty to ban them but the US is not one of those countries. This CBC article talks a bit about why countries have banned them. It's a bomb that sprays smaller bombs randomly over a large area. The main issue is these smaller bombs might not detonate on impact and will only explode later on once the war is long over with.

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago

Yeah, they are a similar post war problem as landmines which also have a treaty that the US has not signed.

[–] Epilektoi_Hoplitai@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago

the US is not one of those countries.

It's interesting to look at the map of signatories.

Canada, Europe, Japan, and most of Latin America and Africa are signatories, while almost the whole of the Middle East and Eurasia + Brazil, Russia, India, China are not.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

Bold photographer getting that close.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Good. Canada took a stance against cluster munitions under the treaty.

But, seriously, with their trillion dollar defense budget the US couldn't figure out weapons that wouldn't cause an international incident?

[–] FreeBooteR69@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

I think they should be given whatever tools necessary to wipe out the savage barbarian hordes from their country. Ukraine can't afford to be squeamish, they have too much to lose. Annihilate these mother fuckers until every barbarian in Ukrainian territory is dead. The sooner the barbarians are eliminated, the sooner Ukraine can rebuild. The country is already inundated by mines and explosive munitions, thanks to the barbarian invaders who have been using much worse munitions against Ukraine with wild abandon. Quit tying their hands behind their backs and lets get this war won already!

load more comments
view more: next ›