Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Onion Store - Free Shipping on orders of $50 or more.

Outside Outrage

We're not the only ones who are outraged - here are some outside outrages that caught our eye!

User Login

We have a great community planned for Rational Outrage. Register now so that you won't miss any of our up and coming features.



US Joins China and Russia in Rejecting Cluster Bomb Ban Print E-mail
User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 
Written by Shan-ul-Hai   

 

From the author of Globally Rational

The differences between the “bad guys” and the “good guys” in recent wars have been clear. The bad guys recklessly bomb innocent civilians, while the good guys drop targeted missiles on military hotspots. The bad guys oppress their people, while the good guys fight for freedom. Above all, the bad guys have no respect for the sanctity of life, while the good guys maintain that their first priority is the protection of human rights.

So we can only assume that most of the world’s human rights groups share NATO’s views on the latest developments in the Middle East… right? We are the good guys, so we must not be targeting civilians. If we accidentally kill some innocent villagers in Pakistan, they are just collateral damage; that doesn’t give Pakistan the right to defend its borders. If Israel sprays Lebanon with cluster bombs, which cover wide areas (and, consequently, kill many civilians) rather than specific targets, it is just a necessary evil; that doesn’t give anybody the right to call them “aggressors.” If Georgia drops illegal cluster bombs on Russians, then they are freedom fighters; when Russia allegedly drops them on Georgians, then they are oppressors.

Why do we allow countries like Russia to spread large clusters of bombs over Georgia? We all know that only American allies are allowed to circumvent international treaties, so why is it that our only reaction is to condemn the Russians for ignoring basic human rights? Is there something that we want to hide?

Right now, there are thousands of unexploded bombs lining the ground in villages and cities across Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Young children are often injured or killed when they unsuspectingly pick up an explosive that has been sitting undisturbed since the day that it first fell out of an American or Israeli or Soviet plan. Lebanon, for instance, found itself on the receiving end of over a million deadly explosives during their 2006 war with Israel – one for every four people in the entire country.

Israel’s official statement effectively summarized the world’s justification for using such horrible weapons, which have caused about 300 innocent civilian casualties after the end of their war with Lebanon (in addition to the hundreds more in Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan), by eloquently stating that “International law does not include a sweeping prohibition of the use of cluster bombs.” Others have made statements along the lines of “everybody does it; why can’t we?” Several countries – including the US, Israel, Russia, and China – have declined to join the new treaty that forbids the use of weapons that aim to destroy broad areas rather than specific targets.

What was that old saying about the company you keep?

Trackback(0)
Comments (2)Add Comment
0
It is a sad day
written by Tiffany, January 07, 2009
when the United States, which holds itself out as a world leader, refuses to lead (or even follow) with regard to an issue like this.
0
...
written by Greg, October 20, 2009
I agree that such munitions should eventually be banned, but I also believe that the reasoning behind nations using these munitions is not simply "we use it because they do or would." Modern cluster munitions, unlike mines, are not designed to lie in wait to harm soldier and civilian alike. These weapons are designed to be wide-area bombs, similar to a big smart bomb but with a large area of coverage. These weapons are essential for use on soft targets (not just human beings, but cars, trucks, and light buildings). It could take thousands of pounds of conventional bombs to do what one cluster bomb could do. Given that we are still bound to end up in conflicts that require the elimination of enemy targets, would you rather bomb en masse in an incredible display of overkill -- cratering landscapes and risking incredible collateral damage -- or one bomb that actually leaves most structures intact? I don't believe that first-world militaries want to fight fire with fire in that way. It seems most likely that they want to use the appropriate weapon for the appropriate circumstance, so that they don't destroy more than they have to. Could this always be true? No. But cynicism can mask the alternatives.

Write comment

busy
 

One Minute Outrage - Political

Issue: Nations around the world join forces to put an end to the use of cluster bombs because of the high incidence of civilian injury and death--sometimes long after the conflict is over. But the United States, like Russia, China and Israel, refuses to sign the treaty.

Impact: The United States further abdicates the role of world leader, while still clinging stubbornly to the title. The continued use of cluster bombs is bad enough, but far worse is the message to the world that force by any means necessary is the way to go--and the path to be chosen by the largest and most powerful nations on earth.

Read More: US Joins China and Russia in Rejecting Cluster Bomb Ban

One Minute Outrage - Earthly

Issue: A blind couple is prosecuted for employing a commonly accepted method of composting in their own garden.

Impact: Your tax dollars at work making life difficult for people with the audacity to grow vegetables--and an apparent legal preference for chemical fertilizers over organic matter that might actually help the environment.

Read More: Gardener Threatens Public Safety with Compost

One Minute Outrage - Legal

Issue: Police departments in major cities across the country aren't content to arrest self-made criminals, but have decided to hit the streets and see whether they can create some more.

Impact: Time and tax dollars poured into sting operations designed to test ordinary people and create crimes that would never have been; meanwhile, who's minding the store?  Hundreds of thousands of unserved felony warrants lie inactive across the country while police experiment in subways, department stores and on streetcorners.

Read More:  Make Your Own Criminal – It's So Much Easier than Chasing the Real Ones


One Minute Outrage - Cultural

Issue: A disabled child is left to die by a negligent mother, and the people charged with her protection stand by and let it happen; sadly, Danieal Kelly is only one example of the wide-ranging failure of the systems that are supposed to keep our children safe.

Impact: The impact on this particular child was a slow and painful death, and she is not alone. Right now, as you're reading this, other children are living in similar circumstances; other parents and caseworkers are ignoring their needs and waiting for someone else to do something. The most helpless among us will not survive unless we all step up and do our part--and insist that others do theirs.

Read More: Disabled Child Left to Die by Mother, Social Workers


Sex Offender Registration / Residency Restrictions Do More Harm than Good


sex offender registration

Fifteen years ago, the mother of a kidnapping victim had a good idea--an idea that made a lot of sense. That idea involved the creation of a registry for use by law enforcement to track child molesters. Soon other states got on the bandwagon, and the classes of crime included in the registries mushroomed. Then those registries were shared with the public, voluntarily or under legal mandate. And then the public found out that there were sex offenders down the block (never mind that those "sex offenders" might have urinated outdoors after too much to drink late one night or had sexual relationships with girlfriends just a few years younger than themselves after they'd crossed the line into adulthood), and we didn't like it. New state laws cropped up across the country restricting where convicted sex offenders could live, and now, we're finally seeing the fruits of those frantic efforts. States are spending tens of millions of dollars to attempt to keep convicted sex offenders in stable places where they can be tracked, and losing the battled. Homelessness has skyrocketed among convicted sex offenders, and with it, the rate of recidivism.

Read More: Sex Offender Registration is Stupid






 Subscribe in a reader


About Rational Outrage | Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions | Submission Guidelines | Comment Policy | Image Credits

Joomla Template Design