It's OK to use poison gas

[Barry-xlovecam]

I want to hear your best argument why the use of poison gas should be allowed to stop insurgents and civilian non-combatants for national government survival ...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Well then it is unanimous then.

No one has any logical argument then ... I was hoping Putin might reply LMAO.

[Thor]

should we attack both sides then ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...jihadists.html
Also a kind of a problem that the jihadists of the rebel site is al qaeda, why would you wanna help them, especially if they also use poisen gas.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Thor

should we attack both sides then ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...jihadists.html
Also a kind of a problem that the jihadists of the rebel site is al qaeda, why would you wanna help them, especially if they also use poisen gas.

That poison gas attack was alleged by the Syrian government 23 Mar 2013 and never proven

"The jihadists of the rebel site is al qaeda" [s.i.c.] are there because they were the best help the rebels could find -- in the Middle East there is a saying: "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and this is the result.

Furthermore, your reply is pure rhetoric -- it is not an "argument why the use of poison gas should be allowed to stop insurgents and civilian non-combatants for national government survival ..."

There is no argument for the use of poison gas that could make any sense just hate and rhetoric ...

[Nicky]

Operation Genoa

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Nicky

Operation Genoa

Fiction? WTF are you smoking?

[Captain Kawaii]

I think they meant, Operation Tailwind.

Gas should never be used on anyone.
Neo-fascist States should be disarmed.

[Vendzilla]

The regime is killing the rebels and the rebels are killing those in the regime

Who cares?

Not our problem

[Captain Kawaii]

This is an excellent read.

http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Plain-J.../dp/0060903007

America is quite experienced in delivering chemical weapons.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Nobody is on trial here there is only one issue.

"why the use of poison gas should be allowed to stop insurgents and civilian non-combatants for national government survival ..."

No political bullshit please.

[arock10]

It is less time consuming then walking around shooting them each in the head

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by arock10

It is less time consuming then walking around shooting them each in the head

Spoken like a true Dictator

[Nicky]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Fiction? WTF are you smoking?

Yea just a joke, It's from the TV serise "The newsroom"

[lezinterracial]

It isn't ok to use poison gas. The question is, How far and at what point does the US want to get involved? It is reported that a North Korean prison camp of 20,000 just disappeared, Do we want to get involved with that?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by lezinterracial

It isn't ok to use poison gas. The question is, How far and at what point does the US want to get involved? It is reported that a North Korean prison camp of 20,000 just disappeared, Do we want to get involved with that?

Inmates - who can be imprisoned for life, along with three generations of their families, for anything deemed to be critical of the regime - are forced to survive by eating frogs, rats and picking corn kernels out of animal waste.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hts-group.html

Well, at least there are no allegations of chemical weapons use for "extermination". However, it seems a serious issue and maybe the North Korean "final solution" was done with the cover of the Syrian crisis -- that is really fucked up ...

[ilnjscb]

You waited three hours, and because no one responded, you call that conclusive proof of a lack of opposing argument? Is there a possibility people have better things to do on a Saturday morning than answering a baited and obviously rhetorical question?

Ok, then.

If someone is coming to kill your children, is it ok to use lethal force to defend them?
If yes then proceed, if no, then, I don't need to attempt to reason with you
Do you accept that when states execute criminals it is considered more humane to do so with chemicals than with a bullet?
If yes then proceed, if no, then, I don't need to attempt to reason with you
Is a group of people who follow someone who eats the hearts of their enemies coming to kill your children equivalent in malice to a single person coming to kill your children?
If yes then proceed, if no, then, I don't need to attempt to reason with you
Is it possible that you may not be able to be maximally humane when someone is coming to kill your children?
If yes then proceed, if no, then, I don't need to attempt to reason with you
If someone is coming to kill your children and you succeed in thwarting them by using lethal force, will you still be upset that you had to take a life, regardless of the method you used?
If yes then proceed, if no, then, I don't need to attempt to reason with you
If you got this far then you think that in some circumstances it is ok to use gas on people

And some people don't use reason, they just do and think whatever others tell them.

I assume you're talking about Syria, where no one, especially not you, knows what the fuck happened. I do know that the rebels, whom John Kerry says are 15-25% al quaeda, are not people most of us would want as partners.

"Kerry replied: "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys."

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Do you accept that when states execute criminals it is considered more humane to do so with chemicals than with a bullet?

I didn't even consider that.

We inject prisoners with lethal chemicals to execute them. And also used the "gas chamber" as a means of execution.

Not to mention (as I already have a dozen times) what we did in Vietnam with Agent Orange being sprayed all over Indonesia. We really committed an atrocity there.

But to answer the question...hell no chemical weapons shouldn't be used.

But also...it's against international law to attack another country unprovoked.
The United States has no business involved in this.

And when we bomb them, we are going to kill a lot of people. How the hell do we justify killing MORE people as a way to stop the Syrian govt. from killing people?

The whole thing is ludicrous.

Obama fucked up and drew a "red line". And now he is claiming that he never drew a red line...and is saying the international community drew the red line...even though nobody but France (another producer of chemical weapons) is actually agreeing with him.

This is a huge, huge mistake.

[woj]

"chemical weapon" / "poison gas" is kinda a red herring...

what difference does it make if someone gets killed with a "chemical weapon" or gets blown to 1000 pieces with an explosive?

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by woj

"chemical weapon" / "poison gas" is kinda a red herring...

what difference does it make if someone gets killed with a "chemical weapon" or gets blown to 1000 pieces with an explosive?

weapons are supposed to be smart and gas are stupids.
In fact we are racist against small particles (gas, biological weapons, radiations)

[Robbie]

Does anyone know much about bacteriological weapons?

It's my understanding that the U.S. has been accused of that as well...most recently using Small Pox to kill people.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

weapons are supposed to be smart and gas are stupids.
In fact we are racist against small particles (gas, biological weapons, radiations)

From what I've read about WW1 the reason that the CWC was signed in 1928 (and again, the U.S. did not ratify it until 1974 and them promptly excluded itself from most of it) was because when they were using the "mustard gas", the wind would shift and end up killing our own troops!

I know I'm sounding a bit cynical, but I think that was the main reason in the beginning.

I'm pretty sure that the French and Germans didn't really care how many civilians they were killing of each other's countries at the time. They were happy about that.

Hell, once they overran a town or city they killed tons of civilians anyway just out of spite. (like soldiers do in all wars)

[Thor]

what about the states were people are executed with poisen gas instead of getting electrocuted, you want to attack them too ? or whats the differnece

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm pretty sure that the French and Germans didn't really care how many civilians they were killing of each other's countries at the time. They were happy about that.

Fritz haber's wife committed suicide because of his husband, so i'm not sure it was so ok to kill people like that

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Does anyone know much about bacteriological weapons?

It's my understanding that the U.S. has been accused of that as well...most recently using Small Pox to kill people.

yes but where ?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

yes but where ?

Using Google, I was able to find accusations from Cuba and North Korea.
Of course nobody will believe them, and the U.S. denies it (as if they would ever admit it).

But a quick look at the history of what our govt. has done to it's OWN citizens makes me fear the worst. For instance this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment

Nope... I don't put ANYTHING past the U.S. federal govt.

[Tom_PM]

It's hard to get straight answers to this indeed. It usually results in political talk, thinks like dead is dead so whats the difference, and as long as it's not in my backyard, and we've done it so punish ourselves too.

It's just too distant, in a foreign language, in a civil war, and we're afraid of ruffling feathers.

It's not an easy question and it's one people should ask themselves without getting bogged down by the outside stuff. It seems a lot of people basically say yeah, it's OK to gas your own people because of A, B, C or D.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

This is an excellent read.

http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Plain-J.../dp/0060903007

America is quite experienced in delivering chemical weapons.

Odd, that doesn't seem to mention chemical weapons.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

weapons are supposed to be smart and gas are stupids.
In fact we are racist against small particles (gas, biological weapons, radiations)

That is the difference.^^^

Yeah Robbie. In 1941 - 1942 my father was a warrant officer in the US Army Chemical Warfare Division. He was stationed in Alaska doing weapons research, he was a 3rd year chemical engineering student in NYC before he enlisted in 1940.

If a government wants to kill select criminals (few) with leathal gas or injections we allow it.

We do not allow governments to gas large numbers of citizens for the purpose of exterminating them.

The truth of Yellow Rain is that it is a chemical agent used by the Russians in their war in Afghanistan.

Yellow Rain is disbursed by aerial blast and sticks to everything. Yellow Rain is a sort of blistering agent on human skin. I supervised the manufacture of its "anti-agent" in an Israeli chemical plant in 1982. The anti-agent is a compound similar to the chemical formulation of an epoxy. It is made anaerobically (in a Nitrogen atmosphere) then placed in hermetically sealed (no air) fast puncture cans. The cans are put in front line tanks. After a Yellow Rain Attack the cans are punctured with a hand spray head then the tank exits are sprayed to protect the soldiers exiting in protective chemical warfare suits. It is a decontamination procedure and the tanks it went on were in the northern frontier -- facing Syria and Lebanon.

Not a military secret but it was a major expense and not done with no reason ...

Those videos posted to Youtube were real Sarin attacks. What stockpiles the Assad regime controls of SARIN or possibly VX are unknown. Assad is a lose cannon with his back to a wall.

If everything goes wrong this could turn out very badly and not just for the parties fighting in Syria. The Russians may be the first to suffer if the Chechen "volunteers" on the rebel side capture a chemical weapons dump in Syria (may very well be their overall objective) then Putin will be eating his words while Russia wails. Same said for al Qaeda with respect to the Americans, the Saudis, and the Egyptians don't forget the NATO members that were active in the Afghan war -- al Qaeda has a death wish grudge to settle there too.

A series of Sarin attacks would suit the bill of the Islamic Extremist Liberation armies everywhere.

Pleasant dreams ...

[woj]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

"weapons are supposed to be smart and gas are stupids."

That is the difference.^^^

I'm not sure I see the difference... does that mean that the use of primitive weapons is somehow less ethical than the use of advanced weapons?

Do you think that use of conventional missiles with explosives would be preferred? Wouldn't likely same number of people die and on top of that half the city would be destroyed? What makes that outcome better?

[pornmasta]

at least the bombing of dresden was surgical

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I want to hear your best argument why the use of poison gas should be allowed to stop insurgents and civilian non-combatants for national government survival ...

If Assad used chemical weapons we would need UN Peacekeepers in Syria, however Assad wouldn't do that to his own people, it's clearly a provocation from those who want war

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by woj

I'm not sure I see the difference... does that mean that the use of primitive weapons is somehow less ethical than the use of advanced weapons?

Do you think that use of conventional missiles with explosives would be preferred? Wouldn't likely same number of people die and on top of that half the city would be destroyed? What makes that outcome better?

Ethics is not even in the quotient.

It's a question of in whose hands that the chemical weapons will end up in.

Boots on the ground will be necessary to secure the known chemical weapons in Syria.

The Syrians can kill each other by any conventional means they employ.

After the chemical weapons are removed from the theatre of operations Syria should be subject to a total weapons embargo. They can throw rocks at each other when they run out of missiles and bullets.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

If Assad used chemical weapons we would need UN Peacekeepers in Syria, however Assad wouldn't do that to his own people, it's clearly a provocation from those who want war

Buy a ticket to Turkey and walk to Syria -- then report back to us

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Buy a ticket to Turkey and walk to Syria -- then report back to us

I wouldn't be able to report back, the Rebels would gas me

[pornmasta]

wehategas

[madm1k3]

No government should use chemical weapons on its people.... period

But the fact still remains that without a UN security council resolution an attack on Syria by the USA would be a war crime in itself. As Robbie stated above it's against international law to attack another country unprovoked.... period.

This is the second time in 12 years that the USA has claimed the use of chemical weapons to justify attacking a country. And the USA has the credibility of a crack addict when it comes to this issue. examples:

USA denied using Agent Orange in Vietnam for over 20 years

USA blamed Iran for gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq even though they knew it was their ally Saddam.

USA used false information about non existent chemical programs to lie to the entire UN to justify the Iraq invasion

Now as a Citizen wouldn't you be a little worried about the government's justification or will you just give the crackhead a dollar because he promises this time its different.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Ethics is not even in the quotient.

It's a question of in whose hands that the chemical weapons will end up in.

Boots on the ground will be necessary to secure the known chemical weapons in Syria.

The Syrians can kill each other by any conventional means they employ.

After the chemical weapons are removed from the theatre of operations Syria should be subject to a total weapons embargo. They can throw rocks at each other when they run out of missiles and bullets.

I thought we are discussing ethics of chemical weapons, that's what your initial post made it sound like...

but either way, I'll play along...

Why are we in a different position now than 6 months ago? It's certainly not any intelligence breakthrough that there are chemical weapons in Syria or is it? If the issue of chemical weapons getting into "wrong hands" wasn't an issue 6 months ago, why is it now?

[pornmasta]

I think that our moral is flawed:
- it's not ok to kill people (whatever the medium)
- we kill people

[Tom_PM]

I think it's a heavy difference between everything in Iraq and this. Iraq under Bush Sr. was a movement to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Iraq under Bush Jr. was a fiasco generated by his war hawk advisors.

I expect after Syria is a wasteland and the opposition is all gassed or shot that we propose bills to compensate Vietnam for our use of agent orange and seek more resolutions to destroy more chemical weapons.

We'll have to watch the news for those.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

I think that our moral is flawed:
- it's not ok to kill people (whatever the medium)
- we kill people

God will judge between the nations,
and settle disputes of mighty nations.
Then they will beat their swords into iron plows
and their spears into pruning tools.
Nation will not take up sword against nation;
they will no longer learn how to make war.
Isaiah 2:4

That ain't happening yet

War is a constant reality with the human race. We adopted rules of warfare and limitations. Napalm is a banned chemical weapon. Agent Orange was a defoliant with collateral damage to humans. There is a difference of intent.

Actually, I think I will be in more danger in Amsterdam than Athens. There would be more risk in a major US city 2 weeks from now. But the TSA lines in the US and the airport security in Europe will be a bitch.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Napalm is a banned chemical weapon. Agent Orange was a defoliant with collateral damage to humans. There is a difference of intent.

Certainly you don't believe that the U.S. didn't know exactly what they were doing with Agent Orange?

The vets in Vietnam tell a much different story for sure.

[ilnjscb]

Well...

AIPAC to go all-out on Syria

"The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.
Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran?s efforts to build a nuclear weapon."

Just 9 percent of Americans back intervention

I guess we'll find out who governs America.

[Barry-xlovecam]

If only 9% want to intervene it won't happen.

This may get ugly and maybe not -- let's hope not ...

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

If only 9% want to intervene it won't happen.

This may get ugly and maybe not -- let's hope not ...

We will stop them from using chemical weapons by bombing all of their chemical weapons right?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Exactly! Obama fucked up Plan A:

Boots on the ground, covert extraction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles and we are otta there.

We had special forces ready at covert bases in Jordan -- the Turks and Israelis would have lent support I read if it's credible.

Now a toe-head puppet dictator of the Syrian Alawite "Mafia" that runs Syria is holding us (most of the western world) all hostage using whatever means at its disposal to retain power in a shit hole country.

I got some bad news for penis-head Assad: Your sea coast has 7 - 15 nuclear armed submarines aiming missiles at you (and each other ) get on a plane to Timbuktu you have safe passage now or put your head between your legs and kiss you sweet ass good-bye. Oh fuck -- nice plan "B"

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Who cares?

Halliburton cares.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I got some bad news for penis-head Assad: Your sea coast has 7 - 15 nuclear armed submarines aiming missiles at you (and each other ) get on a plane to Timbuktu you have safe passage now or put your head between your legs and kiss you sweet ass good-bye. Oh fuck -- nice plan "B" [/INDENT]

The problem with all those warships aiming missiles at Assad is...they are going to kill a LOT civilians. Including women, children, and just plain civilians who have nothing to do with any of this.

That's one of the reasons I keep debating it with you...the chances of Assad himself getting killed by a cruise missile are pretty low.

But we are going to kill civilians by the scores.

And also consider this...we are going to destroy the infrastructure of the country. Destroy the airport, destroy the bridges, destroy their military.

Didn't we learn that lesson of what NOT to do in Iraq?

Because then, after we get done killing and destroying...what next?

A country in total chaos. No leader, no airports, no police, no military.
And then, just like in Iraq...the real slaughter begins.

I just don't see the logic in this at all.

We are gonna fling a few billion dollars worth of missiles to kill and destroy even more Syrian civilians.

Why not take that money and help all those Syrian people who are in refugee camps trying to escape the carnage?

Or better yet...take all that money and help the people who live right here in the United States that are going hungry or need medical attention.
After all...it is our tax money that is being used for this.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why not take that money and help all those Syrian people who are in refugee camps trying to escape the carnage?

That's fine with me refugee non-lethal aide.

I am more concerned with where the Syrian Chemical Weapons end up and in whose hands. That is a realistic dilemma. If you live in the USA, or any other NATO country, you should worry. If you live in Russia, change your underwear now -- the Chechen Terrorists are well represented in Syria -- Putin is totally in denial -- the Cold War has been over for some time -- plug in!

Bombing the shit out of Syria, short of turning it into the Middle East Parking Lot Company, LLC, is useless anyway. Look at Beirut -- car bombs are still popular there after thirty years of on-and-off civil conflict.

I have said for a while that military engagement in Syria is a lose-lose deal. With the existence of terrorist elements within the Syrian Rebel Militias -- arming the rebels seems stupid. We should know better from arming Dick Wad bin Laden in the Russian-Afghan War.

My enemy's enemy is not always my friend ...

Basically, we are fucked. This is the nightmare of Vietnam that never materialized.

[Robbie]

Okay...so let's say that they have a small (compared to the U.S.) stockpile of chemical weapons.

They've had them for years (probably purchased from Russia or Iran who are both allies of Syria and both are part of the 13 countries in the world who PRODUCE chem weapons...including the U.S.).
With Assad as the leader of the country they have never used or threatened to use chemical weapons on any other country...ever.

So now we are supposed to be worried that the chemical weapons will "fall into the wrong hands" while Pres. Obama has been encouraging the "rebels" to fight since he announced in 2011 that it was "Time for Assad to go"?

Doesn't that sound fucked up to you?

We gave the rebels encouragement to keep fighting. We publicly call for their Pres. to step down. We give them support under the table. And now we are talking about firing cruise missiles to help them further...all to overthrow a guy who has had chem weapons for decades & never attacked any of the countries you mentioned or evened threatened to.

So we take out the responsible guy and then we have to worry about the chemical weapons falling into the "wrong hands".

In other words...we help exacerbate a problem and then try to "solve" it.

Where if we had kept our nose out of it in the first place...The Syrian govt. would have quelled the rebellion in a few weeks and the bloodshed would have been ended 2 years ago.

Now we have all this death, refugee camps, Al Qaede all over Syria.

And our "solution" is to bomb them.

If only we would stay the fuck out of other nation's business...

[Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE]

^ They have a large stockpile.