|
It's OK to use poison gas
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 ... |
Well then it is unanimous then. |
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. |
Quote:
That poison gas attack was alleged by the Syrian government 23 Mar 2013 and never proven |
Operation Genoa
|
Quote:
Fiction? WTF are you smoking? |
I think they meant, Operation Tailwind.
Gas should never be used on anyone. Neo-fascist States should be disarmed. |
The regime is killing the rebels and the rebels are killing those in the regime
Who cares? Not our problem |
This is an excellent read.
http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Plain-J.../dp/0060903007 America is quite experienced in delivering chemical weapons. |
Nobody is on trial here there is only one issue. |
It is less time consuming then walking around shooting them each in the head
|
Quote:
Spoken like a true Dictator |
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
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." |
Quote:
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. |
"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? |
Quote:
In fact we are racist against small particles (gas, biological weapons, radiations) |
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. |
Quote:
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) |
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
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That is the difference.^^^ |
Quote:
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? |
at least the bombing of dresden was surgical
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ethics is not even in the quotient. |
Quote:
Buy a ticket to Turkey and walk to Syria -- then report back to us :error |
Quote:
|
wehategas
|
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. |
Quote:
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? |
I think that our moral is flawed:
- it's not ok to kill people (whatever the medium) - we kill people |
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.:Oh crap |
Quote:
Quote:
That ain't happening yet :helpme |
Quote:
The vets in Vietnam tell a much different story for sure. |
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. |
If only 9% want to intervene it won't happen. |
Quote:
:1orglaugh |
Exactly! Obama fucked up Plan A: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
That's fine with me refugee non-lethal aide. |
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... |
^ They have a large stockpile.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc