RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria

RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrBukani -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 10:14:11 PM)
With all the guns Assad got, why would he use chemical weapons? Maybe he is in favor of political suicide?[:D] When was the last time use of chemical weapons was reported??? You're all being played and the masses are gobbling it up like applepie. Have a nice munch.

BamaD -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 11:25:53 PM)
FR "when your enemies are destroying each other, don't interrupt" Napoleon All side hate us House of Commons voted against action The French are..... well they are French

tweakabelle -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 1:28:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: tweakabelle Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN. Boiled down to its essential core all of this agonizing is not about the horror of war but about the choice of weapons used in the war. Ugh!! Is it acceptable then to use uranium tipped missiles, napalm, or high explosives but not missiles carrying toxic gas or germs? An absurd distinction. Vincent, please don't get the idea that I view uranium topped missiles, napalm, aerial bombardments etc. as anything other than horrible and repugnant. However, I'm far from convinced that the distinction between CWs and other military weapons is as blurred you seem to be suggesting. One important difference is that CWs are currently outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Their use, especially in civilian areas, is a crime against humanity IMHO. I'd certainly favour broadening the list of prohibited weapons to include napalm, uranium tipped missiles* etc. For mine, ALL aerial bombardments/artillery assaults on civilian areas should be banned as a crime against humanity, irrespective of any perceived military advantage, or the alleged precision of the weapons. Another factor to be considered is that the by governing warfare are widely ignored by all parties - State and non-State actors alike. So whenever there is an unambiguous violation of the Geneva Conventions, we should respond by insisting all the more that the law is enforced strictly and the guilty parties brought to justice. * Uranium tipped missiles were used during the assault on Fallujah in Iraq. Currently that area is reporting greatly increased rates of seriously deformed infants and various cancers in children.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 5:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Another factor to be considered is that the by governing warfare are widely ignored by all parties - State and non-State actors alike. So whenever there is an unambiguous violation of the Geneva Conventions, we should respond by insisting all the more that the law is enforced strictly and the guilty parties brought to justice. I'm going to assume you meant (but your fingers wouldn't submit) the "rules" governing warfare are not being followed. Part of me simply doesn't "get" how "war" has "rules." We aren't talking about a game or anything remotely having to do with honor. It's war. While I'd prefer for all combatants to always follow the Geneva Conventions, it's a reality that war is Hell (or a really, really bad situation/place, for those of you who don't believe in Hell), and that, as the saying goes, "all's fair in love and war." Rules are only going to hamstring those that follow them. If one side does and the other doesn't, there is automatically an advantage for those who don't. Regardless of what you thought of the Iraq War, the US was portrayed as the monster, though we still (as a whole, though there were times when some didn't) followed the Geneva Conventions while those we were fighting were not. We took flak for every civilian casualty, but those we were fighting were not being called out for hiding among those civilians. I don't have any issue with outlawing types of weapons. To think that those weapons won't ever be used is nonsense (which I am not accusing anyone here of believing, btw). If a weapon exists and is in the hands of the combatants (one, some, both, or all), there is always the possibility they will be used.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 9:28:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: According to you, I am not allowed to have any opinions. Well, sorry for you, that's not going to happen. I am simply pointing out that your opinions are not alligned with your stated values. This is america and you are allowed to be as inconsistant as you choose. My stated values have not been crossed. What I think should happen, or needs to happen, isn't necessarily what I think our Nation should do. At no point in time did I state that the US should take down anyone. You have pointed out two things: 1. Jack. 2. Shit. I have only pointed out that this is in contradiction to your stated values and no dance will change that. quote: quote: IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 10:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: According to you, I am not allowed to have any opinions. Well, sorry for you, that's not going to happen. I am simply pointing out that your opinions are not alligned with your stated values. This is america and you are allowed to be as inconsistant as you choose. My stated values have not been crossed. What I think should happen, or needs to happen, isn't necessarily what I think our Nation should do. At no point in time did I state that the US should take down anyone. You have pointed out two things: 1. Jack. 2. Shit. I have only pointed out that this is in contradiction to your stated values and no dance will change that. quote: quote: IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did. And, I merely pointed out that you were wrong in your analysis of my statement. Show me where I said the US needs to oust Assad or Qaddafi. You made an assumption based on - get this - ignorance of what I actually believe. Did I think the US should take out Qaddafi? Nope. That was something Libyans should have done. Do I think the US should take out Assad? Nope. That is something Syrians should do.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 11:33:14 AM)
Since it was the u.s. that effected the regime change in lybia and the call was "IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did.It is quite clear that you approve of the going of quadafi which was the doing of the u.s. and that that sort of action is what is needed now. To those of us who speak english the meaning of the post is quite clear no matter how one tries to deny it.

vincentML -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 11:54:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No, but you might get smitten by Al Quaeda, who are purportedly allies of the Syrian rebels and who could have sarin bombs in their hands (if the Assad regime is telling the truth); or by the Iranians, who are allies of the Assad regime (if the Syrian rebels are telling the truth). The bottom line is that these chemical weapons exist in a situation that is seriously out of control. That is what needs to be dealt with. Somehow. This is precisely the same spurious propaganda we heard leading up to the second war against Iraq: Saddam would give nuclear devices to Al Quaeda. Incorrect. Saddam held far more of a grip on Iraq than Assad holds on Syria now. Regardless of Saddam's grip, his giving wmd to terrorists was one of the propaganda bullshit indictments we heard leading up to the 2003 invasion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 11:59:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since it was the u.s. that effected the regime change in lybia and the call was "IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did.It is quite clear that you approve of the going of quadafi which was the doing of the u.s. and that that sort of action is what is needed now. To those of us who speak english the meaning of the post is quite clear no matter how one tries to deny it. Again, your analysis is wrong. I was not "for" ousting Qaddafi. I was against our intervention. But, do go on with your omniscient ability to read my mind... [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 12:10:59 PM)
quote: How about if Israel looked like getting overrun, which is a distinct possibility. Certainly the cost of an air war with Syria alone has to be less expensive than an air war with several nations. A distinct possibility? Only if jihadists gain control of neighboring states. Which explains our lookaway from the military's ouster of Morsi in Egypt, imo. Also explains the severe financial and economic sanctions levied against Iran. And explains the buildout of settlements in the WB and the blockade of Gaza. So, we disagree on the likelihood of Israel being overrun.

vincentML -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 12:19:40 PM)
quote: One important difference is that CWs are currently outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Their use, especially in civilian areas, is a crime against humanity IMHO. I'd certainly favour broadening the list of prohibited weapons to include napalm, uranium tipped missiles* etc. For mine, ALL aerial bombardments/artillery assaults on civilian areas should be banned as a crime against humanity, irrespective of any perceived military advantage, or the alleged precision of the weapons. Tweakabelle, I do not for a moment question your compassion. However, I do agree with DS: there are no rules in war. War is Lawlessness. Total War has been a governing concept since at least the American Civil War when Gen Sherman burned Atlanta. As OBL suggested, there are no innocent civilians. Sadly.

RacerJim -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 12:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail They were hot to go in, based on falsified intelligence by W. Why didn't Issa investigate that. People with no memory are stupid, I think, unless it is alzheimers like St. Wrinklemeat, then they are ignorant. They, Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, Hillary "I Don't Recall" Clinton, John "Fraud" Kerry et al prominent Democrats were hot to go in based on intelligence by Slick Willie...i.e. years before W could have falsified any of it. Why didn't Pelosi investigate that? People with selective/revisionist memory aren't stupid or ignorant but, rather, use your imagination.

mnottertail -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 12:53:00 PM)
Uh, slick willie clinton absolutely was not involved in it. W was prez and falsifying. The reports coming out of Blix had said that Clinton blowing up shit in the fly overs was effective at cleaning out Iraqs military supplies. "I dont recall" Cheney was big in it, shot a lawyer in the face so someone in the administration had some combat experience. The blown headpipe is leaking torrents again.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 12:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since it was the u.s. that effected the regime change in lybia and the call was "IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did.It is quite clear that you approve of the going of quadafi which was the doing of the u.s. and that that sort of action is what is needed now. To those of us who speak english the meaning of the post is quite clear no matter how one tries to deny it. Again, your analysis is wrong. I was not "for" ousting Qaddafi. I was against our intervention. But, do go on with your omniscient ability to read my mind... [8\|] It was not yor mind but your post I read. "IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled)"

Politesub53 -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 4:49:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani With all the guns Assad got, why would he use chemical weapons? Maybe he is in favor of political suicide?[:D] When was the last time use of chemical weapons was reported??? You're all being played and the masses are gobbling it up like applepie. Have a nice munch. Yawns.

PeonForHer -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/30/2013 5:41:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani With all the guns Assad got, why would he use chemical weapons? Maybe he is in favor of political suicide?[:D] When was the last time use of chemical weapons was reported??? You're all being played and the masses are gobbling it up like applepie. Have a nice munch. Oh Jesus Christ . . . All right, so the Syrian rebels got these sarin gas bombs, somehow, from where the Syrian government had left them, unlocked, unprotected and undefended, like governments always do with such weapons - and most especially governments that are facing not just discontent but an all-out civil war. Then, instead of these rebels killing off government forces with them, they used them on their own people, because it was an utter certainty that the US and other nations would then wade in against Assad. No risk at all that that wouldn't happen because foreign forces had shown reluctance to intervene to date. This event would blow away all such trifling political stuff in an instant. The world's governments are reliably altruistic, always, given enough push. And these said rebels also used these bombs in a much-prized area that they themselves controlled, just to make it look better. And also made sure that lots of their own women and children were killed, for the same reason - just to be convincing. Honestly. I sometimes wonder if there's a certain mindset that, on seeing Occam's Razor, prompts its owner to move as quickly as he possibly can to insert it firmly and smugly up his own anus.

mnottertail -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/31/2013 6:27:52 AM)
Are you not willing to admit that Mr. Assad has probably given the rebels his chemical weapons arsenal as a show of benevolence for his people, and in fact that they have never been locked up during his entire administration and he being quite secure in his position and exuding the love of his people by radiation is quite unconcerned with public opinion? (Don't that sound like Prime Ministers Q &A, Peon? MP from Snavely

PeonForHer -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/31/2013 7:05:25 AM)
Yes, I think you've nailed it there, Ron. You still smell, though.

popeye1250 -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/31/2013 12:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: tweakabelle Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN. Boiled down to its essential core all of this agonizing is not about the horror of war but about the choice of weapons used in the war. Ugh!! Is it acceptable then to use uranium tipped missiles, napalm, or high explosives but not missiles carrying toxic gas or germs? An absurd distinction. Vincent, please don't get the idea that I view uranium topped missiles, napalm, aerial bombardments etc. as anything other than horrible and repugnant. However, I'm far from convinced that the distinction between CWs and other military weapons is as blurred you seem to be suggesting. One important difference is that CWs are currently outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Their use, especially in civilian areas, is a crime against humanity IMHO. I'd certainly favour broadening the list of prohibited weapons to include napalm, uranium tipped missiles* etc. For mine, ALL aerial bombardments/artillery assaults on civilian areas should be banned as a crime against humanity, irrespective of any perceived military advantage, or the alleged precision of the weapons. Another factor to be considered is that the by governing warfare are widely ignored by all parties - State and non-State actors alike. So whenever there is an unambiguous violation of the Geneva Conventions, we should respond by insisting all the more that the law is enforced strictly and the guilty parties brought to justice. * Uranium tipped missiles were used during the assault on Fallujah in Iraq. Currently that area is reporting greatly increased rates of seriously deformed infants and various cancers in children. Tweak, that's all well and good but who's going to enforce all that stuff, which countries? The U.S. can't do it anymore we're all tapped out. We've done way more than we should have anyway and after being at war since 2001 there's no more appetite for that sort of thing among The American People. The people here in the U.S. are against interfering in Syria by a huge margin just like the people in the United Kingdom. It's odd, Obama seems to know "everything" about Syria but "nothing" about Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA! A reporter, Johnathon Al Pieyre (sp) just got back from Syria last week and was on a news show last night and said that "the Rebels" (al qeada) are the ones who used the gas against their own people to create a false flag operation to get the U.S. involved on their side! He said there was no advantage to Assad to use gas on the rebels and risk international reprisals. The U.S. isn't the "world police".

tweakabelle -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/31/2013 7:55:29 PM)
Where did I suggest this was a US responsibility? I didn't. Nor do I think it should be a US responsibility. It is an international responsibility and can only work if the international community gets behind it. The UN is the obvious place to sponsor this initiative. Establishing a separate body with independent powers to enforce any agreement (possibly under the aegis of the World Court) would greatly enhance its effectiveness. It would remove enforcement from the political games played at the UN.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02