|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 07 2013 09:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. ?.... It's in the link i posted in the quote tree.Try expand the quotes. Here is another source http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-aboutShow nested quote +In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death. Show nested quote +In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied."
that is a highly questionable source. do you have anything showing that depleted uranium or white phosphorous are actually classified as chemical weapons under teh various treaties, etc. that ban their use. because so far my research shows that they are legitimately used in war.
|
On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one.
white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics:
...
i see we have already started the gymnastics.
|
On September 07 2013 09:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. ?.... It's in the link i posted in the quote tree.Try expand the quotes. Here is another source http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-aboutShow nested quote +In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death. Show nested quote +In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied."
The problem with that statement, is that the definition of a chemical weapon is when it is used to harm the targets with the toxic nature of the weapon being used, as opposed to the flammable nature( which are widely used by all nations in time of war and have been since fire was discovered). And phosphorus and napalm, when used offensively , are clearly for the flammable nature of said compound. Depleted uranium is used for its extreme density, for armor piercing purposes, as well as armoring, and aicraft counter weights and many medical procedures as radiation shielding. There is serious debate on if it or not it is harmful to the human body, but the WHO states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure. And as the WHO is main health authority used by the UN, it can be hardly claimed that the US used depleted uranium rounds as chemical weapons.
|
On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics.
its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 07 2013 09:38 PiPoGevy wrote:
Assad is bad, FSA is bad as it is plagued with Al-Qaeda, an invasion will be like the
Most stupidest idea as who you going to put into power, Syrians won't accept a puppet made government by the US,
And the Syrians themselves will be fighting over each other on who to control the country, if Shia wins Al-Qaeda will have a bitch, if Sunni wins Hezbollah will have a bitch, there is no way in hell they will allow a Christian as president, Alawites will most likely be barred from entering government, so basically, what's left ?
I'm not really convinced that Assad is bad, given how half the country supports him and people protest in his favor against Obama in some countries he visits. I doubt that he's worse than what the Muslim Brotherhood will put up.
If he's responsible for the chemical weapons, he obviously has to go though. A law that isn't enforced might as well not be a law at all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if not for the islamists and assad's response, he'd still be a dictator guy. a mild one by the lofty standards to which he has now elevated himself, but a dictator in protection of an entrenched interest social group nonetheless.
so yea, he's bad.
|
On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question.
Wait let me get this straight. The west wants to go in because the use of CW is abhorrent. CW is abhorrent because it causes extreme suffering and is inhumane to its victims thus it is on moral grounds that the intervention is required. But because of a technicality WP is not listed as a CW so we can employ cruel weaponry without repercussion.
So much for moral reasons.
|
On September 07 2013 10:53 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. Wait let me get this straight. The west wants to go in because the use of CW is abhorrent. CW is abhorrent because it causes extreme suffering and is inhumane to its victims thus it is on moral grounds that the intervention is required. But because of a technicality WP is not listed as a CW so we can employ cruel weaponry without repercussion. So much for moral reasons.
Cruel weapons? If we are going to ban cruel weapons we should be fighting with pillows and tickling contests. The point of chemical weapons is killing people with the toxic nature of the item being used. So sarin is banned, but sadly napalm or phosphors isn't because it is used for its flammable properties. Is it awful and horrible yes in every way possible, but thats what almost any use of a weapon is. And incendiary weapons have been used in warfare for centuries plus now, and unless we can war over all, people are going to keep using them. The point isn't banning cruel weapons, the point is for banning weapons used for their toxicity.
|
On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question.
the us govt doesn't hold any moral high ground over assad when it comes to choice of whip. remember to stretch.
|
On September 07 2013 10:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:38 PiPoGevy wrote:
Assad is bad, FSA is bad as it is plagued with Al-Qaeda, an invasion will be like the
Most stupidest idea as who you going to put into power, Syrians won't accept a puppet made government by the US,
And the Syrians themselves will be fighting over each other on who to control the country, if Shia wins Al-Qaeda will have a bitch, if Sunni wins Hezbollah will have a bitch, there is no way in hell they will allow a Christian as president, Alawites will most likely be barred from entering government, so basically, what's left ? I'm not really convinced that Assad is bad, given how half the country supports him and people protest in his favor against Obama in some countries he visits. I doubt that he's worse than what the Muslim Brotherhood will put up. If he's responsible for the chemical weapons, he obviously has to go though. A law that isn't enforced might as well not be a law at all.
Well he's obviously not a good guy considering how he responded to the beginnings with protests and demonstrations and how everything escalated into a civil war.
There's no way he should be allowed remain in power chemical weapons or not . ( at least in my opinion )
The big question though is who should be in power ? Is there someone that isn't an extremist that will get accepted ? With Assad gone the whole rebel forces could start to fight each other even harder and split into even more factions .
This whole thing is a giant mess with seemingly no acceptable out.
|
On September 07 2013 11:06 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. the us govt doesn't hold any moral high ground over assad when it comes to choice of whip. remember to stretch.
I'm sorry please clarify that? I think you are claiming the us doesn't hold the moral high ground about chemical weapons, despite the mental gymnastics you are employing to accuse the US of using them, but the point has never been some moral high ground, its the fact that the world has expected the US to play world police for near a century now. That would ideally be the role the UN plays, but the politics of the council means it is very hard to achieve anything. Whether it is right or wrong isn't the argument to be had here, but the whole world is expecting the US to play world police these days, because the UN cant. Something has to be done in situations like this, and for better or worse, people look to the US, the UN and NATO to step in.
|
On September 07 2013 11:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 11:06 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. the us govt doesn't hold any moral high ground over assad when it comes to choice of whip. remember to stretch. I'm sorry please clarify that? I think you are claiming the us doesn't hold the moral high ground about chemical weapons, despite the mental gymnastics you are employing to accuse the US of using them, but the point has never been some moral high ground, its the fact that the world has expected the US to play world police for near a century now. That would ideally be the role the UN plays, but the politics of the council means it is very hard to achieve anything. Whether it is right or wrong isn't the argument to be had here, but the whole world is expecting the US to play world police these days, because the UN cant. Something has to be done in situations like this, and for better or worse, people look to the US, the UN and NATO to step in.
i have no clue what you are talking about.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 07 2013 11:11 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 10:09 LegalLord wrote:On September 07 2013 09:38 PiPoGevy wrote:
Assad is bad, FSA is bad as it is plagued with Al-Qaeda, an invasion will be like the
Most stupidest idea as who you going to put into power, Syrians won't accept a puppet made government by the US,
And the Syrians themselves will be fighting over each other on who to control the country, if Shia wins Al-Qaeda will have a bitch, if Sunni wins Hezbollah will have a bitch, there is no way in hell they will allow a Christian as president, Alawites will most likely be barred from entering government, so basically, what's left ? I'm not really convinced that Assad is bad, given how half the country supports him and people protest in his favor against Obama in some countries he visits. I doubt that he's worse than what the Muslim Brotherhood will put up. If he's responsible for the chemical weapons, he obviously has to go though. A law that isn't enforced might as well not be a law at all. Well he's obviously not a good guy considering how he responded to the beginnings with protests and demonstrations and how everything escalated into a civil war. There's no way he should be allowed remain in power chemical weapons or not . ( at least in my opinion ) The big question though is who should be in power ? Is there someone that isn't an extremist that will get accepted ? With Assad gone the whole rebel forces could start to fight each other even harder and split into even more factions . This whole thing is a giant mess with seemingly no acceptable out.
Dictatorship is the game the MidEast plays. And to me, it seems like Assad is really not that bad compared to the more evil dictators in the area.
On September 07 2013 10:53 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. Wait let me get this straight. The west wants to go in because the use of CW is abhorrent. CW is abhorrent because it causes extreme suffering and is inhumane to its victims thus it is on moral grounds that the intervention is required. But because of a technicality WP is not listed as a CW so we can employ cruel weaponry without repercussion. So much for moral reasons.
No.
Chemical weapons are not banned because they are inhumane. They are banned because they are indiscriminate and cause a lot of collateral damage.
|
On September 07 2013 11:23 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 11:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 11:06 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. the us govt doesn't hold any moral high ground over assad when it comes to choice of whip. remember to stretch. I'm sorry please clarify that? I think you are claiming the us doesn't hold the moral high ground about chemical weapons, despite the mental gymnastics you are employing to accuse the US of using them, but the point has never been some moral high ground, its the fact that the world has expected the US to play world police for near a century now. That would ideally be the role the UN plays, but the politics of the council means it is very hard to achieve anything. Whether it is right or wrong isn't the argument to be had here, but the whole world is expecting the US to play world police these days, because the UN cant. Something has to be done in situations like this, and for better or worse, people look to the US, the UN and NATO to step in. i have no clue what you are talking about.
I wasn't sure what you were talking about so I responded to what I thought you were saying. How about you clarify your statement that I responded to and we'll reset this discussion?
|
On September 07 2013 11:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 11:11 s3rp wrote:On September 07 2013 10:09 LegalLord wrote:On September 07 2013 09:38 PiPoGevy wrote:
Assad is bad, FSA is bad as it is plagued with Al-Qaeda, an invasion will be like the
Most stupidest idea as who you going to put into power, Syrians won't accept a puppet made government by the US,
And the Syrians themselves will be fighting over each other on who to control the country, if Shia wins Al-Qaeda will have a bitch, if Sunni wins Hezbollah will have a bitch, there is no way in hell they will allow a Christian as president, Alawites will most likely be barred from entering government, so basically, what's left ? I'm not really convinced that Assad is bad, given how half the country supports him and people protest in his favor against Obama in some countries he visits. I doubt that he's worse than what the Muslim Brotherhood will put up. If he's responsible for the chemical weapons, he obviously has to go though. A law that isn't enforced might as well not be a law at all. Well he's obviously not a good guy considering how he responded to the beginnings with protests and demonstrations and how everything escalated into a civil war. There's no way he should be allowed remain in power chemical weapons or not . ( at least in my opinion ) The big question though is who should be in power ? Is there someone that isn't an extremist that will get accepted ? With Assad gone the whole rebel forces could start to fight each other even harder and split into even more factions . This whole thing is a giant mess with seemingly no acceptable out. Dictatorship is the game the MidEast plays. And to me, it seems like Assad is really not that bad compared to the more evil dictators in the area.
Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 10:53 yandere991 wrote:On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. Wait let me get this straight. The west wants to go in because the use of CW is abhorrent. CW is abhorrent because it causes extreme suffering and is inhumane to its victims thus it is on moral grounds that the intervention is required. But because of a technicality WP is not listed as a CW so we can employ cruel weaponry without repercussion. So much for moral reasons. No. Chemical weapons are not banned because they are inhumane. They are banned because they are indiscriminate and cause a lot of collateral damage.
Maybe but Assad went too far even without the chemical weapons to ever to able to go back to a normal status quo. The best he can do now is resign and leave and hope he doesn't get persued. ( which he won't do ) . He burned way too many bringdes with important players in the region to continue like nothing happened. Syria won't have peace again as long as Assad is in power i'm pretty certain of that. There's no way the Turks the Saudis ,Quatar will stop funding the rebels. And especially the guys with oil ain't be running out of money anytime soon.
Now one could argue without him there might not be peace either and thats not wrong . But at least there could be a chance no matter how slim it might be. As long as he's still there there's def. not going to be any kind of peace guaranteed.
|
On September 07 2013 11:41 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On September 07 2013 11:11 s3rp wrote:On September 07 2013 10:09 LegalLord wrote:On September 07 2013 09:38 PiPoGevy wrote:
Assad is bad, FSA is bad as it is plagued with Al-Qaeda, an invasion will be like the
Most stupidest idea as who you going to put into power, Syrians won't accept a puppet made government by the US,
And the Syrians themselves will be fighting over each other on who to control the country, if Shia wins Al-Qaeda will have a bitch, if Sunni wins Hezbollah will have a bitch, there is no way in hell they will allow a Christian as president, Alawites will most likely be barred from entering government, so basically, what's left ? I'm not really convinced that Assad is bad, given how half the country supports him and people protest in his favor against Obama in some countries he visits. I doubt that he's worse than what the Muslim Brotherhood will put up. If he's responsible for the chemical weapons, he obviously has to go though. A law that isn't enforced might as well not be a law at all. Well he's obviously not a good guy considering how he responded to the beginnings with protests and demonstrations and how everything escalated into a civil war. There's no way he should be allowed remain in power chemical weapons or not . ( at least in my opinion ) The big question though is who should be in power ? Is there someone that isn't an extremist that will get accepted ? With Assad gone the whole rebel forces could start to fight each other even harder and split into even more factions . This whole thing is a giant mess with seemingly no acceptable out. Dictatorship is the game the MidEast plays. And to me, it seems like Assad is really not that bad compared to the more evil dictators in the area.
On September 07 2013 10:53 yandere991 wrote:On September 07 2013 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 07 2013 09:47 nunez wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...i see we have already started the gymnastics. its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question. Wait let me get this straight. The west wants to go in because the use of CW is abhorrent. CW is abhorrent because it causes extreme suffering and is inhumane to its victims thus it is on moral grounds that the intervention is required. But because of a technicality WP is not listed as a CW so we can employ cruel weaponry without repercussion. So much for moral reasons. No. Chemical weapons are not banned because they are inhumane. They are banned because they are indiscriminate and cause a lot of collateral damage. Maybe but Assad went too far even without the chemical weapons to ever to able to go back to a normal status quo. The best he can do now is resign and leave and hope he doesn't get persued. ( which he won't do ) . He burned way too many bringdes with important players in the region to continue like nothing happened. Syria won't have peace again as long as Assad is in power i'm pretty certain of that. There's no way the Turks the Saudis ,Quatar will stop funding the rebels. And especially the guys with oil ain't be running out of money anytime soon. Now one could argue without him there might not be peace either and thats not wrong . But at least there could be a chance no matter how slim it might be. As long as he's still there there's def. not going to be any kind of peace guaranteed.
Right now his only hope of getting out of this with any kind of power wealth or a free life, is the hope that Russia plus the apparent no win situation keep the west out, and he wins the war. Thats the only outcome he will accept.
|
I heard he already lied in over 252 instances since taking power.
|
If white phosphorus is a chemical weapon
So is every single kind of explosive
I mean high explosives whatever mixture they're using these days and white phosphorus both injure and kill through heat and pressure caused by a chemical reaction
There isn't any difference being covered in burning white phosphorus or being in the middle of an explosion with conventional explosives
If you think WP is some kind of awful savage weapon then how about some fuel-air bombs they are almost identical in their effects on the human body (you're a smear on the ground or you're vaporized or you're horribly mutilated with your skin sloughing off your body)
So if you want to argue that WP is a chemical weapon then so is every kind of weapon that deals its damage primarily through an explosion. Tank shell artillery shell aerial bomb naval gun shell conventional missile warhead shoulder-launched missile fuel-air bomb whatever.
Everybody uses WMD if that''s the case.
Ever seen pictures of tank crew survivors from WW2 who got hulled or had their tank's turret blown off by an enemy AP round ? Their burns don't look a single bit better than the burns of someone who was hit with white phosphorus.
|
i guess people gave up on incorrectly identifying them as chemical weapons and decided to change the topic. okay then.
|
On September 07 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 09:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote:On September 06 2013 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.htmlPlease just read this article describing the huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer due to use of depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus by US troops over there..... How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. ?.... It's in the link i posted in the quote tree.Try expand the quotes. Here is another source http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-aboutIn 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death. In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied." that is a highly questionable source. do you have anything showing that depleted uranium or white phosphorous are actually classified as chemical weapons under teh various treaties, etc. that ban their use. because so far my research shows that they are legitimately used in war.
The problem with this hypothesis is that it's hard to get scientific research teams into Iraq to conduct thorough investigations, also there's no data on the long term effect of depleted uranium outside of Iraq.
The fact is that if you think the USA will "lose credibility" voting against action, you promote the war machine of the USA. Why the fuck is it our problem what happens in some horrible country on the other side of the world? It's just insane. I have an idea, if we really "care" about the people over there, why don't we just let all the refugees immigrate to the states! What a wonderful use of our money, I'm sure everybody would get behind such a just and noble cause, for the good of mankind. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
