|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
Zurich15365 Posts
On September 12 2013 21:16 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 20:58 zatic wrote:So following that logic, it wouldn't really matter if the US would strike back at Assad with conventional missiles or chemical weapons, since they are equally bad? You guys can't be serious. On September 12 2013 20:45 Leporello wrote:
Dozens? You have no idea. Dozens, yes. Do the math yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#StatisticsSure it sucks getting a leg blown off by a missile. Still nowhere near comparable dying from nerve gas. On September 12 2013 20:42 schaf wrote:
Still, I don't think Assad is able to reach the kill counter of all drone strikes with his weapons... The C-Weapon attack killed an estimated 1400 people. That is half of the casualties of the entire drone strike program of the past decade. With a single attack. So, yes, he is able to reach that counter, easily. They are called WMDs for a reason. Or are you comparing one large-scale chemical attack to one single-solitary drone strike?!!!! Because do you not see how ridiculous that is? It's like comparing a bomb to a bullet.
Of course I am. And it is completely ridiculous. And it is like comparing a bomb to a bullet.
Which is why I am saying you can't compare WMD's like poison gas to drone strikes, and that nerve gas is a many many many times more terrible weapon.
|
By the own link you used, we killed thousands of civilians in Pakistan.
That's in Pakistan. Small-scale operations. You don't use statistics from Iraq, or even Afghanistan. But Iraq would be the more appropriate comparison. Populated areas, concrete buildings, etc.
Saying we'd only be killings "dozens" in Syria is absolutely delusional. Donald Rumsfeld couldn't have done better.
|
@zatic
burning people and causing increase in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in the population for years in that area is pretty horrible, yes.
i think the way you deal with numbers is pretty shameful if by 'a few with missiles' you are referring to the number of people who have been murdered by us drones, but i hope i am misunderstanding you.
edit: don't forget yemen leo...
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On September 12 2013 21:24 Leporello wrote:
By the own link you used, we killed thousands of civilians in Pakistan.
That's in Pakistan. Small-scale operations. You don't use statistics from Iraq, or even Afghanistan. But Iraq would be the more appropriate comparison. Populated areas, concrete buildings, etc.
Saying we'd only be killings "dozens" in Syria is absolutely delusional.
OK, I think we can really shorten this:
If you seriously say that using chemical weapons on civilians (or, anywhere for that matter) is more or less the same morally than using conventional means like explosives than fine. In the end, that is just opinion, and not really debatable.
|
On September 12 2013 21:21 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:16 Leporello wrote:On September 12 2013 20:58 zatic wrote:So following that logic, it wouldn't really matter if the US would strike back at Assad with conventional missiles or chemical weapons, since they are equally bad? You guys can't be serious. On September 12 2013 20:45 Leporello wrote:
Dozens? You have no idea. Dozens, yes. Do the math yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#StatisticsSure it sucks getting a leg blown off by a missile. Still nowhere near comparable dying from nerve gas. On September 12 2013 20:42 schaf wrote:
Still, I don't think Assad is able to reach the kill counter of all drone strikes with his weapons... The C-Weapon attack killed an estimated 1400 people. That is half of the casualties of the entire drone strike program of the past decade. With a single attack. So, yes, he is able to reach that counter, easily. They are called WMDs for a reason. Or are you comparing one large-scale chemical attack to one single-solitary drone strike?!!!! Because do you not see how ridiculous that is? It's like comparing a bomb to a bullet. Of course I am. And it is completely ridiculous. And it is like comparing a bomb to a bullet. Which is why I am saying you can't compare WMD's like poison gas to drone strikes, and that nerve gas is a many many many times more terrible weapon.
Let me put it this way: We've killed more Iraqi civilians in our invasion of Iraq, than Syrian civilians were killed by nerve gas. Did we use nerve gas in Iraq? No. Yet we killed more people.
How is that possible?
And what a wonderful place Iraq is now that we invaded Iraq and killed Saddam, who also gassed his own people. (that was sarcasm)
|
Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fxq7Ew0.png)
Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that.
|
Really good letter by Putin to the NYTimes.
I especially like this paragraph:
"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded."
|
On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that.
This isn't about the UN response, though, is it? No one is arguing about the UN's policy and response to chemical weapons, which is far different than what Obama is doing.
This is what I hate about politics. By somehow simply trying to establish the fact that conventional weapons are capable of killing as many as WMDs, which should just be a simple and easily observable fact, I'm somehow arguing that WMDs be allowed? No.
Of course chemical/nuclear/biological WMDs are bad. The question is does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use, even though that war is going to kill even more people? The UN doesn't apply. They don't have a serious military force. They aren't the ones that are going to be bombing Syria, nor will it be their decision. I highly appreciate the UN's response to Syria, if we're going to go there, but the UN isn't telling Obama what to do about Syria.
|
so if the FSA doesn't get the weapons it means the al-qaeda, al-nusra get them? ...
|
On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that.
i wonder who she thinks she's fooling with some comical ali's say-so.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On September 12 2013 21:46 Leporello wrote:
Of course WMDs are bad. The question is does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use?
No, that wasn't the question. The question was if WMDs are worse than conventional weapons. Here, this is what I was replying to:
On September 12 2013 18:41 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 17:40 zatic wrote:On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
@Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit. Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious. I really can't understand you guys. "inhumane method of killing other people"... I find it a stretch to compare it to lethal injections since that's a very controlled murder, but comparing it to say signature strikes is not a stretch at all. While of course the preferred way of killing is to make it quick, in my opinion the action of taking life still outweighs the suffering the person endures in those last moments.
I did not mention a strike on Assad at all and never argued for or against it.
|
On September 12 2013 21:53 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:46 Leporello wrote:
Of course WMDs are bad. The question is does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use? No, that wasn't the question. The question was if WMDs are worse than conventional weapons. Here, this is what I was replying to: Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 18:41 Zarahtra wrote:On September 12 2013 17:40 zatic wrote:On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
@Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit. Thank you, the more and more absurd comparisons of chemical weapons to ANY other form of dieing are really getting obnoxious. I really can't understand you guys. "inhumane method of killing other people"... I find it a stretch to compare it to lethal injections since that's a very controlled murder, but comparing it to say signature strikes is not a stretch at all. While of course the preferred way of killing is to make it quick, in my opinion the action of taking life still outweighs the suffering the person endures in those last moments. I did not mention a strike on Assad at all and never argued for or against it.
i don't see how that translates to "killing a couple of guys with missiles vs killing hundreds with chemical weapons". and i guess you are not going to address the aftermath of white phosphorous (or conventional weapons as us and israel likes to call it).
|
On September 12 2013 21:46 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that. This isn't about the UN response, though, is it? No one is arguing about the UN's policy and response to chemical weapons, which is far different than what Obama is doing. This is what I hate about politics. By somehow simply trying to establish the fact that conventional weapons are capable of killing as many as WMDs, which should just be a simple and easily observable fact, I'm somehow arguing that WMDs be allowed? No. Of course WMDs are bad. The question is does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use, even though that war is going to kill even more people? The UN doesn't apply. They don't have a serious military force. They aren't the ones that are going to be bombing Syria, nor will it be their decision. I highly appreciate the UN's response to Syria.
And you ignore that when it comes to international law and all institutions, the CW convention and the UN are the touch stone for the discussion. Furthermore, those have cemented the thinking of countries and experts on the issues. So, your opinion on the use of conventional weapons in enforcing CW prohibitions is out of touch with reality.
And, yes, by stating the fact that conventional weapons can kill as much as CW (not WMD, btw, you ARE "arguing that WMDsCWs be allowed" because if you cannot enforce CW prohibitions, they are de facto permitted. CW are exceptional because they actually license forced intervention. There aren't many such things in international law. You want to remove the enforcing force of international law, effectively negating international law in its entirety.
P.S. That's what Putin wants to achieve with his proposal and op-ed - to delay and water down a response to such an extent that Assad is not touched (if German intelligence reports are true, Assad didn't want to use CW, his brother did, so removing CW (that he's not supposed to have) does not weaken him).
P.P.S. Learn how the UN works. If a UN resolution passes among its members and the UNSC, it licenses a response. The response will be carried out by voluntary contributions by different countries.
|
On September 12 2013 21:48 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that. i wonder who she thinks she's fooling with some comical ali's say-so.
Did you just call Idriss a comical ali?!
|
On September 12 2013 22:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:46 Leporello wrote:On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that. This isn't about the UN response, though, is it? No one is arguing about the UN's policy and response to chemical weapons, which is far different than what Obama is doing. This is what I hate about politics. By somehow simply trying to establish the fact that conventional weapons are capable of killing as many as WMDs, which should just be a simple and easily observable fact, I'm somehow arguing that WMDs be allowed? No. Of course WMDs are bad. The question is does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use, even though that war is going to kill even more people? The UN doesn't apply. They don't have a serious military force. They aren't the ones that are going to be bombing Syria, nor will it be their decision. I highly appreciate the UN's response to Syria. And you ignore that when it comes to international law and all institutions, the CW convention and the UN are the touch stone for the discussion. Furthermore, those have cemented the thinking of countries and experts on the issues. So, your opinion on the use of conventional weapons in enforcing CW prohibitions is out of touch with reality. And, yes, by stating the fact that conventional weapons can kill as much as CW (not WMD, btw, you ARE "arguing that WMDsCWs be allowed" because if you cannot enforce CW prohibitions, they are de facto permitted. CW are exceptional because they actually license forced intervention. There aren't many such things in international law. You want to remove the enforcing force of international law, effectively negating international law in its entirety. P.S. That's what Putin wants to achieve with his proposal and op-ed - to delay and water down a response to such an extent that Assad is not touched (if German intelligence reports are true, Assad didn't want to use CW, his brother did, so removing CW (that he's not supposed to have) does not weaken him). P.P.S. Learn how the UN works. If a UN resolution passes among its members and the UNSC, it licenses a response. The response will be carried out by voluntary contributions by different countries.
Excellent post Ghan, I'm right with ya.
|
Exclusive: U.N. Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack
Under the terms of its mandate, however, the U.N. inspectors are only authorized to conclude whether chemical weapons have been used in Syria, not assign responsibility for their use.
"I know they have gotten very rich samples -- biomedical and environmental -- and they have interviewed victims, doctors and nurses," said the Western official. "It seems they are very happy with the wealth of evidence they got." The official, who declined to speak on the record because of the secrecy surrounding the U.N. investigation, could not identify the specific agents detected by the inspector team, but said, "You can conclude from the type of evidence the [identity of the] author."
Source.
|
On September 12 2013 22:03 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:48 nunez wrote:On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that. i wonder who she thinks she's fooling with some comical ali's say-so. Did you just call Idriss a comical ali?!
i guess the answer to my question is evident.
|
On September 12 2013 22:05 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 22:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 12 2013 21:48 nunez wrote:On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that. i wonder who she thinks she's fooling with some comical ali's say-so. Did you just call Idriss a comical ali?! i guess the answer to my question is evident.
Then you are insane. Idriss is the leader of the rebels (although the extremist ones don't all answer to him as needed, but the US isn't arming the extremists). When he says he has received no US weapons, he knows that no US weapons have arrived.
|
On September 12 2013 22:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 21:46 Leporello wrote:On September 12 2013 21:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Regarding Obama administration claims that they are now shipping weapons to rebels: Regarding the discussion on "we used CW" or "conventional weapons are as bad as CW", you're all talking out of your ass. No-one who's actually making decisions regarding CW or foreign intervention uses those arguments because they are nonsense. CW are weapons listed in the CW convention. That convention and the UN specify different responses to CW compared to conventional weapons. You cannot side-step that. This isn't about the UN response, though, is it? No one is arguing about the UN's policy and response to chemical weapons, which is far different than what Obama is doing. This is what I hate about politics. By somehow simply trying to establish the fact that conventional weapons are capable of killing as many as WMDs, which should just be a simple and easily observable fact, I'm somehow arguing that WMDs be allowed? No. Of course WMDs are bad. The question is does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use, even though that war is going to kill even more people? The UN doesn't apply. They don't have a serious military force. They aren't the ones that are going to be bombing Syria, nor will it be their decision. I highly appreciate the UN's response to Syria. And you ignore that when it comes to international law and all institutions, the CW convention and the UN are the touch stone for the discussion. Furthermore, those have cemented the thinking of countries and experts on the issues. So, your opinion on the use of conventional weapons in enforcing CW prohibitions is out of touch with reality. And, yes, by stating the fact that conventional weapons can kill as much as CW (not WMD, btw, you ARE "arguing that WMDsCWs be allowed" because if you cannot enforce CW prohibitions, they are de facto permitted. CW are exceptional because they actually license forced intervention. There aren't many such things in international law. You want to remove the enforcing force of international law, effectively negating international law in its entirety. P.S. That's what Putin wants to achieve with his proposal and op-ed - to delay and water down a response to such an extent that Assad is not touched (if German intelligence reports are true, Assad didn't want to use CW, his brother did, so removing CW (that he's not supposed to have) does not weaken him). P.P.S. Learn how the UN works. If a UN resolution passes among its members and the UNSC, it licenses a response. The response will be carried out by voluntary contributions by different countries.
This is sensational and off-base, and misleading.
The UN hasn't even passed a resolution on Syria. You're talking about a hypothetical that hasn't even happened yet. And if that resolution is passed, it is of absolutely no obligation to America to invade Syria. We do not run the UN, nor vice-versa.
You're throwing the UN into this for absolutely no reason. Other than perhaps arguing from a false-sense of authority.
Yes, if America invades, it will use a future UN resolution as basis for that invasion. That is not an obligation, it is a choice.
A choice, by the way, that many other countries, even those that may vote to pass the resolution, will NOT choose.
And, yes, by stating the fact that conventional weapons can kill as much as CW (not WMD, btw) you ARE "arguing that WMDsCWs be allowed" because if you cannot enforce CW prohibitions, they are de facto permitted.
No. By stating conventional weapons can kill as many people as chemical weapons, I am stating the absolutely verifiable fact that conventional weapons can kill as many people as chemical weapons.
It's a fact. A very simple, logical, and inarguable fact. You don't even argue against the fact. You just try to dismiss it via horrible "logic".
You want to remove the enforcing force of international law, effectively negating international law in its entirety. I want to remove international law a whole lot less than you want to put words in people's mouths.
|
So you can drop a 2 liter soda bottle of explosives on a city and kill more than 2000 people who aren't all in the same place with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
