|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 12 2013 22:09 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 22:02 Ghanburighan wrote: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: ![[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. 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. Show nested quote +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".
If it's sensational what I wrote, prove it, don't claim it.
Here's a link to all UN CW resolutions. It frames the discussion, not this specific case. Yet, you are still wrong that the UN has no resolutions regarding Syria, there is a resolution to send in CW inspectors into Syria with a mandate to investigate CW use.
Show nested quote +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.
You delete your own text to make yourself look better. Here's the rest of your quote:
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?
So, yes, you claim that because conventional weapons can kill as many people (not discussed by anyone else but you), you explicitly question the enforcement of the CW prohibition. Which negates that very prohibition.
|
On September 12 2013 22:09 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 22:05 nunez wrote: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.
while i might score above average on the koo-koo scale, i am not blinded by zealotry and still able to apply critical thinking.
|
On September 12 2013 22:14 Ettick wrote:
So you can drop a 2 liter soda bottle of explosives on a city and kill more than 2000 people with it?
No, you can drop thousands of bombs. No one drops a 2 liter bottle of explosives and expects to win a war. They drop thousands of them, so to speak.
Guys. Look at Iraq. Look at the casualty numbers. Saddam gassed his own people and didn't kill as many people as have been killed via the conventional warfare we brought there.
All you have to do is just look at the numbers. Look at the past 20 years in Iraq. They've been hit by chemical weapons, and conventional weapons. I'm sorry this bothers some of you so much, but the conventional weapons ended up killing more people. And we killed those people to protect them from chemical weapons....?
It's the most disgusting irony the world has probably faced in recent decades, and it's sad so many of you are oblivious to it.
|
On September 12 2013 22:15 Ghanburighan wrote:You delete your own text to make yourself look better. Here's the rest of your quote: Show nested quote +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? So, yes, you claim that because conventional weapons can kill as many people (not discussed by anyone else but you), you explicitly question the enforcement of the CW prohibition. Which negates that very prohibition.
Uh, I didn't delete that. It's still there.
I haven't deleted anything, I've only added in my edits.
I haven't put words in people's mouths, either. Or accused them of deleting things in their posts when they haven't.
But let's look at this: I asked a question. "does their existence justify large-scale conventional warfare to possibly deter their use, even though that war is going to kill even more people?"
By asking that question, you claim I'm negating the prohibition of chemical weapons. Uh, what? Sorry, it's a valid question that millions of people actually are asking themselves at this very moment. I'm sorry that question bothers you so much, but it's just a question and it's not going away.
If you have to sensationalize to this degree, I'm sorry, you don't have an argument. You're very literally beating up a straw-man of your own creation, and as long as you continue to do so, I'm just going to let you have your fun.
|
Leporello, words have consequences, so you have to be precise.
a) You did delete your own text by editing your "quote". Literally and effectively, you deleted part of the quote to make yourself look better. It would have been worse if you had gone back to edit the original post too.
b) If you do not want to be taken to "negate the prohibition of chemical weapons" then explain your ideas in a way that do not lead to that consequence. By muddying the waters by discussing conventional weapons you are undermining the enforcement of CW. And all of your double-speak will not change that.
c) Don't accuse people of sensationalism if you write stuff like this:
It's the most disgusting irony the world has probably faced in recent decades, and it's sad so many of you are oblivious to it.
Edit: I cannot believe you went and edited your quote again to make yourself look better. The original was:
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?
You did NOT ask a question. You stated that the issue in whether CW justify conventional weapon use. I.e., you suggest that it is not ok, contrary to international law and established UN practice. Which is what I was saying all along.
|
On September 12 2013 22:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 22:14 Ettick wrote:
So you can drop a 2 liter soda bottle of explosives on a city and kill more than 2000 people with it? No, you can drop thousands of bombs. No one drops a 2 liter bottle of explosives and expects to win a war. They drop thousands of them, so to speak. Guys. Look at Iraq. Look at the casualty numbers. Saddam gassed his own people and didn't kill as many people as have been killed via the conventional warfare we brought there. All you have to do is just look at the numbers. Look at the past 20 years in Iraq. They've been hit by chemical weapons, and conventional weapons. I'm sorry this bothers some of you so much, but the conventional weapons ended up killing more people. And we killed those people to protect them from chemical weapons....? It's the most disgusting irony the world has probably faced in recent decades, and it's sad so many of you are oblivious to it.
The main problem with chemical weaponry is that it is rather cheap to indiscriminately kill a lot of people with them. Also, that is all they are good for. Which means that the pure concept of them is something that is distinctly more inhuman then conventional weapons.
However, you can still use conventional weapons to the same effect as chemical weapons if you just throw around enough of them. Killing someone with explosives instead of chemicals isn't really better, the argument for explosives is that they can be targetted at military targets, while chemicals will always hit a lot of civilians. If you ignore that targetting step and just use 100x more bombs to blow up a city with conventional means instead of chemical weaponry, that is in no way better, and i doubt the people who are getting killed would be very grateful that you were nice enough to blow them up with explosives.
There should really be no difference between exploding a nuclear bomb in a city (or gassing it), and dropping a few million conventional bombs onto the city to the same effect. Both are abhorrent.
But you will never be able to convince states to give up their conventional weapons, that is just not going to happen. While it is apparently possible to make them give up ABC stuff. Less horrible weapons to kill a lot of people is a good thing. Making it more expensive to kill a lot of people is also a good thing, and it is a lot more expensive to kill the same amount of people with conventional weapons when compared to chemical weaponry.
Sadly, the ban on chemical weapons is only being used as a chess piece instead of an actual end. No one making decisions actually gives a shit about it.
The problem here is that people just can't accept their helplessness. Yes, the war in syria now is horrible. But there is just no simple solution to it. If you really thing that bombing syria will help in any way, you are delusional. It might deter further use of chemical weapons, but lets be realistic here. If Assad is certain that he loses the war, he will use them, because he has nothing to lose in that case. If the rebels lose and have access to them, they will also use them. It will be incredibly hard to prevent that from happening, and a few bombs won't help in any way.
|
On September 12 2013 22:19 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 22:14 Ettick wrote:
So you can drop a 2 liter soda bottle of explosives on a city and kill more than 2000 people with it? No, you can drop thousands of bombs. No one drops a 2 liter bottle of explosives and expects to win a war. They drop thousands of them, so to speak.
So chemical weapons are much more potent than conventional weapons.
|
But if you just drop a lot more bombs to the same effect, that is kind of irrelevant for the people getting bombed.
|
So what's stopping people from just releasing tons of gas if the end result is the same? What's stopping everyone from nuking each other?
|
|
|
why does anyone actually think that chemical weapons are worse than explosive weapons? stop and think about it for a second. both are equally bad. there's absolutely nothing that makes an explosive weapon better. both kill people. both produce crippled people. both are terrible.
you know what's actually really bad? radioactive ammunition. you know who used that? yea you know it.
sorry, not trying to provoke unneccessarily. it's just the truth, guys. it really is.
User was warned for this post
|
The fundamental problem of TL is that one cannot force people to read everything (the mods technically could, but practically not). So a poster can come into a thread, and spout some nonsense, despite there being discussion and contrary evidence to the very same nonsense on the last few pages, if not on the very same page.
|
Saying something is the truth is far less valuable than showing how that is so. That being said, "truth" isn't all that useful a term when it comes to something like weighing the differences between chemical and conventional weapons.
|
|
|
On September 12 2013 23:12 beg wrote:
why does anyone actually think that chemical weapons are worse than explosive weapons? stop and think about it for a second. both are equally bad. there's absolutely nothing that makes an explosive weapon better. both kill people. both produce crippled people. both are terrible.
you know what's actually really bad? radioactive ammunition. you know who used that? yea you know it.
sorry, not trying to provoke unneccessarily. it's just the truth, guys. it really is.
User was warned for this post
Explosive weapons are at least somewhat discriminate in who they kill and are not 100% guaranteed to kill or give permanent brain damage to whoever they hit. The same cannot be said chemical weapons.
|
On September 12 2013 23:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 22:19 Leporello wrote:On September 12 2013 22:14 Ettick wrote:
So you can drop a 2 liter soda bottle of explosives on a city and kill more than 2000 people with it? No, you can drop thousands of bombs. No one drops a 2 liter bottle of explosives and expects to win a war. They drop thousands of them, so to speak. Guys. Look at Iraq. Look at the casualty numbers. Saddam gassed his own people and didn't kill as many people as have been killed via the conventional warfare we brought there. All you have to do is just look at the numbers. Look at the past 20 years in Iraq. They've been hit by chemical weapons, and conventional weapons. I'm sorry this bothers some of you so much, but the conventional weapons ended up killing more people. And we killed those people to protect them from chemical weapons....? It's the most disgusting irony the world has probably faced in recent decades, and it's sad so many of you are oblivious to it. The facts are less types of weapons and war is better. There is 0 chance of getting people to agree to get rid of convential arms. If we can make it less chemical arms then all the better. Also chemical weapons are indiscriminate and usually create a torturous death. It's a terrible arguement that convential weapons killed more so there for chemicals weapons are fine. Heart attacks killed more people then murders so murders should be allowed? Its better for the world if chemical weapons are illeagal. And if your going to make a rule like that that everyone agrees to then you have to enforce it.
I completely agree with all of this.
If there were any indication that we could conveniently disarm Syria from chemical weapons without involving ourselves in a civil war in which we don't really belong -- and most likely causing massive destruction (via conventional weapons) as a result -- I would be all for us intervening in Syria.
But that's not the case. There is no reason to think that US intervention isn't going to just add to the death count.
Just because chemical weapons have the potential to be more devastating than conventional weapons, doesn't mean we should use any means necessary to seize chemical weapons.
These chemical weapons have existed for a while. If we wanted to intervene, we should have. Before they were used, before there was a civil war.
|
Conventional weapons are much more ''harmless'' than the chemical weapons in my opinion. Can you really control the chemical weapon ?Can you restrict its spread? Mm, not really. Does it have a really negative effect on the environment ? Yep, much worse than the conventional weapons.Conventional weapons kill fast most of the time,unless the death is caused by blood loss from a severed limb for example, although the death by conventional weapons could be really brutal. Chemical weapons,however, do not kill so fast from what I know, leaving the victims to agonize before the pass away.So, in my honest opinion, conventional weapons are the lesser of the evils, but hell, I could be wrong.
|
On September 12 2013 23:20 JimmiC wrote:
What matters is that one you can outlaw and one you can't. So it makes sense to outlaw the one you can.
Land Mines Cluster Munitions. A slight gap in the logic. Plugged
Edit: Picking and choosing when to follow international law is the new sexy.
|
I am spechless at level indoctrination some of You are exhibiting. Like this "indiscriminating" thing so many You are talking about. Weapons are made for killing, theres no difference if You are killed by gas, gene engineered virus or conventional bullet. The end result is still the same, You are dead.
Its a game of numbers, the question You need to ask Yourself is in which scenario more people die? If Assad gets bombed or not? And the answer is "WE HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA" thats the problem. I dont care about Assad holding chemical weapons. I care about people dying. We know for sure that "some" people will die if Assad gets bombed, more or less than if he is left alone? Theres no way to know. Bombing Assad might very well make the fate of Syrian people worse. I am all out for some scenario thats creates peace and ceases suffering in Syria. If that includes bombing him, all for it (too bad noone can think of proper solution). But dont bomb Syria to teach Assad a lesson, wtf sick reasoning is that?
|
There is abundant evidence that chemical weapons inflict significantly more pain and suffering then their conventional alternatives. You can say "everyone dies in the end" as much as you like; that doesn't change the fact that many consider the former an important distinction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
