EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 78
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
| ||
|
FallenStar
Spain118 Posts
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me. Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians. But you can't do that with chemical weapons. They'll go were the wind blows, and maybe contaminate water and food. You can't control the air, or the water, or the food. That's why they're forbidden, just like biological weapons (viruses) and radioactive weapons. And yeah, bombs are done with chemicals, but they work in a different way. Chemical weapons are meant to spread non-violently, as a gas most of the time, and do their work in a non-aggresive manner, while bombs work by exploding. So it's not the same. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
in theory you could have control over who you kill with chemical weapons as well. if you had enough information and sufficient technology. in practice that is not the case for drone strikes or chemical weapons. you could try to draw some line in the sand saying if you need this much information times this much technology it is not ok, but that's another argument. | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2767 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:00 FallenStar wrote: Thing is, you can "control" who you're shooting. You can control who you're stabbing. Yeah, they'll die, and in a pretty disgusting way, but, IN THEORY, you have control over who to kill and who not. You have a person right in front of you, and have the possibility to decide if he's an enemy or not, and then shoot or not. And sometimes it fails, sometimes there's evil people that kill civilians. But you can't do that with chemical weapons. They'll go were the wind blows, and maybe contaminate water and food. You can't control the air, or the water, or the food. That's why they're forbidden, just like biological weapons (viruses) and radioactive weapons. And yeah, bombs are done with chemicals, but they work in a different way. Chemical weapons are meant to spread non-violently, as a gas most of the time, and do their work in a non-aggresive manner, while bombs work by exploding. So it's not the same. Its partly that but its also that they are cruel. Shotguns, landmines, white phospherus, clusterbombs, fragmention rounds and a whole host of different weapons are also forbidden for a variety of reasons but in those cases no one really cares. Chemical weapons are nasty because as you say you cant be sure where they go, they kill in an incredibly cruel way and they can be used on a pretty large scale. But they are really no worse than landmines. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:00 FallenStar wrote: But you can't do that with chemical weapons. They'll go were the wind blows, and maybe contaminate water and food. You can't control the air, or the water, or the food. That's why they're forbidden, just like biological weapons (viruses) and radioactive weapons. And yeah, bombs are done with chemicals, but they work in a different way. Chemical weapons are meant to spread non-violently, as a gas most of the time, and do their work in a non-aggressive manner, while bombs work by exploding. So it's not the same. Um, what? I wasn't aware that it was possible to attribute emotional states to weaponry. Furthermore, plenty of conventional weapons violate the boundaries you've set above. Strong pesticides and defoliants get into the food and water, many with half-lives far longer than, say, agents of the VX series, or even [banned!] tear gas. Fire is inherently difficult to control, but incendiaries aren't banned. There's absolutely nothing discriminate about land mines, yet we use those as well. Saying that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable is also BS; it depends on how much is used, where they're used. and local conditions. Nothing uncontrollable about using one gram of VX on a cave system or a bunker in the middle of nowhere. On August 28 2013 06:13 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Its partly that but its also that they are cruel. Shotguns, landmines, white phospherus, clusterbombs, fragmention rounds and a whole host of different weapons are also forbidden for a variety of reasons but in those cases no one really cares. Chemical weapons are nasty because as you say you cant be sure where they go, they kill in an incredibly cruel way and they can be used on a pretty large scale. But they are really no worse than landmines. It's legal to light someone on fire with napalm and let them burn to death...yet is illegal to use the same expanding bullets every police force in the first world uses. The rules of war are very patchy. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9840 Posts
On August 28 2013 05:08 oranget wrote: User was warned for this post Well this is interesting. The problem with things like this is that it could just as easily be a lie. The 'leaked documents' prove nothing in reality, as we have no source for them. | ||
|
Meerel
Germany713 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9840 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:25 Meerel wrote: ww3 comes this weak an no one cares...its hilarious and sad. i really hope russia, iran and china act this time. I hope its not WW3. Rome 2 is out next week, and a thermonuclear war could totally put a downer on it  | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Chemicals also have persistence problems that may leave lasting toxicity in areas the weapon has been applied. In general, weapons conventions have targeted arms that have high collateral damage, but many nations still continue to stock them. Of course, not all conventions of war make sense. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote: I hope its not WW3. Rome 2 is out next week, and a thermonuclear war could totally put a downer on it All China cares about is Business, Iran won't get into a conflict with NATO no matter how strong the rhetoric, and Russia is basically attempting to save face. As Putin already has enough bad PR domestically he doesn't need to lose more influence in the world let alone one more Ally in the Middle East. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:00 dsousa wrote: Why does the US trust the FSA so much to believe they couldn't have done this? They don't care, wars are not fought for humanitarian reasons | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: All China cares about is Business, Iran won't get into a conflict with NATO no matter how strong the rhetoric, and Russia is basically attempting to save face. As Putin already has enough bad PR domestically he doesn't need to lose more influence in the world let alone one more Ally in the Middle East. Exactly, Empire unopposed + Show Spoiler + Wesley Clark talking about a conversations with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 @2m50s | ||
|
FallenStar
Spain118 Posts
1.- They're too powerful (not sure about this one, there will always be gas masks and all that). 2.- Because of concentration camps in WW2. I think 2 is more probable, but mostly because I can't think of any other good reason. Thoughts? | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:38 FallenStar wrote: Ok, I was wrong. But if so, why are chemical weapons forbidden then? The only two reasons I can think of are: 1.- They're too powerful (not sure about this one, there will always be gas masks and all that). 2.- Because of concentration camps in WW2. I think 2 is more probable, but mostly because I can't think of any other good reason. Thoughts? Don't know, but I think it has to do with the "random" factor. If you throw a bomb it explodes where it falls. Gas can be distributed by the wind in areas you didn't wan't to attack. Gasmasks don't necessarily protect you, you need different filters for different gasses, if you put on the wrong one you are fucked. You would basically need a full body condom and the right filters for the mask to be safe. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:38 FallenStar wrote: Ok, I was wrong. But if so, why are chemical weapons forbidden then? The only two reasons I can think of are: 1.- They're too powerful (not sure about this one, there will always be gas masks and all that). 2.- Because of concentration camps in WW2. I think 2 is more probable, but mostly because I can't think of any other good reason. Thoughts? Because of WW1 many people were blinded and thousands killed because of chemical weapons. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:38 FallenStar wrote: Ok, I was wrong. But if so, why are chemical weapons forbidden then? The only two reasons I can think of are: 1.- They're too powerful (not sure about this one, there will always be gas masks and all that). 2.- Because of concentration camps in WW2. I think 2 is more probable, but mostly because I can't think of any other good reason. Thoughts? The political reason involves World War One and the use of gas in trench warfare. Civilian casualties and discriminatory effects had nothing to do with its banning. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10142 Posts
On August 28 2013 06:38 FallenStar wrote: Ok, I was wrong. But if so, why are chemical weapons forbidden then? The only two reasons I can think of are: 1.- They're too powerful (not sure about this one, there will always be gas masks and all that). 2.- Because of concentration camps in WW2. I think 2 is more probable, but mostly because I can't think of any other good reason. Thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon | ||
|
HeartOfTheSwarm
Niue585 Posts
Assad uses phosphorus bombs and napalm sourceSyria's opposition coalition said President Bashar al-Assad's forces had dropped phosphorus bombs and napalm on civilians in rural Aleppo on Monday, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens. The alleged attack occurred as the United States and its European and Middle Eastern partners honed plans to punish Assad for a major poison gas attack last week on the suburbs of the capital, Damascus, that killed hundreds of civilians. Video footage uploaded on the Internet, apparently of Monday's attack, showed doctors frantically smearing white cream on the reddened skin of several screaming people, many of them young boys. "Assad's military aircraft have hit populated areas with the internationally prohibited phosphorus bombs and napalm," the opposition coalition said in a statement. It was not possible to independently confirm the report. There have been previous unconfirmed reports of the use of phosphorus bombs by Assad's forces during Syria's conflict, now in its third year. [Reuters] | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed.” source Article also mentions how the Saudi's are pressuring the Russians to keep their noses out of Western intervention in Syria in exchange for an assurance of security at the Winter Olympics. Saudi's basically admitting they control the Chechen Terrorists operating out of that region. All hail the Mighty PETRODOLLAR! | ||
| ||
