Killing in war.

[Missourian]

I'm with Two Thumbs on this.

We don't care if thousands get shot to pieces, or blown to kingdom come...but use chemical weapons and OMG WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!!!

I don't see the logic in that.

Plus, if the world decided, the world better get to backing that up...

We've cleaned up enough messes...it's someone else's turn.

Saddam used chemical weapons more than once, and when we took him out, we got nothing but headaches for our troubles.

Hmm..., Would you feel better if a terrorist lobbed several canisters of Sarin gas in your local Wally World while you were shopping there, than popping off a few rounds of ammo?

If he killed everyone in the store with high explosives, or Sarin gas, would it make any difference?

I'd be just as dead.

 

[Politico]

It's a red line thing. Don't try to make sense of it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm with Two Thumbs on this.

We don't care if thousands get shot to pieces, or blown to kingdom come...but use chemical weapons and OMG WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!!!

I don't see the logic in that.

Plus, if the world decided, the world better get to backing that up...

We've cleaned up enough messes...it's someone else's turn.

Saddam used chemical weapons more than once, and when we took him out, we got nothing but headaches for our troubles.

exactly!

The body count is no different.

dead's dead

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm trying to figure out how the PM of Britain rationalizes bombing Syrians is a "humanitarian effort".

My brain's not wrapping around that one.

Killing off the population for the crimes of it's leader.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There is little defense against chemical weapons and the world governments agreed shortly after WW1 that their use should be outlawed. Simple as that.

I know it's against the law.

but really

I'm trying to kill you. What's the issue with how I make you dead?

Yea we know dead is dead, But a air burst bomb can only take out a 1000? but a chemical weapon in a city can wipe out 10,000 to 50,000 folks and like someone posted not much of a defense. A bomb will blow you up in a sec. and you wont feel a thing, chemicals take minutes... op you really should watch some old WWI movies or read up about it. "All Quiet on the Western front" is a good flick about WWI...

so b/c they work better and it sucks to be killed by one...

sorry, doesn't make sense

 

[Two Thumbs]

There is little defense against chemical weapons and the world governments agreed shortly after WW1 that their use should be outlawed. Simple as that.

I know it's against the law.

but really

I'm trying to kill you. What's the issue with how I make you dead?

Maybe you have the wrong idea about warfare. It's in't about killing. Nobody in the civilized world kills POW's. It's about using overwhelming force and strategy to overcome resistance. Poison gas kills at random. There is no possibility of surrender.

so do bombs

and if I kill more of them than they can handle, they will surrender

 

[Two Thumbs]

Since it seems like we may be going to war in Syria, b/c they use chemicals weapons.

I was wondering why? Why is killing someone with chemical weapons wronger than blowing them to tiny bits?

or wounding them badly so they slowly bleed out
tipping a wall onto them so they are crushed to death or die of dehydration b/c they are not found.
or getting burned by nape or white phosphorus?


If I'm trying to kill you and all the people around you. What the difference in how I do it? you're still as dead, the last moments may have sucked more, but I achieved the same end.

Plus if I used chemicals, the survivors or people that move in, have places to live in.

You didn't feel this way when Bush Invaded Iraq. Funny how politics charges things. Chemical weapons are wmds that can kill thousands of people; men, women and children.

yeah I did

I didn't care that kurds got gassed.

I cared that he broke his contract again and again. and it was clear, to me, that he was re-arming for possibly more war.

 

[Lipush]

Since it seems like we may be going to war in Syria, b/c they use chemicals weapons.

I was wondering why? Why is killing someone with chemical weapons wronger than blowing them to tiny bits?

or wounding them badly so they slowly bleed out
tipping a wall onto them so they are crushed to death or die of dehydration b/c they are not found.
or getting burned by nape or white phosphorus?


If I'm trying to kill you and all the people around you. What the difference in how I do it? you're still as dead, the last moments may have sucked more, but I achieved the same end.

Plus if I used chemicals, the survivors or people that move in, have places to live in.

logically, when you shoot or hit or strangle someone, you can see and know who're you doing it to.

When you release chemicals you don't. That means that unlike with bullets, which you can decide you aim on armed men and terrorists, in chemical release, the chance that you harm the uninvolved is greater, and you have less control of how many lives you take.

Even though the result can be very much the same.

 

[ABikerSailor]

With a gun, you shoot at the enemy you know that is your foe.

With a bomb, you blow up the enemy that you know is your foe, and you know there are others of their mindset around them.

With chemical weapons? You kill your enemy and anyone else in the proximity of the area of occurrence.

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.

Chemical weapons? They kill everything in the blast radius as well as those who are downwind.

Yeah..................I was part of the NBC team (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) who defended my ship, and I know what those things can do, as well as how dangerous they are. And like another poster on this thread has stated, they don't discriminate, nor are they contained to where the enemy is.

Me? I'd like to wait and see what the UN inspectors have found, but if they find that chemical warfare was used, I hope to see all of their main strongholds taken out.

Assad needs to go, and he needs to leave quickly.

 

[Decus]

Estimates say that some 120,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the conflict. How many were killed by bullets or bombs missing their target? I only ask because some say that gas is so indiscriminate.

 

[dilloduck]

Indiscriminate killing by WMDs ended WWII.

 

[chikenwing]

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.


Ya right,so why did the left cry an ocean,about civilian deaths in Iraq?? Just as many people are killed by artillery as died in this gas attack.

There is no difference.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.


Ya right,so why did the left cry an ocean,about civilian deaths in Iraq?? Just as many people are killed by artillery as died in this gas attack.

There is no difference.

War itself should be illegal if anyone is serious worried about civilian casualties or painful deaths. The thought that it's possible to have fair and painless war only increases the likelihood of another war breaking out.

 

[editec]

I think Dillo got it right way back in this thread.

dilloduck

Chemical weapons take all the profit out of war.

 

[dilloduck]

I think Dillo got it right way back in this thread.

dilloduck

Chemical weapons take all the profit out of war.

Relatively cheap, easy and effective. They can neutralize more high tech and expensive weapons. If people are so damned and determined for war they better be damn sure they can handle the consequences. Rules of war try to mask the horror of it and give the illusion that it's somehow fair.
Chemical WMDs are the poor mans nuke.
There was a great old Star Trek episode about this very thing.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

With a gun, you shoot at the enemy you know that is your foe.

With a bomb, you blow up the enemy that you know is your foe, and you know there are others of their mindset around them.

With chemical weapons? You kill your enemy and anyone else in the proximity of the area of occurrence.

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.

Chemical weapons? They kill everything in the blast radius as well as those who are downwind.

Yeah..................I was part of the NBC team (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) who defended my ship, and I know what those things can do, as well as how dangerous they are. And like another poster on this thread has stated, they don't discriminate, nor are they contained to where the enemy is.

Me? I'd like to wait and see what the UN inspectors have found, but if they find that chemical warfare was used, I hope to see all of their main strongholds taken out.

Assad needs to go, and he needs to leave quickly.

What a fucking load of absolute horseshit.

 

[JWBooth]

Is still killing and no level of state/church sanction will ever change that fact.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.


Ya right,so why did the left cry an ocean,about civilian deaths in Iraq?? Just as many people are killed by artillery as died in this gas attack.

There is no difference.

Can lead a horse to water...... One artilery shell dont kill 5,000 people.

 

[editec]

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.


Ya right,so why did the left cry an ocean,about civilian deaths in Iraq?? Just as many people are killed by artillery as died in this gas attack.

There is no difference.

Can lead a horse to water...... One artilery shell dont kill 5,000 people.

Exactly right...

The kill return on investment of artillery shells is far less efficient that some gas shells.

That is exactly why artillery shells are legal.

Higher profits for the manufacturers.

 

[Two Thumbs]

With a gun, you shoot at the enemy you know that is your foe.

With a bomb, you blow up the enemy that you know is your foe, and you know there are others of their mindset around them.

With chemical weapons? You kill your enemy and anyone else in the proximity of the area of occurrence.

Sorry..................but conventional weapons kill, but they generally only kill the enemy.

Chemical weapons? They kill everything in the blast radius as well as those who are downwind.

Yeah..................I was part of the NBC team (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) who defended my ship, and I know what those things can do, as well as how dangerous they are. And like another poster on this thread has stated, they don't discriminate, nor are they contained to where the enemy is.

Me? I'd like to wait and see what the UN inspectors have found, but if they find that chemical warfare was used, I hope to see all of their main strongholds taken out.

Assad needs to go, and he needs to leave quickly.

so chem weaps are bad only b/c they have more collateral damage.

not passing the sniff test