Which is worse?

[HereWeGoAgain]

hollow point bullets are not illegal. every one of my handguns is loaded with hollow points. I hope to never have to use one in self defense, but if I do it will be over with one or two rounds.

But back to topic. why is killing someone with poison gas worse than blowing them up with a bomb or dropping napalm on them?

For use in military action they most certainly are illegal. I assumed since we've been talking about military action and I just mentioned the Geneva convention you would get that,but apparently you were unaware that hollow points are illegal to use in a military action.
Oh..and as far as I'm concerned they can continue to kill each other and the only reason I dont like the idea of them using chem weapons is they have a tendency to kill innocents.
If they were on the open battlefield they can gas each other till the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I am quite aware that hollow points are "illegal" for military use. But cluster bombs, napalm, and 50 cal machine guns are not. Neither are cruise missiles.

Would you rather be shot by a 38 cal hollow point or a 50 cal full metal jacket? either one will make a very big hole in you.

War by rules is idiotic. Should we only allow wars to be fought with kitchen knives?

this is foolish. War is about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you, thereby making him unwilling to continue the fight. How many lives did the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima save? possibly millions.

I explained why I dont like chem weapons. They kill to many innocents.
You're well aware hollow points are illegal,yet you tried to use civilian ownership as some lame diversion? OK....

I (like most sane people) dont want anything to do with a nuclear war. Nobody wins if the players are big.
The only reason we got away with it with Japan is because nobody else had nukes.
And as bad as it was,it did save lives and stop the war so it's pretty hard to argue against it's success.

The best thing I can say about chem weapons is they most likely wont be used against our troops because we would dish out some serious retribution.
The worst thing is they're more likely to be used in a subway in NY,and as much as yankees annoy me I dont want to see them gassed.

 

[Redfish]

For use in military action they most certainly are illegal. I assumed since we've been talking about military action and I just mentioned the Geneva convention you would get that,but apparently you were unaware that hollow points are illegal to use in a military action.
Oh..and as far as I'm concerned they can continue to kill each other and the only reason I dont like the idea of them using chem weapons is they have a tendency to kill innocents.
If they were on the open battlefield they can gas each other till the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I am quite aware that hollow points are "illegal" for military use. But cluster bombs, napalm, and 50 cal machine guns are not. Neither are cruise missiles.

Would you rather be shot by a 38 cal hollow point or a 50 cal full metal jacket? either one will make a very big hole in you.

War by rules is idiotic. Should we only allow wars to be fought with kitchen knives?

this is foolish. War is about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you, thereby making him unwilling to continue the fight. How many lives did the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima save? possibly millions.

I explained why I dont like chem weapons. They kill to many innocents.
You're well aware hollow points are illegal,yet you tried to use civilian ownership as some lame diversion? OK....

I (like most sane people) dont want anything to do with a nuclear war. Nobody wins if the players are big.
The only reason we got away with it with Japan is because nobody else had nukes.
And as bad as it was,it did save lives and stop the war so it's pretty hard to argue against it's success.

The best thing I can say about chem weapons is they most likely wont be used against our troops because we would dish out some serious retribution.
The worst thing is they're more likely to be used in a subway in NY,and as much as yankees annoy me I dont want to see them gassed.

Is a gas attack in a NY subway more or less likely if we bomb Syria?

 

[Zoom-boing]

So Obama drew a red line, Syria crossed it and gassed its people, now Obama wants to bomb Syria.

When did Assad start using chem weapons against Syrians? Two weeks ago? Two years ago? How do they know it was Assad? We don't have answers to Benghazi because the investigation is on-going, but we have positive proof information that it was Assad and not the rebels or AQ who used the gas?

 

[Vox]

Sarin gas destroys the nerve endings. If exposed, your muscles will not be able to contract, and it will render you unable to breathe. Death will result soon after. There are ways to die that are worse than others, this is one of the worst. Radiation poisoning is the other.

except sarin has a direct antidote( and aa very cheap one) and when injected or self-injected - you will survive.

So no, not the worst one.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes, I am quite aware that hollow points are "illegal" for military use. But cluster bombs, napalm, and 50 cal machine guns are not. Neither are cruise missiles.

Would you rather be shot by a 38 cal hollow point or a 50 cal full metal jacket? either one will make a very big hole in you.

War by rules is idiotic. Should we only allow wars to be fought with kitchen knives?

this is foolish. War is about killing more of the enemy than he kills of you, thereby making him unwilling to continue the fight. How many lives did the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima save? possibly millions.

I explained why I dont like chem weapons. They kill to many innocents.
You're well aware hollow points are illegal,yet you tried to use civilian ownership as some lame diversion? OK....

I (like most sane people) dont want anything to do with a nuclear war. Nobody wins if the players are big.
The only reason we got away with it with Japan is because nobody else had nukes.
And as bad as it was,it did save lives and stop the war so it's pretty hard to argue against it's success.

The best thing I can say about chem weapons is they most likely wont be used against our troops because we would dish out some serious retribution.
The worst thing is they're more likely to be used in a subway in NY,and as much as yankees annoy me I dont want to see them gassed.

Is a gas attack in a NY subway more or less likely if we bomb Syria?

Bombing wont do shit. You have to put boots on the ground.
And I definitely dont want to see that.
Like I've already said. Let em kill each other then deal with who's left. If that happens to be a bunch of terrorist,so be it.
Hell,better yet sell arms to both sides and speed up the process. It's always better when some other clown dies for your country.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

It makes no sense to me why killing with chemical weapons is worse. They're both awful.

And it makes less sense to me why a norm of not using chemical weapons has to be enforced by violating the norm of not attacking countries that haven't attacked your country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries, many of them, will not apply the "why? because it is the right thing to do."

And the president deserves kudos for requiring to give input on his decision.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The reactionaries, many of them, will not apply the "why? because it is the right thing to do."

And the president deserves kudos for requiring to give input on his decision.

Nah...he's just looking for someone else to blame for his failures and lack of spine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries led by Redfish have a monumental fail here.

The OP wants to dodge the point of death by poison gas, but many posters on the Board will not permit that.

The use of such gas has been a red line for 88 years with the international world, and the president adopted it as well.

The Congressional leaders agree with the pres: that's good.

And we need to see exactly which congresscritters, lefty and liberal and middle and right and reactionary, do not.

 

[Spoonman]

I have been told that Redfish reads everything I post. Of course he does. :Lol:

Dead is dead, and when it is children, a line of morality and decency have been crossed forever.

The Syrian regime will be punished.

in that case maybe we should bomb china and india for all of the baby girls they kill

 

[Spoonman]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

It makes no sense to me why killing with chemical weapons is worse. They're both awful.

And it makes less sense to me why a norm of not using chemical weapons has to be enforced by violating the norm of not attacking countries that haven't attacked your country.

so what you're saying is that we won't attack syria until they attack us. because anything else would be a double standard, right?

 

[Zoom-boing]

So ... when did Assad start using chem weapons against Syrians?

 

[TooTall]

punished for what exactly?

the only time I see anything from jake snarkey is when someone else responds to one of his idiotic posts.

Does anyone think that some of the 100,000 already killed by Assad were not children?

yes, being gassed is a terrible way to die, but so is being gut shot.

Another lie by the anti-jewish anti-black Redfish: he always reads what I post.

His point is wrong: gas crosses the line.

Syria will be punished.

I submit that firing a Hellfire missile from a drone that kills indiscriminately innocents that are close to the target crosses the line.

 

[TooTall]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

It makes no sense to me why killing with chemical weapons is worse. They're both awful.

And it makes less sense to me why a norm of not using chemical weapons has to be enforced by violating the norm of not attacking countries that haven't attacked your country.

so what you're saying is that we won't attack syria until they attack us. because anything else would be a double standard, right?

The criteria for attacking any other nation by the US doesn't have to wait for them to fire the first shot. If it is determined that they are an 'imminent threat' to the US, a preemptive strike is authorized.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been told that Redfish reads everything I post. Of course he does. :Lol:

Dead is dead, and when it is children, a line of morality and decency have been crossed forever.

The Syrian regime will be punished.

in that case maybe we should bomb china and india for all of the baby girls they kill

False derivative analogy.

 

[Redfish]

Killing someone with chemicals or killing someone with a bullet, knife, or bomb?

Somehow we have decided that killing has degrees of badness.

Reminds me of the hate-crime bullshit, i.e. its worse if I kill you because I don't like your color than if I kill you to steal your money.

Sorry, folks, but none of this passes a sanity test.

comments?

It makes no sense to me why killing with chemical weapons is worse. They're both awful.

And it makes less sense to me why a norm of not using chemical weapons has to be enforced by violating the norm of not attacking countries that haven't attacked your country.

I don't usually agree with you cheese, but we are in agreement on this

 

[Redfish]

It makes no sense to me why killing with chemical weapons is worse. They're both awful.

And it makes less sense to me why a norm of not using chemical weapons has to be enforced by violating the norm of not attacking countries that haven't attacked your country.

so what you're saying is that we won't attack syria until they attack us. because anything else would be a double standard, right?

The criteria for attacking any other nation by the US doesn't have to wait for them to fire the first shot. If it is determined that they are an 'imminent threat' to the US, a preemptive strike is authorized.

true, but that is certainly not Syria

 

[JakeStarkey]

That velvetacheeze and redfish disdain international law remains their issue, not one for those who care about the world and its future.

 

[Redfish]

get off my thread, snake. you are on ignore. You are wasting your meager typing skills on posts that are not being read.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You read every post I make, redfish, your 'friends' out you

The OP suggests, by its very nature, that since all killing ends in death, then we should have no laws about controlling it.

That of course defies logic and makes reason stare.

The international community eighty eight years ago said "no" to poison gas, and what libertarians and far righty reactionaries think does mean a thing at all.