# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Chemical Weapons vs Other Means of Killing

## The XL

I keep hearing that using chemical weapons use is unacceptable and barbaric.  Obama and the rest of the clowns in Washington have stated as much, and we're apparently going to attack because of this.  Please, someone, humor me: how is dying via a chemical weapon any worse or more painful and barbaric than a knife or gunshot wound where you bleed to death, a heart wound that is not immediately fatal, etc.

----------

Gemini (09-05-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-05-2013),usfan (09-05-2013)

----------


## Perianne

I think the idea is that chemical weapons are indiscriminate.  Like I care how many Arabs die or how.

----------


## The XL

> I think the idea is that chemical weapons are indiscriminate.  Like I care how many Arabs die or how.


Our drone strikes take out plenty of innocents, and the criteria they use to label a terrorist is something ridiculous like any male over 15 that hasn't been proven to not be a terrorist or some silly shit like that.

----------

Archer (09-05-2013)

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

It's just a way of saying that they are worse than us.

----------


## The XL

> It's just a way of saying that they are worse than us.


Which is illogical because we've used chemical and nuclear weapons in the past.

----------


## Perianne

> Our drone strikes take out plenty of innocents, and the criteria they use to label a terrorist is something ridiculous like any male over 15 that hasn't been proven to not be a terrorist or some silly shit like that.



I was just sayin'.

----------


## usfan

IMO, it is just like other hypocritical propaganda.. labeling one thing 'bad' & something else 'ok'.  They are trying to make rules for war?  No one follows those, even those who make them.

Butch- 'Wait.. what are the rules?'

'There ain't no rules in a knife fight!'

----------

Archer (09-05-2013),Perianne (09-05-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

What's the difference, to be honest it's big. You can be stabbed and your body will become numb but with nerve gas the best way to describe it will soon give way to unbelievable pain, your muscles will contract, not an easy way to go. Even farmers have to be careful with pesticides but this is much greater.

----------


## Perianne

> What's the difference, to be honest it's big. You can be stabbed and your body will become numb but with nerve gas the best way to describe it will soon give way to unbelievable pain, your muscles will contract, not an easy way to go. Even farmers have to be careful with pesticides but this is much greater.


I am trained in HazMat in case of chemical warfare spillage.  It is a cruel way to die.

----------

Roadmaster (09-05-2013)

----------


## The XL

> What's the difference, to be honest it's big. You can be stabbed and your body will become numb but with nerve gas the best way to describe it will soon give way to unbelievable pain, your muscles will contract, not an easy way to go. Even farmers have to be careful with pesticides but this is much greater.


I don't think a heart wound that isn't immediately fatal is a fun way to go.  Gasping for air under those circumstances doesn't sound peachy.

----------


## The XL

Still, all that has been done in this thread is explain how chemical weapons are bad.  No one has really made the point on why they are worse than other means of death that frequently go on during war.

And why is attacking a country worth it when it will result in even more death, and potentially a World War?

I don't care about these rules of war, frankly.  They haven't resulted in less war or death, so they are useless.  And who the hell is America to enforce them anyhow?  We lied about Iraq, lied about Vietnam, nearly set up a false flag to go to war with Cuba, and have used chemical and nuclear weapons before.

It's not our place to enforce these silly rules, and we don't have any credibility on the matter.

----------

Archer (09-06-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Listening to the media, I'm convinced that the main reason for this Syria intervention is part of our ongoing cold war with Iran.

----------


## The XL

> Listening to the media, I'm convinced that the main reason for this Syria intervention is part of our ongoing cold war with Iran.


It's something nefarious.  All you hear from Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are idiot pundits pushing this crap.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It's something nefarious.  All you hear from Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are idiot pundits pushing this crap.


The primary reasoning I'm hearing is Assad's chemical weapons, Israel, and Iran. One step closer to hot war with Iran.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Our society is forced upon us. You seem to think otherwise.
> 
> We can look at the basics and go to the top. We have hands interfering everywhere and it is causing issues and looking at our murder rate should show you that much.
> 
> Lets just look at the schools. My daughter is home schooled for many reasons and one of those is cultural. I do not live in a city or town. I live near a cross roads in a fire district. 
> 
> The elementary school where she went is all local but when you get to the high schools things change. Drugs, violence and rampant racism against white children. Why? The inner city schools are a failure. No matter how much money you throw at them nothing changes and things just go further down hill. This is a cultural issue...
> 
> Move up to the government telling a person who they must hire (meaning that they can not hire the candidate they want), DOJ going after businesses and attempting to pressure them into doing business against their beliefs...
> ...


My time in America was spent around white-collar businessmen and their steamin' hot wives, so I can't really comment on this.

Regardless of whether you feel it was forced upon you, however, I can never see a Western society plunging into the sort of chaos we saw in Yugoslavia and are currently seeing in Syria. It would be foolish not to recognize the critical differences.

----------


## Archer

> My time in America was spent around white-collar businessmen and their steamin' hot wives, so I can't really comment on this.
> 
> Regardless of whether you feel it was forced upon you, however, I can never see a Western society plunging into the sort of chaos we saw in Yugoslavia and are currently seeing in Syria. It would be foolish not to recognize the critical differences.


 @Char1es we have that. Smaller scale but we do have it. Honestly people are getting tired of it and we are one riot, the proper riot, away from an all out culture war. Yes it will he divided heavily along racial lines at first but that will change quickly. The majority is getting sick of the shit.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> @Char1es we have that. Smaller scale but we do have it. Honestly people are getting tired of it and we are one riot, the proper riot, away from an all out culture war. Yes it will he divided heavily along racial lines at first but that will change quickly. The majority is getting sick of the shit.


If South Africa could survive the post-Apartheid transition without a racial civil war, if the US could emerge from the ethno-political tensions that ran high from the 1900s-1970s, then I have every confidence things won't get significantly worse.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-06-2013)

----------


## Archer

> If South Africa could survive the post-Apartheid transition without a racial civil war, if the US could emerge from the ethno-political tensions that ran high from the 1900s-1970s, then I have every confidence things won't get significantly worse.


You do not keep up with the hell hole that is Africa do you?




> *Incitement to genocide is a crime under the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which South Africa is a state-party.
> **The ANC government has promoted hate speech that constitutes “incitement to genocide.”  The President of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, revived the "Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer" hate song at ANC rallies, until it was declared to be hate speech by a South African judge, and Malema was enjoined from singing it.  For other reasons, Malema was later removed as ANCYL President.  His followers continue to sing the hate song, and the Deputy President of the ANCYL has called for “war,” against “white settlers.”*


http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=sout...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sout...against+whites

And it is not just south Africa!

This attitude is in the US among many militant blacks and reinforced by the race baiters like Obobo, The NBPP, Jackson, Sharpton...




Listen... He believes whites are the root of all evil in the world...

Catch up son. You really should pay close attention because your darling England is the next victim and it will be Islam.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You do not keep up with the hell hole that is Africa do you?


 Yep, South Africa was probably a bad example, but that it survived the 1990s is nothing short of a miracle.



> And it is not just south Africa!
> 
>  This attitude is in the US among many militant blacks and reinforced by the race baiters like Obobo, The NBPP, Jackson, Sharpton...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Listen... He believes whites are the root of all evil in the world...
> 
>  Catch up son. You really should pay close attention because your darling England is the next victim and it will be Islam.


 This isn't South Africa. The militant black movement is a shell of what it once was.

----------


## Dan40

> Yep, South Africa was probably a bad example, but that it survived the 1990s is nothing short of a miracle.
> 
>  This isn't South Africa. The militant black movement is a shell of what it once was.


Because African blacks, not just South African blacks, are killing each other at genocidal rates?

----------


## Archer

> Yep, South Africa was probably a bad example, but that it survived the 1990s is nothing short of a miracle.
> 
>  This isn't South Africa. The militant black movement is a shell of what it once was.


You white? Well take your cracker ass up in the wrong area and tell me about your experience.

We have a real growing issue in the US and it is so bad that the press has been asked not to report on it for fear of backlash. Black on white crime is not treated the same way white on black crime is.

You are on the outside looking in.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You white? Well take your cracker ass up in the wrong area and tell me about your experience.
> 
> We have a real growing issue in the US and it is so bad that the press has been asked not to report on it for fear of backlash. Black on white crime is not treated the same way white on black crime is.
> 
> You are on the outside looking in.


Can you provide any evidence implying that the press has been told not to report on this phenomenon?

----------


## Canadianeye

> Our drone strikes take out plenty of innocents, and the criteria they use to label a terrorist is something ridiculous like any male over 15 that hasn't been proven to not be a terrorist or some silly shit like that.


Would, in all real honesty.... you care if the American drones dropped chemical agents, that peeled the skin off, boiled internally and culminated to the most excruciating deaths of thousands upon thousands of children, along with the rest of the payload?

No? Then you and I are quite different.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Would, in all real honesty.... you care if the *American drones dropped chemical agents, that peeled the skin off, boiled internally and culminated to the most excruciating deaths of thousands upon thousands of children, along with the rest of the payload*?
> 
> No? Then you and I are quite different.


Vietnam?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Would, in all real honesty.... you care if the American drones dropped chemical agents, that peeled the skin off, boiled internally and culminated to the most excruciating deaths of thousands upon thousands of children, along with the rest of the payload?
> 
> No? Then you and I are quite different.


I actually agree with this. While it's certainly true that death is death, and one weapon doesn't make you more dead than another, I think there's something especially evil about someone who deliberately uses _chemical_ weapons, which don't just kill you, but make you suffer before death. 

I'd actually prefer it if we (or any nation for that matter) were just using regular, non-chemical weapons on people. At least then it would be quick, depending on where they were in relation to the blast.

----------


## Archer

> Can you provide any evidence implying that the press has been told not to report on this phenomenon?


http://video.foxnews.com/v/254948157...and-the-media/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...tions-article/
http://www.examiner.com/article/spik...ed-up-by-media

And let us not forget the ignoring, by the government of death threats against Zimmerman. Would that shit fly in England? I do not think so.

It has been asked but the stories are usually disappeared quickly. It is implied all the time.

http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpre...nt-hear-about/

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> http://video.foxnews.com/v/254948157...and-the-media/
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...tions-article/
> http://www.examiner.com/article/spik...ed-up-by-media
> 
> And let us not forget the ignoring, by the government of death threats against Zimmerman. Would that shit fly in England? I do not think so.
> 
> It has been asked but the stories are usually disappeared quickly. It is implied all the time.
> 
> http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpre...nt-hear-about/


I'm no authority on these issues. But yes, the Trayvon Martin case did get quite a bit of coverage over here.

Out of respect for The XL, I'm going to pull out of this race debate. The forum doesn't need another one, certainly not on a thread about the geopolitics of chemical weapons. I hope you understand.

----------


## usfan

> This attitude is in the US among many militant blacks and reinforced by the race baiters like Obobo, The NBPP, Jackson, Sharpton...


^^^ this^^.. is the result of all the race baiting, race obsessed, & race hustlers out there.  A lot of the recent crime can be traced to a 'kill a honkey for trayvon' mentality.  It is despicable.  It is no different than the KKK wearing white hoods & denigrating blacks.  Do you think blacks could win a race war in america?  Against a white majority?  Highly unlikely, & the whole notion is stupid & not wanted by the majority of blacks.  It is the emotionally charged race hustlers like sharpton & obomber who seem to want to keep racial tension high.  They get some drug addled person thinking they are doing their race some kind of service by killing a random white person.

----------


## The XL

> Would, in all real honesty.... you care if the American drones dropped chemical agents, that peeled the skin off, boiled internally and culminated to the most excruciating deaths of thousands upon thousands of children, along with the rest of the payload?
> 
> No? Then you and I are quite different.


Lol, we're already slaughtering a bunch of innocents with our strikes.  We have a hilarious description of what an enemy combatant is, and one cares.  There have been 3 ex military in this thread agreeing with me that there are deaths on the battlefield that are legal and just as savage as chemical weapons, yet no one seems to care about those.

No, I do care, that's where you're wrong.  I don't want ANY war or death, unless it is strictly for self defense purposes.  Getting involved in a civil war that will cause more deaths and could cause a World War is beyond counterproductive.

----------


## The XL

> I actually agree with this. While it's certainly true that death is death, and one weapon doesn't make you more dead than another, I think there's something especially evil about someone who deliberately uses _chemical_ weapons, which don't just kill you, but make you suffer before death. 
> 
> I'd actually prefer it if we (or any nation for that matter) were just using regular, non-chemical weapons on people. At least then it would be quick, depending on where they were in relation to the blast.


I've been stabbed and bitten badly by a dog before.  That shit hurts, and you feel it.

Now, take that sort of pain and amplify it with a non immediate death wound via a gun or knife.  That shit is pretty miserable.

Some of you either need to be all in on war and death, or all out.  Get off the fence.  I'm not talking to you T Paine, lol, just saying in general.

----------


## The XL

> I'm no authority on these issues. But yes, the Trayvon Martin case did get quite a bit of coverage over here.
> 
> Out of respect for The XL, I'm going to pull out of this race debate. The forum doesn't need another one, certainly not on a thread about the geopolitics of chemical weapons. I hope you understand.


What do I have to do with anything?

----------


## Archer

> What do I have to do with anything?


My point was not to go there but to show that it happens in America and it is growing in America. This was simply to counter your point. And yes we should drop this.

As to the OP! Killing is killing! Be it a bomb strike or napalm or nuke or mass executions by the Syrian rebels backed by terrorist groups that blow up and kill Americans, that we, for some reason, support..

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Listening to the media, I'm convinced that the main reason for this Syria intervention is part of our ongoing cold war with Iran.


That is part of it IMHO.  The only reasons Assad is now winning is because of the backing he has from both Iran and supplies from Russia.  The other part is taking punitive action against countries who violate the Geneva protocol against chemical weapons.  Syria agreed to the Convention and now they must be held accountable so as not to give incentive to others to do the same.

----------


## Archer

> That is part of it IMHO.  The only reasons Assad is now winning is because of the backing he has from both Iran and supplies from Russia.  The other part is taking punitive action against countries who violate the Geneva protocol against chemical weapons.  Syria agreed to the Convention and now they must be held accountable so as not to give incentive to others to do the same.


War is hell! Why did we not attack Saddam when he did it? Oh - he was our ally.

What about mass executions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)

http://www.inquisitr.com/937662/syri...isoners-video/

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50154432n

The rules of war can not be enforced when shit like this happens.

How the hell do you fight that shit? This is WAR!

----------


## hoytmonger

Syria never signed the treaty... Israel signed but never ratified it.

The "rebels" are the ones using gas. Assad has no reason to use it, besides, he's not stupid enough to use it while UN inspectors are in country.

Assad is winning because public opinion in Syria is with him. He's a dick but he's better than sharia law. In 1942 the free French staged a coup against the Vichy French that ruled Syria keeping it out of German hands. Since 1942 to 1960 there've been 24 military coups... then Assad Sr. came into power. Since then, under an iron hand, Syria existed. It seems one has to be a dictator to have relative peace in the Middle East... there is no reason.

----------

usfan (09-06-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> The "rebels" are the ones using gas. Assad has no reason to use it, besides, he's not stupid enough to use it while UN inspectors are in country.


Yes and it so-called happened when they were there. Something is not right. Just looks like a setup to me.

----------


## Archer

Well I think we need to look back and ask if he has a history that would show this type of action to be normal.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Syria never signed the treaty...


They ratified it and agreed to abide by it with an exception: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.n...tySelected=280

----------


## Guest

We don't even know if it was Assad.  There is evidence on news in Europe that it was the rebels.  This is why we don't need to be involved.  The waters are murky and no matter what we do all the wrong people will die.  Assad will not be harmed by our bombs dropping, but the same people we are supposed to be standing up for will be killed.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-07-2013),usfan (09-07-2013)

----------


## Dan40

> We don't even know if it was Assad.  There is evidence on news in Europe that it was the rebels.  This is why we don't need to be involved.  The waters are murky and no matter what we do all the wrong people will die.  Assad will not be harmed by our bombs dropping, but the same people we are supposed to be standing up for will be killed.


The PRIMARY source of the claim that the rebels used the chemical weapons comes from Russia/Putin, and you are aware of that FACT.

So the person/nation that supplies Assad with weapons, chemical and conventional, and their delivery systems, Scuds, artillery, other rockets, is the one that claims their puppet state is not the guilty party.  And you are earger, even thrilled, to swallow that crock.

It was obobo the incompetent lying king, that FIRST, ventured the theory way back a year ago when Assad FIRST used chemical weapons, that it was not certain that Assad did it and not the rebels.  That was obobo the cowards first excuse, and now you corroborate obobo excuses for him.  Now you've joined hands in a sing along with you, obobo and Putin.

It was the rebels, the nasty, nasty rebels.  Assad is a saint, a pure, pure saint.

Way to go!!!

----------


## Guest

> The PRIMARY source of the claim that the rebels used the chemical weapons comes from Russia/Putin, and you are aware of that FACT.


Didn't realize the BBC and UK Telegraph was Russian.  I said evidence not "proof" by the way.  They are presenting evidence that our CIA is assisting the rebels.  You can view the hacked emails for yourself and decide whether or not you believe.  My assertion that we have no real idea what's going on stands.




> It was the rebels, the nasty, nasty rebels.  Assad is a saint, a pure, pure saint.
> 
> Way to go!!!


I'm sure that's what I said ​in an alternate universe.

----------


## usfan

yeah.. it's not like obama would try to deceive us.. benghazi was because of a youtube video, the irs are not targeting conservative groups, guantanamo is closed, & al qaeda is dead.    :Rolleyes20:   ..the syrian rebels are our friends, love israel, & read the declaration of independence over the mosque loudspeakers instead of the call for prayer.

----------


## Dan40

> Didn't realize the BBC and UK Telegraph was Russian.  I said evidence not "proof" by the way.  They are presenting evidence that our CIA is assisting the rebels.  You can view the hacked emails for yourself and decide whether or not you believe.  My assertion that we have no real idea what's going on stands.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's what I said ​in an alternate universe.


You're the one that spends a lot of time, ​in an alternate universe,  not me.

But no matter.

obobo, the ball-less, will not order a strike.

----------


## Guest

> yeah.. it's not like obama would try to deceive us.. benghazi was because of a youtube video, the irs are not targeting conservative groups, guantanamo is closed, & al qaeda is dead.     ..the syrian rebels are our friends, love israel, & read the declaration of independence over the mosque loudspeakers instead of the call for prayer.


I'm not calling Syrians our friends.  I'm saying that both Assad and the rebels are nuts.  When there are no clear good guys and our nation is not being attacked we should stay the fuck out.

----------

Gemini (09-07-2013),The XL (09-07-2013)

----------


## Guest

> You're the one that spends a lot of time, ​in an alternate universe,  not me.


I'm certain you have no idea.  Your posts show that you seem to believe we're living in the 1970s.  Let the disco balls spin, I guess.




> But no matter.


You're right it is of no matter.




> obobo, the ball-less, will not order a strike.


You should watch C-SPAN.  Kerry told Rand Paul that even if the Congress voted against it Obama could still use limited strikes.

----------


## usfan

> I'm not calling Syrians our friends.  I'm saying that both Assad and the rebels are nuts.  When there are no clear good guys and our nation is not being attacked we should stay the fuck out.


I was satirically suggesting we give the same credibility to obama's 'evidence' of wmd's as we do to my list of absurd obama claims.  He has NO credibility to the american citizens, or the world.  Anything he says must be discounted at first, & verified by other means.  My first reflex when he says something is to doubt it.  He has trained us to listen for spin & distortions.  I am certainly not going to take his word that we need to bomb syria or we'll all die.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You should watch C-SPAN.  Kerry told Rand Paul that even if the Congress voted against it Obama could still use limited strikes.


Kerry is correct.  The precedent has long be set so I don't see why Obama is going to Congress in the first place.  If they vote no, which is probably going to happen, then I do not believe he will act.  He might be looking at a way out of his "red line" comment.  "Well, I wanted to do something but Congress said no".

----------

usfan (09-07-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Kerry is correct.  The precedent has long be set so I don't see why Obama is going to Congress in the first place.  If they vote no, which is probably going to happen, then I do not believe he will act.  He might be looking at a way out of his "red line" comment.  "Well, I wanted to do something but Congress said no".


The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and in the constitution, Congress alone has the power to wage war and the President MUST seek their approval. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and thus unlawful.

Basically, Kerry is FOS.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

An airstrike isn't "war".

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> An airstrike isn't "war".


So, Pearl Harbor wasn't a declaration of war, or an act of war?

----------


## Guest

> An airstrike isn't "war".


We called it war when an airstrike took down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  _They are at war with us_, they said.

----------

The XL (09-07-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

There's a difference between waging war and an act of war.  An airstrike is an act of war, but launching a few cruise missiles from offshore then leaving isn't "war".

----------


## Guest

> There's a difference between waging war and an act of war.  An airstrike is an act of war, but launching a few cruise missiles from offshore then leaving isn't "war".


Sure it is to the people being hit with the missiles.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> We called it war when an airstrike took down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  _They are at war with us_, they said.


What else did you believe from Bush and Cheney?

----------


## The XL

> There's a difference between waging war and an act of war.  An airstrike is an act of war, but launching a few cruise missiles from offshore then leaving isn't "war".


I guess 9/11 wasn't an act of war, then.  They didn't stay or invade.

----------


## Guest

> There's a difference between waging war and an act of war.  An airstrike is an act of war, but launching a few cruise missiles from offshore then leaving isn't "war".


Say, you're not really going to argue for that level of wiggling around the Constitution as well as Websters, are you?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Sure it is to the people being hit with the missiles.


So is being shot at a gang banger in a drive-by, but that isn't war either.

----------


## The XL

> We called it war when an airstrike took down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  _They are at war with us_, they said.


Just noticed this, lol.  This.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> There's a difference between waging war and an act of war.  An airstrike is an act of war, but launching a few cruise missiles from offshore then leaving isn't "war".


This is just semantic weasling at this point. How is an act of war separated from war? It's a part of war. That's why it's an act of war.

----------

The XL (09-07-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> There's a difference between waging war and an act of war.  An airstrike is an act of war, but launching a few cruise missiles from offshore then leaving isn't "war".


I think there's damn little difference.   There is a whole new strategy of war being waged against us specifically, the west generally.   They, the muslims, don't want to be associated with one country or even two.  It is EASIER to hit and run and leave the west in a puzzlement where to strike...meaning western politicians and diplomats.   Muslims know this.  They know it well.  

WE should have hit, hit harder, kept on hitting and then subdued every last freakin' one of those nations...now no, we wouldn't have subdued them with might, but using that might we could have ramrodded their economies, put them to work, given them something to actually live for and all would have been happy.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> What else did you believe from Bush and Cheney?


when do we get to stop blaming this on bush and cheney?  WHEN is it that this becomes the purview of Obama?   Bush and Cheney are not calling the shots now.   Say what you will about him and he disappointed me plenty....there was no doubt that he loved this country...this current president...not so much.

----------

Perianne (09-08-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> This is just semantic weasling at this point. How is an act of war separated from war? It's a part of war. That's why it's an act of war.


A war is a continuous action as opposed to a one time thing.  Pearl Harbor was brought up before, but it wasn't just Pearl Harbor.  It was Wake Island, the Philippines and elsewhere.  A war.  Just the bombing of Pearl Harbor was an act of war but if that was it, then it wouldn't have been a war.

Back in the 80s, we shot up Qadaffi's gun boats and a few airplanes which he sent out to attack our ships.  Were we are war?  No, but his actions against us and ours in response were certainly acts of war.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> when do we get to stop blaming this on bush and cheney?  WHEN is it that this becomes the purview of Obama?   Bush and Cheney are not calling the shots now.   Say what you will about him and he disappointed me plenty....there was no doubt that he loved this country...this current president...not so much.


Who is blaming them for the present?  Who is "they" in this post?:



> We called it war when an airstrike took down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. _They are at war with us_, they said.

----------


## usfan

> A war is a continuous action as opposed to a one time thing.  Pearl Harbor was brought up before, but it wasn't just Pearl Harbor.  It was Wake Island, the Philippines and elsewhere.  A war.  Just the bombing of Pearl Harbor was an act of war but if that was it, then it wouldn't have been a war.
> Back in the 80s, we shot up Qadaffi's gun boats and a few airplanes which he sent out to attack our ships.  Were we are war?  No, but his actions against us and ours in response were certainly acts of war.


IMO, politicians hide behind semantics, juggling definitions & dazzling us with changing meanings.  As long as it's not technically, 'declared war', then it's ok?  Vietnam & Iraq were not 'declared wars, but they were full on wars to america.  Both cost us a lot in blood & treasure for something that was not an imminent threat to our security.  I would like to see that 'loophole' removed, if that's how they do it.  I would  like to see NO military action ANYWHERE in the world, unless we are in immediate, imminent danger.  Any extended action would need the full support of congress.. no police actions by any administration.. no shots across anyone's bow.  No 'sending a message'.  O can email assad if he wants to say something, or friend him on facebook..

We are real indignant if someone attacks us..  you mentioned pearl harbor & the twin towers.. but if we attack someone else, it is the same thing.  We have no more right to fire missiles into syria than they do to new jersey.  If we were not trying to occupy the region & use intimidation & bully tactics to 'guide' the region to our way of thinking, we would not have missiles shot at our ships, or gunboats attacking.

I can find NO philosophical or moral or logical or tactical justification for us to engage in syria.  It is a no win scenario for the US.  We should stay out.  The only reason given is that assad is a bad man.  Well, shit, most of the world is run by 'bad men'.  We cannot run around trying to depose all of them.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> IMO, politicians hide behind semantics, juggling definitions & dazzling us with changing meanings.


That's what makes them politicians and why most politicians are lawyers.  This is one of my favorites from a Washington bureaucrat:

_It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"
_

Regarding Syria, I remain disagreed that the outcome of that war and the influence Iran and Russia are exerting to sway the outcome has little or nothing to do with the US and other nations.

----------


## usfan

> Regarding Syria, I remain disagreed that the outcome of that war and the influence Iran and Russia are exerting to sway the outcome has little or nothing to do with the US and other nations.


I agree with this.  but i don't agree that bombing syria is the answer.  I'm tired of immoral proxy wars with our perceived enemies.  If we want a war with russia, bomb them.  Why should the syrian people be pawns in our lousy game of checkers?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I agree with this.  but i don't agree that bombing syria is the answer.  I'm tired of immoral proxy wars with our perceived enemies.  If we want a war with russia, bomb them.  Why should the syrian people be pawns in our lousy game of checkers?


Proxy wars are better than Hot Wars.  People still die, just less of them.  If we went into a fully hot war with Iran do you think the pain and suffering across the Middle East, much less across the globe, would be more or less than a couple of figurative "shots across the bow" in the form of cruise missile strikes on military facilities in Syria?

----------


## Guest

Why do we need to go to war with Iran?  Oh.  Right.  Because people in other countries deserve their oil.  I forget about this stuff.  People deserve the resources of other nations just cuz.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-08-2013),The XL (09-08-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Why do we need to go to war with Iran?  Oh.  Right.  Because people in other countries deserve their oil.  I forget about this stuff.  People deserve the resources of other nations just cuz.


This.  Where does anyone get off believing we're entitled to another nations resources?  Don't lecture me about the immorality of Syria using chemical weapons when we kill for resources.

----------


## Dan40

> This.  Where does anyone get off believing we're entitled to another nations resources?  Don't lecture me about the immorality of Syria using chemical weapons when we kill for resources.



There is no "entitlement."  We PURCHASE their resources (oil).  Our interest is making sure that their oil is available to be purchased.

We are interested in buying oil, THEY are interested in amassing Us dollars.  Their leadership that is.

The people?  Well the ordinary people over there have been royally fucked for many centuries.  That continues as normal.

----------

Perianne (09-08-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

Not to worry. It will (in the not too distant future) be completely...all about the water.

----------

