chemical weapons

[Danzig]

i'm sure everyone knows by now that syria is strongly suspected of making a gas attack.

well, here's my question. why do we care when gas is used? why do we stand by when it's bullets, bombs, missiles, incendiary devices, tanks, planes, etc.

but don't you kill them with gas.

wtf is so special about that one way of killing? why are other ways somewhat 'acceptable' (for lack of a better word), but gas? that's a game changer.

why?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm sure everyone knows by now that syria is strongly suspected of making a gas attack.

well, here's my question. why do we care when gas is used? why do we stand by when it's bullets, bombs, missiles, incendiary devices, tanks, planes, etc.

but don't you kill them with gas.

wtf is so special about that one way of killing? why are other ways somewhat 'acceptable' (for lack of a better word), but gas? that's a game changer.

why?

I dunno...but one of reasons Bush invaded Iraq was Saddam was gasing his our people...who gave a shiit?..no one...but it was a rallying cry to march in..
and every country in the world uses those other deadly items and it goes unnoticed or 'not our problem'.. always a hot spot somewhere, i.e. Egypt now, who knows the next one..

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

because they are the most evil weapon..the gateway weapon to nukes

nice drag bush into it bigrun..

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

because they are the most evil weapon..the gateway weapon to nukes

nice drag bush into it bigrun..

My pleasure....and it was on topic..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

because they are the most evil weapon..the gateway weapon to nukes

nice drag bush into it bigrun..

chemical weapons are the gateway 'drug' to nukes? i didn't know that.

i'm serious tho. what does it matter the method of killing? either way, you're dead. is it a better kind of dead if you get blown to smithereens, cut in half ala leonidas polk at kennesaw mountain, rather then sucking in vapors and shuffling off this mortal coil?

[TheSpyder]

Bullets are a bit more targeted and usually aimed at the bad guys. The chemical weapons don't disriminate and in this case killed a bunch of kids.

Plus if you are Jewish, gasing people is not one of our favorite passtimes.

[hi_im_god]

I think spyder was spot on. chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. they're indiscriminate. and they terrorize a population in a way that standard ordinance doesn't.

the precautions that might protect a population from bullets and artillery won't work against a gas weapon. that's why they get classed with biological weapons and nukes.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Bullets are a bit more targeted and usually aimed at the bad guys. The chemical weapons don't disriminate and in this case killed a bunch of kids.

Plus if you are Jewish, gasing people is not one of our favorite passtimes.

I think spyder was spot on. chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. they're indiscriminate. and they terrorize a population in a way that standard ordinance doesn't.

the precautions that might protect a population from bullets and artillery won't work against a gas weapon. that's why they get classed with biological weapons and nukes.

thanks guys, appreciate it. good points.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by bigrun

My pleasure....and it was on topic..

just so you know that's where saddam sent them..

[Danzig]

http://news.msn.com/world/west-readi...-gas-obscenity


looks like we'll be bombing syria soon.

[Danzig]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran



The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.


but, hey, it was iranians, so who cares?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://news.msn.com/world/west-readi...-gas-obscenity


looks like we'll be bombing syria soon.

REGIONAL CONFLICT

The Syrian conflict has split the Middle East along sectarian lines. Shiite Muslim Iran has supported Assad and his Alawite minority against mainly Sunni rebels, some of them Islamists, who have backing from Gulf Arab states

In Iraq the Sunni's were the bad guys..

Related: Syria's civil war: What you need to know

China, which has joined Moscow in vetoing measures against Assad in the UN Security Council, is also skeptical of Western readiness to use force to interfere with what it sees as the internal affairs of other countries. Beijing's official news agency ran a commentary on Tuesday recalling the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 on the grounds that it possessed banned weapons — which were never found. and they weren't sent to Syria.

"The recent flurry of consultations between Washington and its allies indicates that they have put the arrow on the bowstring and would shoot even without a UN mandate," the Xinhua agency said. "That would be irresponsible and dangerous."

Let's be careful out there...Too many heavyweights involved in this mess..
Boots on the ground not an option..

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran



The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.


but, hey, it was iranians, so who cares?

Not us...and in the Iraq/Iran war guess who the U.S. backed and sent arms..
One guess only

and which of the two countries did we invade for no valid reason

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Not us...and in the Iraq/Iran war guess who the U.S. backed and sent arms..
:

Guess who had its leader overthrown by radical Islamists headed by the Ayatollah and had taken over the American embassy complete with taking hostages that were held under disgusting conditions and paraded for a year and a half?

You suggest we should have backed the other side?

Just think how WWII would have turned out if we had backed Japan.

[Danzig]

so jay carney says it's not regime change...but we want assad gone, we're backing the opposition (which is whom, exactly? hezbollah? muslim brotherhood?), we want the current regime punished for the chem. weapons....we want a new admin in there.
but it's not regime change.


right.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so jay carney says it's not regime change...but we want assad gone, we're backing the opposition (which is whom, exactly? hezbollah? muslim brotherhood?), we want the current regime punished for the chem. weapons....we want a new admin in there.
but it's not regime change.


right.

they don't know whether to schitt or go blind, so close one eye and fart..Israel is passing out gas masks, and Netanyahu says they are ready for any possibility..and shows pics of their missles...we have everyone on our side except Russia and China

[Danzig]

i think we'd be better off instituting no fly zones and the like.

actually, i think we should just stay out.
who are our allies in this case? who in syria do we support? if it's another karzai, and syria another a'stan, we need to avoid this at all costs.

at any rate, let's say we bomb...to save innocents being killed? how many will we kill in doing so?

when in doubt, do nothing. why now? just because chemical weapons may have been used?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Guess who had its leader overthrown by radical Islamists headed by the Ayatollah and had taken over the American embassy complete with taking hostages that were held under disgusting conditions and paraded for a year and a half?

You suggest we should have backed the other side?

Fk no, just stay the F out!..No, we backed them and then invaded their country..and removed the buffer between them and Isreal..Iran is 80% Shiite which was Iraq's minority..
We wind up supporting Iraq's Shiites..nice work..

Just think how WWII would have turned out if we had backed Japan.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think we'd be better off instituting no fly zones and the like.

actually, i think we should just stay out.
who are our allies in this case? who in syria do we support? if it's another karzai, and syria another a'stan, we need to avoid this at all costs.

at any rate, let's say we bomb...to save innocents being killed? how many will we kill in doing so? many, friends and foes

when in doubt, do nothing. why now? just because chemical weapons may have been used?

Who made us the world's caretaker? Like Rosanne Roseannadanna used to say "it's always something'...

[dellinger63]

We agree, I too think we should stay the f' out. Maybe a large flyby dropping no bombs could act as the match. Radicals on both sides threaten to murder their daughters and over comics and videos much less their enemies.

The only conceivable reason we would bomb would be to massage the President's ego and back his line in the sand threat.

Contain and not restrain.