Killing in war.

[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.

 

[whitehall]

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

 

[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?

 

[dilloduck]

Chemical weapons take all the profit out of war.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Uggg, Syria is not using Chem and it's not my business if they do. The U.S used chem and sold it to Iraq. The U.S. used whiskey pete on Iraqi's not to mention all kinds of germ warfare on our own people. Ain't nobody clean here. The U.S. wrote the book on terrorism.

 

[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.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The U.S. is acting in it's own self-interest and chem is just an excuse to exercise foreign policy strategy that was born out of the vacuum of the former cold war. The U.S. has been acting like a "Monkey with a hand grenade" ever since. Complete terror state and a threat to the world, but you'll notice they don't have the balls to play with the big boys. Hell, I'm relatively certain Barry is going to back down on Syria because he's afraid of Putin. He should be because he knows Putin is ten times the man that faggot half bred son of a slut will ever be.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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...

 

[R.C. Christian]

The PM just got his ass kicked. That's one eager ally down. Barry is going to run. He'll throw some token bullshit at them just to prove he's not a liar but it will be meaningless. This is predicated on the assumption that Putin will even allow a token response. He'll have to get Iran and Syria to play ball and not retaliate. The liberal nimrods will declare it a victory, hail Obama, he's so clever.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

Obama came to his conclusion that he needed to bomb the shit out of Syria before the UN Inspectors have finished their investigation.

This is crazy.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[chikenwing]

Maybe you have the wrong idea about warfare. It's in't about killing.



Say what??? its all about killing,or the threat of it.

Rules for war are a joke,10 years in Nam 10 years in Afghanistan,because we have rules for killing,it make no sense what so ever.

A bunker buster doesn't give you a chance to surrender ether.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A bunker buster doesn't give you a chance to surrender ether.

A bunker buster is aimed at a bunker.

Chem warfare is aimed at a large area and wherever the wind happens to be blowing.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You didn't feel this way when Bush Invaded Iraq.

You knew what TwoThumbs was thinking when Bush invaded Iraq? He only registered on the site in 2010, how is that possible?

 

[chikenwing]

A bunker buster doesn't give you a chance to surrender ether.

A bunker buster is aimed at a bunker.

Chem warfare is aimed at a large area and wherever the wind happens to be blowing.

And not one civilian has ever been killed near a bunker,really wanna piss for distance over how you can kill someone?? do you really ??

You make my point as just how fucked up war and rules for war are.People by the scores die slow ugly deaths in war from all kinds of actions,getting your guts blow out ,or your legs off,the results are the same.

DEAD

 

[The Gadfly]

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?

One problem is, that like nukes or bio-weapons, chemical agents are essentially an area weapon; where conventional munitions are not (or so the theory goes. )In fairness, that last part depends on how the weapon is employed; there's not a tremendous difference in indiscriminate killing with something like the area bombing campaigns we conducted in WWII, especially mass incendiary raids on cities, and using a WMD. So, in practical terms, the distinction is somewhat academic, although, it's fair to say a non-superpower regime can acquire WMD capability, especially biological or chemical, more cheaply and easily than it can acquire the kind of mass conventional capability to produce equivalent casualties. I suppose it becomes a question of how many nations we want running loose with that kind of capacity for indiscriminate slaughter, and most of us have concluded that it's a little safer if that number remains relatively small.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe you have the wrong idea about warfare. It's in't about killing.



Say what??? its all about killing,or the threat of it.

Rules for war are a joke,10 years in Nam 10 years in Afghanistan,because we have rules for killing,it make no sense what so ever.

A bunker buster doesn't give you a chance to surrender ether.

If youve ever seen what chemical weapons do you'd think twice about that statement.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

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?