Killing in war.

[Two Thumbs]

Indiscriminate killing by WMDs ended WWII.

made war so horrific they didn't want to fight anymore.

Save at least a million lives

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

a single gas bomb won't get 5000 either

 

[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.

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

not passing the sniff test

Actually, chem weapons are bad because they kill innocent civilians.

If you kill soldiers in war, it's considered part of the program.

If you kill civilians, it's considered a crime.

Chemical weapons don't differentiate between civilians and enemy combatants.

 

[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

Actually, chem weapons are bad because they kill innocent civilians.

If you kill soldiers in war, it's considered part of the program.

If you kill civilians, it's considered a crime.

Chemical weapons don't differentiate between civilians and enemy combatants.

both Bush and obama have gotten civilians killed w/o using gas.

in syria the rebels are civilians, so when you go bombing civilians, in that case, gas comes across as more effective.

 

[zeke]

As I have learned by reading the gun nuts on this message board; it ain't the "gas" that does the killing, it's the people with the gas. Just like guns. Whats the problem?

And any other time, killing a Muslim would be a good thing. What is the big problem if they are intent on killing each other? Evidently it is the way they are made. The Muslim faith seems to have been perverted enough that they (Muslims) actually think they are doing their Gods work by killing each other.

Who are we to stop Gods work? Or even slow it down. Muslims gotta kill other Muslims. Says so (somewhere) in their holy book.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Relatively cheap, easy and effective.

Against civilians.

Despite dramatic pictures chemical weapons are relatively ineffective in a military campaign. Only 4% of the casualties in WW1 were due to chemical weapons, and the effectiveness dropped markedly thru the ware as simple effective countermeasures were developed despite WW1 being the perfect environment for their use with hundreds of thousands of soldiers in stagnant positions along known battle lines.

There was a lot of waving of hands on the morality of chem warfare when international treaties banning their use but bottom line military commanders just were not impressed with their impact on the battlefield, and that would be even more the case with modern mobile military tactics.