Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to give President Obama the power to launch

[gotrocks]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1) Your description of sarin gas death isn't consistent with most of what I've read on the subject. Most die within a minute or two from asphyxiation since nerve gasses tend to stop respiration. The real lucky ones have their hearts stopped and die very quickly. Not much worse than a heart attack. Also, you seem to be comparing the worst possible death from sarin to the best possible death from shrapnel. Many injuries from shrapnel involve hours of agony before finally being released from the pain via death. I'm not sure what the average sarin death vs average shrapnel death

2) Your description of how we use smart missiles to take out a room full of terrorists while leaving all the children in the next hours over unscathed is so ludicrously naive that it's difficult to take you seriously. I'm picturing some bomber pilot saying "hey guys, the house is actually a little smaller than we thought, I better come back and get some smaller bombs." Read some news, watch some Youtube videos from people reporting directly from places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then come back here and try to say what you just said with a straight face. Not only do we completely fail to hit the proper targets much of the time (wedding parties bombed with dozens of women/children dead), but even when we do hit a valid target, often many civilians are caught up in the blast.

Sarin gas rarely gets you from asphyxiation before you experience the nerve pain/spasms. And you will definitely piss yourself, shit yourself, and vomit. I guess arguing which is the worst way to die is kind of a moot point, since they are all horrible, but there's a special sort of fucked upness that comes from dying from nerve gas that you just don't get from a bomb concussion (which is how people usually die from our missile's/bombs, not shrapnel).

I am not so naive to think all missile strikes cause zero collateral damage, but as daldolma states below, it's intent to reduce harm that's the difference. And that IS a difference. That missile through the window MAY take out the floor in the building and crush a bunch of children below - unfortunately, that's war, and its fucked up. The point is that we're advancing our technology to try to prevent that from happening. Chemical weapons do the opposite.

Also, your entire argument is based off the fact that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative to...? what? nuclear weapons? Sure. But they are far from cheap. The facilities required to create sarin gas in a safe environment are still expensive. I guess that could be taken as 'the poor man's' solution. But when your poor man lives in a 25,000 sq ft palace and rests his feet on the backs of religious slaves, its hardly an accurate analogy. Especially considering one of the poorest countries in the world, north korea, is nuclear capable.

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

overstating your point. and you're conflating chemical weapons with terrorism.

the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.

terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Nirgon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of all chemical weapons expert opinions in here, I like the one from gotrocks. His posts are usually great too.

Thought this thread needed some dramatic flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd like to point out that I think we have no business in syria. I don't want another iraq/afghanistan war, and I didn't want one at that time either. I would not be opposed to dropping a few bombs if other countries decided they wanted to put their own boots on the ground, however.

The United States is in a somewhat unique position of having a bloated military budget and lots of expensive toys no one else has. If we can throw b-2 bombers and smart bombs to knock out radar installation/other high value targets that saves other courageous men and womens lives (ie, foreign pilots) i think we should do it. Just have an exit strategy and stick to it (get out in 30 days, something like that).

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by gotrocks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sarin gas rarely gets you from asphyxiation before you experience the nerve pain/spasms. And you will definitely piss yourself, shit yourself, and vomit. I guess arguing which is the worst way to die is kind of a moot point, since they are all horrible, but there's a special sort of fucked upness that comes from dying from nerve gas that you just don't get from a bomb concussion (which is how people usually die from our missile's/bombs, not shrapnel).

That's my point though. They are all horrible and yet Americans seem pretty apathetic
to conventional bombing. I think it's just a matter of shrapnel deaths being around for centuries and we've gotten used to the idea. In addition, the bomb concussion only kills those who are very close (within a few tens of feet). Shrapnel gets those farther away. So in a rather twisted irony, the people we're targeting (bad guys hopefully) die immediately while the collateral damage gets to live in agony for minutes or hours before dying. And I'm really not sure if living in agony for an hour is any better than living in horror for a minute. I'd imagine it's worse.

I am not so naive to think all missile strikes cause zero collateral damage, but as daldolma states below, it's intent to reduce harm that's the difference. And that IS a difference. That missile through the window MAY take out the floor in the building and crush a bunch of children below - unfortunately, that's war, and its fucked up. The point is that we're advancing our technology to try to prevent that from happening. Chemical weapons do the opposite.

To me, intent isn't anywhere near as important as outcomes. A ruthless dictator is horrible, but a dictator who thinks their intentions are pure... watch out. And while we're trying to advance technology to reduce collateral damage, and I'd hope we could fight a war without a single civilian death, we're nowhere near that point. We can't pretend like Assad's killing of civilians is somehow worse than our killing of civilians. Keep in mind that just in the past decade, we've killed many times what Assad has. And I haven't even brought up the use of white phosphorus or depleted uranium. Those are the low hanging fruit when discussing America's moral superiority, and I thought I'd take a shot at some less obvious points. Nothing anyone has said has really convinced me that these points are not valid.

Also, your entire argument is based off the fact that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative to...? what? nuclear weapons? Sure. But they are far from cheap. The facilities required to create sarin gas in a safe environment are still expensive. I guess that could be taken as 'the poor man's' solution. But when your poor man lives in a 25,000 sq ft palace and rests his feet on the backs of religious slaves, its hardly an accurate analogy. Especially considering one of the poorest countries in the world, north korea, is nuclear capable.

Chemical weapons are cheap in relation to conventional weapons. Yes, a single chemical tipped missile will cost more than an explosive one, but the chemical one will be far more effective.

[gotrocks]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's my point though. They are all horrible and yet Americans seem pretty apathetic
to conventional bombing. I think it's just a matter of shrapnel deaths being around for centuries and we've gotten used to the idea. In addition, the bomb concussion only kills those who are very close (within a few tens of feet). Shrapnel gets those farther away. So in a rather twisted irony, the people we're targeting (bad guys hopefully) die immediately while the collateral damage gets to live in agony for minutes or hours before dying. And I'm really not sure if living in agony for an hour is any better than living in horror for a minute. I'd imagine it's worse.

The smart weapons America is using today have reduced shrapnel. The casings on the bomb itself are designed to be vaporized in the explosion. I think we can agree to disagree here, though - you can feel free to die by nerve gas, and I'll take a bomb blast to the face [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To me, intent isn't anywhere near as important as outcomes. A ruthless dictator is horrible, but a dictator who thinks their intentions are pure... watch out. And while we're trying to advance technology to reduce collateral damage, and I'd hope we could fight a war without a single civilian death, we're nowhere near that point. We can't pretend like Assad's killing of civilians is somehow worse than our killing of civilians. Keep in mind that just in the past decade, we've killed many times what Assad has. And I haven't even brought up the use of white phosphorus or depleted uranium. Those are the low hanging fruit when discussing America's moral superiority, and I thought I'd take a shot at some less obvious points. Nothing anyone has said has really convinced me that these points are not valid.

So.... we should just never act against atrocities and horrible people? War should just disappear and we should all hold hands and kiss and love each other?

Dude, we are totally in the same boat here. I agree 100%. I truly wish we could never drop a single bomb again, disarm our entire arsenal, and use our m4's and 16's as coat hangers, but that's never going to happen. Not anytime soon, anyway. We're going to have to drop bombs, and we're going to have to shoot missiles, and you had better believe the INTENT to only kill the bad guys makes a helluva fucking difference when you compare it to someone dropping a low yield nuke or chemical weapon and wasting an entire city. Outcome is NOT the only thing that matters, it's only part of the equation. Even if it was, the outcome of using a chemical weapon will always be FAR worse than a conventional explosive tipped warhead. Period.

[Daldolma]

oh, and to be fair, no: there's no difference to the person getting bombed. but intent has always been a vital consideration in moral and legal determinations. intending to kill civilians is significantly different than intending to kill combatants and unintentionally killing civilians in a densely packed area.

as discussed already, if america intended -- or even had no qualms about -- civilian death, this conflict would have ended exceptionally quickly. respect for civilian life is the only reason al qaeda, et al has been able to operate effectively. so your notion that international dictates against targeting civilians (as with terrorism) benefit the strong is bunk. it more greatly benefits the weak, who are able to hide amongst civilians as their primary measure of defense

[aowen]

I have a theory. Daldolma's sensibilities are offended by the smell of pork. The color of money in any country is what wet's his appetite. In fact he conducted a study to find out which currency, if any, has its worth in actual metal. Saturdays are his stay-in days. When he pulls up next to children in a van, he tells them to go easy on the candy, shit ain't free you know. His favorite movies are by the Cohen Brothers.

As for Israel, I don't believe there's much middle ground. Capital flows from the US to Israel, not the other way. We get nothing in return. Lot of help Israel was in Iraq. Lot of help they are with Hezbollah etc. No, they incite violence, and for every enemy they step on, they create a few more. The U.S.'s proud tradition of backing dictators with strategic positions while touting democratic and humanitarian values has proven to play out only in the short term, and hypocritical/detrimental in the long run. Israel is the UK's and US's brainchild, I wonder what other stupid ideas we have hidden up our ass, please don't let bombing Syria be the next.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have a theory. Daldolma's sensibilities are offended by the smell of pork. The color of money in any country is what wet's his appetite. In fact he conducted a study to find out which currency, if any, has its worth in actual metal. Saturdays are his stay-in days. When he pulls up next to children in a van, he tells them to go easy on the candy, shit ain't free you know. His favorite movies are by the Cohen Brothers.

As for Israel, I don't believe there's much middle ground. Capital flows from the US to Israel, not the other way. We get nothing in return. Lot of help Israel was in Iraq. Lot of help they are with Hezbollah etc. No, they incite violence, and for every enemy they step on, they create a few more. The U.S.'s proud tradition of backing dictators with strategic positions while touting democratic and humanitarian values has proven to play out only in the short term, and hypocritical/detrimental in the long run. Israel is the UK's and US's brainchild, I wonder what other stupid ideas we have hidden up our ass, please don't let bombing Syria be the next.

newp. pras jesus. i simply concur with american policy re: israel

if i were a jew i'd probably hate israel, it's too easy of a target

ps you're a bigot

[Stinkum]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ps you're a bigot

if anything you come off as the bigot in this thread but lets not sink to that level

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if anything you come off as the bigot in this thread but lets not sink to that level

wat

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

newp. pras jesus. i simply concur with american policy re: israel

if i were a jew i'd probably hate israel, it's too easy of a target

ps you're a bigot

I am a bigot? I was making a joke. You support a nation that has forced people, ironically, to live in UN and charity subsidized camps for decades, done false flag operations in other countries to support movement to their own (fucking nutty zionism), massacred civilians (Sabra and Shatila Massacre as one example), elected one of the guys who did it as president (Bibi the Butcher Netanyahu), refuses to negotiate for peace, and builds a wall reminiscent of the Berlin wall. I don't give a shit about strategy at that point, I am not going to support a place like that, and neither does the international community. And you can sit here and point fingers at the rest of the dirtbags in the region, 1 we dont support them, 2 that hatred has been bred out of desperation and asinine policy. The U.S. doesn't even agree with a lot of the shit they do for obvious reasons, and I haven't even mentioned their reactionary bombing campaigns or continuing settlement of land that isn't theirs. The U.S. is the only reason Israel isn't sanctioned by almost everywhere in the world, much less a crater. There is no way to say that having that piece of shit on our side is a good strategy, they contribute absolutely nothing, and have caused us more than enough grief. I have no bleeding heart for that place.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am a bigot? I was making a joke. You support a nation that has forced people, ironically, to live in UN and charity subsidized camps for decades, done false flag operations in other countries to support movement to their own (fucking nutty zionism), massacred civilians (Sabra and Shatila Massacre as one example), elected one of the guys who did it as president (Bibi the Butcher Netanyahu), refuses to negotiate for peace, and builds a wall reminiscent of the Berlin wall. I don't give a shit about strategy at that point, I am not going to support a place like that, and neither does the international community. And you can sit here and point fingers at the rest of the dirtbags in the region, 1 we dont support them, 2 that hatred has been bred out of desperation and asinine policy. The U.S. doesn't even agree with a lot of the shit they do for obvious reasons, and I haven't even mentioned their reactionary bombing campaigns or continuing settlement of land that isn't theirs. The U.S. is the only reason Israel isn't sanctioned by almost everywhere in the world, much less a crater. There is no way to say that having that piece of shit on our side is a good strategy, they contribute absolutely nothing, and have caused us more than enough grief. I have no bleeding heart for that place.

wait, so you're bigoted toward jews and hate israel? i am shocked.

also yes we do support "them", them being other "dirtbags in the region". for fy2011 we gave $30 billion in aid to a composite of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, the West Bank, and Jordan. Israel got $3 billion.

if you think israel is the worst guy on our payroll, you're ignorant. we support whoever furthers american interests and sometimes, that's some pretty nasty people. israel is a lot more defensible than many others.

hypothetical: do you think we wouldn't give assad $5 billion a year to pull loose from iran, put up a guise of civil rights, and support american initiatives? don't kid yourself, we would. he's just not as easily bought