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

[Daldolma]

^ p true, was skimming and missed the sentence re: similarities.

doesn't impact the gist of the argument though

[Orruar]

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

^ p true, was skimming and missed the sentence re: similarities.

doesn't impact the gist of the argument though

Well, it sort of does the impact the argument, since the entire argument was based on the notion that I was conflating the two terms.

[Daldolma]

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

Well, it sort of does the impact the argument, since the entire argument was based on the notion that I was conflating the two terms.

literally none of the argument is reliant on that

you asked what makes chemical weapons "special", which i took to mean more flagrantly unacceptable than conventional weaponry. i explained the material differences between chemical and conventional warfare.

you then ascribed condemnation of terrorism to a desire to keep poor people from evening the playing field. i explained that a) that's incorrect and b) the underlying principle which condemns terrorism is the same underlying principle that demands american restraint and has greatly benefited the other side of the "war on terror" for the duration of this conflict

you're free to disagree, but none of the points that followed were founded on a conflation of the two

[Orruar]

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

literally none of the argument is reliant on that

you asked what makes chemical weapons "special", which i took to mean more flagrantly unacceptable than conventional weaponry. i explained the material differences between chemical and conventional warfare.

you then ascribed condemnation of terrorism to a desire to keep poor people from evening the playing field. i explained that a) that's incorrect and b) the underlying principle which condemns terrorism is the same underlying principle that demands american restraint and has greatly benefited the other side of the "war on terror" for the duration of this conflict

you're free to disagree, but none of the points that followed were founded on a conflation of the two

Eh, not really. The first point of my original post was a question for which you did stay on topic mostly. But you completely went off on a tangent with respect to the second point in the comparison of terrorism and chemical weapons. Going back to the cats/dogs analogy, I said that cats and dogs are similar in one respect and then theorized as to the implications of that similarity. You then came back with a post listing off the differences between cats and dogs. It has nothing to do with my point.

[Daldolma]

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

Eh, not really. The first point of my original post was a question for which you did stay on topic mostly. But you completely went off on a tangent with respect to the second point in the comparison of terrorism and chemical weapons. Going back to the cats/dogs analogy, I said that cats and dogs are similar in one respect and then theorized as to the implications of that similarity. You then came back with a post listing off the differences between cats and dogs. It has nothing to do with my point.

the second point is not a tangent -- it's the answer as to why condemnation of terrorism is not simply a tool to keep the poor from leveling the playing field. it's unrelated to the first point, which is why chemical warfare is different than conventional warfare

it's cool, though. you obviously don't want to discuss the merits of what you actually said, so you'd rather talk about cats and dogs

[Nirgon]

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

[Stinkum]

yea im not sure at all why daldolma went on a random israel tangent there, but his post overall sounds like it was copy-pasted from something written in the cold war era. the geopolitical chessboard has changed drastically, and israel is a strategic liability at this point.

[aowen]

Stable Syria is a puzzle piece to a stable region. Israel is the odd man out, has been since its conception, and causes more trouble than it's worth. Syria's economy is pretty useless to us, true. That would also make its destabilization equally important. Fact is in this instance, protracting instability costs lives and not much else, something bombing is not going to help.

The middle east is actually decreasing in importance for oil, as our 20 year move is to become as energy independent as possible, hence expansion of upstream oil and gas in the US combined with alternative energy research and energy efficiency incentives.

You're right, Israel won't crack NATO, another fairly impotent international organization. However, Israel is also of little economic significance, their weapons research is a drop in the pale to anywhere else, and in fact, they are much more dependent on us for weapons research and funding. We also pay them a couple billion a year in foreign aid, also insignificant when looking at our greater economy, but when looking at their FDI and trade, they hardly make up the difference. Let's also remember that the given reason for 9/11 by Osama was our policy with Israel, and that much terrorism is directed at us because of our support for Israel. Compound that with displacing millions of people, Israel ignoring our directives for halting settlements, bombing Beirut's airport and the other thousands of deaths from bombing campaigns and Mossad raids, Israel does nothing for us. It has officially cost us. Don't pretend like it's of any value anymore.

[aowen]

You want an animal analogy? Syria is the hamster no one cares about and Israel is a bad dog that bites its owner and doesn't listen when you tell it to come. The only thing to do with bad dogs is put them down. The only thing to do with hamsters is let them run the wheel in their cage until they get tired.

[Orruar]

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

You want an animal analogy? Syria is the hamster no one cares about and Israel is a bad dog that bites its owner and doesn't listen when you tell it to come. The only thing to do with bad dogs is put them down. The only thing to do with hamsters is let them run the wheel in their cage until they get tired.

Or perhaps we need to send Richard Gere to Syria.