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

[r00t]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Estolcles]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I needed a laugh today. This .gif gave it to me. Thanks!

[gotrocks]

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

Can anyone explain what makes chemical weapons so special? Is there really a big difference between being killed by sarin gas and being killed by little pieces of metal tearing through your body?

I suspect our aversion to chemical weapons is due to similar reasons for our aversion to terrorism. It's a way for a relatively poor person/people to exert much greater power than they otherwise could. It would take many millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles to do the same damage done by 19 men on 9/11 for a fraction of that. 19 box cutters + 19 plane tickets = ~6k. We want other countries to follow certain rules of war because those rules benefit us. You may be saying that terrorism is qualitatively different because it targets civilians. If you are thinking this, please consider the massive amounts of collateral damage that our bombs cause. We have avenged 9/11 many times over in terms of civilian body count.

Put another way, I wonder if the following is true: The British hated the colonial soldiers that used guerrilla warfare in the same way we hate those that use chemical weapons, and for the same reasons.

two reasons.

there is a big difference between having an artery shredded by shrapnel and bleeding out in an hour, and being affected by a lethal dose of sarin gas. First, your nose starts to run, and then you vomit. Keep in mind that sarin is odorless and colorless, so chances are you dont even know whats happening. thats too bad, because in under a minute you piss and shit yourself, while again expelling the contents of your stomach. Now the fun starts. Immediately after doubling over to vomit, you snap backwards uncontrollably. if you are lucky, youll snap so hard you break your own spine. if not, youll be treated to the nightmarish hell that is nerve gas in full swing. See, nerve gas makes it so your nerve endings cant shut off. imagine the worst pain you could ever concieve. now put that pain all over your body, inside and out, at the same time. now imagine that while this is happening your body is convulsing uncontrollably in all directions, and you cant breathe. fortunately, most victims die of asphyxiation before this can go on too long. those who dont quickly fall into a coma and continue to convulse until their brain finally shuts down and they die. this whole process takes about a minute or two, but its likely the most hellish minute or two those victims will ever experience in their entire lives. this is the kind of torture normally reserved for torture porn movies. its the kind of thing we wish was never invented.

id love to hear you try to tell me youd take that over being shredded by shrapnel. no thanks.

number two. collateral damage. we can fire a smart missile through a window laded with just the right amount of explosives to kill the terrorists in that room and cause little damage to the building or anyone else inside it. that same missile armed with sarin gas, even a small amount, would likely clear a city block. heres the really fun part about sarin gas - it can stay on your clothes in lethal doses for around 30 minutes. And you cant see it. imagine arriving home from getting groceries to find your wife covered in shit, piss, and bloody vomit, dead on the floor, and then getting a runny nose while you cry over her dead body....

its nasty shit, kid. its not like being shot, or having your brain splattered by the concussive blast of a bomb. it needs to never be used again, period.

[Orruar]

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

two reasons.

there is a big difference between having an artery shredded by shrapnel and bleeding out in an hour, and being affected by a lethal dose of sarin gas. First, your nose starts to run, and then you vomit. Keep in mind that sarin is odorless and colorless, so chances are you dont even know whats happening. thats too bad, because in under a minute you piss and shit yourself, while again expelling the contents of your stomach. Now the fun starts. Immediately after doubling over to vomit, you snap backwards uncontrollably. if you are lucky, youll snap so hard you break your own spine. if not, youll be treated to the nightmarish hell that is nerve gas in full swing. See, nerve gas makes it so your nerve endings cant shut off. imagine the worst pain you could ever concieve. now put that pain all over your body, inside and out, at the same time. now imagine that while this is happening your body is convulsing uncontrollably in all directions, and you cant breathe. fortunately, most victims die of asphyxiation before this can go on too long. those who dont quickly fall into a coma and continue to convulse until their brain finally shuts down and they die. this whole process takes about a minute or two, but its likely the most hellish minute or two those victims will ever experience in their entire lives. this is the kind of torture normally reserved for torture porn movies. its the kind of thing we wish was never invented.

id love to hear you try to tell me youd take that over being shredded by shrapnel. no thanks.

number two. collateral damage. we can fire a smart missile through a window laded with just the right amount of explosives to kill the terrorists in that room and cause little damage to the building or anyone else inside it. that same missile armed with sarin gas, even a small amount, would likely clear a city block. heres the really fun part about sarin gas - it can stay on your clothes in lethal doses for around 30 minutes. And you cant see it. imagine arriving home from getting groceries to find your wife covered in shit, piss, and bloody vomit, dead on the floor, and then getting a runny nose while you cry over her dead body....

its nasty shit, kid. its not like being shot, or having your brain splattered by the concussive blast of a bomb. it needs to never be used again, period.

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.

[Orruar]

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

Since you're an expert, why don't you list the convention(s) that apply here.

Since it's clear that Kagatob has no idea which Geneva conventions may apply in this situation, I'll help him out.

The only one that could possibly apply is Protocol II, which was created specifically for domestic (civil) wars. However, Syria never signed P2, and so can not be in breach of that protocol. You could take the rather hawkish position that we're morally superior and thus could enforce this protocol even on those who haven't signed it. Besides the obvious reasons with that line of reasoning, there's the problem that the US hasn't even ratified P2. It would be difficult for us to claim that Syria must follow P2 when we haven't even bothered ratifying it.

[aowen]

It would be the 4th Geneva convention describing protection of civilians during war time, Protocol II, and the Geneva Protocol (the ban on chemical weapons). What are you all, fuck off retarded? Plus, Syria didn't sign one of those god damn things, because it didn't exist for the signing or drafting of most of that shit.

Moreover, if you think that bombing Syria is going to be anything but ineffective or worse, detrimental, you're next level retarded.

I am just outraged that these people are using weapons we didn't sell them, how dare they.

[Daldolma]

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

Can anyone explain what makes chemical weapons so special? Is there really a big difference between being killed by sarin gas and being killed by little pieces of metal tearing through your body?

I suspect our aversion to chemical weapons is due to similar reasons for our aversion to terrorism. It's a way for a relatively poor person/people to exert much greater power than they otherwise could. It would take many millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles to do the same damage done by 19 men on 9/11 for a fraction of that. 19 box cutters + 19 plane tickets = ~6k. We want other countries to follow certain rules of war because those rules benefit us. You may be saying that terrorism is qualitatively different because it targets civilians. If you are thinking this, please consider the massive amounts of collateral damage that our bombs cause. We have avenged 9/11 many times over in terms of civilian body count.

Put another way, I wonder if the following is true: The British hated the colonial soldiers that used guerrilla warfare in the same way we hate those that use chemical weapons, and for the same reasons.

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.

[Stinkum]

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

Da fuq? ^^^

It's an illustration of how everyone imagines you look like anytime you post your warped, morally autistic political opinions.

[aowen]

Chemical weapons are horrible. America has used them many times: Agent Orange (but we only meant to defoliate!), Napalm, etc. Assad's use of chemical weapons should not be at the crux of the argument for whether or not we enter Syria, despite what many would have you believe.

There are several more important aspects to consider, namely what would actually be achieved by bombing. Do we actually think the rebels are an altruistic people deserving of help who will be pioneers of peace in the region? Do we think the two sides will remain unified after the civil war is over? What will toppling the state do?

I understand wanting to punish Assad, but what makes him different from so many other people who deserve a spanking that are completely ignored. I do not think anyone feels like dicking around more in the Middle East, and a simple bombing campaign will do fuck all, so I'd say let this one fizzle out.

[Daldolma]

oh yeah as it relates to syria we're not interested bc of possible chemical weapons

we're interested because we want neither a pro-iran, anti-west dictator nor a fundamentalist regime. assad is pulling ahead so we have a stake in leveling the field to keep things in flux with nobody in power

duh