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

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

Actually it's not in our interest. Stable governments facilitate trade and business. Assad is not even winning, and I wouldn't put Iran on the list of highest plausible threats.

However, the bigger points I'd like to make are about Israel. Israel is not at all in our interest. While at one point you could argue that Israel was our door into the Middle East, now it is a source of tension with some of our closest allies, and strains our relations worldwide. It harms our relations with other countries in the Middle East, and implicates us in human rights violations. We have used so so many UN vetoes to trump even our Western allies. Israel also now serves as little economic interest to us in the international arena, but bears some economic importance domestically pertaining to maintaining the support from the Israel and Jewish lobbies. Israel has turned into a liability, alienating us from others, requiring foreign aid, and creating imbalance in a region that may have been on its way to healing wounds long ago if it wasn't constantly being interrupted.

Additionally, I do not support destabilizing a region and causing death to better one's own position. While I already said I don't think it does better our position, I wouldn't support the policy even if it did. Blatant imperialism is out of style, subtle economic manipulation is in, didn't you hear?

Stable Syria doesn't facilitate anything for us. They're a minor economy that we barely interact with. Cuba has a higher GDP.

And Israel is overtly our door into the Middle East. It's not a past tense thing, and the Middle East is going to be significantly more vital over the next 20 years than it was for the past 20 years. Keeping the oil flowing is of utmost importance to our economy and by extension our military.

The rest is basically immaterial. You're wrong about Israel's economic value to us, especially when contrasted with Syria -- it's fairly significant, particularly their weapons research and development. But ultimately replaceable. The UN is impotent and the "tension" you're referencing is bluster more than substance. The future of Palestine isn't going to crack NATO. And the concept of Israel keeping that region unstable is lulsy. Syria is ripping itself apart, Iraq is ripping itself apart, Afghanistan and Pakistan are half tribal, Egypt just had a full-on coup d'etat, Lebanon is being run by Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are about 18 months away from an arms race. That region is fucked beyond repair by 200 years of foreign intervention and Sunni-Shiite competition. Hating Israel is the only unifying force in the region.

[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

[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.

[Orruar]

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

...

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

It's called using an analogy since you were clearly unable to comprehend the original point. And it's an analogy that already proved useful once since you even admitted that you had misread...

[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.

[Stinkum]

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

Stable Syria doesn't facilitate anything for us. They're a minor economy that we barely interact with. Cuba has a higher GDP.

And Israel is overtly our door into the Middle East. It's not a past tense thing, and the Middle East is going to be significantly more vital over the next 20 years than it was for the past 20 years. Keeping the oil flowing is of utmost importance to our economy and by extension our military.

– the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF).

– Israeli bases are not available for US use.

– none of Israel’s neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.

– Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.

– US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.

– Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international community.

– Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.

[Daldolma]

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

It's called using an analogy since you were clearly unable to comprehend the original point. And it's an analogy that already proved useful once since you even admitted that you had misread...

your points were simple and incorrect. there was no struggle to comprehend. you've yet to address those points and have now dragged on a discussion about a single, throw away sentence that i admitted from the start was based on skimming your post and missing a line. you win that point, bro -- you can quit belaboring it. unfortunately your actual points were wrong which is why you're running from them and nestling up with this ridiculous discussion of conflation

[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.

[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).