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.]

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

Yes, my points were simple and easy to understand, and yet you failed and continue to fail to understand them. Which is why I pull out the "cow goes moo" level analogies in hopes of helping you relate my points to something you may be more familiar with.

And I stand by everything I said. I still suspect we have an aversion to chemical weapons because of how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with them. Keep in mind when I say "we", I'm speaking about our military and civilian leaders, who are in positions of power to condemn/use weapons and wage war. I'm sure if you speak to all 300 million Americans, you can get a wide range of views on why they dislike chemical weapons. And I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between the Pak/Afgh population that is scared shitless about death from the sky and New Yorkers who are scared shitless about death from the sky. You may think our drones dropping bombs is much different than the 9/11 hijackers, but the effects are pretty much the same. A bunch of people die, and many more than that get to live in fear.

[Daldolma]

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

– 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.

copy-pasta from chas freeman. i can respond with a copy-pasta from blackwill and slocombe (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...-united-states), but we can play that game all day. we both get it, it's a divisive issue. so let's talk practice instead of theory

why do you believe we went to war with iraq? do you think it was for democracy? for WMDs? for 9/11? no, we know it was for the oil and control in the region. what did that war cost us in terms of dollars, lives, and international esteem? now look at israel. what does israel cost us? it's a relative pittance. we've bought a proxy state in the middle east for next to nothing

[Daldolma]

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

Yes, my points were simple and easy to understand, and yet you failed and continue to fail to understand them. Which is why I pull out the "cow goes moo" level analogies in hopes of helping you relate my points to something you may be more familiar with.

And I stand by everything I said. I still suspect we have an aversion to chemical weapons because of how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with them. Keep in mind when I say "we", I'm speaking about our military and civilian leaders, who are in positions of power to condemn/use weapons and wage war. I'm sure if you speak to all 300 million Americans, you can get a wide range of views on why they dislike chemical weapons. And I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between the Pak/Afgh population that is scared shitless about death from the sky and New Yorkers who are scared shitless about death from the sky. You may think our drones dropping bombs is much different than the 9/11 hijackers, but the effects are pretty much the same. A bunch of people die, and many more than that get to live in fear.

we're almost there... now that you've repeated yourself, i can repeat myself, and you can respond

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.

[gotrocks]

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

we're almost there... now that you've repeated yourself, i can repeat myself, and you can respond

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.

i already reposted this for you [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[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

[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.

[Stinkum]

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

copy-pasta from chas freeman. i can respond with a copy-pasta from blackwill and slocombe (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...-united-states), but we can play that game all day. we both get it, it's a divisive issue. so let's talk practice instead of theory

why do you believe we went to war with iraq? do you think it was for democracy? for WMDs? for 9/11? no, we know it was for the oil and control in the region. what did that war cost us in terms of dollars, lives, and international esteem? now look at israel. what does israel cost us? it's a relative pittance. we've bought a proxy state in the middle east for next to nothing

obvi a copy paste.

i would respond properly to this post but by the time i would have wasted 1 hour doing so, and you'll have already moved the goal post to another topic. in the end we'll just speak over each other and no one will listen. i think israel is a geopolitical liability and you think it's an asset, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle i.e. israel is a tertiary U.S. interest in a very complex and changing region that we are both oversimplifying shit

i wish you the best of luck in your determined mission to prove that you are right about a political point on an Elfsim forum

[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.

[Orruar]

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

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.

"Uncontrollable" is not accurate. It's not like chemical weapons just run off in a random direction and hit people miles away. They hit a much larger area, and they disperse based upon wind patterns, but that doesn't mean they're uncontrollable. You still chose the location you want to affect. If chemicals truly were uncontrollable, farmers wouldn't bother spraying crops with airplanes because the pesticides are uncontrollable. And as I've pointed out numerous times now, it's not clear that chemical weapons are that much more cruel than conventional weapons. We only accept death by metal or fire because it has been around for much longer and we've become accustomed to that method of death. But if given the choice, I'm not sure if I'd choose to have half of my intestines ripped out by shards of whatever structure I was living in, then lay in agony for an hour or longer. And as far as chemical agents go, sarin is actually not nearly as bad as some.

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.

Again, I'm not sure if the people living in Pak/Afgh really see a big difference between what we do and what the terrorists do. And I'm not denying that terrorism is flat out unacceptable from a moral standpoint. My point is that killing tens of thousands in the middle east is no more morally acceptable in my view. You see, when I compare what we do in some way to terrorism, it's not because I see terrorism as perfectly fine. It's because I see what we do as perfectly wrong. Finally, it's not clear that the 9/11 terrorists were targeting purely civilians. Look at what they attacked: The centers of our economic (WTC) and military (pentagon + white house) power. The notion that terrorists just go after whatever innocent people they can in order to instill fear is a rather childish view. Most of us figured this out shortly after 9/11.

[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.