Syria (merged)

That really is a piss-poor answer. Chemical weapons MAY cause massive damage - and yet is a fact that the numbers of deaths caused by unconventional weapons has been dwarfed by those by conventional weapons in every conflict in my lifetime. In my lifetime millions have died unnecessary deaths as a result of politics. Western governments responsible for many of them, and yet I'm supposed to get in a tizzy about chemicals? No, I won't, it's absurd and the lack of answers in this thread is testament to it.
 
Is it logical or even possible to see both sides and agree with both Skash and gelsons on this issue?
 
Skashion said:
That really is a piss-poor answer. Chemical weapons MAY cause massive damage - and yet is a fact that the numbers of deaths caused by unconventional weapons has been dwarfed by those by conventional weapons in every conflict in my lifetime. In my lifetime millions have died unnecessary deaths as a result of politics. Western governments responsible for many of them, and yet I'm supposed to get in a tizzy about chemicals? No, I won't, it's absurd and the lack of answers in this thread is testament to it.
Click to expand...

In your lifetime CW have been banned and MAD prevented the use of Nuclear weapons. And you should be thankful for that.
 
Skashion said:
metalblue said:
Why would anybody explain to you why YOU should care more about one thing or another? I have explained why politicians do.
Click to expand...
Because that's what this debate is about unless you believe our opinions on here help form government policy.
Click to expand...

Not really, I stated that it derives from a need for reciprocity, you stated your view that it was a path of doing least harm. I don't imagine anybody would disagree with your logic, its eminently sensible, what we can't know is doing nothing going to kill more people/promote more suffering than punitive action. We can guess it might save more Syrians given their situation but the concern has to be that having told Syria and others that actually we won't enforce international law it may end up leading to more willingness to use mass killing weapons in future.

The sad reality is we missed our chance 12 months ago when it was first muted they used chemical weapons and since then the rebels have become increasingly influenced by outside forces.
 
Skashion said:
Gelsons Dad said:
In your lifetime CW have been banned and MAD prevented the use of Nuclear weapons. And you should be thankful for that.
Click to expand...
Can you name me a conflict where chemical weapons have taken more lives than conventional ones?
Click to expand...

Of course not because as soon as their potential was understood they became firstly a weapon of last resort due to their indiscriminate nature and then banned by all right minded governments. They are of limited tactical use in conventional warfare as they cannot be targeted and are non persistent. Persistent agents render the battlefield unusable by both sides and so are even less use. They are a perfect terror weapon threatening the annihilation of every living creature in their area of effectiveness and incapacitation in lower doses wherever the wind choses to take them. Odourless, colourless pesticides that will kill everything in their wake.

These are not the weapons of sane men.
 
metalblue said:
Not really, I stated that it derives from a need for reciprocity, you stated your view that it was a path of doing least harm. I don't imagine anybody would disagree with your logic, its eminently sensible, what we can't know is doing nothing going to kill more people/promote more suffering than punitive action. We can guess it might save more Syrians given their situation but the concern has to be that having told Syria and others that actually we won't enforce international law it may end up leading to more willingness to use mass killing weapons in future.

The sad reality is we missed our chance 12 months ago when it was first muted they used chemical weapons and since then the rebels have become increasingly influenced by outside forces.
Click to expand...
An argument I didn't find the least convincing from a humanitarian perspective. We have definite reason to suppose if Assad's victory is stalled it will lead to more lives lost. Longer war equals more lives lost, that's self evident. If Al Nusra win, we have definite reason to suppose deaths will continue. Lives are already being taken by Al Nusra, just this month over 1,000 Kurds have been massacred at the hands of Al Nusra in Khan al-Assal, Lattakia and Tal Abyad. Al Nusra has threatened to revenge massacres on Alawites as well: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-nusra-idUSBRE97O06120130825" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 6120130825</a> This is not a hypothesis, the massacres I'm talking about are already happening. My fear is they'll turn into genocide and the blood will be on our hands. Why do I care less about 1,000 Kurds killed by swords, bullets and explosives than 335 Sunnis gassed? Conversely, if Assad is victorious we have less reason to suppose there will be more deaths. Massacres were not evident in pre-war Syria under Assad so why should they afterwards? Again, my reasoning appears backed up by the Syrian people who now prefer Assad to the alternative: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/</a>
 
Skashion said:
metalblue said:
Not really, I stated that it derives from a need for reciprocity, you stated your view that it was a path of doing least harm. I don't imagine anybody would disagree with your logic, its eminently sensible, what we can't know is doing nothing going to kill more people/promote more suffering than punitive action. We can guess it might save more Syrians given their situation but the concern has to be that having told Syria and others that actually we won't enforce international law it may end up leading to more willingness to use mass killing weapons in future.

The sad reality is we missed our chance 12 months ago when it was first muted they used chemical weapons and since then the rebels have become increasingly influenced by outside forces.
Click to expand...
An argument I didn't find the least convincing from a humanitarian perspective. We have definite reason to suppose if Assad's victory is stalled it will lead to more lives lost. Longer war equals more lives lost, that's self evident. If Al Nusra win, we have definite reason to suppose deaths will continue. Lives are already being taken by Al Nusra, just this month over 1,000 Kurds have been massacred at the hands of Al Nusra in Khan al-Assal, Lattakia and Tal Abyad. Al Nusra has threatened to revenge massacres on Alawites as well: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-nusra-idUSBRE97O06120130825" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 6120130825</a> This is not a hypothesis, the massacres I'm talking about are already happening. My fear is they'll turn into genocide and the blood will be on our hands. Why do I care less about 1,000 Kurds killed by swords, bullets and explosives than 335 Sunnis gassed? Conversely, if Assad is victorious we have less reason to suppose there will be more deaths. Massacres were not evident in pre-war Syria under Assad so why should they afterwards? Again, my reasoning appears backed up by the Syrian people who now prefer Assad to the alternative: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/</a>
Click to expand...

My problem with your "humanitarian" argument is that if you take it to the nth degree we would then have to support every act of aggression in order to end the violence as quickly as possible.
It does not differentiate right from wrong. Just less from more.
 
Skashion said:
2sheikhs said:
Do you believe that nuking Japan was the best course of action in ww2 then Skash?
Click to expand...
Had a long long long debate about this before. No, no I fucking don't.
Click to expand...
But their justification for that action was the same as yours. End game was less casualties in the long run.
 
2sheikhs said:
Skashion said:
2sheikhs said:
Do you believe that nuking Japan was the best course of action in ww2 then Skash?
Click to expand...
Had a long long long debate about this before. No, no I fucking don't.
Click to expand...
But their justification for that action was the same as yours. End game was less casualties in the long run.
Click to expand...

By the same logic if the yanks had armed the Soviets in Afghanistan rather than the Taliban they could have saved millions of lives subsequently.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
My problem with your "humanitarian" argument is that if you take it to the nth degree we would then have to support every act of aggression in order to end the violence as quickly as possible.
It does not differentiate right from wrong. Just less from more.
Click to expand...
No, it would only entail intervention if it could spare more lives than not. Believe it or not, I have this belief that taking intervention will also cost some lives, therefore, you intervene only when there is a great loss of life. However, the west could have saved more lives than intervention has simply by doing fuck all post-1945. 500,000 caused by sanctions in Iraq alone... The west can employ weapons of mass destruction too, it's just that no-one else is powerful enough to respond. I wonder how that works out in this theory of reciprocity?<br /><br />-- Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:59 pm --<br /><br />
2sheikhs said:
But their justification for that action was the same as yours. End game was less casualties in the long run.
Click to expand...
Quite ironic I've need to call on these since I've referenced Eisenhower once today:

I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'
Click to expand...
General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Click to expand...
General Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.
Click to expand...
Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.
Click to expand...
John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War

P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.
Click to expand...
President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945


Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Click to expand...
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
Click to expand...
J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Skashion said:
Gelsons Dad said:
My problem with your "humanitarian" argument is that if you take it to the nth degree we would then have to support every act of aggression in order to end the violence as quickly as possible.
It does not differentiate right from wrong. Just less from more.
Click to expand...
No, it would only entail intervention if it could spare more lives than not. Believe it or not, I have this belief that taking intervention will also cost some lives, therefore, you intervene only when there is a great loss of life. However, the west could have saved more lives than intervention has simply by doing fuck all post-1945. 500,000 caused by sanctions in Iraq alone... The west can employ weapons of mass destruction too, it's just that no-one else is powerful enough to respond. I wonder how that works out in this theory of reciprocity?
Click to expand...

and if we had done "fuck all" pre 1945? You know, when a fucking mad man was gassing people and developing the first nerve agents!

I tried hard not to bring it up but we've ended up there anyway.
 
Ducado said:
Gelsons Dad said:
People keep using the "we did bad stuff once or failed to act when bad stuff happened so what right do we have to intervene now" argument.

This is utter nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. They make twice as much wrong and the prospect of more!

By failing to act we are turning a blind eye to the use of an horrific type of warfare. It takes billions to make a nuke, it takes only the will to make sarin. Allow this to go unpunished and you give a green light to all those who previously held back from using these indiscriminate weapons.

It is also rather narrow minded to use the perceived consequences of action in Syria as a reason to allow this to go unchecked. There is the rest of the world and it's future to think of too. So just as failure to react to African genocides is no reason to not act now. Failure to act now could well be the catalyst for future genocides and then are we to have the same debate?

3623.jpg


"We didn't do anything when Assad gassed those kids so why should we intervene now x has wiped out a town with one juicy airburst"

I don't know what the appropriate response should be but I'm fucking glad some people care enough to try and do something.
Click to expand...

Well said
Click to expand...

Its complete hypocrisy. It makes me laugh when I see the likes of Obomber and Call me Dave bang on about it being a 'moral obscenity' and present themselves as the bastions of morality, and caring about the children of Syria. What about the people in Vietnam who died from Agent Orange, and Napalm, which still deforms kids right to this day, over 40 years later? Saddam using chemical weapons the US gave him, then turning a blind eye when he used them on Iranians and Kurds? The deformed babies and high cancer rates in Iraq, especially Fallujah, from all that White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium? Type in DU babies on google with the safe search off to see what its done. They don't say a word when Israel uses White Phosphorus in Gaza, or the militarized use of tear gas in Bahrain on protesters, when they lock down areas then keep pumping it, leading to deaths, and illness. But hey, its all fun and games when you or your mates do it. Its bollocks. They don't give a crap about the people of Syria, never have done. Assad has been there some 13 years, where was the moral outrage about him during those years? Them giving "aid" to the FSA which supplies Al Nusra has led to so many deaths of innocent people, and created the crisis we're seeing. This is not about democracy, or improving Syria. This whole manufactured conflict is about imperialism and their own geopolitical interests, and to hell with the people living there.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
and if we had done "fuck all" pre 1945? You know, when a fucking mad man was gassing people and developing the first nerve agents!

I tried hard not to bring it up but we've ended up there anyway.
Click to expand...
He still killed far more without chemical weapons, which you know only too well, so it's a bit of a non-starter from that perspective. I believe the Second World War was Britain's finest hour. You see, with me, it's not about no interventions, or intervene in every case, but intervene where intervention will lead to fewer lives being lost. This was most certainly the case in the Second World War.
 
Great news

<a class="postlink" href="http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23942037" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23942037</a>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top