Chemical Weapons

[Anny Road]

With reference to the horrible events in Syria recently and the unmistakable feeling that we are going to go in and are being softened up.

Can anyone explain to me where the disdain for chemical comes from?

 

I'm not suggesting they are OK but when one considers it is perfectly expectable for 'shock and awe' purposes for us to fire depleted Uranium warheads from hundreds of miles away in the middle of the sea at areas containing civilians yet as soon as anyone mentions gas or agents we are set to go to war in a place we basically don't give a shit about against the wishes of China and Russia.

Is this just usual hypocrisy or is there something I am missing here? We won't go in for humanitarian reasons so what is it?

[Kevin D]

I watched a news-report last night that suggested the U.S had dropped Sarin gas on a village in Pakistan back in 2009.

[Bjornebye]

Unfortunately we will follow whatever the yanks do because to them we are like the little brother who wants to tag along to show how good he is, begging for love from a superior force.

 

I want Hugh Grant from love actually to take over. he was a great PM in that. Telling the yanks to basically fuck off.

 

Going to war with Syria could be a massive mistake , we are still fighting in Afghanistan when we shouldn't be.

 

No way am I saying the use of chemical weapons is right and yeah Syria needs fucking for it, but let the yanks do it.

 

The way things are going, we would be better off siding with whatever the Chinese do from now on.

[Anny Road]

I think if some of the huge and indiscriminate weaponry used by all are perfectly justified how can everyone seemed so utterly outraged by chemicals.

The Syrian government has spent the last year shelling indiscriminately civilian areas forcing hundreds of thousands to flee but the minute a chemical is used Obamas red line is crossed. Why does the method of death matter a shit? You are still killing women and children.

[PestiRed]

Unfortunately we will follow whatever the yanks do because to them we are like the little brother who wants to tag along to show how good he is, begging for love from a superior force.

 

I want Hugh Grant from love actually to take over. he was a great PM in that. Telling the yanks to basically fuck off.

 

Going to war with Syria could be a massive mistake , we are still fighting in Afghanistan when we shouldn't be.

 

No way am I saying the use of chemical weapons is right and yeah Syria needs fucking for it, but let the yanks do it.

 

The way things are going, we would be better off siding with whatever the Chinese do from now on.

 

Negged for not only knowing but actually quoting the plot of Love Actually

[Bjornebye]

Negged for not only knowing but actually quoting the plot of Love Actually

 

Ha fair enough i'll take that. I watched it on a plane from sydney to cairns years ago. It was the in-flight movie. The lad I was travelling with is a boring cunt so the film did the job.

 

Stand by what i said though.

[Kevin D]

I think if some of the huge and indiscriminate weaponry used by all are perfectly justified how can everyone seemed so utterly outraged by chemicals.

The Syrian government has spent the last year shelling indiscriminately civilian areas forcing hundreds of thousands to flee but the minute a chemical is used Obamas red line is crossed. Why does the method of death matter a shit? You are still killing women and children.

 

Largely agree. To be honest, beyond aggression, I find the idea of "war crimes" to be ridiculous.

 

Couple of videos on humanitarian intervention that are worth watching:

 

[YOUTUBE]77U1tlAyWVA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]MMirTxSlhBA[/YOUTUBE]

[PestiRed]

The only way Richard Curtis films should be mentioned in this thread is something along the lie of "Chemical weapons are evil but could be justified if using them on the set of Nottingham Hill"

[Lee909]

I agree that there is little difference in killing civilians by conventional bombing or by gas attacks.But using chemicals just sits uneasy with me personally,it must be a much more agonising death for a start. Im not saying that dying in a explosion cant lead to a slow death.The major issue is that its woman and kids getting caught up in chemical warfare that causes the outrage that it does.

I imagine the reason that chemical warfare gets reaction it does is down to a mixture of reasons.The horror of Mustard Gas in the trenches in WW1. The world realised that the old concept of honourable warfare was dead after the war and then followed WW2.The Nazi's use of chemicals to kill millions of people in death camps,the Japanese use of chemicals to spread the bubonic plague in Changde. Its also against the Geneva Conventions which allows those in power to pretend that wars can be fought in a civil manner.

 

 

Maybe its shouldn't but ill admit it does cross a line in my mind.

[cochyn]

Can anyone explain to me where the disdain for chemical comes from?

 

I guess in a conventional strike there is some pre-warning, obvious targets and the opportunity for innocents to get to cover - however limited. Chemical warfare is insidious and indiscriminate, killing innocents and combatants alike.

 

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons chemical agents are banned by international decree and the Geneva convention for being weapons of mass destruction?

[Anny Road]

I agree. However I see events such as Hiroshima and the carpet blitzing of Dresden equally as nasty. We can justify by saying they helped end a war against a nasty regime a possibly saved lives. I'm sure the Syrian government would say the same in future.

[Ranxerox]

getting involved in Syria would be a massive mistake for any western nation.

[Anny Road]

I don't see what Bashar has done to be honest. Nothing more than any other middle eastern leader would do in similar circumstances. Certainly the Saudis put down rebellions in equally robust terms. US owes them money though I guess.

I cannot see the political, oil, strategic reasons why we would involve ourselves (the west) here at all.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Chemical weapons are absolutely horrific. They were horrific when the US used them, they're horrific no matter what. They way they kill is about as bad as is possible. I didn't think it was okay to drop any bombs on any Iraqis, Afghans, or anybody else, but we shouldn't mix the two situations. Syria are using chemical weapons on their own civilian population. Regardless of how bad the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were, they shouldn't make a legal, international response totally out of the question.

 

However, I've got to agree with Scott. Any Western involvement was start quite the shit storm.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't see what Bashar has done to be honest.

 

Are you following it closely, mate?

[Lee909]

Im guessing Syrias response to any intervention would be a attack on Israel to try and draw them into a war and hope some of the other Islamic states would get involved.

[Anny Road]

Are you following it closely, mate?

 

That in isolation sounds I stupid statement (mine) I would agree. The guy is a top cunt and the sooner he is gone the better. Replaced by whom?

 

I just do not understand our potential involvement. We had no problem with this guy 2 years or so ago. Would we bomb France if they started shooting rioters.

[cochyn]

I agree. However I see events such as Hiroshima and the carpet blitzing of Dresden equally as nasty. We can justify by saying they helped end a war against a nasty regime a possibly saved lives. I'm sure the Syrian government would say the same in future.

 

How? Both were decisive actions against genocidal aggressors. The situation in Syria is quite different.

[Anny Road]

How is it different

A) Morally

B) If you are in charge of the country and this is threatening chaos

[Lee909]

The Dresden bombings are very iffy in regards to being necessary or not but it hard to judge in hindsight.The war had been running for 6 years and the allied commanders would have witnessed/been aware of the deaths of tens of million and the allied forces had started to liberate the concentration camps and would have had very little sympathy for any war workers for the Germans and i imagine had any of us been in there shoes we would have felt the same.

[Anny Road]

Of course Kal. But the aim was to inflict massive civilian casualties. Most died not by bomb but as a result of fire but I am sure you know that. I don't see how death through lack of oxygen caused by fire is anyworse than cause by a chemical agent.

 

Cochyn of course you are correct but not in the eyes of the ruling powers in Syria

[polymerpunkah]

My guess, and it's only a guess, is the abhorrence of chemical weapons comes from the first world war. They were just such a horrible horrible shock.

 

Ironic, given the slaughter of that war using "conventional" weapons and "all-too-conventional" tactics.

[Lee909]

Its that difficult question of when are civilians actually civilians.

If they are propping up the war effort for the Germans and in turn risking thousands of allied soldiers lives do you give the order to completely wipe the city away or not.

 

Different times though to be fair.

[Lee909]

My guess, and it's only a guess, is the abhorrence of chemical weapons comes from the first world war. They were just such a horrible horrible shock.

 

Ironic, given the slaughter of that war using "conventional" weapons and "all-too-conventional" tactics.

 

Said the same earlier,war was still considered to be fought on honourable terms until the First World War.If war was ever honourable the large scale use of firearms really took that away.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't really see what events of WWII, especially acts by the attacked against the facist, mass-murdering genocidal attackers, have to do with current acts of the Syrian regime against their own civilians.

 

I don't disagree about us 'going in', but I wouldn't mind seeing something done to stop chemical warfare against civilians. The crimes against civilian population is truly awful, and it's surely getting to the point where watching kids dying from chemical weapon use is starting to become a little too regular to avoid.

 

I'm not saying we should have a unilateral invasion, but I wouldn't be totally against some sort of intervention.