Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 9:16:39 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what was effective about it? Assad was out bombing immediately, killing civilians. It did not stop him. It didn't even make him hesitate, from what I can see. Is he still using chemical weapons in those attacks? a) it's been, like, three days. The last time he used chemical weapons on his own people before this time was how long ago? It appears that Obama's not bombing was pretty damn effective, if that is your standard. If Assad uses chemical weapons next week, will that make the bombing ineffective in your eyes? 2) does it matter, really, whether he is killing civilians via chemical weapons or blowing them into bloody shreds? why? it's a faux distinction. Assad has killed 470,000 in many horrifying ways. Dead is dead.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 9:47:03 GMT -5
a) it's been, like, three days. The last time he used chemical weapons on his own people before this time was how long ago? It appears that Obama's not bombing was pretty damn effective, if that is your standard. If Assad uses chemical weapons next week, will that make the bombing ineffective in your eyes? Well, if your standard is whether or not Assad is killing civilians, then Obama's not bombing him was pretty damn ineffective, no? As were all of the sanctions, as well. Were you opposed to those? What's your solution? The world should stick it's collective head in the sand? Because the Syria boondoggle predates Trump by quite a bit. Who has had an effective response in that regard? Regardless, Obama's not bombing him led to the 2013 agreement, wherein Assad would get rid of all his chemical weapons, with Russia on the ground to make sure that happens. Obviously it didn't happen. Does no one ever get held to account for anything, anymore? Yes, I think it does matter. The use of chemical weapons in warfare--regardless of whether the targets are civilian or military--is singled out, has been singled out for a long time, for good reasons, imo. You don't think this makes sense? Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 10, 2017 9:52:43 GMT -5
Obvious, we wasted a tone of time and resources on that deal. A lot of people are talking about how much this latest missile strike cost. How much did the deal to eliminate all of Syria's chemical weapons cost, do you think? And what did it ultimately achieve? You're doing that thing a lot of Republicans do, where the response to every criticism of Trump is "But Obama....!!!!!" Okay, Obama's "red line" was an abject failure. And? You cannot measure your success by your predecesor's failures. Seriously - yes. Do nothing. Dead babies are very sad. But babies are dying all over the world. We can't save all of them. Maybe we should think about where we can actually save the most babies, not just where they are making the most sad-making pictures on TV. What is our interest in Syria? We have an interest in stopping ISIS. We have a more abstract interesting in curbing Russia's influence. But why do we care, specifically, about what's happening in Syria? Assad is a rotten, very bad, no good man. And men like him are in charge throughout Africa and the Middle East, and our record of removing them is pretty terrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 10:51:00 GMT -5
When it comes to acts of war, to the extent we do something, I want it to be carefully considered. There's no point in dropping a few bombs and walking away. That's just dick-swinging -- it solves nothing. Are we ready to commit to really going in there and stopping Assad's shit? Do we have a plan for that? Are the people that need to be on board on board with it?
To note, there were other possible responses. E.g , issuing a statement condemning the attack and Assad. Allowing in more refugees, thus saving some beautiful babies. Getting together with our allies, and coming up with a plan to eliminate the fucker. Consulting fucking Congress.
What I see is a knee-jerk response (even if the bombs did hit their intended targets) to one of many, many heinous deadly acts that Trump previously thought we should ignore, done, by his own statement, in response to photos of dead babies, and without any apparent plan for following through.
But here in 'Murica, a lot of us tend to say "Bad act! Drop some bombs on the fucker! Wait, commit troops and money to soving the problem? Hell no!"
I admit, my first reaction on seeing the photo of the father cradling his two dead babies was "Jesus, we have to do something." And I'd still like to see us do something -- but not just poop out some missiles and walk away. If we're not going to follow up, yes, better to do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 12:01:55 GMT -5
You're doing that thing a lot of Republicans do, where the response to every criticism of Trump is "But Obama....!!!!!" Pardon, I don't mean to be doing that thing a lot of Republicans do, especially since I'm not a Republican. And frankly, that's not what I did. I was responding to the idea that Obama's doing nothing was "pretty damn effective." That's ridiculous, by any rational standard. And it costs resources, time and money. So when considering a response to Assad's latest use of chemical weapons, the consequences of past responses are certainly germane. (and Tito, and Randy, and La Toya, too). Lol. So...Obama's response--an attempt to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons (obviously flawed)--was an abject failure in your eyes and you see a better response to be: do nothing. The conclusion I draw from that is that you think it's a waste of time to worry about chemical weapons, that any treaties condemning/outlawing them are pointless and should just be ignored. Another lol. I mean you just tsked-tsked me for my supposed "but...Obama!" comment and now you're bringing in this nonsense? Come on, man. Of course we can't save them all. Doesn't mean there can't be lines that shouldn't be crossed, that we should never take a stand. I think we have in interest in shutting down the use of chemical and biological weapons, whenever possible. I think it's in our interests to not sit idly by and watch such shit go down. Moreover, I think the existence of such weapons in less-than-secure states poses additional risks, as well. And I think our interest in curbing Russian influence is hardly abstract. And don't suppose you know what my opinion is about other hot spots. The subject of this thread is Syria. And if you recall, I'm hardly a dove when it comes to, say, the Israel-Palestine situation. You may feel differently of course.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 12:07:12 GMT -5
When it comes to acts of war, to the extent we do something, I want it to be carefully considered. There's no point in dropping a few bombs and walking away. That's just dick-swinging -- it solves nothing. Are we ready to commit to really going in there and stopping Assad's shit? Do we have a plan for that? Are the people that need to be on board on board with it? If you read what I wrote upthread, you'll note that I said this in response to CE: And this in response to Amadan: My position that this was effective is predicated on it being NOT just a one-off thing. And right now, we don't really know if it was or was not.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Apr 10, 2017 16:47:05 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what was effective about it? Assad was out bombing immediately, killing civilians. It did not stop him. It didn't even make him hesitate, from what I can see. Is he still using chemical weapons in those attacks? Bombs kill innocent children and adults just as dead. But apparently pictures of pieces of blown up babies don't elicit quite the same response as dying kids, foaming at the mouth do. Someday somebody might be able to convince me why one method is more acceptable than the other. But they'll have some work to do.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 17:47:51 GMT -5
Well, one is not more or less acceptable, from the standpoint of simple death. But chemical weapons (and biological weapons) are intended to kill people, only. They don't blow up enemy fortifications, destroy enemy planes, or destroy enemy stockpiles of weapons. And they are indiscriminate in ways beyond bombs and bullets, insofar as they can effectively linger or even move to other areas.
War is hell, and I'm in favor of total war when the issue is survival, to be sure. But even then there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.
Frankly, this particular chemical weapon attack is hardly the worst thing ever. But if no one puts their foot down now, what will the next one be like? Or the one after that? And again, the existence of such agents in states like Syria is a huge problem, in and of itself. The sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway poisoned thousands, though less than fifty died. That was over twenty years ago. If the tech is better now (I assume that it is), what kind of damage could be done in a similar situation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 17:49:27 GMT -5
Is he still using chemical weapons in those attacks? Bombs kill innocent children and adults just as dead. But apparently pictures of pieces of blown up babies don't elicit quite the same response as dying kids, foaming at the mouth do. Someday somebody might be able to convince me why one method is more acceptable than the other. But they'll have some work to do. It's kind of a fucked-up message we're sending, if you think about it: "OK, Assad. You want to blow up or shoot half a million innocent people? Fine, carry on. But kill a hundred with gas? Red line! Bombs away!" (I wasn't a fan of Obama's red line, either, for the same reason. A horrible death of an innocent person is a horrible death of an innocent person, in my book.) Trump came into office with (presumably) full knowledge of half a million dead civilians and a past chemical attack. His take was "do nothing" -- until he saw those pics. That's what HE said, and his actions are in accord. And as far as him putting adequate thought into it -- 63 hours between attack and response, without consulting Congress, when, if it is to mean anything at all, we're going to be talking about a much bigger commitment in lives and money, doesn't frankly, seem like much. Are we EVER going to learn that lesson?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 10, 2017 18:57:19 GMT -5
Well, one is not more or less acceptable, from the standpoint of simple death. But chemical weapons (and biological weapons) are intended to kill people, only. They don't blow up enemy fortifications, destroy enemy planes, or destroy enemy stockpiles of weapons. And they are indiscriminate in ways beyond bombs and bullets, insofar as they can effectively linger or even move to other areas. Bombs can be used just for killing too though. A brutal dictator could easily say, "Alright men, we're going to use our bombs to target only people, OK? Don't focus on buildings or planes." Sure, one could counter that bombs could be used to do other things, but that's not much of a counter if it's just a hypothetical. And you know, when you consider how bombs can become UXOs, the lingering effect can be far greater compared to gas. People are still dying today in SE Asia because of bombs that were dropped almost fifty years ago. To me, Trump's response here makes no sense. This is all about how it makes him look, IMO. If he cared about civilians in Syria, he'd be accepting them as refugees.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 20:08:08 GMT -5
Bombs can be used just for killing too though. A brutal dictator could easily say, "Alright men, we're going to use our bombs to target only people, OK? Don't focus on buildings or planes." Sure, one could counter that bombs could be used to do other things, but that's not much of a counter if it's just a hypothetical. Disagree. Chemical and bio weapons cannot be used for any other purpose. But if I'm following this, are you and others saying that there's no need for any international rules--Geneva Protocols or the CWC--restricting such weapons, that countries should be free to produce and use such weapons, just as they would standard munitions? Because if chemical weapons are no worse than any other bombs, what reason is there not to make and use them? They can be very effective, after all. And did anyone see a large white rabbit with a pocket-watch go by?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 11, 2017 0:40:34 GMT -5
Disagree. Chemical and bio weapons cannot be used for any other purpose. But if I'm following this, are you and others saying that there's no need for any international rules--Geneva Protocols or the CWC--restricting such weapons, that countries should be free to produce and use such weapons, just as they would standard munitions? Because if chemical weapons are no worse than any other bombs, what reason is there not to make and use them? They can be very effective, after all. And did anyone see a large white rabbit with a pocket-watch go by? I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying chemical weapons can be used for other purposes. I'm only questioning the distinction between bombs and chemical weapons on the basis of chemical weapons only being used for a single purpose. And no, I'm not saying the Geneva Protocols are useless. I don't know how you're extrapolating that far. If anything, I would go in the other direction completely. Don't target any civilians, period. Doesn't matter whether it's bombs or chemical weapons, or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 11, 2017 4:53:34 GMT -5
Rules that determine what particular tools can be used for the wholesale slaughter of innocents? Outrage when vast numbers of people are killed only because the method used is relatively barbaric? Yeah, that's bullshit.
Michael has it right. Any death of non-combatants should be a war crime, IMO. Any justification for "collateral damage" is simply immoral.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 11, 2017 8:51:44 GMT -5
Disagree. Chemical and bio weapons cannot be used for any other purpose. But if I'm following this, are you and others saying that there's no need for any international rules--Geneva Protocols or the CWC--restricting such weapons, that countries should be free to produce and use such weapons, just as they would standard munitions? Because if chemical weapons are no worse than any other bombs, what reason is there not to make and use them? They can be very effective, after all. And did anyone see a large white rabbit with a pocket-watch go by? I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying chemical weapons can be used for other purposes. I'm only questioning the distinction between bombs and chemical weapons on the basis of chemical weapons only being used for a single purpose. And no, I'm not saying the Geneva Protocols are useless. I don't know how you're extrapolating that far. If anything, I would go in the other direction completely. Don't target any civilians, period. Doesn't matter whether it's bombs or chemical weapons, or anything else. I'm going that far because you--and others--are leading me there by trying to argue that ultimately, the differences between chemical weapons and bombs are inconsequential, insofar as the use of chemical weapons necessitates no special attention, whatsoever. Assad used chemical weapons. He has chemical weapons. That's a serious problem that requires a serious response, imo. Obviously, some think otherwise. Amadan recommended "do nothing" as a response. Others seems to be saying "it's nothing special; death by chemical weapon is no different than death by bombs." If that's what people think, fair enough. But it does vex me. The history of chemical weapons use is pretty horrific, imo. There's a reason why they have been singled out, going back to the post WWI era. And the spectre of the Holocaust looms large, as well. I think when people--governments--turn to chemical weapons (or biologics) even in civil wars, it's something that the rest of the world should concern themselves with. Immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 11, 2017 9:16:28 GMT -5
Actually, I think "Do nothing" is preferable to "Make half-assed demonstrations of disapproval."
I remain unconvinced that bombing an air strip has taught Assad not to use chemical weapons.
|
|