Syria crosses "red line" again...

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by GregLSU, Aug 21, 2013.

  1. LSUMASTERMIND

    LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,992
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    Stay out of Syria, chemical weapons or conventional weapons, dead people are dead people. Alot of atrocities going on in Africa, Asia, North Korea, etc.
    Its a dumb position on chemical weapons.
     
    bayareatiger, Rex_B and gyver like this.
  2. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,674
    Likes Received:
    23,881
    It isn't really a dumb position but it needs to be outlined. I don't see the point in getting involved "just because" they used chem. What about the many more thousands that were killed prior to the use of the chemical? Do they not count? (of course they don't, they are all ragheads after all) but just because they polished off a couple thou with some nerve agent isn't reason to get mixed up in it. Seems more like a trap than anything.
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    No, this is a line that nobody should cross without consequences. It has been so for some time. Chemical weapons like nerve and blister agents are so heinous that they are no longer tolerated in warfare, much less against civilians. And they are definitely weapons of mass destruction, because they are only really effective when you saturate an area with them, making them indiscriminate killers of civilians, children, soldiers, animals, everything. All sides had huge stockpiles during WWII and the Cold War but nobody ever used them. But the world learned from Nazi Germany what can happen if allowing countries to commit genocide on its own people is tolerated.

    When this civil war is over, Assad and some generals are going to be convicted of international war crimes. Probably posthumously.

    What are we going to do, try to outlaw AK-47's and mortars? It's ridiculous.

    Honestly, the biggest problem with our squawking about chemical weapons is drawing attention to how narrowly we define them. Most of the world considers white phosphorus and napalm to be chemical weapons as well and we definitely have used the shit out of both and still do. We don't call it napalm anymore, but if walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck . . . it's a duck.
     
  4. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,674
    Likes Received:
    23,881

    One of the greatest myths that run rampant through the military is that it is against the Geneva convention to shoot people with a .50 and it just makes me laugh. I ask them, if it is okay to shoot at them with a fucking tank, or to call in 155 mm artillery on them why in the hell would it be against the rules to shoot them with a big ass bullet?

    Look, I'm not condoning the use of CW, I'm going to assume whatever it is they have is non-persistent which means it won't stick around for long. There are parts of Germany that still have blister agents that are live as can be and Lord help the poor souls that turn over that piece of ground. No one wants to see bloody syrian body parts on the 5 O'clock news more than I do, especially at the hands of a US piloted B-1 but it just isn't worth it. Make a statement, say how terrible it is, denounce them as scoundrels but stay out of their fight lest you give the rest of those crazy camel fuckers more reason to hate us more.
     
    gyver likes this.

Share This Page