• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chemical Agenda

Respecthelect

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
969
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is one and only one reason to lift a finger in Syria - CHEMICAL WEAPONS. No other reason justifies entering thunder-dome. Not "children." Not refugee's. Not dead people. Not because Putin got pissy with Obama. Not because Assad somehow torqued-off the same-sex senators. None of it matters a whit to the U.S., except chemical weapons.

Chemical (Biological and Nuclear) weapons are considered so offensive to humanity, that there unprovoked use is cause for international intervention. This generation forgets how despicable these weapons really are and how cowardice or bureaucratic malaise led to war crimes and heinous acts in days past. Worldwide treaties, such as the Geneva convention were largely accomplished due to chemical warfare. Just because our generation hasn't suffered the consequences of chemical war, doesn't mean we should forget lessons and strictures of our predecessors.

Unprovoked chemical warfare is one of the few causes worth expending treasure to eliminate. But, only chemical weapons. Expend treasure and blood to eliminate chemicals, not as an excuse to pursue some other agenda.

If we stick to destruction of chemical stockpiles, the question of taking sides doesn't come up. If rebels have chemicals, we destroy them. If Assad has them, we destroy Assad's chemicals. Fair and balanced. Straight down the middle.

Make no mistake, neither the congress, the military nor Obama intend to attack the chemicals. Each pursues their own goblins, but none of them intends to solve the chemical problem. Only destruction of the chemicals justifies the action and only destruction of the chemicals solves the problem.

.
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
21,956
Reaction score
9,983
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If we consider nuclear bombs to be chemical weapons, then so too must we consider bullets chemical weapons.


If the objective of a weapon is to kill people, what makes one any worse than another?
 

Diving Mullah

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
863
Location
Planet Earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is one and only one reason to lift a finger in Syria - CHEMICAL WEAPONS. No other reason justifies entering thunder-dome. Not "children." Not refugee's. Not dead people. Not because Putin got pissy with Obama. Not because Assad somehow torqued-off the same-sex senators. None of it matters a whit to the U.S., except chemical weapons.

Chemical (Biological and Nuclear) weapons are considered so offensive to humanity, that there unprovoked use is cause for international intervention. This generation forgets how despicable these weapons really are and how cowardice or bureaucratic malaise led to war crimes and heinous acts in days past. Worldwide treaties, such as the Geneva convention were largely accomplished due to chemical warfare. Just because our generation hasn't suffered the consequences of chemical war, doesn't mean we should forget lessons and strictures of our predecessors.

Unprovoked chemical warfare is one of the few causes worth expending treasure to eliminate. But, only chemical weapons. Expend treasure and blood to eliminate chemicals, not as an excuse to pursue some other agenda.

If we stick to destruction of chemical stockpiles, the question of taking sides doesn't come up. If rebels have chemicals, we destroy them. If Assad has them, we destroy Assad's chemicals. Fair and balanced. Straight down the middle.

Make no mistake, neither the congress, the military nor Obama intend to attack the chemicals. Each pursues their own goblins, but none of them intends to solve the chemical problem. Only destruction of the chemicals justifies the action and only destruction of the chemicals solves the problem.

.
Really??!! Biological and Nuclear weapons are offensive??? And yet we don't have any problems with

CBU-52B

The bomblets in the CBU-52 are softball-sized and are intended primarily to shred and dismember human bodies. The dispenser holds 220 of the bomblets and can be used against both people and light-skinned vehicles.

CBU-58A/B

This cluster bomb is also used to destroy human bodies and destroy light skinned military or civilian vehicles. The dispenser holds 650 baseball-sized bomblets to be dispersed indiscriminately over a wide area.

CBU-59B Rockeye II

A newer version of the MK-20 Rockeye cluster bomb, the CBU 59 is used against both modern armor and human bodies. Rockeye II and the older Rockeye I are dart shaped bomblets with a small fuse in the pointed end of each bomblet. The CBU-59 dispenser holds about 700 bomblets.

CBU-71/B

The CBU-71/B is very similar to the CBU-58, carrying 650 baseball-sized bomblets. The CBU-71 bomblets have what the U.S. authorities call "a random delay fusing option."

CBU-72 Fuel Air Explosive

This cluster bomb is different from all the others. It's an extremely destructive incendiary bomb, rather than a shrapnel bomb, sometimes compared to a mini-nuke.

It's used to detonate minefields, to destroy aircraft parked in the open - and also to burn the occupants alive in armored vehicles, and to burn alive or suffocate people taking shelter in bunkers or over demolished city areas where people may be hiding in basements and rubble.

The bomb is made up of three separate bomblets dispensing an aerosol fuel cloud across the target area. As the fuel cloud descends to the ground it is ignited by an embedded detonator to produce what the U.S. military calls "an impressive explosion," which sucks out all the oxygen over an extended area.

The rapidly expanding wave front due to overpressure flattens all objects and burns all people alive within close proximity of the epicenter of the aerosol fuel cloud. It also produces "debilitating damage" well beyond the flattened area from oxygen deprivation.

Fuel air bombs also can be used as asphyxiation weapons, without being exploded, but this is in violation of international treaties....
_____________________________________________________________

So basically what is offensive to you is that gassing some woman and or child with Sarin is offensive but let them melt in their own skin, that is pretty much the norm!

Diving Mullah
 

Respecthelect

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
969
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bombs and bullets are considered "fair" in warfare, while chemical and biological are considered "unfair." Don't like it? Take the flowers out of your hair and join the military. Serve in a couple wars, then hang out with some WW2 vets for a few years. Then organize the world to ban whatever weapon you find offensive. Until then, learn from your elders by honoring their wisdom regarding chem-bio weapons.

The world has spoken on this subject. 165 countries signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty. They did it for a reason. Previous generations had cluster bombs. They had bullets. People died from every sort of weapon and they knew much better than you, in your antiseptic world, the price of war.

Why is it that know-nothing generations think they are the first to realize wars kill people? Armed with nothing but pretense of knowledge, they deign to lecture moral equivalency of various weaponry they've only seen on TV? For example, thermobaric detonations typically kill by overpressure, not asphyxiation. Flame-throwers were often used in WW2, so what makes anyone think this generation is more knowledgable or experienced than the greatest generation? The height of arrogance are the piss-ants who think they are smarter than previous generations, because they carry cell-phones and iPods. Technology a monkey would be more likely to create than these know-it-alls.

Now get off my yard. And I'm keeping the ball you threw over the fence.

.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is one and only one reason to lift a finger in Syria - CHEMICAL WEAPONS. No other reason justifies entering thunder-dome. Not "children." Not refugee's. Not dead people. Not because Putin got pissy with Obama. Not because Assad somehow torqued-off the same-sex senators. None of it matters a whit to the U.S., except chemical weapons.

Chemical (Biological and Nuclear) weapons are considered so offensive to humanity, that there unprovoked use is cause for international intervention. This generation forgets how despicable these weapons really are and how cowardice or bureaucratic malaise led to war crimes and heinous acts in days past. Worldwide treaties, such as the Geneva convention were largely accomplished due to chemical warfare. Just because our generation hasn't suffered the consequences of chemical war, doesn't mean we should forget lessons and strictures of our predecessors.

Unprovoked chemical warfare is one of the few causes worth expending treasure to eliminate. But, only chemical weapons. Expend treasure and blood to eliminate chemicals, not as an excuse to pursue some other agenda.

If we stick to destruction of chemical stockpiles, the question of taking sides doesn't come up. If rebels have chemicals, we destroy them. If Assad has them, we destroy Assad's chemicals. Fair and balanced. Straight down the middle.

Make no mistake, neither the congress, the military nor Obama intend to attack the chemicals. Each pursues their own goblins, but none of them intends to solve the chemical problem. Only destruction of the chemicals justifies the action and only destruction of the chemicals solves the problem.

.
Which do you think kills more people. WMD's or small arms?
 

Respecthelect

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
2,470
Reaction score
969
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Kills more" demonstrates complete naiveté. Artillery typically kills the most combatants in open warfare, but that's not the point. People much smarter and more experienced than us long ago determined that chemical warfare was unacceptable. Be it due to chemical weapons indiscriminate nature or to tradition, the world decided to outlaw chemical weapons. Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in combat (although he did in the camps). If for no other reason than we've eliminated our own chemical weapons and we no longer hold the retaliation card, chemical weapon use should be vigorously pursued.

We history-studying patriots are in the unfortunate position of advocating for eliminating Syrian chemical weapons without a single leader in the entire country willing to attack chemical stockpiles. Since the chance of eliminating even a single chemical weapon is zero, regardless which hawk-faction wins, all that's left is to vote for no action. To deny the president his request for congressional support. As much as those weapons need to be taken out, it doesn't justify allowing neophytes to wage war or to take sides. Th founders warned us to avoid foreign entanglements. Since the chemicals won't be eliminated either way and there is no other rational or valid national interest sufficient to warrant U.S. involvement, the congress should affirmatively vote for no overt military action in Syria.

.
 
Top Bottom