Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Attack on Syria coming soon?
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Attack on Syria coming soon?
Tweet Topic Started: Aug 27 2013, 05:35 PM (691 Views)
brumdog44 Sep 12 2013, 05:36 PM Post #76
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 12 2013, 05:09 PM
brumdog44
Sep 12 2013, 03:52 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death. Napalm is made up of chemicals that create the fire that causes death in various ways......the gel can cause some pretty nasty injuries........but I'm not going to sit here and say napalm is just fine.

As for your question, the circumstances surrounding the two events don't make them comparable imo.

But your contention was that you can't use chemical weapons without receiving consequences. It just seems to me that is stating that nothing justifies their use. I don't see how napalm could not be consisdered a chemical property since it's flammability and it's adhesive properties cause painful death.
I guess you could make the case that gunpowder is also a chemical
Would you disagree with napalm being called a chemical weapon?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 12 2013, 06:02 PM Post #77
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Sep 11 2013, 09:27 PM
Which of these events is more justifiable in the Syria incident:

1. Chemical weapons used to kill X amount of people.
2. Napalm used to kill X amount of people.
3. Firearms used to kill X amount of people.
4. Machetes used to kill X amount of people.

br
I would say 3 and 4, both being accepted ways of waging war. After WW1, the world decided chemical warfare was too heinous.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 12 2013, 09:56 PM Post #78
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
HoosierLars
Sep 12 2013, 06:02 PM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 11 2013, 09:27 PM
Which of these events is more justifiable in the Syria incident:

1. Chemical weapons used to kill X amount of people.
2. Napalm used to kill X amount of people.
3. Firearms used to kill X amount of people.
4. Machetes used to kill X amount of people.

br
I would say 3 and 4, both being accepted ways of waging war. After WW1, the world decided chemical warfare was too heinous.
So using a machete to kill the same number of people is somehow more acceptable than using a chemical weapon?

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 12 2013, 10:40 PM Post #79
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Sep 12 2013, 09:56 PM
HoosierLars
Sep 12 2013, 06:02 PM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 11 2013, 09:27 PM
Which of these events is more justifiable in the Syria incident:

1. Chemical weapons used to kill X amount of people.
2. Napalm used to kill X amount of people.
3. Firearms used to kill X amount of people.
4. Machetes used to kill X amount of people.

br
I would say 3 and 4, both being accepted ways of waging war. After WW1, the world decided chemical warfare was too heinous.
So using a machete to kill the same number of people is somehow more acceptable than using a chemical weapon?

br
Based on the post-WW1 treaty agreed to by most nations, yes. I think the issue is the amount of pain and suffering the victims go through, combined with the potential to kill so many innocents indiscriminately.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 12 2013, 10:57 PM Post #80
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
that's pretty fucked up, from my perspective.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 12 2013, 11:23 PM Post #81
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 08:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 11 2013, 07:34 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
how about when genocide is actively going on in a country?

br
We went into the Balkans to stop genocide. Should have went into Rwanda.....

Don't want to start a big fight here, but I think sometimes we should be the world's policeman.
I also believe we should have done something in Rwanda. I will have to disagree with you on Syria.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 12 2013, 11:42 PM Post #82
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
eelbor
Sep 12 2013, 11:23 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 08:52 PM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 11 2013, 07:34 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
how about when genocide is actively going on in a country?

br
We went into the Balkans to stop genocide. Should have went into Rwanda.....

Don't want to start a big fight here, but I think sometimes we should be the world's policeman.
I also believe we should have done something in Rwanda. I will have to disagree with you on Syria.
I just think 'we' needs to stop being singular and more of a collective 'we'. What is the point of having allies if we are going to do all of the heavy lifting?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 13 2013, 03:45 AM Post #83
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 12 2013, 05:36 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 12 2013, 05:09 PM
brumdog44
Sep 12 2013, 03:52 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death. Napalm is made up of chemicals that create the fire that causes death in various ways......the gel can cause some pretty nasty injuries........but I'm not going to sit here and say napalm is just fine.

As for your question, the circumstances surrounding the two events don't make them comparable imo.

But your contention was that you can't use chemical weapons without receiving consequences. It just seems to me that is stating that nothing justifies their use. I don't see how napalm could not be consisdered a chemical property since it's flammability and it's adhesive properties cause painful death.
I guess you could make the case that gunpowder is also a chemical
Would you disagree with napalm being called a chemical weapon?
No, I don't think I disagree with that. I'm kind of with Brian though....mass killing ends in the same result regardless of the weapon.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobobinc Sep 13 2013, 10:30 AM Post #84
Member Avatar
Scrimshanker
Posts:
8,742
Group:
Members
Member
#73
Joined:
February 6, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 13 2013, 03:45 AM
brumdog44
Sep 12 2013, 05:36 PM
Mr Gray
Sep 12 2013, 05:09 PM
brumdog44
Sep 12 2013, 03:52 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death. Napalm is made up of chemicals that create the fire that causes death in various ways......the gel can cause some pretty nasty injuries........but I'm not going to sit here and say napalm is just fine.

As for your question, the circumstances surrounding the two events don't make them comparable imo.

But your contention was that you can't use chemical weapons without receiving consequences. It just seems to me that is stating that nothing justifies their use. I don't see how napalm could not be consisdered a chemical property since it's flammability and it's adhesive properties cause painful death.
I guess you could make the case that gunpowder is also a chemical
Would you disagree with napalm being called a chemical weapon?
No, I don't think I disagree with that. I'm kind of with Brian though....mass killing ends in the same result regardless of the weapon.

I'm with Brum......and I think most Americans are.....that there needs to be a collective effort from many. But if no one else will help, do we do nothing? Do we only act against chemical weapons and not machetes?

Someone has to be the leader.....and maybe the only participant. It sucks but it's the reality.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 13 2013, 10:38 AM Post #85
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Sep 12 2013, 10:57 PM
that's pretty fucked up, from my perspective.

br
Perhaps, but when scores of countries who have engaged in various forms of warfare agree to ban certain weapons, I've got to at least listen to their argument.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 13 2013, 09:20 PM Post #86
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Pretty sad to see that McCain's going to make a big issue of Putin's editorial. What an ass.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 13 2013, 09:23 PM Post #87
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
HoosierLars
Sep 13 2013, 10:38 AM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 12 2013, 10:57 PM
that's pretty fucked up, from my perspective.

br
Perhaps, but when scores of countries who have engaged in various forms of warfare agree to ban certain weapons, I've got to at least listen to their argument.
When you're talking about an end result in the same number of bodies, I, and no one else, should really give a fuck about what a council of countries have decided on what's moral or not.

If we have domestic laws about murder that's based on intent, I don't see why things should be different when it comes to other countries actions.

If an individual plots and acts on murdering an individual, it shouldn't matter whether they shot them, stabbed them, or poisoned them. The issue is the intent and action.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 14 2013, 08:22 AM Post #88
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Looks like we might avoid military action.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-russia-reach-agreement-syria-weapons-102700028--politics.html
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 14 2013, 09:31 AM Post #89
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Sep 13 2013, 09:23 PM
HoosierLars
Sep 13 2013, 10:38 AM
sirbrianwilson
Sep 12 2013, 10:57 PM
that's pretty fucked up, from my perspective.

br
Perhaps, but when scores of countries who have engaged in various forms of warfare agree to ban certain weapons, I've got to at least listen to their argument.
When you're talking about an end result in the same number of bodies, I, and no one else, should really give a fuck about what a council of countries have decided on what's moral or not.

If we have domestic laws about murder that's based on intent, I don't see why things should be different when it comes to other countries actions.

If an individual plots and acts on murdering an individual, it shouldn't matter whether they shot them, stabbed them, or poisoned them. The issue is the intent and action.

br
You can argue that banning/limiting chemical weapons is similar to wanting to ban guns or assault rifles. Both make it easier to kill many people in a short span of time.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 14 2013, 09:34 AM Post #90
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
but explosives don't cross the red line?

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy