Poll: Should the international community intervene directly in Syria?
Yes.
No.
Unsure/undecided.
[Show Results]
 
Syria-What should be done?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(01-09-2013 10:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Agent Orange (and the other rainbow concoctions) weren't chemical weapons. That is to say, they weren't chemicals whose purpose was to kill or injure.

You’re right that something that turned out to be toxic and designed to be toxic are two different things. Yet, the fact that Agent Orange was used as a chemical weapon is not in dispute. The defoliation program by the United States military was intended to deprive people of food by killing off the food supply.

If the American government dropped as much Round Up as they did Agent Orange to starve the population I would call Round Up in that case a chemical weapon. Agent Orange was used in warfare against people and therefore is rightly called a chemical weapon.

Chlorine has civilian uses (even in a gas form) yet, when you use it against people you’ve now turned it into a weapon it and are practicing chemical warfare.

For moral reasons I'm an atheist. I'm of the opinion that you would recognize a creator by his creation, & the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this intentionally. - Stanislaw Lem
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(01-09-2013 11:16 AM)telckavich Wrote:  You’re right that something that turned out to be toxic and designed to be toxic are two different things. Yet, the fact that Agent Orange was used as a chemical weapon is not in dispute. The defoliation program by the United States military was intended to deprive people of food by killing off the food supply.

If the American government dropped as much Round Up as they did Agent Orange to starve the population I would call Round Up in that case a chemical weapon. Agent Orange was used in warfare against people and therefore is rightly called a chemical weapon.

Chlorine has civilian uses (even in a gas form) yet, when you use it against people you’ve now turned it into a weapon it and are practicing chemical warfare.

Yes. And?

There's a qualitative difference between a direct weapon and an indirect weapon, and I think that's a useful distinction to have.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 11:47 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(01-09-2013 11:16 AM)telckavich Wrote:  
(01-09-2013 10:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Agent Orange (and the other rainbow concoctions) weren't chemical weapons. That is to say, they weren't chemicals whose purpose was to kill or injure.

You’re right that something that turned out to be toxic and designed to be toxic are two different things. Yet, the fact that Agent Orange was used as a chemical weapon is not in dispute. The defoliation program by the United States military was intended to deprive people of food by killing off the food supply.

If the American government dropped as much Round Up as they did Agent Orange to starve the population I would call Round Up in that case a chemical weapon. Agent Orange was used in warfare against people and therefore is rightly called a chemical weapon.

Chlorine has civilian uses (even in a gas form) yet, when you use it against people you’ve now turned it into a weapon it and are practicing chemical warfare.

So it's better just to starve people to death than directly kill them? Seems legit. Especially by chemical means that we don't (didn't) have any real understanding of. I would still be abhorred if we dropped a shitton of round up on people. We know better now, and I would dare say that we probably knew better then.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 11:50 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(01-09-2013 11:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  There's a qualitative difference between a direct weapon and an indirect weapon, and I think that's a useful distinction to have.

So using it directly to deprive people of food is an indirect use? I'm sorry but in this case it is clear that Agent Orange was used directly to defoliate the canopy and destroy food supplies. That is about as direct as one can get.

For moral reasons I'm an atheist. I'm of the opinion that you would recognize a creator by his creation, & the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this intentionally. - Stanislaw Lem
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 12:06 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
That was the case I was trying to make. That using Agent Orange to destroy a food supply constituted a chemical weapon.

For moral reasons I'm an atheist. I'm of the opinion that you would recognize a creator by his creation, & the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this intentionally. - Stanislaw Lem
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(01-09-2013 11:47 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  So it's better just to starve people to death than directly kill them? Seems legit. Especially by chemical means that we don't (didn't) have any real understanding of. I would still be abhorred if we dropped a shitton of round up on people. We know better now, and I would dare say that we probably knew better then.

That it was used for domestic civilian purposes illustrates how it was not seen as dangerous in and of itself. Its use was discontinued when it was found dangerous (military use was stopped years before civilian use!)...

(01-09-2013 12:06 PM)telckavich Wrote:  That was the case I was trying to make. That using Agent Orange to destroy a food supply constituted a chemical weapon.

Yes. And?

I guess I may have been slightly unclear when I said this:
(01-09-2013 10:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Agent Orange (and the other rainbow concoctions) weren't chemical weapons.

I figured the very next sentence would make clear the sense in which I meant that...
(01-09-2013 10:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That is to say, they weren't chemicals whose purpose was to kill or injure.

A weapon is a weapon, but some weapons are more equal than others. Scorched earth (which, y'know, in case it wasn't clear - is still bad Sad) is not the same as firing off nerve gas all willy-nilly. The fact that there are international agreements on weapon use would seem to corroborate this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
Correction: against popular belief, agent orange was never "just to kill food supply" or vegetation.

The US first used it in North Korea and the purpose that agent orange was developed for was to be used on people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 05:51 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2013 05:56 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Syria-What should be done?
The problem with "helping" Syria is much deeper than I realized. What if the rebel forces (Al Quaeda, Muslim Brotherhood?) used sarin against their own people and blamed it on the government? If USA takes the bait and destroys the government, it would show that this is a viable tactics. If you're a rebel and want to take over a state as a dictator, kill the defenseless citizens in the most abominable way possible, blame it on the (legitimate) government and USA will do your dirty work. Nobody will ask any questions, Barrack Obama least of all and he's the only one who matters.

On Thursday 29.8.2013 there should have been a clear U.S. evidence on who used the chemical weapons.
Governments are totally convinced it was Assad, but their secret services and U.N. inspectors do not have the evidence, that was promised on Thursday.

I do not see any sense in this but insane, militaristic aggression of U.S. government, its allies and corresponding responses from Russia and China. This smells more like WW3. What I see are insane people in governments, completely out of touch with reality (and with no respect to evidence). It is the same motivation that made such a bloody mess of history, colonial wars, territorial wars and world wars.

It gives an impression of purposeful chaos and destruction at one side, intentional standing back and doing nothing at the other side. And then using it as a pretext to bring a forceful "solution" to further one's goals. Exactly the same way as the invention of "war on terror" allowed for global control and surveillance measures. Thinking like that makes me feel dirty, but this is what my thinking shows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(02-09-2013 05:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The problem with "helping" Syria is much deeper than I realized. What if the rebel forces (Al Quaeda, Muslim Brotherhood?) used sarin against their own people and blamed it on the government? If USA takes the bait and destroys the government, it would show that this is a viable tactics. If you're a rebel and want to take over a state as a dictator, kill the defenseless citizens in the most abominable way possible, blame it on the (legitimate) government and USA will do your dirty work. Nobody will ask any questions, Barrack Obama least of all and he's the only one who matters.

On Thursday 29.8.2013 there should have been a clear U.S. evidence on who used the chemical weapons.
Governments are totally convinced it was Assad, but their secret services and U.N. inspectors do not have the evidence, that was promised on Thursday.

I do not see any sense in this but insane, militaristic aggression of U.S. government, its allies and corresponding responses from Russia and China. This smells more like WW3. What I see are insane people in governments, completely out of touch with reality (and with no respect to evidence). It is the same motivation that made such a bloody mess of history, colonial wars, territorial wars and world wars.

It gives an impression of purposeful chaos and destruction at one side, intentional standing back and doing nothing at the other side. And then using it as a pretext to bring a forceful "solution" to further one's goals. Exactly the same way as the invention of "war on terror" allowed for global control and surveillance measures. Thinking like that makes me feel dirty, but this is what my thinking shows.

What if the US has been supporting, funding and using Alqaeda as a first wave mercenary collection of arab fighters that can be moved from country to country to destabilize/overthrow anti-western governments.

How many coincidences does it take to make people wonder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 09:26 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(02-09-2013 07:48 AM)I and I Wrote:  What if the US has been supporting, funding and using Alqaeda as a first wave mercenary collection of arab fighters that can be moved from country to country to destabilize/overthrow anti-western governments.

How many coincidences does it take to make people wonder.

I think to connect these dots together you will need causation. For me this causation is the preservation of the petrodollar and other American interests.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: