The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of US Syria Stand

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You've really lost me entirely on what you're saying and frankly, I don't understand where the fascination with the precise details of death by/in fire come from?

Anyway... You almost sound like you're saying Chemical warheads shouldn't have any special distinction or treatment vs a 500lb bomb or cluster munition? You DO see a difference between a blister agent like Mustard and a 155mm H.E. round, don't you??
edit on 8-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Kerry is in Britain at the moment on his diplomatic mission of "We're gonna kick the # out of that little guy over there - are you in or out?"

This readiness to resort to military force at the slightest opportunity - in matters that don't concern anyone but the people involved - is a very alarming development over the last 25 or so years (I remember the creeping horror I felt back in the 80s when my own govt casually allowed US bombers to bomb Tripoli from British air fields without any concern for public opinion).

Hypocrisy aside, THIS is the real concern.

Throughout the 60s and 70s, calm, measured diplomacy was the order of the day (at least it was for European nations). Military intervention - certainly invasion - was unthinkable.

Even Winston Churchill (who, lord knows, was no pacifist) said it is better to jaw-jaw than war-war.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


You DO see a difference between a blister agent like Mustard and a 155mm H.E. round, don't you??

Sorry, Wrabbit. You lost me there. Comparing humane and inhumane weapons in war is an oxymoron.

War is inhumane.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


When you're suggesting the United States either has used Chemical weapons or is equivalent to those who have? I see a VERY large difference. It's kinda like the difference between the hunter who makes a clean kill on a deer or, failing that, ends it with 1 more shot vs. the sadist who draws it out when no such thing is necessary.

All war is 'inhumane', considering KILLING is the exclusive point to the effort (
), and the way you put that is rather cheap for taking my words so far out of context, it's remarkable in it's own right. I've never said or even implied any such thing.

I'd be quite happy to see peace come back, all around, and defense spending come in line with a TRUE defense mission for the basics required. Having said that, I'm simply not getting on the creaky old wagon of saying all nations are equal, except the US, which is always much worse for the comparisons which seem to come up.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


All war is 'inhumane', considering KILLING is the exclusive point to the effort ( ), and the way you put that is rather cheap for taking my words so far out of context, it's remarkable in it's own right. I've never said or even implied any such thing.

Okay, don't take this the wrong way. I am being civil.

A pit fall trap or whip snare that strangles an animal is not cruel considering the history of hunting for survival. People of old set myriads of traps. Very few of them provided "clean" kills.

Waging aggressive war, invading other nations and killing (murdering) the natives is totally different than "hunting" animals for food.

Making that comparison is part of what the OP's title is trying to address.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by intrptr
 


You've really lost me entirely on what you're saying and frankly, I don't understand where the fascination with the precise details of death by/in fire come from?

Anyway... You almost sound like you're saying Chemical warheads shouldn't have any special distinction or treatment vs a 500lb bomb or cluster munition? You DO see a difference between a blister agent like Mustard and a 155mm H.E. round, don't you??
edit on 8-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


It does make two of us. Your vehemence clear but I'm falling to see what you are supporting.

The OP was about my personal consideration of the very definiation of 'so-called' chemical weapons and the USs use of them. Many of what I and others consider chemical weapons, the US chooses not to see that way and you seem to be in line with that thinking which is certainly your right.

However, to slam a source I used and thereby my thinking without any supported counter is not helpful.

Your point seems to be "If the US, and other parties, don't call it a chemical weapon" then it isn't a chemical weapons is a very weak argument against my musings that the military/industrial/governmental definition of chemical weapons is deliberately misleading and hypocritical.

I've restrained myself from saying what I want to say and am attempting to respond to your posts with respect.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
I also won't go into Fallujah and the lasting legacy of Uranium that is going to make Agent Orange look like Bath Salts.




This story about Fallujah and depleted uranium has been around for a while but as of yet I remain skeptical. We only use depleted uranium in several weapons systems none of which were required at Fallujah. I need more info to buy this. None of which I have ever seen as part of any claim about its use at Fallujah.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


This story about Fallujah and depleted uranium has been around for a while but as of yet I remain skeptical. We only use depleted uranium in several weapons systems none of which were required at Fallujah. I need more info to buy this. None of which I have ever seen as part of any claim about its use at Fallujah.

Nice.

Google "Depleted Uranium Munitions".

That data mine shaft should wash your "skepticals" clean.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I'm not sure why I'm hard to understand or get? I'm an American, a citizen and a patriot to this nation. I strongly dislike ...perhaps even hate...my Government and what it has become as well as what it has come to represent to the world and the people in this nation.

(THAT is a passing thing and can be rectified by the system...or...God forbid there be no other choice some day.....more direct means. The Country stands with or without the scum in Washington to lead it)

Having said that? I'll also fight and die, without hesitation or second thoughts given, to defend this nation to the last breath God gave me to offer. Simple as that and there isn't ..even a little...wiggle room to that. If it helps understand where I am coming from to take issue with people suggesting the United States has used Internationally recognized Chemical Weapons.

I don't define what a Chemical Weapon is. The United States doesn't define what a Chemical Weapon is and you don't define what a Chemical Weapon is. There are International treaties, standards and agreements which define that term for what substances and forms they take for qualification.

I never have and never WILL be silent when people bastardize internationally accepted definitions to make the U.S. look worse than, honestly, it already earns the place to look without the pile-on.

Don't refrain tho... By all means...say what you mean and mean what you say. It's the basic measure of a man and the least any of us should be expected to do as a min, in being decent people.
edit on 9-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I'll say what I said to the OP.. Since you two are mirroring each other close enough.....(not for the first time on threads)...to make me wonder if you are actually TWO accounts or one? I digress on that point tho.

Essentially, on one hand, you suggest the US has used Chem Weapons....hence.. We're bad for that. On the other, when called on it and shown to be outright wrong by International definition of those weapons (if nothing else) you reply with saying all war is inhumane and who am I to distinguish one weapon from another?

Well.. Who indeed..... The thread has been all about that distinction, right down to the title itself. So.. no.. I'm sorry, it doesn't work where bashing the US for doing it works....until proven wrong, then bashing even MORE (rather than acknlowledging the clear factual error) by saying "well... it's all bad anyway" or words which may as well have been that simple.

Also.. as I said above? Don't hold back.. Say what you mean.
(You and the OP mirrored that statement too.... Odd about that)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
If instead of using the clearly defined usage of the words "chemical weapons", and instead wish to redefine it to include other types of weapons, then in fact we can include it to include ANY weapon that uses gun powder, since it's a chemical reaction technically to cause the expanding gas to make the projectile move at great velocity.

That means ANY kind of gun that uses gun powder is a "chemical weapon".

That also means that ANY kind of explosive is then in fact a "chemical weapon"

Since the OP and other's posting on here have chosen to redefine what "chemical weapon" means, then you'll need to go back and rethink your OP, as you've changed it now to any country that has used "chemical weapons" to kill people.

Worse: by this page, it's now about war and killing people, by any means.

If that's true, then this thread itself is highly arrogant and hypocritical. Ping on the US if you want, but how many other countries have killed people?

Soviet Union under Stalin? How about after the USSR's fall?
China?
Vietnam?
North Korea?

Just about every country is guilty of killing people, either inside their own borders, outside their borders or even both.

In other words: get off your high horse. There are very few countries on the face of this planet that do NOT have blood on their hands.

While I agree that my country has no business in Syria, and I am against any kind of military action by us, twisting words or trying to make us look bad by redefining things, and acting like you have your (or your country's) nose up in the air is just as hypocritical.

Deny ignorance and obfuscation........



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Because two people agree on a certain point... that means they are same person?

Okay...

Maybe you should listen to the message instead of the messengers?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by intrptr
 


I'll say what I said to the OP.. Since you two are mirroring each other close enough.....(not for the first time on threads)...to make me wonder if you are actually TWO accounts or one? I digress on that point tho.



We have come to similar conclusions on certain issues and differ on others - true




Essentially, on one hand, you suggest the US has used Chem Weapons....hence.. We're bad for that.



Yes, the US has used chemical weapons. I don't know the "internationally agreeed upon" definition. But by simple understand, yes the US has used chemical (and biological) weapons (small pox infected blankets anyone) but I digress.

However you have chosen not to share a link to this "internationally agreed upon" definition, so I've nothing except your statements.

[quote}

On the other, when called on it and shown to be outright wrong by International definition of those weapons (if nothing else) you reply with saying all war is inhumane and who am I to distinguish one weapon from another?



My whole intention behind this post was to discuss the definition of chemical weapons and perhaps I erred in not looking for an "offical definition" as a beginning point. The article I referenced was used merely as a concise look at the US history of chemical weapons use and included some things I'd never heard of and was hoping other members would share what they knew of Operations SHAD and Tailwind.



Well.. Who indeed..... The thread has been all about that distinction, right down to the title itself.



Yeppers....




So.. no.. I'm sorry, it doesn't work where bashing the US for doing it works....until proven wrong, then bashing even MORE (rather than acknlowledging the clear factual error) by saying "well... it's all bad anyway" or words which may as well have been that simple.



Not US bashing (by my definition) (seems to me someone who "hates" the government - the government the founders set up.... I digress again. Just noting that on simple moral grounds - the US has no stance.



Also.. as I said above? Don't hold back.. Say what you mean.
(You and the OP mirrored that statement too.... Odd about that)


Sorry you feel opressed.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Yes, the US has used chemical weapons. I don't know the "internationally agreeed upon" definition. But by simple understand, yes the US has used chemical (and biological) weapons (small pox infected blankets anyone) but I digress.

However you have chosen not to share a link to this "internationally agreed upon" definition, so I've nothing except your statements.


Excuse me? You made the accusation that America has used Chemical Weapons...and now you add Biological weapons by the idiotic reference to blankets given to the Native Americans, generations before either of us were born? Well how ridiculous do we want to get about going into the past? What other nation shall we look at if a COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS are on the table to look AT to find wrong doing?

This is supposed to be taken seriously??

When you make such a wild accusation as to say the U.S. has attacked people with Chemical and Biological weapons? That burden of proof is on you and you alone. It's not shared by the people who laugh at you while you're making such unsupported charges.

Back them up..with specifics...or continue to be laughed at. I don't care either way, but so far, I've yet to even see anyone say WHAT CHEMICAL WEAPONS The US supposedly used, outside of maybe WP (yeah...by WHAT definition...according to what international standard? Burden of proof is, again, yours) or Napalm

(How MANY nations would you like to condemn this morning? I'll bet they didn't all know they were war criminals).


On the other, when called on it and shown to be outright wrong by International definition of those weapons (if nothing else) you reply with saying all war is inhumane and who am I to distinguish one weapon from another?


Okay,. stop the games. Right here. Now, and without question. WHAT international source of law and authority are you referencing for YOUR definition of chemical agents defined as weapons and used to kill people? You have yet, one time, to reference one....hence...support anything you've said. You HAVE gotten good at blaming others when your own argument is weak enough to fall apart under it's own weight.


My whole intention behind this post was to discuss the definition of chemical weapons and perhaps I erred in not looking for an "offical definition" as a beginning point.


You still haven't defined it... Let me know when you do. I looked back over this thread. Every post on it. You have nothing linked in anything you have posted here. Once...outside the OP, and that link is to a BLOG of all things. Source? Reference? where?? Again....tell me when you plan to define anything with more than personal opinion and interpretation. That is all you are working from right now.


Not US bashing (by my definition) (seems to me someone who "hates" the government - the government the founders set up.... I digress again. Just noting that on simple moral grounds - the US has no stance.


When you make VERY strong accusations (Like Chemical weapons use by a nation) it's either trying to get to the bottom of something, make a wrong public for others to know or bashing. When you have no support beyond opinions and personal interpretations to support it, it IS bashing and no other way to put it.

Napalm? WP? These are Chemical Weapons?? Where do people even come up with this stupid crap? A crackerjack box?!

We don't get to define things how WE want, just because WE want to define it that way. There are things that actually DO define these terms.....and until you have actually cited one on any level? Well.... Damn... this thread may have fit better in Skunk Works or even Rant. It's damn sure nothing fact based as normal people would recognize it.

It's a re-tread to an old, tired load of propaganda...and it's a very poor run at it, too.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

wrabbit2000

Excuse me? You made the accusation that America has used Chemical Weapons...and now you add Biological weapons by the idiotic reference to blankets given to the Native Americans, generations before either of us were born? Well how ridiculous do we want to get about going into the past? What other nation shall we look at if a COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS are on the table to look AT to find wrong doing?


This is supposed to be taken seriously??



Yes - but maybe not when one is hysterical.

For your pleasure sir:




Chemical Weapon as defined by the CWC
A common conception of a chemical weapon comprises a toxic chemical contained in a delivery system such as a bomb or artillery shell. While technically correct, a definition based on this conception would only cover a small portion of the range of things the CWC prohibits as “chemical weapons”. There are several reasons for the broad CWC definition, which, as described in Fact Sheet 2, includes munitions, precursor chemicals and equipment connected with production and use of chemical weapons. For one thing, CW components—a toxic chemical and delivery system, for example— may be stored separately, each in and of itself less than a fully developed weapon. In the case of binary munitions, a nonlethal chemical may actually be stored within a munition, only to be mixed with a second chemical inserted into the munition shortly before firing, and the toxic product disseminated upon arrival at the target.


You'll love this: from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

www.opcw.org...

It is truly bad form to attact a person for having an opinion differeing then yours. I'm sorry to have offended you and suggest that you calm down. Nothing you are saying is of any purpose in the discussion other then to distrupt and antagonize.

I don't think you are in favor of the use of chemical weapons but your hystrionics come across that way.

Again, what I say if of no importance.... Please relax



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Your concern for my state of stress or excitement is touching, but I assure you, nothing about this chat is that important to me. You're an interesting diversion for the oddity you represent to me...but nothing more than that. You need not keep insisting I relax. There is no excitement to begin with. Just a tired resignation for the America haters we have here and the challenge it is to put up with it, some days.

Now....That's an interesting definition of....well...nothing at all really. You link something giving the vaguest definition I've really ever seen in anything like an "official" source..and that is stretching the term to the breaking point.

Now, again, you're not being vague in the silly accusations. You're being extremely specific. So, be equally specific in how you'd support that and the definitions. So far, there aren't any.

Napalm and White Phosphorous are both Incendiary weapons. That, as opposed to a chemical weapons agent. The two are very different things in international recognition as well as effect in real life. Overlapping and confusing them..simply shows ignorance or an eagerness to make a discussion (propaganda point) right past where logic can support the effort.

Once again though, I'll ask...Do you have anything beyond your personal opinion and personal interpretation to show that the United States has ever deployed Chemical Weapons agents against human beings outside testing and development programs? (Not that lab rat'ing people was okay, but that isn't the topic).

You're proving as empty on support as this topic ever is, or has ever been with those claiming it. I was rather hoping you had something to support it.....and still am, actually. it would, literally, be a first in debating this area of interest. I've never seen it support....really...be the first.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Okay we'll start.

Not an official source. Well - yeah it is. In fact the US is a signatory to a treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, that is overseen by the organization that I referenced.




As a ratifier of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the Hague, the U.S. agreed in 1997 to destroy its chemical weapons stocks within 10 years, with the possibility of a 5-year extension. Yet, with the latest possible deadline of 2012 now passed, U.S. officials say that they can't destroy all of their arsenals until 2023.


www.commondreams.org...

And on a practical note from The Guardian:




The United States promised, but failed, to destroy these stocks by 2012 at the very latest. The most recent forecast from the US is that the process of "neutralising" the chemicals in its Colorado weapons dump will be finished by 2018; the date for Kentucky is 2023. That will be 11 years after the US promised to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles, and eight years after Russia – the other major possessor of declared chemical weapons – says it will have finished destroying its arsenal.

About 2,611 tons of mustard gas remains stockpiled in Pueblo, Colorado. The second stockpile, in the Bluegrass region of Kentucky, is smaller – 524 tons – but more complicated to decommission, because it consists of a broader range of lethal gases and nerve agents, many of which are contained within weaponry.




www.theguardian.com...

again from the Common Dreams article:


As the Obama administration has railed against Syria for failing to ratify the convention, it has remained silent on Israel's refusal to ratify, even though the country is documented to possess chemical weapons, and like the U.S., has used them against civilians.


That's just from today - and moderate sources at that. Pull your head out of the - ahem sand. Other people feel the same way.

I hope you are enjoying yourself.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

wrabbit2000
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Just a tired resignation for the America haters we have here and the challenge it is to put up with it, some days.



What do they call it, attacking the person not the message, - oh yeah, ad hominem




Now....That's an interesting definition of....well...nothing at all really. You link something giving the vaguest definition I've really ever seen in anything like an "official" source..and that is stretching the term to the breaking point.



Big fail




Now, again, you're not being vague in the silly accusations. You're being extremely specific. So, be equally specific in how you'd support that and the definitions. So far, there aren't any.



Tu Quoque (support WHAT exactly - if you want me to be specific)




Napalm and White Phosphorous are both Incendiary weapons. That, as opposed to a chemical weapons agent. The two are very different things in international recognition as well as effect in real life. Overlapping and confusing them..simply shows ignorance or an eagerness to make a discussion (propaganda point) right past where logic can support the effort.


[/qoute]

Ad Hominem and Black or White - Yes incendiary - and yes chemical. Not either/or. Shroudinger's Cat.



Once again though, I'll ask...Do you have anything beyond your personal opinion and personal interpretation to show that the United States has ever deployed Chemical Weapons agents against human beings outside testing and development programs? (Not that lab rat'ing people was okay, but that isn't the topic).


Read the previous post.

AND REMEMBER the OP was about 'the moral hypocrisy' of the US taking a moral stand on this issue. Not a practical stand but a moral stand. I believe it's called 'pivoting'.




You're proving as empty on support as this topic ever is, or has ever been with those claiming it. I was rather hoping you had something to support it.....and still am, actually. it would, literally, be a first in debating this area of interest. I've never seen it support....really...be the first.



You aren't debating, you are obstructing and denigrating.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I didn't suggest it wasn't an official source. (BTW...I put "Official" in quotes..because I hadn't first seen that they did link to the original texts of the documents the nations are signed to. It takes some digging and exploring to find) I'd said it was vague. Although, if you go onto another page of that same site, now that you've staked your position twice for supporting how solid it is, you'll notice they do break it down into categories and types. They even get a bit silly with Riot Control agents being included.....and if that is to be a chemical weapon, a good % of the nations in the world are guilty of crimes against Humanity within police departments alone. Mace and CS is certainly not an American thing to hoard and keep from the world.

What it doesn't include, interestingly, is a category for incendiary. This, again, is what your focus is...and so, your own source isn't including it as a Chemical Weapon. How do you still figure those are?

Fun wouldn't be the word...but this topic is getting beyond old for coming up again and again without getting it nailed down to some certainty, which ought to be easy enough to do if ....as suggested so far... White Phosphorous or Napalm, used on the battlefield, are considered to be Chemical weapons? WP is considered against the rules of war when deliberately aimed at civilians. That doesn't make it CW. In the same sense, depressing an Anti-Aircraft gun to shoot troops is also a war crime, as I seem to recall the texts on the matter. That, as a point of how W.P. use could very much be covered and called illegal, depending on application, and yet not necessarily be covered by CW definition.

I do appreciate the site, and I'm incorporating it into something else, as a matter of fact. It'll be real helpful. It just doesn't apply well at all to this specific line of discussion.

CW Weapon Classifications

You see, CW is very specifically and very narrowly defined, after all. It's not our definition...your source actually does define it, and does not include anything you've accused the U.S. of using in war to be guilty of such an accusation. It's just that simple. Date/Location of use, please...if you know of an exception with a classed chemical warfare agent?
edit on 12-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: Added clarification



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

wrabbit2000
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




What it doesn't include, interestingly, is a category for incendiary. This, again, is what your focus is...and so, your own source isn't including it as a Chemical Weapon. How do you still figure those are?

edit on 12-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: Added clarification


You have been the one focus on defending a narrow definition of chemical weapons and avoiding the entire point of the OP - and that was, has I have repeated reminded you - is

That the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, In my opinion.

Period.



new topics
 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join