# So the nonsense starts again....



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Apparently, the President of Syria used chemical weapons on his countrymen. Do we want the US to do something about it? If so, what do we want the US to do about it?


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

Joseph,

It isn't a matter of the US alone. If the USA goes to engage in combat operations at Syrian targets, and if there is an infantry/airborne assault, the Canadians will be there. So will the French, the UK and probably a few others who I'm not sure about. The USA has the advantage in that the USAF is huge, well equipped (they're not flying ten year old MiGs) and to be honest, every country who has a bit of involvement in the conflict will send specialized forces.

The issue is, what is Syrian loyalists carry on the fight beyond what surgical airstrikes can do. What if they leave the cities and operate in the countryside, fighting a guerrilla war and using every weapon they've got. This isn't some guy with a AK. 

Of course, I hope and pray that the incident will be resolved. We toss around a lot of terms which are BS. "Surgical Strike", "Limited Response", "Protecting children".


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Im afraid our reply will be too little too late and that it will be designed for the usual favorable Obama media coverage rather than to bring dread to the various tyrants of the world who have control of chemical/bio weapons.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Al-Qaeda will be our boots on the ground this time.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Further military entanglement in the Middle East does not come at a good time, financially, for either the United States or Great Britain.

Do we know with sufficient certainty that the gas attacks were carried out by the Assad regime, or were they merely a ruse perpetrated by rebel forces to bring about foreign intervention? 

Is Syria's civil war more or less likely to be brought to a peaceful resolution by outside intervention?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> Al-Qaeda will be our boots on the ground this time.


Indeed! The last time we allied ourselves (at least financially) with Al Qaeda, against the Soviets in Afghanistan several year past, the beast we nurtured quite literally turned on us and bit the hand that fed them on 9/11. Do we really want to make that mistake again? Here we are again, faced with choosing between the best of two evils!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chemical Weapons? Pah! Monsanto do worse than Assad and no-one is considering 'pacifying' them.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed! The last time we allied ourselves (at least financially) with Al Qaeda, against the Soviets in Afghanistan several year past, the beast we nurtured quite literally turned on us and bit the hand that fed them on 9/11. Do we really want to make that mistake again? Here we are again, faced with choosing between the best of two evils!


There is a third choice: do nothing.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1.
We agree! I don't know about you, Pentheos, but I'm noting this on my desk calendar! LOL.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

I agree with Eagle and Pentheos. From the information that has been made public, doing nothing is the best option at this time. If we ever do get involved, we should be fighting against the rebels to keep Assad in power. This country needs to listen to and side with Russia more often.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ ("This country needs to listen to and side with Russia more often.")
I don't think so. Don't count me as a fan of Russia (the country and it's leadership; not the people!). Russia, especially with Putin involved, is not to be trusted. However, the seeds of WW III have been planted and are rapidly germinating. The Syrian situation is but one of several such seeds. In times such as these, as a Christian, I am inclined to pull out my Bible and reread the Book of Revelation!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> In times such as these, as a Christian, I am inclined to pull out my Bible and reread the Book of Revelation!


The people we're trying to help would cheerfully kill you for doing so.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> There is a third choice: do nothing.


I like my own longstanding favorite: Nuke 'em all! I suggested this to an Israeli acquaintance once, and he responded that Israel might catch the fallout. So of course I had to ask _him_ what part of "all" was he unclear on.

In a more practical vein, I, also, am leery about picking sides here. Pity that a non-nuke "none of the above" isn't an option


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^ ("This country need to listen to and side with Russia more often.")
> I don't think so. Don't count me as a fan of Russia (the country and it's leadership; not the people!). Russia, especially with Putin involved, is not to be trusted. However, the seeds of WW III have been planted and are rapidly germinating. The Syrian situation is but one of several such seeds. In times such as these, as a Christian, I am inclined to pull out my Bible and reread the Book of Revelation!


Revelation Chapter 8. :icon_smile:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ 
...and did I hear a hearty Amen to that? 



phyrpowr said:


> I like my own longstanding favorite: Nuke 'em all! I suggested this to an Israeli acquaintance once, and he responded that Israel might catch the fallout. So of course I had to ask _him_ what part of "all" was he unclear on.
> 
> In a more practical vein, I, also, am leery about picking sides here. Pity that a non-nuke "none of the above" isn't an option


LOL. At one point in my life, I must admit taking some degree of comfort in having the Soviets and the PRC (AKA: The Commies!) in the crosshairs of of LGM-30F weapons systems, but as the years have passed, the undeniable realities of the secondary effects associated with the use of such weapons has been a cause of increasing concern to my psyche! Such considerations force one to reconsider and perhaps more fully appreciate the otherworldly providence of that most aggravating of Disney songs, "It's a Small World After all!"


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

_*Some thoughts about the proposed Western intervention in the Syrian civil war:
*_
Syria is in the midst of a civil war, with much killing by both sides, each of which is as unsavory as imaginable (including the ever-present Al Qaida). Why is this the business of the West?

There is still doubt as to whether chemical weapons were used, and which side (both sides? neither side?) used them.

Why is it wrong to kill hundreds with chemical weapons, but perfectly fine to kill many thousands with bullets, bombs, missiles, knives and other conventional weapons?

Syria is not an enemy of the United States, nor has it threatened to be one. It does not threaten American national security. In light of this, why does the United States (and others) believe that they can launch an unprovoked missile attack against a sovereign nation - an indisputable act of war?

How would the United States feel if Syria (or some other nation) disliked some aspect of U.S. foreign or domestic policy, and decided to launch a few hundred missiles at Washington, D.C., New York, London, or some other target?

If Syria (or another nation or group) retaliated against the United States (or others) for an initial attack, would we decry the attack as "terrorism"? As "hating us for our freedoms"?

If the Syrian situation is so dire, shouldn't powerful regional nations play the salient role (whatever that might be, if any) in Syria?

What are the consequences if the U.S. does launch an attack against Syria? Has anyone bothered to think through all of the strategic implications? Would these consequences be worth it, just so the West can dictate the proper killing methods in some other nation's civil war?

Does the U.S. Constitution really give presidents dictatorial power to launch wars against anyone they please, for whatever reason they want, especially without congressional approval? Where would one find evidence for this very dubious claim?

One final observation: In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans have alternately shared power at all levels of government for many decades. Regardless of which party dominates, American foreign, domestic, and economic policy remains essentially unchanged, i.e., tremendous centralization of federal power, enormous deficits and debt, and dangerous and irresponsible foreign interventionism. In addition, neither party has a shred of respect, obedience, or understanding of the Constitution. American political parties are as monolithic as in the old Soviet bloc&#8230;


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Spot-on, Tiger, and very well said! You put it much more eloquently than the rest of us, to this point. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

How would the United States feel if Syria (or some other nation) disliked some aspect of U.S. foreign or domestic policy, and decided to launch a few hundred missiles at Washington, D.C., New York, London, or some other target?

That compares to the use of chemical weapons like a matress ballances on a
bottle of wine. It reminds me of the Tom Hanks explanation of WWII as a' dissagrement ' between Japan and the US.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

In the meantime the ordinary Syrians, you know, the ordinary people with ordinary jobs, old people, children, those kind of people, people who aren't and have no desire to be members of any kind of Islamist/terrorist/fascist organisation can be killed by both sides, and we can lump them all together as some kind of "primitives".


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> In the meantime the ordinary Syrians, you know, the ordinary people with ordinary jobs, old people, children, those kind of people, people who aren't and have no desire to be members of any kind of Islamist/terrorist/fascist organisation can be killed by both sides, and we can lump them all together as some kind of "primitives".


Why? Are you advocating some form of intervention?

Previous interventions in the region have had uncertain outcomes for the 'ordinary people' - look at Iraq, our accomplishments there in toppling Saddam came at some cost to the ordinary Iraqis.

Cameron and Clegg's desperate haste to go to war before the facts have been established reminds me of Blair's deceitful blathering about WMD. It all strikes me as a war in which we have neither moral imperative nor even justification for intervening. And if we do intervene, I suspect we will accomplish nothing good.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

No, it's more a response to the view that "The people we're trying to help would cheerfully kill you for doing so." with reference to reading the Bible; as if ALL the people of Syria, even, I suppose the Syrian Christians, who've been Christians for a lot longer than the US has existed, are Islamic fundamentalists.
If we had been going to intervene, then we should have done so about 18 months ago, with serious Humanitarian Aid. It's too late now. We left it to the Islamic world to help, so they did, with Gulf States funded aid, and weapons, along with a Wahhabist/Islamist agenda. We had our chance to be the "good guys", but couldn't bring ourselves to do anything unexciting, like use economic sanctions whilst offering aid to the refugees. We'd far rather, or rather our governments, would far rather look powerful and glamourous by using, or threatening, military might. I'm not sure about US Presidents, but British PMs, of any political complexion, all seem to want to be Churchills rather than Attlees.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch said:


> How would the United States feel if Syria (or some other nation) disliked some aspect of U.S. foreign or domestic policy, and decided to launch a few hundred missiles at Washington, D.C., New York, London, or some other target?
> That compares to the use of chemical weapons like a matress ballances on a
> bottle of wine. It reminds me of the Tom Hanks explanation of WWII as a' dissagrement ' between Japan and the US.


Not sure I understand your point - do you disagree with the basic principle proffered, or a supposed lack of equivalency?

How about if I instead wrote, "How would the United States feel if Syria (or some other nation) disliked the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 (which incorporated all sorts of sophisticated weaponry used to decimate an opponent) and decided to launch a few hundred missiles at Washington, D.C., New York, London, or some other target?"

The point is, some people seem to think that using chemical weapons to kill is "evil" but using missiles and bombs to kill is perfectly acceptable. Isn't the outcome the same? The mugger who knifes me to death is not morally superior to the one who shoots me...


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Don't worry, we will have many opportunities to intervene with humanitarian aid, because when the religious fanatics come into power the economy is always run into the ground. If things don't change for the better soon, the Western world will need to give massive amounts of aid in the form of food and medicine to Egypt thanks to the religious fanatics who ruined the economy. Syria is looking like it will be in the same boat.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Spot-on, Tiger, and very well said! You put it much more eloquently than the rest of us, to this point. :thumbs-up:


Thank you for your kindness, Eagle. No wonder you are such a beloved and legendary member of AAAC!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> Not sure I understand your point - do you disagree with the basic principle proffered, or a supposed lack of equivalency?
> 
> How about if I instead wrote, "How would the United States feel if Syria (or some other nation) disliked the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 (which incorporated all sorts of sophisticated weaponry used to decimate an opponent) and decided to launch a few hundred missiles at Washington, D.C., New York, London, or some other target?"
> 
> The point is, some people seem to think that using chemical weapons to kill is "evil" but using missiles and bombs to kill is perfectly acceptable. Isn't the outcome the same? The mugger who knifes me to death is not morally superior to the one who shoots me...


However, the use of chemical weapons is the use of a WMD. The military use of conventional weapons has been considered morally superior to the military use of chemical weapons since the 19th century, at least in the west. Using it against a civil populace, not on a defineable battlefield, should be considered a war crime. Governments who commit war crimes should be dealt with harshly by the international community.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

blue suede shoes said:


> Don't worry, we will have many opportunities to intervene with humanitarian aid, because when the religious fanatics come into power the economy is always run into the ground. If things don't change for the better soon, the Western world will need to give massive amounts of aid in the form of food and medicine to Egypt thanks to the religious fanatics who ruined the economy. Syria is looking like it will be in the same boat.


Military secular totalitarian regimes have a questionable economical track record as well...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> However, the use of chemical weapons is the use of a WMD. The military use of conventional weapons has been considered morally superior to the military use of chemical weapons since the 19th century, at least in the west. Using it against a civil populace, not on a defineable battlefield, should be considered a war crime. Governments who commit war crimes should be dealt with harshly by the international community.


War crimes come in all shapes and sizes, yet only certain war criminals seem to get punished. I don't remember the West launching strikes against the Soviets, Mao, and a cauldron of other criminals. In any event, as an American, I'm not against the "international community dealing harshly" with war criminals (whatever that may mean); I am against the United States unconstitutionally waging an unprovoked war against a nation who is not an enemy for specious reasons and without consideration of the consequences.

*Note:* Does Bjorn's definition then mean that the United States committed war crimes against Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and the Vietnamese population?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The west backed Saddam against Iran, then what happened, gassed Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait 
The west backed the Mujahadeen (a.k.a Taliban) against the Russians, who had been called in by the Afghan govt to assist them get rid of the Taliban.
Then decades later the West are in Afghanistan doing exactly what the Soviets were trying to do decades before. It was all to do with "Wel if the Soviets are doing it, we're against it" The shortsighted western powers!

Now the west are backing the wrong horse again, this time though it's the so called "Rebels" in Syria


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Not sure I understand your point - do you disagree with the basic principle proffered, or a supposed lack of equivalency?


 It is your early and apparently necessary resort to enormous amounts of spin that glares .  For instance ;Does the U.S. Constitution really give presidents dictatorial power to launch wars against anyone they please, for whatever reason they want, especially without congressional approval? Where would one find evidence for this very dubious claim?

Your post is an enlarged version of the old 'h ave you stopped beating your wife' bit, and just as useful.


> How about if I instead wrote, "How would the United States feel if Syria (or some other nation) disliked the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 (which incorporated all sorts of sophisticated weaponry used to decimate an opponent) and decided to launch a few hundred missiles at Washington, D.C., New York, London, or some other target?"


 see above


> The point is, some people seem to think that using chemical weapons to kill is "evil" but using missiles and bombs to kill is perfectly acceptable. Isn't the outcome the same? The mugger who knifes me to death is not morally superior to the one who shoots me...


 The point is under your hat. 'Perfectly acceptable' is a fine example of the spin I mentioned above , its not completely false while remaining very far from the truth, it is self serving . And no the outcome is not the same, nor is the intent. A man is justified using reasonable force,even deadly force is some situations, but in the example of home protection, no one is justified exploding a grenade in an apartment building to stop and intruder.

Another good example;

The mugger who knifes me to death is not morally superior to the one who shoots me...

Its easy to see a little truth here, less than half though. I'm certain you are able to come up with an apt comparison.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> War crimes come in all shapes and sizes, yet only certain war criminals seem to get punished. I don't remember the West launching strikes against the Soviets, Mao, and a cauldron of other criminals. In any event, as an American, I'm not against the "international community dealing harshly" with war criminals (whatever that may mean); I am against the United States unconstitutionally waging an unprovoked war against a nation who is not an enemy for specious reasons and without consideration of the consequences.
> 
> *Note:* Does Bjorn's definition then mean that the United States committed war crimes against Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and the Vietnamese population?


 yawn.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch, I fail to see how you effectively responded to _any _of my points. If you believe I am incorrect, please demonstrate why, rather than answer with rudeness, obfuscation, and opaque answers.

Please let us know whether you support military action in Syria or not!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Hitch, I fail to see how you effectively responded to _any _of my points. If you believe I am incorrect, please demonstrate why, rather than answer with rudeness, obfuscation, and opaque answers.
> 
> Please let us know whether you support military action in Syria or not!


 Tiger you have yet to make any points,pare down the hyperbole.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch said:


> Tiger you have yet to make any points,pare down the hyperbole.


I provided a list of reasons pointing out the folly of U.S. intervention in Syria. You chose not to acknowledge them, but rather to obfuscate. Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, and Robert Taft would be proud of me, I believe; unfortunately, Hitch is not!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

https://www.tpnn.com/breaking-joe-b...nation-to-war-without-congressional-approval/

LMAO.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch said:


> https://www.tpnn.com/breaking-joe-b...nation-to-war-without-congressional-approval/LMAO.


Biden's hypocrisy strengthens my earlier point about executive power and the Constitution - "Does the U.S. Constitution really give presidents dictatorial power to launch wars against anyone they please, for whatever reason they want, especially without congressional approval? Where would one find evidence for this very dubious claim?" - the Biden/Obama capriciousness on this issue displays total disregard for the Founders/Framers views on military action.

To paraphrase Jefferson, the chains of the Constitution are designed to bind the hands of those seeking illicit power...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I wonder if Jefferson would have considered Hiroshima a war crime.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The west backed Saddam against Iran, then what happened, gassed Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait
> The west backed the Mujahadeen (a.k.a Taliban) against the Russians, who had been called in by the Afghan govt to assist them get rid of the Taliban.
> Then decades later the West are in Afghanistan doing exactly what the Soviets were trying to do decades before. It was all to do with "Wel if the Soviets are doing it, we're against it" The shortsighted western powers!
> 
> Now the west are backing the wrong horse again, this time though it's the so called "Rebels" in Syria


Go back a square, we backed Iran (Shah version) against Iraq (Soviet client version). Marrying heirs and heiresses off to little Germanic princes and princesses to form interlocking dynasties is starting to look like a more sensible way to conduct international politics. Who's in charge in the Upper Palatinate these days? Where's Mad King Ludwig when you need him?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch said:


> I wonder if Jefferson would have considered Hiroshima a war crime.


I sense you completely misunderstood an earlier post, where I extrapolated using a remark made by Bjorn. For the record, I believe the usage of atomic weapons was absolutely justified.

Not sure where you stand, Hitch, because evasion and opaqueness generally mask one's beliefs. It would be ironic, of course, and absolutely inconsistent - just like Biden and Obama! - if you wish to punish Syria for (maybe) using chemical weapons, while being supportive of the atomic attacks on Japan. We'll never know, because the minor bit of courage needed to state a position seems to be too elusive for you.

Fortunately, I remain very consistent...and lucid, too. Quite Jeffersonian!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> I sense you completely misunderstood an earlier post, where I extrapolated using a remark made by Bjorn. For the record, I believe the usage of atomic weapons was absolutely justified.


 Like I said Tiger-hyperbole. There isnt anything in Bjorn's post justifies your question. But if you can see it ,,,show me; Originally Posted by *Bjorn*https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1441955#post1441955_However, the use of chemical weapons is the use of a WMD. The military use of conventional weapons has been considered morally superior to the military use of chemical weapons since the 19th century, at least in the west. Using it against a civil populace, not on a defineable battlefield, should be considered a war crime. Governments who commit war crimes should be dealt with harshly by the international community._


> Not sure where you stand, Hitch, because evasion and opaqueness generally mask one's beliefs. It would be ironic, of course, and absolutely inconsistent - just like Biden and Obama! - if you wish to punish Syria for (maybe) using chemical weapons, while being supportive of the atomic attacks on Japan. We'll never know, because the minor bit of courage needed to state a position seems to be too elusive for you.


 Yawn


> Fortunately, I remain very consistent


 YUP that you have*Your post is an enlarged version of the old 'h ave you stopped beating your wife' bit, and just as useful*.;


> ...and lucid, too. Quite Jeffersonian!


 I dont recall 'Ol Tom relying so heavily on gross overstatement and hyperbolic nonsense.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch, your arrogance and rudeness is exceeded only by your obtuseness. Let's try one more time:

Bjorn's point that chemical weapons are considered WMD and their usage a war crime would surely apply then to atomic weapons, no? Or are you so semantically dense as to believe that atomic weapons are somehow morally superior to chemical ones? This is totally apart from whether their usage is justifiable...

Your "yawn" comments are the mark of a dolt. When one has no logical, factual, or remotely intelligible response, they resort to that type of stupidity. You've done it twice; one need not wonder about you any more.

You have consistently misused the "are you still beating your wife" remark. I now believe, especially in light of your other nonsensical utterances, that you have no idea as to what the expression refers.

Perhaps one day you'll actually point out the "hyperbole" and "overstatement"; my guess is you won't because you can't. As I said before, you are an (non)intellectual coward. I have made, I believe, a strong case against U.S. intervention in Syria, using polemical arguments both direct and nuanced. I've even given hints of my philosophical/political moorings. You, well, you've shown yourself to be afraid of challenging anything directly. You harped on one point out of about ten, and did so in as vague a manner as one could. Feckless...

We still don't know where you stand, and my guess is most of us don't care. You are the quintessential modern politician - inconsistent, unable to articulate a position, evasive, shallow, and rude. Now I understand how William F. Buckley must have felt when dealing with some of the snake oil salesman masquerading as intellectuals who appeared on _Firing Line_...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Hitch, your arrogance and rudeness is exceeded only by your obtuseness. Let's try one more time:
> 
> Bjorn's point that chemical weapons are considered WMD and their usage a war crime would surely apply then to atomic weapons, no? Or are you so semantically dense as to believe that atomic weapons are somehow morally superior to chemical ones? This is totally apart from whether their usage is justifiable...
> 
> ...


 LOL now a martyr complex, you're reading this from a script right?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Hitch said:


> LOL now a martyr complex, you're reading this from a script right?


Not seeking martyrdom; just putting an empty suit in his proper place.

From a "script"? - if only I thought you could actually follow one, I'd consider it!

More irony: You "argue" much like the Marx-opiated(?) academics you decry. I've battle them for years, and you'd fit right in with that brood...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Hitch, your arrogance and rudeness is exceeded only by your obtuseness. Let's try one more time:
> 
> Bjorn's point that chemical weapons are considered WMD and their usage a war crime would surely apply then to atomic weapons, no? Or are you so semantically dense as to believe that atomic weapons are somehow morally superior to chemical ones? This is totally apart from whether their usage is justifiable...


 Remember the thing about the wife??


> Your "yawn" comments are the mark of a dolt. When one has no logical, factual, or remotely intelligible response, they resort to that type of stupidity. You've done it twice; one need not wonder about you any more.


 Trolls bore me too bad for you


> You have consistently misused the "are you still beating your wife" remark. I now believe, especially in light of your other nonsensical utterances, that you have no idea as to what the expression refers.


 see above


> Perhaps one day you'll actually point out the "hyperbole" and "overstatement"; my guess is you won't because you can't.


 Actually I have in almost every response


> As I said before, you are an (non)intellectual coward. I have made, I believe, a strong case against U.S. intervention in Syria, using polemical arguments both direct and nuanced. I've even given hints of my philosophical/political moorings. You, well, you've shown yourself to be afraid of challenging anything directly. You harped on one point out of about ten, and did so in as vague a manner as one could. Feckless...


 Nuanced?? LMAO


> We still don't know where you stand, and my guess is most of us don't care. You are the quintessential modern politician - inconsistent, unable to articulate a position, evasive, shallow, and rude. Now I understand how William F. Buckley must have felt when dealing with some of the snake oil salesman masquerading as intellectuals who appeared on _Firing Line_...


Well comparing yourself to WHB is as apt as your earlier allusions.

*Hitch, your arrogance and rudeness is exceeded only by your obtuseness. Let's try one more time:

*No I dont feed trolls, take the last word Tiger.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

What a perfectly representative response from you! You have once again said - and accomplished - absolutely nothing. Go back to the sand box, where your "arguments" are better suited.

You have yet to answer one point; please don't act otherwise. I'd hate to add "dishonesty" to your list of offenses committed here...

It's WFB, not WHB. Not surprised you got that wrong, since you sure as hell didn't get anything else correct in this dialogue.

Troll? Oh, I see - the _ad hominem_ argument is being wielded against me. The last refuge of fools and scoundrels. Not surprised you would stoop to that level, as you are clearly devoid of _any _substance.

OK, I'm done - go change your diaper and try to figure out what that "wife" aphorism you're so fond of really means...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I don't really understand how my post on chemical weapons and war crimes and what goes on in Syria has anything to do with the bombing of Hiroshima.

Currently, my view on international law would be that a use of a WMD on a civilian populace outside a battlefield situation, such as the use of a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima, would constitute a war crime. "The wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity." (Solis, 2010, by way of Wikipedia)

If for example Egypt were to engage Israel and simultaneously nuke Tel Aviv, it would be a war crime. If tension built between the US and Russia in the North Sea, and US fleet elements engaged Russian fleet elements, and the Russians nuked New York, war crime. 

Hopefully, no indiscriminate use of WMD:s against civilians can be tolerated, any more. And thus, if someone wants to intervene against Syria, its now a lot easier.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I don't really understand how my post on chemical weapons and war crimes and what goes on in Syria has anything to do with the bombing of Hiroshima. Currently, my view on international law would be that a use of a WMD on a civilian populace outside a battlefield situation, such as the use of a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima, would constitute a war crime.


Sorry if using your earlier post(s) caused confusion; got caught up defending myself against a charlatan neocon's attack.

This is what I was alluding to - the definition you used above to define a war crime in Syria may also apply to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. *While I agreed with that decision in 1945*, others may not. Thus, if the U.S. uses the "chemical weapons usage = war crimes" formula as a basis for an American attack on Syria, it's not difficult to imagine some other nation using the "atomic weaponry usage = war crimes" formula to justify an attack on the United States.

Much depends on who constructs the definition(s), and who determines the right to intervene!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tiger said:


> Sorry if using your earlier post(s) caused confusion; got caught up defending myself against a charlatan neocon's attack.
> 
> This is what I was alluding to - the definition you used above to define a war crime in Syria may also apply to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. *While I agreed with that decision in 1945*, others may not. Thus, if the U.S. uses the "chemical weapons usage = war crimes" formula as a basis for an American attack on Syria, it's not difficult to imagine some other nation using the "atomic weaponry usage = war crimes" formula to justify an attack on the United States.
> 
> Much depends on who constructs the definition(s), and who determines the right to intervene!


If you were to nuke a city in this day and age, it would clearly be a war crime, justifying an intervention.

During WWII, carpet bombing and fire bombing cities most likely wasn't a war crime. Now, it most certainly is. Times change... To the better, perhaps.

Too much time has passed since Hiroshima to use as justification for anything.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> If you were to nuke a city in this day and age, it would clearly be a war crime, justifying an intervention. During WWII, carpet bombing and fire bombing cities most likely wasn't a war crime. Now, it most certainly is. Times change... To the better, perhaps. Too much time has passed since Hiroshima to use as justification for anything.


Agreed, Bjorn; I was making a philosophical point more than a literal _quid pro quo_ one. Again, we drifted afield from my original post regarding Western intervention in Syria...


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

Pentheos said:


> Al-Qaeda will be our boots on the ground this time.


That worked out great for us during the Cold War!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> If you were to nuke a city in this day and age, it would clearly be a war crime, justifying an intervention.
> 
> During WWII, carpet bombing and fire bombing cities most likely wasn't a war crime. Now, it most certainly is. Times change... To the better, perhaps.
> 
> Too much time has passed since Hiroshima to use as justification for anything.





Tiger said:


> Agreed, Bjorn; I was making a philosophical point more than a literal _quid pro quo_ one. Again, we drifted afield from my original post regarding Western intervention in Syria...


Not intending to interject myself in the midst of this debate, but to clarify a very real misunderstanding or to fill a gap created by an existing lack of knowledge on my part, would the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki be considered war crimes under today's laws? Those weapons were put on targets as part of the continued execution of a declared state of war. Had such weapons been employed, absent a declaration of war, I would fully agree that such actions would have constituted violations of (today's) law. I really am looking forward to your response(s) because I really do not know! Thanks.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Not sure what would be considered war crimes today, although Bjorn offers a definition above. I also believe that a formal or "declared" state of war would be immaterial, as all it would take to green light the use of otherwise forbidden weapons would be a political statement! I think the key is the type of weapon used, and the manner in which it is used. My guess is that if nuclear weapons were used today in a non-retaliatory measure, it would be considered a war crime.

Of course, as mentioned previously, there's something silly about the "forbidden weapons" debate (excluding nuclear weapons, whose usage could end our existence). President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry and other liberal interventionists on the left and the neocons on the right (both groups comprised of hypocritical chickenhawks far too cavalier with American - and other - lives) are now so agitated over the possibility of chemical weapon usage, yet were essentially silent over the past two and a half years of bloodletting in Syria by both sides. Kerry decried the dead bodies "without a spot of blood on them" as if that is much worse that the dead bodies spattered in blood from conventional weapons.

Recent articles by Pat Buchanan here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/congress-should-veto-obamas-war/ and by Stephen Walt here: https://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/walt-why-are-we-going-to-war-in-syria-1.5972120 are spot on, I believe...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Not intending to interject myself in the midst of this debate, but to clarify a very real misunderstanding or to fill a gap created by an existing lack of knowledge on my part, would the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki be considered war crimes under today's laws? Those weapons were put on targets as part of the continued execution of a declared state of war. Had such weapons been employed, absent a declaration of war, I would fully agree that such actions would have constituted violations of (today's) law. I really am looking forward to your response(s) because I really do not know! Thanks.


Yes, I believe the atomic bombing of cities would be considered a war crime nowadays, whether or not a state of war had been declared. As would many of WWII's aerial bombing campaigns. The avoidable and indiscriminate killing of non-combatants is now specifically outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention (drafted in 1949 partly out of concern over Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

If the killing of civilians in Syria is found to have been committed by the state, that also would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions, which also apply to non-international armed conflict.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Thanks to both of you for the feedback. This is actually a subject with which I have struggled for the past 30+ years. When I first completed operational readiness training for each of the relevant weapons systems I was involved with, I recall classes on the legality and morality regarding the use of such weapons being incorporated in the curricula. Not surprisingly, we were taught back then that such use was both legal and arguably moral. It should be noted however, that (at least to my knowledge) US war plans have never included the use of preemptive strikes employing strategic nuclear weapons! Not sure what today's combat crews are being taught, although I've been told that the class on biblical considerations of the use of such weapons has been dropped.

I will continue to wrestle with this, but certainly do hope our sons and daughters in uniform are not being asked to cross a line into the realm of illegal conduct, as suggested by your responses. I used to think the development of ever more technologically advanced and catastrophically destructive weapons would one day lead to the reduction and eventual elimination of war. Alas, this increasingly seems not to be the case, but rather these wonderous new toys of ours will enable mankind to follow a path that leads to it's own self-destruction!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

If it ever came to atomic weapons being used in anger, the post-war war-crimes trial would be a purely theoretical possibility.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Langham said:


> Yes, I believe the atomic bombing of cities would be considered a war crime nowadays, whether or not a state of war had been declared. As would many of WWII's aerial bombing campaigns. The avoidable and indiscriminate killing of non-combatants is now specifically outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention (drafted in 1949 partly out of concern over Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
> 
> If the killing of civilians in Syria is found to have been committed by the state, that also would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions, which also apply to non-international armed conflict.


It is important to remember that every city in Japan we bombed,conventionally or nuclear, was warned well in advance. In all but a few instances the local governments forbade evacuation.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Hitch said:


> It is important to remember that every city in Japan we bombed,conventionally or nuclear, was warned well in advance. In all but a few instances the local governments forbade evacuation.


Don't misunderstand me - I am not arguing that the bombings I mentioned necessarily were war crimes, but that they probably would be seen as such if carried out now in today's world. Without wishing to rake up ancient history and sow ill-feeling in any quarters, by the standards of the time and given the circumstances and the nature of the war that was being fought, and the fact that the atomic bomb was a completely new weapon, I believe the bombings were justified.

The bombings of German cities, in aggregate, were just as horrific as those in Japan, even if they began as a retaliatory exercise.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Except that we, the allies, were the people who first started the deliberate bombing of civilians in cities for it's own sake. Warsaw, for example, was a major transport hub and was, arguably bombed for that reason. Both the French and Royal Air Forces bombed Berlin simply because it was the German capital rather than for any demonstrable strategic reason, before Germany started it's "Blitz".


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

The Germans bombed Rotterdam quite apart from terrorising fleeing refugees by means of aerial attack during the fall of France. They were quite happy to blitz London and Coventry in 1940, along with a dozen other cities. There may have been strategic justification for some of the targets but not all - the Baedeker raids, for instance, attacked towns purely on the basis of their cultural importance. You surely can't describe it as anything other than the deliberate bombing of civilians, with the purpose of causing terror. In any event, Rotterdam had been devastated and the blitz had started before the RAF bombed Berlin, and it was only later in the war that area bombing became the norm - to begin with, the targets were meant to be airports and infrastructure.

'Warsaw was a major transport hub...' - well, so are most capital cities. I think they were more interested in causing psychological terror.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Except that we, the allies, were the people who first started the deliberate bombing of civilians in cities for it's own sake.


Yes 'Bomber' Harris. Britain was at Hitler's mercy in 1940 but he let the country save face by evacuating at Dunkirk. His generals were poised to go in and finish the job but Hitler held them back.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The French bombed Berlin in late 1939, seemingly to show the Germans that they were vulnerable. We bombed Berlin deliberately, on Churchill's order, to make them divert their air offensive from the RAF airfields to London; successfully. In any case, deliberate "terror" bombing of civilians centres was a British invention. We bombed Kabul in 1919 in an attempt to make the Afghans give up their aggressive war in the NW Frontier. We used bombing of villages to control Iraq in the 20's and 30's, as well as to punish tribal villages in the NW Frontier provinces throughout the inter-war years. The bombing of Rotterdam was a "mistake", it was supposed to support a German ground assault on Rotterdam, but the Dutch surrendered before the attack started, but after the aircraft had gone beyond their point of recall. Warsaw was a defended city, with troops in position in the city limits and passing through it, because of it being a transport hub.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The bombing of Rotterdam was a "mistake", it was supposed to support a German ground assault on Rotterdam, but the Dutch surrendered before the attack started


The Dutch are quite sneaky like that.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The bombing of civilian population centers in World War Two was anticipated by, and part of the official strategy, the major European powers since the 20's and 30's. By 1932, Stanley Baldwin had argued that "the bomber will always get through." He wasn't talking about getting through to artillery or command headquarters. He was talking about bombers getting through to major cities. The major combatants went into WWII with a full expectation that their cities would be bombed and that they would bomb the cities of others. No side held any particular moral high ground on this issue, as far as I can tell, other than the high ground of not having started the war in the first place.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> The Dutch are quite sneaky like that.


Well, it was, rightly, declared a war crime at the time. As was Guernica, although the Daily Mail reported at the time that the town was destroyed by Republican fanatics using dynamite. The Mail liked the Nazis at the time.
Yes, terrorising civilians was also part of their plan. The UK had been doing it for years. We pretty much destroyed Copenhagen in 1807 by bombardment by artillery and rockets, without a declaration of war; we'd previously had a go in 1801.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The Mail liked the Nazis at the time.


No surprises there then. My great aunt did too, and she liked Mosley.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Thanks to both of you for the feedback. This is actually a subject with which I have struggled for the past 30+ years. When I first completed operational readiness training for each of the relevant weapons systems I was involved with, I recall classes on the legality and morality regarding the use of such weapons being incorporated in the curricula. Not surprisingly, we were taught back then that such use was both legal and arguably moral. It should be noted however, that (at least to my knowledge) US war plans have never included the use of preemptive strikes employing strategic nuclear weapons! Not sure what today's combat crews are being taught, although I've been told that the class on biblical considerations of the use of such weapons has been dropped.
> 
> I will continue to wrestle with this, but certainly do hope our sons and daughters in uniform are not being asked to cross a line into the realm of illegal conduct, as suggested by your responses. I used to think the development of ever more technologically advanced and catastrophically destructive weapons would one day lead to the reduction and eventual elimination of war. Alas, this increasingly seems not to be the case, but rather these wonderous new toys of ours will enable mankind to follow a path that leads to it's own self-destruction!


Bombing a civilian target like a city, whether carpet bombing, fire bombing or nuking, etc. would most likely not be in accordance with the law and would be considered a war crime. Carpet bombing etc was not considered a crime during nor directly after WWII. I don't think any Germans where prosecuted for it (for example Goring).

One would hope that, although international law is largely based on precedence/custom and thereby molds to the actions of the states (the victors) one would hope that its strong enough to ensure that whomever oversteps that much will be collectively frowned upon. Most strenuously.

Legally though, there's conventions supporting the illegality of targeting population centers unless there's a clear direct military target. Or something to that effect. Which is a difference between current affairs and WWII.


----------



## Neill (Jul 10, 2013)

Chouan said:


> The French bombed Berlin in late 1939, seemingly to show the Germans that they were vulnerable. We bombed Berlin deliberately, on Churchill's order, to make them divert their air offensive from the RAF airfields to London; successfully. In any case, deliberate "terror" bombing of civilians centres was a British invention. We bombed Kabul in 1919 in an attempt to make the Afghans give up their aggressive war in the NW Frontier. We used bombing of villages to control Iraq in the 20's and 30's, as well as to punish tribal villages in the NW Frontier provinces throughout the inter-war years. The bombing of Rotterdam was a "mistake", it was supposed to support a German ground assault on Rotterdam, but the Dutch surrendered before the attack started, but after the aircraft had gone beyond their point of recall. Warsaw was a defended city, with troops in position in the city limits and passing through it, because of it being a transport hub.


What about the Zeppelin raids on Norfolk in 1915?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Or the RNAS bombing Cologne in 1914?


----------



## Neill (Jul 10, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Or the RNAS bombing Cologne in 1914?


The targets were the Zeppelin sheds though, not civilians. Of course the aspiration may not have been matched by the accuracy given the era. The raids on Norfolk were specifically intended to terrorise and demoralise the civilian populations.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The target was the Zeppelin sheds at Frederickshafen. However, the pilot couldn't find them, so flew low over Cologne and dropped his bombs there instead.
The raids were indeed intended to terrorise and demoralise, as were our bombardments of Copenhagen, and the French bombardment of Genoa. It's rather pointless to point the finger of blame at one country and say that "they started it". Deliberate use of terror and devastation has been employed for many years, and I'm talking about modern History rather than ancient history.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> Bombing a civilian target like a city, whether carpet bombing, fire bombing or nuking, etc. would most likely not be in accordance with the law and would be considered a war crime. Carpet bombing etc was not considered a crime during nor directly after WWII. I don't think any Germans where prosecuted for it (for example Goring).
> 
> One would hope that, although international law is largely based on precedence/custom and thereby molds to the actions of the states (the victors) one would hope that its strong enough to ensure that whomever oversteps that much will be collectively frowned upon. Most strenuously.
> 
> Legally though, there's conventions supporting the illegality of targeting population centers unless there's a clear direct military target. Or something to that effect. Which is a difference between current affairs and WWII.


Thanks to Bjorn for the added perspective, but his final comment raises several additional questions. Other than purely terrorist operations, do any recognized governmental entities admit to currently targeting civilian population centers, absent any military targeting considerations? Are there categories of weapons (ie: nuclear, biological, chemical, etc.), the effects of which are so operationally horrendous that they are or should be declared illegal? It seems we have presumed to do such with chemical and biological weapons, but what about the nukes? Finally, on a more practical level, if a nation state has such weapons available (legally or illegally), as their continued survival becomes more desperate, what's to stop them from using such weapons to improve said survivability? Must the availability of said weaponry be taken away to insure those weapons are indeed not used? :icon_scratch:


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

as the old saying goes, 'you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.' If the intelligence regarding the Syrian government are true, then I certainly object to them gassing their own citizens. BUT, I don't think this is our fight nor do I think we should involve ourselves in their affairs. It's not America's job to police every nation in the world when sh*t hits the fan. Plus, from what I understand, there's an Al Qaeda presence in the rebel group, which I also have a problem with.

Ironic how we're fighting about the 2nd Amendment in the US, but when you look to countries like Syria, the 'right to bear arms' would prove useful against their government in times of civil unrest. And, we wouldn't have to arm them or play referee when fighting breaks out.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Sadly, when the dissent turned to resistance, which then turned to rebellion, there was no Islamist presence. However, when Assad's people turned the army on the opposition and the West did nothing, the Islamists saw their opportunity and appeared with humanitarian aid, and guns. Al Q's involvement started with the abdication of responsibility for helping Assad's victims by the West. They found fertile ground for sowing their ideology in the misery and helplessness of the people of Syria.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Perhaps callous to say, but I don't believe the 'West' has any responsibility for what happens in Syria, or for the consequences.

Any involvement (it is easy to foresee this happening) involving the removal of Assad is only likely to worsen the civil war there, thereby heaping further misery on the ordinary Syrians. There is also the likelihood of widespread 'ethnic cleansing', as happened in Bosnia. The Alawites and Christian minorities will be the first victims of that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Given Britain's government's concern about the misuse of chemical weapons, this is an interesting article from a few years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

That story doesn't exactly surprise me. The article is quite an old one and not very well written - it says the plant was 'built by Britain', but then later that it was a UK subsidiary of a German company. Also, it slightly labours the fact that while the plant produced only chlorine and caustic soda, this equated to producing nerve gas. But I think British governments have always been prepared to get involved in murky dealings with dicey regimes in far-away countries, most of which we never hear a thing about.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Quite. I wasn't making a party-political point, just pointing out the hypocrisy in all of our governments' approaches to foreign affairs. Essentially, they make a stand if they think that they'll gain political capital from it. Sincerity is a vote winner....


----------

