Let me put it this way, would you authorize the US military to start utilizing Napalm for usage on opponents, or flamethrowers to clear out civilian houses? How about small nuclear warheads (<10kt range) as opposed to large-scale bombs?
My point is I don't make any sort of difference between a dictator who uses chemical weapons to kill his people vs bombs and bullets. They are both horrible ways to die. Heck even if he killed them with chocolate and bunnies, I would be opposed. What kind of leader kills his people to preserve his own power?
Trump delivered in a big way for conservatives with his Supreme Court pick. One more pick and they will be able to reverse Roe V Wade. To many conservatives, this will vastly outweigh all of the other things combined. Millions more unwanted babies combined with a dismantled social welfare net, what could possibly go wrong?
Obviously not.Let me put it this way, would you authorize the US military to start utilizing Napalm for usage on opponents, or flamethrowers to clear out civilian houses? How about small nuclear warheads (<10kt range) as opposed to large-scale bombs?
Obviously not.
I just think it's hypocritical to blow up an airbase because chemical weapons were used by an organized military indiscriminately against unarmed civilians but to more or less sanction and allow the use of bombs, bullets, ropes and knives against them in similar fashion.
The chemical weapons line is a worthless ethical stance to me.
I agree with you. Its a geo-political quagmire with no obvious answers.Sanction is a strong word. More like 'accept as a fact of life until an opportunity comes along to stop that doesn't lead to an international incident'.
I agree with you. Its a geo-political quagmire with no obvious answers.
Its just when people say "pictures of gassed kids" motivated trump to strike, they are implying that pictures of kids riddled by bullets and missing limbs from explosions and rubble or kids drowning in oceans didn't affect him at all. Which is unfair to Trump and his cabinet (maybe they do care deeply). In fact, those statements are unfair to a lot of people and absolutely do not do justice to the thousands of dead children by conventional weapons to say "your deaths don't move us" but if you die by a gas attack then we'll shed a tear and maybe blow up an airbase.
lol +1to be fair to Trump, he did say if you voted for Clinton, there will be endless investigations. I voted for Clinton and now there are endless investigations.
Yeah, no. Chemical weapons are banned as WMDs principally because the suffering inflicted is vastly disproportionate to any military effect, which today is virtually nil.I for one have never understood why chemical weapons are special 'weapons of mass destruction' like nukes and biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly on their own level, easy. Biological weapons have the potential to spread out of control and cause all sorts of indiscriminate death too. I get that. Chemical weapons though? Not really. They can't self-replicate and spread like biological weapons and they don't have the massive destructive capacity of nukes. I don't see why killing 60 people with gas is substantially worse than blowing 60 people up with a bomb.
Actually that's not true, I do understand why but it's for totally different reasons. Chemical weapons are cheap and can force an otherwise vastly superior military force into donning cumbersome MOPP gear that seriously degrades their ability to function. Their playfield-leveling (somewhat) ability is probably the primary reason they are viewed this way.
Well said, sir. Although to quibble, I'd say that government clubbing you over the head and taking what's yours happens considerably before you make your first million and somewhere soon after, actually changes to offering you special breaks (e.g. capital gains tax rates, trust shelters.)To be clear, fear for one's life united every American, and has always done so. America wouldn't have gotten the support for world war if it wasn't for the american propaganda machine being in full swing. Now, to clarify, it's a damned good thing that it did because as much as I love German food, I'm not fond of slavery. Just make sure you understand that the motivations for humans working together is RARELY for the common good, it's almost exclusively for the common self.
I've drug myself up from my bootstraps the same as many people have had to do, and if America is great for a reason, it's because for the most part people stay out of your way when you try to do that, instead of clubbing you over the head and taking what's yours (that only happens after you make your first million). I can also acknowledge though that the dream of the white picket fence'd family comes at a cost to someone, whether it be within our country or without, and that those who created that image had the most to gain.
Finally, great Americans don't refer to themselves as such. If I were pressed to state the American virtue which is dead and buried, it would be humility.
Well said, sir. Although to quibble, I'd say that government clubbing you over the head and taking what's yours happens considerably before you make your first million and somewhere soon after, actually changes to offering you special breaks (e.g. capital gains tax rates, trust shelters.)
Trump delivered in a big way for conservatives with his Supreme Court pick. One more pick and they will be able to reverse Roe V Wade. To many conservatives, this will vastly outweigh all of the other things combined. Millions more unwanted babies combined with a dismantled social welfare net, what could possibly go wrong?