"Syria is a national security risk to the USA" -- President Obama

[Kaitzilla]

I can't decide which of the many Syria threads to post my important thoughts, but this one's closest to the top, & seems silly enough that my poorly thought-out wishy-washiness might fit, so...

- Ok, so "chemical weapons" have been off-limits for like 100 years
- But I don't know why. It's OK to shoot up 100,000 people with bullets, bombs, tanks, explosives, but not 1,000 people with chemical weapons?
- Doesn't make sense.
- But, on the other hand, if there's, like, a world-wide rule against it, shouldn't we want to enforce it?
- Then again, on the third hand, why is it up to us to enforce it?
- I mean, ok, on the fourth hand, if it is up to us to enforce it, then yes, the President needs to check with Congress. That should always be the case.
- But on the sixth hand I don't want us intervening in Syria at all. Like, literally, AT ALL. No matter what they do.
- On the seventh hand, if we don't do it, who will?
- Which brings me full circle, to, why is this a rule in the first place? If they'd just shot those people, then who cares? Is that what we're saying? But gas them, oh, you better watch out, the world has said that's against the rules.
- But, on the eighth hand, the rest of the world doesn't seem to care, so why should we?

I've run out of hands. Also, it turns out I don't have a fifth hand. I don't know what to think 'bout this. Which is why the silliest of the Syria threads seemed a good place for me to express my confusion on the whole issue.

Chemical weapons essentially became weapons of mass destruction with the advent of air power.

It was one thing when they could be fired by artillery, but imagine 100 bombers dropping 1,400,000 pounds of VX nerve gas cannisters on a major city. Or a mixture of blood, skin, and nerve agents in case a few people have gas masks or the proper drug/protection to counter 1 type.

Everyone would die that couldn't get to a high enough elevation.


Also, not only can they kill, but they can maim you pretty good or make you chronically sick later in life if you don't get a fatal dose. Just look at Gulf War Syndrome.

Gulf War syndrome (GWS), also known as Gulf War illness (GWI), is a chronic multisymptom disorder affecting returning military veterans and civilian workers of the Gulf War.[1][2][3] A wide range of acute and chronic symptoms have been linked to it, including fatigue, muscle pain, cognitive problems, rashes and diarrhea.[4] Approximately 250,000[5] of the 697,000 veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War are afflicted with enduring chronic multi-symptom illness, a condition with serious consequences.[6] From 1995 to 2005, the health of combat veterans worsened in comparison with nondeployed veterans, with the onset of more new chronic diseases, functional impairment, repeated clinic visits and hospitalizations, chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness, posttraumatic stress disorder, and greater persistence of adverse health incidents.[7] According to a report by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, it showed that veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan may also suffer from the syndrome.[8]

There was a good reason no one cut loose with poison gas in World War 2. Even when certain countries were losing they didn't do it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Let's not forget napalm and phosphorus which are clearly chemical weapons. Not to mention any gunpowder or explosives are also made of chemicals.

The US did not sign the original ban on chemical weapons over 100 years ago because our representative didn't see any real difference with killing someone with chemical weapons and any other means. Many other countries took the same position. It wasn't until after WWI that wide scale condemnation started occurring. But even so, the US and many other countries continued to produce and stockpile them.

Only there actually isn't. The Chemical Weapons Convention doesn't make any stipulations on the production or use of chemical weapons by non-signatories. The US government still doesn't adhere to it and they claim they won't until 2023, despite the convention requiring full compliance by 2012.

So the US is now in defiance of the convention along with Russia, Libya, and Japan. If anything, those countries should face military strikes for not being in compliance after the deadline.

I've never understood why we keep stockpiles of poison gas.
It's not even remotely useful for anything, unlike a nuke which is useful for many things.

Maybe if Obama came out tomorrow saying our stockpile will be destroyed before Christmas and an oath that whomever used the sarin on those Syrians are dead men walking, that would straighten out some morals and ethics.


1 Cruise missile flying through Syria every few days to blow up a guy with Seal Team 6's red laser dot on his house one-bad-guy-at-a-time sounds like something everyone could get behind.

No one really understands how the currently proposed attack against Syria will accomplish anything since it seems rather unfocused.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Heh.

I love it.

 

[Glassmage]

Obama is THE national security risk to the USA

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't think I could give two sh*ts about American politics if you paid me to at this point. It's just on autopilot now. The Democrats will basically win because the Republicans do such a nice job of being completely unelectable and that means there's 0 pressure on the Democrats to not just do whatever the hell they want.

 

[druidravi]

None of that is surprising. Plenty to criticize Obama about in this whole Syria mess but it always seemed obvious that (1) the G20 was never going to come out in unified support; and (2) there was never going to be a security council resolution. None of that was ever really going to be changed by Obama.

I was not criticizing him not getting the G20 or UN security resolution. It's just that now he has no locus standi internationally to go to war. Bush was criticized of going into wars without any UN or security council resolutions. And that was Bush after 9/11 when he was backed by almost all security council members except for France I think.Right now France is one of the few major supporters. Almost everyone opposes military action.

To be fair to Obama ,he boxed himself in a corner with his red line statement. If he doesn't follow through he is weak. If he follows through he is another Bush . No way to win.


edit: It seems I am wrong.Even Bush couldn't even get 4 affirmative votes in the security council , where 9 is the minimum required to pass a resolution.

 

[Kyriakos]

He doesn't have to win. It would be more beneficial if the world as a whole "wins".

He got the nobel peace prize, before the european union, and before the IMF will get it no doubt this year Too much winning there, time to allow the other 7 billion people some victories too.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Why shouldn't we so openly oppose him? This is a war the people do not want and they are voicing their displeasure with government plans to go forward with this operation. If Obama and Congress want the people to stop complaining, maybe they should start actually listening to what we want.

Because, the nation (or what some might call, "you!") has choosen him. He is your representative in the world. And you have no other choice, but to stand behind him. Otherwise, all of this "democracy" thing is a fata morgana, just some sort of an illusion. Also, what you want might not be right. For an example, Texas was clamoring for independence, should we agree to that?

Sigh. Maybe absolute monarchy isn't that bad. At least the monarch isn't forced to be a representative of a nation that hates him; he has full power to mess absolutely everything and nobody can say "no".

 

[Commodore]

Because, the nation (or what some might call, "you!") has choosen him. He is your representative in the world. And you have no other choice, but to stand behind him. Otherwise, all of this "democracy" thing is a fata morgana, just some sort of an illusion. Also, what you want might not be right. For an example, Texas was clamoring for independence, should we agree to that?

Sigh. Maybe absolute monarchy isn't that bad. At least the monarch isn't forced to be a representative of a nation that hates him; he has full power to mess absolutely everything and nobody can say "no".

Ah, I get it. You're one of those people who think we are here to serve the government instead of the other way around. You are right when you say the nation has chosen him. Guess what that means though; it means Obama and every politician in this country is an employee of the people (at least that is how it is supposed to be in theory). Now the last time I checked an employee is generally supposed to do what their employer tells them to or they get fired.

You see, when you elect a representative you are not electing that representative to lord over you. You elect him/her to be your mouthpiece. So, in theory, a representative should not take any personal stance on an issue unless that stance has been approved by their constituency first. What you and many other people forget is that every elected official is a public SERVANT (keyword so I'll say it again: SERVANT). They are put into office to carry out the will of the people, not pursue their own agendas. However, as more and more people like you keep non-thinking and spouting out garbage like this post I start to think I am the last person left who believes a government is supposed to serve the people.

As for your Texas independence example: If Texas held a state-wide referendum on the issue of secession and it passed, then yes I believe the Federal Government should honor that. I mean, why would you want to keep an entire population under your control when they don't want to be? That's just asking for trouble.

 

[RobAnybody]

Chemical weapons essentially became weapons of mass destruction with the advent of air power.

It was one thing when they could be fired by artillery, but imagine 100 bombers dropping 1,400,000 pounds of VX nerve gas cannisters on a major city. Or a mixture of blood, skin, and nerve agents in case a few people have gas masks or the proper drug/protection to counter 1 type.

Everyone would die that couldn't get to a high enough elevation.

Also, not only can they kill, but they can maim you pretty good or make you chronically sick later in life if you don't get a fatal dose.

Yes, yes, that's totally different than getting shot by a whole bunch of bullets. Or a missile. Or a grenade. Or artillery. Or an IED. Or a bomb. It's a good thing bullets & missiles don't kill people at a certain elevation. Or make you chronically sick if you get shot. That's why bullets are fine but gas isn't. Bullets are not weapons of mass destruction, despite all evidence to the contrary, so they're ok.

Just look at Gulf War Syndrome

Plus, hey, getting shot by bullets won't give people wikiGulfWarSyndrome, so bullets are fine, but gas isn't. Makes sense to me.

I mean, it's totally OK to kill people by *these* means, just not to kill people by *those* means. Sure, they're still dead, but if you do it by acceptable, agreed upon weapons, then it's totally fine, and no one has to feel icky about it.

There was a good reason no one cut loose with poison gas in World War 2. Even when certain countries were losing they didn't do it.

Oh, sure, I mean, everyone agreed that certain means of killing people was OK in WWII. Errr.... so we'd have totally been cool if the Germans had just used bullet chambers instead of gas chambers? Stupid Germans, if only they'd have killed 6 million people in an *acceptable* way.

EDIT: Or if they'd have just thought to nuke a couple cities. Since we all agreed on the rules in WWII & all.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, yes, that's totally different than getting shot by a whole bunch of bullets. Or a missile. Or a grenade. Or artillery. Or an IED. Or a bomb. It's a good thing bullets & missiles don't kill people at a certain elevation. Or make you chronically sick if you get shot. That's why bullets are fine but gas isn't. Bullets are not weapons of mass destruction, despite all evidence to the contrary, so they're ok.


Plus, hey, getting shot by bullets won't give people wikiGulfWarSyndrome, so bullets are fine, but gas isn't. Makes sense to me.

I mean, it's totally OK to kill people by *these* means, just not to kill people by *those* means. Sure, they're still dead, but if you do it by acceptable, agreed upon weapons, then it's totally fine, and no one has to feel icky about it.


Oh, sure, I mean, everyone agreed that certain means of killing people was OK in WWII. Errr.... so we'd have totally been cool if the Germans had just used bullet chambers instead of gas chambers? Stupid Germans, if only they'd have killed 6 million people in an *acceptable* way.

The germans used gas to kill a few million jews and other humans they regarded as lower, mostly because using bullets would cost them more. Iirc at first they were using bullets, but it was way too much to waste a bullet on those deemed so inferior, so they chose gas instead. Keep in mind that they kept all the clothing of those they killed too, not to waste that either. I doubt any other race did this in such a scale in the entire history of mankind.

And i agree with you that it is not less ethical to use gas than other unsavory weapons, such as bullets which seperate into fractions and pretty much ruin limbs without killing one, or the rest of the good stuff the US uses regularly. That said, it is not even certain who used the gas, so it just keeps evolving into a debate on hypothetical use of gas on the one hand, and very real use of other killing tactics by Obama on the other.

 

[RobAnybody]

Aye, that was totally good on them to recycle the clothing of the dead Jews. It's good they thought of the environment. Plus, no one would have cared about the whole Holocaust thing if bullets had been the cost effective Final Solution. We are completely, totally, 100% on the same page in this.

[/IHateThatIEvenHaveToIndicateTheBlatantSarcasmButSomebodyWillInevitablyThinkImSeriousSo... /SARCASM]

 

[Borachio]

There was a good reason no one cut loose with poison gas in World War 2. Even when certain countries were losing they didn't do it.

But nuclear weapons now...

Even though they exhibit many of the same effects as chemical ones.

Btw, isn't TNT a chemical? And, I've heard, if that doesn't kill you, it can certainly leave you substantially maimed for life, too.

 

[Agent327]

Seeing as an explosion can be described as a chemical process I think it's fair to say that most explosives indeed are chemicals. Which, however, doesn't make it chemical warfare if military personnel uses explosive rounds.

 

[Borachio]

So which is phosphorus? Chemical or conventional?

And is tear gas a chemical weapon or not?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Obama is THE national security risk to the USA

I thought the threat was black thugs and illegals...oh wait

 

[Kyriakos]

Things just got even better:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.html?ir=Politics

Then last week the president surprised his own aides (including Kerry) and changed his mind, apparently because he lacked much international support and because he wanted to spread the domestic political risk.

But even though Obama is now seeking Congress’ support, Kerry insisted that the president is not bound by law to stand down should his plan be rejected.

Hadn’t the president in essence ceded that leeway by coming to Congress? I asked the secretary of state.

The answer, he said, was no.

If that scenario were to materialize -- a bombing campaign after a "no" vote -- the result would almost certainly be an impeachment drive in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Nicely played. I guess it does not express Obama though, John Kerry is a nobody, merely a presidential candidate a few years ago, and now just a lowly part of the current government. I bet he did not even inform Obama that he was going to make the statement that the bombing can happen even if the US congress votes against it

 

[Chiteng]

What to do w Syria? Syria owes so much money to Russia and China that unless
we are willing to pay that debt for them, the position is hopeless.

Syria exports NOTHING useful. It is not helpful to anyone's economy.

To create peace, you would need to eliminate (that means kill btw)the trouble makers.

That would be ALOT of people. Even if you did that, you would need to militarize the borders to keep 'more' troublemakers out.

And no one would thank you for doing it. Certainly not the ungrateful people who live there.

You cannot win a war, unless you are willing to kill your enemies.
That is the lasting legacy of Barak Obama.

 

[Lord Baal]

What to do w Syria? Syria owes so much money to Russia and China that unless
we are willing to pay that debt for them, the position is hopeless.

Syria exports NOTHING useful. It is not helpful to anyone's economy.

To create peace, you would need to eliminate (that means kill btw)the trouble makers.

That would be ALOT of people. Even if you did that, you would need to militarize the borders to keep 'more' troublemakers out.

And no one would thank you for doing it. Certainly not the ungrateful people who live there.

You cannot win a war, unless you are willing to kill your enemies.
That is the lasting legacy of Barak Obama.

Raze Syria, send settlers and found a new city on the ruins. Barack could make Sid proud.

 

[kramerfan86]

I dont think Obama will do it if he gets voted down in congress, I think guys like Kerry just keep saying he could because they dont want to establish this line of thought the president cant do military action if he so pleases.

I bet congress does it though, at the moment it looks like they will reject but after the stupid Israel lobby makes its big push and Obama sweet talks all the democrats they will change their minds. Its well established the will of their party higher ups and lobbyists overrule the people's will in most cases.