Just so I understand this--a lot of the folks who have been deploring the evil of drone warfare

[geek tragedy]

are now saying "how are chemical weapons any different than other weapons."



Edited to add: I oppose air strikes on Syria. But, those opposing such air strikes shouldn't descend to the point they're arguing that the global ban on chemical weapons is outdated and illogical.

[Harmony Blue]

1. I think you are missing the argument

just a hunch.

[geek tragedy]

4. No, not really. I've seen a lot of people minimizing chemical weapons as no big deal, just

another form of killing like any other.

I guess teh dronez are more evil than nerve gas?

[lumpy]

17. Chemical weapons have the potential ability to kill more people with less effort.

Drones have the potential to target select people with less loss of life ?

[geek tragedy]

23. The answer is that the United States government uses drones, so they're evil.

Meanwhile, anti-American goons are the ones who use poison gas, so that needs to be downplayed.

Nevermind what would happen here if Obama dropped mustard gas on the Taliban . . .

[pnwmom]

41. I think you are. Chemical weapons are made for killing and/or terrorizing civilians. n/t

[bowens43]

2. so you see a distinction between dead and dead?

[geek tragedy]

5. I believe there's a very good reason why humankind has banned chemical weapons.

But, I guess certain people disagree.

[Harmony Blue]

6. That was a difffernt era

and before the nuclear age too.

Technology changes.

[geek tragedy]

7. I think you miss the point that they're not primarily a military weapon

designed for victory but rather to torture and terrorize anyone who is in their path not only in the short term but for the rest of their lives.

[Harmony Blue]

11. Yes there is PTSD associated to chemical warfare

but the firebombings of WWII also are a form of torture and terror. Same with the dropping of atomic weapons.

Cluster bombs, anit personnel landmines, white phosphorus, etc.

Drone strikes are causing a sharp jump in PTSD situations in Yemen and Pakistan, especially with young children.

[geek tragedy]

12. Are you seriously arguing that drones are every bit as bad as chemical weapons? nt

[Harmony Blue]

15. Absolutely

from a PTSD point of view very much so. This is why I am opposed to the sharp jump of drone strikes the last five years.

[geek tragedy]

16. oy. last word is yours nt

[pnwmom]

44. Times change. But chemical weapons are just as evil as they ever were. n/t

[wercal]

9. The distinction lies with how indiscriminate each weapon is

The gas is not a very precise weapon...and a lot of those hurt or killed by it appeared to be civilians, and even children.

I'm sure somebody will counter that drones also kill innocent people.

But, I've got a hunch the ratios are much worse with the gas attack.

BTW, I'm not amped up for war over this. IMHO, a strike that toppled Assad could put the gas in even worse hands, and a strike that doesn't topple Assad could b near pointless. I think the only logical air strike would be one that was aimed to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons....not necessarily allying ourselves with the rebels....just getting rid of the dangerous gas before somebody else gets their hands on it. Of course the only flaw is that bombing gas supplies may just cause a giant and deadly gas cloud.

[lumpy]

26. Human beings have certainly not developed to the point where warring will cease to exist.

Peace and harmony is a long time coming, if ever. Hopefully we are on the long road ahead when more thought is given to wanting to decrease the loss in life in seeking for revenge and the push for diplomatic solutions is more desirable. Most of us will be long gone existing in other dimensions.

[NightWatcher]

3. Am I to assume they're pro cruise missiles?

[GeorgeGist]

8. Just so I understand this -- a lot of the folks who have been praising the goodness of NSA ...

are now saying bomb, bomb, Syria.

[geek tragedy]

10. I dunno, I'm not a member of either caucus. nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

13. I've notice this also.

Very interesting.




OP I think the argument isn't that chemical weapons are no worse than drones. The argument is that both are bad, inhumane and need to be done away with.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Can you support your assertion?

I think it is absurd to get puffed up about one method of killing while gleefully embracing another. I think that to hold up the dead from chem weapons as reason to deploy other weapons is nothing short of exploitation of the dead. I think weeping for a kid who died from one weapon while not minding much if a kid is killed by another is creepy thinking.

[geek tragedy]

19. So you think the global ban on chemical weapons is based on creepy thinking. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Of course that's not what I said, but snark is a cutesy way to avoid answering the question.

Just so you have some perspective for your snark, I am a person who has witnessed a bombing of Syria. So that which is purely theoretical to you is something that has already altered my perspective on war. Decades ago. It was the same deal too, 'they killed children' so 'we have to bomb their children'. Just as today, the children were innocent on each and on every side. At that time, no chemical weapons were used, but the people were all still dead anyway. 'Conventional weapons' do not mean 'harmless weapons'.
I oppose the use of all weapons to kill other human beings. And if asked a fucking question, I can answer it.

[geek tragedy]

64. Well, should policy makers treat the usage of chemical weapons as a big deal,

or is it really not that big of a deal?

[Bluenorthwest]

69. How about you answer the question you were asked instead of demaning repetition of

the obvious. No one who opposes warfare as answer to world problems thinks any weapon is not a big deal but you know that.
I understand that your assertion in the OP is unsupportable and you still feel the need to type. You are usually less dishonest than you have been in this thread.

[geek tragedy]

72. Do I really need to collect the "no meaningful difference between killing people

with conventional weapons and killing them with chemical weapons" comments/threads that have been started?

"from an intellectual standpoint, it's a distinction without a difference" and that kind of thing?

[geek tragedy]

79. Psssst, here's your helping of crow.

This thread:

Just so I understand this--a lot of the folks who have been deploring the evil of drone warfare

are now saying "how are chemical weapons any different than other weapons."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023552601

So the question: is chemical warfare inherently more barbaric or nasty than conventional warfare?

My opinion: No.

42 recs and counting. So let's repeal that silly ban on chemical weapons then, since they're no worse than bullets and explosives.

[lumpy]

33. No one is gleefully supporting the use of any weapon. Insults will get you nowhere.

Perhaps in this country, anyway, we are refining the use of weapons of warfare to settle conflict with less loss of llife. Right now the administration is in a quandry trying to find a solution to the gassing in Syria, in view of the fact that US has signed the agreement that use of gas is banned and should be dealt with.
So should that use in Syria be ignored or not? Perhaps directed drone strikes might be more equitable. Not likely but hopefully the threat of retaliation against Syria might give them pause.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Answering tone with tone look at the OP's response to me:

So you think the global ban on chemical weapons is based on creepy thinking. nt

Clean your own damn house, then come whining about mine. Snark, they name is Centrist.

[lumpy]

78. I don't 'get' your post. Sorry.

n

[cali]

18. although I recoil from chemical and bio weapons viscerally, from an intellectual

standpoint, I think it's a distinction without a difference

Interesting article:

<snip>

Conventional attacks called no 'less evil'

"Blowing your people up with high explosives is allowable, as is shooting them, or torturing them," complains Dominic Tierney, political science professor at Swarthmore College. "But woe betide the Syrian regime if it even thinks about using chemical weapons!"

In a column in The Atlantic, Tierney -- author of a book on what he calls "the American way of war" -- adds, "A woman and her child under fire in Aleppo might miss this distinction. It's not obvious that high explosives are inherently less evil than chemical weapons."

Writer Paul Waldman makes similar comments in The American Prospect: "Getting killed by mustard gas is surely awful. But so is getting blown up by a bomb. Using one against your enemies gets you branded a war criminal, but using the other doesn't."

And the Los Angeles Times' Paul Whitefield writes, "Bombs blowing up buildings, which fall on innocent civilians -- men, women, children -- that's bad, but not cause for us to act? But a chemical weapons attack: That we can't allow? Spare me."

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line/

[geek tragedy]

21. Well, let's repeal the chemical weapons conventions then.

They've been revealed as silly anachronisms, according to the people you've quoted.

[cali]

24. no, let's just ban a shit load more.

how about that?

[geek tragedy]

32. The world community already has--napalm, landmines, cluster bombs etc.

The US has shamefully not joined the rest of the world in such efforts in many cases.

If George W Bush had used mustard gas against Saddam's Republican guard units, would you have shrugged your shoulders?

[cali]

34. no and I sure as shit am not shrugging my shoulders over the use of

chemical weapons in Syria.

You aren't honest

bye bye

ta ta

continue with your prevaricating nonsense

[geek tragedy]

35. "from an intellectual perspective standpoint, I think it's a distinction without a difference"

In other words, objections specifically to chemical weapons are emotional not logical.

Seems like a shoulder shrug to me.

[lumpy]

39. Your use of insult fails to be a winning argument.

What is your solution to the problem?

[cali]

45. what is my solution to the use of chemical weapon use in Syria?

1) follow Ban ki-Moon's advice

2) listen to General Dempsey

3) not intervene militarily and certainly no unilateral intervention

It's a vexing fact of life that sometimes there are no solutions to horrific problems. This appears to a case in point. Intervening militarily could very well make a terrible situation a lot worse.

And btw, I responded upthread. the op has consistently mischaracterized what people are saying and have said. I responded to that.

You want to discuss something honestly? fine. start playing dishonest games and I will call you on it.

[lumpy]

59. Not familiar with Ban ki-Moons advice. Illuminate.

So ignore is the solution? I tend to agree that ignoring the situation might be the way to go but politically that is a no no since human beings are political beings. The reality is that the US has probably given up on diplomatic means, unfortunately, and will go for some sort of retaliation. The solution has to be, I guess, a strike with the least loss of life. No doubt there will be repercussions to military strikes as usual.

[lumpy]

37. Isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Should we ignore the Syrian gassing ?

n

[cali]

47. We should not intervene militarily.

The potential for a disastrous outcome is great. The odds of it doing any real damage to Assad's capabilities are too small.

Do some damn research. this isn't rocket science.

Start with General Dempsey- you know, the JCS chair.

[lumpy]

65. What does Gen. Dempsey or anyone else who might have an equitable solution have to say?

[LittleBlue]

20. That's right up there among the dumbest posts I've ever read on DU

You do realize that those who deplore drone warfare don't want some other form of senseless killing in its place, right?

It's not the method of killing that offends, it's the killing itself! Which is entirely the fucking point of asking why the method matters in Syria.

You've completely lost the plot here, OP

[geek tragedy]

22. Except they fixate on teh dronez.

So, shall we put you down in the "chemical weapons treaties are silly" camp then?

[cali]

25. I don't see too many people here making the argument you say is being made

I think the point many are trying to make is that it's pretty ironic that 300 or a thousand deaths due to chemical weapons are so heinous we must stage a military intervention when over a hundred thousand people have already been killed.

My point would be that drawing red lines is often counterproductive.

[geek tragedy]

31. Let's think about this issue of red lines.

If Assad suffers exactly zero consequences--and I mean zero--for using Sarin, that means that international law on chemical weapons is just a piece of paper that governments can just ignore, right?

What's then to stop the Sudan from using it against the next rebel uprising? Heck, maybe Turkey could gas the Kurds just like Saddam did--after all if their neighbor gets a free pass, why shouldn't they?

Lots of people talked about the disturbing precedent of letting Bush walk on torture. How does that logic not apply to chemical weapons usage?

[Harmony Blue]

42. Your argument doesn't hold up

as the international community did nothing when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

And it didn't give the green light for other regimes of the world to use chemical weapons either just because of U.S. inaction.

[geek tragedy]

46. The US and Iraq blamed the attack on the Iranians.

In fact, in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq by aWol, it was a thing on the left to deny Saddam gassed the Kurds.

I got into flamewars with people here about it.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4911473&mesg_id=4912967

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1893690

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=926896&mesg_id=927133

[Harmony Blue]

50. No it was well documented

that Saddam ordered the chemical weapons to be used and thanks for proving my point.

[geek tragedy]

52. It was well-documented, but plenty of supposed leftists blamed Iran ten years ago.

Because they needed to deny Bush's talking point about Saddam gassing his own people, even though it was true.

See how many people here trotted out Stephen C Pelletiere as if he were some kind of legit authority.

Common Dreams jumped on board the denialist bandwagon.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=stephen+pelletiere+gas+site%3Acommondreams.org&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=stephen+pelletiere+gas+site%3Acommondreams.org&sc=0-40&sp=-1&sk=&adlt=strict

[Harmony Blue]

53. Yes but this undermines your premise

that we have to uphold international treaties.

We never punished Saddam for the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. In fact, Saddam used them in the war against Iran as well and the U.S. did nothing. Being selective when the U.S. should be outraged about chemical weapons use is a poor way to uphold international treaties.

[geek tragedy]

54. Sure, and within 5 years he figured he could get away with invading his neighbors

because, hey, international law is negotiable.

[Harmony Blue]

56. That had nothing to do with chemical weapon use

which is why your original argument has been debunked.

[geek tragedy]

60. Saddam figured the US would cut a deal with him

or that as an alternative he could play the US and USSR against each other, no matter what.

Heck, he gassed 5000 of his own people, and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney kissed his ass afterwards.

[lumpy]

71. Hard to get an answer but am left with the belief that you would simply ignore the gassing.

n

[LittleBlue]

27. We fixate on the killing of innocents

I've never seen an anti-drone opinion argue for killing innocent people by some other method.

This has nothing to do with a treaty, you pulled a strawman out of your ass in an attempt to paint the anti-drone people as hypocrites or otherwise inconsistent, and you are rightly taking a thrashing for it.

If you want to keep this bumped, go ahead. But if I were you, I'd cut my losses and delete that shit OP before more people see it.

[geek tragedy]

30. Do you think that Sarin and mustard gas should be legal for use

on strictly military targets like troop concentrations?

Do you think drones should be banned from firing on strictly military targets?

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Little Blue is spot on, and your continued game of putting words into the mouths of others

is really naff. Rude and intellectually dishonest. It will fool only the foolish.

[geek tragedy]

75. Well, which is it with you folks?

A) Dead is dead, doesn't really matter how they were killed, equally horrific no matter what;

B) OF COURSE I THINK CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE MORE HEINOUS THAN CONVENTIONAL ONES

the two are mutually exclusive.

[lumpy]

51. Like to know what you would do about the US signing of the treaty, let alone what your response

would to the Syrian gassing. Looks like the only alternative would be to ignore it. Diplomatic means doesn't seem to be working as yet.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. You're trying way too hard.

With the internet lingo and the playing dumb. Grow up.

[geek tragedy]

38. This is probably silly on my part, but I don't think progressives win much

by explicitly ceding the "anti-chemical weapons" ground to the Neocons.

Progressives really disgraced themselves in the run-up to the Iraq war by claiming Saddam didn't gas the Kurds.

[woo me with science]

36. +1 There's a fierce Third Way competition going on right now.

War is Peace!

[geek tragedy]

40. So, one way of distinguishing third way from progressives

is that only the latter consider chemical weapons to be categorially more heinous than conventional ones?

Sorry, I think that's idiotic. But, plenty here disagree with me apparently.

[woo me with science]

48. And the catapulting of the dumbness continues.

[geek tragedy]

49. Yes or no: chemical weapon usage is and should be categorically different

from using conventional weapons from both a policy and a legal perspective?

[woo me with science]

68. Oh, no, noooo, grasshopper. More charitable and optimistic folk than I

have humored you with attempts at rational engagement upthread, even knowing that they would be served absurdity pie.

Your inane little bid here - your attempt to suggest that any opinion on chemical weapons must lead to an embrace of BOMBING SYRIA in response - is ridiculous and contemptible, to be sure. However, it is *relevant* only as a microcosm of what we have learned so well from the corporate lizards in both parties who now infest our democratic system*:

*It comes from a very ancient Democracy, you see..."
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3183022

[geek tragedy]

74. Au contraire, I'm saying people should embrace the need to keep chemical weapons illegal

and taboo while at the same time arguing against intervention.

[lumpy]

43. The fact remains that killing people will continue as long as revenge is embedded in our brains.

n

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. I say - let the Middle East take care of the Middle East.

.
.
.

Let Europe take care of Europe, and so on.

There are lots of countries around Syria to handle this issue.

USA has issues at home, like jobless and homeless.

Take care of your own people USA,

leave the World alone.

please

CC

[lumpy]

77. That is called isolationship. Hard to accomplish in this world since we have become dependent on

other countries for support of our ideals. But it works for some countries most of the time.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. People who decry war because of death and yet ignore Assad's war on his people make my head hurt.

This isn't Iraq. This isn't Saddam who just sat there casually doing his thing. There is a genocide going on in Syria. You ignore it and people will die - a lot. You go to war, people will die ... but maybe you'll be able to gain some traction.

But let's be honest, ten years from now, when Assad has killed over 100,000 of his own citizens, will we look back and still shrug our soldiers?

Some people here quickly like to point out how they're humanitarians. Okay. What's the humanitarian response to Assad and Syria? Just let 'em be? Do you take the same approach if you're walking down the street and see a woman being raped?

Just let her be?

[geek tragedy]

58. To be honest, there are many people on both sides of the intervention

question who only care about the lives of other human beings overseas when it is useful to score point in Internet flamewars.

Neocons did not give a shit about the Kurds until Halabja proved a golden talking point for their campaign to depose Saddam.

Clinton was widely roasted on the left for preventing genocide in the former Yugoslavia.

Etc etc

[Drunken Irishman]

61. Agreed...

We have to take a real approach here. Something awful is happening in Syria. I think even the most liberal, anti-war leftists would agree with that. So, what's the response? Okay. We don't go to war. You can say, 'good job, U.S.', but that doesn't change the fact Assad will continue murdering his people. Then what?

I don't agree with the idea of a ground invasion, and guess what? I don't foresee it happening. Obama isn't going to send in ground forces. So, it'll be an airstrike and you hope it's enough. But right now, just using the moral high ground to oppose any intervention is hypocritical.

[geek tragedy]

63. The standard for ideologues is to concede nothing of what their opponents say.

Literally every single thing the other side says has to be proven false, because to concede that they raise a point that needs to be addressed is a sign of weakness, cowardice, and depravity.

Not enough to say that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds at Halabja didn't justify a US invasion some 15 years later, nope gotta deny that the gassing even took place.

Not enough to say that there's no way that military involvement won't accomplish anything, nope gotta go there and say "chemical weapons usage really isn't any more outrageous or problematic than conventional munitions."

[Drunken Irishman]

67. What's funny is that, for a loooong while, liberals were forceful and active in helping the world.

Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ were all liberals who took an active approach in world affairs. They believed the U.S. could be a force of good internationally. I understand that Vietnam really tainted the idea of intervention, and grew the anti-war left, but watch an episode of West Wing and listen to Bartlet talk about being an interventionist. It's fiction, of course, but I see his name brought up a lot as the 'ideal liberal president' on places like DU. He's the embodiment of what the old Democratic Party looked like before the Vietnam (like Humphrey and others).

So, I don't get why there is revisionist history here. People ignore past leaders, many whom are praised on this very site, and yet they were FAR more interventionist than the current administration.

Roosevelt was itching for war long before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Truman wanted to take down the Soviets. Kennedy invaded Cuba. LBJ escalated Vietnam.

But Obama wants to potentially do an airstrike on a nation killing its people? NO!

Okay...haha

[geek tragedy]

73. There are a lot of people round here who simply view as illegitimate every single use of armed

force by the United States since WWII.

Imagine if US forces had launched sarin at the enemy--we would not be seeing "dead is dead" commentary.

[msanthrope]

76. There's lots of moral outrage being expressed about the proposed strikes, but few have a

cogent answer to how the US should respond to a Sarin gas strike.

[Rex]

70. Dunno who is saying that, but dead is dead.

Might be worse to suffer for a week or two from a gut shot and no medical aid in sight. Dead is dead, from one huge bomb to carpet bombs to bullets and gas. I have no doubt all the innocent people that die in war, wanted to live.

[MNBrewer]

80. I am NOT one of them

I deplore the murder of people with both drones AND chemical weapons.

[geek tragedy]

81. Question is: should chemical weapons be singled out and treated differently

than other weapons, or should they be treated exactly the same?

To put it another way, should those that use chemical weapons be singled out for condemnation and punishment?

[MNBrewer]

82. I don't know.

Should extrajudicial murder of US citizens be treated differently from execution after trial and sentencing?

[geek tragedy]

84. So long as it's actually murder

and not rhetorical murder.

[MFrohike]

83. What I think you've missed

You seem to be hung up on the method used to kill, rather than the killing itself. I suspect a lot of people view the fixation on chemical weapons as hypocritical. The "international community" doesn't care about 100k deaths in Syria, just if they used chemical weapons to do it. It's an absurd obsession with procedure over substance. Taken to a logical extreme, note the word extreme, I have to wonder if the Holocaust were to occur in the here and now if the argument would be over Zyklon B as opposed to mass murder and degradation. That's an extreme example, as I've said, but I only hope to the illustrate the problem that worrying over how people are killed as opposed to that they are killed confuses moral authority for playing lawyer.

[geek tragedy]

85. Chemical weapons are a matter of international law.

Importantly, if their usage is condoned, that actively undermines international law banning them.

To the point that the international ban on them could become null and void.

[MFrohike]

86. Perhaps

It opens up an interesting problem. If the fixation is on chemical weapons, doesn't that just legitimize mass murder so long as it's not done in a particular way? Rather than fall back into legal formalism, which is how I see your reliance on this convention, perhaps the better route would be to address it as part of an effort to limit political violence. Of course, that route carries it own risks, but it does avoid the obvious hypocrisy of worry about the method as opposed to the outcome.

[geek tragedy]

87. The hortatory nature of international

humanitarian law is being exposed.

[MFrohike]

89. Interesting

That comment seems to undercut your own argument. Bold move.

[LWolf]

88. Since you brought up evil:

Killing people is evil. Weapons that do so are the tools of evil.

What don't you get?