Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Syria WMD

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 2:28:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 2:03:54 PM, DanT wrote:
Looks like we are going to war with Syria

Prediction: It'll be as bad of a disaster as Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan.

My belief: We should stay out of the Syrian Civil War. We have no business being there.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 2:30:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 2:28:03 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 8/26/2013 2:03:54 PM, DanT wrote:
Looks like we are going to war with Syria

Prediction: It'll be as bad of a disaster as Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan.

I doubt it. I'd be really shocked if Obama orders a land invasion, it's far more likely to be akin to Libya if I had to take a guess. What will probably happen is to increase material support for the rebels and use some air/missile power. It's also unlikely that anything will reach Vietnam level proportions for quite a while, but we'll see...

My belief: We should stay out of the Syrian Civil War. We have no business being there.

No opinion
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 2:38:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya no way we put 'boots on the ground' I'm sure there's already plenty of CIA and covert going on there but we won't be sending in any national guard reservists. taking over/ousting the govt hasn't worked out the last handful of times weve tried it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war. Syria is one of the few countries who are not party to the convention, but according to the press release the white house believes the US should hold the world to the international standard regardless of whether or not they are party to the treaty.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 4:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 2:30:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/26/2013 2:28:03 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:

Prediction: It'll be as bad of a disaster as Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan.

I doubt it. I'd be really shocked if Obama orders a land invasion, it's far more likely to be akin to Libya if I had to take a guess. What will probably happen is to increase material support for the rebels and use some air/missile power. It's also unlikely that anything will reach Vietnam level proportions for quite a while, but we'll see...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 4:41:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 2:28:03 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 8/26/2013 2:03:54 PM, DanT wrote:
Looks like we are going to war with Syria

Prediction: It'll be as bad of a disaster as Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Don't remember that war.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 4:44:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 4:41:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 2:28:03 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 8/26/2013 2:03:54 PM, DanT wrote:
Looks like we are going to war with Syria

Prediction: It'll be as bad of a disaster as Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Don't remember that war.

*Iraq
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 4:58:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 2:03:54 PM, DanT wrote:
Looks like we are going to war with Syria

Doubt it. MAYBE a handful of drone strikes and enforcement of a no-fly zone but not a war similar to that of Iraq or Afghanistan
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 5:08:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 2:03:54 PM, DanT wrote:
Looks like we are going to war with Syria

War, in the strictest sense, isn't a realistic possibility. However, a police action (i.e. what essentially every international act by the US military since WWII) is highly probable. I could anticipate it starting with drones, but depending on what NATO does, it is infeasible to think Obama can reasonably maintain any credibility without taking substantial action against the Assad regime at this point.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:14:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

sigged.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:21:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 9:14:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

sigged.

That's cute.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Also if you are going to quote wiki, please link your source.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.


Also if you are going to quote wiki, please link your source.

No.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:33:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.

No they can't. Pressure cookers cannot kill masses of people. IEDs are nowhere near as a deadly as chemical weapons.

Also if you are going to quote wiki, please link your source.

No.

Don't be childish.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:33:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.

No they can't. Pressure cookers cannot kill masses of people. IEDs are nowhere near as a deadly as chemical weapons.

Exactly. And yet, the Tsarnaev brothers (or brother; I forget if one of them died) were charged with using WMDs. This is precisely why I don't much care for the label of "WMD."

Also if you are going to quote wiki, please link your source.

No.

Don't be childish.

No.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 1:48:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:36:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:33:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.

No they can't. Pressure cookers cannot kill masses of people. IEDs are nowhere near as a deadly as chemical weapons.

Exactly. And yet, the Tsarnaev brothers (or brother; I forget if one of them died) were charged with using WMDs. This is precisely why I don't much care for the label of "WMD."

I highly doubt those charges stick. And if they do, that speaks volumes of the US judicial system. Regardless, an IED is not a WMD; that is just propaganda by the justice department.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 2:04:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 1:48:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:36:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:33:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.

No they can't. Pressure cookers cannot kill masses of people. IEDs are nowhere near as a deadly as chemical weapons.

Exactly. And yet, the Tsarnaev brothers (or brother; I forget if one of them died) were charged with using WMDs. This is precisely why I don't much care for the label of "WMD."

I highly doubt those charges stick. And if they do, that speaks volumes of the US judicial system. Regardless, an IED is not a WMD; that is just propaganda by the justice department.

Lol. The entire definition of a WMD is based on whatever the hell governments want; it is not a scientific definition.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 4:15:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 2:04:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:48:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:36:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:33:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.

No they can't. Pressure cookers cannot kill masses of people. IEDs are nowhere near as a deadly as chemical weapons.

Exactly. And yet, the Tsarnaev brothers (or brother; I forget if one of them died) were charged with using WMDs. This is precisely why I don't much care for the label of "WMD."

I highly doubt those charges stick. And if they do, that speaks volumes of the US judicial system. Regardless, an IED is not a WMD; that is just propaganda by the justice department.

Lol. The entire definition of a WMD is based on whatever the hell governments want; it is not a scientific definition.

Who said anything about science? Of course it is not a scientific definition; most definitions are not scientific. Just because it is not a scientific definition, does not mean the definition is arbitrary.

The legal definition differs between civilian and military. Title 18 is a civilian criminal code, and it is under the definition provided in title 18 that the Boston bombers were charged.
Under title 18

"(c) Definitions." For purposes of this section"
...
(2) the term "weapon of mass destruction" means"
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and " ~ 18 USC " 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

"(a) As used in this chapter"
...
(4) The term "destructive device" means"
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas"
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes." ~ 18 USC " 921 - Definitions

Under international law the definition of WMD is much more strict, and is limited to Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons; as well as a few highly destructive projectiles.
http://www.un.org...

These are just legal definitions. The most widely accepted definition of WMD, which is how it is used in common references (not legal discourse), is CBRN.

CBRN stands for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear. A less common definition is CBRNe; the e stands for explosive devices capable of causing mass casualties.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 5:34:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is a CHANCE we may use some aerial bombing a la Kosovo/Libya.

But it's downright insane to think we'd actually send ground troops in (unless via the UN).
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 5:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 4:15:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 2:04:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:48:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:36:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 1:33:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 10:47:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:42:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:30:16 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/27/2013 9:24:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:55:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:26:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:24:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:17:44 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/26/2013 3:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
By WMDs, I assume you mean chemical weapons, because that's the only news story that googling "Syria" will show. In that case, what's the big deal? The country is at war, and when one side uses a chemical weapon, it's international armageddon? Big whoop. Both sides extensively used chemical weapons in both the first and the second world wars, but I'd be hard pressed to find an American who would condemn the Allies for such actions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the use of chemical weapons in war.

Why? Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons.

Why do you think that?

Because it's illogical to outlaw chemical weapons while allowing other weapons. In the sheer amount of life that can be lost, chemical weapons are easily on par with traditional guns and explosives.
That is complete hogwash. You need to do some research. There is a reason Chemical weapons are considered WMD. WMD includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.


Try again:

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They may be classified as weapons of mass destruction though are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements). Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas and tear gas are two modern examples."

Nice how you ignored everything else in the quote, and just bolded that one line. They are Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they are not the same as biological or nuclear weapons. Biological weapons uses germs, nuclear weapons uses radiation, and chemical weapons uses hazardous chemicals. Just because they are neither nuclear nor biological does not mean they are not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because they are capable of killing masses of people indiscriminately, they are considered WMD. A gun, or regular explosives cannot cause the same widespread damage as chemical weapons or other WMD.

Pressure cookers with explosives can be classified as WMDs. I'm not too infatuated with the use of that term.

No they can't. Pressure cookers cannot kill masses of people. IEDs are nowhere near as a deadly as chemical weapons.

Exactly. And yet, the Tsarnaev brothers (or brother; I forget if one of them died) were charged with using WMDs. This is precisely why I don't much care for the label of "WMD."

I highly doubt those charges stick. And if they do, that speaks volumes of the US judicial system. Regardless, an IED is not a WMD; that is just propaganda by the justice department.

Lol. The entire definition of a WMD is based on whatever the hell governments want; it is not a scientific definition.

Who said anything about science? Of course it is not a scientific definition; most definitions are not scientific. Just because it is not a scientific definition, does not mean the definition is arbitrary.

The legal definition differs between civilian and military. Title 18 is a civilian criminal code, and it is under the definition provided in title 18 that the Boston bombers were charged.
Under title 18

"(c) Definitions." For purposes of this section"
...
(2) the term "weapon of mass destruction" means"
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and " ~ 18 USC " 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

"(a) As used in this chapter"
...
(4) The term "destructive device" means"
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas"
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes." ~ 18 USC " 921 - Definitions


Under international law the definition of WMD is much more strict, and is limited to Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons; as well as a few highly destructive projectiles.
http://www.un.org...








These are just legal definitions. The most widely accepted definition of WMD, which is how it is used in common references (not legal discourse), is CBRN.

CBRN stands for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear. A less common definition is CBRNe; the e stands for explosive devices capable of causing mass casualties.

Are you seriously expecting somebody to read this? I have very little interest in this topic and your wall of text isn't helping.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 5:56:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 5:53:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you seriously expecting somebody to read this? I have very little interest in this topic and your wall of text isn't helping.
Being proven wrong then saying you're not interested in reading facts and discussing the topic-- good one Ma'am.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 5:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/27/2013 5:56:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/27/2013 5:53:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are you seriously expecting somebody to read this? I have very little interest in this topic and your wall of text isn't helping.
Being proven wrong then saying you're not interested in reading facts and discussing the topic-- good one Ma'am.

Not really, bud. I'd be fine with it if DanT's style of arguing wasn't throwing definitions at your face.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."