Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 Sep '13 13:55
    White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

    Should the USA and Israel agree to stop using white phosphorus so they don't melt people's flesh?
  2. 18 Sep '13 14:03
    Should we all agree to stop using weapons or force so we don't kill or injure each other?
  3. 18 Sep '13 14:12
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

    Should the USA and Israel agree to stop using white phosphorus so they don't melt people's flesh?
    that shouldn't be the issue.

    i believe that weapons should
    1. not be used on civilian populations, in any circumstance
    2. should not have lingering effects after being deployed.



    i don't "mind" the use of chemical weapons on soldiers as long as the death of those affected is quick, and as painless as possible. i don't believe that it is ok to invent bigger and smarter bombs, but not a nerve agent that is neutralized in 1 minute after being deployed. how does it matter how one dies? a bomb is a chemical reaction btw.

    people say chemical weapons and think of mustard gas and chlorine gas. horrifying stuff, really. their main uses is not only to kill the ones you launch it against, but to terrorize the enemy. to cause horrifying pain in survivors.
    weapons like these should be banned and they are.
    how about a hypothetical chemical weapon that instantly puts combatants to sleep though? is that to be placed in the same category as the above?

    that being said, were i a soldier, i wouldn't much care if a bomb obliterates my as$ or if white phosphorus melts it.
  4. 18 Sep '13 14:12
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Should we all agree to stop using weapons or force so we don't kill or injure each other?
    yes!!
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    18 Sep '13 14:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Should we all agree to stop using weapons or force so we don't kill or injure each other?
    Can't we all just get along?

    Edit:
    Together, we are one... http://tinyurl.com/plb9f7w
  6. 18 Sep '13 15:58
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Should we all agree to stop using weapons or force so we don't kill or injure each other?
    In a perfect world. Weapons are meant to kill people. It seems that how they kill people makes a difference in some people's eyes. Then there is the claim that chemical weapons kill too many civilians, but...

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

    ...Obama's drone strikes kill a lot of civilians...which makes Obama a hypocrite for condemning Assad for that even though there is no evidence Assad used chemical weapons.
  7. 18 Sep '13 16:26
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    In a perfect world. Weapons are meant to kill people. It seems that how they kill people makes a difference in some people's eyes. Then there is the claim that chemical weapons kill too many civilians, but...

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone- ...[text shortened]... te for condemning Assad for that even though there is no evidence Assad used chemical weapons.
    Intent matters. There is a difference between weapon which intend to kill civilians and weapons which incidentally kill civilians (a missed drone strike).
  8. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    18 Sep '13 22:48
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    that shouldn't be the issue.

    i believe that weapons should
    1. not be used on civilian populations, in any circumstance
    2. should not have lingering effects after being deployed.
    Ban all weapons except those that kill indiscriminately and whose victims suffer appalling agony.

    Still want to go to war?
  9. 18 Sep '13 23:16
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    that shouldn't be the issue.

    i believe that weapons should
    1. not be used on civilian populations, in any circumstance
    2. should not have lingering effects after being deployed.



    i don't "mind" the use of chemical weapons on soldiers as long as the death of those affected is quick, and as painless as possible. i don't believe that it is ok to i ...[text shortened]... oldier, i wouldn't much care if a bomb obliterates my as$ or if white phosphorus melts it.
    "
    i believe that weapons should
    1. not be used on civilian populations, in any circumstance
    ...
    ...i don't "mind" the use of chemical weapons on soldiers as long as the death of those affected is quick,..."

    Do you believe in conscription (the draft) which turns civilian populations into soldiers without their choice? I should think not.
  10. 19 Sep '13 11:14
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Ban all weapons except those that kill indiscriminately and whose victims suffer appalling agony.

    Still want to go to war?
    WWI had appalling weapons. trench warfare was the height of mindless, chaotic warfare. didn't stop people going to war.

    wwII the same.

    nuclear weapons are so horrible, indiscriminate, that people have agreed not to stop wars, but to stop using nukes. bio weapons and chemical weapons likewise.

    and of course, there are always wars with those that choose to ignore these regulations
  11. 19 Sep '13 11:23
    Originally posted by JS357
    "
    i believe that weapons should
    1. not be used on civilian populations, in any circumstance
    ...
    ...i don't "mind" the use of chemical weapons on soldiers as long as the death of those affected is quick,..."

    Do you believe in conscription (the draft) which turns civilian populations into soldiers without their choice? I should think not.
    if someone has a weapon in hand and are trying to kill you, it doesn't matter how you kill him.

    let's keep things at least near the realm of the possible. otherwise we drift into the world where there are no wars, no pain and suffering. which is a nice place to dream about but entirely unobtainable in the near future.
  12. 21 Sep '13 21:13
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Intent matters. There is a difference between weapon which intend to kill civilians and weapons which incidentally kill civilians (a missed drone strike).
    When you kill more civilians than people you intend to kill and keep doing it despite fully knowing that you're killing civilians, intend stops mattering.
  13. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    23 Sep '13 00:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    WWI had appalling weapons. trench warfare was the height of mindless, chaotic warfare. didn't stop people going to war.
    wwII the same.
    nuclear weapons are so horrible, indiscriminate, that people have agreed not to stop wars, but to stop using nukes. bio weapons and chemical weapons likewise.

    and of course, there are always wars with those that choose to ignore these regulations
    I disagree.
    The British Army in WWI were volunteers, sucked in by the propaganda
    and notions of patriotism. It sparked off massive Pacifist movements and
    cooled Europe down until Mr Hitler popped up.

    The British Army in WWII were conscripted.
    That tells you something of the public attitude to war.
    (Even though WWII was probably fought for 'better' reasons)

    And Hiroshima? Aren't nuclear weapons at least partly responsible for peace in Europe for 70 years?

    The more horrific the consequences of war the less the public will have a stomach for it.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 Sep '13 00:50
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

    Should the USA and Israel agree to stop using white phosphorus so they don't melt people's flesh?
    White phospherous is not a chemical weapon.
  15. 23 Sep '13 01:39
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Ban all weapons except those that kill indiscriminately and whose victims suffer appalling agony.

    Still want to go to war?
    When has banning weapons led to the end of war?