Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    97594
    09 Apr '18 20:31
    Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    09 Apr '18 20:48
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes
    The hypocritical US position seems to be that 'chemical weapons are unacceptable'
    only when possessed or used by countries that not the USA or allied with the USA.

    During the Iran-Iraq War, the USA condoned Iraq's frequent usage of chemical weapons against Iran.
    At that time, the USA had a de facto alliance with Saddam Hussein against Iran.

    No thoughtful observer would take seriously US claims to be morally principled in the Middle East.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    09 Apr '18 20:52
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The hypocritical US position seems to be that 'chemical weapons are unacceptable'
    only when possessed or used by countries that not the USA or allied with the USA.

    During the Iran-Iraq War, the USA condoned Iraq's frequent usage of chemical weapons against Iran.
    At that time, the USA had a de facto alliance with Saddam Hussein against Iran.

    No thoughtful observer would take seriously US claims to be morally principled in the Middle East.
    International relations and personal morality are orthogonal to one another, they are measured in different dimensions.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    09 Apr '18 21:263 edits
    Originally posted by @js357
    International relations and personal morality are orthogonal to one another, they are measured in different dimensions.
    "Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable."
    --Stevemcc

    The original post apparently argued that the USA's foreign policy should be based upon its
    supposed declared moral principles, which I pointed out have been hypocritical historically.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    09 Apr '18 21:30
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes
    The US has already reacted by condemning Assad and everybody who supports him.

    Do you mean war? With whom exactly?

    I personally would prefer independent fact finding to determine if such an attack took place. It would seem a senseless thing for the Syrian government to do at this time, but I'm open to evidence.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14746
    09 Apr '18 22:53
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The US has already reacted by condemning Assad and everybody who supports him.

    Do you mean war? With whom exactly?

    I personally would prefer independent fact finding to determine if such an attack took place. It would seem a senseless thing for the Syrian government to do at this time, but I'm open to evidence.
    I agree, last time there was no investigation and trump bombed anyway. Also, recently Trump said he would pull out of Syria and it would be other country's problem. Then Trump's lawyer gets raided and Trump wants to bomb Syria again. Doesn't that seem like more than just a coincidence?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-seizes-records-related-to-stormy-daniels-in-raid-of-trump-attorney-michael-cohens-office/2018/04/09/e3e43cf4-3c30-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.804928d9d333
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14746
    09 Apr '18 23:02
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable."
    --Stevemcc

    The original post apparently argued that the USA's foreign policy should be based upon its
    supposed declared moral principles, which I pointed out have been hypocritical historically.
    I agree. The USA still has chemical weapons as well. Even more hypocritical, the USA used napalm on North Korea during the Korean war. To that hypocrite Niki Haley I ask "who would use napalm? What kind of monster would kill people by burning them to death with napalm?"
    It would be hard to argue that napalm is more humane than Chlorine gas. The corporate news media will undoubtedly omit any discussion of that though. Effective propaganda. The creator of this thread bought right into it.
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    09 Apr '18 23:06
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    I agree. The USA still has chemical weapons as well. Even more hypocritical, the USA used napalm on North Korea during the Korean war. To that hypocrite Niki Haley I ask "who would use napalm? What kind of monster would kill people by burning them to death with napalm?"
    It would be hard to argue that napalm is more humane than Chlorine gas. The corpora ...[text shortened]... iscussion of that though. Effective propaganda. The creator of this thread bought right into it.
    The difference is that chlorine gas persists for a long time and can be blown around via the wind. It can also penetrate areas where napalm would not. Napalm can have an indirect effect of using up all the oxygen in bunkers and people suffocating from that.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14746
    09 Apr '18 23:181 edit
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    The difference is that chlorine gas persists for a long time and can be blown around via the wind. It can also penetrate areas where napalm would not. Napalm can have an indirect effect of using up all the oxygen in bunkers and people suffocating from that.
    There is no evidence Syria used chlorine gas at all. I saw the videos on the news, just a bunch of people watering each other off with a hose. There was no investigation last time either.

    Besides, the USA still has chemical weapons after a lot of time to get rid of them. If my government was serious about chemical weapons it would have gotten rid of their own by now.

    BTW, you don't think napalm falls on houses and burns children alive?
  10. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    09 Apr '18 23:26
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    There is no evidence Syria used chlorine gas at all. I saw the videos on the news, just a bunch of people watering each other off with a hose. There was no investigation last time either.

    Besides, the USA still has chemical weapons after a lot of time to get rid of them. If my government was serious about chemical weapons it would have gotten rid of their own by now.

    BTW, you don't think napalm falls on houses and burns children alive?
    You mentioned chlorine gas not me. I agree that burning people alive is incredibly horrific. One of the worst ways to die. Chemical weapons are no more horrible than fire weapons in terms of the damage done to the victims.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14746
    10 Apr '18 00:16
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    You mentioned chlorine gas not me. I agree that burning people alive is incredibly horrific. One of the worst ways to die. Chemical weapons are no more horrible than fire weapons in terms of the damage done to the victims.
    Thank you. People need to understand why North Koreans distrust the USA so much. Everything is a double standard with the USA.
    Like Duchess rightly pointed out, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and did nothing, just let it happen without complaint. That is why the Iranians distrust the USA so much. That and Operation Ajax.
  12. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Apr '18 00:18
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The hypocritical US position seems to be that 'chemical weapons are unacceptable'
    only when possessed or used by countries that not the USA or allied with the USA.

    During the Iran-Iraq War, the USA condoned Iraq's frequent usage of chemical weapons against Iran.
    At that time, the USA had a de facto alliance with Saddam Hussein against Iran.

    No thoughtful observer would take seriously US claims to be morally principled in the Middle East.
    Duchess used a war that ended 30 years ago as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy today.

    Her stupidity is impressive.
  13. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Apr '18 00:22
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes
    Going through with war just to save face is monumentally stupid. True, such a threat shouldn't be made in the first place. But going to war over ego is always the wrong path.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 00:502 edits
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Duchess used a war that ended 30 years ago as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy today.
    Her stupidity is impressive.
    The troll Vivify ignores the reality that it's part of a CONTINUING PATTERN of US hypocrisy.
    No one in Iran has forgotten that the USA approved of Iraq using chemical weapons.
    US hypocrisy still deeply affects how Iranians perceive (with ample distrust) the USA.

    The pro-Israeli (though he may deny it) American troll Vivify may like to pretend that the
    USA's 'even-handed' and NOT hypocritical how it treats Israel and Arab nations or Iran.
    Compare the USA's complete absence of criticism toward Israel's nuclear arsenal with the
    USA's absolute condemnation of any Arab or Iranian attempt to develop any nuclear 'equalizer'.

    As I recall, the lying troll Vivify has claimed that I have written that I am Arab.
    As I also recall, No1Marauder then asked Vivify if he was 'sure' and Vivify kept going.
    Can Vivify quote exactly what I allegedly wrote (in context) about being Arab?
    I might be mildly interested in what words a lying troll decides to put into my mouth.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '18 00:53
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Duchess used a war that ended 30 years ago as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy today.
    Her stupidity is impressive.
    "Like Duchess rightly pointed out, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and [USA] did nothing,
    just let it happen without complaint. That is why the Iranians distrust the USA so much."
    --Metal Brain

    But the troll Vivify apparently would deny that Iranians have any reason to distrust the USA.
Back to Top