chemical weapons killing civilians > bomb & bullets killing civilians..... XD

[Kurioxan]

chemical warfare kills more civillians and ruins the envoriment. and its a pretty inhumane way to die from toxic gases. ot at elast this is what i whould guess the reasoning is for the global dilike for chmical warfare.

Not really, most chemical weapons degrade after a few hours in the sunlight, its environmental impact is almost none.
The problem with this type of weapons is mostly that they are indiscriminate and kill a particularly horrible way and how big its area of effect can be (thus they are WMD's), those are the major reasons those weapons are banned.

Being very blunt the whole issue is about international law and status quo, if the united nations doesnt enforce the bans in such weapons via political/economic/military means it will lose credibility which will then make it lose its status as a mediator, and that can have many (negative) consequences, at least for the western powers.

The civil war has been going on since early 2011 and has killed hundreds of thousands, international concern isnt on the lives lost, its in the politics of international law.

[Themius]

So its only moral and imperative to intervene when its a small country you can bomb to oblivion....but exponentially worse human rights abuses in more complicated situations are fine?
Hypocrisy much?

Also, you may want to learn about what the petro dollar is, and the international context of this situation and its impacts, you know before you post here and display your ignorance.

Oh my god you are really just...

Listen and try to understand. Darfur is too big and there are too many things going on for anyone to do anything about it.

Where did I say it's okay to bomb a small country into oblivion? The majority of people don't want to do this to Syria so where are you talking about exactly? Or are you just talking bullshit?

[Sole-Warrior]

The ignorance in this entire statement just astounds me. Let's see how fun it would be to have your skin chemically burned while your lungs fill with blood and your brain hemorrhages

And it's not "hundreds of thousands", more like millions, or should be! AM I RIGHT? BOOYAAAA. USA, USA, USA, USA

YOUR statement is ignorant so STFU. The op is right that murder regardless of whether its a bomb, bullet or toxic gas is highly immoral.

[Komati]

Why should the people who dropped the nuke be punished?

Also the Emperor of Japan was free to go, as well as some other high ups who were IN NANJING DOING ATROCITIES, who went on to well.. live out their lives with no crimes being brought up against them.

So no not everyone was punished.

The emperor of Japan had nothing to do with the holocaust, and I'm not saying the people that ordered the nuke should be punished. I'm saying the reason people hazzle the US for nuking Japan, while not hazzling Germany for the same is because the people that ordered the nuke is regarded as heroes.

And people: If chemical weapons wasn't illegal war would be an ever hell than it is. If using mustard gas was normal I would be really scared, constantly.

[Themius]

The emperor of Japan had nothing to do with the holocaust, and I'm not saying the people that ordered the nuke should be punished. I'm saying the reason people hazzle the US for nuking Japan, while not hazzling Germany for the same is because the people that ordered the nuke is regarded as heroes.

Holocaust? I am talking about the tens of millions killed under Japan and the atrocities done in China with the rape and murder and torture of children, like... the fetuses being cut out of mothers and being cut in half or having their heads cut off.

Well the people that carried the Nukes... Nuked a country that was one of the worst on the face of the planet at that time.

[Tierbook]

Holocaust? I am talking about the tens of millions killed under Japan and the atrocities done in China with the rape and murder and torture of children, like... the fetuses being cut out of mothers and being cut in half or having their heads cut off.

Well the people that carried the Nukes... Nuked a country that was one of the worst on the face of the planet at that time.

you do realize that as far as the emperor of Japan was concerned, he was just told what to do and went along with it he had no power blaming him would be like blaming Queen Elizabeth everything the UK has done for the bast 60 or so years, and the people who carried the bomb to hiroshima only knew that they were carrying a bomb they had no idea what it would do

[Themius]

you do realize that as far as the emperor of Japan was concerned, he was just told what to do and went along with it he had no power blaming him would be like blaming Queen Elizabeth everything the UK has done for the bast 60 or so years, and the people who carried the bomb to hiroshima only knew that they were carrying a bomb they had no idea what it would do

Modern day Elizabeth isn't comparable to ww2 Japanese Emperor... there is some wiggle room though. The real issue with the atrocities is that many of the high ranks weren't brought to justice.

[Sunseeker]

Holocaust? I am talking about the tens of millions killed under Japan and the atrocities done in China with the rape and murder and torture of children, like... the fetuses being cut out of mothers and being cut in half or having their heads cut off.

Well the people that carried the Nukes... Nuked a country that was one of the worst on the face of the planet at that time.

I'm not sure how you're placing the atomic bombings higher than the deaths of millions for funsies.

[Themius]

I'm not sure how you're placing the atomic bombings higher than the deaths of millions for funsies.

I'm not... I am saying the atomic bombing was justified. On top of this I am saying that Japan was the worst country at that time and to try and say that we were baddies for dropping bombs on a country killing and torturing tens of millions is ridiculous.

[Sunseeker]

I'm not... I am saying the atomic bombing was justified. On top of this I am saying that Japan was the worst country at that time and to try and say that we were baddies for dropping bombs on a country killing and torturing tens of millions is ridiculous.

Ah I see. As usual sarcasm is hard to detect on the net.

[Frenegade42]

america has been killing hundreds of thousand of innocent civilian in the middle east, but if another countries does this using chemicals instead of bombs and bullets it has a different meaning. is it ok for america to kill innocents but if another does the same thing its global treason. i always thought the killing of innocents was wrong regardless, maybe im looking at it wrong. is there something im not understanding.

is chemical weapons killing civilians > bomb & bullets killing civilians?

I had assumed the key difference is the intentional targeting of civilians.

Now yes, you can argue how the US goes about targeting combatants, and how blurry the line becomes between combatants and civilians during an insurgency, and the marginal intelligence they sometimes act on and how smart guided weapons are still too risky to use in built up civilian areas and their questionable tolerance for collateral damage and acceptable civilian casualties to get at their target.

But I challenge you to claim that right now US pilots are sitting in pre-flight briefings to attack a school with the time set to be a 3.15pm so they can maximise the number of school kids and families picking them up, followed by a strafing run over the local market on the return leg because lol kill more civilians - because I just don't buy that.

[poser765]

Wow, this has sure turned into a productive thread.

[THE Bigzoman]

People like to put pain and suffering on a scale to make themselves feel better.

[Wikiy]

Starting a thread by half-insulting a country isn't really a good way to ensure it stays open for long. The topic itself is very sensitive and seeing as the thread's already gone off the tracks, the best thing to do is to close this.