• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it America's job to deal with countries that use Chemical Weapons?

Is it America's job to deal with countries that use chemical weapons?

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
American said:
I can't answer because I don't like the way you asked the question. It's too Yes or No. And are you asking if America should handle these things alone? You need to explain.
Click to expand...
I suspect he's asking in in the present context - at least that was my assumption when I responded. :thumbs:
 
EdwinWillers said:
I suspect he's asking in in the present context - at least that was my assumption when I responded. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

No, it's not our job, except in the context of supporting any treaties that might apply.
 
Simple answer is NO.


However I feel that a coalition of countries should establish a global system to combat aggression. And before you say "U.N" let me explain the difference. The U.N is largely a political dog and pony show and is not effective. What I am talking about is a coalition of countries that has one simple objective, no tolerance of aggression from any country/group. NO politics involved they simply retaliate against anyone who starts conflict. If the world knew that whomever fired the proverbial first shot would be met by immediate and definite retaliation (no exceptions) and their leaders killed or put on trial by perhaps the largest military force on the planet it would probably go a long way to ending wars.
 
With Obama giving away millions to terrorists we can't afford to be the policeman of the world.
 
The weapons above are all banned by the U.N. Yet, we are critical of another country possibly using chemical weapons while we used them ourselves.

Artevelde said:
Rather stupid attempt to lob all sorts of things together that have nothing to do with one another.
Click to expand...
 
Lukas105 said:
The weapons above are all banned by the U.N. Yet, we are critical of another country possibly using chemical weapons while we used them ourselves.
Click to expand...

No they are not. You don't know what you are talking about. The UN doesn't even have any authority to "ban" any weapons. Only international treaties do so. Napalm and White Phosphorus are not banned.
 
Artevelde said:
No they are not. You don't know what you are talking about. The UN doesn't even have any authority to "ban" any weapons. Only international treaties do so. Napalm and White Phosphorus are not banned.
Click to expand...

White phosphorus - JMCC.org

Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."
Click to expand...
 
Lets all remember that they killed each other by the millions with gas, bullets, bio weapons, for years and the USA did nothing.

1914-1917

1937 - 1941

then we got stupid and involved in 1917, in 1941 our hand was forced........and the rest of them are REALLY stupid.........grenada REALLY? WHY?
 
zimmer said:
Is it?

Yes.
No.
And Obama's Favorite: Not Present.
Click to expand...
You should have made this poll public so we could see how many libs go against their messiah.
 
Baralis said:
Simple answer is NO.


However I feel that a coalition of countries should establish a global system to combat aggression. And before you say "U.N" let me explain the difference. The U.N is largely a political dog and pony show and is not effective. What I am talking about is a coalition of countries that has one simple objective, no tolerance of aggression from any country/group. NO politics involved they simply retaliate against anyone who starts conflict. If the world knew that whomever fired the proverbial first shot would be met by immediate and definite retaliation (no exceptions) and their leaders killed or put on trial by perhaps the largest military force on the planet it would probably go a long way to ending wars.
Click to expand...

And when that aggressor is China (Taiwan) or Russia then what? Nuclear war? What if an ally like Israel? There's politics behind every military action.
 
MarineTpartier said:
You should have made this poll public so we could see how many libs go against their messiah.
Click to expand...

It is... but most Demokrats have avoided the vote. Perhaps we should PM them a personal invitation.

But alas... they have voted... they've chosen one of Obama's favorites:

10. Present...
9. not present...
8. out to lunch... don't tell Michelle...
7. Don't bother me I'm playing cards with Reggie...
6. Hey where's the March Madness selections...
5. Where's my teleprompter... I don't leave home without it...
4. Got a pick up game to go to... see ya...
3. It's beneath me to answer that...
2. It's Bush's fault...

and Number 1... (drum roll)

1. ugh... ugh... ugh... that's above my pay grade.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Is it?

Yes.
No.
And Obama's Favorite: Not Present.
Click to expand...

Considering we're the only country on the planet to use nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of human beings, I don't see how we have any room to talk.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Considering we're the only country on the planet to use nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of human beings, I don't see how we have any room to talk.
Click to expand...

It ended a war, and fewer people died than what was happening beforehand. Though no picnic it prevented greater loss of life... and was a good warning about the power of such weapons.

America has a lot of room to talk. We could have dominated the world... instead we helped lift those we vanquished. The world is lucky to have had such a benevolent and generous Super Power.
 
zimmer said:
It ended a war, and fewer people died than what was happening beforehand. Though no picnic it prevented greater loss of life... and was a good warning about the power of such weapons.

America has a lot of room to talk. We could have dominated the world... instead we helped lift those we vanquished. The world is lucky to have had such a benevolent and generous Super Power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard that BS narrative before. In reality, Japan was crushed and surrounded. They were weak enough that a few lonely bombers could waltz in unopposed.

We directly targeted civilians in order to make our enemy sick of enough of war that they would quit. How can we really lecture anybody on anything? This sets a precedent that as long as you think your enemy is determined, you can attack as many civilians as you want. What's the difference between us and any other government in history that's used WMD's to obliterate their political opponents?

Oh, I guess it's different because WE did it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah, I've heard that BS narrative before. In reality, Japan was crushed and surrounded. They were weak enough that a few lonely bombers could waltz in unopposed.

We directly targeted civilians in order to make our enemy sick of enough of war that they would quit. How can we really lecture anybody on anything? This sets a precedent that as long as you think your enemy is determined, you can attack as many civilians as you want. What's the difference between us and any other government in history that's used WMD's to obliterate their political opponents?

Oh, I guess it's different because WE did it.
Click to expand...
I'm an American. What matters is that we do what is best for Americans. This ain't no game where everyone gets to have equal chances of winning the prize. This is survival of the fittest. And our country better be tough enough to do what is necessary when necessary or were screwed. The reason we won our war against the British is because we refused to play by their gentlemanly rules in the first ****ing place. Yes it's different because My team did it. Team USA.
 
Slyhunter said:
I'm an American. What matters is that we do what is best for Americans. This ain't no game where everyone gets to have equal chances of winning the prize. This is survival of the fittest. And our country better be tough enough to do what is necessary when necessary or were screwed. The reason we won our war against the British is because we refused to play by their gentlemanly rules in the first ****ing place. Yes it's different because My team did it. Team USA.
Click to expand...
Learn what "fit" means. It's not big or tough. Rats and cockroaches score very highly on the scale so keep that in mind.
 
Slyhunter said:
I'm an American. What matters is that we do what is best for Americans. This ain't no game where everyone gets to have equal chances of winning the prize. This is survival of the fittest. And our country better be tough enough to do what is necessary when necessary or were screwed. The reason we won our war against the British is because we refused to play by their gentlemanly rules in the first ****ing place. Yes it's different because My team did it. Team USA.
Click to expand...

Ok, then I guess we can do absolutely whatever we want, as long as it wins.

We should start slitting the throats of every man, woman and child in afghanistan until the stupid hill people come down and surrender. We should've dropped on a nuke on Ho Chi Minh, then we totally would've won the vietnam war as well!

Man, it's amazing what you can accomplish when you have zero regard for human life. We should bring ourselves down to Al-Qaeda's level and just attack civilians until our political goals are met.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ok, then I guess we can do absolutely whatever we want, as long as it wins.

We should start slitting the throats of every man, woman and child in afghanistan until the stupid hill people come down and surrender. We should've dropped on a nuke on Ho Chi Minh, then we totally would've won the vietnam war as well!

Man, it's amazing what you can accomplish when you have zero regard for human life. We should bring ourselves down to Al-Qaeda's level and just attack civilians until our political goals are met.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't necessarily make us a whole lot of friends. If we could get away with it sure, but there are other countries in the world so we have to practice decorum to appease those other countries. You ever been in a pvp game? You do whatever it takes to win. But you respect the masses because they can gang up on you and take you down.
 
Slyhunter said:
That wouldn't necessarily make us a whole lot of friends. If we could get away with it sure, but there are other countries in the world so we have to practice decorum to appease those other countries. You ever been in a pvp game? You do whatever it takes to win. But you respect the masses because they can gang up on you and take you down.
Click to expand...

I think it takes a special kind of ego for someone to believe mass murder of civilians is ok as long as it's coming from their own side. In reality, as much as we want to wag our finger at Syria, we've done far, far, far worse than they could ever dream of.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah, I've heard that BS narrative before. In reality, Japan was crushed and surrounded. They were weak enough that a few lonely bombers could waltz in unopposed.

We directly targeted civilians in order to make our enemy sick of enough of war that they would quit. How can we really lecture anybody on anything? This sets a precedent that as long as you think your enemy is determined, you can attack as many civilians as you want. What's the difference between us and any other government in history that's used WMD's to obliterate their political opponents?

Oh, I guess it's different because WE did it.
Click to expand...
You don't win wars without boots on the ground... and the Japanese were notorious for fighting to the death. Sounds easy... like Obama's Red Line, but reality back then was something else.

Yes... targeting civilians was part of the war effort. It was an important part of breaking the people from their government. Not pretty, but that was war at that time. The aim is to win. These people asked for war... and war is what they got.


"The most influential text is Truman's 1955 Memoirs, which states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives."[SUP][185][/SUP] Scholars have pointed out various alternatives that could have ended the war just as quickly without an invasion, but these alternatives could have resulted in the deaths of many more Japanese.[SUP][186]

[/SUP]
Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan. One figure of speech, "One hundred million [subjects of the Japanese Empire] will die for the Emperor and Nation,"[SUP][178][/SUP] served as a unifying slogan, although that phrase was intended as a figure of speech along the lines of the "ten thousand years" phrase. Although some Japanese were taken prisoner,[SUP][179][/SUP] most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.[SUP][180][/SUP] Nearly 99% of the 21,000 defenders of Iwo Jima were killed,[SUP][179][/SUP] and the last Japanese soldiers did not surrender until November 1949.[SUP][181][/SUP] Of the 117,000 Japanese troops defending Okinawa in April–June 1945, 94% were killed.[SUP][179][/SUP] Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on 1 August 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war when the POW-camp was in the combat zone.[SUP][182][/SUP] As War Minister, Korechika Anami was opposed to the surrender. Immediately after Hiroshima, he commented, "I am convinced that the Americans had only one bomb, after all."[SUP][183][/SUP] Eventually, Anami's arguments were overcome when Emperor Hirohito directly requested an end to the war himself.[184][SUP]


[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings
Click to expand...

You win wars with boots on the ground. That would have cost a lot of lives... as the Japanese had a no retreat mentality. Finland, a tiny population fought back the Soviets using a form of guerilla warfare... the Japanese would have done something similar.

You obviously think America is immoral. I don't.

America has given acres upon acres of men and women, and massive amounts of treasure to defend freedom and free people. Then they turn around and lift the vanquished and help them recover. The world is very lucky to have had America and American values as a super power... the leading moral light in the world.
 
zimmer said:
You don't win wars without boots on the ground... and the Japanese were notorious for fighting to the death. Sounds easy... like Obama's Red Line, but reality back then was something else.

Yes... targeting civilians was part of the war effort. It was an important part of breaking the people from their government. Not pretty, but that was war at that time. The aim is to win. These people asked for war... and war is what they got.




You win wars with boots on the ground. That would have cost a lot of lives... as the Japanese had a no retreat mentality. Finland, a tiny population fought back the Soviets using a form of guerilla warfare... the Japanese would have done something similar.

You obviously think America is immoral. I don't.

America has given acres upon acres of men and women, and massive amounts of treasure to defend freedom and free people. Then they turn around and lift the vanquished and help them recover. The world is very lucky to have had America and American values as a super power... the leading moral light in the world.
Click to expand...

Then you hold the same views as slyhunter:

Absolutely ANY atrocity, no matter how severe, is totally worth it if you win.

We should stop screwing around and just nuke every country we come in conflict with. All we have to do is claim it will save more lives and you'll jump on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom