• 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!

US suspects Syria used chemical weapons [W:284]

apdst said:
Soviet troops knew they weren't fighting for freedom...LOL!!!
Click to expand...

Many of them were just as brainwashed as American troops. Admittedly Russians tended to be more realistic about the situation and less trusting of governments in general, but you had your true believers.

America is unique in that a clear majority of troops actually believe that they are fighting for freedom, or did at one point.
 
Jack Hays said:
It must be difficult to live in such fear. Are you really that afraid?:cool:
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm a prepper so I have enough food, guns, ammunition, etc. to survive in any event.
 
Jack Hays said:
That would not have happened had we not abandoned Afghanistan. We didn't need to do much, but a little engagement would have precluded a large problem. Like now.:cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, because government doesn't work at home but it certainly works abroad. :lol: Nearly all our recent foreign interventions have eventually come back to haunt us. I am not willing to bet on the State now.
 
VanceMack said:
You take from it what you want. Or you can take from it what was actually said. Dont say something unless you mean something. The last thing Obama (and the US) needs for us to be perceived as even more of a ***** by drawing lines in the sand then erasing those lines and redrawing...and redrawing...and redrawing...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I think its still a little early to jump to such conclusions when we are still obtaining information about what happened.
 
Geoist said:
And yet it is still a crime under our judicial system (as it should be).
Click to expand...

You don't understand. Collateral damage is not purely accidental; it is a calculated decision that more good than bad is done in the operation. As a calculated decision, it does not qualify as manslaughter.
 
ecofarm said:
You don't understand. Collateral damage is not purely accidental; it is a calculated decision that more good than bad is done in the operation.
Click to expand...

This is the same rationale terrorists make.


As a calculated decision, it does not qualify as manslaughter.
Click to expand...
But you're right, a lot of it is not purely accidental therefore it is not manslaughter. It is murder.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
This is the same rationale terrorists make.
Click to expand...

Yes, except we are killing mass murderers and they target civilians. For terrorists, collateral damage is the only damage. The West, however, does not target civilians. Surely, you can see the vast difference. The mere belief that one is doing good is insufficient; there must be 'objective' analysis.

Without value judgments and ethical considerations, YOU are the one utilizing terrorist (deeply flawed) logic, not me.

But you're right, a lot of it is not purely accidental therefore it is not manslaughter. It is murder.
Click to expand...

Your retreat is untenable. This position is not respectable.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, except we are killing mass murderers and they target civilians.
Click to expand...

We definitely target civilian locals and rain death from above. You think we haven't killed A LOT of civilians? More than terrorists because our bombs are better and we're better able to use them. Please, war kills innocents and the US has before and likely will in the future, target civilians for causalities. And at the very least, we're not shy about creating civilian casualties; though many hide behind "it wasn't intended" or "there was a terrorist in that group of 150 civilians!".
 
Ikari said:
Is it? Or is it that you need it to be disconnected?
Click to expand...

The US does not target civilians. Unless every elected federal official is in on such a conspiracy, it cannot be. Using a CT that encompasses all of congress, the executive and vast numbers within the judicial to justify a ridiculous statement is disconnected.
 
ecofarm said:
The US does not target civilians. Unless every elected federal official is in on such a conspiracy, it cannot be. Using a CT that encompasses all of congress, the executive and vast numbers within the judicial to justify a ridiculous statement is disconnected.
Click to expand...

We've never purposefully targeted civilians then, that's your take? We've never marginalized civilian casualty? It's an interesting opinion for sure, though I'm not sure if it's 100% correct.
 
Ikari said:
We've never purposefully targeted civilians then, that's your take?
Click to expand...

Are you redefining the word 'targeted'? Purposefully targeted is redundant.
 
ecofarm said:
Are you redefining the word 'targeted'? Purposefully targeted is redundant.
Click to expand...

Just trying to be clear, what are your answers to those questions?
 
Ikari said:
We've never marginalized civilian casualty? It's an interesting opinion for sure, though I'm not sure if it's 100% correct.
Click to expand...

Collateral damage is a difficult equation. When the US has erred, it admits those mistakes and even pays the victims. While one can calculate collateral damage by their own standards, the fact remains that the US tries to reduce civilian casualties. Actually, the killing of the terrorists does that as well.

If one cannot differentiate between targeting terrorists and targeting civilians, then there's really no debate to be had.
 
ecofarm said:
Collateral damage is a difficult equation. When the US has erred, it admits those mistakes and even pays the victims. While one can calculate collateral damage by their own standards, the fact remains that the US tries to reduce civilian casualties. Actually, the killing of the terrorists does that as well.

If one cannot differentiate between targeting terrorists and targeting civilians, then there's really no debate to be had.
Click to expand...

No, the real problem is that people want to treat "targeting terrorists" and "targeting civilians" as completely separable equations. They're in fact coupled, particularly as warfare takes us into civilian populations. If you drop a bomb on a terrorist who happens to also be in a city and you take out a couple blocks, you knowingly hit those civilians. You may be thinking "I don't want to, I'll try to minimize this" but you know full well what you are doing and the death you are accepting.

The US kills way more people than terrorists, particularly as we engage in interventionist, imperial, forever war. Actions have consequences and we need to be aware of it. This shrugging of the shoulders and claiming "oh well, we hit some terrorists" is the sort of marginalization of human life that allows for humanity to continually be at war with itself instead of trying to actually solve its problems. It just sort of feeds the cycle of hate and war; which if you like those things then I suppose you're spot on. But it's not a very good position, not IMO anyway.

If one cannot admit and acknowledge that by endorsing military attack and campaign in civilian areas that they are knowingly accepting the deaths of civilians to accomplish there goal, then there's really no debate to be had.

So, there's never been a point ever where the US attacked an enemy for the specific purpose of creating civilian casualty?
 
I blew your initial statement totally out of the water, forcing you to retreat into "well, that depends what 'targeted' means!!" Then I answered your loaded little side questions honestly.

What more do you want?
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, except we are killing mass murderers and they target civilians.
Click to expand...

Both sides target civilians. You essentially admitted it yourself.


For terrorists, collateral damage is the only damage.
Click to expand...

Not true. Like the US military, they also target political leaders, military leaders, and soldiers.



The West, however, does not target civilians.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue.
Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The mere belief that one is doing good is insufficient; there must be 'objective' analysis.
Click to expand...

Terrorists are not mindless. They have specific objectives.



Your retreat is untenable. This position is not respectable.
Click to expand...

Lol, there is no retreat. I am exposing you to unsanitized reality. But not everyone likes it.
 
Geoist said:
Yeah, because government doesn't work at home but it certainly works abroad. :lol: Nearly all our recent foreign interventions have eventually come back to haunt us. I am not willing to bet on the State now.
Click to expand...

Some parts of our government work tolerably well. Interventions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all made the world a safer and arguably a better place.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Some parts of our government work tolerably well. Interventions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all made the world a safer and arguably a better place.:cool:
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.
 
Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council meets​



By Dominic Evans and Khaled Yacoub Oweis

BEIRUT/AMMAN
Aug 21, 2013

(Reuters) - Syria's opposition accused government forces of gassing hundreds of people on Wednesday by firing rockets that released deadly fumes over rebel-held Damascus suburbs, killing men, women and children as they slept.

With the dead estimated between 500 and 1,300, what would be the world's most lethal chemical weapons attack since the 1980s prompted an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council in New York.

Immediate international action is likely to be limited, with the divisions among major powers that have crippled efforts to quell two and a half years of civil war still much in evidence.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council meets | Reuters



How much poison gas does Assad have to use to cross Obama's red line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom