DQOTD: Why are chemical weapons unacceptable, but other means of killing acceptable? (highway, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because if chemical weapons were regularly used, death tolls would be much higher. Also, it is a horrible, horrible way to die.
And what way is not horrible?
Starvation?
Dying of thirst?
Dissentary?
Being raped and shot?
Napalm?
Drone?
Having your country attacked by the US and its allies and being killed because you fight them?
And what way is not horrible?
Starvation?
Dying of thirst?
Dissentary?
Being raped and shot?
Napalm?
Drone?
Having your country attacked by the US and its allies and being killed because you fight them?
Which one is not horrible?
Right on cue, someone ready to point out the evils of the U.S. and their indiscriminate killing..... Seems it would be pretty to avoid being killed in the example you provided, don't engage the U.S. troops, and they won't engage you. Simple, right?
I am not suggesting that chemical weapons are OK by any means, NOT AT ALL. But after 100,000 Syrians including many civilians and children are dead by use of "conventional weapons" - why is the international community now outraged that reportedly 1300 Syrians have been exposed to chemical weapons?
Had the Assad regime refrained from using chemical weapons and killed another 1300 Syrian civilians with guns, bombs and other conventional weapons - would that be acceptable? Or another 100,000 using conventional weapons. Conventional weapons easily kill large numbers of people these days too, so it can't be the scale of deaths. What?
United States administration gets upset because people are killed with chemical weapons.. so their answer is bomb them and kill more people.. does anyone think this is crazy off the wall nuts?
Because it's consider a war crime under the Geneva convention on lawful warfare. Same as not wearing a uniform to distinguish from civilians or using expanding bullets. that is why non-uniformed are illegal combatants under it also.
At the end of the day, there really is no difference. The US atom bombing the two Japanese cities was no worse than the Tokyo bombings. War is hell.
And atom bombs are controlled as well. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are all considered weapons of mass destruction.
It's not that the method of dying is particularly horrible the way people are speculating. It's the indiscriminate scale of destruction that is the reasoning. Someone with a pocket knife can cause a terrible amount of suffering.
It seems like the world want's to see a fair fight, no chemical weapons used, guns and artillery are okay though. But nothing is fair in war. We saw that in the Gulf war where the highway from Kuwait City back to Basra was a slaughtering field. Somehow, that was okay.
It's possible that the USA is trying to save face while the whole international community is up in arms over the use of chemical or biological weapons.
Does not seem to be all that fair a fight, rifles against jet fighters and 1,000 pound bombs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.