U.S attacks Syria

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't rhetoric, it was someone reporting what Syrians, the ones being targeted, were asking.

War crimes are also something that the entire world has agreed are off limits.

Like I said I get that chemical weapons are a different kind of animal, it's just sounds a bit hollow to explain to the people being targeted that killing tens or hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons doesn't warrant a response but killing a few dozen with chemical weapons does.

I agree, there is quite a grey area when it comes to conventional attacks and war crimes.

For example, many of the war crimes tried at The Hague regarding the former Yugoslavia revolved around artillery records and what they (mainly the British and Americans) considered poor ratios of civilians targets hit vs. military targets. But then after Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans and British had worse records in many cases than the various factions in Yugoslavia. Hence why a few years ago, some of the Serbs and Croats on trial were let off the hook. They realized that by calling those war crimes, they would stand the chance of being prosecuted themselves since the standards were so difficult to meet. Trump's attack in Yemen should be a war crime if going by recent Hague tribunals.

On a very basic level though, ALL war is full of crime. Big crimes, little crimes...

WMDs are pretty black and white though IMO.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

On a very basic level though, ALL war is full of crime. Big crimes, little crimes...

The thing is, chemical weapons are so awful that they're actually responsible for this mindset when it comes to war. Prior to WWI, war was a far more glorified thing, people would want to have stories told about their vaunted exploits on the field of battle and the rich would try to get those feathers in their cap, rather than avoid combat and leave it to the less advantaged.

The now universally accepted viewpoint - that war is hell - was born from the combination of trench warfare and mustard gas, which was so absolutely horrifying that it completely altered what combat meant to people. That's why this poem, which I would consider probably my favourite piece of art to ever come out of war, was so jarring to the contemporary sensibilities.

Dulce et Decorum Est
-Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

It's not just about body count. "Dead is dead" just isn't the case.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not just about body count. "Dead is dead" just isn't the case.

Chemical weapons aren't about killing.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

For example, many of the war crimes tried at The Hague regarding the former Yugoslavia revolved around artillery records and what they (mainly the British and Americans) considered poor ratios of civilians targets hit vs. military targets. But then after Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans and British had worse records in many cases than the various factions in Yugoslavia. Hence why a few years ago, some of the Serbs and Croats on trial were let off the hook. They realized that by calling those war crimes, they would stand the chance of being prosecuted themselves since the standards were so difficult to meet. Trump's attack in Yemen should be a war crime if going by recent Hague tribunals.

On a very basic level though, ALL war is full of crime. Big crimes, little crimes...

WMDs are pretty black and white though IMO.

What went on, by all sides, in the former Yugoslavia was an abomination on humanity.

This should never be forgotten or revised.

[peter12]

Except even in WW1, the last time that chemical weapons were used on a wide scale, there was a general consensus that they weren't all that effective. We have this massive stigma against them, but in reality, conventional weapons are far deadlier, and have killed far more people.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except even in WW1, the last time that chemical weapons were used on a wide scale, there was a general consensus that they weren't all that effective. We have this massive stigma against them, but in reality, conventional weapons are far deadlier, and have killed far more people.

Yes, it's almost as if the point has been made multiple times that the issue with chemical weapons isn't so much their lethality as their intent to cause horrific pain in concert with death. The stigma is well earned. They're weapons of mass torture and destruction.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Yes, it's almost as if the point has been made multiple times that the issue with chemical weapons isn't so much their lethality as their intent to cause horrific pain in concert with death. The stigma is well earned. They're weapons of mass torture and destruction.

Not especially though. I would say they are probably best used as a kind of terror weapon, but don't have much use beyond that. They are too easily countered, and dependent on weather conditions to be an effective weapon of war.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except even in WW1, the last time that chemical weapons were used on a wide scale, there was a general consensus that they weren't all that effective. We have this massive stigma against them, but in reality, conventional weapons are far deadlier, and have killed far more people.

Not true.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons pretty extensively. They were quite effective at clearing out people on a large scale. He used them to clear out Kurdish and #####e populations to replace them with Sunni Arabs. He used them against Iranian foot soldiers too.

Chemical weapons have come a long way since WWI too. In WWI armies primarily used inhalants that would need to be breathed in and could be stopped with gas masks. Although gases like Sarin were available, they weren't actually used in WWI. In WWI use of mustard gas was rarely lethal and used as an irritant to reduced the effectiveness of armies. Current chemical weapons can cause your skin to fall off on exposure.

[photon]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the Canadian government supported the United States’ “limited, focused” attack on a Syrian airbase Friday morning.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Trudeau said he spoke directly with U.S. President Donald Trump that morning.

“(I) emphasized that Canada agrees that Assad’s repeated use of chemical weapons must not continue. In the face of such heinous war crimes, all civilized peoples must speak with one voice,” Trudeau told MPs.

“That is why Canada fully supports the United States’ limited, focused action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch such attacks. We continue to support diplomatic efforts with our international partners to resolve the crisis in Syria.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...trocities.html

[blankall]

Also, hasn't the US been making intermittent air strikes on Syria for several years now? Is this the first one against the Syrian government forces and the others were all against ISIS?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not true.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons pretty extensively. They were quite effective at clearing out people on a large scale. He used them to clear out Kurdish and #####e populations to replace them with Sunni Arabs. He used them against Iranian foot soldiers too.

Chemical weapons have come a long way since WWI too. In WWI armies primarily used inhalants that would need to be breathed in and could be stopped with gas masks. Although gases like Sarin were available, they weren't actually used in WWI. In WWI use of mustard gas was rarely lethal and used as an irritant to reduced the effectiveness of armies. Current chemical weapons can cause your skin to fall off on exposure.

Yeah, fair enough, but there is a reason that only fringe maniacs actually use them, and that is that once that moral barrier is removed, you open yourself up to basically any retaliation from the other side. Everything becomes fair game once you use chemical weapons.

It's why neither the Allies or the Germans were willing to deploy them during the bombing campaigns of WW2. Things would have degenerated very quickly.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not especially though. I would say they are probably best used as a kind of terror weapon, but don't have much use beyond that. They are too easily countered, and dependent on weather conditions to be an effective weapon of war.

You really are from the 1890's aren't you

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

Also, hasn't the US been making intermittent air strikes on Syria for several years now? Is this the first one against the Syrian government forces and the others were all against ISIS?

That appears to be the case yeah.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except even in WW1, the last time that chemical weapons were used on a wide scale, there was a general consensus that they weren't all that effective. We have this massive stigma against them, but in reality, conventional weapons are far deadlier, and have killed far more people.

I think your making a generalized statement here Peter.

Chemical weapons are extremely effective especially G weapons that can be absorbed through the skin.

Against a civilian population they can probably kill more faster and cheaper then using conventional munitions, and also create an atmosphere of fear among a civilian population that would disrupt logistics, health care and other essential services.

Most military's are not effectively protected or equip to fight against chemical weapons. Especially persistent weapons or exposure based weapons.

Let me put it this way, when I trained we used our plastic rain suits and a gas mask to train. The Canadian Forces at the time didn't have a lot of proper NBC suits and its unlikely that troops would have been trained properly in the real things nor would they reach enough troops to be effect. In the event of an actual chemical skin busting weapon, I'd be dead meat in minutes.

So why aren't they used for the most part. Because the use of WMD has a different playbook for most civilized military's. For example with NATO a biologic, chemical weapon = nuke. Therefore if someone attacked a nato ally with a chemical agent, the defined response for Nato is the deployment of nuclear weapons.

We also have to look at the proper definition of chemical weapons as a tactical weapon and not a strategic weapon. While Nuclear weapons can be both.

Chemical weapons as a whole are defined as a field level weapon. whereas nuclear has tactical or field weapon and strategic or city busting weapon.

You won't see someone really use a chemical weapon on a strategic target of national interest because the retaliation would be at a strategic level and not a field tactical level.

In other words if you gas our city, we'll nuke yours.

The american's were willing to sign off on the ban of chemical weapons because they have thousands of cleaner more controllable tactical nuclear weapons.

Third world or smaller countries have chemical weapons because a nuclear program can be economically crippling to get to the point of the first bomb.

But anyone that thinks that chemical weapons are not extremely effective and efficient weapons is fooling themselves, especially if you don't care about the target. . . and the wind.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calumniate

You really are from the 1890's aren't you

Well, that is a rude contribution.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not especially though. I would say they are probably best used as a kind of terror weapon, but don't have much use beyond that. They are too easily countered, and dependent on weather conditions to be an effective weapon of war.

Nope, they're not.

Most militarys are not properly equip to handle it. Most soldier's are not issued equipment to deal with it unless there is a definite indicator that its in the field.

Modern chemicals and next generation gasses can be extremely persistent and most countries wouldn't be well versed in decontamination of key areas or equip for it.

Most city centers don't supply their civilians with the pen needed to survive.

the only defined counter right now is to retaliate.

[fulham]

Nice to know that were essentially supporting ISIS and other radical islamic groups,

against a guy who pre arab-spring was brutal to his opponents but still led one of the more tolerant, forward thinking areas in the region......

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, that is a rude contribution.

Well, you simultaneously downplayed the effects it had in WW1 (great timing by the way given the 100th anniversary of Vimy ridge), and then ignored modern reality and science citing 'weather systems' from a history book. Who offered the rude contribution?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nope, they're not.

Most militarys are not properly equip to handle it. Most soldier's are not issued equipment to deal with it unless there is a definite indicator that its in the field.

Modern chemicals and next generation gasses can be extremely persistent and most countries wouldn't be well versed in decontamination of key areas or equip for it.

Most city centers don't supply their civilians with the pen needed to survive.

the only defined counter right now is to retaliate.

Which is why no major power has used them since the First World War. I believe Churchill briefly considered it, but was talked out of it by Eisenhower.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Well, you simultaneously downplayed the effects it had in WW1 (great timing by the way given the 100th anniversary of Vimy ridge), and then ignored modern reality and science citing 'weather systems' from a history book. Who offered the rude contribution?

Oh please.