Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/17 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.


Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was
chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



The difference is in their purposes and intended uses.
Although napalm and white phosphorous can certainly cause injury or
death, their primary purposes are not to kill people. Chemical weapons
like Sarin gas are.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)



Napalm is also technically a defoliant.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 2:18 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?

That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in
theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and
it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are
still paying for the injured GIs)


Chemical weapon, nonetheless.

Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way.


Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was
chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare.


Very different. Agent Orange was legal to use according to
international law. Nerve agents like Sarin is illegal. You can have
your personal opinion but it doesn't make it technically or legally correct.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.

Busy day at the office ...
 

On 4/9/2017 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote:


OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the
air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11
(attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in
Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been
there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost
daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on.


Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic
extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late
1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait
certainly was not the cause or beginning.

A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of
US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other
muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited
other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers)

41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam
but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage
war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did
go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged.
Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2
trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later.


So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied
nations?

bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi
Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the
USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about:

1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia.
2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya.
3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir.
4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon.
5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
6. US support of Israel.
7. Sanctions against Iraq.

So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to
completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and
hope it all blew over before he noticed us.




The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting
tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember
the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians,
Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City.
OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there
may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk.
.



Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-)

When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of
international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic
sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but
before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out).

When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi
Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire.

Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC
and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our
national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential
attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to
Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any
invasion by Iraq.

This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****.



The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi
and continued to bomb Iraq.
Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to
defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they
wanted help, call the Israelis.



Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most
don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major
role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not
something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of
WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the
rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\

Busy day at the office ...
 

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 11:47:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.

Napalm and white phosphorous do not spread like sarin and mustard gas.