Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#1 Dec 04 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,804 posts
Serious question...... If the U.S. supports the right to own and bear arms and don't believe that guns kill people, that people kill people, then why does the U.S. have such an invested interest in the weapon arsenal of other countries?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2 Dec 04 2012 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
10,851 posts
Hey if people kill people and you know that the people (read government) of another country hated your ass, would you want them owning any weapons that can be used against you? If the military strengths of the countries were reversed they would be doing the exact same thing to us.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Dec 04 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership. That you would try to compare the two in the same discussion illustrates the totality of your ignorance.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#4 Dec 04 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,528 posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Although notably, Syria is one of the few non-signatories.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#5 Dec 04 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,804 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership. That you would try to compare the two in the same discussion illustrates the totality of your ignorance.


You didn't answer the question. You are already assuming that possessing those weapons yields to using them in a malicious manner. Is it improbable to own those weapons for merely safety or science?

Don't confuse your lack of conceptual thinking with ignorance.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#6 Dec 04 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,621 posts
I was thinking something similar earlier when they were harping about Syria on the news. God forbid they have and use chemical weapons, but it's fine and dandy to mow each other down with guns like civilized folk, right?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7 Dec 05 2012 at 12:35 AM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
Debalic wrote:
I was thinking something similar earlier when they were harping about Syria on the news. God forbid they have and use chemical weapons, but it's fine and dandy to mow each other down with guns like civilized folk, right?

It's not OK to mow down their own people either, but chemical warfare is a class above and beyond. I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the Syrian conflict or the intentions of its government, but the use of chemical weapons on its own people (or others) would transform the Syrian government into a terrorist state in the eyes of many that do not already consider it so.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#8 Dec 05 2012 at 1:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,061 posts
Debalic wrote:
God forbid they have and use chemical weapons, but it's fine and dandy to mow each other down with guns like civilized folk, right?
With guns(and to some degree, even bombs), you can at least pretend you're trying to only kill enemy combatants. With chemical weapons, you're pretty much openly and unapologetically killing everyone who happens to be in an area.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#9 Dec 05 2012 at 1:11 AM Rating: Good
**
569 posts
With people coming with guns and you hear the fighting start you can at least try to get the hell out the way. Chem weapons by the time you notice them it's already to late.
____________________________
.
#10 Dec 05 2012 at 1:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,702 posts
Chem weapons stockpiles typically signals civilian cleansings rather than the more typical shooting dissidents, which means you catch a lot of more or less innocent people.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#11 Dec 05 2012 at 1:39 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,621 posts
It just seems like splitting hairs to me. And chem is so much more efficient...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Dec 05 2012 at 1:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,702 posts
Debalic wrote:
It just seems like splitting hairs to me. And chem is so much more efficient...


U731-DDBs are even more efficient. Roughly 4 times as efficient as a little boy.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#14 Dec 05 2012 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,822 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Serious question...... If the U.S. supports the right to own and bear arms and don't believe that guns kill people, that people kill people, then why does the U.S. have such an invested interest in the weapon arsenal of other countries?

The US Constitution allows for the right to bear arms, the US doesn't believe anything. No where in any constitution, law, statute or ruling will you see any such statement about the US believing that guns don't kill people. Smiley: rolleyes

Furthermore, do you really need to ask why any government might have an interest in any other governments arsenal?

Stupid statement, stupid question. What is the real point of discussion you're trying to get at?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#15 Dec 05 2012 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,822 posts
Almalieque wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership. That you would try to compare the two in the same discussion illustrates the totality of your ignorance.


You didn't answer the question. You are already assuming that possessing those weapons yields to using them in a malicious manner. Is it improbable to own those weapons for merely safety or science?
It's certainly possible. Would you as a world leader risk your country on the possibility?

Quote:
Don't confuse your lack of conceptual thinking with ignorance.
But what do you mean?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#16 Dec 05 2012 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,822 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.
Thanks to the more liberal portion of your political system, judges can NOT decide who has to have babies.

Quote:
Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.
You sure?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#17 Dec 05 2012 at 6:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I'll tell you what's going on in Syria Christians are being slaughtered by the ruling muslims. But because Christians are being mass murdered you aren't hearing about it.


Cite?

Quote:
We're living out 1984.


The only people I'm aware of that are burning books are Christians.

Quote:
Whats next do judge's start controlling reproductive rights? Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.


Only people I'm aware of that want to restrict reproductive rights are Conservatives.

Quote:
Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.


But much like the child leash, microchiping your children could be another way Americans take the lessons they've learned from pet care & apply it to lazy child rearing.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#19 Dec 05 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Who in Syria is mass murdering Christians? The Rebals, whom we "support", or Assad? I do not know if it is happening & if it is, do not know who is perpetuating it. If you do know & would like to discuss it, please provide a cite.

Quote:
I suppose you prefer the muslim way of burning the infidel alive.


I don't support anyone being killed for their religious beliefs, regardless of how they are killed.

Quote:
We're living out 1984.


Have you read 1984? What's going on, & where, that you think is Orwellian? Be specific.

Quote:
Whats next do judge's start controlling reproductive rights? Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.


Again, I inferred Roe v Wade is the precedent for reproductive rights, so anyone who wanted to change it was probably a conservative, which I think you identify as? If that is the case, i believe your outrage at judges "starting" to control reproductive rights is directed at liberal judges & I am aware of no liberal judges attempting to recently "control reproductive rights". If there are, I'd love a cite so I could read all about it.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#20 Dec 05 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
A small dose of common sense couldn't hurt either.
Then why do you avoid it like the plague?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Dec 05 2012 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Have you read 1984?

I saw the one Mac commercial with the girl and the hammer. That has to count for something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Dec 05 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,822 posts
I assumed ol crazy was just referencing the year 1984. Figured it was that ground-hog time he keeps replaying in his head as the year his illustrious basketball career crashed...or something equally traunmatic.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#23 Dec 05 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership.

Of course it can. There is nothing "magic" about chemical weapons. They aren't outlawed because of the horror of them, they're outlawed because they are cheap and can level the playing field for poorer countries in conflict with richer ones. The idea that it's "worse" to die from mustard gas or whatever than to die from a bomb firing robot is an idiotic self serving construct of the powerful.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Dec 05 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Serious question...... If the U.S. supports the right to own and bear arms and don't believe that guns kill people, that people kill people, then why does the U.S. have such an invested interest in the weapon arsenal of other countries?


It's a political excuse to take over more of the middle east.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#25 Dec 05 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,804 posts
Elinda wrote:
The US Constitution allows for the right to bear arms,


and? You do realize that we can amend the constitution, kinda like we've done in the past? Given the fact this was created during a time where the US firepower consisted of a militia, it kind of made sense to allow all persons to bear arms. Since we have the most powerful military in the world, that reasoning is no longer valid.

Elinda wrote:
the US doesn't believe anything.


Soooooo. the constitution wrote itself? It wasn't composed by personnel who BELIEVED that everyone should be able to bear arms?

Elinda wrote:
No where in any constitution, law, statute or ruling will you see any such statement about the US believing that guns don't kill people


I understand that you're intentionally trying to be obtuse, but unless you want to argue that isn't what gun supporters believe, you have no point.

Elinda wrote:
Stupid statement, stupid question. What is the real point of discussion you're trying to get at?


I guess a concept that you can't grasp. The concept against hand guns is the same exact argument used against chemical weapons. I'm not arguing that the two are the same, but you have to be consistent in your arguments. Just like with SSM, it's not the end result that I care about, but how you get there.

Elinda wrote:
It's certainly possible. Would you as a world leader risk your country on the possibility?


What risk? You are assuming that just because a person has a tool that can kill more effectively, that they will use it. How is that logic wrong with hand guns but ok with chemical weapons?

Elinda wrote:
But what do you mean?


Read above
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#28 Dec 05 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?


There's a big difference between a suggestion(which, to be perfectly honest, I would make myself to a deadbeat parent, because seriously, someone who's not fit to raise a child, should really not be breeding in the first place), and a court order. A judge can make what comments they see fit, it doesn't mean that those comments constitute an order.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#29 Dec 05 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Christians are about to face genocide in syria.


No they aren't.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#30 Dec 05 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,024 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Christians are about to face genocide in syria.


Hey, wanna make a trip to Syria? I'll pay.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#32 Dec 05 2012 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?


There's a big difference between a suggestion(which, to be perfectly honest, I would make myself to a deadbeat parent, because seriously, someone who's not fit to raise a child, should really not be breeding in the first place), and a court order. A judge can make what comments they see fit, it doesn't mean that those comments constitute an order.

Apparently you think "told" and "order" are synonymous. That's to bad.



Yes, he was told to stop procreating as temporary terms of probation, so that he could continue to work to pay back the child support, rather then be sent to jail for the felony bail jumping, and being unable to procreate OR pay back child support.

Smart judge, dumb poster.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#33 Dec 06 2012 at 12:37 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,621 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'll tell you what's going on in Syria Christians are being slaughtered by the ruling muslims. But because Christians are being mass murdered you aren't hearing about it. We're living out 1984. Whats next do judge's start controlling reproductive rights? Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that. Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.

When was Roe vs. Wade overturned?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#34 Dec 06 2012 at 12:42 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,621 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Elinda wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.
Thanks to the more liberal portion of your political system, judges can NOT decide who has to have babies.

Quote:
Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.
You sure?

Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?

Considering your views on the welfare status of the nation, do you really see this as a bad thing? It's not that far of a stretch for the far right to consider sterilizing the lower class. Keep that grubby liberal voter population in check.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#35 Dec 06 2012 at 12:43 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,621 posts
I appear to be a day or two behind in this thread. I'm going to borrow gbaji's claim of being too overworked to post on an hourly basis.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#36 Dec 06 2012 at 2:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
622 posts
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"
#37 Dec 06 2012 at 5:27 AM Rating: Good
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Once again you're wrong. A US judge just recently told a dead beat dad to stop procreating. Do you ever read the articles on the drudge report?


There's a big difference between a suggestion(which, to be perfectly honest, I would make myself to a deadbeat parent, because seriously, someone who's not fit to raise a child, should really not be breeding in the first place), and a court order. A judge can make what comments they see fit, it doesn't mean that those comments constitute an order.

Apparently you think "told" and "order" are synonymous. That's to bad.


Actually, you're the one who insisted that this judge telling the man to stop breeding was evidence of judges trying to control our reproductive rights, which, unless it was an actual order(which it was not), is absolutely not the case. You're arguing against your own post, which is ridiculous.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#38 Dec 06 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"

New to the interwebs, are we?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#39 Dec 06 2012 at 6:36 AM Rating: Good
xantav wrote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"


This is correct, and it's one of few good decisions he made. It stemmed from his having been gassed during WW1. Even Hitler felt that enemy soldiers(even the Russians...while on the battlefield at least) didn't deserve that.


To add my opinion to the conversation, rather than just replying to Crazy for something to do, I'm a fan of conventional weapons. I'm pro-gun, although I don't see any reason why anyone outside of a soldier during a war, would ever need an automatic weapon. I feel there is a huge difference between the conventional weaponry(firearms, artillery, etc.) and chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians(accidents notwithstanding) and with the latter, you could wipe out an entire city full of civilians if you so desired. I'm a supporter of the ban on these weapons, although I feel that every individual nation has the right to look into them as it's not right for a few countries to have a monopoly on them.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#40 Dec 06 2012 at 6:42 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"
This is correct... Even Hitler felt that enemy soldiers(even the Russians...while on the battlefield at least) didn't deserve that.


Right. Only the jews and their cohorts.

Quote:
On September 3, 1941, around 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 sick Polish prisoners were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp.


If you're going to pick up someone else's comment and run with it, at least know what you're talking about. The reason most players in the second war didn't use chemical weapons was because they were unpredictable and would often (depending on the weather) have substantial negative impact on friendly troops just as much as the enemy. Hitler's aversion to chemical weapon use was absolutely not a result of compassion for his fellow man.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 6:46am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#41 Dec 06 2012 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians

Dresden.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#42 Dec 06 2012 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
xantav wrote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"


Nah, they can go ahead. It's fine. If they use them we'll just launch a nuclear warhead in their direction.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Dec 06 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,822 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
xantav wrote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"


Nah, they can go ahead. It's fine. If they use them we'll just launch a nuclear warhead in their direction.
Chemical weapons can have pretty significant environmental effects. Nucs and rads can affect the next generation of people.

These are the differences I see.

You kill someone with a gun or inject them with a drug the end result is the same.

Hitler had no qualms about gassing jews. Perhaps he was a staunch environmentalist.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#44 Dec 06 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Elinda wrote:
Chemical weapons can have pretty significant environmental effects.
So can depleted uranium munitions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Dec 06 2012 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
IIRC, even Hitler thought it was wrong to use chemical weapons. When somebody with his reputation is worried about it, would you really want to be the one to say "Nah, go ahead. It's fine"
This is correct... Even Hitler felt that enemy soldiers(even the Russians...while on the battlefield at least) didn't deserve that.


Right. Only the jews and their cohorts.

Quote:
On September 3, 1941, around 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 sick Polish prisoners were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp.


If you're going to pick up someone else's comment and run with it, at least know what you're talking about. The reason most players in the second war didn't use chemical weapons was because they were unpredictable and would often (depending on the weather) have substantial negative impact on friendly troops just as much as the enemy. Hitler's aversion to chemical weapon use was absolutely not a result of compassion for his fellow man.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 6:46am by BrownDuck


You posted info backing up my statement to argue against it? BD, I was specific about enemy soldiers on the battlefield for that reason. Also, I do know what I'm talking about, I never said it was compassion for his fellow man, what I did say is that he felt that it shouldn't be used on the battlefield(for the sakes of enemy soldiers, but, mostly his own, as the moment he would have used chemical weapons, the allies would have responded in kind). I was specific about the battlefield because the Nazis very obviously used it on a large number of POWs(mostly Russians and Poles, they tended to treat the Western Alllied POWs a little more like they were supposed to until the later days of the war), Jews, and others that were seen as "undesirable".


Smasharoo wrote:
With the former, unless you're specifically out to do it, you aren't going to end up killing a large quantity of innocent civilians

Dresden.


That was done purposefully, and hence falls in line with what I said. It's kind of hard to accidentally carpet bomb a city into ash and rubble.

If you two want to make a point about debating the history of the Second World War, I'm fine with that, since it's one of few topics that I'll actually say I'm knowledgeable about without talking out of my ass.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#46 Dec 06 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
That was done purposefully

Arguable, but probably not. It's fairly unlikely Curtis Lemay said "let's kill 25,000 civilians". Possible, sure, he was a crazy @#%^. Far more likely is he said "let's destroy that" and waved in a general direction at a map. Which is what happens in war. No one really gives a @#%^ about civilians during war. During target assassination attempts launched by our flying robots, probably slightly more so, but still a few innocent deaths never stand in the way of political goals. Who has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological agents at present? Oh, that's right, but you know, white mans burden and all that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Dec 06 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:
That was done purposefully

Arguable, but probably not. It's fairly unlikely Curtis Lemay said "let's kill 25,000 civilians". Possible, sure, he was a crazy @#%^. Far more likely is he said "let's destroy that" and waved in a general direction at a map. Which is what happens in war. No one really gives a @#%^ about civilians during war. During target assassination attempts launched by our flying robots, probably slightly more so, but still a few innocent deaths never stand in the way of political goals. Who has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological agents at present? Oh, that's right, but you know, white mans burden and all that.


It was done quite purposefully. The official record states that it was done to cause confusion in the movement of German troops from one front, to the other, as well, IIRC, to interfere in civilian movements, as well as disruption of a sizeable amount of important infrastructure. It was most definitely done as ordered.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#48 Dec 06 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,804 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That was done purposefully

Arguable, but probably not. It's fairly unlikely Curtis Lemay said "let's kill 25,000 civilians". Possible, sure, he was a crazy @#%^. Far more likely is he said "let's destroy that" and waved in a general direction at a map. Which is what happens in war. No one really gives a @#%^ about civilians during war. During target assassination attempts launched by our flying robots, probably slightly more so, but still a few innocent deaths never stand in the way of political goals. Who has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological agents at present? Oh, that's right, but you know, white mans burden and all that.


Only bad guys are affected in war. True story.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#49 Dec 06 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,002 posts
Most people keep a handgun in their nightstand to defend against intruders. I keep a vial of anthrax.

Your move, burglars.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#50 Dec 06 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
It was done quite purposefully. The official record states that it was done to cause confusion in the movement of German troops from one front, to the other, as well, IIRC, to interfere in civilian movements, as well as disruption of a sizeable amount of important infrastructure. It was most definitely done as ordered.

I'm extensively familiar with the history. There's no clear evidence that the intent was to slaughter civilians. I understand the argument that there is and disagree. Regardless, it's barely relevant to the point. If you have some burning (see what I did there) desire to discuss the morality of warfare, or WW 2 bombings specifically, start a new thread. I spent years studying it, literally, and will be happy to let you know what I think.

The idea that chemical weapons are uncontrollable chaotic weapons whose only purpose is to indiscriminately kill and that conventional weapons are a scalpel like surgical tool to remove military targets selectively is false on almost every level. The same argument has been made about new technology forever. Machine guns, TNT, cannons, nuclear weapons, etc. I imagine the first human to hit another with a stick had someone saying the equivalent of "dude, a stick? Who knows what you'll hit swinging that thing at someone."

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#51 Dec 06 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The idea that chemical weapons are uncontrollable chaotic weapons whose only purpose is to indiscriminately kill and that conventional weapons are a scalpel like surgical tool to remove military targets selectively is false on almost every level.


Bullsh*t. A smart bomb is a thousand times more lilkely to eliminate only its target when compared to say, releasing a cloud of sarin gas into the open air. Even a lowly machine gun is dramatically less indiscriminate than an artillary shell laced with mustard gas or an airborne agent orange delivery. Any argument to the contrary is born of self-delusion.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, feelz, Kastigir, Kavekk, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (36)