Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy.

[NotfooledbyW]

Did you support W’s decision to kick inspectors out and invade Iraq. I didn’t. And in the current situation I support Obama using the threat of force to get Syria disarmed through a similar inspection process. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW.
post 78. W had the support of the American people, Congress, and the UN.

Two parts of that are false. Prior to the invasion the polls were showing about 60% of the public in favor of continuing inspections; and about the same number against an invasion unless it was authorized by the UN and with a broad coalition.

The UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. There was no support from the UNSC for ending inspections and applying military force ever.

You are making that up,

[dasmoocher]

@NotfooledbyW

Do you agree with the substance of Red’s CW argument?

Or are you only interested in the 'personal swipes at the writer kind of stuff?

You asked a question and I answered with regard to part of the quote. You didn’t specify if anyone agreed with ALL of what you quoted from RedFury. If you didn’t want a response about that observation, you shouldn’t have included it in what you quoted.

[HurricaneDitka]

@NotfooledbyW

Does anyone agree with Red Fury on this. I’d like to see who does.

I do. CWs are hard to use effectively in war. They’re great for terrorism though.

[NotfooledbyW]

@dasmoocher

You asked a question and I answered with regard to part of the quote. You didn’t specify if anyone agreed with ALL of what you quoted from RedFury. If you didn’t want a response about that observation, you shouldn’t have included it in what you quoted.

That’s not what I asked in my response to you.

I take it by your non-answer that you are not interested in the CW discussion, the personal stuff interests you more. That’s fine.

[NotfooledbyW]

@HurricaneDitka

I do. CWs are hard to use effectively in war. They’re great for terrorism though.

I have no problem seeing Assad’s use of CW as an act of terror thus making him a terrorist who has used terrorism as a military tactic. How about you?

It was effective on the villages his regime gassed. I will grant you that.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I have no problem seeing Assad’s use of CW as an act of terror thus making him a terrorist who has used terrorism as a military tactic. How about you?

It was effective on the villages his regime gassed. I will grant you that.

It was not terrorism, as it was carried out by the Syrian Arab Army, a state actor.

It was a war crime, however, being a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Human_Action

It was a war crime, however, being a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.

We’ve discussed this elsewhere, but I’m pretty sure that only applies to international conflicts. Internal conflicts weren’t included originally. There was a later treaty, which Syria didn’t sign, which precluded any use of CWs.

As near as I can tell, what Syria did was not nice, just like killing large groups of people is generally not nice, but I can’t see where they technically violated any agreement they’d signed …

[Human_Action]

@HurricaneDitka

We’ve discussed this elsewhere, but I’m pretty sure that only applies to international conflicts. Internal conflicts weren’t included originally. There was a later treaty, which Syria didn’t sign, which precluded any use of CWs.

As near as I can tell, what Syria did was not nice, just like killing large groups of people is generally not nice, but I can’t see where they technically violated any agreement they’d signed …

Right you are, I stand corrected. And on further reading, the Fourth Geneva Convention also only applies to conflicts between signatory nations.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

It was not terrorism, as it was carried out by the Syrian Arab Army, a state actor.

It was a war crime, however, being a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.

Here’s what you responded to:

“I have no problem seeing Assad’s use of CW as an act of terror thus making him a terrorist who has used terrorism as a military tactic. How about you?”

I have no problem calling Assad a state terrorist.

State terrorism
Not to be confused with State-sponsored terrorism.
State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people or its own people.

State terrorism - Wikipedia

[1][2][3][4][5]

[RedFury]

@NotfooledbyW

Really? When the objective is to kill massive numbers of people and wipe them out in order to eliminate opposition military forces by targeting and eliminating the wives and children of the fighters in the villages and beds where they sleep, deadly gas has to be the most effective. Also it does not destroy property as bombs do.

There’s a reason why they are banned.

As mentioned in my prior post whatever stigma is attached to CWs does NOT make them an effective weapon for warfare. Perhaps if you read a little more and posted a bit less, you’d know more of the very topic you are attempting to debate.

Perhaps some information is in order:

Chemical Weapons: Fact and Fiction

U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan to bomb Syria for alleged use of poison gas has raised two questions that remain pertinent despite the proposed international monitoring and eventual destruction of that country’s chemical-weapon arsenal: Is gassing people more inhumane or reprehensible than killing with conventional weapons? And are chemical weapons inherently prohibited in international law, just like genocide and slavery?

These questions are also important because Obama’s request to Congress for authorization to attack Syria was not about any specific threat to U.S. or international security. Rather, the planned attack was intended for retribution to save the president’s credibility that he believed was on the line.

Let’s be clear: Chemical weapons ― including choking agents like chlorine gas, blister agents such as mustard gas, arsenic- or cyanide-based blood agents, and nerve agents like sarin ― are far less effective than modern conventional weapons, which kill with greater precision and lethality.

Technological advances, in fact, have made conventional weapons capable of leaving a greater trail of death and destruction than any poison gas. They kill, maim and terrorize in ways not much different than chemical weapons. Some conventional explosives and napalm (a petrochemical incendiary whose use against military targets remains lawful despite the notoriety it gained during the Vietnam War) indeed can cause lingering, painful death.

Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Moreover, their employment often demands favorable weather and geographic conditions. If the military intent were to incapacitate enemy army units without killing them, chemical weapons potentially make for more “humane warfare” than conventional weapons.

But because they are cheap, easy to manufacture, and serve as a poor nation’s deterrent, chemical arms have fallen out of favor with the powerful, who portray them as “immoral weapons.” To protect their advantage in conventional weapons, great powers have promoted a taboo against chemical-weapon use.

To be sure, chemical arms can become weapons of terror in the hands of extremists, as exemplified by the Aum Shinrikyo cult’s 1995 sarin attack in a Tokyo subway that killed 13 commuters.

Chemical arms have been used by combatants since ancient times, with the oldest archeological evidence of chemical warfare being found, ironically, in modern-day Syria. Before the advent of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons came to be regarded as weapons of mass destruction. Their extensive use in World War I, especially in the form of mustard or chlorine gas, created revulsion and fear of future chemical attacks. However, the use made little difference to the military outcome.

In fact, the total fatalities from the chemical-weapon strikes accounted for much less than one percent of the World War I deaths, and were lower than the toll from a single U.S. napalm attack on Tokyo on March 10, 1945. At least 100,000 Japanese died on that day when some 300 B-29 bombers dropped 1,700 tons of incendiary bombs ― the deadliest air raid of World War II.

Ignorance fought I should hope…

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

What you are saying is false at the outset. So that can’t be much to discuss unless this a review of short fiction stories.

Unless you can elaborate how the 60% to 40% public opposition to the proposed military strike means it is impossible for Obama to launch those strikes if he decides they are necessary. And that includes any time in the future.

No one has responded to that point so all excessive focus on ‘popular support’ has little to do with the discussion.

Sometimes presidents must do unpopular things.

And sometimes presidents do really stupid things. There is no domestic or international support for this. We are not at war with Syria. There is no clear group of people to support in their civil war.

Support has everything to do with making decisions. If Obama launches anything more then rhetoric without Congressional approval then Congress has the capacity to remove him from office.

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

Two parts of that are false. Prior to the invasion the polls were showing about 60% of the public in favor of continuing inspections; and about the same number against an invasion unless it was authorized by the UN and with a broad coalition.

The UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. There was no support from the UNSC for ending inspections and applying military force ever.

You are making that up,

There were 16 UN resolutions regarding Iraq prior to resolution 1441. The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]

Bush had the support of Congress on top of that resolution. He also had public support. Cite.

So you would be completely wrong on all counts.

[Werekoala]

Hush, you’re going to confuse him with facts.

As I said, many times prior to this one, bullets and bombs are much more effective at killing than CWs. I got the brush-off before, I expect you will too.

[NotfooledbyW]

The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]. -Magiver

Where did the 1441 authorize the use of force? Show us where you see it.

[dasmoocher]

@Werekoala

Hush, you’re going to confuse him with facts.

As I said, many times prior to this one, bullets and bombs are much more effective at killing than CWs. I got the brush-off before, I expect you will too.

More likely, you’ve provided the opening he’s been waiting for to go off on the US invasion of Iraq yet again by mentioning UNSC resolutions. Note the user name…this is what he lives for.

Edited: And so it begins…

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

There were 16 UN resolutions regarding Iraq prior to resolution 1441. The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]

Bush had the support of Congress on top of that resolution. He also had public support. Cite.

So you would be completely wrong on all counts.

Show me a poll were the public favored Bush starting the invasion without UN approval or without a broad coalition prior to the start of the invasion.

Show where more than half the public wanted Bush to end inspections and start a war.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@NotfooledbyW

Does anyone agree with Red Fury on this. I’d like to see who does.

I do.

I think it’s a good idea to have a huge taboo on the use of chemical weapons because they are so effective at the killing of huge numbers of civilians, but they’re shitty when it comes to the use against enemy armies in a conventional war.

You are making that up,

Insisting people who disagree with you are liars does little to inspire confidence in your ability to make a strong, credible argument.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@NotfooledbyW

You are making that up,

<mod hat on>
The above is an explicit accusation of lying, NotfooledbyW. Such things are forbidden in Great Debates. If you wish to do so, we have a perfectly good BBQ Pit just a few forums down.

Warning issued. Don’t do it again.
</mod hat off>

[NotfooledbyW]

@dasmoocher

More likely, you’ve provided the opening he’s been waiting for to go off on the US invasion of Iraq yet again by mentioning UNSC resolutions. Note the user name…this is what he lives for.

Edited: And so it begins…

I’d prefer Magiver post about Iraq on the Bush Library Thread but until
He does, how about you tell us that you agree or disagree with Magiver’s bold claim that 1441 authorized Bush to invade Iraq in March 2003.

We cannot let that falsehood go unchallenged when we are addressing a new UN inspection regime to be regarding Syria.

How about you? You with Magiver or reality on that one matter?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq:

[z return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]

Bush had the support of Congress on top of that resolution. He also had public support. Cite.

So you would be completely wrong on all counts.

Magiver is factually incorrect to make a statement that “The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq” when it did not ever come close to doing that.