Are chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?

[missmuffet]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

 

What justifies intervening if Syria uses chemical weapons?

[Guest Butero]

I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it.  I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past.  I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong.  We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world.  We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave.  We can't keep doing that.  If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't.  This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. 

[MorningGlory]

I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it.  I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past.  I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong.  We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world.  We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave.  We can't keep doing that.  If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't.  This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. 

 

 

I don't believe we should do anything in Syria either but, don't forget, it's John McCain who is really pushing to take action against them.  Good thing HE didn't get elected; the first words out of his mouth whenever anything happens anywhere is 'we must act!'  Why not let all these stupid countries fight EACH OTHER, elect their own leaders and make their own money?  Americans are sick of wars.

[MorningGlory]

In answer to the question above.....yes, chemical weapons are WAY worse.  These weapons (such as sirin gas, said to have been used in Damascus) can kill a lot of people very quickly and at very little cost.

[missmuffet]

In answer to the question above.....yes, chemical weapons are WAY worse.  These weapons (such as sirin gas, said to have been used in Damascus) can kill a lot of people very quickly and at very little cost.

But look at nuclear bombs.

[MorningGlory]

 

In answer to the question above.....yes, chemical weapons are WAY worse.  These weapons (such as sirin gas, said to have been used in Damascus) can kill a lot of people very quickly and at very little cost.

But look at nuclear bombs.

 

 

Right; but nuclear weapons are not classified as conventional. 

[missmuffet]

 

 

In answer to the question above.....yes, chemical weapons are WAY worse.  These weapons (such as sirin gas, said to have been used in Damascus) can kill a lot of people very quickly and at very little cost.

But look at nuclear bombs.

 

 

Right; but nuclear weapons are not classified as conventional. 

 

Yes,you are right.

[oldzimm]

MorningGlory is right, chemical weapons are worst then conventional weapons. Conventional weapons will have collateral damage (killing of noncombatants), but nothing like chemical weapons. The Geneva Convention outlawed such weapons, not that our enemies really care.

 

Even nuclear weapons (which are as MorningGlory said, are non conventional) are being designed to be more strategical in their attacks then in the past, when they made giant parking lots. There are pros and cons to strategical nuclear weapons , being more strategical, a country could be more likely to use them. (which isn't good)

 

Oldzimm  

[alphaparticle]

I don't believe we have any strategic reason to go to war with Syria, so in my opinion, we should stay out of it.  I hate the fact Obama drew a line in the sand, and it will make us look bad if he fails to act, but I feel like taking on Syria will only lead to a mess, far bigger than anything we have gotten ourselves into in the past.  I hate that they used chemical weapons, but we can't go to war with every country that does things we find wrong.  We don't have the resources, and we aren't setting out with the objective of conquering the entire world.  We just get involved in one nation's civil matters, and then leave.  We can't keep doing that.  If we had a national interest, I might feel different, but we don't.  This is all about Obama and his line in the sand, and I am not going to support wasting American lives and money to defend an incompetent President. 

I agree. What's more, the opposition isn't any better, morally, and I don't think they'd be better for the populace in power. They are both killing innocents. And, honestly, the US providing weapons to the opposition, particularly since the Russians are supplying the state, just drags this out longer and means more people dying. It's very frustrating.

[Guest]

Chemical weapons have long been called the "poor man's nuke" for a reason. They are cheap, fairly easy to manufacture, and are devastatingly effective -- unless the wind happens to blow the stuff back on your own troops.

 

I still wonder if it wasn't Al Qeda or the Muslim Brotherhood who set off those chemical weapons. It would be a win-win for the bad guys to pull a terror attack, then blame Assad for it. The Assad regime appeared to be winning the civil war, so it doesn't make all that much sense for his gov't to use banned weapons. Assad also knew the world's reaction to Sadam using chemicals on the Kurds. Wonder if our esteemed leadership is even trying to find out who actually fired those chemical weapons that killed all those people?