Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Dragon Red

Member Since: Fri Jul 05, 2013
Posts: 1,293
Subj: It is a good point...
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 at 04:32:02 pm EDT (Viewed 559 times)
Reply Subj: Why is one weapon worse than another?
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 at 03:10:45 pm EDT (Viewed 770 times)

Previous Post

This business in Syria made me think, and having taken paracetamol for being forced to think, I now have to pose a question to the general populace.

Apparently, I say it like this because we can never be too sure can we? But, Apparently, we (USA, UK, some others), are involved in military action with Syria due to its use of chemical weapons and basically killing its own people.

I am not a fan of what is happening in Syria to its people but, there are regimes, dictators, despots, and tyrants all over the place. Who are also killing and maiming their own people, so, because Syria is using chemical based weapons, they get singled out among all others for military action. Why?

What is the difference between killing your people using a rocket filled with chemicals, vs killing them with a rocket filled with explosives? Since death, either way is the end result, why does one warrant military action, and the other, stern warnings and condemnation but no air strikes?

and I think highlights the problems with approaches to deal with one type but not another.

WMD's have the potential to kill and hurt more people than other types of weapons but it does not really make other types of deaths acceptable either.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 59.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software