General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAssad has used conventional weapons for years to kill his people
That's okay?
kysrsoze
(6,025 posts)Assad has been destroying entire neighborhoods, bombing hospitals, etc. This whole supposed moral response is a distraction and nothing more. If he gave a shit about Syrians, pResident Fuckface would have done far more about all the other attrocities Assad and his regime have committed.
David__77
(23,603 posts)I am thankful that Obama resisted the calls for war.
janx
(24,128 posts)But this is not Trump's decision, because he has no idea of what is going on. Our security and military do, thank dog.
Ironic, isn't it?
torius
(1,652 posts)and is monetizing this strike somehow. Because he has not cared about the hundreds of thousands of victims of this war or any of the refugees from Syria, instead his son is out there comparing them to Skittles.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)What the hell do people think 'bombs' ... are?
Even bullets, which essentially do 'physical damage' ... are actually propelled from the guns they emerge from ... via chemical reactions.
Imagining that it's truly more horrific to be subjected to poison gas or whatnot vs. explosions and their attendant fires (also 'chemical' in nature) is pretty nonsensical to me.
The reason 'chemical weapons' are 'banned' and physical/explosive ones are not probably has a lot more to do with the fact chemical weapons are dirt fucking cheap and don't require large corporations to produce them at great taxpayer expense, enriching a bunch of board members and stock-holders ... instead of basically nobody. Killing a bunch of enemy forces without enriching Corporations just wouldn't be 'right', somehow, you know?
BTW, how come when we execute people on death row, we administer what are essentially chemical weapons (poisons) and call it the 'humane' way to end their lives ... rather than just chuck a bunch of grenades at them? Hmmmm?