Quote:
Originally Posted by BLNK
But @ Noble, chemical weapons have the same capacity to affect surrounding nations as nuclear weapons. |
Chemical weapons do not have anywhere near the same capacity to spread and affect neighbouring countries as nuclear weapons. If we're talking biological weapons, as in diseases that can be transmitted among people, then perhaps. I saw a news clip where they were showing UN inspectors waiting to enter an area where there had been an alleged chemical bomb dropped. They were only a few feet away and were perfectly safe, needing no gas masks or anything because the bomb was dropped on the previous night.
I'm not trying to make an argument that chemical weapons are safe or anything like that. Neither am I trying to say it's okay that civilians are being killed. However, what war hasn't seen civilian casualties? War is not a pretty thing. If we're watching 2 people in a knife fight, and we know that one of them is going to kill the other, it seems a bit odd to say "you guys can stab each other to death in any part of your bodies, but just don't stab below the waistline. If I see one of you stab the other in the crotch, I'm getting involved." I think the number 1 thing that the US can do if it's truly concerned about civilian casualties is to prevent those very same kinds of casualties from its forces. To go after Syria because they're "killing civilians with chemical weapons" seems hypocritical and pretentious.