Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I find this recent thread of conversation kind of odd; it's like people didn't already know the fact that war is bad. There is no "civilized" way to fight a war - war is just ugly, period.

Oh, so this must be why Vietnam, North Korea and Iraq are currently irradiated toxic depopulated wastelands, due to all the chemical and nuclear weapons that USA has used to quickly destroy their cities and military forces...

Wait, they didn't actually use them? Weeeeeird. I wonder why would that happen. Maybe it's because they're actually civilized, unlike, say, Assad, who gleefully gassed his own citizens?

Uhhhhh... Are we kind of forgetting about Agent Orange?

It was kind of a bit deal all things considered... Especially since it IS a chemical weapon.

Or the White Phosphorous in Iraq (actually there is a list of chemical weapons the US used on Iraq... goodness)

Or the Radioactive dust the US used on its own Citizens (or if it wasn't radioactive it was carcinogenic/cancerous)

[Sergarr]

Agent Orange was technically not a chemical weapon, it was just a common pesticide used in extremely high concentration.

And wait, white phosphorous is a chemical weapon? I thought that it was kind of more like napalm, burning things up really really hard.

If we ban that, we may as well ban firearms, too!
Besides, the point was that all those countries were not annihilated, even though USA had full capability to do so. Do you think that America's enemies would offer such mercy to USA, if they had an opportunity to destroy all major USA's cities with nuclear/chemical weapons without retaliation?

[Neonivek]

Agent Orange was technically not a chemical weapon, it was just a common pesticide used in extremely high concentration

That is a pretty weak justification because... Lets just pretend for a second that it was completely harmless to human beings.

They are intentionally causing a famine that will essentially destroy the entire country and they had no intention of bringing supplied to offset this.

Now outside of that. They intentionally doused large area of lands with a toxic material.

Besides, the point was that all those countries were not annihilated, even though USA had full capability to do so. Do you think that America's enemies would offer such mercy to USA, if they had an opportunity to destroy all major USA's cities with nuclear/chemical weapons without retaliation?

The War of Vietnam ONLY stopped because the US citizens were so sickened by the war that they forced the government to stop... It really was a war of eradication and was absolutely devastating not just to Vietnam (North AND South... Yes there was a difference) but also to a few surrounding countries due to the fallout.

There was so much wrong with the Vietnam War I don't even know where to start...

And the Government's response to being forced to pull out of World War 2, the "Civilized Country" that clearly must be better then all the others? Ohh right... That the fault wasn't that the US waged an unjust war, hurt countless lives, or all that... But rather that the People Lost Heart and that the US government should AT ALL COST manipulate the information people receive for now on so that they don't suffer "Vietnam Syndrome"

Which is why the US so tightly controls war coverage.

---

The reason I don't like this whole "Civilized" versus "Uncivilized" is because of two reasons
1) It is a scattershot approach that isn't accurate in the slightest... (because ALL Middle Eastern Countries are the same right?) and has no real measure.
2) Because it belies the fact that ANY country no matter how "Civilized" can do terrible things. We should be endeavoring to never repeat the mistakes of the past... Not be content that we are so "civilized" that it will never happen again.

[Lord Shonus]

And wait, white phosphorous is a chemical weapon? I thought that it was kind of more like napalm, burning things up really really hard.

You are correct. While white phosphorous is poisonous, and doing something like introducing it into a water supply would be considered a chemical attack, the only way it is used militarily is as an incendiary compound (primarily to produce smoke, but using it for the flames is also a thing). The military use of incendiaries are not prohibited by any international agreement or treaty, and the sole restriction on them is that they cannot be used against otherwise-valid targets that are civilian in nature or encysted within civilian areas.

[ChairmanPoo]

And wait, white phosphorous is a chemical weapon? I thought that it was kind of more like napalm, burning things up really really hard.

You are correct. While white phosphorous is poisonous, and doing something like introducing it into a water supply would be considered a chemical attack, the only way it is used militarily is as an incendiary compound (primarily to produce smoke, but using it for the flames is also a thing). The military use of incendiaries are not prohibited by any international agreement or treaty, and the sole restriction on them is that they cannot be used against otherwise-valid targets that are civilian in nature or encysted within civilian areas.

Which they totally did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Use_in_Iraq_.282004.29

[TempAcc]

White phosphorous is a controversial case. The argument against it was made on the justification that it is harmful to the environment (apart from the fact it burns really well, apparently) and because it also endangers victims and people who come in contact with them, apparently, because white phosphorous smoke is toxic as all hell and can even cause severe burns in high concentration, and white phosphorous fumes (which linger around for a while after it has burnt out) can cause phossy jaw.

All those effects result from mid to long term exposure, though, and most white phosphorous munitions have a really short term effect.

[Lord Shonus]

And wait, white phosphorous is a chemical weapon? I thought that it was kind of more like napalm, burning things up really really hard.

You are correct. While white phosphorous is poisonous, and doing something like introducing it into a water supply would be considered a chemical attack, the only way it is used militarily is as an incendiary compound (primarily to produce smoke, but using it for the flames is also a thing). The military use of incendiaries are not prohibited by any international agreement or treaty, and the sole restriction on them is that they cannot be used against otherwise-valid targets that are civilian in nature or encysted within civilian areas.

Which they totally did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Use_in_Iraq_.282004.29

The claim that the use of WP in Fallujah was a violation is dubious. The single known use in the first battle was unquestionably legal, a barrage from artillery (the heaviest restriction in incendiaries is those delivered by air, due to the greater potential for inaccuracy and spread - artillery is much less restricted) against a point target actively being used as a hostile strongpoint. It was much more heavily deployed in the second battle, but at that point nearly all of the civilian population had fled the city, and all restrictions were gone.

[Sergarr]

Spoiler: warning, contains unconditional FREEDOM (click to show/hide)

Agent Orange was technically not a chemical weapon, it was just a common pesticide used in extremely high concentration

That is a pretty weak justification because... Lets just pretend for a second that it was completely harmless to human beings.

They are intentionally causing a famine that will essentially destroy the entire country and they had no intention of bringing supplied to offset this.

Honestly, the only problem I see here is that they've failed to win despite doing so. Might be because I'm from a particularly uncivilized country, though.

The War of Vietnam ONLY stopped because the US citizens were so sickened by the war that they forced the government to stop... It really was a war of eradication and was absolutely devastating not just to Vietnam (North AND South... Yes there was a difference) but also to a few surrounding countries due to the fallout.

There was so much wrong with the Vietnam War I don't even know where to start...

About the only wrong thing about Vietnam War was that USA has destroyed the professional core of its army via idiotic practices beforehand, and thus had to rely on what was, effectively, right-wing militias, with expected results (i.e. little military success, a lot of massacres).

Oh, and also the fact that they've lost and let the communists win. Losing wars against tyranny of failure that is communism is unacceptable, especially for a democratic powerhouse country like USA.

And the Government's response to being forced to pull out of World War 2, the "Civilized Country" that clearly must be better then all the others? Ohh right... That the fault wasn't that the US waged an unjust war, hurt countless lives, or all that... But rather that the People Lost Heart and that the US government should AT ALL COST manipulate the information people receive for now on so that they don't suffer "Vietnam Syndrome"

Which is why the US so tightly controls war coverage.

Well, duh? It was a completely justified war against the encroaching red wave of communism, which btw was killing literally dozens of millions of people by that time with mass famines in China. The only unjustifiable thing was that USA fucked up its army because it thought that it could rely on nukes to carry the day, and then the stupid politicians demanded to carry out non-extermination operations, which precluded the use of nuclear weapons, ending up in Reds taking over and ruining yet another country.

Thankfully, at least USA has learned from that lesson, and has built up a good strong army afterwards, while successfully pulling the same Vietnam-war trick on USSR, ending its existence and ensuring a decade or two of real world-wide peace, or as close as you can get to it IRL at least, leading to our current massive rise in quality of life for the whole world.

Sadly, it seems that it has become too complacent, and has failed to end Iraq properly, as well as forgetting about Russia, which now threatens to end this era of peace for the world, and letting China to build up its military and threaten its Asian allies. Hopefully, USA won't have to go through another prolonged war to adapt and properly defeat its enemies to usher in a new era of peace once again...

The reason I don't like this whole "Civilized" versus "Uncivilized" is because of two reasons
1) It is a scattershot approach that isn't accurate in the slightest... (because ALL Middle Eastern Countries are the same right?) and has no real measure.
2) Because it belies the fact that ANY country no matter how "Civilized" can do terrible things. We should be endeavoring to never repeat the mistakes of the past... Not be content that we are so "civilized" that it will never happen again.

1) Outside of Israel, all Middle Eastern countries that I know of are uncivilized pieces of shit that regularly have priests call out from high towers to genocide Jews, to cleanse the Shia/Sunni, kill Crusaders (i.e. Europeans), and spawning many, many groups of utter fanatics that behead and torture people without any regard for law. I don't think such things tend to happen in Europe/USA any longer.
2) Well, it's mostly because some people think that "civilization" is hereditary. Which it is not. A country could easily change from civilized to uncivilized and back within just one generation, as the ideas of world-wide civility get overpowered by aimless burning hatred. It's kind of slightly inaccurate to even call a country as "civilized" - it's really the people who we should talk about. Specific people, at that.

But even then, how many civilized, or civil-minded, people can you name from non-Israel Middle East? And how many from Europe and USA? The disparity is incredibly obvious.

[Neonivek]

Man you sure have a unfounded belief in the Civilized nature of Israel...

A country so problematic that the ONLY reason it is defend defended by anyone is because of WW2... and otherwise people would dump their butt.

kill Crusaders (i.e. Europeans),

Damn Middle East Defending themselves!

As for "Civilized" Middle Easterners are we talking Historically or currently? Because remember The Middle East was the center of culture, wealth, technology, and "civility" for hundreds of years.

[martinuzz]

Man you sure have a unfounded belief in the Civilized nature of the Middle East...

genocide Jews

Damn Israeli defending themselves!

[Neonivek]

Man you sure have a unfounded belief in the Civilized nature of the Middle East...

genocide Jews

Damn Israeli defending themselves!

Seems like a false equivalence. Given my argument isn't so much that the Middle East is some bastion of human rights... and my critique is that Sergarr keeps bringing up Israel as if it somehow was... better then other Middle Eastern Countries.

As well defending yourself from Crusaders who are "The attacking force Europe" are not the same as "Killing defenseless civilians"

This is of course ignoring the "People's Brigade" and the "Children's Brigade"

[smjjames]

Yeah, Israel hasn't been particularily civilized at times towards Palestine.

Man you sure have a unfounded belief in the Civilized nature of Israel...

A country so problematic that the ONLY reason it is defend defended by anyone is because of WW2... and otherwise people would dump their butt.

kill Crusaders (i.e. Europeans),

Damn Middle East Defending themselves!

As for "Civilized" Middle Easterners are we talking Historically or currently? Because remember The Middle East was the center of culture, wealth, technology, and "civility" for hundreds of years.

Yep, the knowledge, *ahem*, plundered, during the crusades and brought back to Europe helped to pull it out of the Dark Ages. In a sense, the MidEast (Byzantium included) were the curators (and builders upon) of the knowledge that the Greeks and Romans (Yes, I know Byzantium is actually the Eastern Roman Empire) had before the onset of the Dark Ages.

[Neonivek]

Just so we can move this along. These are all the countries in the middle east:

Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan

[TempAcc]

Also, the middle east was only the center of culture, art and science in that certain historical period in comparison to most of europe, since most of europe was splintered into tons of kingdoms and feuds going to war against eachother. Also, most of what is today described as "middle eastern" or "islamic" science-culture-etc was actualy appropriated from cultures that they conquered. Many of the supposed advancements in astronomy, math and chemistry attributed to islamic scholars were already known to some extent by persians, for example, not to mention byzantines being right next door. Any further progress was stiffled by religious and societal pressure to the point europe as a whole had hundreds of years to catch up.

[smjjames]

problematic

I was triggered.

Funnily enough I agree with Neonivek that Israel gets away with a lot of shit on the basis of WW2, along with cleverly utilising accusations of 'anti-semitism', but that doesn't mean the rest of the Middle East is suddenly any better.

^Yep, like their actions during the last flare up between Israel and Palestine, plus the settlements, which are controversial.

Just so we can move this along. These are all the countries in the middle east:

Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan

Sudan is arguably not part of the MidEast, at least not in geographical terms, and if you're going to include Libya, you should include the rest of North Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco.

Oh, and, what about Ethiopia? You have to pass through that going south of Egypt to get to Sudan. NVM, I must have been thinking of Ethiopia in the Ancient Egyptian sense.