Why is the extreme pain and ultimately death worse from a bio weapon or chemical one vs being torn apart by a grenade, sliced up nice and good from bayonet or burnt to a crisp from a flame thrower? Why does an innocent kid hit with chemicals justify military intervention while hanging them in the prison yards in Syria not count?
If I'm not mistaken, it comes from the Geneva Convention, which bans use of chemical weapons. That said, I've always found the concept of "rules of war" and "war crimes" to be a strange concept. Warring nations are literally blowing each other apart, but we have to follow the rules about how to do it correctly? I agree that there should be some sort of guidelines to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible, but at the same time I recognize that it's a ludicrous concept Maybe I'm cold and heartless, but I've always found the "women and children" thing to be a strange notion as well. If parents lose a child in a war, there's a good chance they'll be able to go on and have a normal and productive life; if a child loses their parents in a war, they will have a much harder time adapting to their circumstances and succeeding in life. Just consider the Lost Boys of Sudan as a visible story of war orphans, compared to the parents of children lost who don't have any sort of recognition Any loss of life is tragic, but the framing of our intervention in Syria has focused almost entirely on the emotional (women and babies!) rather than the strategic or political. There are very strong arguments that we should have gotten involved sooner (what happened to crossing Obama's red line years ago?), but none of them seem to be in play at the moment. If you come to the right decision by the wrong logic, is it ultimately the right decision?
Idono, but I kind of enjoy looking at the philosophy behind why laws are what they are, rather than just reacting to the day's news with various levels of outrage or mindless joy. It often leads to better understanding of the opposing viewpoint, and can be full of interesting discussion. I tend to avoid the World Events section, but I thought it has some worthwhile points; your mileage may vary
Yes, I know about the Geneva Convention rules but that definitely does not answer the real question at hand. This idea that unleashing anthrax on your enemy is "against the rules" while cutting the enemy's appendages off is square and acceptable is nonsensical. This reminds me of the DUI stuff: If you kill another while under the influence of drugs while driving then legally you're done; both in the civil and criminal arena. But if you kill another while under the influence of texting then you are not finished, not by a long shot. Chances are you drive again and freely move about. Interesting how we arbitrarily assign culpability based on emotion, media and superficial criteria.
Heard someone today pointing out that Trump acted because he saw the dead kids on his TV ... and that the reason he didn't see dead kids on his TV before was because kids who get gassed are a lot less gruesome than kids blown apart by conventional weapons. Those kids don't get shown on TV. So, no retaliatory bombings by Mondo Cheeto.
Agreed, although I suppose the "rules" is to attempt to keep it from devolving into something even worse (the example being what was done in WWII, which somehow deteriorated into something depraved that even "normal" warmongers found distasteful. But yeah, I agree. Check out Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama" series for an interesting take on that. Spoiler: "War Rules" in the Rama Series The aliens in the Rama series were baffled by the concept of 'holding back' in a war. They simply did not see the logic in leaving even one enemy alive, and although they were very peaceful, when they fought, they fought to win. Biological weapons were their preferred instrument of death because they were able to kill everything that moved with them (kinda the point of war, really). Another thing that was freaking awesome about these aliens and their take was that all those responsible for getting them into the war, every last leader/general/official who helped make the call, were required by law to kill themselves afterwards. That way, they'd only go to war if it really was the only option. Set up that rule in Congress/the White House and let's just see how many freaking retaliatory strikes we make then!
It probably has something to do with being able to identify your "designated" enemy. Military people will kill and maim the enemy solder as part of the rules of war, however, chemical warfare has no specified target. It may hit the ones that it was intended for, but, it also can be carried by the wind and hit non-specified people that aren't an active part of the fighting portion of the war. They are not firing back. I suppose that argument stops at things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but, chemical warfare is a less drastic thing then a nuclear explosion, but, isn't as instant and therefore is thought to be less humane. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing good about war, be it conventional or chemical, but, why not at least try to keep things in a sight line target not a random whatever it touches target.
Butch Cassidy, "First we need to discuss the rules." Big burly guy, "Rules in a knife fight?!?" Butch then kicks him squarely in the family jewels. Moral, if you are going to fight; fight to win.
