When used on humans as a weapon, it falls under the definition. Look at pictures of the effects it has on people and see if you don't feel like vomiting your apples and oranges.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
When used on humans as a weapon, it falls under the definition. Look at pictures of the effects it has on people and see if you don't feel like vomiting your apples and oranges.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
Lawyers never lose sleep...they can defend people they know are guilty with a straight face.
It's called a job. There's an oath involved.
If only you had the same contempt for cops who swear to "serve and protect" but don't.
No contempt, just an understanding.
No contempt? Bullshit. If you knew any defense attorneys you'd know how wrong you are about that "never lose sleep" crap.
But you favor executing juveniles so I suspect that's not a problem for you.
And you never lose sleep over the fact that your state has one of the most horrific "justice systems" in the Western world. You once wrote with a "straight face" that Texas was the best place in the country to raise a child.
Rice: "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power" #Syria
what about this?
???U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY TOLD LAVROV HIS COMMENTS ABOUT SYRIA AVERTING U.S. STRIKE BY TURNING OVER CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE RHETORICAL, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD RUSSIA'S LAVROV IN TELEPHONE CALL THAT HIS COMMENTS WERE NOT MEANT TO BE A PROPOSAL, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV OF HIS SERIOUS SKEPTICISM WHEN LAVROV OFFERED TO EXPLORE THE IDEA, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GOING TO "PLAY GAMES" BUT IF THERE WAS A SERIOUS PROPOSAL U.S. WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV THE IDEA WILL NOT BE A REASON TO DELAY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO SECURE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE AGAINST SYRIA
After a civil war started why would the U.S. not say that it wants Assad gone? Would you be happier if the U.S. said we want the civil war to end and we want the Assad dictatorship to continue?
I'm not sure how the Kerry thing is related to regime change, but he said that if Syria gave up all its WMD in a week and then brought in verification that would end a possible strike, but then he said Syria wasn't going to do that so the comment was rhetorical. What's the problem with that chain of statements? Russia is only taking up the issue because it thinks it can waste more time and delay any strike. Russia afterr all is Syria's main ally and arms supplier. It has vested interests to support Syria any way it can in this fight.
After a civil war started why would the U.S. not say that it wants Assad gone? Would you be happier if the U.S. said we want the civil war to end and we want the Assad dictatorship to continue?
I don't disagree with you on that from a strategic standpoint but I mean this was what was being said just a little while ago
I'm not sure how the Kerry thing is related to regime change
Not related to regime change; just happened to be another quote I saw at the same time.
but he said that if Syria gave up all its WMD in a week and then brought in verification that would end a possible strike, but then he said Syria wasn't going to do that so the comment was rhetorical. What's the problem with that chain of statements?
It has nothing to do with the chain of statements and the fact that they were made POST "we're going to bomb people for freedom" declarations. It makes it very easy to paint the US as warmongers if something like this is presented as an option by our own side but dismissed in favor of bombz.
Russia is only taking up the issue because it thinks it can waste more time and delay any strike. Russia afterr all is Syria's main ally and arms supplier. It has vested interests to support Syria any way it can in this fight.
I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you on that. It's just been amateur hour on our side and further erodes our credibility in the matter (if the actual intent from the beginning was to have some credibility that is.)
Lawyers never lose sleep...they can defend people they know are guilty with a straight face.
It's called a job. There's an oath involved.
If only you had the same contempt for cops who swear to "serve and protect" but don't.
No contempt, just an understanding.
No contempt? Bullshit. If you knew any defense attorneys you'd know how wrong you are about that "never lose sleep" crap.
But you favor executing juveniles so I suspect that's not a problem for you.
And you never lose sleep over the fact that your state has one of the most horrific "justice systems" in the Western world. You once wrote with a "straight face" that Texas was the best place in the country to raise a child.
Oh, wait, maybe that was a "white face." My bad.
Designer Pot Calls Kettle White....funny shit.
I should be the Kettle. You should be the Pot.
Your pose just went belly up, either way.
hey lmj when you are done attacking rock for who knows what now, can you tell us your stance on bombing people for freedom
Suggesting Obama may have made a mistake = Amoral.
No, not caring that people are gassed = amoral.
The "why should we care" atttitude you have = amoral.
Oh I see, Caring = Bombing.
Thanks for the moral guidance!
Keep sticking your head in the sand, Mr. "Not my problem".
Keep bombing your way out of the world's problems, Mr. "Compassionate" - it works everytime!
I partly agree with you. It didn't work for US in all these wars after 1945. But it did work during World War II, and we in Europe still thank you for that.
In many ways the situation now is comparable to that period. The Iranian leader Khamenei and his vassal Assad are the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler and Mussolini. The FSA and the jihadists could be somewhat compared to the Soviet Union. For example, even the jihadists hate Iran and Assad a thousands times more than the Israelis.
This not just about saving lives, but also about saving America's reputation in the Middle East.
Rice: "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in which Assad leaves power" #Syria
what about this?
???U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY TOLD LAVROV HIS COMMENTS ABOUT SYRIA AVERTING U.S. STRIKE BY TURNING OVER CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE RHETORICAL, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD RUSSIA'S LAVROV IN TELEPHONE CALL THAT HIS COMMENTS WERE NOT MEANT TO BE A PROPOSAL, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV OF HIS SERIOUS SKEPTICISM WHEN LAVROV OFFERED TO EXPLORE THE IDEA, U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GOING TO "PLAY GAMES" BUT IF THERE WAS A SERIOUS PROPOSAL U.S. WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT
???KERRY TOLD LAVROV THE IDEA WILL NOT BE A REASON TO DELAY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO SECURE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE AGAINST SYRIA
After a civil war started why would the U.S. not say that it wants Assad gone? Would you be happier if the U.S. said we want the civil war to end and we want the Assad dictatorship to continue?
I'm not sure how the Kerry thing is related to regime change, but he said that if Syria gave up all its WMD in a week and then brought in verification that would end a possible strike, but then he said Syria wasn't going to do that so the comment was rhetorical. What's the problem with that chain of statements? Russia is only taking up the issue because it thinks it can waste more time and delay any strike. Russia afterr all is Syria's main ally and arms supplier. It has vested interests to support Syria any way it can in this fight.
Kerry made a mistake in offering Assad an easy way out. Why should handing over chemical weapons leave the Syria regime unpunished? That's like saying to Hitler during WWII: "hand over all the Zyklon B you used to kill all those Jews with, and we promise we won't attack you".
Suggesting Obama may have made a mistake = Amoral.
No, not caring that people are gassed = amoral.
The "why should we care" atttitude you have = amoral.
Oh I see, Caring = Bombing.
Thanks for the moral guidance!
Keep sticking your head in the sand, Mr. "Not my problem".
Keep bombing your way out of the world's problems, Mr. "Compassionate" - it works everytime!
I partly agree with you. It didn't work for US in all these wars after 1945. But it did work during World War II, and we in Europe still thank you for that.
In many ways the situation now is comparable to that period. The Iranian leader Khamenei and his vassal Assad are the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler and Mussolini. The FSA and the jihadists could be somewhat compared to the Soviet Union. For example, even the jihadists hate Iran and Assad a thousands times more than the Israelis.
This not just about saving lives, but also about saving America's reputation in the Middle East.
Why doesn't the EU handle this one?
We don't want/need your thanks after we do it.
You have more soldiers than the U.S. and are better than us in every way.
Remind us again why this is America's responsibility?
Like it or not, the world looks to the US to solve these big problems. Whether they should, is a different question. The fact is they do.
That said, if Syria agrees to the Russian proposal, and there is verfication and no foot dragging, I would support it.
A few things about the poster.
He is willing to take any position.
In this post he has said that it is ok for the US to use chemical weapons against her own people as long as it is for crowd control.
In other posts he has said:
there is no right to privacy. (re: NSA)
there is no freedom of religion (his reasoning was religion is a choice) (re:Romney)
And on and on.
Here he is saying that the way to handle a bad situation is with limited bombing.
His reasoning is that chemical weapons are immoral, thus bombing is the only answer.
But is Assad the worse dictator in the world? (Top 5 for sure.)
Is the use of chemical weapons the greatest humanitarian problem in the world?
Another thing about the poster.
Early in his time here he claimed to be a lawyer and living in Spokane WA.
I doubt he lives Spokane. He has zero knowledge of Spokane, or of political issues in Eastern Washington, Washington state, Idaho or the Pacific NW.
I also doubt that he is a lawyer, since his legal opinions consistently are wrong.
Once a position is taken he will not back down no matter how ludicrous he looks defending a stupid position.
He idolizes ML&J and thinks insulting people makes him look smart.
Suggesting Obama may have made a mistake = Amoral.
No, not caring that people are gassed = amoral.
The "why should we care" atttitude you have = amoral.
Oh I see, Caring = Bombing.
Thanks for the moral guidance!
Keep sticking your head in the sand, Mr. "Not my problem".
Keep bombing your way out of the world's problems, Mr. "Compassionate" - it works everytime!
I partly agree with you. It didn't work for US in all these wars after 1945. But it did work during World War II, and we in Europe still thank you for that.
In many ways the situation now is comparable to that period. The Iranian leader Khamenei and his vassal Assad are the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler and Mussolini. The FSA and the jihadists could be somewhat compared to the Soviet Union. For example, even the jihadists hate Iran and Assad a thousands times more than the Israelis.
This not just about saving lives, but also about saving America's reputation in the Middle East.
This guy makes interesting posts because his understanding of the world is so far removed from mine.
The Soviet Union saved Europe from Hitler.
Is he saying that the jihadists will save the middle east.
Could be, who knows?
Comments
You really need to wind your neck in, son
"If" doesn't apply here.
Not in Syria, that's right.
Says the guy from the country that can't solve it's crime issues without the US.
You should follow your own advice.
Reading your posts - I can't tell if you're drunk or if I am.
I'm out til I forget what a clusterfuck this thread is and end up posting in it again!
Have a good night!
You too.
Hopefully, this thread ends with Assad surrending his chemical weapons with no more blood shed.
What's wrong with America?
CNN poll: 80% of Americans believe Assad gassed his own people. 70% of Americans don???t think that means US should hit Syria.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter
:(
#NEWRULES
Oh I see, Caring = Bombing.
Thanks for the moral guidance!
I can understand Americans not wanting to put boots on the ground. But to even oppose a limited strike with cruise missiles?
my bad. not worth it.
Lawyers never lose sleep...they can defend people they know are guilty with a straight face.
No, you don't see, and you have a real issue with basic reading comprehension.
Keep sticking your head in the sand, Mr. "Not my problem".
Yeah, that damned Constitution really fucks thinks up for people.
I know that people like you prefer to wipe your ass with it.
People like Rock don't have the moral conviction to uphold oaths they take, or even take them.
They prefer to criticize from the sidelines. He's good at that.
Looks like just about everyone here is criticizing you.....you make that easy to be good at.
Never admitting that the current administration has/can make a mistake has nothing to do with the Constitution.
No contempt, just an understanding.
Keep bombing your way out of the world's problems, Mr. "Compassionate" - it works everytime!
Designer Pot Calls Kettle White....funny shit.
After a civil war started why would the U.S. not say that it wants Assad gone? Would you be happier if the U.S. said we want the civil war to end and we want the Assad dictatorship to continue?
I'm not sure how the Kerry thing is related to regime change, but he said that if Syria gave up all its WMD in a week and then brought in verification that would end a possible strike, but then he said Syria wasn't going to do that so the comment was rhetorical. What's the problem with that chain of statements? Russia is only taking up the issue because it thinks it can waste more time and delay any strike. Russia afterr all is Syria's main ally and arms supplier. It has vested interests to support Syria any way it can in this fight.
https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+regime+change&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie;=&oe;=#q=syria+"not+about+regime+change"&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address
Not related to regime change; just happened to be another quote I saw at the same time.
It has nothing to do with the chain of statements and the fact that they were made POST "we're going to bomb people for freedom" declarations. It makes it very easy to paint the US as warmongers if something like this is presented as an option by our own side but dismissed in favor of bombz.
I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you on that. It's just been amateur hour on our side and further erodes our credibility in the matter (if the actual intent from the beginning was to have some credibility that is.)
I partly agree with you. It didn't work for US in all these wars after 1945. But it did work during World War II, and we in Europe still thank you for that.
In many ways the situation now is comparable to that period. The Iranian leader Khamenei and his vassal Assad are the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler and Mussolini. The FSA and the jihadists could be somewhat compared to the Soviet Union. For example, even the jihadists hate Iran and Assad a thousands times more than the Israelis.
This not just about saving lives, but also about saving America's reputation in the Middle East.
Kerry made a mistake in offering Assad an easy way out. Why should handing over chemical weapons leave the Syria regime unpunished? That's like saying to Hitler during WWII: "hand over all the Zyklon B you used to kill all those Jews with, and we promise we won't attack you".
Why doesn't the EU handle this one?
We don't want/need your thanks after we do it.
You have more soldiers than the U.S. and are better than us in every way.
Go whine to YOUR government to take action.
A few things about the poster.
He is willing to take any position.
In this post he has said that it is ok for the US to use chemical weapons against her own people as long as it is for crowd control.
In other posts he has said:
there is no right to privacy. (re: NSA)
there is no freedom of religion (his reasoning was religion is a choice) (re:Romney)
And on and on.
Here he is saying that the way to handle a bad situation is with limited bombing.
His reasoning is that chemical weapons are immoral, thus bombing is the only answer.
But is Assad the worse dictator in the world? (Top 5 for sure.)
Is the use of chemical weapons the greatest humanitarian problem in the world?
Another thing about the poster.
Early in his time here he claimed to be a lawyer and living in Spokane WA.
I doubt he lives Spokane. He has zero knowledge of Spokane, or of political issues in Eastern Washington, Washington state, Idaho or the Pacific NW.
I also doubt that he is a lawyer, since his legal opinions consistently are wrong.
Once a position is taken he will not back down no matter how ludicrous he looks defending a stupid position.
He idolizes ML&J and thinks insulting people makes him look smart.
This guy makes interesting posts because his understanding of the world is so far removed from mine.
The Soviet Union saved Europe from Hitler.
Is he saying that the jihadists will save the middle east.
Could be, who knows?