Al Qaeda threatens chemical attack on Tel Aviv

[Kuciwalker]

WW1 was caused by several factors chief among them was nationalism and the type of bravado you display.

No, except in the limited sense that all wars start through some amount of "patriotic" spirit. It was due, rather, to the pride of the German, Russian, and Austria-Hungarian (if that's a word) monarchs. It then brought in France and England because of the secret alliances that had been formed.

(Well, in England's case it wasn't secret, but basically that's why.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Who was talking about "villifying" chemical weapons? Maybe CharlesBHoff, but honestly, don;t listen to him.
.

"I've made repeated arguments as to why WMD is a misleading, politically motivated grouping. All you can seem to do is semantics." Sandman.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Becuase it is far more expensive to get nukes, so if you have them, obviously you have some amount of power that makes it very hard to then enforce the law-while the same is not true for chemical weapons.

That too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"I've made repeated arguments as to why WMD is a misleading, politically motivated grouping. All you can seem to do is semantics." Sandman.

How is that devillification?

He is saying what I am saying-chemical weapons are at least one order of magnitude weakers than nukes, and hence stating they are equal to nukes cause they fall under the term "WMD" is absurd, and yes, politically motivated.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I see many similarities between the world just before WW1 and now. The first being the general acceptance of war as a solution to problems.

Has this ever not been the case? Aside from possibly within a very short time after WWI?

Moreover, are you claiming that war can't solve problems? I'd love to see you try and make that case.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Who was talking about "villifying" chemical weapons? Maybe CharlesBHoff, but honestly, don;t listen to him.

The simple point is that chemical agents are not in any on the same order of magnitude as nuclear weapons.

I would say israel is lucky that the legal framework limiting nuclear weapons is so much more lax than that banning Chemical weapons and that the uS actually wants to enforce the Chemical weapons conventions but is lax when it comes to much more powerful nukes in the hands of friends.

The legal framework regarding nukes is more lax in large part because the pre NPT nuclear powers were unwilling to give up nuclear weapons.

In fact the US hasnt been particularly firm about enforcing the NPT on anyone - see India and Pakistan for example. Nor has any other power for that matter. The US has been a touch easier on Israel than on India and Pakistan, even before the spread of nuclear technology in the region, recognizing Israels strategic situation - the real danger that Israel could at some points have been exterminated by conventional attack - something not likely to take place for India or (arguably) even for Pakistan. If Israel were to give up its nukes, the US would have thad to face the possibility, however remote, of either intervening on the ground with US troops on behalf of Israel, or watching Israel be destroyed. That is why Israeli disarmament has been seen since Madrid, rightly, in the context of a general regional settlement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


How is that devillification?

He is saying what I am saying-chemical weapons are at least one order of magnitude weakers than nukes, and hence stating they are equal to nukes cause they fall under the term "WMD" is absurd, and yes, politically motivated.

They are seen as exceptional weapons, of a different class from conventional weapons, and that view dates back to the time when the US was a major possesor of them, and the major advocates of the view did NOT share the political motivation you and Sandman have in mind.

It seems to me that the revisionist few of them, the attempt to disparage the horror with which they are viewed and to focus on a (optimisitic) view of death count alone, is itself politically motivated.

Look, none of us is behind a veil of ignorance. I know the US has no chemical weapons, and Israel probably has none. So do you. I know Libya had a CW program, that Iraq had one, that Iran may have one, that Syria probably has one, and that AQ aspires to CW and may have attempted to use them in Amman. So do you. We can argue all we want about each others political motivations. I suggest we skip it, and focus on the substantive issue.


Similar veil of ignorance problems come up with the issue of the ethics of strategic bombing.

[GePap]

I find the notion of a likely threat of Israel being wiped out conventionally with a GIGANTIC grain of salt given the results of the last conventional engagements, specially after by far the biggest Arab state made peace with Israel-at which point the US started arming them-plus the US has for a long time being arming SA, so it does not seem the US had a real worry about Israel being wipped out conventionally with SA helping along. So who is left? Syria and before 2003 Iraq? Sorry, but Israel would have been able to beat both in a convetional attack.


Pakistan stands a much greater chance of being wiped out by an enemy that beat them conventionally 3 times and is much bigger.

But you are correct in that the US and the other Veto powers let go of chemical weapons because they had nukes.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Kucinich

WW1 was caused by several factors chief among them was nationalism and the type of bravado you display.

No, except in the limited sense that all wars start through some amount of "patriotic" spirit. It was due, rather, to the pride of the German, Russian, and Austria-Hungarian (if that's a word) monarchs.

Not nationalism, but pride of nationals.

It then brought in France and England because of the secret alliances that had been formed.

(Well, in England's case it wasn't secret, but basically that's why.)

The whole secret alliance thing is essentially post-rationalization. They entered the war because they wanted to. (Nationalism and bravado) Then when things didn't go so well, they blamed the policy of secret alliances.

Nice posting, PaxA.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I find the notion of a likely threat of Israel being wiped out conventionally with a GIGANTIC grain of salt given the results of the last conventional engagements, specially after by far the biggest Arab state made peace with Israel-

So your magic powers tell you that the Mubarak govt cant possibly be overthrown?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Not nationalism, but pride of nationals.

The pride of monarchs.

The whole secret alliance thing is essentially post-rationalization. They entered the war because they wanted to. (Nationalism and bravado) Then when things didn't go so well, they blamed the policy of secret alliances.

Had Germany not been committed to an alliance with Austria-Hungary, or had Russia cut Serbia loose, it wouldn't have happened (then).

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
They are seen as exceptional weapons, of a different class from conventional weapons, and that view dates back to the time when the US was a major possesor of them, and the major advocates of the view did NOT share the political motivation you and Sandman have in mind.

The labelling of chemical weapons as distinct came right after WW1-when the whole framework of laws were set up. The point is not that chemical=conventional (though I would say given all the contraints on successful usage chemical wepaons are hard to make effective), but that nuclear weapons are far and beyond not only conventional but chemical weapons as well-

It seems to me that the revisionist few of them, the attempt to disparage the horror with which they are viewed and to focus on a (optimisitic) view of death count alone, is itself politically motivated.

The horror which with they are viewed is base don ignorance of their true capabilities. Ditto with nukes, since people have vaslty inflated notions of their power. Human psycology is not a great way to base policy on weapon systems- people fear flying more than driving, even if all the facts show this is nonsense.

Look, none of us is behind a veil of ignorance. I know the US has no chemical weapons, and Israel probably has none. So do you. I know Libya had a CW program, that Iraq had one, that Iran may have one, that Syria probably has one, and that AQ aspires to CW and may have attempted to use them in Amman. So do you. We can argue all we want about each others political motivations. I suggest we skip it, and focus on the substantive issue.

If those states have chemicals weapons, it is becuase of what YOU outline-they share the notion that somehow these are terrible weapons, and hence a way to equalize the immense disparity in military power they face against those states they see as enemies. The fact is though that the facts of these weapons don't match to the doom scenerios anymore than they do for nukes

[Sirotnikov]

I find the notion of a likely threat of Israel being wiped out conventionally with a GIGANTIC grain of salt given the results of the last conventional engagements, specially after by far the biggest Arab state made peace with Israel-at which point the US started arming them-plus the US has for a long time being arming SA, so it does not seem the US had a real worry about Israel being wipped out conventionally with SA helping along. So who is left? Syria and before 2003 Iraq? Sorry, but Israel would have been able to beat both in a convetional attack.

I am able to counter your claims, but can't possibly expand on those issues.

Lets just say that in order to save their own stability and power, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia might attack Israel in a worse case scenario (for them and for Israel). Both have are very able to do so, and have quite modern western armies.

Also, I wouldn't cast away Syria as a threat both using regular means under new tactics and using its large WMD arsenal.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
If those states have chemicals weapons, it is becuase of what YOU outline-they share the notion that somehow these are terrible weapons, and hence a way to equalize the immense disparity in military power they face against those states they see as enemies. The fact is though that the facts of these weapons don't match to the doom scenerios anymore than they do for nukes

Aren't chem weapons a LOT cheaper, too? That could be a reason

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Aren't chem weapons a LOT cheaper, too? That could be a reason

And easier. A high school kid with the right stuff can do quite a bit (something for which I apologized many times... ).