T Nation

War Crime Double Standards

Here is another article by Ivan Eland on selective prosecutions of war crimes.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is another article by Ivan Eland on selective prosecutions of war crimes.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1800[/quote]

Here is another opinion piece addressing Ivan Eland’s opinion of Isreal’s actions in Lebanon and his thoughts on selective prosecutions of war crimes.
Interesting. He states that chemical weapons kill less people and shouldn’t be considered a weapon of mass destruction. I’m not buying that one.

[quote]BH6 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is another article by Ivan Eland on selective prosecutions of war crimes.

Here is another opinion piece addressing Ivan Eland’s opinion of Isreal’s actions in Lebanon and his thoughts on selective prosecutions of war crimes.
Interesting. He states that chemical weapons kill less people and shouldn’t be considered a weapon of mass destruction. I’m not buying that one. [/quote]

If it is true the chemical weapons do not kill as many as conventional weapons then why aren’t you “buying it”? What’s to buy? Is he merely lying?

He is certainly correct that the true weapons of mass destruction are nuclear. But that sits uncomfortably for believers in this war because the U.S. has the most WMD’s of any country. In fact, we are the only ones who’ve ever used them!

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
BH6 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is another article by Ivan Eland on selective prosecutions of war crimes.

Here is another opinion piece addressing Ivan Eland’s opinion of Isreal’s actions in Lebanon and his thoughts on selective prosecutions of war crimes.
Interesting. He states that chemical weapons kill less people and shouldn’t be considered a weapon of mass destruction. I’m not buying that one.

If it is true the chemical weapons do not kill as many as conventional weapons then why aren’t you “buying it”? What’s to buy? Is he merely lying?

He is certainly correct that the true weapons of mass destruction are nuclear. But that sits uncomfortably for believers in this war because the U.S. has the most WMD’s of any country. In fact, we are the only ones who’ve ever used them![/quote]

He is not lying. He is giving his opinion. The war has nothing to do with WMD’s (well, it does, or it did, but not in this context). Chemical Weapons are a category of WMD’s, of which large yield conventional explosives are also a category. Weapons of Mass Destruction are classified as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield Explosive (CBRNE).

The guy is discounting chemical weapons as a category of WMD’s in order to make a point about the war in Iraq. If chemical weapons aren’t a WMD, then conventional weapons must be, so then the United States is using WMD’s in a war that it claimed was to prevent WMDs, therefore the whole war is wrong and the United States and Isreal are committing war crimes. Good to go. Point made. One man’s opinion expressed.
Don’t post his commentary and defend it as a factual document.

[quote]BH6 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
BH6 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is another article by Ivan Eland on selective prosecutions of war crimes.

Here is another opinion piece addressing Ivan Eland’s opinion of Isreal’s actions in Lebanon and his thoughts on selective prosecutions of war crimes.
Interesting. He states that chemical weapons kill less people and shouldn’t be considered a weapon of mass destruction. I’m not buying that one.

If it is true the chemical weapons do not kill as many as conventional weapons then why aren’t you “buying it”? What’s to buy? Is he merely lying?

He is certainly correct that the true weapons of mass destruction are nuclear. But that sits uncomfortably for believers in this war because the U.S. has the most WMD’s of any country. In fact, we are the only ones who’ve ever used them!

He is not lying. He is giving his opinion. The war has nothing to do with WMD’s (well, it does, or it did, but not in this context). Chemical Weapons are a category of WMD’s, of which large yield conventional explosives are also a category. Weapons of Mass Destruction are classified as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High Yield Explosive (CBRNE).

The guy is discounting chemical weapons as a category of WMD’s in order to make a point about the war in Iraq. If chemical weapons aren’t a WMD, then conventional weapons must be, so then the United States is using WMD’s in a war that it claimed was to prevent WMDs, therefore the whole war is wrong and the United States and Isreal are committing war crimes.

Good to go. Point made. One man’s opinion expressed.
Don’t post his commentary and defend it as a factual document.
[/quote]

Either the weapons used by the U.S. kill more people than chemical weapons or they do not. It isn’t just “his opinion”. And the chemical weapons he is referring to are the ones used by Saddam. Most likely the same technology we gave him when the U.S. found it useful to have him as a friend.

So I’m sure there is information out there to determine which is likely to cause more deaths. If he is just guessing then I’d agree with you that it is sloppy journalism. However, it’s doubtful.

WMDs don’t get labeled as such because of the damage they have done. It is due to thier potential for causing injury or death. There should be no doubt that conventional bombs have killed more people than chemical weapons.

The use of chemical weapons on the battlefield have been condemned pretty much since WWI due to the horrific injuries and deaths they caused. One chemical artillery shell, if employed properly, can kill many more people than a equivalent sized convential artillery shell.
Mr Eland didn’t provide any data suggesting otherwise.

Hey, do you think this thread is going to turn into a name calling, liberal vs conservative, christian vs atheist, internet tough guy vs internet tough guy, off-topic cluster fuck that most threads end up as?

I guess because it eventually will, we ought to at least get a head start on it.

If you don’t agree with me, you must be gay!

I think WMD’s such as chemical and biological weapons are frowned upon due to their indiscriminatory killing potential. A bomb, some would argue, strategically placed, will only kill intended targets with minimal ‘collateral damage’.

Personally, I hate both.

To keep in tradition with this forum, if you disagree with me you are gay. lol