-
Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
There is no doubt that Syria is a serious clusterfuck with civilian casualties seemingly fast approaching 100,000. All this time we have sat back and watched and then with the assertion that chemical weapons have been deployed apparently killing 144 that we must get involved, and by obvious coincidence, America too. Personally, I don't know what makes death by chemical weapons more important than other deaths, but I must be ignorant. I am only following the example led by the bastions of honesty (Britain and America) in assuming that chemical weapons such as those used by Israel against the Palestinians (white phosphorous) was just one of those unfortunate things in a combat situation. I have seen zero evidence of the British nor the Americans arming the Palestinians, and yet the US does supply Israel with billions of dollars of aid each year. Seemingly we support the use of chemical weapons when our friends use them, but not when others deploy them. However, unlike in Palestine where the claims appear to have been backed up, we are here relying on Britain and America which are nations that do make up evidence (lie) in order to carry out an agenda.
I am against the arming of the Syrian rebels as I largely feel that the conflict is being misreported by mainstream media and that atrocities commited by the rebels are being swept under the rug. I also think the arming of rebels will escalate the conflict in the region with potentially devastating consequences. I also think that once again dictatorial decision making is being made by the US and the UK with NO regard as to what the general populace within those countries is thinking. Again, we are not all that different. We support terrorist states, we invade countries, we torture and rendition, we are all the things that the Middle East should and largely does despise.
Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
I answered 'NO' only because there was no 'FUCK NO!' to select
Listen we've all seen how this story plays out before. We helped the Muslims fight off the Serbs in Bosnia, we helped the Mujahedeen fight off the Soviets in Afghanistan, we (at the request of the British) stuck our noses in Iran to put the Shah back in power....every single time we attempt to help in the Middle East (bar when we help Israel.....miles & Kirkland) it has backfired on us tremendously.
If we are truly and honestly worried about someone getting their hands on WMDs then we shouldn't "pick a side" we should find the actual weapons and capture them and leave the Syrians to fight amongst themselves and when I say "we" I mean the UN because I sure as fuck don't want the US blamed anymore for the morons leading other nations.
All that said this is EXACTLY like Bosnia it is a "Wag the dog" war and will be used to hush up the media about recent controversies and scandals. There's no reason to go into Syria UNLESS we wanted to capture those weapons and that's not what we will do. We're picking a side thinking its the lesser of two evils and that is just fucking stupid because those people only have loyalty to tribe and if they are Shia/Persian or Sunni/Arab.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
I have no issue with arming the rebels but I don't want the US involved in it. Oh and Miles, White Phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Good point on the rebels being touted as "the good guys" miles...those guys would take weapons from us and immediately plot to use them against us! They are mean and merciless and I don't trust them at all.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I have no issue with arming the rebels but I don't want the US involved in it. Oh and Miles, White Phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon.
I don't buy into the notion that Israel and America can define chemical weaponry as they wish and certainly not from a country that has used nukes, napalm and white phosphorous on people in 2 out of 3 wars built on lies and the other on a defeated country.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I have no issue with arming the rebels but I don't want the US involved in it. Oh and Miles, White Phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon.
I don't buy into the notion that Israel and America can define chemical weaponry as they wish and certainly not from a country that has used nukes, napalm and white phosphorous on people in 2 out of 3 wars built on lies and the other on a defeated country.
Woah woah woah.....did you just call Japan a "defeated country"??? How about you look up the Battle of Okinawa and tell me Japan was "ready to give up".
The atom Bombs ended World War II, SAVED LIVES on both sides AND kept the Cold War COLD....FACT
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
I don't think that many dead innocent Japanese people was really neccessary. It wasn't just the initial nukes themselves, but the cancer and birth malformation fall out rates after. It was a shitty move that has never been repeated in history and for good reason. Having said that, I know your views on the Nukes and you know mine, so we don't need to pull this thread away from that. You think it was just and I say it wasn't. That's plenty for here.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I have no issue with arming the rebels but I don't want the US involved in it. Oh and Miles, White Phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon.
I don't buy into the notion that Israel and America can define chemical weaponry as they wish and certainly not from a country that has used nukes, napalm and white phosphorous on people in 2 out of 3 wars built on lies and the other on a defeated country.
You don't have to take Israel or the US's word on it. The Law of War stipulates how/when it can be used and it is not considered a chemical weapon in the same way say Sarin, Mustard Gas etc are. But hey don't let facts get in the way of your obsession.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
I don't think that many dead innocent Japanese people was really neccessary. It wasn't just the initial nukes themselves, but the cancer and birth malformation fall out rates after. It was a shitty move that has never been repeated in history and for good reason. Having said that, I know your views on the Nukes and you know mine, so we don't need to pull this thread away from that. You think it was just and I say it wasn't. That's plenty for here.
Nobody knew about fallout until we used the bombs....which is why you see guys at nuclear testing sites checking out ground zero wearing tyvek booties as their only protection against the radiation.
As for the Battle of Okinawa which was the key to be able to make bombing runs on Honshu Island. Almost 100,000 Japanese soldiers were killed defending Okinawa and anywhere from 42,000-100,000 civilians died there too because they either brought up arms against the Allied forces or committed suicide thinking the Allies would murder them anyway because of the propaganda the Japanese put out about how vicious the Allies were.
The bombs saved lives its a fact and it's hard to swallow but it is the truth
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I have no issue with arming the rebels but I don't want the US involved in it. Oh and Miles, White Phosphorus isn't considered a chemical weapon.
I don't buy into the notion that Israel and America can define chemical weaponry as they wish and certainly not from a country that has used nukes, napalm and white phosphorous on people in 2 out of 3 wars built on lies and the other on a defeated country.
You don't have to take Israel or the US's word on it. The Law of War stipulates how/when it can be used and it is not considered a chemical weapon in the same way say Sarin, Mustard Gas etc are. But hey don't let facts get in the way of your obsession.
It is not an obsession as it is a fact that your country goes after nations based upon lies and ignores others because it uses the same chemical murder methods. You have never really bothered with law of war when it concerns Nuremburg etc, but only when it suits your interests and justifies your prior agenda and world experiences. It is perfectly natural and I understand why you do it. At the least, you will admit that phosphorous is highly controversial and not used in nations that do routinely flog international law.
I've never really let facts get in my way as the facts keep on producing themselves. Britain, America and Israel are continuing the blueprint I have always said they would. This is just the latest. I am not a prophet or even that smart, but I am against it and believe you, me and most our respective populaces are against the downward spiral too.
It is a downward spiral and I am sensing with the Americans that feel strongly they feel it is lost. Those are the Americans I can relate to, but they think it is done too. They are smart, educated and are sold out. There is nothing and only war to back up the military sector. Then will come the next economic crash and further slavery.
You need war to shield the collapse and the markets are due a horrid drop.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Again Miles you are confused. Where you cannot produce a binding legal document that stipulates when war is legal or illegal I can produce the Law of Landwarfare that stipulates how the US conducts war. I get an annual 4 hour block of instruction on it. This is my business and unlike you I know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to talk about Syria then lets do that but if you are just going to continue with tangential rants about how the US is the international bogey man then I'll just post some more in YB's tits thread.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
It is not an obsession as it is a fact that your country goes after nations based upon lies
.....like the ones told to us by England to return the Shah to power in Iran?
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Anyway....BACK ON TOPIC...no I would not like to see the United States arm the Syrian rebels as they are no friends of ours and never will be.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.
Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.
America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
It is not an obsession as it is a fact that your country goes after nations based upon lies
.....like the ones told to us by England to return the Shah to power in Iran?
I am not defending Britain, Lyle. You know I am always reliable in placing Britain, Israel and America of the past 40 years quite firmly together.
On the whole I think ALL of us agree that arming the rebels is a poor idea. We are wandering off into tangential arguments as is our will, but we do seem to be on the same page on this.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
On the whole I think ALL of us agree that arming the rebels is a poor idea. We are wandering off into tangential arguments as is our will, but we do seem to be on the same page on this.
Good
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
What is the point of a poll ? Are you looking for a mandate or something?
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
More legal process than the Nazi types offered by Hague. Give at least a few people a few real views.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
More legal process than the Nazi types offered by Hague. Give at least a few people a few real views.
What is is it with you and lazily bandying about labels like 'Nazi' ? does Hague subscribe to Nationalsozialismus ? Do his views incorporate biological racism ? Are you a proper socialist Miles ? What do you think one should do when a dictator routinely shuts down opposing voices and murders his own civilians en masse ? Turn away? Your view like Chomsky on all these situations is to do nothing and then take the moral high ground while evil people commit genocide. Nothing is that simple.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
In five or ten or twenty years arming them will come back to bite us in the arse and when it does all the clowns like McCain who are advocating arming them will say that nobody could have predicted that arming and training large numbers of jihadi nutcases in the 2010s would cause us problems down the road.
Hey, it worked so well in Afghanistan in the eighties. What could go wrong?
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
In five or ten or twenty years arming them will come back to bite us in the arse and when it does all the clowns like McCain who are advocating arming them will say that nobody could have predicted that arming and training large numbers of jihadi nutcases in the 2010s would cause us problems down the road.
Hey, it worked so well in Afghanistan in the eighties. What could go wrong?
I generally agree with this but then hezbollah got involved and it takes all of my will to not fully endorse throwing our weight behind the rebels.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
In five or ten or twenty years arming them will come back to bite us in the arse and when it does all the clowns like McCain who are advocating arming them will say that nobody could have predicted that arming and training large numbers of jihadi nutcases in the 2010s would cause us problems down the road.
Hey, it worked so well in Afghanistan in the eighties. What could go wrong?
I generally agree with this but then hezbollah got involved and it takes all of my will to not fully endorse throwing our weight behind the rebels.
Nevermind. :mad:
Report: Syrian rebels executed a 14-year-old boy for insulting Islam
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
The rebels and the Assad regime are no different and they are in a true to life "Civil War" and they should settle it themselves....let them make up their own minds about how to run a country and if they end up doing it wrong we'll slap the shit out of them until they learn to play nice.
I'm not worried how many Syrians get killed....nobody worried about Rwanda or Sudan why is Syria different?
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Trouble is you don't no who your arming, freedom fighter rebel friend today, enemy tomorrow,!
best stay out of it.!!!!!!!!
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
True Dia Bando and as Robert Fisk observes, the guns are only going to get into the hands of people who would nothing more than to one day blow up America. It is a daft move on the part of the US and the UK and it has nothing to do with us. We don't have the ability to determine who the correct side is. We are also hypocrites as we ignore the rebels being crushed in Bahrain, the Palestinians looking for justice, and yet readily arm a genuine unknown quantity. It will bite us on the arse later on as this war is going to infect far more than Syria now and the sad thing is that almost everybody in the West seems to be against getting involved. General populations are ignored and the pretence at Western democracy is once again shown as an all too obvious hoax.
As the US wants to arm 'nice Syrian rebels' we must remind ourselves that weapons are not just guns. They are about money - Comment - Voices - The Independent
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
True Dia Bando and as Robert Fisk observes, the guns are only going to get into the hands of people who would nothing more than to one day blow up America. It is a daft move on the part of the US and the UK and it has nothing to do with us. We don't have the ability to determine who the correct side is. We are also hypocrites as we ignore the rebels being crushed in Bahrain, the Palestinians looking for justice, and yet readily arm a genuine unknown quantity. It will bite us on the arse later on as this war is going to infect far more than Syria now and the sad thing is that almost everybody in the West seems to be against getting involved. General populations are ignored and the pretence at Western democracy is once again shown as an all too obvious hoax.
As the US wants to arm 'nice Syrian rebels' we must remind ourselves that weapons are not just guns. They are about money - Comment - Voices - The Independent
Miles has a valid point, the West has cocked up to many times the Middle East, has proven to be
a bed of hot coals, we put in a puppet leader and he turns out to be a bigger shit than then one's you
got rid of.!. What works for US the West , in my eyes is totally unsuitable for the Middle East far to
complicated, by just changing leadership in a Country.
May be this time lets keep, our noses and guns to ourselves.!!!!!!!!!!
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
What is the point of a poll ? Are you looking for a mandate or something?
Gandalf the grey is always looking for a mandate.:)
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
In five or ten or twenty years arming them will come back to bite us in the arse and when it does all the clowns like McCain who are advocating arming them will say that nobody could have predicted that arming and training large numbers of jihadi nutcases in the 2010s would cause us problems down the road.
Hey, it worked so well in Afghanistan in the eighties. What could go wrong?
I generally agree with this but then hezbollah got involved and it takes all of my will to not fully endorse throwing our weight behind the rebels.
What's wrong with Hezbollah? They're cuddly freedom fighters. They only exist because Israel invaded their country and wouldn't leave and were starting to annex a big chunk of it that included the water source that provides south Lebanon with its water/agriculture. Hezbollah, peace be upon them, need to keep supply lines to Iran open so they're helping out in Syria. If not Israel eventually invade, steal their water and impoverish them like they're doing to the Palestinians. You can't blame anybody for fighting to defend their country, can you?
Also, too, most of the rebels we'd be arming are Iraq War Re-enactors who you were fighting in Iraq a decade ago. And they'll be fighting against Iraqi Shiite jihadis who have gone to Syria to fight for Assad. Those guys and the Iraqi Shiite government, who are also supporting Assad are people the US army was fighting and dying for to keep in power. That would be fucked up even for American foreign policy.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
What's wrong with Hezbollah? They're cuddly freedom fighters. They only exist because Israel invaded their country and wouldn't leave and were starting to annex a big chunk of it that included the water source that provides south Lebanon with its water/agriculture. Hezbollah, peace be upon them, need to keep supply lines to Iran open so they're helping out in Syria. If not Israel eventually invade, steal their water and impoverish them like they're doing to the Palestinians. You can't blame anybody for fighting to defend their country, can you?
Also, too, most of the rebels we'd be arming are Iraq War Re-enactors who you were fighting in Iraq a decade ago. And they'll be fighting against Iraqi Shiite jihadis who have gone to Syria to fight for Assad. Those guys and the Iraqi Shiite government, who are also supporting Assad are people the US army was fighting and dying for to keep in power. That would be fucked up even for American foreign policy.
Always blaming Israel is a bit prejudiced Kirkland, they ARE the minority state in that area you know you horrible bigot
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
My issue with Hezbollah isn't that they oppose Israel (the anti-semitic rhetoric isn't endearing though) but rather that they are simply a proxy of Iran and not necessarily the legitemate military of Lebanon. If we agree that the US should stop meddling in other countries then this should hold true for Iran as well. Regardless, when it comes to Israel VS Hezbollah no one is innocent or the good guy. Anyway as responded to your first post I agree the right thing to do is not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.
I certainly don't give a fuck what happens in Syria it's THEIR Civil War.....why give weapons (and money which we don't fucking have) to some dopes with the same views on the Western World as the Assad regime???
If we help then we're helping people who want to kill us and many will die in their wake and if we don't help the other group that wants to kill us will win and many will die in their wake....it's a no win situation.
-
I am not suggesting arming the rebels, but Lyle you too are oversimplifying the situation. It's a bit of jump to suggest that all the rebels are crushed civilians pushing for a democracy, just as it not true to assume that they are all Islamic extremists with visions of a more hardcore regime than Assads. A Government is killing it's own civilians and outside influences are helping them do it. There is where pressure should be applied, diplomatically.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
I am not suggesting arming the rebels, but Lyle you too are oversimplifying the situation. It's a bit of jump to suggest that all the rebels are crushed civilians pushing for a democracy, just as it not true to assume that they are all Islamic extremists with visions of a more hardcore regime than Assads. A Government is killing it's own civilians and outside influences are helping them do it. There is where pressure should be applied, diplomatically.
Uh huh, just like it was in Sudan and Rwanda? I mean come on if everybody is going to start sticking noses in other peoples business then you best do it for everyone.
The rebels have been accused of using chemical weapons too
-
That's the point though. If people shouldn't stick their nose in then that should apply to Russia too. Just as much as people who are worried about the innocent civilians killed in Iraq etc should have the courage to follow that through and have demanded people intervened in Rwanda. There are no easy answers and I do give a fuck about innocent people being killed. Them not being English is not important.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
That's the point though. If people shouldn't stick their nose in then that should apply to Russia too. Just as much as people who are worried about the innocent civilians killed in Iraq etc should have the courage to follow that through and have demanded people intervened in Rwanda. There are no easy answers and I do give a fuck about innocent people being killed. Them not being English is not important.
The simple fact that they will instantly turn our weapons and money against us is reason enough to let them die...it's happened time and time again! No more, we shouldn't waste resources we don't have to help people who eventually want to kill us. That's either side of this cluster fuck too! Assad sucks but his opposition aren't any better....it's like Chelsea playing Man U....I don't give 2 shits who wins I just hope they hurt each other really bad.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.
Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.
America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.
Despite your 2/3 of non-sequiter and hyperbole if you don't see that there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and capability of WP compared to nerve/blister agents then you are simply being willfully ignorant in order to validate your own world view. I do agree with one point though. Law is irrelevant compared to morality and war has nothing to do with morality. It is about killing and applying rules to how and when two groups of people decide to kill each other is pretty moronic.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Chemical weapons that kill 150 or ordinary weapons that kill 50,000? I don't really see the need to distinguish in the way that William Hague does. White phosphorous is not an ordinary weapon when used to kill civilians, though America and Israel would perhaps like it to be. Regardless, Israel did use it. Syria's chemical weapons are still largely in the realm of propaganda than anything tenable.
As for Greenbeanz, I am not trying to score points. I am posting a political thread on a boxing forum, I am expressing my honest point of view. I don't believe that the rebels should be armed. They have eaten a dead soldiers intestines, does that sound like the Robin Hood posse that will eventually want to be warm and cosy with Middle England? It's NONE of our business and we are falling into the same old traps.
If we are to be supporting rebels then I ask for consistency, support the Palestinians and the Bahraini's too. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite nation with a proven track record of telling porkies. We practially ignore countries that DO have nukes and a proven track record of invading its neighbors.Oh, but we like that. We don't even just invade our neighbors we make up things and invade countries far, far away.
The agendas are obvious and people in Britain and America know the score. They are against arming the rebels as polls show. Most of the Middle East is against it too, but the will of the people is once again swept aside by the dictarorial war drum powers of Britain and America. Is the the majority of the world just trying to score points, because if we erase my views and those of Kirkland, we still have everyone here against arming the rebels and the majority of the people around the world too.
-
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandalf
Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.
Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.
America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.
Despite your 2/3 of non-sequiter and hyperbole if you don't see that there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and capability of WP compared to nerve/blister agents then you are simply being willfully ignorant in order to validate your own world view. I do agree with one point though. Law is irrelevant compared to morality and war has nothing to do with morality.
It is about killing and applying rules to how and when two groups of people decide to kill each other is pretty moronic.
Thank you!