Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Why Are Syrian Chemical Weapons Worse Than Conventional Attacks?" video.

  1. Yes, a very satisfactory and coherrent explanation, and I agree. The nukes were paradigm shifting. I think commander data once said in a Star Trek episode, "You and your children can die in honour, never once having seen the faces of your attackers". He was referring to a bombardment from space, but it's apt.
    1
  2. It's worth nothing that Syria has NOT agreed to the convention banning chemical weapons. Nor has Israel. When the US pressures Israel into signing, then it can start threatening Syria.
    1
  3. Ah yes, fair enough.
    1
  4. I recognise what you are saying, but with an emperor who believed himself to be a God, and a culture that supported that; an army who, as you pointed out, considered suicide to be a noble death, and an entire culture that was subservient to those beliefs, why then DID Japan surrender? Why suffer that dishonor when dying fighting to the last man is honourable to them? Paradigm shift in perception, or were those beliefs never that strongly held?
    1
  5. The facts contradict your statement. After all, Japan DID surrender.
    1
  6. Of course.
    1
  7. The US's relationship with Israel continues to baffle me. I can only assume that because you are so painfully religous, you all feel some Biblical need to protect the country.
    1
  8. I agree they are utter hypocrites. It's just like complainingabout human rights abuses in Russia whilst torturing innocent people in guantanamo. That said, I thought that the US had stopped using uranium shells?
    1
  9. Yes, hear hear. Now you know why the US spends more on military than the rest of the planet combined. But as Iraq showed, one small nation was a challenge to subdue: imagine what problems a major nation like China, India or Russia would present, to say nothiing of a continental or global coallition.
    1
  10. Actually, many chemical weapons dissipate within minutes.
    1