Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

@hawkeye10,

You haven't addressed the hypocrisy that is the US, which Peter has pointed up, Hawk. In fact you've done what so many of you do, create a diversion.

0 Replies

so today 11 Islamist leading Syrian rebel groups declared that the group that the West has been dealing with and whom the West declares to be the ligit government of Syria not only does not speak for them but is not part of the rebel alliance.

awkward.

1 Reply

@peter jeffrey cobb,

Quote:

Now were talking. This member has a great point "weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons should be destroyed from the Worlds stock pile." What a brave step for a member to take.

I assume you and he wish to return to the good old days of trench warfare when millions of men were sent to their grisly deaths by dickheads sat at desks a long way from the action.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Are you saying that weapons of mass destruction should be used?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

so today 11 Islamist leading Syrian rebel groups declared that the group that the West has been dealing with and whom the West declares to be the ligit government of Syria not only does not speak for them but is not part of the rebel alliance.

You are aware of what "US national interests" means, aren't you, Hawk?

0 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

Quote:

Obama calls on U.N. members to enforce chemical weapons ban

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, U.S. President Barack Obama says the U.N. must prove its capability to enforce international laws.

Now that's really rich. This from the guy who gives a pass to the war criminals of the Bush "administration" and then goes on to commit war crimes himself, a guy who continues US terrorist actions across the globe.

Thank god for people like Edward Snowden for exposing this vast criminal organization.

1 Reply

@JTT,

What does a chemical weapons ban mean?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

What does a chemical weapons ban mean?

same thing as the land mine ban, nations agree that only the terrorists will use them.

0 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

If it is agreed that weapons of mass destruction should not be used, then what purpose does it serve to have weapons of mass destruction?

2 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

Because there are several countries who also have WMD's, and they are not willing to negotiate the elimination of those weapons. Most developed countries only have them for "defensive" purposes, but we should all agree to decrease the stockpile.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If it is agreed not to be used. Well how would it be defensive unless you have plans to use them?

1 Reply

@peter jeffrey cobb,

Quote:

If it is agreed that weapons of mass destruction should not be used, then what purpose does it serve to have weapons of mass destruction?

That's an easy one. To waste money so that the public cannot use it to burn the earth which it would if it was given half a chance.

It's a fancy version of using it to dig holes and fill them up again. The great unwashed have a tendency to go off the rails when given unlimited resources. Particularly the middle classes.

What do you think lawyers are for?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

but we should all agree to decrease the stockpile.

What do you consider to be a decrease you silly old fuckwit?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Look up "decrease" in your dictionary, you dumb ****!

1 Reply

@peter jeffrey cobb,

I mean well if a member agreed they were not going to use it, Well that means a member cant just use it for any reason they would like to give. . A member should not even own a weapon of mass destruction. Is there a reason to own it unless a member has a plan on using it?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Look up "decrease" in your dictionary, you dumb ****!

I don't need to do that. A tank of anthrax scrapped because it was a bit tame and past its sell by date is a decrease.

We invented the stuff and our valiant exporters distributed it.

0 Replies

@peter jeffrey cobb,

"Should not have" isn't possible when rogue states refuse to negotiate to eliminate WMD's.

It can become a greater problem when rogue organizations such as the Taliban gains access to them.

The only reason they will not use WMD's is the fear that they may be eliminated from this planet.

Mutual destruction came close when Russia planted missiles in Cuba.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

"Should not have" isn't possible when rogue states refuse to negotiate to eliminate WMD's.

The greatest problem is with the rogue state USA.

Quote:

It can become a greater problem when rogue organizations such as the Taliban gains access to them.

How can a group, the Taliban, which the US organized, supported and trained be a rogue organization, CI? I mean we're talking the US of A, the savior of the oppressed.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Mutual destruction came close when Russia planted missiles in Cuba.

How naive can you get? It was a stunt to get you all sat on the edge of your seats in prime position to view the ads.

You don't seriously think that Moscow and Washington were close the wiping each other off the map do you?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Mutual destruction came close when Russia planted missiles in Cuba.

That's what they wanted you simpletons to believe and guess what, CI?

Why shouldn't Russia have missiles in Cuba, and Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, ... .

It may well have stopped a great deal of the voracious American predations upon many countries.

0 Replies

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know