46
   

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:31 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
I don't make those decisions - and nor do you! I don't worry about things I can't control. That's good advise for anyone who has tried their entire life to make changes by participating in our democracy, voting for over 60 years in all elections, writing to congress members and our president.

They don't listen.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:42 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:
So what you are saying is that all someone would have to do, is find a way to make it look like it came from one of the member Nation. And you would not investigate you would use weapons of mass destruction instantly against the Nation that was set up?

We would not be fooled. We would retaliate against the actual perpetrators.

Depending on the situation, that might require a brief investigation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:43 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:
When a Nation is building each of its weapons of mass destruction, does it each time picture how it would be as it is detonated?

No.


peter jeffrey cobb wrote:
Does the Nation then premeditate on how they will detonate that weapon of mass destruction?

Yes.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_start.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_ch3.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_ch4.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_ch5.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_end.pdf
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So you are saying that a government has plans of using weapons of mass destruction, and the taxpayers have to agree with the government using them? Should the taxpayer be held liable for any damage done by the weapon of mass destruction?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:54 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Never made such a claim. If English is your second or third language, I can understand your difficulty in understanding what I wrote. Go back and re-read what I wrote and what you're claiming I wrote. No comparison.

Taxpayers have no say when the president authorizes the use of WMD's. He is the Commander in Chief of our military.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Let me add:
I didn't want Bush to go to war in Iraq. Guess what happened.
I didn't want Obama to increase troops in Afghanistan by 50,000. Guess what happened.

In other words, I can't control what the president does, although I'm a taxpayer.

0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 08:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
oooh my bad I misread Smile But any Nation in general that detonates a weapon of mass destruction, do you think the taxpayers of that Nation should be held liable for the damages caused by the weapon of mass destruction?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 09:02 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
That also depends on how the UN and other international organizations enforce international laws.

The US does pretty much what it wants to do regardless of UN Security Council rulings. No international legal organization sued the US for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - both illegal by international laws of attacking sovereign states for other than self defense.

Who else can enforce international laws against the US?

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 09:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Yes, the president has the authority to use WMD's.


No, they do not, CI. That's why so many US prezes are/have been war criminals.

0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 09:26 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
How about this idea. Like an insurance policy a Nation should have to set aside a certain $ amount cover any possible damages caused by each weapon of mass destruction it posseses. You never know accidents are known to happen and somebody has to pay for damages. Smile
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 09:29 pm
And one more thread
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 09:46 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
A Nation's taxpayers might find a way to participate on how their government works more, if all of a sudden a large percentage of their taxes have to go some insurance policy just so they are able to carry weapons of mass destruction. Who knows some Nations may even say "it is too expensive to posses weapons of mass destruction. We have to find a better way for us to accomplish our goals"
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Sep, 2013 11:08 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
If a member Nation decides to go rogue and not follow the International laws set by the World community, than the community should respond in kind. By not doing trade, calling back any loans it may have, not giving any credit line to fund its programs.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 08:14 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
There is a reason why vehicles carry insurance. Accidents happen. Weapons of mass destruction, that's only common sense to require each to have an insurance policy on any potential damage it may cause.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 09:17 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The US does pretty much what it wants to do regardless of UN Security Council rulings.


That's what rogue nations do, CI, and the US is, without any doubt, a major rogue nation. It has been since its inception. It really isn't any different than Nazi Germany, complete with many of its own Holocausts.

That must make you oh so proud to be an American citizen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 09:42 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
In the past, the US did spend money to rebuild countries we were responsible for destroying by conventional weapons. That's the reason the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't make any sense. Look at what we did to Japan and Germany during WWII; we helped them rebuild, and they accomplished becoming some of the strongest economic powers on this planet.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 10:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
In the past, the US did spend money to rebuild countries we were responsible for destroying by conventional weapons.


The US only spends money to help the US, CI. The US is the stingiest nation on the planet. Just ask Jimmy Carter. The US doesn't give foreign aid, the US uses aid as a tool/weapon to create more business for US interests.

But you go on with your propaganda if it helps your delusions.


Quote:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/19/5906

US, Japan Stingiest Givers for Education
by Alison Raphael
Washington, DC - Eight years ago the world's wealthiest countries promised to provide the funding needed to ensure that all children worldwide can attend school. But now, halfway to the global 2015 deadline for universal primary education, developed countries are failing to come up with the aid.

This was the conclusion reached at the close of a high-level meeting in Dakar, Senegal, on funding for globally agreed goals for education articulated at the 2000 "Education for All" meeting and reflected in the Millennium Development Goals.

The failure is laid out country-by-country in an innovative global "report card" on progress in education released Dec. 11 by a coalition of NGOs, the Global Campaign for Education.

By 2015, all children are supposed to have access to complete, free, compulsory, quality primary education, and gender disparities in education should be completely eliminated.

Now, mid-way to the 2015 deadline, there appears to be little hope of success.

At the meeting in Dakar, developed countries refused to set a target for spending on global education, even though developing countries agreed to devote 10 per cent of their national budgets to the sector.

Nicholas Burnett, director of the 2008 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, called the outcome of the Dakar meeting "a major disappointment." Burnett's group said an additional $11 billion is needed to reach global education goals by 2015.

UNESCO chief Koichiiro Matsuura agreed, remarking: "I cannot be very optimistic."

Meanwhile, the Global Campaign for Education (GCE) charged that at current rates of progress, global goals "will not be realized by 2115, let alone in the next seven-and-a-half years."

The GCE's report card, entitled "No Excuses," ranks every country with a grade from A to F for its efforts in education, including donor nations. It points to the U.S. and Japan as two of the stingiest givers. Norway and the Netherlands are the most generous.
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 10:55 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
It should be a fairly simple process to get an insurance policy on a weapon of mass destruction. Get a World average of what a life is worth $XX,XXX,XXX Times it by how many possible lives the weapon can take, and add in any other damage that could be resulted from the accident = $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX . Then get a fund set aside to cover the payment, for any accidents that may happen, and then move on to the next one and repeat the process. Until all the weapons of mass destruction from that Nation is insured for any damages it may cause.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 11:08 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
There's not enough $$$ in the world to pay for the destruction from a thermonuclear bomb. It's not insurable.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 11:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
If the world was a just place, CI, consider the amount that the US [and the UK] would have to pay for the terrorism, the war crimes, the theft of others' wealth.

Even ole Merry would get booted out of Hawaii. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 03:35:33