Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Ooh is not only South Pacific Islands that had the draft in the past

You mean the US?
Because according to your profile, that's where you live.

Yes

If you go back far enough, I even shared the same ancestor as you So I am also one of your cousins

I see by your profile that you been to at least one of the wars I been to. So we carry the burden of taking at least 200,000 lives and wounding at least 400,000 others. I can understand how you feel cousin.

I don't carry the burden of killing or wounding anyone.
I did my job, nothing more.

Thank you for dedicating your life to serving your community cousin.

Now back to reasons why weapons of mass destruction should be insured.
Clearly by the testimony people have posted, a group of people can be in a condition were they thoughts are "Humans are pest they should be gotten rid of" "it will be our 'duty' to start a war were the Nations of the World will release their weapons of mass destruction destroy each other" and show no remorse doing it.
If each weapon of mass destruction is insured then a Nation will establish safeguards before releasing one, because they will not only be thinking of the potential of loss of human life, but also the burden it would carry to the tax payers, If one or more weapons of mass destruction is accidently or otherwise released.
Nations will also be able to afford to own less the current "Destroy the World 3 times over" amount they currently carry. Nations will be forced to find a different way to show their point of view besides "this is my point of view and I am willing to take tens of thousands, millions, billions, or even all of human life to prove my point."
That should make this a safer World for your friends, your family, everything that you value in life to include your own life.

Does anybody know if the use of chem weapons is against the Geneva Convention? If they are, can't that Assad bloke be rounded up and put on trial as a war criminal?

Targeting civilians with any weapons is a war crime.



Assad is a piker in the grand scheme of things. The US, and its poodle, the UK are much much worse than Assad. The US has a record of war crimes that goes back to long before WWII.

Are nations justified in defending themselves?
For example Hitler fired rockets and flying bombs at Britain, and he also had an Amerikabomber project, so the US and Britain had no choice but to do D-Day and go stop him, didn't they?

Of course they are, Romeo. Nations are not justified in illegally invading sovereign nations, Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya to mention the most recent ones.

Nations are also not justified in committing ongoing terrorist acts against other countries which is something that the US specializes in. There is no bigger terrorist organization on the planet than the US government. The totality of terrorist actions by others doesn't come close to those of the US.

It's the people who vote governments into power in the first place, so the people are just as much to blame if the government then decides to invade somewhere aren't they?
"Which is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?"- Obi Wan Kenobi

PS- I support the smaller parties here in Britain that say we should get out of Afgh NOW and stop meddling in all other countries that don't concern us..

The people are to blame when they allow their governments to commit war crimes and terrorist acts, but it's the government leaders, like Bush, Cheney, Blair, etc that should be indicted.

But you have said that Japan WAS justified in its war crimes, including soveriegn nations.

I have posted your comments twice, and you ignore them. Why is that?

You make no sense, MM. I've never said that Japan "was justified in its war crimes".

The way to go would be to pass an International law that states its against the law for people to kill each other I mean every Country has that law. Why not just make it International

I suspect that your interesting and original idea, if conscientiously adhered to, might risk bringing the whole edifice down around our ears.

You have said repeatedly that ANY attack against a sovereign nation was a war crime.

You have also said that Japan was justified in its attack on the US at Pearl Harbor.
So, you are saying that Japans war crimes were justified.

If I need to, I will post your comments again, untill you face them and explain them.

mysteryman, you are wasting your time trying to make that drooling idiot face reality. He/she only understands the invented reality in his tiny skull. I'm curious what he thinks about the rape of Nanking, but then again it would be frustrating. It's likely he assumes it's the name of a woman called Nan King who had consensual sex with some poor slob, then falsely charged him with rape. It's apparent he knows zip about history, such as a few others, can't remember if he is one of the gang who thinks rape is a victimless crime. I suggest you hit the ignore button, but frankly, the older I get the less patience I have with morons. It's tempting, but it's a waste of time at least for me. I don't really mean to tell you what to do, but sometimes it just helps to put the annoying noise on mute.

It's still a free country, he/she has the right to any looney tunes belief he/she wants to express, I wouldn't want to deny anyone that right. However, I can think of no earthly reason why I should be compelled to read that crap. But I do admire your patience with JTT. I wish I had your composure, I just erupt when when the bull pucky gets too deep. Life is short, avoid unnecessary stupid people.