Was it wrong of the world to ban chemical weapons?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
No Desh. Everyone heard you the first the time. Posting a couple of hundred times about chemical weapons, when no one on the board supports their use, has only caused people to ignore you. Well it's also made you feel morally superior in your mind but that's a different discussion.
Her SPAMpaign is a failure. As far as I can see not a single person on JPP supports her on this issue.
evince
Truthmatters
just like they ignored me about the coming economic crash , the rigged voting machines, White phosphorous in Fallugia and stuff?
Here's a fact, that same treaty requires UN intervention, not Unilateral US intervention. If you don't have enough evidence to convince even Britain, let alone the UN, then you're doing it wrong. Even Bush handled that better than this guy.
The UK Parliament didn't care whether Assad was responsible for the attack. They said no even if the UN concluded that Assad did it so I'm not sure what your poitn is here, Damo.
My point is (when mentioning the Brits), no matter how stupid our actions are we've always had reliable support from the Brits. If you are a US President and you can't convince even the Brits to play, you've made a wrong turn.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
Now that you have thoroughly researched the ban on chemical weapons, please find the part that says we are to enforce international law.
I don't know that is necessarily the case in a post-Iraq world. There was nothing really to convince them of. The Parliament wanted no part of it, even if Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on his own people.
For which we still have no reliable evidence, we have no more evidence of this than we had 5 days ago when the President says it is a good probability...
Not good enough Mr. President.
That's all well and good, but I still don't see what the Brits have to do with your opinion on the matter.
Isn't the real question that's much more important the fact that the US stands behind vetoing any UN resolution that limits it's ability to use the 'real' Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Does anyone need to be told what those weapons are? They surely aren't chem. weapons which are practically useless for large scale annihilation of human beings.
I'm here to help to send Americans on a trip to reality!
Does anyone need to be told what those weapons are? They surely aren't chem. weapons which are practically useless for large scale annihilation of human beings.
I'm here to help to send Americans on a trip to reality!
evince
Truthmatters
It's you that's having a hard time with facing reality and it's all because of your pro-Obama politics. If you could just understand that I'm the biggest Obama supporter on this ridiculous forum then you could maybe come back down to earth on this whole issue.
Why are you so gung-ho for another war when it's beginning to show that's it more likely that this is another pack of lies for another war in the ME? It's Iraq all over again and it's even more obvious that the justification is based on lies.
Isn't it better for leftists like us to err on the side of not going to war? Are you politics more important than human lives which will be lost under more US bombing?