We can all agree on 1 thing!
- Thread starter Beefy
- Start date
His mother doesn't do much ironing, t-shirts with slogans and sweatpants don't require much ironing.
not for some red line crap/ although now Obama is saying it's the world's redline/although now is saying he can go it alone without Congress/ although past did say without UN resolution might be outside international law.......
try to keep up on the head spinning nonscense....
How can that be true when (according to your standard) 44% are not against explicit action in syria?
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
Geneva Protocol
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
Drafted
17 June 1925[1]
Signed
17 June 1925[1]
Location
Geneva[1]
Effective
8 February 1928[1]
Condition
Ratification by 65 states[2]
Signatories
38[1]
Parties
138[3]
Depositary
Government of France[1]
Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention at Wikisource
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
A number of countries submitted reservations when becoming parties to the Geneva Protocol, declaring that they only regarded the non-use obligations as applying to other parties and that these obligations would cease to apply if the prohibited weapons were used against them.
The main elements of the protocol are now considered by many to be part of customary international law.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Like this one?
Man that's awesome, Damo you should sell these! I bet they would fly out of here!
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
You know Superfreak is good for 50 of them right off the bat!
those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Grind how many darla tshirts do you want?
this is the 3rd time I've seen you post this just today. I gotta find the ignore poster button on this board, you are the definition of pedestrian thought.
Pendatic would be a vast improvement
darla can you just answer me one question
what are your specific reasons for being against dropping bombs on syria? I think you might be the best one to parse them out.
what are your specific reasons for being against dropping bombs on syria? I think you might be the best one to parse them out.
at least 7 so I can wear one each day of the week. Probably need a few extras though just in case someone tries to steal one from me
cawacko
Well-known member
See Desh instead of focusing on Democrats/Republicans this is where you need to focus. Lay out for people why you think bombing of Syria will be a positive thing and what will be the expected outcome. We all know there's a massive civil war going on in the country. If we bomb Syria will that war stop or will it continue just without chemical weapons? Will Assad remain in charge if we bomb? If he doesn't who will replace him? What is the benefit to the U.S.?
To me those questions (among others) are ones many people are asking and they have nothing to do with partisanship.