Kuntuzangmo
Well-known member
What do you think? Are we doomed for more war or will peace prevail?
Gen. Wesley ClarkWhat do you think? Are we doomed for more war or will peace prevail?
It seems to me peaceful logic lays the responsibility to the international community....not in the pride/hubris of the American president.
UN, Arab League, Nato etc....these are the groups who should be leading response with USA giving support behind them.
Jupiterasc....that's pretty scary....and of course never broached in the mainstream media.
I'm looking at charts...more later.
Marika, under normal circumstances I would agree with you...but this comes on the heels and amidst unprecedented American attacks over the last 12 years in the middle east.
We cannot afford to play global cop. Other countries and/or an international coalition should take charge.
PPS Can anyone tell me if it is by international law illegal to manufacture or supply or store chem weapons why the international community cannot try anyone and confiscate all stocks of anyone who does any of that....better than bombing a country with undoubtedly resulting civilian casualties...what if the collateral damage is more than the people killed in these chem weapon attacks?Compounding all misery and death? that is why NON military action is always the better way....it begets another cycle of death fear misery poverty hatred.....humankind in the 21st century seems to not have advanced that much at all from eons ago...thatis called stupidity...oh and lets not forget the role of religion in all this.....responsible for so much destruction by proxy
Im not aware of it either, I just go by what I read, and what I read is its ILLEGAL to hold manufacture or use chemical weapons....the USA and other countries holds stockpiles...so the USAand other countries are engaging in illegal behaviour ...including the ones that manufacture them.....end of the day if someone dies in a war by being blown up or gassed, whats the difference? Areconventional weapons OK? how about the USA napalming vietnamese or using an atom bomb onjapan? Sad feckers werent they? I know its history but its still the pot cLling the kettle black!!!!!!!This is a great question. There was something similar with the war trials that were used for the individual people involved in the Germany death camps but, it took so long for these to work through the system. Usually these come into play after the fact - once a ruler is disposed.
Most countries respect the sovereignty of Syria (or any other country) and as such, ask permission to go into the country such as for the UN inspectors checking for the chemicals. Syria can refuse. There is currently no process in place to take a country's ruler to court or to confiscate material from that country, at least that I am aware of.
HUH
isn't it a bit extremist for a presdient to be threathening war on a country that isn't attacking us?
rahu
What do you think? Are we doomed for more war or will peace prevail?
Gen. Wesley Clark Says Pentagon Had Plan in 2001 to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years.
It seems to me peaceful logic lays the responsibility to the international community....not in the pride/hubris of the American president.
UN, Arab League, Nato etc....these are the groups who should be leading response with USA giving support behind them.
This is not to say that Syria as a country should not be allowed to rule as they see fit but, they have broken the rules where it concerns the use of chemical weapons.
Marika, under normal circumstances I would agree with you...but this comes on the heels and amidst unprecedented American attacks over the last 12 years in the middle east.
We cannot afford to play global cop.
Im not aware of it either, I just go by what I read, and what I read is its ILLEGAL to hold manufacture or use chemical weapons....the USA and other countries holds stockpiles...so the USAand other countries are engaging in illegal behaviour ...including the ones that manufacture them.....
You ALSO have to ask yourself one question.....just one....why does the usa think it should police the middle east? There are so many atrocities over the years in many lands.....where was the usa when thousands of people were getting macheted to death in rwanda eg...so the moral argument falls down
That would be impossible since Syria does not have chemical weapons.
What do you think? Are we doomed for more war or will peace prevail?
...why does the usa think it should police the middle east?
There are so many atrocities over the years in many lands.....where was the usa when thousands of people were getting macheted to death in rwanda eg...
hmmm ... yes, it does.so the moral argument falls down
Answer 1) uuummm.... because they are after their resources e.g. oil ?
Answer 2) because of altruism on their part?
Uh, you are not playing global cop...you are playing global bully and global slave master using the mantra of global cop.
I don't mean "you" personally, I mean Brits and Americans, and to a lesser extent, a handful of the Western European countries....well, the northern Western European countries....well, okay, the central Western European countries (all two of them....France and Germany).
This is all your doing.
For the last 150 years or so, you violated Natural Laws, in particular Economic Law, by tilting the playing field so far to your advantage that no others could ever compete against you.
hmmm ... yes, it does.
I guess people are developing quite thick skin