|
should the US intervene in Syria? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| I didn't sign the constitution so I don't have to abide by its rules. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scratchula
Before ever even thinking about doing anything to Syria, "Israel" should be destroyed. |
Why did you put Israel in quotes? |
|
|
| Scratchula |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Why did you put Israel in quotes? |
Because it's a false country that doesn't have a right to exist. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Okay, well from now on I'll refer to you as "Scratchula" |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Okay, well from now on I'll refer to you as "Scratchula" |
:haha: |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
Glad to see at least some of these US politicians are speaking out against this war.
|
|
|
| itsamemario |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scratchula
Because it's a false country that doesn't have a right to exist. |
:haha: :haha:
ta sure attracts the loonies!
that statement is preposterous.
by every norm and standard, a country is a country as soon as the majority of other countries recognize it as such.
one could argue that Israel should never have been formed to begin with, but that's not what you're saying.
Israel has been a country, and legally so, for more than half a century, and has as much right to exist as any other nation. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| @hardcorejihadist Jesus, it's not a ing war. Glad to see you've taken to commenting on a conflict in the Middle East though. You have such a diverse array of interests. From issues in the Middle East to issues in the Middle East. You really cover them all! |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
If only more people knew what's actually happening inside Syria before jumping on the military strike bandwagon..
|
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| IF ONLY PEOPLE KNEW THE MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
thank you for making my point. from the article you cited (i bolded the relevant part):
| quote: | H
Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005, took the view that the historic record showed it had been largely ineffectual. Specifically it did not prohibit:[6]
use against not-ratifying parties
retalliation using such weapons, so effectively making it a no-first-use agreement
use within a state’s own borders in a civil conflict
research and development of such weapons, or stockpiling them
Despite the U.S. having been a proponent of the protocol, the U.S. military and American Chemical Society lobbied against it, causing the U.S. Senate not to ratify the protocol for 50 years.[6][8] |
|
|
|
|
|
