Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Proof based on U.S. government sources, like they'd never make things up to drag us into war (cough...WMDs...cough).
And news sources, and other countries. Any more nonsense?
Quote:
2. I don't consent to bombing sovereign foreign countries that pose no threat to my liberty. Whatever happened to "consent of the governed?"
You don't, I do. Consent of the governed does not mean every single one of us has to be asked and say we are OK with it. Your argument is so much sound bite nonsense.
Quote:
3. $21 trillion in debt and you think we can just print up a few billion more to get involved in something that doesn't affect this country's liberty.
Dropping some missiles on targets in Syria is not going to cost a few billion. And we signed the Geneva Convention, was it just something we agreed to if it was convenient? Or something that we felt strongly about?
Quote:
Not as bad as nukes. To this day this country is still the only one to drop nuclear weapons on civilians.
Actually chemical weapons are worse then nukes. ALL of the people impacted died horrifically with chemical weapons. However it was also done with the justification that doing so would reduce the overall deaths of both us and them if we had to take them with land forces.
Col. Joseph Scrocca, the public affairs director for the U.S.-led coalition, said Wednesday that the rounds are used for “screening and signaling.”
“Coalition forces use these rounds with caution and always in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. When M825A1 rounds are employed, they are done so in areas free of civilians and never against enemy forces,” Scrocca said in an email.
Ah...so we are responsible for others actions? Really? Should we attack Russia instead then for the actions of Syria?
Seriously, what a bunch of nonsense for your response. All you do is attack the US like some Russian troll would. Come on, act like you're an American and at least be honest about this stuff. No we're not perfect, but we arent dropping chemical weapons on civilians in direct violation of the Geneva convention.
And news sources, and other countries. Any more nonsense?
All of which were debunked. And most people know the media loves war, since their ratings and ad revenue skyrocket whenever there is one.
Quote:
You don't, I do. Consent of the governed does not mean every single one of us has to be asked and say we are OK with it. Your argument is so much sound bite nonsense.
Well then hop on a plane, buy a few rifles, and get your happy ass over there so you can put a stop to it yourself. Just don't forget to pay for it out of your own pocket.
In a free society people shouldn't be forced at gunpoint to financially things with which they don't agree.
Quote:
Dropping some missiles on targets in Syria is not going to cost a few billion. And we signed the Geneva Convention, was it just something we agreed to if it was convenient? Or something that we felt strongly about?
Missiles will cost a few million. Other costs will be a few million additional. When troops are inevitably sent over it will be a few billion. Besides, a few million is still a few million that could be in the pockets of the American taxpayer.
The Geneva Convention does not authorize the use of force against sovereign countries by other countries not at war with those countries. Besides, the U.S. has used chemical weapons on numerous occasions since signing on.
Quote:
Actually chemical weapons are worse then nukes. ALL of the people impacted died horrifically with chemical weapons. However it was also done with the justification that doing so would reduce the overall deaths of both us and them if we had to take them with land forces.
Actually, they're not. Nuclear weapons leave long-term scars, including birth defects that can pass for generations. By your logic Vietnam had the right to nuke the U.S.
Quote:
Was not intended to be used as a chemical weapon that harmed people, the intent was to defoliate areas.
"Was not intended..." Well, we all know about the road to hell.
Quote:
Ah...so we are responsible for others actions? Really? Should we attack Russia instead then for the actions of Syria?
"We" shouldn't be attacking ANYONE. Period.
Quote:
Seriously, what a bunch of nonsense for your response. All you do is attack the US like some Russian troll would. Come on, act like you're an American and at least be honest about this stuff. No we're not perfect, but we arent dropping chemical weapons on civilians in direct violation of the Geneva convention.
FOH with that Russian troll nonsense.
I don't attack the U.S. I ATTACK THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. They are not the same thing.
I don't believe in the existence of the State. The State is by definition violence and non-consent.
Oh, and about not dropping chemical weapons on civilians?
All of which were debunked. And most people know the media loves war, since their ratings and ad revenue skyrocket whenever there is one.
Then debunk them, don't just claim it.
Quote:
Well then hop on a plane, buy a few rifles, and get your happy ass over there so you can put a stop to it yourself. Just don't forget to pay for it out of your own pocket.
In a free society people shouldn't be forced at gunpoint to financially things with which they don't agree.
More sound bite nonsense. Seriously. Meanwhile in reality.....
Quote:
Missiles will cost a few million. Other costs will be a few million additional. When troops are inevitably sent over it will be a few billion. Besides, a few million is still a few million that could be in the pockets of the American taxpayer.
So when we fired missiles at that airbase the last time....troops were inevitably sent over? Oh wait they werent!
Quote:
The Geneva Convention does not authorize the use of force against sovereign countries by other countries not at war with those countries. Besides, the U.S. has used chemical weapons on numerous occasions since signing on.
No, the US has not. I pointed that out in my last response as well.
Quote:
Actually, they're not. Nuclear weapons leave long-term scars, including birth defects that can pass for generations. By your logic Vietnam had the right to nuke the U.S.
If we had intentionally used chemical weapons against them with that intent. Something we did not.
If we did, and they wanted to have the people involved charged with war crimes, I'd be OK with that.
Quote:
"Was not intended..." Well, we all know about the road to hell.
And another sound bite.
Quote:
"We" shouldn't be attacking ANYONE. Period.
Shrug. As I indicated earlier I feel somewhat the same.....but chemical weapons usage is not ok either. So I am torn on this to some degree.
Quote:
FOH with that Russian troll nonsense.
I don't attack the U.S. I ATTACK THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. They are not the same thing.
Shrug. And those are exactly what Russian trolls do as well. The intent is different, but your actions are the same. Does that make sense?
Quote:
I don't believe in the existence of the State. The State is by definition violence and non-consent.
You belief or non belief is kind of irrelevant. Meanwhile in reality this is what we have.
Quote:
Oh, and about not dropping chemical weapons on civilians?
More sound bite nonsense. Seriously. Meanwhile in reality.....
So you think Iraq did have WMDs?
Quote:
So when we fired missiles at that airbase the last time....troops were inevitably sent over? Oh wait they werent!
So you trust Trump, and especially, Bolton?
Quote:
No, the US has not. I pointed that out in my last response as well.
If we had intentionally used chemical weapons against them with that intent. Something we did not.
If we did, and they wanted to have the people involved charged with war crimes, I'd be OK with that.
Yes, the US has. Agent Orange in Vietnam and white phosphorous in Fallujah in 2005.
Quote:
And another sound bite.
The truth hurts.
Quote:
Shrug. As I indicated earlier I feel somewhat the same.....but chemical weapons usage is not ok either. So I am torn on this to some degree.
Not our business. Not our place. Not our house.
Quote:
Shrug. And those are exactly what Russian trolls do as well. The intent is different, but your actions are the same. Does that make sense?
So criticizing the government now equates me with being a Russian troll. Got it.
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved.” - Benjamin Franklin
Quote:
You belief or non belief is kind of irrelevant. Meanwhile in reality this is what we have.
Not really. The State isn't reality; it's an illusion.
Quote:
Look, I went through and debunked your last 3 links that were nonsense. Im not going to devote more of my time to it.
You debunked absolutely nothing. It is documented historical fact that the U.S. government sprayed chemical weapons on poor neighborhoods in St. Louis and San Francisco.
You are implying, however, that you would support a war in Syria just to spite Putin and Trump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
