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.
Just read that the Geneva Protocol, which is the foundation of the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons, is from the 1920's. I wonder if it would hot have included nuclear weapons if they had already been in existence back then. In other words, if the Protocol shouldn't be amended so as to include them.
The situation in Syria is concerning. Every time we plan to scale back and get out another chemical/gas attack occurs. Some attacks we cannot prove even came from Assad. Someone wants a larger conflict in the region. I voted Trump but he is betraying us by giving power and foreign policy decisions over to the neocons.
And now he has John Bolton whispering in his ear.
Instead of creating new enemies in the Middle East and brewing up more resentment of our continual bombing campaigns we should be repairing Fortress America from foreign incursion.
It's too expensive to invade countries. Much easier to just destabilize them and watch them fall.
The future of drones and ai will make it far easier for others to bring terror directly to our doorsteps.
I'm still not convinced there is no desire among the superpowers to literally rule the world. Putting the entire planet under 1 banner will always be tempting, maybe only because it has never actually been done before.
There is also a reason why our nuclear deterrent is of 1970's vintage... could it be that we aren't investing in that system because it's obsolete and we already have something better?
The holy grail of nuclear weapons has always been a "pure fusion" hydrogen bomb. Such a weapon would not require a fission explosion to initiate fusion and would not generate radioactive fallout or create uninhabitable zones for centuries after a war was over. Such a weapon could also be dialed up or down in power on the fly as the situation dictates. Have we already figured out how to do it?
... and if we have them, Russia probably does too.
Imagine a global nuclear war sans radiation... it would be just as destructive and FAR more likely to actually happen.
I'm still not convinced there is no desire among the superpowers to literally rule the world. Putting the entire planet under 1 banner will always be tempting, maybe only because it has never actually been done before.
I doubt the elites that are pushing for the new world order, and Globalization (ultimate STATISM) are going to use war to do so. They are using Indoctrination through Government, Media, Education, and Corporations. It is succeeding, as half the U.S. population, and most of Europe wants Open Borders, which is essentially removal of SOVEREIGNTY from the United States, and European countries. Another reason they want law abiding citizens to be DISARMED. Personal Self defense is the ultimate freedom. It can not be tolerated.
I doubt the elites that are pushing for the new world order, and Globalization (ultimate STATISM) are going to use war to do so. They are using Indoctrination through Government, Media, Education, and Corporations. It is succeeding, as half the U.S. population, and most of Europe wants Open Borders, which is essentially removal of SOVEREIGNTY from the United States, and European countries. Another reason they want law abiding citizens to be DISARMED. Personal Self defense is the ultimate freedom. It can not be tolerated.
Half of Europe? We do have open borders within the EU, and hardly anyone in Europe wants open borders with the rest of the world. Legal immigration has little to do with open borders.
Firearms have nothing to do with freedom, either. I couldn't be any more free than I currently am if I had a gun. There is nothing I could all of a sudden do or that I would no longer have to do if I had a gun.
Firearms have nothing to do with freedom, either. I couldn't be any more free than I currently am if I had a gun. There is nothing I could all of a sudden do or that I would no longer have to do if I had a gun.
Can you effectively defend yourself from a violent criminal, or group of criminals that want to do you harm? Could you defend yourself from a corrupt government that wants to do you harm? Could you provide food for you, and your family should stores not be available? Since you can not, you are not "free". Not by a long shot. You are a SUBJECT of the government, and dependent on them.
Firearms have nothing to do with freedom, either. I couldn't be any more free than I currently am if I had a gun. There is nothing I could all of a sudden do or that I would no longer have to do if I had a gun.
How does not being able to legally acquire a gun should you need/want one make you more free?
I can't buy a war plane or a slave, either, even if I wanted to. Does that make me less free?
Total freedom to do whatever you want has never existed and shouldn't exist. There are always limits imposed by society, laws etc.
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.
