jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (28 posts)

The U.N. ......Useless Nations -of Cowards

  1. ahorseback profile image56
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Is America the only country in the world to not see chemical weapons use as a travesty? I hear echoes of  Adolf Hitler laughing . The U.N.is completely useless--The "Useless Nations"......

    1. The Frog Prince profile image80
      The Frog Princeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's a little bit more complex an issue than you seem to think it is.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is America (and the people there) the only people to not see that interfering in the internal affairs of another nation is a travesty? 

      The "I know better than you how you should live your life" syndrome is alive and well.

    3. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The majority of Americans oppose intervention.  So I guess most of them are on that same page.

    4. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The UN

      A club for bureaucrats, infested with self interest, nepotism and cronyism.
      For this reason it has become toothless in the face of dictators.

  2. innersmiff profile image86
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Sure it's a travesty - I don't see how this justifies, in and of itself, starting World War 3.

    1. ahorseback profile image56
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Over 400 children gassed to death ? !,500 total ,......?

      1. innersmiff profile image86
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I still can't see how it's justified.

        What you're saying is that A = B
        I ask for support for A, so you needed to provide me with A + ? = B
        You provide me with A = B again.

  3. ahorseback profile image56
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Isn't chemical weapons use  the reason we should ?

    1. Scarface1300 profile image75
      Scarface1300posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that chemical weapons are of a huge concern, let's hope that you bomb the correct culprit though. Perhaps napalm or even still an Atomic Bomb or Two might qualm things? No. I don't think any idiot would use them, Do You?

    2. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Everything is a pretext to attack the sovereignty of a smaller country. Why aren't we attacking Russia? It is our so-called enemy, after all?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If it is, it was a pretext set up in the 70s in plains sight.

        Having seen video those children dying on the floor of sarin--it is a pretext that convinces the hell out of me.

      2. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Russia is not the enemy of the US it's just another competitor in the global arms market.

  4. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    America is the one doing the gassing by helping the terrorists in Syria. Maybe you have been watching too much BBC brainwashing bullshit corporation

  5. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    There is no doubt the world should be alarmed about what is happening.  It should have been alarmed prior to the chemical weapons though.  Our proposed attack seems to say that it's okay to kill thousands and thousands of people as long as you don't use chemical weapons.  I'd have a lot more support for President Obama's proposed military action had it followed the initial conventional killings of his citizens and had it garnered more international support.  To sit back and do virtually nothing while thousands of people are being killed and then say you've gone too far now that you've used chemical weapons, seems like the wrong message.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image87
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Your stated opinions all have merit. I am thinking along the same lines.

      Can any one here explain to me why the mass killing of civilians using chemical agents is considered unacceptable by the world but the mass killing of civilians using explosive devices is okay? They all seem to me to be atrocities of the same magnitude. Ripping bodies to shreds using rockets, mortars, bombs, missiles, and artillery is more humane then gas?

      Hello world, it is time for a reality check about carnage!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … F6P74_CmLY

      1. Coolpapa profile image89
        Coolpapaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        i suspect many -- including myself -- remember the way our elected leaders at the highest levels misled us in their rush to war with Iraq. Can we really look back and say that we made the world a better place as a result. How many hundreds of thousands killed, injured or homeless?

        I agree that action must be taken but we need to know without doubt who did what. Would it have been a stroke of brilliance for al-qaeda operatives to have been the ones behind thisn atrocity. To get the U.S. into another war that will only drag us down farther.  I believe our President but there is no reason that all the classified information that backs up his conclusive proof should not be made public. At least we will then know why we are doing what we are doing.

  6. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Of course using chemical weapons on peaceful protesters is acceptable.  Just ask U.S. law enforcement.

    Are they only considered chemical weapons if it leads to fatalities? 

    Why Isn't Tear Gas Illegal?

    Iranian security forces  fired tear gas into crowds of anti-government protesters Thursday. Tear gas was also  used in Sri Lanka this week and in  Venezuela and  Haiti last month. The State Department  stockpiles it at embassies around the world. Aren't chemical weapons like tear gas illegal?

    Yes, but only in war. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention doesn't apply to domestic law enforcement. (The United States was a major proponent of the exemption, fearing that the convention might be interpreted to prohibit lethal injection.)
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … legal.html

  7. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows- … Kc8aps2.99

    On Aug. 23, LiveLeak.com hosted an audio recording of a phone call broadcast on Syrian TV between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia “Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion” in Homs, Syria, and his Saudi Arabian boss, identified as “Abulbasit.” The phone call indicates rebel-affiliated terrorists in Syria, not the Assad government, launched the chemical weapons attack in Deir Ballba in the Homs, Syria, countryside.

    The terrorist said his group, which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, needed to buy weapons to attack Homs.

    The Saudi financier, who was in Cairo, asked the Syrian terrorists to give details about his group and how it will receive the money. The Saudi admitted his support to terrorists in Daraa and the Damascus countryside. The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.

    The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.

    Russian media sources have consistently reported Syrian military have discovered rebel warehouses containing chemical weapons agents and have documented rebel chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian civilians the military.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows- … Kc8aps2.99

  8. ahorseback profile image56
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    If it's a majority against intervention then , Okay , so now I'm thoroughly convinced that Americans in general and  North Americans and Europeans in particular are cowards in responding to the use of Chem. weapons ! ................Hitler's cronies live ....and you know what . They live in your resistance to retaliation to the Syrian Gov. !

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So we should show our distaste for killing civilians by going and killing more civilians!

    2. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What are you talking about? Cowards? They are waking up, They can see a bunch of little hitlers slowly emerging, America and Zionism.. They scream the words democracy, yet beneath closed doors scheme and plot to take over the world. They wage useless wars in the name of democracy, yet leave the countries with worse regimes. You can see the crazies they left Iraq to  trying to inflict sharia law . They train terrorists, and the world know they are funding Al-qaida. I feel bad to say, but they should have killed those men at abu ghraib torture prison, as the humiliation and torture they faced is going to make the world a dangerous place to live in, in the future with mentally unstable,  terrorist groups who slowly plotting their vendettas. and now these sick US politicians are working with terrorist to take down a secular country like syria who always had more freedom than most countries in the ME.  Shame on all those people who are with America bombing as they are siding with the terrorists.

    3. Scarface1300 profile image75
      Scarface1300posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is a question that was asked and the answer is from a American not myself.
      The question was why did the USA not get involved in WW2 at the outbreak of this war?
      At the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 - the vast majority of Americans wanted nothing what-so-ever to do with a war in Europe - Fortress America was the watch-word of the day and to Hell with anyone else.
      Okay so far?
      Then, Wham, in November 1941 - 'a day that will live in infamy' Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Imperial Japanese Navy.
      Now, at this stage in proceedings, the Americans would quite easily have simply conducted their own private war with the Japanese.
      However. On the day after the Japanese attack upon Pearl, Adolf Hitler, in a moment of utter insanity, declared war on the USA. Notwithstanding what Admiral Yamamoto had said, something about taking a sleeping tiger by the tail - no.
      Thus, without provocation, the USA was forced into a war which it did not want.
      I suggest you get your facts right about appeasement before you criticize others. What the USA did was called democracy, many people died for this right. I will refrain from even trying to get this thought into your mind as you are a total prat.

    4. Sufidreamer profile image80
      Sufidreamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's very easy to scream for intervention when you are safe in your home, a few thousand miles away from the Near East. In my opinion, this is one of those situations where there are no 'right' answers, and most courses of action are going to lead to unintended consequences. There are far too many geopolitical shenanigans going on in this part of the world as it is, and the situation is highly volatile (surprisingly enough, oil and gas play a major role in these political and economic games).

      Painting a black and white picture that those who are wary of taking action are cowards is an extremely simplistic view - personally, I detest Assad, but I have genuine concerns about the rebels and feel that many of them are no better. For example, many religious minorities in Syria are supporting Assad - not because they like him, but because he at least offers them some protection from religious persecution. I would like to know more about the rebels before indirectly supporting military action, because we risk creating a far bigger monster.

      It would be appreciated if you did not throw around the Hitler accusations or imply that anybody disagreeing with you is a coward. Greeks fought long and hard against the Nazis (some of the personal stories I heard from that time would break your heart), and your implications are extremely insulting to the memory of the men, women, and children who died and suffered during the Nazi occupation.

      My Greek friends are devastated that Syrians are suffering in the same way, but don't trust the American government (with good reason), and they are also concerned that an influx of Syrian refugees will inflame an already delicate political situation caused by the rise of the vile, racist Golden Dawn party (they are the real Nazis, if throwing such terms at people makes you feel better).

      Ultimately, if the US starts bombing the crap out of people and it all goes horribly wrong, the people in this region are the ones who will suffer the consequences while you sleep safely at night.

  9. ahorseback profile image56
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Your Liberal John Kerry even says " Okay so what do we do , turn our heads away and have a moment of silence "? That's such typical anti-war attitude ,  I believe it makes the case for a return of political assassinations. Assad admits  his people did it !

    1. Ranzi profile image86
      Ranziposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why don‘t you put money where your money is and join the army to begin with. Enough with your lies, Assad admits no such thing

    2. Coolpapa profile image89
      Coolpapaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Give me one piece of proof that Assad made any such positive statement.

  10. Ranzi profile image86
    Ranziposted 3 years ago

    This is much watch for everyone. A guy calls for Mcain to be arrested and tried for treason.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOapBU5e … ata_player