ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Saturday he has seen "some evidence" that Bashar Assad's regime is preparing to use chemical weapons against Syrian rebels, AFP reported.
"We have seen some evidence of that," Hague said to reporters in Manama at a regional security conference.
"We and the US, as I said in parliament this week, have seen some evidence of that and that is why we have issued strong warnings about it. We have done so directly to the Syrian regime," AFP quoted him as saying.
We "don't have to allow" this? Okay. We went a long way toward bankrupting the U.S. just because when we beat down one country, despite verification on the ground and through satellite and aerial monitoring unprecedented in the history of imposed disarmament, we still weren't sure enough that they didn't have any WMD left.
So what are we going to do about Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia... the list goes on. Invade all of them? I hope you don't want to go after the likes of France and China too.
What the hell does that naive-as-hell statement even mean, that we "don't have to allow" other sovereign nations to develop a military technology that's a century old? You mean we could all say naive crap on bulletin boards, and that would stop them?
Or do you mean we need to open up a few dozen theaters of operations to actually enforce your preferences?
How does that statement have anything to do with the known reality on the ground?
We "don't have to allow" this? Okay. We went a long way toward bankrupting the U.S. just because when we beat down one country, despite verification on the ground and through satellite and aerial monitoring unprecedented in the history of imposed disarmament, we still weren't sure enough that they didn't have any WMD left.
So what are we going to do about Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia... the list goes on. Invade all of them? I hope you don't want to go after the likes of France and China too.
What the hell does that naive-as-hell statement even mean, that we "don't have to allow" other sovereign nations to develop a military technology that's a century old? You mean we could all say naive crap on bulletin boards, and that would stop them?
Or do you mean we need to open up a few dozen theaters of operations to actually enforce your preferences?
How does that statement have anything to do with the known reality on the ground?
PFnV
Hey, I never said I want our troops to go to Syria.
We've wasted enough lives in that God forsaken land...
A vexing problem to be sure. Wish we could "not allow it". It would be many more countries without the chemical weapons treaty. Of course, putting verification teeth into such treaties where international inspectors would comb the countryside looking for such weapons offends our notions of sovereignty, so we'd never go for that. If we did, however, we could get signatories not to trade with non-signatories, and it would mean something.
Meanwhile, when the UN turned America's Americans With Disabilities Act into an international instrument, we voted it down. Even though we already live under its provisions.
A vexing problem to be sure. Wish we could "not allow it". It would be many more countries without the chemical weapons treaty. Of course, putting verification teeth into such treaties where international inspectors would comb the countryside looking for such weapons offends our notions of sovereignty, so we'd never go for that. If we did, however, we could get signatories not to trade with non-signatories, and it would mean something.
Meanwhile, when the UN turned America's Americans With Disabilities Act into an international instrument, we voted it down. Even though we already live under its provisions.
We do that on purpose to show the world we wiil always determine our own destiny and will never allow some world body to tell us what to do.
We are the leaders...and will never follow. Not in my and your lifetime anyway. I kinda like that.
Alert Peta----Alert Peta
Linear Mode
