Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#53 - tonyxx (09/11/2013) [-]
This image has expired
The chemical strike violates international law. Like it or not the Syrian government must receive consequences to this atrocity. I understand that the recent war has left a very bad taste in everyone's mouth, I feel the same way about the damn thing, but war is not the intention here. War would only be declared in an extreme case (tensions rising between us and Russia/China and Syria serving as the spark, which is what some say is going to happen within the next few weeks), right now we are discussing military strikes, as part of the UN, not just 'Murrica. understand the whole picture before you jump to conclusions.
User avatar #63 to #53 - mikepetru (09/11/2013) [-]
There is no such thing as international law. As a sovereign nation, we cannot be forced or bullied into taking military action against a nation that does not pose an immediate threat to our national security. If the other members of the United Nations wish to get involved in Syria, so be it, but America should not be bullied into another war for the sake of upholding this idea that we are the policemen of the world. We are not beholden to the whims of other nations or their agreements which they have grown fond of calling "laws." They cannot force us to take military action, for such is tantamount to declaring war against us. The United Nations was founded upon the idea of international diplomacy, not coercion. A sovereign nation is beholden to no one, especially those who would gladly watch us ship thousands of more of our troops into the Middle East while they sit idly by. We are not the United Nation's attack dogs.
User avatar #230 to #63 - tonyxx (09/11/2013) [-]
So the Geneva Conventions are not international law? What do you consider them?
User avatar #240 to #230 - mikepetru (09/11/2013) [-]
Think of them more as "let's shake on it" types of agreements. There is nothing obligating us to intervene in Syria. The Syrian government did not attack the U.S. We COULD go to war with Syria, but it is neither wise nor just to endanger our national security by entangling ourselves in another foreign dispute that does not concern us.
User avatar #108 to #63 - avatarsarefornoobs (09/11/2013) [-]
actually, we are, sadly, because nobody else will lift a ******* finger
the problem is other nations expect the US to jump in whenever there is an issue.
basically, if the US does nothing, then its our fault. If the US does something, its still our fault.
User avatar #124 to #108 - iftheshoefits (09/11/2013) [-]
the thing is the US isn't stable within itself to be able to reach out to other nations. While we are being policemen of the world we are neglecting ourselves. Just look at the unemployment rate, all the people on welfare and such. We need to deal with this first before we can help others. Otherwise we hurt them and ourselves.

And so what if it is blamed on us, sure we might loose some credibility but once the country is fixed we can regain the lossed respect. No one is going to attack us either because we will nuke their ass

I don't want to see my uncles, grandfather, aunt, and soon my friends go of to die from something so avoidable and yield nothing but an ego stroke and maybe put the country back to a shell of what we hope it can be
User avatar #92 to #63 - thenez ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
International law = Geneva convention
User avatar #59 to #53 - kyouko (09/11/2013) [-]
The UN denied the proposition. Several weeks ago. The proposition was then brought over to NA
Syria is about to deliver the "chemical weapons" off to the international community (in a lack of better word there) after having a deal with Putin and John Kerry.
 Friends (0)