Mind's Eye Re: chemical weapons of mass destruction

Never really thought of it that way but you make sense here Andrew. As with any other laws and rules and regulations they are made and enforced by those in power to, of course, increase their power and influence while weakening that of their subjects and/or enemies/competitors. Thus laws to ban guns, regulate commerce, etc. etc. 

A failed foreign policy is one where we have a clear, precise and outlined "red line" and then fail to enforce it. Embarassingly leaving it to our enemies to bail us out of an impossible situation. I ached with shame at being an American last week and wish Obama and his hand-picked helpers were better at this stuff. They have all the fenesse of bulls in a china shop. I literally cringe.

But enough about that guy. 

The problem with banning anything is, obviously, enforcing it. We have proved we haven't the will. So has GB. So we turn to our friends the Russians and civil rights star Vladimir Putin to do it for us. Riiiiight. That's probably where Syria got the gas to begin with. Unless it was Iraq circa 2003. 

What a circus. If one thing is for definitive certainty it is that people in the ME will continue to kill each other. Why in Jesus's name, or Allah's or Jehovah's for that matter, should we get in their way? Let the big 3 sort them out. 

dj


On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:33:37 AM UTC-5, andrew vecsey wrote:

War is a big money-making business. First money is made by selling weapons that destroy. Then money is made by rebuilding. Chemical weapons do not destroy and are therefore banned from war. Besides, they are much too cheap to make. Those that make money from war are not too interested in killing people. After all, if you end up killing everyone, there is not too much incentive to rebuild. It is shamelessly hypocritical to ban chemical weapons without banning the other weapons that not only kill and maim people, but as well destroy their homes, schools, hospitals and roads. I propose giving citizens gas masks or teaching them how to make their own to survive chemical attacks. Passive resistance as demonstrated by Gandhi is also a more useful strategy to fight against oppression and exploitation. It always takes 2 to fight. If I was on the receiving end of an attack, I would much rather face poisonous gas for a few hours than have my house demolished and burned and be maimed and die under its rubble.   

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.