And what do the US govt have? Just an insistance that chemical weapons were used, but no evidence of who used them. And given the USAs recent actions I think Russia is on an equal footing with regards to trustworthiness.
oops, you are of course right, Hezbolla being on the Syrian govts side.
..Looks like you posted the wrong link.
Lol at the links source, did you look at the article - an Indian student. And the other article is also pure conjecture. If there was any real evidence that Syrian military launched the chemical weapons, it would have been all over the news, the only thing the news is saying with certainty is that someone launched chemical weapons.
"and killed something like 1400 people"
Pot Kettle black eh, who are you quoting - the guy who is trying to make more money for his countries war machine industry.
"He'd killed 100,000 people."
Really showing your bias here, that figure is the number of people thought to be dead from the conflict, killed by both rebels and gov't troops.
Both sides are bad, joining with one side would not be helping the civilians, quite the opposite - 10,000s more civilians would die.
You choose to believe your gov't versions of events, I don't choose to believe any propaganda. The point is when there is nothing but lies to base your decision about joining a war. And the only outcome if America wins is that some nasty people gain power and Syria becomes a total hell hole like Iraq.
The rebels seem to be remarkably well armed, and are killing a lot of civilians - where did they get there weapons? And why do you think that they aren't capable of launching gas attacks, looking at the video it looks to me like a case of load a different type of shell and fire it. Not hundreds, not dozens but 3 to 5 attacks - not really that huge is it?
Is it possible that the evidence is fabricated, yes, it's always possible, the US for example has fabricated evidence many times to go to war. Simple fact is there is evidence that the rebels launched the chemical weapons, there is not evidence that Syrian military launched the chemical weapons otherwise US news would have plastered that all over the place.
There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis,
1) Video evidence of Chemical weapons being launched.
2) Photographic evidence of the weapons being Saudi.
3) Testimony from Syrian rebels from the faction that had the weapons and admitted they didn't know what they were doing with them.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/
And anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east?
"we tend to take a dim view of those who would kill their people because they started talking democracy."
American gov't really doesn't give a damn about gov't killing their people, Us corporations make money selling them the weapons to do it, the only thing US govt doesn't like is any country that doesn't go along with it's corporate interests. That and Israel takes half the money it gets in aid from America and gives it back to the congress critters and senators during elections.
Conditional formatting, fix it please, even when starting from scratch with a new Calc document, it's horribly broken - starts off ok, but after a bit of copying and pasting such as when making shift patterns, it all goes completely haywire and becomes unusable
The problem is that a lot of small groups are campaigning under the umbrella of 38Degrees.org but 38degrees can be gagged which means that the literally millions of people that use the site are being gagged. Even the electoral commission is against the new changes. I don't think the gov't realised the consequences this bill.
The separate campaigns should be treated as such for legal purposes, then i expect the £400k wouldn't be a problem and the law needs to differentiate between a democratic process where hundreds of thousands of people chip in to have their voice heard vs the money of individual corporations.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/28/david-cameron-gagging-charities-labour-claims
And this is also an attack on unions right to represent their members political wishes.
No mention in the summary of the massive subsidies the British tax payer would have to pay to build maintain and close these costly Chinese made disasters waiting to happen.
Nuclear power: leaks show new EU push | Environment | The
Why is this crap getting posted when I linked a story about a massive censorship law being debated next week in the UK and it gets buried. Many of the 'campaigns' are by ordinary citizens, it is us who would lose our voice in the 12 month lead-up to any election.
As for their being innate, that can't be true. If the were innate, people would have had the same rights everywhere and throughout history.
Before asshat politicians came along and started making laws, people pretty much had the same rights everywhere and throughout history. It's a sad state of affairs when people don't understand what rights are.
From Wikipedia:
Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
You can travel within Europe freely, passports are only needed at airports and European borders, so your comparison is wrong and hence your point is invalid.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
