There is a balancing point where people cannot afford to purchase which means companies don't sell and don't stay in business. Protecting these companies sort of prolongs it but eventually, there will be a natural reset where people find creative ways to do without. Once the companies close or limit their production, then competition from those creative people will start and it resumed Ad infinitum.
There will be hiccups and so on along the path. There might even be a revolt and the entire system crashed along the way too. But I think succeeding itself to death is defeated by the ability to continue operation along the current path. Companies exist to make money, if no one buys their products or services, they don't exist.
I think the "pretty much always requested" was to assert the times when a warrant isn't needed or required before hand due to the urgency of the matter. The constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and the courts have held that it is reasonable in some situations to search without a warrant as long as a warrant would have been issued had enough time passed.
An example of this kind of search I an into recently was when a girl I know (next door neighbor's daughter) sent a text to her parents sating she was going to end it all and take her kids with her. The cops were able to get her location information as well as access to her texts sent and received for the past few days at 3 am without a warrant.
Turns out "end it all" didn't mean killing herself and the kids but leaving her abusive husband forever and taking with the kids with her. She sent the text to her mom instead of her sister who was going to take her in- causing a very big scene.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying Russia's motivations for keeping the UN from intervening or getting rid of Assad had to do with their natural gas monopoly. The civil war itself, you're right, not fossil fuel related.
I know what sovereignty is, and it depends in large part on ones ability to enforce it.
Not enforce but retain or keep it.
Unless you are talking about "rights given by god", you are talking about a subjective thing that is absolutely defined in relation to other powers. The "rights" that Syria have depend on its relationship with the rest of the world, and are certainly not absolute.
It doesn't matter who or what gave the rights to who. Sovereignty means you the sovereign (as in the country) gets to decide. They even have a right to take from other countries if they can or until someone takes their sovereignty from them. That's what is means to be sovereign- you decide for yourself and unless someone takes your sovereignty or parts of it away or you surrender it or parts of it, you get to decide at will.
If you are saying "a right is something that it would be immoral for someone else to violate", perhaps we have something to work with-- but again, unless you are going with "morality given by god" (and Im not aware of the Bible speaking on morality in international relations), you are left with another arbitrary measure defined by people.
It would be as immoral as taking their car or home from them.. Some cases you can justify that to the effect it wouldn't be immoral at all. Most cases, you cannot.
Arbitrary is the point. They are a sovereign nation and decide for themselves however they want and when they decide they need to. No one can impose something on them unless they agree to it or we force them to follow our will. If they decide wrong (as in something we disagree with), we either need to convince them it is wrong and they need to surrender that part of sovereignty (sign a treaty) or we need to take it (presumably by force) from them.
You will find that the majority of decision makers around the world, whether in buisiness or government, will not care as much about this in the long run as you do.
In other words, what you say should be true in book form but will not be true in practice. Many people/governments will not even bother looking to see who is behind what, they will be looking to see if it is an industry accepted standard and our personal concerns will rarely change those. If it could, we wouldn't see wireless at half these businesses.
I don't think fossil fuel interest had anything to do with it. It is a civil war and should be determined by the people of the country not the UN. Quite a few people of Syria support Assad or fear what would replace him too much to support the rebels.
If the same thing happened in the US or Russia or England or anywhere, would you like the UN stepping in and removing a government from power so the ultra conservatives could take over? replace ultra conservatives with any political bend you want. The point is, it's up to the people to decide, not the UN.
Exactly this. Smart bombs from 40000ft targeting specific enemies - brave, noble pilots. Suicide bombing innocent civilians attempting to influence a government or government policy- evil and cowardly terrrrists.
NO sovereign state (read country here) is under the rule of any other state unless it either first agrees to give up some or all sovereignty or it is taken from them (presumably by force). Until any of those happen, any country has the right to do anything it damn well pleases, including owning and possessing chemical or biological weapons.
Most developed countries have Sarin or the capabilities to create it at a moments notice. This is generally kept as a defensive measure that will only be used should another country attack and use it.
You do realize the republicans supported Clinton bombing Iraq and that we had troops and expenditures specifically allocated to Iraq before we went to war with them right?
What I'm getting at is that Iraq is/was in an entirely different league then Syria and they should not ever be compared for political purposes because they are so vastly different. What one group said for Iraq is completely irrelevant to Syria. It's like saying those it was funny watching them make up reasons why they didn't want to eat egg rolls at a greasy gas station along the highway when they ate them and sushi at Chang's last year.
Okay. Let's relax and look at this objectively then. If this all about humanitarian efforts, why is the U.S. invested?
The US is invested only because Obama put his foot in his mouth and needs to save credibility. Before that, people wanted to enter Syria (the government and country as a whole cared less about it) for a number of reasons with some dating back to the cold war years and wanting democracy over dictators. Some actually want the Muslim brother hood in power (see our reaction to Egypt).
Again, here is why your oil fails. Nothing will be different if Assad is removed from power with respect to oil or pipelines. In fact, the one pipeline that Syria has refused to allow from Qatar, was originally supposed to go through Saudi Arabia first, but the refused to allow it so Syria was the second option. Saudi, btw, is one of if not the largest supporters of the Syrian rebels. So you are having us to believe that a pipeline that could go through a friendly county is the reason why that friendly country is supporting a rebellion in another country in which the pipeline could also go and that those rebels who are mostly unfriendly to the US will somehow allow the US or the friendly county to control the pipeline and other oil interest.
Do you realize how convoluted and insane that sounds when you go through the motions?
You're showing ideology, where I hadn't by using the term "evil." Corporations are amoral; there is no good or evil. They are profit driven. However, as long as human slavery, trafficking, and suffering, as long as warfare is profitable, then it does become a moral issue.
So what separates you from the idiots out there that couldn't look into the details enough to understand a thought properly is the term Evil? I'm sorry I associated it with you then. I guess I might be one of those elitists you were talking about.
That's exactly what you're doing. Everything you posted you pulled out your ass and wasn't based upon current events, facts, or a thousand years of literature, history, philosophy, and economics. You argued just to argue.
You are either stupid or being spoon fed by idiots. Not one thing I mentions is as you say. Open you eyes and ears.
In your first post, you justified warfare based upon the semantics of a speech given a year ago. It could have been a red line, a blue line, a black line, an invisible line. That's delusional.
And what is really delusional is you thinking I justified or attempted to justify war at all in what I posted. I said that Obama would try to get out of it and he got himself caught up with his mouth writing checks his ass didn't want to cash because he is an amateur. Think of him as the god catcher acting as governor. The only reason war is seriously on the US radar is because Obama tried to look tough and got called out. Kerry is even in Europe saying our waring response will be "unbelievably small" trying to convince people it will not be a war at all.
You have to understand the mentality of these people. Someone does something bad and the public cries there should be a law about that. Well, most of the time there already was a law but they jump up and create a law that does a whole lot of things but stop whatever people were outraged about and they title the law as "the law to stop outrageous behavior" and say they did something. It is all about appearances and emotion with them. It is all stage one thinking with little deep or long term thought into long term consequences.
You do not know if he has done more for his country then me or how much. That exist only in your head along with your visions of me protesting dead soldiers.
If you can sit there and admire someone who thinks terrorist killing innocent civilians and government officials at the direction of enemy countries and think that is not a troll, then you are as screwed up (if not more) as he is. I already know you are a troll, so i guess it isn't a stretch to see a troll attempt to defend another troll.
Now listen to me carefully, I will not ever apologize to anyone who thinks terrorist killing civilians at the behest of foreign enemies is somehow deserving.
No, the iraq wmd story was a democtat stumping point just a few years before bush wad even elected. Being wrong doesn't make something a lie. Ignoring all the democrats who just years before iraq war who said wmds were or were likely to be in iraq in order to keep some ideology alive is.
Go troll somewhere else. I explained from the start why I claimed he was a troll. Do you think if someone said that family of five got what they deserved when a drunk driver struck their minivan and killed them all because the driver didn't have a valid drivers license would be a troll? Well, it would be a troll just like the op we are discussing is one. People who have no way of changing US policy or power to stop military action in Syria will be killed, maimed, or injured if there is a terrorist attack directed by an enemy country on our facilities. Anyone claiming to be a US service member stating they deserve it is a troll. They are either confused, trolling, or a member of an enemy's armed services.
Anyone who says their country (any country they are citizens of, not just the US) deserves to have innocent civilians and outlying government officials attacked by terrorist at the direction of an enemy country is not a patriot. It is just that simple- If a German citizen said it about Germany, if a Syrian said it about Syria, it wouldn't make a difference. They can disagree with policy, they can disagree with actions, they can disagree because they want to be a dipshit, and still be patriotic. they can do all that and not be a troll. Learn the difference and stop trolling people.
As usual, you ignore the parts except what you want to make issue with.
I will not offer an apology to anyone claiming to be a service member who thinks it is deserving if their their own country is attacked by terrorist funded by a long standing enemy country.
As for what he has done for his country, I do not know that he has done anything or whatever it was is anything more then I have done or less then I have done. I certainly have never advocated a terrorist attack funded by an enemy country on my own country. I think that one there might ensure my lack of doing something might just trump anything he has done.
Like I said, confused, trolling, or a member of the enemies armed services. I know from past experiences what you suffer from.
Well, we knew it was only a matter of time with all the global warming happening on the other planets too. Maybe we can plant some trees in space or something?
He was warned that the people he was taking money from were up to criminal acts
The problem is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The bigger problem is that if the government can make an accusation against someone- behind their back to boot- and that is all that is needed to make any further interaction with them illegal, then it violates the entire spirit of the justice system and principles of freedom as we used to know it. I know the justice system might be more appropriately considered the Just Us system, but at least in a romantic spirit, it is supposed to protect people from crap like that.
Imagine a world where your business can be completely stopped and you jailed simply because the competition has a friend in law enforcement who warns you that your customers are doing things illegal with your product or services. Someone can say what I do with your products or services is illegal all day long. It shouldn't be until you know by witnessing my actions or my confidence in telling you about the illegal activities that you become legally liable for my actions.
As for building fake walls, there has been legitimate reasons for concealing rooms and entrances for hundreds of years if not more. One reason is to hide yourself or valuables from criminals. Another is to physically separate areas from others to conceal escape routes and so on for legitimate purposes (again criminals and or mob mentality). I used to have a couch that had a safe built into the arm rest on each end but was concealed in a way to look like a normal couch. I later found it was a normal thing back in the early 1900's and earlier on the higher end furniture.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do they cancel. Nor is that a valid construction to defend the use of chemical weapons.
No one said anything was right or made right because of it. I asked why one set of dead people are more important then another set of dead people in the same geographical region. You seem to answer that with how their lives were cut short makes a difference to you rather then they were cut short.
What makes killing people with chemical weapons a special sort of evil that is likely to get a response is that they were banned. Unlike the list of other things.
Killing civilians is banned too.
You should also note that the 1993 convention extended the ban to stockpiling and production. It is the 1925 Geneva protocol that banned use in war. Syria did sign the ban on use and so of course they might be held to consequences if another country is capable and willing.
It is interesting to me to find that the method of killing is more important to some people then the killing itself. Use something that is or has been banned and you get into trouble. Kill but with normal methods and all is fine or at least over looked and ignored for the most part. I find that disturbing and asked the question because our leaders seem perfectly fine overlooking genocide in Rwanda and several other places. Most people until the chemical weapons were used said let the brown people kill the brown people (actually, it was a combination of that and Muslims, and bad people verses more bad or evil people but the sentiment was the same, we didn't want to get involved). Some people didn't even care to know that innocent civilians of another country were being killed by warring parties as long as they know if Brittany is on rehab or not or if Miley Cyrus is acting slutty enough to make millions of dollars this year. To me, the sudden attention to the killing is a lot like a used car salesman saying he likes you so he is going to cut you a great deal on this car that was only driven to and from church by a little old lady from Pasadena.
It has nothing to do with a dictatorship. I never said he couldn't make the comments, I said making those comments made him look like a troll which is why someone modded him that way.
You can say anything you want, it doesn't mean others need to like it or support it. Moderating something down or calling a spade a spade is just the same discourse as the original speech. Please do not construe free speech to mean I or anyone else has to accept without ever objecting to what you or anyone says regardless of how repugnant we find it- without the ability to ever discuss what we found repugnant about it. Free speech doesn't work that way. If it did, it wouldn't be free speech, it would be unlimited speech for some and a dictatorship for others which is essentially what you just argued against while acting the role.
Once you relax and take a deep breath, you will realize that not everything is about evil corporations. You are reading bullshit into bullshit in order to keep an inaccurate ideology alive. In some circles, they call that delusional.
Really? So Syria is going to open up its doors to international investors and operators (currently France, Turkey, Britain, U.S.) to allow ownership of the pipelines from Nothern Iraq and Southern Iraq to Turkey and Israel to be fed on the global market in U.S. dollars? And to compete directly with Iran and Qatar? That's news to me.
Why would they and what makes you think whomever replaces Assad will allow it? The problem here is that 2/3rds of the groups who will likely compete to replace Assad will not allow the qatar to turkey pipeline either. They either dislike the selling of the middle east resources to the west or the west entirely for their infidel ways. The goal of the pipeline in question is to join up with the Nabucco pipeline which can be done by routing through Saudi Arabia and skipping over Syria altogether. To date, Saudi has also refused to allow the pipeline also but you see no civil war there or call for military involvement.
The reason we're talking about a "red line" is to drum up support for the populace. It's the same reason it's now referred to as a minor military intervention. Whatever the press can do to make you swallow that big fucking horse pill.
The reason we are talking about a red line now is because we had an amateur president making a statement attempting to act big and mighty who is now trying to weasel out of it. If Obama wanted to act, he would have done so already. Looking at his recent acts as president, he takes the it's easier to ask forgiveness then permission route so what makes this anything different if he wanted to do it. Reagan found a national security interest in Libya's support of the terrorist who bombed Pan Am flight 103 and took direct action then informed congress. George Bush Sr. found national security interests in keeping the panama canal open to national trade and military maneuvering and took action in panama before contacting congress. Obama can make a claim of national security interest (especially if it is about a natural gas pipeline supplying our bases in Europe) and act without congress approving it. He has refused to defend laws passed by congress when they go to court, he has through executive order refused to enforce laws passed by congress, he has refused to prosecute violators of certain laws, he- or people under him, have used the IRS to intimidate political adversaries as well as gather information to funnel to political allies, why all the sudden is he wanting to give congress the opportunity of shutting his plans down if it really is what you say? Why is it that people in government other then Obama who is the commander in chief are claiming they can't support the president's military intervention because it will be completely ineffective and not accomplish anything significant? Those people might be of the design you mention, but the red line conversation is all about an amateur in the white house sticking a foot in his mouth.
I like my conspiracies a little more colorful then that. But hey, good try.
The US or people within the US has wanted to enter Syria for a while now. The reason we are contemplating it now is because of the red line. Your pipe line concerns fail because Syria has never shown any intention of stopping them. Had that happened, I would believe your supposition a little more. However, because it hasn't happened, there is nothing to gain by going to war in Syria and more to lose. In the end, whether Syria changes hands or not, the pipeline situation remains the same other then being damaged in the conflicts.
Noble as I used it has little to do with the US going into Syria and more to do with the guys position. Many people are buying the noble rationale but they are still against us going in. They also don't think we deserve terrorist attacks on US assets if we do go in. I think at this point, the entire president's urgency to enter Syria is more or less "because it's noble" now that he is trying to distance himself from his ultimatum with the red line and changing his calculus.
As for selling Iraq weapons. It should be noted that we didn't sell Iraq weapons, they preferred Russian weapons over the US. We did however supply them with materials to repair and maintain those weapons and Saudi Arabia did transfer US made arms to them. The US did cheer and the US did turn a blind eye when they were used against the Iranians. We even turned a blind eye when the Kurds in norther Iraq were gassed in 98 (IIRC).
But I didn't say the US's Goals were noble, just the concept of removing the capacity to kill civilians large scale was. That no one in their right mind would logically think doing so meant they deserved to be attacked by terrorists without being a troll. The Russians actually think it was one of the rebel groups behind the chemical weapons attack and have tendered a 100 page report to the UN supporting this claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to many people enjoy B movies anymore.
Well, I'm discounting those who think a Porno is a B movie so don't chime in about how Alice's wonderland or long dong silver is a all time fav.
There is a balancing point where people cannot afford to purchase which means companies don't sell and don't stay in business. Protecting these companies sort of prolongs it but eventually, there will be a natural reset where people find creative ways to do without. Once the companies close or limit their production, then competition from those creative people will start and it resumed Ad infinitum.
There will be hiccups and so on along the path. There might even be a revolt and the entire system crashed along the way too. But I think succeeding itself to death is defeated by the ability to continue operation along the current path. Companies exist to make money, if no one buys their products or services, they don't exist.
I think the "pretty much always requested" was to assert the times when a warrant isn't needed or required before hand due to the urgency of the matter. The constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and the courts have held that it is reasonable in some situations to search without a warrant as long as a warrant would have been issued had enough time passed.
An example of this kind of search I an into recently was when a girl I know (next door neighbor's daughter) sent a text to her parents sating she was going to end it all and take her kids with her. The cops were able to get her location information as well as access to her texts sent and received for the past few days at 3 am without a warrant.
Turns out "end it all" didn't mean killing herself and the kids but leaving her abusive husband forever and taking with the kids with her. She sent the text to her mom instead of her sister who was going to take her in- causing a very big scene.
Yes, I did misunderstand you.
Not enforce but retain or keep it.
It doesn't matter who or what gave the rights to who. Sovereignty means you the sovereign (as in the country) gets to decide. They even have a right to take from other countries if they can or until someone takes their sovereignty from them. That's what is means to be sovereign- you decide for yourself and unless someone takes your sovereignty or parts of it away or you surrender it or parts of it, you get to decide at will.
It would be as immoral as taking their car or home from them.. Some cases you can justify that to the effect it wouldn't be immoral at all. Most cases, you cannot.
Arbitrary is the point. They are a sovereign nation and decide for themselves however they want and when they decide they need to. No one can impose something on them unless they agree to it or we force them to follow our will. If they decide wrong (as in something we disagree with), we either need to convince them it is wrong and they need to surrender that part of sovereignty (sign a treaty) or we need to take it (presumably by force) from them.
You will find that the majority of decision makers around the world, whether in buisiness or government, will not care as much about this in the long run as you do.
In other words, what you say should be true in book form but will not be true in practice. Many people/governments will not even bother looking to see who is behind what, they will be looking to see if it is an industry accepted standard and our personal concerns will rarely change those. If it could, we wouldn't see wireless at half these businesses.
I don't think fossil fuel interest had anything to do with it. It is a civil war and should be determined by the people of the country not the UN. Quite a few people of Syria support Assad or fear what would replace him too much to support the rebels.
If the same thing happened in the US or Russia or England or anywhere, would you like the UN stepping in and removing a government from power so the ultra conservatives could take over? replace ultra conservatives with any political bend you want. The point is, it's up to the people to decide, not the UN.
Exactly this.
Smart bombs from 40000ft targeting specific enemies - brave, noble pilots.
Suicide bombing innocent civilians attempting to influence a government or government policy- evil and cowardly terrrrists.
There, FIFY.
look up the term "sovereignty".
NO sovereign state (read country here) is under the rule of any other state unless it either first agrees to give up some or all sovereignty or it is taken from them (presumably by force). Until any of those happen, any country has the right to do anything it damn well pleases, including owning and possessing chemical or biological weapons.
Most developed countries have Sarin or the capabilities to create it at a moments notice. This is generally kept as a defensive measure that will only be used should another country attack and use it.
You do realize the republicans supported Clinton bombing Iraq and that we had troops and expenditures specifically allocated to Iraq before we went to war with them right?
What I'm getting at is that Iraq is/was in an entirely different league then Syria and they should not ever be compared for political purposes because they are so vastly different. What one group said for Iraq is completely irrelevant to Syria. It's like saying those it was funny watching them make up reasons why they didn't want to eat egg rolls at a greasy gas station along the highway when they ate them and sushi at Chang's last year.
The US is invested only because Obama put his foot in his mouth and needs to save credibility. Before that, people wanted to enter Syria (the government and country as a whole cared less about it) for a number of reasons with some dating back to the cold war years and wanting democracy over dictators. Some actually want the Muslim brother hood in power (see our reaction to Egypt).
Again, here is why your oil fails. Nothing will be different if Assad is removed from power with respect to oil or pipelines. In fact, the one pipeline that Syria has refused to allow from Qatar, was originally supposed to go through Saudi Arabia first, but the refused to allow it so Syria was the second option. Saudi, btw, is one of if not the largest supporters of the Syrian rebels. So you are having us to believe that a pipeline that could go through a friendly county is the reason why that friendly country is supporting a rebellion in another country in which the pipeline could also go and that those rebels who are mostly unfriendly to the US will somehow allow the US or the friendly county to control the pipeline and other oil interest.
Do you realize how convoluted and insane that sounds when you go through the motions?
So what separates you from the idiots out there that couldn't look into the details enough to understand a thought properly is the term Evil? I'm sorry I associated it with you then. I guess I might be one of those elitists you were talking about.
You are either stupid or being spoon fed by idiots. Not one thing I mentions is as you say. Open you eyes and ears.
And what is really delusional is you thinking I justified or attempted to justify war at all in what I posted. I said that Obama would try to get out of it and he got himself caught up with his mouth writing checks his ass didn't want to cash because he is an amateur. Think of him as the god catcher acting as governor. The only reason war is seriously on the US radar is because Obama tried to look tough and got called out. Kerry is even in Europe saying our waring response will be "unbelievably small" trying to convince people it will not be a war at all.
You have to understand the mentality of these people. Someone does something bad and the public cries there should be a law about that. Well, most of the time there already was a law but they jump up and create a law that does a whole lot of things but stop whatever people were outraged about and they title the law as "the law to stop outrageous behavior" and say they did something. It is all about appearances and emotion with them. It is all stage one thinking with little deep or long term thought into long term consequences.
You do not know if he has done more for his country then me or how much. That exist only in your head along with your visions of me protesting dead soldiers.
If you can sit there and admire someone who thinks terrorist killing innocent civilians and government officials at the direction of enemy countries and think that is not a troll, then you are as screwed up (if not more) as he is. I already know you are a troll, so i guess it isn't a stretch to see a troll attempt to defend another troll.
Now listen to me carefully, I will not ever apologize to anyone who thinks terrorist killing civilians at the behest of foreign enemies is somehow deserving.
No, the iraq wmd story was a democtat stumping point just a few years before bush wad even elected. Being wrong doesn't make something a lie. Ignoring all the democrats who just years before iraq war who said wmds were or were likely to be in iraq in order to keep some ideology alive is.
Go troll somewhere else. I explained from the start why I claimed he was a troll. Do you think if someone said that family of five got what they deserved when a drunk driver struck their minivan and killed them all because the driver didn't have a valid drivers license would be a troll? Well, it would be a troll just like the op we are discussing is one. People who have no way of changing US policy or power to stop military action in Syria will be killed, maimed, or injured if there is a terrorist attack directed by an enemy country on our facilities. Anyone claiming to be a US service member stating they deserve it is a troll. They are either confused, trolling, or a member of an enemy's armed services.
Anyone who says their country (any country they are citizens of, not just the US) deserves to have innocent civilians and outlying government officials attacked by terrorist at the direction of an enemy country is not a patriot. It is just that simple- If a German citizen said it about Germany, if a Syrian said it about Syria, it wouldn't make a difference. They can disagree with policy, they can disagree with actions, they can disagree because they want to be a dipshit, and still be patriotic. they can do all that and not be a troll. Learn the difference and stop trolling people.
Sigh.
don't get your panties in a knot just because I made a joke with your religion in it.
I thought it was "what does this button do?"
As usual, you ignore the parts except what you want to make issue with.
I will not offer an apology to anyone claiming to be a service member who thinks it is deserving if their their own country is attacked by terrorist funded by a long standing enemy country.
As for what he has done for his country, I do not know that he has done anything or whatever it was is anything more then I have done or less then I have done. I certainly have never advocated a terrorist attack funded by an enemy country on my own country. I think that one there might ensure my lack of doing something might just trump anything he has done.
Like I said, confused, trolling, or a member of the enemies armed services. I know from past experiences what you suffer from.
Well, we knew it was only a matter of time with all the global warming happening on the other planets too. Maybe we can plant some trees in space or something?
The problem is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The bigger problem is that if the government can make an accusation against someone- behind their back to boot- and that is all that is needed to make any further interaction with them illegal, then it violates the entire spirit of the justice system and principles of freedom as we used to know it. I know the justice system might be more appropriately considered the Just Us system, but at least in a romantic spirit, it is supposed to protect people from crap like that.
Imagine a world where your business can be completely stopped and you jailed simply because the competition has a friend in law enforcement who warns you that your customers are doing things illegal with your product or services. Someone can say what I do with your products or services is illegal all day long. It shouldn't be until you know by witnessing my actions or my confidence in telling you about the illegal activities that you become legally liable for my actions.
As for building fake walls, there has been legitimate reasons for concealing rooms and entrances for hundreds of years if not more. One reason is to hide yourself or valuables from criminals. Another is to physically separate areas from others to conceal escape routes and so on for legitimate purposes (again criminals and or mob mentality). I used to have a couch that had a safe built into the arm rest on each end but was concealed in a way to look like a normal couch. I later found it was a normal thing back in the early 1900's and earlier on the higher end furniture.
No one said anything was right or made right because of it. I asked why one set of dead people are more important then another set of dead people in the same geographical region. You seem to answer that with how their lives were cut short makes a difference to you rather then they were cut short.
Killing civilians is banned too.
It is interesting to me to find that the method of killing is more important to some people then the killing itself. Use something that is or has been banned and you get into trouble. Kill but with normal methods and all is fine or at least over looked and ignored for the most part. I find that disturbing and asked the question because our leaders seem perfectly fine overlooking genocide in Rwanda and several other places. Most people until the chemical weapons were used said let the brown people kill the brown people (actually, it was a combination of that and Muslims, and bad people verses more bad or evil people but the sentiment was the same, we didn't want to get involved). Some people didn't even care to know that innocent civilians of another country were being killed by warring parties as long as they know if Brittany is on rehab or not or if Miley Cyrus is acting slutty enough to make millions of dollars this year. To me, the sudden attention to the killing is a lot like a used car salesman saying he likes you so he is going to cut you a great deal on this car that was only driven to and from church by a little old lady from Pasadena.
It has nothing to do with a dictatorship. I never said he couldn't make the comments, I said making those comments made him look like a troll which is why someone modded him that way.
You can say anything you want, it doesn't mean others need to like it or support it. Moderating something down or calling a spade a spade is just the same discourse as the original speech. Please do not construe free speech to mean I or anyone else has to accept without ever objecting to what you or anyone says regardless of how repugnant we find it- without the ability to ever discuss what we found repugnant about it. Free speech doesn't work that way. If it did, it wouldn't be free speech, it would be unlimited speech for some and a dictatorship for others which is essentially what you just argued against while acting the role.
Once you relax and take a deep breath, you will realize that not everything is about evil corporations. You are reading bullshit into bullshit in order to keep an inaccurate ideology alive. In some circles, they call that delusional.
Why would they and what makes you think whomever replaces Assad will allow it? The problem here is that 2/3rds of the groups who will likely compete to replace Assad will not allow the qatar to turkey pipeline either. They either dislike the selling of the middle east resources to the west or the west entirely for their infidel ways. The goal of the pipeline in question is to join up with the Nabucco pipeline which can be done by routing through Saudi Arabia and skipping over Syria altogether. To date, Saudi has also refused to allow the pipeline also but you see no civil war there or call for military involvement.
The reason we are talking about a red line now is because we had an amateur president making a statement attempting to act big and mighty who is now trying to weasel out of it. If Obama wanted to act, he would have done so already. Looking at his recent acts as president, he takes the it's easier to ask forgiveness then permission route so what makes this anything different if he wanted to do it. Reagan found a national security interest in Libya's support of the terrorist who bombed Pan Am flight 103 and took direct action then informed congress. George Bush Sr. found national security interests in keeping the panama canal open to national trade and military maneuvering and took action in panama before contacting congress. Obama can make a claim of national security interest (especially if it is about a natural gas pipeline supplying our bases in Europe) and act without congress approving it. He has refused to defend laws passed by congress when they go to court, he has through executive order refused to enforce laws passed by congress, he has refused to prosecute violators of certain laws, he- or people under him, have used the IRS to intimidate political adversaries as well as gather information to funnel to political allies, why all the sudden is he wanting to give congress the opportunity of shutting his plans down if it really is what you say? Why is it that people in government other then Obama who is the commander in chief are claiming they can't support the president's military intervention because it will be completely ineffective and not accomplish anything significant? Those people might be of the design you mention, but the red line conversation is all about an amateur in the white house sticking a foot in his mouth.
I like my conspiracies a little more colorful then that. But hey, good try.
The US or people within the US has wanted to enter Syria for a while now. The reason we are contemplating it now is because of the red line. Your pipe line concerns fail because Syria has never shown any intention of stopping them. Had that happened, I would believe your supposition a little more. However, because it hasn't happened, there is nothing to gain by going to war in Syria and more to lose. In the end, whether Syria changes hands or not, the pipeline situation remains the same other then being damaged in the conflicts.
Noble as I used it has little to do with the US going into Syria and more to do with the guys position. Many people are buying the noble rationale but they are still against us going in. They also don't think we deserve terrorist attacks on US assets if we do go in. I think at this point, the entire president's urgency to enter Syria is more or less "because it's noble" now that he is trying to distance himself from his ultimatum with the red line and changing his calculus.
As for selling Iraq weapons. It should be noted that we didn't sell Iraq weapons, they preferred Russian weapons over the US. We did however supply them with materials to repair and maintain those weapons and Saudi Arabia did transfer US made arms to them. The US did cheer and the US did turn a blind eye when they were used against the Iranians. We even turned a blind eye when the Kurds in norther Iraq were gassed in 98 (IIRC).
But I didn't say the US's Goals were noble, just the concept of removing the capacity to kill civilians large scale was. That no one in their right mind would logically think doing so meant they deserved to be attacked by terrorists without being a troll. The Russians actually think it was one of the rebel groups behind the chemical weapons attack and have tendered a 100 page report to the UN supporting this claim.