But it's not. It's bombing an airfield where they launched chemical weapons on their own people.https://twitter.com/aurabogado/status/850202341978406912 …
-
-
As of Geneva in 1925, the point against chemical weapons has been clear. A stern talking to wouldn't fix this.
-
According to your argument, other nations should bomb us because the US is violating the Geneva Convention of 1949 in Guantanamo.
-
But that will never happen. We only ever apply consequences for international conventions violations to Muslim-majority nations.
-
I will attest to your point on Guantanamo, but it doesn't revolve around being a Muslim majority nation. It's about military capacity.
-
So the US *should* be bombed, since we're violating international protocol?
-
I can attest that the US should face repercussions for certain actions. If those are military offensives, other countries will hesitate.
-
China has the capacity to bomb the US. Do you agree it should use its troops/technology to do so for our violations of international law?
-
Do you believe they're prepared for the retaliation that comes with it? I don't think these Red Herrings are helping your argument.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.