Porn games, Sex chat

a war is not good but on the other hand we cant stand by and watch chemical weapons being used............sarin is nasty and vile, it would help if we got the entire world to stand up to the Assad regime. but that will never happen. no easy answers and im glad i dont have to make these decisions 

To use chemical weapons ON YOUR OWN PEOPLE, well that's just monstrous.
I don't understand why every nation isn't up in arms about this.

cause when there is a form of power where there is no public election, they think everything is ok to gain controll!


did you hear about north Korea recently!?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10272953/Kim-Jong-uns-ex-lover-executed-by-firing-squad.html

they publicy kill a group of singers cause they appear in a sex tape aaaand, seems like one was the ex girlfriend of the leader ! SCRAP! WE ARE IN 2013, GOD!

There are different sides... one is the unhuman and awful attack of people, own people in this case. Then we also have the civil war for some time.
There is russia and china, stopping each try to force Assad to stop it. United Nations arent talking with one voice.

Now back to my question: Is a war right or wrong, is it justified or is it aggravating the whole situation?

@jayc: Im also glad i dont have to decide...

A war is never justified, Lover......right or wrong, people always die, it never change! Thinking a war is right, just relieve the hearts of soldiers, but it never delete the innocent deaths, the one who usually soffer the most time during a war

Maybe it's a trite thing, but the damn true behind any wars, i think!

Each answer to your question Lover has many solid arguments to support it:
It is right because something needs to be done and protect the innocent popluation from further massacres
It is wrong because many innocent would be killed in 'collateral damage'
It is justified because someone needs to stop the mass killing
It is not because none has the right to claim that what he thinks is the best

In all cases, war is sometimes the ultimate solution. We can only hope it is a short one, with  the least damage possible.

Thanks for all answers so far.
Jondas, i think you hit the nail!

It is right because something needs to be done and protect the innocent popluation from further massacres
It is wrong because many innocent would be killed in 'collateral damage'
It is justified because someone needs to stop the mass killing
It is not because none has the right to claim that what he thinks is the best

indeed, Jondas.....you are absolutely right.....the point of view form outside or inside the whole thing make its meaning change: there is no an absolute true or lye!

HGO  had this idea:

How about a discussion on H7N9 virus?Does anyone believe it was created as part of the new world order?Does anyone think it's a result of the over use of antibiotics?Could be an interesting chat

mmmmm, farmaucetic thing are a sensible subject to talk about.......i prefear to live it out of this place

Infos about H7N9:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H7N9

Personally,  I think you should move on from the past.

When Clinton left the Whitehouse, there were things heard here in the UK that questioned his integrity. I know people should not be tainted by association but it is your Country that she would be running with him in the background.

So, my answer would be no and I don't think she would.

But I am UK and not living under her rule.

Just for the idea of a woman ruling after a coloured man, it would be a sign of nice progress.

But as BB says, she is just another part of the big corrupts machinery, so she would probably not do better than the ones before.

A woman after a coloured man, thats it!

I also am sure, she was the driving factor behind Bill. She would be good, just needs a male trainee