JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Page 1 of 8 126 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 377
  1. #1
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    Code of Conduct

    Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    (Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

    About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97O00E20130825
    Seems like the country has learned a valuable lesson since involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the media has been beating the drums of war in trying to cheer the public on the side involvement ... since after all that equals ratings for them ... not to mention John Kerry seemingly feeling the public out for support ... but Americans are not taking the bait.

    Thoughts?
    Telling it like it is.

  2. #2
    JUB Addict Lostlover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    10,286

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Considering the public was sold on the Iraqi war lies, and since many of the warmongers are still alive (albeit barely), I think all Obama needs is a good marketing machine and he'd have support for this war in a jiffy.
    "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.'' - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

  3. #3
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,253

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    The difference in mood in America within just 10 years is quite staggering, from an outside view.

    In 2003, I saw a hawkish American public ready and supportive for a full-scale war, and a ground invasion, against a nation where a unilateral attack was unwarranted and unneccessary, and which I STILL scratch my head and have no answer to this day for exactly why it was done.

    In 2013, I see a reluctant American public refusing a FAR lesser task involving NO ground troops and at much reduced risk, where the evidence is clear and the atrocity is immediate and fully known, and which simply requires a few precision missile strikes against selected targets.

    I find it SO supremely ironic that 10 years ago I saw France being lambasted and derided by your country, and yet now it is the French that are supportive of military action and playing a role and contributing, their president is pushing for justified action, and America is suddenly the one having to be dragged reluctantly along.

    It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?

  4. #4
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,698

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    The difference in mood in America within just 10 years is quite staggering, from an outside view.

    In 2003, I saw a hawkish American public ready and supportive for a full-scale war, and a ground invasion, against a nation where a unilateral attack was unwarranted and unneccessary, and which I STILL scratch my head and have no answer to this day for exactly why it was done.

    In 2013, I see a reluctant American public refusing a FAR lesser task involving NO ground troops and at much reduced risk, where the evidence is clear and the atrocity is immediate and fully known, and which simply requires a few precision missile strikes against selected targets.

    I find it SO supremely ironic that 10 years ago I saw France being lambasted and derided by your country, and yet now it is the French that are supportive of military action and playing a role and contributing, their president is pushing for justified action, and America is suddenly the one having to be dragged reluctantly along.

    It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?
    Lebanon and Syria used to be a French colony and the French still want influence ?


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  5. #5

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    The difference in mood in America within just 10 years is quite staggering, from an outside view.

    In 2003, I saw a hawkish American public ready and supportive for a full-scale war, and a ground invasion, against a nation where a unilateral attack was unwarranted and unneccessary, and which I STILL scratch my head and have no answer to this day for exactly why it was done.

    In 2013, I see a reluctant American public refusing a FAR lesser task involving NO ground troops and at much reduced risk, where the evidence is clear and the atrocity is immediate and fully known, and which simply requires a few precision missile strikes against selected targets.

    I find it SO supremely ironic that 10 years ago I saw France being lambasted and derided by your country, and yet now it is the French that are supportive of military action and playing a role and contributing, their president is pushing for justified action, and America is suddenly the one having to be dragged reluctantly along.

    It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?
    Another big difference is that Congress was involved in 2002 and 2003 .... in 2013 they evidently will not be involved. Obama will strike without the approval of the US Congress.

  6. #6
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    ^ What a pile of bullshit. There's neither indication or proof that Congress has not been and will not be involved in the authorization of force. What you and the other head in the sand reactionaries don't acknowledge is that the Congress knows full well what is going on through the Committees...the US Congress has been permitted to be let off the hook because since the total fuck-up over Iraq...there's not one politician left in Washington who wants to have their name attached to any new military incursion in another sovereign state where the US has not been directly attacked.

  7. #7
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    11,135

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    The US has no business doing anything militarily with regard to Syria. Period.

    And I've heard nothing about proceedings under the War Powers Resolution.

    A doomed adventure that bodes ill.

  8. #8
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    ^ The only reason would be as a member of NATO if it was obliged under some treaty to get involved on behalf of Turkey. And even then..it would be likely an aircraft carrier to support the French and British.

  9. #9
    JUB Addict darden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jersey City
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,239

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    good

    if the UN or NATO get involved (or even if the Arab League requested our support), I'd have no problem with the US providing ancillary help or humanitarian aid, but I don't think it's our place to spearhead any kind of military action in a conflict where both sides of the war hate us.

  10. #10
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    11,135

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    If we are being consistent we should arm the rebels with chemical weapons.

    Declassified papers reveal that Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran did not cost him US support
    http://america.aljazeera.com/article...nsattacks.html

  11. #11
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    It's like stepping into the twilight zone and everything's opposite. Why the complete turnaround?
    Everything is not "opposite."

    We are being told that the USA has incontrovertible evidence that a Middle Eastern country is using weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is therefore necessary for the USA to attack.

    Sound familiar?

    Barack Obama is George W. Bush, II

  12. #12
    Know thyself kallipolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,529

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Cyprus Mail article is reporting official reports that the British air bases on Cyprus report no increase in air traffic...which is official jargon for the exact opposite.

    http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/08/27/cy...-syria-action/

    A couple of readers' comments that follow the article:

    Robert, I know several people working in Akrotiri, all 3 said there had been 'significant' increase in traffic and activity levels in the last 2 days, if Akrotiri is not going to play a part in this, what on earth is it there for? Is it just a R & R camp for the WAGS of the RAF? So, who, exactly do you believe?

    Exactly Robert. I have friends in israel who were able to tell me today their news reported American military planes at Akrotiri today

  13. #13
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Everything is not "opposite."

    We are being told that the USA has incontrovertible evidence that a Middle Eastern country is using weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is therefore necessary for the USA to attack.

    Sound familiar?

    Barack Obama is George W. Bush, II
    That's what I was thinking last night as I heard Kerry on the tube.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  14. #14
    JUB Addict darden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jersey City
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,239

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    sounds like they're strongly considering a day or two's worth of bombings.

    feels like a terrible idea to get directly involved, even from afar, without UN cover. one civilian casualty and we'll just further inflame our enemies,

  15. #15

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    ^ The only reason would be as a member of NATO if it was obliged under some treaty to get involved on behalf of Turkey. And even then..it would be likely an aircraft carrier to support the French and British.
    Carrying water for Obama is a tough job. You have to leave your common sense and intellect at the door and blindly follow.

  16. #16
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    True that. Totally unlike the blind history revisionism that it takes to support Bush.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  17. #17
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Carrying water for Obama is a tough job. You have to leave your common sense and intellect at the door and blindly follow.
    You don't understand the US role in NATO at all, do you?

  18. #18
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    11,135

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    It appears that France is all-in with this frolic.

    (French President) Hollande spoke with President Barack Obama on Sunday and told him France, like Britain, would support him in a targeted military intervention, according to the paper.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3823398.html

    But then ....

    The U.S. commander of the first Gulf War ‘Storming’ Norman Schwarzkopf jibed that ‘going to war without the French is like going duck shooting without an accordion’.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz2dBtoRZBi

  19. #19
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Once again...it is up to the Arab League countries to get their own regional act together. If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States can remain silent about this and sit and do nothing....then does everyone not realize that the Western nations are being set up once again to fail?
    You'd think that after 100 years of this, that England, France and the US would have figured it out.

  20. #20
    JUB Addict darden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jersey City
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,239

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    if nothing else, for as much heat as I give Obama, shit like this makes me extra glad McCain lost.

    we'd have a hundred thousand troops liberating Damascus right now and trying to convert them to democracy if President McCain were in the White House.

  21. #21
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,690

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    If the Arab League is that outraged,make them take up arms themselves.
    Enough is enough with trying to save everyone.

  22. #22
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Judging from the news coverage this afternoon, It not really if but when, the wheels are already in motion.

    Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

    Looks like they aren't even going to bother reaching for the UN fig leaf. Its the 'international coalition' route with the UK, France and Turkey.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  23. #23

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    This is an amazing part of the observations I've been making over the last few years, in that I have been struck by the similarities between the 1930's and today, and the responses by the Presidents in power.
    FDR's failures to revitalize the crippled economy of the time, his unconstitutional over-reach, his articulation of leftist values and programs would have marked him as a major Presidential failure, but for the involvement of the USA in World War II. The war is what actually got us out of the depression, but somehow, Roosevelt's status was elevated.
    Unlike WW II, no American interests would be served by engaging in hostilities with Syria, but I fear Obama will nonetheless be true to his mediocrity and his ideological lack of insight, and involve us in what might turn out to be the commencement of WW III.
    Syria is strictly, at most, a regional issue, but the current indications are that Obama is treating it otherwise.

  24. #24
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,253

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Everything is not "opposite."

    We are being told that the USA has incontrovertible evidence that a Middle Eastern country is using weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is therefore necessary for the USA to attack.

    Sound familiar?

    Barack Obama is George W. Bush, II
    Nope, there are a few very important differences here:

    a) Bush DECIDED as early as 2002 to INVADE Iraq (with American troops on the ground) WHATEVER anyone else said, and had Cheney and Rumsfeld and many others on board who were equally war-hungry, and their arrogance was for all too see. Compare with Obama's administration who have been cautious, light-handed, diplomatic, wary to intervene for the start, and are only VERY reluctantly pursuing this action now, in reaction DIRECTLY to a chemical atrocity perpetrated for all to see.

    b) Iraq was a neutralised and 'de-clawed' country BEFORE the invasion even took place, after years under a no-fly zone, and there was NO provocation or escalation whatsoever by Saddam, at least in 2003 anyway. Compare with Assad who has unleashed every weapon he has on his own people, caused the deaths of untold tens of thousands of men, women, and children since the rebellion began in 2011, and has caused a humanitarian refugee crisis in the whole region.

    c) Bush and his clique of Republican hawks drew up an OCCUPATION plan for Iraq, unleashed 'Shock and Awe', and even had an American-administered occupied command zone in central Baghdad for goodness sake. Compare with Obama's plan which is simply a series of pinpointed missile strikes from ships far off in the Mediterranean, and air bases even more distant, against key targets such as Assad's offensive capability, with the hope that Syrian opposition forces themselves can topple him and take their own country back.

    All of the above is why I'm supportive of Obama's action, and was vehemently against Bush's.

  25. #25
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Bush however did at least take the time to get the fig leaf of involving the UN to give his actions the facade of legitimacy. While some may argue how legitimate that result was, it was at least there. The Administration seems to have decided not to even try for that legitimacy. The NYT article I posted in the other thread points out the problem with that.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  26. #26
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,698

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    Once again...it is up to the Arab League countries to get their own regional act together. If Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States can remain silent about this and sit and do nothing....then does everyone not realize that the Western nations are being set up once again to fail?
    You'd think that after 100 years of this, that England, France and the US would have figured it out.
    Yes where are the arabs.


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  27. #27

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Saudi Arabia is actually a major player in getting diplomatic cooperation behind the ouster of Assad, and has been lobbying the major capitals including Washington, D.C.

  28. #28
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    A little more on the legality question:

    US, allies going beyond UN to justify Syria action

    It seems Kosovo is the model, which the NYT article called the 'legitimate but illegal' war. What I find interesting and likely a good idea is that it also seems to be the recognition of the principle of 'responsibility to protect' innocents and civilians in war zones. That responsibility is not enshrined in international law but introduces some much needed morality into the international circles. But there is also a second edge to that sword for if we fully embrace it how do we justify NOT being the world's policeman and continuing to ignore not just WMD use but genocide and all the other major ills of the world? An interesting question that I am not sure how to answer.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  29. #29
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,253

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Bush however did at least take the time to get the fig leaf of involving the UN to give his actions the facade of legitimacy. While some may argue how legitimate that result was, it was at least there.
    Bush actually never wanted to bother with the UN route, and couldn't care less about it - it was only Tony Blair's desperate pleadings to Bush that reluctantly persuaded him to go and try, because Blair, at least, was savvy enough to know how awful it would look to the British public in the U.K. if the UN weren't involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    The Administration seems to have decided not to even try for that legitimacy.
    But we all know exactly why - because Russia will NEVER authorise it in the Security Council. Are we to be forever beholden to Vladimir Putin's style of authoritarian homophobic quasi-Soviet principles as the grand arbiter of human rights for the world? This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread about the farce of allowing Russia and China to hold all the power when it comes to deciding worldwide humanitarian affairs. It's just ridiculous.

  30. #30

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    Nope, there are a few very important differences here:

    a) Bush DECIDED as early as 2002 to INVADE Iraq (with American troops on the ground) WHATEVER anyone else said, and had Cheney and Rumsfeld and many others on board who were equally war-hungry, and their arrogance was for all too see. Compare with Obama's administration who have been cautious, light-handed, diplomatic, wary to intervene for the start, and are only VERY reluctantly pursuing this action now, in reaction DIRECTLY to a chemical atrocity perpetrated for all to see.

    b) Iraq was a neutralised and 'de-clawed' country BEFORE the invasion even took place, after years under a no-fly zone, and there was NO provocation or escalation whatsoever by Saddam, at least in 2003 anyway. Compare with Assad who has unleashed every weapon he has on his own people, caused the deaths of untold tens of thousands of men, women, and children since the rebellion began in 2011, and has caused a humanitarian refugee crisis in the whole region.

    c) Bush and his clique of Republican hawks drew up an OCCUPATION plan for Iraq, unleashed 'Shock and Awe', and even had an American-administered occupied command zone in central Baghdad for goodness sake. Compare with Obama's plan which is simply a series of pinpointed missile strikes from ships far off in the Mediterranean, and air bases even more distant, against key targets such as Assad's offensive capability, with the hope that Syrian opposition forces themselves can topple him and take their own country back.

    All of the above is why I'm supportive of Obama's action, and was vehemently against Bush's.
    Carney said today that regime change was not the purpose of any actions. He said Obama merely wants to make a political statement that you can't use chemical weapons on your own citizens.

    The trouble is we don't have any visible knowledge that the chemical warfare were used by Assad. If Obama and you feel so strong about that -- why wasn't something done last year after the Obama's infamous 'red line' was crossed by Assad?

    Also, a major problem in your thinking is that both Biden and Obama were very adamant that the POTUS did not have the power to do what Obama now says he is going to do. I'd call that hypocritical on both Biden and Obama.

    Bush also went to Congress -- Obama evidently has no intention.

    Your justification sounds like you dislike Bush for being prepared and compliment Obama for not having a plan.

  31. #31

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick4444 View Post
    This is an amazing part of the observations I've been making over the last few years, in that I have been struck by the similarities between the 1930's and today, and the responses by the Presidents in power.
    FDR's failures to revitalize the crippled economy of the time, his unconstitutional over-reach, his articulation of leftist values and programs would have marked him as a major Presidential failure, but for the involvement of the USA in World War II. The war is what actually got us out of the depression, but somehow, Roosevelt's status was elevated.
    Unlike WW II, no American interests would be served by engaging in hostilities with Syria, but I fear Obama will nonetheless be true to his mediocrity and his ideological lack of insight, and involve us in what might turn out to be the commencement of WW III.
    Syria is strictly, at most, a regional issue, but the current indications are that Obama is treating it otherwise.
    I remember my grandparents talking about how the Depression would not end and how Roosevelt drew the US into war as a solution.

  32. #32
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    I remember my grandparents talking about how the Depression would not end and how Roosevelt drew the US into war as a solution.
    Yes. FDR forced the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor.

  33. #33
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    If the Arab League is that outraged,make them take up arms themselves.
    Enough is enough with trying to save everyone.
    Obama should have Kerry drop a memo to all those Arab countries we sell planes to and point out they're not there just to look pretty.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  34. #34
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,834
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Carney said today that regime change was not the purpose of any actions.

    Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 8/27/2013 (The White House)

    Q And as the President weighs his options, does he want to take out Assad? And would his death be a welcomed outcome at this White House?

    MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the question. I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

    We are also very much engaged in an effort to support the opposition in its struggle with the Assad regime as the Assad regime continues to try to massacre its own people in an effort to maintain power. And it is our firm conviction that Syria’s future cannot include Assad in power.

    But this deliberation and the actions that we are contemplating are not about regime change. We believe, as I said earlier in answer to Mark’s question, that resolution of this conflict has to come through political negotiation and settlement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    [Press Secretary Jay Carney] said Obama merely wants to make a political statement that you can't use chemical weapons on your own citizens.
    I don’t see that in the transcript.

    We are very engaged in the process of pursuing a political resolution to this conflict.

    We have stated for a long time that there is no military solution available here; that the way to bring about a better future in Syria is through negotiation and a political resolution.

    We believe, as I said earlier in answer to Mark’s question, that resolution of this conflict has to come through political negotiation and settlement.

    We also maintain a policy with regards to the conflict which has us providing significant support to the opposition, significant humanitarian support to the Syrian people that is designed to help bring about a transition in Syria, a political transition, that will allow Syria the future that its people deserve.

    Well, I made clear I think, in answer to other questions, that we completely agree that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, that there has to be a political transition.

    And our policy of support -- as I said multiple times today and yesterday, it is our view that the conflict, the ongoing conflict in Syria has to be resolved through a political transition.

    Ultimately, though, there has to be a political process that creates the transition necessary for Syria’s future.

  35. #35
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Yes. FDR forced the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor.
    There are a few conspiracy theorists who believe exactly that, that he intentionally applied sanctions against Japan that would provoke a response. They think that Pearl Harbor was a sacrifice (of largely old battleships as the carriers were 'conveniently' out to sea) to overcome the people's reluctance for war or that he believed that that attack would come closer to Japan and the Pacific Fleet would be intact.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  36. #36
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    Nope, there are a few very important differences here:

    a) Bush DECIDED as early as 2002 to INVADE Iraq (with American troops on the ground) WHATEVER anyone else said, and had Cheney and Rumsfeld and many others on board who were equally war-hungry, and their arrogance was for all too see. Compare with Obama's administration who have been cautious, light-handed, diplomatic, wary to intervene for the start, and are only VERY reluctantly pursuing this action now, in reaction DIRECTLY to a chemical atrocity perpetrated for all to see.

    b) Iraq was a neutralised and 'de-clawed' country BEFORE the invasion even took place, after years under a no-fly zone, and there was NO provocation or escalation whatsoever by Saddam, at least in 2003 anyway. Compare with Assad who has unleashed every weapon he has on his own people, caused the deaths of untold tens of thousands of men, women, and children since the rebellion began in 2011, and has caused a humanitarian refugee crisis in the whole region.

    c) Bush and his clique of Republican hawks drew up an OCCUPATION plan for Iraq, unleashed 'Shock and Awe', and even had an American-administered occupied command zone in central Baghdad for goodness sake. Compare with Obama's plan which is simply a series of pinpointed missile strikes from ships far off in the Mediterranean, and air bases even more distant, against key targets such as Assad's offensive capability, with the hope that Syrian opposition forces themselves can topple him and take their own country back.

    All of the above is why I'm supportive of Obama's action, and was vehemently against Bush's.
    There is no question whatsoever but that GWB intended to invade Iraq from the moment of his appointment to the presidency by the Supreme Court of the United States. He fabricated evidence to justify such an invasion, and would have proceeded with such action regardless of what the UN or the US Congress decided.

    Obama certainly did not intend the invasion of Syria when he was elected in 2008.

    However, the Obama administration's Syria policy is closely modeled after GWB's Iraq policy. Obama is a great admirer of GWB and has tried to emulate the latter's domestic and foreign policy, to the extent he has been able.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Bush however did at least take the time to get the fig leaf of involving the UN to give his actions the facade of legitimacy. While some may argue how legitimate that result was, it was at least there. The Administration seems to have decided not to even try for that legitimacy. The NYT article I posted in the other thread points out the problem with that.
    Meaningless gesture.

    The GWB administration lied about everything it presented to the U.N. There is no way the U.N. could have made an informed decision, based on the disinformation being made available to them.

    That's probably not an option for the Obama administration. Obama seems to want to maintain at least the illusion of honesty in his administration. And, post-Bush, there is no way the U.N. will ever again accept anything the USA states as fact, in any case.

  37. #37
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    There are a few conspiracy theorists who believe exactly that, that he intentionally applied sanctions against Japan that would provoke a response. They think that Pearl Harbor was a sacrifice (of largely old battleships as the carriers were 'conveniently' out to sea) to overcome the people's reluctance for war or that he believed that that attack would come closer to Japan and the Pacific Fleet would be intact.
    I am well aware of the conspiracy theories.

    There are also people who believe that extra-terrestrial UFOs attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not the Japanese.

  38. #38
    JUB Addict Lostlover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    10,286

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    I love countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and other European countries that are as quiet as a church mouse on these matters. If something goes wrong, while the US, UK, France and Turkey attempt to degrade Assad's ability to kill his own people, you can bet that these people from these silent countries will have an opinion.

    Canada where are you?

    Australia?

    Germany?

    Is anyone there?

    I wish Obama would dare these silent countries into taking a stance. Obama always says that Syria is acting outside the norms of the international community. I say that one can't sit idly by as a dictator uses chemical weapons and not make a peep as others, reluctantly, put together plans to cripple this dictator.

    Oh how nice it is to be living in one of these silent countries.

    Heads, you win by keeping out of it.

    Tails, you win if Assad is toppled, because you'll ride the UK's and France's coattails.
    Last edited by Lostlover; August 27th, 2013 at 08:23 PM.
    "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.'' - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

  39. #39
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Bush also went to Congress -- Obama evidently has no intention.
    I can't imagine any point in Obama going to Congress about anything.

    Tom Coburn and Kent Bentivolio want to impeach Obama for being elected to a second term. The House wants to shut down the government because it looks like a few more Americans might be able to buy health insurance. And John Boehner says he wants the House to repeal bills, not pass them. This Congress has been the least productive in all of American history. That's not hyperbole. It is on track to pass fewer bills than any Congress in history.

    If Obama proposed a resolution to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject it. If Obama proposed a resolution not to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject that, too.

    Under such circumstances, the president's best option is to avoid the Congress entirely.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; August 27th, 2013 at 08:46 PM.

  40. #40
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    I can't imagine any point in Obama going to Congress about anything.

    Tom Coburn and Kent Bentivolio want to impeach Obama for being elected to a second term. The House wants to shut down the government because it looks like a few more Americans might be able to buy health insurance. And John Boehner says he wants the House to repeal bills, not pass them.

    If Obama proposed a resolution to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject it. If Obama propose a resolution not to invade Syria to the House, the Republicans would reject that, too.

    Under such circumstances, the president's best option is to avoid the Congress entirely.
    So if you can't get your way you should just chuck that whole democracy and balance of powers thing? (chuckles)

    Don't need the UN, they won't cooperate with us anyway. Don't need Congress and a declaration of war, they won't cooperate with us anyway. Shaky legal grounds, questions about the intelligence and evidence. Gee this is sounding so familiar somehow. (laughs)
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  41. #41
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    So if you can't get your way you should just chuck that whole democracy and balance of powers thing? (chuckles)
    It's not a question of Obama not getting his way.

    It's a question of no one getting any way whatsoever.

    This is not about Obama. It's about the most dysfunctional Congress in the last 237 years. Obama would get a rejection no matter what he proposed.

    I think the best Obama could do would be to ask Congress to pass a resolution not to invade Syria. When the House rejects that, he could announce that that must mean Congress wants an invasion, and then proceed on that basis.

    But such shenanigans are no way to govern, and they do not fit Obama's style.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; August 27th, 2013 at 09:13 PM.

  42. #42
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,696
    Blog Entries
    16

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    the public opposes it and its risky. build a consensus, dont rush to war.


  43. #43
    Know thyself kallipolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,529

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    The Iran factor should not be excluded from the justification for the anticipated air campaign against Assad's military assets.

    This article offers another perspective why the United States Government feels compelled to take military action:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-7985012.html

  44. #44
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    24,238

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    The Arab League was founded in Cairo in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan from 1946), and Yemen (North Yemen, later combined Yemen). There was a continual increase in membership during the second half of the 20th century, with additional 15 Arab states and 4 observers being admitted.
    By Thursday or more likely Friday, there will be more support by the american people through our ever democratic 'polling' process.

    There will be no war, just the US doing what we have done since manifest destiny. Many of the communication, command and control and missile launch systems will be eliminated. Those that wish the entire region to be ignited into war by the Arab league doing all the work themselves are the ones wishing for World War III. No one else has the capability to surgically strike primarily the exact desired targets.

    I wonder the French role, based on their recent activity in northern Africa 'Stormin' Norman doesn't have a fucking clue. I guess there is a reason he is retired. Still I don't know how accurate Exocet Missiles are in land attack roles. It is a fairly capable missile but does it hit within 1.5 feet of the target like the Tomahawk???

    So standby for Congressional support, media backing and American polling turnaround. World War III it will not be in any way shape or form. This shit will be done before Monday rush hour.

    Cheers.....
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  45. #45
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,103
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    It will not be World War III but the ramifications of what is left standing and how those who certainly aren't friends of America or the West may react may lurch the region ever closer to chaos. If Obama had led decisively early on al-Qaeda and their Islamist allies would never had filled the vacuum and less radical elements pushing regime change in Syria might have emerged victorious. Obama waited for everyone's approval, he made a couple of reckless lines in the sand declarations that he pulled back on. Iran will just get more determined to foil us... the Russians will as well. What are we exactly doing there now in these limited but damaging cruise missile strikes that's really going to accomplish something positive? I DON'T support this... we've made more than enough terrible mistakes in that area we don't have to go on making more horrible ones. Iraq had a purpose at least, even if it was a fraudulent one.... but in the end just WHAT will come out of an attack in these installations? Yes the usage by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons in even more brazen fashion is an outrage but it's too damn late now to just" do something" about it. At best the damage that's going on in Syria is at least contained.... we do this what the hell are we going to face blowing the mess wide open?
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  46. #46
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Lostlover View Post
    I love countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and other European countries that are as quiet as a church mouse on these matters. If something goes wrong, while the US, UK, France and Turkey attempt to degrade Assad's ability to kill his own people, you can bet that these people from these silent countries will have an opinion.

    Canada where are you?

    Australia?

    Germany?

    Is anyone there?

    I wish Obama would dare these silent countries into taking a stance. Obama always says that Syria is acting outside the norms of the international community. I say that one can't sit idly by as a dictator uses chemical weapons and not make a peep as others, reluctantly, put together plans to cripple this dictator.

    Oh how nice it is to be living in one of these silent countries.

    Heads, you win by keeping out of it.

    Tails, you win if Assad is toppled, because you'll ride the UK's and France's coattails.
    Oh get the fuck over it.

    Obama called Harper yesterday. Like Afghanistan, and Libya btw, if circumstances justify military action...we'll be there. Just because we didn't follow blindly into the US war of adventure in Iraq doesn't mean that we will be hiding above the 49th parallel. And the other NATO nations will also undoubtedly be there. But why aren't you asking about Israel? Or Jordan? Or Turkey? Or Iraq? Why aren't they all lined up in your sights?

    Why do you think that the Western Empires are bidden to clean up every mess in the world?

  47. #47

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Only 9% of American think we should attack Syria.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97O00E20130825

  48. #48
    JUB Addict vulgar_newcomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    2,801

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    2-1/2 yrs of civil war and over 100,000 dead, over 7,000 the last month. Hundreds of thousands are refugees and homeless.
    President Obama said chemical weapons were a deciding factor if used and proven. They are awful I agree but wtf, being shot or blown apart is no walk in the park for the previous 93,000 killed as of June. Its hideous and torture. Makes no sense to me. Its already proven that mass killing has been going on rather your limbs are torn from socket or you are gassed.
    So far no other country has been eager to jump in. Too bad for Syrian people there is no oil.

  49. #49
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    Quote Originally Posted by kallipolis View Post
    The Iran factor should not be excluded from the justification for the anticipated air campaign against Assad's military assets.

    This article offers another perspective why the United States Government feels compelled to take military action:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...y-7985012.html
    This should be the article everyone should read.

    It is spot on.

    There's more hypocrisy around the world over this contretemps in Syria than a strong stomach can handle.

  50. #50
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    11,135

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

    A provocative analysis of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, who had access to such weapons, and who would most benefit from their use.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/char...b_3443185.html

    In short, Assad had little to gain from their use. The rebels have everything to gain from their use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.