JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1237 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 377
  1. #51
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,784

    Code of Conduct

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

    The history of US interventions on behalf of oppressed peoples has not been a good one.

    However well-intentioned , these have historically failed to achieve their stated goals, and have quite frequently had unanticipated negative consequences.

    It seems it is hard to bring peace to a region by blowing things up.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...4a1_story.html

  2. #52
    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
    10,981

    Code of Conduct

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

    This whole interventionist adventure has overtones of the white man's burden to it, only this time it is imposition of some unidentified behavior rather than Christianity or a capitalist economic model.

  3. #53

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

    Another Robert Fisk article ...

    "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-8786680.html

    ... so is the US now pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Al Qaida. Thank you Mr. Obama.

  4. #54
    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
    103,500
    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 Stardreamer View Post
    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)
    I'd say the point is that with the current Congress, there's no point in even having a way, let alone getting it, because so long as the president is a black Democrat, the Tea Partites and company are going to oppose anything he proposes (and lie about why they did).

    "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

  5. #55
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,784

    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
    Another Robert Fisk article ...

    "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-8786680.html

    ... so is the US now pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Al Qaida. Thank you Mr. Obama.


    Not true.

    The USA attacked Iraq under GWB, placing it on the same side in the struggle as Al-Qaeda.

  6. #56
    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
    103,500
    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 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
    He fails to make a compelling link to Iran.

    "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

  7. #57
    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
    103,500
    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 rareboy View Post
    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.
    That's true -- he makes the point quite well that when Western governments are killing Arabs, there is screaming and wailing, but when Arabs kill Arabs, there's a strong preference to let them all die.

    "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

  8. #58
    Know thyself kallipolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,461

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    He fails to make a compelling link to Iran.
    Bob Fisk would disagree with your conclusion...I'm not well informed enough to offer an opinion.

  9. #59
    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
    103,500
    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 palbert View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Another Robert Fisk article ...

    "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-8786680.html

    ... so is the US now pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Al Qaida. Thank you Mr. Obama.
    Overstated, Jack, but in essence true. And the real irony is, as palbert's post says, it may be that Al Qaeda made the attack so we'd go after the government... and thus help their cause.

    "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

  10. #60
    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
    103,500
    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 kallipolis View Post
    Bob Fisk would disagree with your conclusion...I'm not well informed enough to offer an opinion.
    A strong motive- and circumstantial evidence-case can be made; I'm just saying he doesn't make it compelling (indeed I think he fails to make it as strong as it could be).

    "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

  11. #61
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,211

    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
    Another Robert Fisk article ...

    "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-8786680.html

    ... so is the US now pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Al Qaida. Thank you Mr. Obama.
    Even more stranger than Obama on the same side as Al-Qaeda....

    ....Jack Springer on the same side as the British FAR-LEFT.

    You do know that by endorsing the Independent newspaper and columnists that you're effectively siding with the U.K.'s Stop The War Coalition, the Respect/Unity crowd, and the ultra-pacifists? No?

    It also means that despite me being anti-capitalist, socially liberal, and economically socialist, I find myself being to the RIGHT of Jack Springer on Syria.

    Topsy-turvy world.

  12. #62
    Know thyself kallipolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,461

    Code of Conduct

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

    Nothing new in alliances that unite traditional enemies in their struggle against a common enemy...the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany were allies for a short time in 1940 when both countries invaded, and carved up Poland between them....later developments would reverse that brief alliance.

  13. #63
    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
    10,981

    Code of Conduct

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

    It appears David Cameron's prospects with the Commons will not be a walk in the park.

    Labour Plans To Vote Against David Cameron's Syria Commons Motion
    And a good number of Tories are against action or are sitting on the fence.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...ef=uk-politics

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...regime-british

  14. #64
    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
    10,981

    Code of Conduct

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

    John Boehner has sent a letter, containing 14 questions, to Obama.

    What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?
    Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?
    What result is the Administration seeking from its response?
    What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?
    If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?
    Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?
    If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?
    Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?
    Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?
    Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regime’s weapons stocks?
    Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?
    Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?
    Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?
    Does the Administration intend to submit a supplemental appropriations request to Congress, should the scope and duration of the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning?
    http://www.speaker.gov/press-release....hE4lkL18.dpuf

  15. #65
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,552

    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
    Even more stranger than Obama on the same side as Al-Qaeda....

    ....Jack Springer on the same side as the British FAR-LEFT.

    You do know that by endorsing the Independent newspaper and columnists that you're effectively siding with the U.K.'s Stop The War Coalition, the Respect/Unity crowd, and the ultra-pacifists? No?

    It also means that despite me being anti-capitalist, socially liberal, and economically socialist, I find myself being to the RIGHT of Jack Springer on Syria.

    Topsy-turvy world.
    I know. Ain't it priceless?

  16. #66
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,552

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by palbert View Post
    John Boehner has sent a letter, containing 14 questions, to Obama.



    http://www.speaker.gov/press-release....hE4lkL18.dpuf
    Good questions.

  17. #67
    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
    3,255

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I'd say the point is that with the current Congress, there's no point in even having a way, let alone getting it, because so long as the president is a black Democrat, the Tea Partites and company are going to oppose anything he proposes (and lie about why they did).
    This point I quite understand, and I am actually sympathetic to Obama's position on the issue but I don't seem to remember there being a 'Black Democrat/Tea Party' clause in the Constitution or the War Powers Act concerning the exercise of war powers.

    Now I did hear something today that there was an attempt to link the Syrian Chemical Weapon use to a terrorism threat to use the AUMF that Bush used for Afghanistan and Iraq. Its a bit of an inventive stretch, basically saying that if the Assad regime falls the chemical weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists so therefore we should attack Assad under the guise of Bush's War on Terror. What do you think, does that fly?
    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)

  18. #68
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Overstated, Jack, but in essence true. And the real irony is, as palbert's post says, it may be that Al Qaeda made the attack so we'd go after the government... and thus help their cause.
    When did Al Qaeda obtain russian missile systems?
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  19. #69
    The Journey of a Lifetime Adrock-JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    5,875

    Code of Conduct

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

    This is about nothing more than punishment for the violation of 188 countries signing a "no use of chemical or nuclear weapons" agreement.

    No regime change is sought. No "dog in the fight" either.

    Makes me wonder what they will bomb. Some trees?

    Sends a clear message: If you use these weapons in large scale, we will vaguely bomb some shit. But that's all. I'm sure North Korea is shaking in their boots. Wondering, did the U.S. just say....wait, what did they say?

  20. #70
    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

    I imagine once they have burning communications centers, airfields, missile batteries and command facilities, they will have heard the message rather clearly.
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  21. #71
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    Code of Conduct

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

    I watched John Kerry beat the war drums today, invoking memories of World War 2 and not acting while Hitler committed genocide. I do think it's comical how Kerry was chosen to be the public bad guy to protect Obama from making it look like he is the one lobbying to attack Syria.

    My position is unless there is U.N. support, the U.S. needs to stay out of it and mind their own business. Frankly, I don't blame Britain for not wanting to be involved after being taken on a roller coaster ride the last time the U.S. wanted their support.

    I think reality just sinks in that you can't be the global police. It makes enemies in the world, sets you up for terrorist attacks, and costs you a ton of money which could be used for domestic purposes or paying off our debt as opposed to plunging us further into debt. Why get involved if the U.N. doesn't support it and your own national security interests aren't at stake?
    Telling it like it is.

  22. #72
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,072
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    I imagine once they have burning communications centers, airfields, missile batteries and command facilities, they will have heard the message rather clearly.
    If we are that proficient and effective, we will have acted as al-Qaeda's air force, in effect. You think the secularists will be strong enough to take control of the country, bring stability? Plus now Syria has had, and may well continue to have, a grace period of days to move the stuff most important in the defense of the Assad regime to locales that cruise missiles can't do as much damage. You think the Assad regime, the Iranians, Hezbollah and Russia will just allow their meal ticket to be blown away without finding a way to hit at us somehow?
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  23. #73
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,784

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrock-JD View Post
    This is about nothing more than punishment for the violation of 188 countries signing a "no use of chemical or nuclear weapons" agreement.
    As you have noted, Syria did not sign the agreement on chemical weapons. Technically, it is not illegal under international law for Syria to use chemical weapons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrock-JD View Post
    Makes me wonder what they will bomb. Some trees?

    Sends a clear message: If you use these weapons in large scale, we will vaguely bomb some shit. But that's all. I'm sure North Korea is shaking in their boots. Wondering, did the U.S. just say....wait, what did they say?
    Yes, exactly.

    The American approach to the solution of every problem is to bomb something.

    One can always find something to blow up that will make the perpetrators change. If one of Assad's palaces is flattened, he will surely find religion and become a decent person. We just need to find the right things to blow up. The key to making angels out of devils is the bombing of the correct targets.



    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    I imagine once they have burning communications centers, airfields, missile batteries and command facilities, they will have heard the message rather clearly.
    You mean, the same way Britain capitulated to Hitler because of the flattening of their cities in WW II?

    The same way the Viet Cong capitulated to America because of the carpet bombing of their troops in the field?

    The same way America capitulated to Al-Qaeda because of the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damaging of the Pentagon?

    Blowing up stuff - even lots of important stuff - has an abysmal history when it comes to changing the behavior of people.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; August 31st, 2013 at 04:47 AM.

  24. #74
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrock-JD View Post
    This is about nothing more than punishment for the violation of 188 countries signing a "no use of chemical or nuclear weapons" agreement.

    No regime change is sought. No "dog in the fight" either.

    Makes me wonder what they will bomb. Some trees?

    Sends a clear message: If you use these weapons in large scale, we will vaguely bomb some shit. But that's all. I'm sure North Korea is shaking in their boots. Wondering, did the U.S. just say....wait, what did they say?
    You seem to misread the situation. Regime change is sought, just not by direct military means. There is currently a civil war going on that is pursuing regime change. The US is simply seeking to even the playing field and send the message that it's not ok to gas civilians to try and terrorize people into submission.

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    I watched John Kerry beat the war drums today, invoking memories of World War 2 and not acting while Hitler committed genocide. I do think it's comical how Kerry was chosen to be the public bad guy to protect Obama from making it look like he is the one lobbying to attack Syria.

    My position is unless there is U.N. support, the U.S. needs to stay out of it and mind their own business. Frankly, I don't blame Britain for not wanting to be involved after being taken on a roller coaster ride the last time the U.S. wanted their support.

    I think reality just sinks in that you can't be the global police. It makes enemies in the world, sets you up for terrorist attacks, and costs you a ton of money which could be used for domestic purposes or paying off our debt as opposed to plunging us further into debt. Why get involved if the U.N. doesn't support it and your own national security interests aren't at stake?
    I think that WWII is a perfect line to draw. Conflicts like these don't stay localized to the country they are currently happening in. If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons without consequence, the stage is being set for several things to occur both during and after this civil war - Assad using chemical weapons again, selling/giving chemical weapons to others to use, other parties seeing that there are really no consequences for developing and using chemical weapons, and an expansion of human rights violations due to the lack of punishment for doing such.

    The idea of getting UN support, when you have Russia wielding its veto regardless of the circumstances, would be like waiting for Japan to give the go ahead for the US to attack after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Letting people like Assad do what they will because "it's not our problem" doesn't work and that has been shown throughout history as well. These people were our enemies long before this civil war and will continue to be regardless of our actions now. The decision has to be made on whether the international community will allow things outside of international norms, like the use of chemical weapons, to go on unpunished. If the world wants to turn a blind eye, that's fine, but when someone releases a nerve agent in the middle of London and it's found to have originated in Syria, I hope the US gives them the big middle finger when they come asking for help. The bed is made and they can lay in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sausy View Post
    If we are that proficient and effective, we will have acted as al-Qaeda's air force, in effect. You think the secularists will be strong enough to take control of the country, bring stability? Plus now Syria has had, and may well continue to have, a grace period of days to move the stuff most important in the defense of the Assad regime to locales that cruise missiles can't do as much damage. You think the Assad regime, the Iranians, Hezbollah and Russia will just allow their meal ticket to be blown away without finding a way to hit at us somehow?
    You think they aren't doing all of that right now regardless of how we respond to this? None of these countries have ever really been our friends and they have in the past and will continue to do whatever they can to undermine the US and other western interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    As you have noted, Syria did not sign the agreement on chemical weapons. Technically, it is not illegal under international law for Syria to use chemical weapons.
    While they didn't sign the CWC Treaty, they are a party to the Geneva Protocol (Link which prohibits the use of chemical weapons. There are also other treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, they are also party to. Further, there is the idea of customary international law which doesn't require a country to have to be a signatory on a treaty to be bound by it in situations where certain behaviors are universally accepted as outside of the norm. So, in essence, Syria has broken some law, depending on which one you want to look at.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Yes, exactly.

    The American approach to the solution of every problem is to bomb something.

    One can always find something to blow up that will make the perpetrators change. If one of Assad's palaces is flattened, he will surely find religion and become a decent person. We just need to find the right things to blow up. The key to making angels out of devils is the bombing of the correct targets.
    The point is not to change Assad. The point is to punish. We don't know what would be targeted, so the efficacy of it can't be argued. There have been diplomatic solutions pursued for years now, but thanks to Russia and Assad not wanting anything to change, that has gone nowhere. So at some point, when someone starts gassing their people, someone has to step in and use force to stop the intentional mass killing of civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You mean, the same way Britain capitulated to Hitler because of the flattening of their cities in WW II?

    The same way the Viet Cong capitulated to America because of the carpet bombing of their troops in the field?

    The same way America capitulated to Al-Qaeda because of the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damaging of the Pentagon?

    Blowing up stuff - even lots of important stuff - has an abysmal history when it comes to changing the behavior of people.
    Well I will say that Hitler sure capitulated when we went in with guns and bombs. Al Qaeda sure did take to the caves when we went in to Afghanistan with guns and bombs. There is a place for weaponry and military tactics and they are successful when used appropriately. Attacking Vietnam because we were scared of Communism was stupid. Attacking Iraq because GW wanted to redeem daddy was stupid. Entering WWII was an absolute necessity to, in essence, save the world and an entire population of people. Entering Afghanistan was absolutely necessary to break up al Qaeda, pursue their leaders, and prevent them from growing stronger. Targeting a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons on its own people is necessary to ensure the adherence to the ban on chemical weapons and to protect the human rights of the citizens of Syria who are nothing now but pawns to a dictator who has shown he will do anything to hold on to power.

  25. #75
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,552

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Well I will say that Hitler sure capitulated when we went in with guns and bombs. Al Qaeda sure did take to the caves when we went in to Afghanistan with guns and bombs. There is a place for weaponry and military tactics and they are successful when used appropriately. Attacking Vietnam because we were scared of Communism was stupid. Attacking Iraq because GW wanted to redeem daddy was stupid. Entering WWII was an absolute necessity to, in essence, save the world and an entire population of people. Entering Afghanistan was absolutely necessary to break up al Qaeda, pursue their leaders, and prevent them from growing stronger. Targeting a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons on its own people is necessary to ensure the adherence to the ban on chemical weapons and to protect the human rights of the citizens of Syria who are nothing now but pawns to a dictator who has shown he will do anything to hold on to power.
    Just a reminder. The US couldn't be convinced for love or money to enter WWII until its own interests were directly assaulted. Up until that point....it followed a neutral, isolationist course. By that time...millions of people had been exterminated...so I really wouldn't be using WWII as a good example of America's rush to save humanity.

  26. #76
    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
    10,981

    Code of Conduct

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

    Tigerfan, Can you explain to me why it is bad when others use CW but OK when we or our (then) surrogates use CW?

    Does the US need to send a lesson to itself?

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post9067538

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post9068860

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post9069242

  27. #77
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,072
    Blog Entries
    2

    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
    Just a reminder. The US couldn't be convinced for love or money to enter WWII until its own interests were directly assaulted. Up until that point....it followed a neutral, isolationist course. By that time...millions of people had been exterminated...so I really wouldn't be using WWII as a good example of America's rush to save humanity.
    Nonetheless we did enter... Roosevelt did as much as he could helping out the British but the isolationist streak following our involvement in WWI was indeed substantial.
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  28. #78
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    Code of Conduct

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

    If you are near a TV or computer, the President is supposed to speak in about 4 minutes to address the situation. I read another report saying a strike may happen today. If Obama acts on this without a vote in Congress, then I feel he should be impeached. I said it. I am absolutely tired of this bullshit.
    Telling it like it is.

  29. #79
    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
    10,981

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    If you are near a TV or computer, the President is supposed to speak in about 4 minutes to address the situation. I read another report saying a strike may happen today. If Obama acts on this without a vote in Congress, then I feel he should be impeached. I said it. I am absolutely tired of this bullshit.
    Motion seconded.

  30. #80
    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
    103,500
    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 palbert View Post
    John Boehner has sent a letter, containing 14 questions, to Obama.



    http://www.speaker.gov/press-release....hE4lkL18.dpuf
    Boehner must have done this on his own, and not in consultation with the Tea Partite parasites -- it actually shows intelligence!

    "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

  31. #81
    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
    103,500
    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 Stardreamer View Post
    This point I quite understand, and I am actually sympathetic to Obama's position on the issue but I don't seem to remember there being a 'Black Democrat/Tea Party' clause in the Constitution or the War Powers Act concerning the exercise of war powers.

    Now I did hear something today that there was an attempt to link the Syrian Chemical Weapon use to a terrorism threat to use the AUMF that Bush used for Afghanistan and Iraq. Its a bit of an inventive stretch, basically saying that if the Assad regime falls the chemical weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists so therefore we should attack Assad under the guise of Bush's War on Terror. What do you think, does that fly?
    Simply?

    No.

    "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

  32. #82
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by palbert View Post
    Motion seconded.
    And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

    But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.
    Telling it like it is.

  33. #83
    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
    103,500
    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 JayHawk View Post
    I imagine once they have burning communications centers, airfields, missile batteries and command facilities, they will have heard the message rather clearly.
    Superbly answered here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sausy View Post
    If we are that proficient and effective, we will have acted as al-Qaeda's air force, in effect. You think the secularists will be strong enough to take control of the country, bring stability? Plus now Syria has had, and may well continue to have, a grace period of days to move the stuff most important in the defense of the Assad regime to locales that cruise missiles can't do as much damage. You think the Assad regime, the Iranians, Hezbollah and Russia will just allow their meal ticket to be blown away without finding a way to hit at us somehow?

    "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. #84
    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
    103,500
    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 MystikWizard View Post
    And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

    But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.
    OTOH this is on NATO's border, and we may have an obligation there if NATO decided to do something.

    Otherwise, yes -- impeach the man.

    "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

  35. #85
    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
    3,255

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

    But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.
    The UN will not do anything. This problem suffers from the fatal flaw in the UN structure, namely that one of BIG Five (Russia) has a vested interest in nothing happening.
    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. #86
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    Code of Conduct

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

    Based on the President's remarks a couple minutes ago, he clearly is doing the right thing by going to Congress to seek Congressional approval for military action. However, he seems to be publicly expressing confidence that Congress will provide him that authorization. I can understand why he feels he has to publicly show confidence in that, but I honestly question if he truly believes he will get it?

    It is seriously doubtful he will get approval from the Senate, but there is no way in Hell he is going to get approval from the House on this.

    The same thing that happened in Britain with David Cameron will happen to Obama. The public is saying "mind your own business" and the representatives in Congress will hear that message loud and clear this week.
    Telling it like it is.

  37. #87
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,784

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Well I will say that Hitler sure capitulated when we went in with [guns and] bombs.
    No, he didn't. We're not talking (I hope) about invading Syria. We're talking about bombing it. That never works.

    We bombed the hell out of Germany, and yet she continued to fight tenaciously. She even developed new weapons (V1 and V2 and jet fighters) after we had flattened her cities.

    I have parenthized your "guns" comment because you are trying to argue that bombing a country is as effective as a physical invasion with troops. You are trying to argue the effectiveness of one strategy on the basis of the effectiveness of a totally unrelated strategy. That is every bit as intellectually dishonest as you are aware.


    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Al Qaeda sure did take to the caves when we went in to Afghanistan with guns and bombs.
    If you call the largest and most luxurious villa in Abbottabad a "cave," then, yes.

    But, again, that was an invasion and not a bombing of nonspecific targets.


    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    There is a place for weaponry and military tactics and they are successful when used appropriately.
    That's the point. "When used appropriately."

    If we were trying to destroy a nuclear weapons or chemical weapons production facility, that might be understandable. But there is no tactical mission here. There is no defined goal. The idea is just to bomb something so that Assad will be frightened into capitulation. That's amazingly stupid.


    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Targeting a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons on its own people is necessary to ensure the adherence to the ban on chemical weapons and to protect the human rights of the citizens of Syria who are nothing now but pawns to a dictator who has shown he will do anything to hold on to power.
    If bombing Syria accomplished what you claim it will, then it might be justifiable. But, as discussed, bombing Syria will not and cannot improve the lives of oppressed Syrian people. There is no protection of human rights here. There is only the killing of more Syrians. The only real goal here is to make leaders like Obama feel like they have done something, however useless, to reinforce their impressions of themselves that they are great leaders and useful people.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails stah130830.gif  
    Last edited by T-Rexx; August 31st, 2013 at 11:43 AM.

  38. #88
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,784

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    Based on the President's remarks a couple minutes ago, he clearly is doing the right thing by going to Congress to seek Congressional approval for military action. However, he seems to be publicly expressing confidence that Congress will provide him that authorization. I can understand why he feels he has to publicly show confidence in that, but I honestly question if he truly believes he will get it?

    It is seriously doubtful he will get approval from the Senate, but there is no way in Hell he is going to get approval from the House on this.

    The same thing that happened in Britain with David Cameron will happen to Obama. The public is saying "mind your own business" and the representatives in Congress will hear that message loud and clear this week.
    I agree. I hope and expect that Congress will refuse to rubber stamp this stupidity.

    I wonder how Obama will react when that happens. Maybe Obama is hoping for a rejection, to take him off the hook for backing up his bellicose rhetoric.

  39. #89
    BENDERBOY
    Guest

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

    And he marched them up to the top of the hill, and he marched them down again.

    Dickless wonder.

  40. #90
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    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
    Just a reminder. The US couldn't be convinced for love or money to enter WWII until its own interests were directly assaulted. Up until that point....it followed a neutral, isolationist course. By that time...millions of people had been exterminated...so I really wouldn't be using WWII as a good example of America's rush to save humanity.
    It is a perfect example of how to learn from past mistakes. Standing around "minding our own business" while countries like Syria "test the waters" on chemical extermination of its citizens has been shown to be a position that should not be taken. While it should not be the job of the US or the international community to militarily intervene on all armed conflicts, there are certain actions (such as the use of chemical weapons) that should elicit a response. I'm disappointed in the lack of any type of action, political or military, from a number of western nations on this matter, especially given the belief that if one of them were attacked by chemical weapons, they would expect a full showing of support for their cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by palbert View Post
    Tigerfan, Can you explain to me why it is bad when others use CW but OK when we or our (then) surrogates use CW?

    Does the US need to send a lesson to itself?

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post9067538

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post9068860

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post9069242
    Yes I can.

    Iraq/Iran - there is a difference in being aware of the fact that a country is manufacturing and storing chemical weapons with the possibility they may use them and being supportive of the use of them. It has been known for many years that Syria manufactured and stored chemical weapons and no suggestion of military force against Syria was made on that fact. Now that they have used the chemicals (and not on military targets but civilian populations), there is a cause for action. Additionally, the assistance provided to Iraq occurred in the 1980's under a completely different administration. By your logic, because I can't find any evidence at the time of you publicly stating your opposition to Iraq using chemical weapons, I can only assume you supported the use and thus cannot ever take a stance against using chemical weapons ever.

    White Phosphorous - It is clearly stated in many sources, including the ones you like to link despite being heavily biased, that white phosphorous is not considered a chemical weapon under any treaty that the US has signed on to. (See here and here). The use of white phosphorous as a screening weapon or against locations to flush out enemy combatants is a widely accepted and legal practice of warfare. On the other hand, using nerve agents (which is what Syria is accused of using) has no legally accepted military use and is strictly prohibited by numerous international treaties.

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    And to be frank, it should actually come from the U.N. on this, and not our Congress ... since this should be a U.N. effort, not a U.S. effort. And if the U.N. is not acting, then neither should the U.S.

    But if Obama does act without any vote from our own government, then he needs to be shown the door.
    The War Powers Resolution is Constitutionally questionable and has been viewed as unconstitutional by every administration since it was passed. There are no grounds for impeachment if the President exercises his Constitutional powers of commanding the military. If Congress doesn't want forces used, then they need to either a) pass a law expressly forbidding the use of forces in this situation and b) not provide funding for the effort. Those are their Constitutionally granted powers. Requiring the Executive Branch to obtain permission before commanding the military forces is not within their Constitutional powers.

    More information here.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    No, he didn't. We're not talking (I hope) about invading Syria. We're talking about bombing it. That never works.

    We bombed the hell out of Germany, and yet she continued to fight tenaciously. She even developed new weapons (V1 and V2 and jet fighters) after we had flattened her cities.

    I have parenthized your "guns" comment because you are trying to argue that bombing a country is as effective as a physical invasion with troops. You are trying to argue the effectiveness of one strategy on the basis of the effectiveness of a totally unrelated strategy. That is every bit as intellectually dishonest as you are aware.
    Actually, my position is that we're arguing two different things. The goal when we entered WWII was to remove Hitler and to drive back German and Japanese advances made. We responded with the appropriate level of military intervention and accomplished our goals. The goal with Syria is NOT to invade the country or to directly cause regime change. The goal is to a) punish for the use of chemical weapons and b) level the playing field for the opposition to achieve regime change. Thus, the level of military involvement that we demonstrated in WWII is not needed in this situation, where all we need to do is weaken and not defeat. That can easily be accomplished by bombing. A recent example of that is Libya.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    If you call the largest and most luxurious villa in Abbottabad a "cave," then, yes.

    But, again, that was an invasion and not a bombing of nonspecific targets.
    If you consider Osama bin Laden to be the totality of al Qaeda, then you have some more research to do. If you believed he lived in that villa for the entirety of the war, you have even more reading and research to do. And many additional al Qaeda operatives have been successfully eliminated via bombing campaigns.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    That's the point. "When used appropriately."

    If we were trying to destroy a nuclear weapons or chemical weapons production facility, that might be understandable. But there is no tactical mission here. There is no defined goal. The idea is just to bomb something so that Assad will be frightened into capitulation. That's amazingly stupid.
    What I consider amazingly stupid is the fact that you assume that just because you don't know the exact targets of any bombing campaign, then there must not be any and instead we'll just bomb indiscriminately. There seems to be the same idea here that people like to express in the threads on NSA where people somehow seem to believe that the government should just publish all of their plans so the public can have their curiosity satisfied and there can be some mythical popular vote on whether they are good plans or not. You not being privy to military plans doesn't mean they don't exist and that they wouldn't be effective. You're arguing the efficacy of plans and strategies you have absolutely no information on.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    If bombing Syria accomplished what you claim it will, then it might be justifiable. But, as discussed, bombing Syria will not and cannot improve the lives of oppressed Syrian people. There is no protection of human rights here. There is only the killing of more Syrians. The only real goal here is to make leaders like Obama feel like they have done something, however useless, to reinforce their impressions of themselves that they are great leaders and useful people.

    On what basis can you make this statement? You can't see the future. You don't know what targets they would go after. You don't know the intelligence they have on Syria. You don't know what weapons and tactics they plan on using. You really don't know anything at all on this topic yet you claim there is absolutely no way for anything to work. This is a perfect example of an illogical and unsupported argument. Until you can show you have SOME facts to base your position on instead of political cartoons, you're doing nothing more than writing a fictional novel via forum posts.

  41. #91
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,233

    Code of Conduct

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

    ^ But the government must show in details why they need to bomb Syria and what is the end game ?


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  42. #92
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,072
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    He may with the roughest of prodding pull the Senate his way... but if he gets a "yes" from the Republican held, hostile House, I'll be greatly surprised. If he gets a "no" he will possibly "save face" and call the action against Syria off but he will have blown his credibility to smithereens. Not one of the intended targets of this action, to be certain. It would be the right move since there are NO good or easy solutions on the horizon for Syria but with all his blustering he will come off as a paper tiger and will embolden the bad actors in the region, as well as Russia which benefits at our impotence and increasing self- inflicted irrelevance.
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  43. #93
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,233

    Code of Conduct

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

    ^ why is "save face" that important when you make a life or death decision for other people?
    Save face shouldn't be taken into account.


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  44. #94
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Telstra View Post
    ^ But the government must show in details why they need to bomb Syria and what is the end game ?
    When in the history of the world has any military force ever provided to the public details of their military plans? That would defeat the whole purpose of military planning when you just publish them for your target to see and adjust as needed. It doesn't make any sense at all.

  45. #95
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,233

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    When in the history of the world has any military force ever provided to the public details of their military plans? That would defeat the whole purpose of military planning when you just publish them for your target to see and adjust as needed. It doesn't make any sense at all.
    But this is not a self defense.
    Put everything on the table to the public is the right thing to do.


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  46. #96

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    When in the history of the world has any military force ever provided to the public details of their military plans? That would defeat the whole purpose of military planning when you just publish them for your target to see and adjust as needed. It doesn't make any sense at all.
    Someone who hates the military and doesn't have a clue about tactical plans. Someone who is confused about their role and lacks leadership abilities. Someone who publicly gives two views of the same issue in the same day.

  47. #97
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    29,233

    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
    Someone who hates the military and doesn't have a clue about tactical plans. Someone who is confused about their role and lacks leadership abilities. Someone who publicly gives two views of the same issue in the same day.
    Someone who goes to war first and find the evidence later.


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  48. #98
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    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 agree. I hope and expect that Congress will refuse to rubber stamp this stupidity.

    I wonder how Obama will react when that happens. Maybe Obama is hoping for a rejection, to take him off the hook for backing up his bellicose rhetoric.
    That's exactly what I think Obama is thinking, as well. That way, he sounds tough, but can blame it on Congress if it fails and take him off the hook. Exactly.
    Telling it like it is.

  49. #99
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    That's exactly what I think Obama is thinking, as well. That way, he sounds tough, but can blame it on Congress if it fails and take him off the hook. Exactly.
    I want to know why America is always tasked to do this. I want to know where Canada, Australia, Germany and the other silent majority of countries is? The US isn't the only signatory to the chemical weapons treaty.
    "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.

  50. #100
    JUB Addict MystikWizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baltimore
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,701

    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 want to know why America is always tasked to do this. I want to know where Canada, Australia, Germany and the other silent majority of countries is? The US isn't the only signatory to the chemical weapons treaty.
    Well, I think the problem is that the U.S. always seems to task itself with this. The public is getting tired of this stuff. Of course, the other countries will take a back seat. They figure, "Hell, let the U.S. spend their own damn money and we will just cheer on from the sidelines."

    If that is the approach everyone else wants to take, then so be it. Maybe the U.S. should take note. We seemed to have gone back to Pre World War II thinking after the Bush years. But to be fair, if there is going to be a strike and it won't be approved by the U.N. (because of Russia), then the NATO countries need to agree and attack unilaterally. If that isn't happening, and it is not, then the U.S. needs to stay out.
    Telling it like it is.

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.