JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 377
  1. #101
    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
    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.
    It's not about picking and choosing when to get involved. Countries have responsibilities especially if you're signing treaties to ban chemical weapons usage you are obligated to deter and prevent countries from using them. Australia and Canada have both sided with America in condemning Syria[/URL], but have yet to say what they'll offer besides words. And part of me believes that this is these countries' right, however their people get on other country's cases who are actually willing to right a wrong.
    Last edited by Lostlover; August 31st, 2013 at 05:33 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.

  2. #102
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,374
    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 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?
    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    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."
    Maybe other countries think the US is better prepared for the challenge. Last year US military expenditures* were about 8 times more than the combined total spent by Canada, Australia, and Germany.

    *Includes WMD

    U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending (The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

  3. #103
    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
    It's not about picking and choosing when to get involved. Countries have responsibilities especially if you're signing treaties to ban chemical weapons usage you are obligated to deter and prevent countries from using them. Australia and Canada have both sided with America in condemning Syria[/URL], but have yet to say what they'll offer besides words. And part of me believes that this is these countries' right, however their people get on other country's cases who are actually willing to right a wrong.
    Two questions just so I better understand your thoughts.

    1) Are you saying the U.S. should go it alone and suffer whatever consequences come with it ... even if it means getting into another new long drawn-out war if Iran and others get involved?

    2) Should the President bother going to Congress for a vote, or do you think he should act on his own and bypass Congress?
    Last edited by MystikWizard; August 31st, 2013 at 06:31 PM.
    Telling it like it is.

  4. #104
    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 opinterph View Post
    Maybe other countries think the US is better prepared for the challenge. Last year US military expenditures* were about 8 times more than the combined total spent by Canada, Australia, and Germany.

    *Includes WMD

    U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending (The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)
    And that's their right. But when things go wrong, you can bet there's those silent people, unwilling to help or even offer solutions, getting on their soapboxes talking about American hegemony.

    Their alternative is to sit and watch which I believe is unethical.
    "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.

  5. #105
    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
    Two questions just so I better understand your thoughts.

    1) Are you saying the U.S. should go it alone and suffer whatever consequences come with it ... even if it means getting into another new long drawn-out war if Iran and others get involved?
    I'm saying that there should be an international coalition condemning and acting on Syria. So far, only Turkey, the US, the UK and France have talked about actually doing something. Where's Canada? Brazil? Germany? Australia? Japan?

    We have no historical ties with Syria (France) and yet we feel that it's an international issue anytime a leader uses these types of weapons against the people.

    President Obama has repeatedly said that the airstrikes won't include US soldiers in Syria and will be limited in scope and duration. There's going to be no occupation. This whole talk about WWIII is premature.



    2) Should the President bother going to Congress for a vote, or do you think he should act on his own and bypass Congress?
    I think the US president should go to the Congress for its input even though it isn't actually needed since this isn't an "all-out war." President Obama's foot-dragging and allowing the UN to complete its assessment is a result of the Cowboy in 2003 who said fuck the world and the constitution. Consensus isn't a bad thing.

    Whatever the UN finds will be immaterial and useless. Their mission is to find out if chemical agents were used, not who actually used them which makes me wonder why they're even there. Furthermore, Russia and China will veto any measure against Syria, but Obama is still playing the game and trying to stay within international law by going through the UN and this makes sense. You can't say Syria is acting outside of international norms when you're bypassing the UN.
    Last edited by Lostlover; August 31st, 2013 at 07:24 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.

  6. #106
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,722

    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 wonder what the Republicans will do with that.

    Obama asks for support in Syria, but really wants the Republicans to reject him.

    Do they reject the president by not approving military action is Syria, or do they reject the president by approving military action in Syria?

    What a dilemma for the party of "no!"

  7. #107
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    28,805

    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 wonder what the Republicans will do with that.

    Obama asks for support in Syria, but really wants the Republicans to reject him.

    Do they reject the president by not approving military action is Syria, or do they reject the president by approving military action in Syria?

    What a dilemma for the party of "no!"
    In Australia the conservative is also a party of "No" to everything


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  8. #108

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

    lot of political experts seem to think its a gamble for obama and he'll look bad if congress says no but I also thought, you know, isn't he really kinda letting congress be the bad guy either way?

  9. #109
    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'm saying that there should be an international coalition condemning and acting on Syria. So far, only Turkey, the US, the UK and France have talked about actually doing something. Where's Canada? Brazil? Germany? Australia? Japan?
    Well, I think it's time to differentiate from being an idealist and being a realist. What you are saying about an international coalition is simply not going to happen. So going back to the question, do you think the U.S. should go it alone or not?

    President Obama has repeatedly said that the airstrikes won't include US soldiers in Syria and will be limited in scope and duration. There's going to be no occupation. This whole talk about WWIII is premature. I think the US president should go to the Congress for its input even though it isn't actually needed since this isn't an "all-out war."
    And do you really think it will be that easy? You think by us striking them, that there isn't going to be retaliation on their part that is unquestionably going to escalate and draw us into a war? If you are conducting a strike inside another country, you are essentially declaring war because there is no way they aren't going to retaliate and fire back by targeting our allies such as Turkey and Israel ... which will eventually draw everyone into a war ... which will inevitably lead to an occupation of their country to try to resume control and maintain order.
    Last edited by MystikWizard; September 1st, 2013 at 03:11 AM.
    Telling it like it is.

  10. #110
    Know thyself kallipolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,184

    Code of Conduct

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

    Missiles strikes are not going to make any difference to a dictatorial government totally lacking any humanitarian regard for its own people; armed by Russia, China, and Iran with weaponry that is modern, and effective in reaching targets inside Israel,Turkey, Cyprus and neighbouring Arab states.

    An American orchestrated invasion is still being played out twelve years later in neighbouring Iraq where thousands of civilians die every year in a proxy civil war in addition to the million or so civilians and soldiers who died during the invasion by Western forces....this apart from Afghanistan where another civil war rages despite another American intervention to degrade the influence of The Taliban.

    That the UK parliament has voted for no British intervention, and that President Obama has delayed American action until Congress debates the issue, after the return from the Summer recess (sometime next week?) might indicate that second thoughts are prevailing, and that the so called overwhelming evidence that Assad's forces used chemical weapons against innocent civilians, is now being revisited....what else is being denied public scrutiny?

  11. #111
    ecce homo rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,065

    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 wonder what the Republicans will do with that.

    Obama asks for support in Syria, but really wants the Republicans to reject him.

    Do they reject the president by not approving military action is Syria, or do they reject the president by approving military action in Syria?

    What a dilemma for the party of "no!"
    The dilemma is truly delicious.

    Their military industrial complex owners are going to be pushing for war....and to use up some more of those stockpiled missiles... but it would mean giving Obama what he's asking for...what to do, what to do....

  12. #112
    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
    10,599

    Code of Conduct

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

    The proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force is at:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/164538584/...esolution-Text

    Looks more open-ended than I am comfortable with.

  13. #113
    ecce homo rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,065

    Code of Conduct

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

    Has it ever occurred to anyone (like Lostlover for instance), that the Assad regime may be inviting a US strike because it would give them and their imperial overlords carte blanche to launch attacks against Israel or other neighbouring allied states...thereby giving the Syrians a common external enemy and the opportunity to crush the internal opposition forces once and for all?

    Today the Assad regime is fairly taunting the US to strike...pointing out that Obama's plan to go Congress signals the classic American retreat manouvre. The only reason for this arrogance can only be the gamble that the US entry into this conflict will, in fact, trigger off a firestorm in the mideast that will leave the Assad regime in place and will give Russia and China the total balance of power in the region.

  14. #114
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    28,805

    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
    Has it ever occurred to anyone (like Lostlover for instance), that the Assad regime may be inviting a US strike because it would give them and their imperial overlords carte blanche to launch attacks against Israel or other neighbouring allied states...thereby giving the Syrians a common external enemy and the opportunity to crush the internal opposition forces once and for all?

    Today the Assad regime is fairly taunting the US to strike...pointing out that Obama's plan to go Congress signals the classic American retreat manouvre. The only reason for this arrogance can only be the gamble that the US entry into this conflict will, in fact, trigger off a firestorm in the mideast that will leave the Assad regime in place and will give Russia and China the total balance of power in the region.
    Good post.

    The US should leave Syria alone.
    Those surrounding Arab countries should do something about it if they REALLY want to help these poor Syrian civilians.


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  15. #115
    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
    Well, I think it's time to differentiate from being an idealist and being a realist. What you are saying about an international coalition is simply not going to happen. So going back to the question, do you think the U.S. should go it alone or not?
    Obama can get more of an international coalition that includes more than just four countries when there are nearly 200 countries in the world. This is not a US issue. The US, if the other countries puss out, will have to go at it alone, but I think France and Turkey are willing to be an adult in a room full of children.

    The link I posted earlier had various countries' responses and there are many countries that say wait for the UN to assess what happened. Brazil and Sweden have taken this stance. So, I ask them, when the UN returns with evidence that chemical weapons were used, what are you prepared to do?


    And do you really think it will be that easy? You think by us striking them, that there isn't going to be retaliation on their part that is unquestionably going to escalate and draw us into a war? If you are conducting a strike inside another country, you are essentially declaring war because there is no way they aren't going to retaliate and fire back by targeting our allies such as Turkey and Israel ... which will eventually draw everyone into a war ... which will inevitably lead to an occupation of their country to try to resume control and maintain order.
    Getting the strikes done will be easy. Who knows what Syria will try to do, but one shouldn't act out of fear of what might happen. It gives Assad complete impunity from his actions.
    "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.

  16. #116
    The Boy Next Door LuvFindsAndyHardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,074

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick4444 View Post
    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.
    Interesting, though, that this "presidential failure" was able to win a THIRD term with nearly 55% of the popular vote and 449 electoral votes a full year prior to Pearl Harbor.

  17. #117
    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
    Obama can get more of an international coalition that includes more than just four countries when there are nearly 200 countries in the world. This is not a US issue. The US, if the other countries puss out, will have to go at it alone, but I think France and Turkey are willing to be an adult in a room full of children.

    The link I posted earlier had various countries' responses and there are many countries that say wait for the UN to assess what happened. Brazil and Sweden have taken this stance. So, I ask them, when the UN returns with evidence that chemical weapons were used, what are you prepared to do?
    France seems pretty definite about joining in, as does Turkey if the U.S. does something. But if it doesn't pass Congress, which I have very little doubt that it won't be passing, then it's a moot point as Obama will not act without Congressional approval. He will be impeached if he does. This will end in Congress with a "No" vote.


    Getting the strikes done will be easy. Who knows what Syria will try to do, but one shouldn't act out of fear of what might happen. It gives Assad complete impunity from his actions.
    Ride em' cowboy.

    Whereas you and I seem to agree with most political issues, we obviously couldn't be further apart on this ... and we both tend to feel pretty strongly about our positions. With you, there are no borders when it comes to humanitarian causes, it seems ... even if it means getting into war.

    For me, I feel reality has sunk in, as it seems it has with most Americans, where as it just is not realistically possible to get involved in everyone else's business around the world and not have it affect the lives of the people within this country. It simply is not fair to our citizens.

    Be it whether:

    1) It escalates into another full blown war/occupation of another country and costs thousands of lives

    2) It increases terrorism which puts our own innocent civilians at risk

    3) Whether we get into even further debt, which devalues our dollar and causes another recession

    This is something that is not fair to subject our own citizens to. Our national security interests being affected are one thing .... that is not the case with this conflict. Like Bush, this is another optional conflict that I have no doubt will result in war with Syria and her allies ... mainly Iran.

    You are overthrowing one dictator for an Al Qaeda-backed government.

    If a strike occurs and it does result in a war ... if you believe in this cause so much, are you ready to enlist?
    Telling it like it is.

  18. #118
    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


    Ride em' cowboy.

    Whereas you and I seem to agree with most political issues, we obviously couldn't be further apart on this ... and we both tend to feel pretty strongly about our positions. With you, there are no borders when it comes to humanitarian causes, it seems ... even if it means getting into war.

    For me, I feel reality has sunk in, as it seems it has with most Americans, where as it just is not realistically possible to get involved in everyone else's business around the world and not have it affect the lives of the people within this country. It simply is not fair to our citizens.

    Be it whether:

    1) It escalates into another full blown war/occupation of another country and costs thousands of lives

    2) It increases terrorism which puts our own innocent civilians at risk

    3) Whether we get into even further debt, which devalues our dollar and causes another recession

    This is something that is not fair to subject our own citizens to. Our national security interests being affected are one thing .... that is not the case with this conflict. Like Bush, this is another optional conflict that I have no doubt will result in war with Syria and her allies ... mainly Iran.

    You are overthrowing one dictator for an Al Qaeda-backed government.

    If a strike occurs and it does result in a war ... if you believe in this cause so much, are you ready to enlist?
    Think about what you're suggesting: we shouldn't get involved in a humanitarian situation because it's bad for our budget and it could escalate into a full-blown war (that Syria and Iran would lose and all wars potentially could escalate further so this isn't a new concern).

    There are always reasons not to act.

    There's going to be no mission creep because the goals are limited. There's no need for anyone to enlist. Obama will not send boots over there and if he does, it would be a huge breach of trust in my opinion because that would probably be a deal-breaker to 99% of Americans (myself included).

    I love how now Syria is this military threat to the US. Israel struck it three times in the last few years, invading its airspace twice and Syria responded all three times by doing nothing. Did you know that? Did you know Israel sent in fighter jets to bomb a nuclear plant being built and Assad retaliated by saying he will retaliate if Israel did that again?

    Do you know that every time Syria antagonized Israel over the last ten years, Israel sent in fighter jets over Assad's Damascus palace in protest? And every time Assad has done absolutely nothing in return to show his disapproval.

    Did you know that two months ago Israel struck the Republican Guard in Damascus right next to the Presidential Palace? Do you know how Assad responded? He said he'd respond the next time Israel entered Syrian airspace.

    It sounds like Assad's practicing non-violence when his country's sovereignty has been challenged.
    Last edited by Lostlover; September 1st, 2013 at 08:11 AM.
    "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.

  19. #119
    ecce homo rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,065

    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
    Obama can get more of an international coalition that includes more than just four countries when there are nearly 200 countries in the world. This is not a US issue. The US, if the other countries puss out, will have to go at it alone, but I think France and Turkey are willing to be an adult in a room full of children.

    The link I posted earlier had various countries' responses and there are many countries that say wait for the UN to assess what happened. Brazil and Sweden have taken this stance. So, I ask them, when the UN returns with evidence that chemical weapons were used, what are you prepared to do?




    Getting the strikes done will be easy. Who knows what Syria will try to do, but one shouldn't act out of fear of what might happen. It gives Assad complete impunity from his actions.
    What a broken record.

    You can always seem to list Canada and Australia but never list the countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, The UAE, or any of the other states in the region that have the most to gain and lose in this game. How they must laugh, to see the US time after time blunder into a situation like this, drawing lines and making threats and then de-stabilizing the region even more by blowing more innocents up.....all while the Sheikhs sit, sipping tea in their palaces.

    At this point, has it occurred to you that out of the '200' countries in the world there may be a reason why only France (?) is on board as the one western nation eager to drop some bombs?

    I hate to tell you Sunshine, but I doubt if there is any treaty on earth that requires bombing of a country that uses CW. If there was, as many have pointed out in these threads, the US would have been a target as well.

    Maybe the State run paper taunting the US will get you what you want....more people in the world who have good reason to hate the US when their families get blown to smithereens.

  20. #120
    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
    Think about what you're suggesting: we shouldn't get involved in a humanitarian situation because it's bad for our budget and it could escalate into a full-blown war (that Syria and Iran would lose and all wars potentially could escalate further so this isn't a new concern).

    There are always reasons not to act.
    I don't think you seem to feel the repercussions of what those lil' ol' consequences seem to be that I listed. Maybe the last recession didn't affect you if you made good money, but it most certainly affected middle class Main Street America who felt the pinch at the gas station, the supermarket, going out to eat, etc. Anything that relies on transportation and uses fuel to get commodities to their destinations will be affected by an all-out war.

    Again, this does not affect our national security interests. If it did, I would have a different perspective. But it doesn't. To those people that were affected by this attack, I am sorry ... at the same time it is not the business of the United States' citizens. I understand that sounds cold, but after seeing what we've seen this past decade, enough is enough and the majority of the public wants the U.S. to reverse course on foreign policy. That was one of the key reasons Obama was elected. Most definitely was one of the key reasons I voted for him.

    There's going to be no mission creep because the goals are limited. There's no need for anyone to enlist. Obama will not send boots over there and if he does, it would be a huge breach of trust in my opinion because that would probably be a deal-breaker to 99% of Americans (myself included).
    You don't know that, Lost. Sure, Obama can say that now that he is not looking to send boots there. That is assuming war doesn't break out. What happens if war does break out? I don't feel you are analyzing all of the possible outcomes and reactions to this lil' ol' strike Obama was planning. War breaking is most definitely a very real and I feel likely possibility. The armed forces will have to get involved if that occurs.

    I love how now Syria is this military threat to the US. Israel struck it three times in the last few years, invading its airspace twice and Syria responded all three times by doing nothing. Did you know that? Did you know Israel sent in fighter jets to bomb a nuclear plant being built and Assad retaliated by saying he will retaliate if Israel did that again?

    Did you know that two months ago Israel struck the Republican Guard in Damascus right next to the Presidential Palace? Do you know how Assad responded? He said he'd respond the next time Israel entered Syrian airspace.

    Doesn't sound like a military threat.
    I am not saying Syria will ever win a conflict with the United States or the team of Syria and Iran. What I am saying is that "it isn't our God-damned business", Lost. We have zero to gain by getting involved. Get rid of one dictator and replace him with an Al Qaeda-backed government. Wonderful.

    Dennis Kucinich hit the nail on the head with this. Obama made the right move yesterday.

    The way former Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich sees the situation, if President Obama goes around Congress and acts unilaterally on Syria, he risks impeachment for going against the Constitution.
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbar...syria-n1688366
    Last edited by MystikWizard; September 1st, 2013 at 08:26 AM.
    Telling it like it is.

  21. #121
    JUB Addict darden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jersey City
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,242

    Code of Conduct

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

    what's the next escalation step if we bomb Assad and he keeps on using chemical weapons?

    and god help us if we accidentally kill a single civilian, both sides of the civil war will start calling for American blood... I just don't see an up side for the USA getting directly involved. it would be a different story if it were part of a broader, UN or AL-led peacekeeping mission.

  22. #122
    The Boy Next Door LuvFindsAndyHardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,074

    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 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    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
    So I guess now you'll give the president some praise for taking your advice. No? I shouldn't hold my breath and wait for it, you say? Didn't think so.

    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.
    So, I'm confused at your position. Should he have gone to congress or should he not? I understand that the official Republican/Conservative position is to be against WHATEVER the president's position is, but I'm curious as to where you fall in this. Or do you fall on the opposite side of "whatever Obama does."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Someone who publicly gives two views of the same issue in the same day.
    Does anyone have a spoon handy? I can't afford the calories, but the irony is just TOO delicious to pass up!

    To paraphrase a certain poster, carrying a shit bucket to throw at Obama is a tough job. You have to leave your common sense and intellect at the door and blindly attack.

    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.
    This answers SO MANY questions about you Jack, and proves that Reactionary Conservatism is not only a pernicious disease it's also hereditary!

  23. #123
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    28,805

    Code of Conduct

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

    I would like the filthy rich countries like Dubia and Saudi help Syria ..





    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

  24. #124
    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
    I don't think you seem to feel the repercussions of what those lil' ol' consequences seem to be that I listed. Maybe the last recession didn't affect you if you made good money, but it most certainly affected middle class Main Street America who felt the pinch at the gas station, the supermarket, going out to eat, etc. Anything that relies on transportation and uses fuel to get commodities to their destinations will be affected by an all-out war.
    Well, the experts are saying that the Syrian situation won't spike oil prices significantly. The NY Times has an article (site isn't allowing me to link it but you can Google the title), "Major Surge is Unlikely for Prices of US Gas", which isn't too surprising given how little Syria exports.

    Unless, you have sources that say otherwise about US gas prices, I would consider that as a reason to not intervene.

    Again, this does not affect our national security interests. If it did, I would have a different perspective. But it doesn't. To those people that were affected by this attack, I am sorry ... at the same time it is not the business of the United States' citizens. I understand that sounds cold, but after seeing what we've seen this past decade, enough is enough and the majority of the public wants the U.S. to reverse course on foreign policy. That was one of the key reasons Obama was elected. Most definitely was one of the key reasons I voted for him.
    I don't think the Libyan revolution was in our interests either. Or the Rwandan Genocide when we decided to sit it out. Not having a personal tie to a crisis is no rule in whether you should get involved or not. I know if you saw a car accident, you wouldn't keep driving. You'd, at the very least, call 9-1-1-. Same reasoning here.



    You don't know that, Lost. Sure, Obama can say that now that he is not looking to send boots there. That is assuming war doesn't break out. What happens if war does break out? I don't feel you are analyzing all of the possible outcomes and reactions to this lil' ol' strike Obama was planning. War breaking is most definitely a very real and I feel likely possibility. The armed forces will have to get involved if that occurs.
    And you don't know that we will send in soldiers into Syria. You're letting the worst-case scenario guide you and how you feel on what should be done. (It's the Chicken Little approach to international diplomacy.) If the worst case scenario would look like it was going to happen, I'd think you and I would agree on staying out. But making Syria into a military giant, when it isn't, is far from reality. Israel has routinely antagonized it over the years and it has never directly responded to Israel.



    I am not saying Syria will ever win a conflict with the United States or the team of Syria and Iran. What I am saying is that "it isn't our God-damned business", Lost. We have zero to gain by getting involved. Get rid of one dictator and replace him with an Al Qaeda-backed government. Wonderful.

    Dennis Kucinich hit the nail on the head with this. Obama made the right move yesterday.
    Obama is not doing regime change. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, bringing up that we're "get[ting] rid of one dictator" and replacing it with another is made up. Newt Gingrich of all people had a great point yesterday while on CNN when he said that some of the rebels are more anti-American than Assad is. And that's true. Obama would be a fool to tip the balance of power and create a power vacuum where these terrorist/rebels could take control of Syria. Obama is no fool. He won't allow this to happen.

    Obama has stayed out of this conflict for two years, clearly wanting no part of it. And now that he feels obliged to respond military, people think he's going to send it to hell a hand basket by not exercising caution. Cautious is the best word to describe Obama's approach so far. He's refused to supply weapons and only agreed to do so months ago after the first incidences of chemical weapons. And, from what I've heard from rebel commanders, US weapons still haven't arrived.

    Obama is clearly practicing restraint and caution.
    Last edited by Lostlover; September 1st, 2013 at 08:45 AM.
    "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.

  25. #125
    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

    Lost, my opinion is not changing, and neither is yours apparently. I have my reasons and I am not backing down on them. This has been thought-out on my end and is as hot button a topic as you can get for me.

    For everyone else, I contacted my Congressmen and Senators and urged them strongly to vote "No" on any authorization to the use of force in Syria. Those that feel strongly about this, I would urge you to also contact your representatives in Congress on this.

    http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

    If President Obama does not respect Congress' "No" vote on this, which I am seeing this morning that Kerry is saying the President does not feel he needs Congress' approval on this and may strike anyway ... I will be contacting my Congressmen for President Obama's impeachment.

    And I think in this day and age, he will be impeached. It would be a disastrous and unfortunate end to his Presidency ... all simply because of his desire to put foreign matters that don't affect this country over domestic matters that do affect our nation's citizens.
    Last edited by MystikWizard; September 1st, 2013 at 09:11 AM.
    Telling it like it is.

  26. #126
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,044
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    If he's going to go to Congress for a vote, he must accept the results. If not he is beyond salvageable as the representative chief executive of a constitutional federal representative democracy. Or what is SUPPOSED to be one. No doubt he'll lose most of the left on this, and without them he has nothing. I'm no fan of his as most of my posts on him will show yet I don't want this for the country, A.. WTF is with you, Mr. President?!!!
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  27. #127
    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
    102,967
    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 Lostlover View Post
    President Obama's foot-dragging and allowing the UN to complete its assessment is a result of the Cowboy in 2003 who said fuck the world and the constitution. Consensus isn't a bad thing.
    Your memory is in error. The "Cowboy" sat smiling while Cheney and Rumsfeld orchestrated the herding of Congress to go through the proper motions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MystikWizard View Post
    If President Obama does not respect Congress' "No" vote on this, which I am seeing this morning that Kerry is saying the President does not feel he needs Congress' approval on this and may strike anyway ... I will be contacting my Congressmen for President Obama's impeachment.

    And I think in this day and age, he will be impeached. It would be a disastrous and unfortunate end to his Presidency ... all simply because of his desire to put foreign matters that don't affect this country over domestic matters that do affect our nation's citizens.
    Sadly, he would be impeached not because so many in Congress would think it good for the country, but because they don't care about the country, just their careers and ideology.

    "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

  28. #128
    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
    102,967
    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
    The proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force is at:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/164538584/...esolution-Text

    Looks more open-ended than I am comfortable with.
    What comedy -- it says "the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement"!

    Maybe... in a hundred years.

    "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

  29. #129
    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

    Sadly, as I alluded in the other thread, I think a lot of this is coming down to his own ego, frankly, and possibly whoever has been in his ear egging him on with this. I have said for some time now that the president's powers are vastly over-rated ... but evidently some presidents feel the need to show how big they think their sticks are to the world by talking tough ... regardless of what the country's citizens are saying, and regardless of how little this matter even affects us (which it doesn't).

    They just need their ego fed so that if they say they are going to do something, then they want to show their power and do it. And I feel Obama has been in the Oval Office long enough that he is beginning to feel insecure about his power that he feels he needs to show it in some capacity ... just to satisfy himself.

    Sounds like his Chief of Staff was able to break through and talk some sense into him on Friday night. Hopefully, warhawk Hillary is also taking good notes of this situation if she plans to run in 2016. The country has vastly changed and when they say they aren't going to tolerate the continuation of the Bush Foreign Policy, they mean it.
    Telling it like it is.

  30. #130
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,044
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    This whole thing is a catastrophe in the making.... WWI was set off by the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination. John Kerry seems bent to press the case of action by pushing that now evidence of sarin gas use by the Assad regime. If we do act to punish the Assad regime for use of chemical weapons, now alleged use of nerve gas.... no doubt in my mind someone is either going to go off script or go calculatedly cold and compound this by a horrific attack that would cause the whole thing to explode and put the world in a situation we may not be able to get out of without great misery falling on at least some segment. Congress, please vote no... and Mr. President, ACCEPT that result.
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  31. #131
    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
    102,967
    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
    Sadly, as I alluded in the other thread, I think a lot of this is coming down to his own ego, frankly, and possibly whoever has been in his ear egging him on with this. I have said for some time now that the president's powers are vastly over-rated ... but evidently some presidents feel the need to show how big they think their sticks are to the world by talking tough ... regardless of what the country's citizens are saying, and regardless of how little this matter even affects us (which it doesn't).

    They just need their ego fed so that if they say they are going to do something, then they want to show their power and do it. And I feel Obama has been in the Oval Office long enough that he is beginning to feel insecure about his power that he feels he needs to show it in some capacity ... just to satisfy himself.

    Sounds like his Chief of Staff was able to break through and talk some sense into him on Friday night. Hopefully, warhawk Hillary is also taking good notes of this situation if she plans to run in 2016. The country has vastly changed and when they say they aren't going to tolerate the continuation of the Bush Foreign Policy, they mean it.
    I keep hoping he'll invent a new "Obama Doctrine", that says when there is use of weapons of mass destruction, we go to the people whose intelligence services can be counted on to do a good job, and if there's agreement on who ordered that use ad who recommended it, we go after the people responsible -- personally. So long as we pretend that "countries" make decisions to do such things, the problem will never go away; it has to be addressed as an issue of personal responsibility to maintain a minimum standard of acting like a human being.

    "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. #132
    JUB Addict darden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Jersey City
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,242

    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
    What comedy -- it says "the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement"!

    Maybe... in a hundred years.
    I feel like the major world powers should force a sit down of leaders from all the major Arab world ethnic and religious groups, and force a redrawing of the map... so many of the problems we're experiencing are a result of the borders that England arbitrarily drew up (and in the case of Syria, you've got a ruling class ethnic minority group who's terrified of having to face judgement day if/when the subjugated majority gets into power)

  33. #133
    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
    102,967
    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 darden View Post
    I feel like the major world powers should force a sit down of leaders from all the major Arab world ethnic and religious groups, and force a redrawing of the map... so many of the problems we're experiencing are a result of the borders that England arbitrarily drew up (and in the case of Syria, you've got a ruling class ethnic minority group who's terrified of having to face judgement day if/when the subjugated majority gets into power)
    I've had that thought myself. It always comes up when I read about the Kurds, who've been promised a homeland by international agreements but still don't have it. Since Syria has Kurds, this would be a good moment to start the process... though we missed a better one when we were running Iraq. Start with outlining an independent Kurdistan, and work from there. Promise money for people to move to where they want to be -- that would be a lot cheaper than continual intermittent military interventions.

    What we can't do is continue to act like the British did, certain of our own superiority to the point where we don't even consider paying attention to human reality.

    "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. #134
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,044
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

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

    Very nice, very humane thinking.... unfortunately the states that would be affected would never do this voluntarily. Seems as just around the corner as the thought of a successfully negotiated political settlement. The lack of vision and foresight by colonial masters, particularly Britain is now poised to collectively bite the world, and not just in the ass.

    oh, and just from CNN... now the Saudis are officially egging on a US led strike, saying something to the effect the Assad regime has "crossed the bounds of infamy".
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  35. #135
    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

    Times like these you get to see which countries are the adults and which are the children.

    Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany are nowhere to be found? Free riding much?

    Canada called for a "firm response." Why are they so silent when it comes to action?

    I've been asking for days now and all I've gotten is silence (totally expected). I asked this because this cowardly silence will be forgotten when the US strikes Syrian government targets. These cowardly people are good at not offering solutions and criticizing the doers in the world community.
    Last edited by Lostlover; September 1st, 2013 at 12:15 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.

  36. #136
    Booyah! Callum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gerstein and Robarts
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    2,706
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

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

    The alleged intelligence is too sketchy to bother with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lostlover View Post
    Times like these you get to see which countries are the adults and which are the children.

    Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany are nowhere to be found? Free riding much?

    Canada called for a "firm response." Why are they so silent when it comes to action?

    I've been asking for days now and all I've gotten is silence (totally expected). I asked this because this cowardly silence will be forgotten when the US strikes Syrian government targets. These cowardly people are good at not offering solutions and criticizing the doers in the world community.
    And numerous posters have already told you why Canada isn't doing anything. In your own thread too. Learn to read.
    blacksyringe

  37. #137
    ecce homo rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,065

    Code of Conduct

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Callum View Post
    The alleged intelligence is too sketchy to bother with.



    And numerous posters have already told you why Canada isn't doing anything. In your own thread too. Learn to read.
    It isn't about what we're going to do or not do. Lost Lover has so many of us on ignore he doesn't have a fucking clue about who has said what. This is all about the huge hate on the LL has for Canada. And Germany. And his apparent inability to actually just Google and get the answer. This is about him hectoring and baiting the Jubbers from other countries by presenting the false case that the US is always left to go it alone in any military action that pops into their President's mind at any given moment. We all know that this is bullshit, but all we get is LL pretending that the entire world is somehow freeloading off the US military industrial complex. Canada has said that it will do the same as we did in Libya...send warships to help protect the American fleet. When Canada, among other countries calls for a firm response...it doesn't mean that the first thing you do is bomb everything.


    By the way...just for the record...before LL et al get so up in arms about chemical weapons and chemical warfare...can y'all tell me when the US destroyed the last of its own stockpile of CW's. Hint: Not yet.

  38. #138
    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
    10,599

    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
    .... By the way...just for the record...before LL et al get so up in arms about chemical weapons and chemical warfare...can y'all tell me when the US destroyed the last of its own stockpile of CW's. Hint: Not yet.
    Why should we destroy them. We and our surrogates need to use them.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...t-8-years.html

    http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews...pons-WMDs.html

    http://rt.com/news/us-chemical-weapons-portnaya-152/

    Utter hypocrisy.

  39. #139
    JUB Addict cgymike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,528
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

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

    The congress is biased by liberals anyway so Sept 9 or so they will do a fast vote and approve the strike.

    Democracy at work with current liberal slant. You will see the results.

    Obama doesn't care about his poll numbers at this point or about over-use of executive powers. He just want to prove the Congress is in his camp and in so doing is actually staging for the next election to ensure a smooth (liberal) transistion.

    Oh yeah...here come the naysayers but the vote will stand for itself.

    Obama has an agenda..Syria is just a convenient venue.
    Your post comments are forwarded to the CIA.

  40. #140
    ecce homo rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,065

    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
    But what is the actual real game here? Is it to provoke a reaction from Iran so that the scope of use of force can be widened further?
    Is it to provoke Syria into making an attack on Israel or Turkey in order to justify a boots on the ground incursion into Syria? I have to say that I am baffled. They have no oil. They aren't that important geographically or strategically.

    It can't be domestic politics because I can't see either the Republicans or Democrats gaining an advantage in the 2014 cycle out of this?

    What is driving this...except ego?

  41. #141
    JUB Addict cgymike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    6,528
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

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

    But Syrians who say Obama is a coward are wrong. He's not a coward but he lets his personal agenda in party politics dictate everything. Everything Obama has even done is political in nature and geared to bolstering his party. I cannot think of any President so keyed into party politics as he has been.

    IMO Obama is disgusting.
    Your post comments are forwarded to the CIA.

  42. #142
    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
    10,599

    Code of Conduct

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

    Well, it looks like Saudi Arabia - somewhat - supports our doing the dirty work.

    Al-Faisal (the Foreign Minister) said Saudi Arabia would back a U.S. strike on Syrian government targets, provided the military intervention was "the will of the Syrian people."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3853460.html

    And we sell them those weapons why?

  43. #143
    Booyah! Callum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gerstein and Robarts
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    2,706
    Blog Entries
    1

    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
    It isn't about what we're going to do or not do. Lost Lover has so many of us on ignore he doesn't have a fucking clue about who has said what. This is all about the huge hate on the LL has for Canada. And Germany. And his apparent inability to actually just Google and get the answer. This is about him hectoring and baiting the Jubbers from other countries by presenting the false case that the US is always left to go it alone in any military action that pops into their President's mind at any given moment. We all know that this is bullshit, but all we get is LL pretending that the entire world is somehow freeloading off the US military industrial complex. Canada has said that it will do the same as we did in Libya...send warships to help protect the American fleet. When Canada, among other countries calls for a firm response...it doesn't mean that the first thing you do is bomb everything.


    By the way...just for the record...before LL et al get so up in arms about chemical weapons and chemical warfare...can y'all tell me when the US destroyed the last of its own stockpile of CW's. Hint: Not yet.
    Oh. Then I'm putting him on ignore, because that's just annoying as fuck.

    It does make me wonder, if the House says 'no', if he'll do anything anyway...will be an interesting two weeks.
    blacksyringe

  44. #144
    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 Callum View Post
    The alleged intelligence is too sketchy to bother with.



    And numerous posters have already told you why Canada isn't doing anything. In your own thread too. Learn to read.
    What world are you living in? Australia, Austria, Canada (Harper agreed to a "firm response" to the attacks), France, Germany, Israel, Italy (indirectly), Qatar, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US and The Arab League (moments ago) have all concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons. What intelligence are you using that contradicts theirs and their conclusions?

    Please do answer that.

    And what do you think Harper meant when he called for a "firm response"?

    A firm statement?
    "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.

  45. #145
    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 cgymike View Post
    But Syrians who say Obama is a coward are wrong. He's not a coward but he lets his personal agenda in party politics dictate everything. Everything Obama has even done is political in nature and geared to bolstering his party. I cannot think of any President so keyed into party politics as he has been.

    IMO Obama is disgusting.
    What are you basing any of this on? What personal agenda are you talking about? I'm serious. I don't have a clue on anything you're referring to.

    The biggest supporters of military action are two Republicans (Graham and McCain). A Rhode Island senator whose name is skipping me is supporting Obama. Pelosi is supporting Obama. David Gergen, on CNN, said that he sees no way that Congress doesn't authorize action.
    "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.

  46. #146
    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've asked repeatedly for the intelligence and sources people here are using to say that American intelligence on Syria isn't reliable and they can't reference anything. That sounds like people who've made up their mind and facts aren't changing it.

    I encourage people to look at the link below to see how various countries have responded to the chemical attacks. Australia, Austria, Canada (Harper agreed to a "firm response" to the attacks), France, Germany, Israel, Italy (indirectly), Qatar, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US and The Arab League (moments ago) have all concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

    Facts and reality do not matter when you have an agenda. All of these countries have concluded that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians and the naysayers here have insider access to intelligence they can't share that contradicts all of these countries' findings.

    Their silence matters. When the US strikes Syria, unfortunately, there will be some casualties. And some of the whiners will be the ones silent now. (One person said that Australia won't do anything about Syria's usage of chemical weapons because Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons. And that was a silly response from a poster offering a serious answer.) My point is: you can't be MIA now and complain later.
    Last edited by Lostlover; September 1st, 2013 at 04:00 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.

  47. #147
    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
    10,599

    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
    .... Facts and reality do not matter when you have an agenda. ....
    So true. Now learn.

    You will not bear the cross of jingoism long.

  48. #148
    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 palbert View Post
    So true. Now learn.

    You will not bear the cross of jingoism long.
    So please tell me how staying out of this matter will play out? I'm dying to hear your response.
    "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.

  49. #149
    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
    10,599

    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
    So please tell me how staying out of this matter will play out? I'm dying to hear your response.
    As the advocate of action it is incumbent upon you to tell me how your scenario will play out.

    One remembers the military's vigorousness.


  50. #150
    Are u haleloo ya ? Telstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    28,805

    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've asked repeatedly for the intelligence and sources people here are using to say that American intelligence on Syria isn't reliable and they can't reference anything. That sounds like people who've made up their mind and facts aren't changing it.

    I encourage people to look at the link below to see how various countries have responded to the chemical attacks. Australia, Austria, Canada (Harper agreed to a "firm response" to the attacks), France, Germany, Israel, Italy (indirectly), Qatar, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US and The Arab League (moments ago) have all concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

    Facts and reality do not matter when you have an agenda. All of these countries have concluded that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians and the naysayers here have insider access to intelligence they can't share that contradicts all of these countries' findings.

    Their silence matters. When the US strikes Syria, unfortunately, there will be some casualties. And some of the whiners will be the ones silent now. (One person said that Australia won't do anything about Syria's usage of chemical weapons because Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons. And that was a silly response from a poster offering a serious answer.) My point is: you can't be MIA now and complain later.
    I was making fun.
    Australia is too far away. Why not the closest countries to something first ?


    NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.

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.