The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

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

Stardreamer said:
So if you can't get your way you should just chuck that whole democracy and balance of powers thing? (chuckles)
Click to expand...

It's not a question of Obama not getting his way.

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

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

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

But such shenanigans are no way to govern, and they do not fit Obama's style.
 
The Arab League was founded in Cairo in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan from 1946), and Yemen (North Yemen, later combined Yemen). There was a continual increase in membership during the second half of the 20th century, with additional 15 Arab states and 4 observers being admitted.
Click to expand...

The Arab League also threw its weight behind calls for punitive action, blaming the Syrian government for the attack and calling for those responsible to be brought to justice.
Click to expand...

By Thursday or more likely Friday, there will be more support by the american people through our ever democratic 'polling' process.

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

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

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

Cheers.....
 
It will not be World War III but the ramifications of what is left standing and how those who certainly aren't friends of America or the West may react may lurch the region ever closer to chaos. If Obama had led decisively early on al-Qaeda and their Islamist allies would never had filled the vacuum and less radical elements pushing regime change in Syria might have emerged victorious. Obama waited for everyone's approval, he made a couple of reckless lines in the sand declarations that he pulled back on. Iran will just get more determined to foil us... the Russians will as well. What are we exactly doing there now in these limited but damaging cruise missile strikes that's really going to accomplish something positive? I DON'T support this... we've made more than enough terrible mistakes in that area we don't have to go on making more horrible ones. Iraq had a purpose at least, even if it was a fraudulent one.... but in the end just WHAT will come out of an attack in these installations? Yes the usage by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons in even more brazen fashion is an outrage but it's too damn late now to just" do something" about it. At best the damage that's going on in Syria is at least contained.... we do this what the hell are we going to face blowing the mess wide open?
 
Lostlover said:
I love countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and other European countries that are as quiet as a church mouse on these matters. If something goes wrong, while the US, UK, France and Turkey attempt to degrade Assad's ability to kill his own people, you can bet that these people from these silent countries will have an opinion.

Canada where are you?

Australia?

Germany?

Is anyone there?

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

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

Heads, you win by keeping out of it.

Tails, you win if Assad is toppled, because you'll ride the UK's and France's coattails.
Click to expand...

Oh get the fuck over it.

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

Why do you think that the Western Empires are bidden to clean up every mess in the world?
 
2-1/2 yrs of civil war and over 100,000 dead, over 7,000 the last month. Hundreds of thousands are refugees and homeless.
President Obama said chemical weapons were a deciding factor if used and proven. They are awful I agree but wtf, being shot or blown apart is no walk in the park for the previous 93,000 killed as of June. Its hideous and torture. Makes no sense to me. Its already proven that mass killing has been going on rather your limbs are torn from socket or you are gassed.
So far no other country has been eager to jump in. Too bad for Syrian people there is no oil.
 
kallipolis said:
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...syrian-war-of-lies-and-hypocrisy-7985012.html
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Stardreamer said:
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)
Click to expand...

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).
 
Jack Springer said:
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...ow-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

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



Not true.

The USA attacked Iraq under GWB, placing it on the same side in the struggle as Al-Qaeda.
 
rareboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
palbert said:
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/charles-shoebridge/syria-chemical-weapons-us_b_3443185.html

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

Jack Springer said:
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...ow-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top