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

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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.

Boehner Gives Obama a Deadline on Libya

rareboy said:
So effectively what the US is saying is that it is okay for them to draw other allies into unresolvable conflict and wars of adventure in countries like Iraq, but that the US is not going to live up to the treaty obligations to other NATO countries?
Click to expand...

It's interesting to me that Obama hasn't raised the treaty obligation aspect. If there's any substance to it, then this would be a good case for the Supreme Court to take, since treaties are considered part of our law -- so if there's a treaty obligation, it's Obama's duty to stay the course in Libya. At that point it's a matter of which law takes precedence.
 
Lostlover said:
Total hypocrites. A war on humanitarian grounds should be looked into. But checking out Bush for war crimes for starting a phony war is stepping over the lines.

And of course, the media is looking into this.
Click to expand...

For "humanitarian" reasons we would have gone to Darfur, ended the civil war in Sudan, stopped Pol Pot in Cambodia, attacked China after Tiananmen Square, we'd be in Syria now and probably in North Korea.

Thank the gods, this isn't the mission of the US, our we'd all be war dead.
 
Of course it is theatre.

Just like the Americans seemingly perpetual lust to impeach their sitting president.

And the meaningless 'struggle' being waged in the media over states rights, the legislative versus the executive versus the judicial.....on and on ad infinitum.

When the rest of the world bothers to pay any attention to the domestic politics of the US anymore, all they see is a nation tearing itself to pieces over religious ideology and grandstanding over issues that neither of the two Official Peoples' Parties would ever see resolved because it would rob them of any means of polarizing the citizens even more in order to retain the power base their various corporate owners have bought and paid for.

Whereas the great hope was that the Americans would unify and get their domestic and foreign policy shit together after 2008, instead, we've all been treated to perpetual electioneering by those who are just desperate to get on the gravy train and get some corporate business or fundie religious owners of their own in order to nail a spot on Fox. Or, it seems like ever since Nixon, it has always only been about payback with the Dems and Republicans now only ever looking ahead to their next chance to humiliate, diminish and ideally destroy the other party.

It has already happened with the Dems having been co-opted and corn-holed by the Republicans that they appear to have developed Stockholm syndrome.

Let us all agree that it is excellent for Boehner to give the Executive Branch a deadline to explain the action and obtain support for either being there or going home.
 
NineOfClubs said:
For "humanitarian" reasons we would have gone to Darfur, ended the civil war in Sudan, stopped Pol Pot in Cambodia, attacked China after Tiananmen Square, we'd be in Syria now and probably in North Korea.

Thank the gods, this isn't the mission of the US, our we'd all be war dead.
Click to expand...

George Will once called this response silly. Just because we go to war in one place for humanitarian reasons doesn't mean we're bound to go everyplace that could use humanitarian intervention, and more than if I put a quarter in the cup of one homeless guy I am suddenly obligated to track down all the homeless in the city and provide them with quarters as well.
 
While I support anything that gets us out of this voluntary war of adventure, amongst others, I don't understand something. For the past decade the GOP has been creaming their undies over the mere thought of bombing the fuck out of brown people, what makes these brown people any different to the GOP?

Hint - It has something to do with a certain individual living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
 
MoltenRock III said:
Why people are so upset with this Libya diversion, vs. what the US is doing in Pakistan is beyond me. Odd.
Click to expand...

Scale.

Pakistan is like your odd uncle shooting cans off the fence; Libya is like your two nephews turning a fence-post driver into a mortar and lobbing rounds into the orchard.
 
Kulindahr said:
George Will once called this response silly. Just because we go to war in one place for humanitarian reasons doesn't mean we're bound to go everyplace that could use humanitarian intervention, and more than if I put a quarter in the cup of one homeless guy I am suddenly obligated to track down all the homeless in the city and provide them with quarters as well.
Click to expand...

Then allow me to call George Will "silly".

The Administration has never explained why, in this one SPECIAL case, we ought to act for humanitarian reasons. Are Libyans a more valuable people than Syrians or Congolese?

The whole idea that we need to enter the fray to "stop bloodshed" then proceed to bomb innocents and spill more blood is insane. It was a simple civil war that threatened the US not at all.

I hope the Congress defunds this folly, and soon.
 
NineOfClubs said:
Then allow me to call George Will "silly".

The Administration has never explained why, in this one SPECIAL case, we ought to act for humanitarian reasons. Are Libyans a more valuable people than Syrians or Congolese?

The whole idea that we need to enter the fray to "stop bloodshed" then proceed to bomb innocents and spill more blood is insane. It was a simple civil war that threatened the US not at all.

I hope the Congress defunds this folly, and soon.
Click to expand...

Not true -- Obama was convinced by Hillary that we should do this, to a great extent because NATO was, and to a lesser extent because the Libyan opposition asked. Another reason was because something like 2/3 of all the warfare in Africa the last three or four decades has been incited by Qaddaffi.

Of course it also looked easy, since the rebels at one time had better than 4/5 of the country -- but by the time the UN and NATO went through the formal steps, that was no longer true.

OTOH, now that it is again, I don't see that we're needed.
 
^ Kuli, in the last few years I've seen you morph into the ugliest Statist, big government supporter. Almost a neocon. :eek:

Good luck to you and all the promoters of this ill advised excursion into the internal affairs of another country. :rolleyes:
 
NineOfClubs said:
^ Kuli, in the last few years I've seen you morph into the ugliest Statist, big government supporter. Almost a neocon. :eek:

Good luck to you and all the promoters of this ill advised excursion into the internal affairs of another country. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You'd rather I cheer for those who would sell out our liberty for the favor of the mega-rich?

The only champions of liberty right now in D.C. are the Democrats, with a very few Republicans. If these Republicans get their way, the wealthiest 500 families won't have as much wealth as the poorest 50 million, but the poorest 100 million. That is not a path to liberty. If these Republicans get their way, the wealth that could create new jobs will keep fleeing the country, and by 2025 the national debt will be a trillion times the last two digits of the year.

The only way a libertarian society could emerge from that would be by revolution, but it would be a very impoverished society as a thousand families would flee overseas with three-fifths of the country's mobile wealth.

When both big parties are working to restrict our liberties, one does not praise the one whose policies will make things worst.


BTW, do you think France's intervention on the side of the rabble in arms in Britain's cross-Atlantic colonies was an "ill-advised excursion into the internal affairs of another country"?
 
MoltenRock III said:
Why people are so upset with this Libya diversion, vs. what the US is doing in Pakistan is beyond me. Odd.
Click to expand...

Obama was very clear while running for President that he would deal with Pakistan unilaterally.

. . . . of course, he was very clear about what he was going to do about health care, Gitmo, transparency, the economy too .... and you know that all ended.
 
loki81 said:
I think there's a bipartisan sense of war-weariness all around... Libya is one more straw on the camel's back; Pakistan, otoh, has been on-going for practically as long as we've been in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I assumed it was because most Americans just don't care anymore, nor pay attention. They've moved on, and the Afghan War isn't important one way or the other, just so long as the US can say "it won".

Libya is in the headlines because its new and fresh war-making.
 
The bipartisan response is escalating:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-17-03-14-56

And now it comes out that Obama ignored the opinions of Justice department and Pentagon lawyers in favor of those that supported his own opinions.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-17-22-44-00

Seriously. Congress has already said they will pass an authorization if he asks. Why the hell isn't he asking? Does he really want to escalate this into a full fledged constitutional showdown?
 
Incidentally I consider changing one's mind, or "morphing" if you will, to be a sign of character.

Anyway. A country which embraces a universal notion of human rights has no choice but to implicate itself into the affairs of the rest of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top