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.

On-Topic Mondays Final Debate

You just don't get it. The question is not whether we get out or not. The stupidity is in ANNOUNCING years in advance when we are leaving. It prevents them from getting discouraged and quitting. Destroys any bargaining power we have. Makes it easier for them to recruit. Tells the Afghan people that soon we will be gone with the bad guys still there.
We should keep our date of exit to ourselves and allies and begin the withdrawal without announcing it.
 
We announced years in advance that we were leaving Iraq. So your point besides being invalid?

See that point of view is from someone who hasn't been there or done it but it sounds good on American airwaves. The Iraqi's were perfectly fine sending Americans to die for their security until we told them we were leaving then those in charge realized without a security force of their own they would likely die. Violently.

The same thing was occurring in Afghanistan less than two years ago prior to the surge the efforts to train a security force were failing miserably. Spending a lot of money and resulting in nothing. So instead of leaving it to our Allies the US took over the majority of the training. We still employed our allies but could no longer pay for no results. We then surged and gave the Afghan govt a deadline to prepare themselves. If we did not not only the Afghan's but people like Paul Ryan would think it is perfectly reasonable to continue sending our troops to die in the mountains of Afghanistan AFTER we have obtained our objectives.

The Taliban rises up and we let Afghani's know they need to fix it and if they dont we launch a drone attack or two and keep them at bay. What we need to stop doing is bleeding american lives and american treasure into the earth over there. It is done. Accept it.
 
HenryReardon said:
Oh, that's too funny. Most people would prefer to sit this one out, but the country cannot afford four more years of Obama's continued destruction of this country.
Click to expand...


In what ways has Mr Obama destroyed your country? Please give specific details. Thanks.
 
JayHawk said:
We went to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. We did so. Now it is time to stop dying for a centuries old conflict.

These neocons have short memories for who they send into harms way. Remember the quagmire called Iraq? What caused them to start assuming control of their government? That was when GWB was forced to tell them to take their shit because they were getting it all and he set a date. Guess what happened then? The Iraqis stood up. If the Afghani's fail to do so that is their fault and their fucking problem not our soldiers. Kinda funny that out of one side of their mouth these economic mental midgets talk about not spending and yet they have no problem spending a billion a day on Afghanistan all spurned on by weak fucks who can run their mouths but wouldn't think for one second about serving this country in that respect.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
I believe a main reason they push for it is the stateside military contractors that benefit greatly from building these expensive high tech weapons that are used quickly, destroyed and must be rebuilt at the cost of billions. But this isn't 1943 where a assembly line of workers are putting together Sherman tanks and jeeps. Employment in human terms is low due to technology and profits are just incredible.
Its all high tech with huge returns for the corporate interest. A end of war means less profits. The actual 82nd airborne men & woman on the ground is of little concern when they are just numbers on a piece of paper unlike the profit margin to a vehicle recently designed to take a IED's. The loss of those represent rebuild contracts.

Romney clearly illustrated this in the debate with his ridiculous comparison to the 1916 Navy fleet number compared to modern high tech 21st century. He sees building of ships as means to profit and ignores technology, except when it comes down to citing how many workers it took to build a fleet of vessels in 1916 and the numbers now that are needed. Then its a different story.

People like Benvolio illustrate the non- understanding of removing a huge military infrastructure and think its like picking up your tent and throwing it in the SUV going home after a weekend camp out in the country. It takes time and planning to withdraw, the longer the occupation and expansion the slower the withdraw.
There is no possible way that the locals and enemy will not be well versed that the opponents of a huge military machine thousands of miles from home are closing shop many months ahead of time even if they had no advanced intelligence.
 
opinterph said:
Benvolio, you are generalizing and stereotyping in a way that very much resembles racism. You are welcome to discuss economic concept(s) relative to the movement of populations into or out of the US, but please dispense with the race baiting.
Click to expand...

What Benvolio fails to see is that foreigners who come here are plainly the ones who realized that their countries were failing, and have chosen to come participate in a system that works. Thus they see clearly what many Americans don't even care about -- and so may be better for our economy than many who grew up here.
 
JayHawk said:
No you see in this forum we are allowed to say whatever we like about Romney as long as it does not cross specific bounds like the racism mentioned earlier. Why do you take everything about Romney personally as a democrat that is?
Click to expand...

Besides, no one is making generalizations about Romney -- if anything, people are making generalizations about Republicans beased on Romney.
 
Benvolio has a point about letting the enemy know in advance when you're withdrawing (or adding, for that matter) troops. What he neglects is that it is but one of many factors; he's treating the matter as one-dimensional when it isn't.

In fact, trumpeting when you're going can be a nice way to lay a trap -- not that I think Obama has the balls to do that, but it's been done before, and could be again.
 
Kulindahr said:
What Benvolio fails to see is that foreigners who come here are plainly the ones who realized that their countries were failing, and have chosen to come participate in a system that works. Thus they see clearly what many Americans don't even care about -- and so may be better for our economy than many who grew up here.
Click to expand...

This. Not to toot my own horn, but during my interaction with Americans, I often feel like I understand their country better than they do. I have experience to compare with. Many Americans have never been outside the US.
 
Rolyo85 said:
This. Not to toot my own horn, but during my interaction with Americans, I often feel like I understand their country better than they do. I have experience to compare with. Many Americans have never been outside the US.
Click to expand...

Not so much a toot as a knock

how to win friends and influence people ;)

The broadness of this brush is incalculatable

time for new friends

Back to to topic

No truth to the rumor that mitt is replacing Biden on the ticket

seems he agrees with the pres more than old Joe
 
Whatever happened to the good old days when the candidate who came in second became Veep?

Although, I guess as prez you'd always be watching your back.

As CNN said 'If the debate had lasted half an hour longer, Mitt would have been endorsing Obama.'
 
EastMed said:
In what ways has Mr Obama destroyed your country? Please give specific details. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Obamacare will destroy the best healthcare system in the world.
Oppressive regulations that hamper job creation.
Failure to exploit our own natural resources.
Tax changes proposed and/or enacted that will put businesses out of business.

To name a few.

Sorry I don't have facilities to do research, but I'm currently in the hospital - had knee surgery eary this morning.
 
HenryReardon said:
Obamacare will destroy the best healthcare system in the world.
Oppressive regulations that hamper job creation.
Failure to exploit our own natural resources.
Tax changes proposed and/or enacted that will put businesses out of business.

To name a few.

Sorry I don't have facilities to do research, but I'm currently in the hospital - had knee surgery eary this morning.
Click to expand...

What a pile of crap.

Untruths or silly speculation.

No proof at all.

and it isn't because of the lame assed excuse that you are in hospital.

Enjoy the meds.
 
Rolyo85 said:
America's healthcare services are great. America's healthcare system however is arguably THE WORST in the first world.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If we have the "best healthcare system", why is it by far the most expensive, but ranks 37th in the world in health outcomes? It the best for the filthy rich I suppose... and even that is likely not true.
 
ReadyWithReadyWit said:
Exactly. If we have the "best healthcare system", why is it by far the most expensive, but ranks 37th in the world in health outcomes? It the best for the filthy rich I suppose... and even that is likely not true.
Click to expand...

Is that data from a 12 yr old WHO study? If so, it is meaningless, because that infamous study was focused on distribution of care more than anything else.

Take a look at cancer survival rates:

http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/co...rveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf


Refer to table 5 and you will see that the 5 year survival rates from cancer in the US are head and shoulders above the rest of the world in most categories. Which is wh y people come here from all over the world to receive care that they cannot get at home, and/or cannot get it in a timely manner.
 
rareboy said:
No proof at all.

and it isn't because of the lame assed excuse that you are in hospital.
Click to expand...

A link was just posted regarding cancer survival rates. I don't have the energy to do any more research until I return home.
"Lame" excuse? I don't think so. What could you accomplish while confined to bed and forbidden to move?
Ever had really invasive knee surgery? It isn't a lot of fun.
 
The thing is since no one can access the health care except those with excellent bank accounts then it is a useless healthcare system or do you prefer just people with worth receive treatment? Kind of like a Spartan idea of leave the lame behind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top