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.

We Do Need Military Action: Hillary Clinton Calls It "A Moral Duty"

JayHawk

Rambunctiously Pugnacious
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Posts
24,239
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
River Quay - KC
We Do Need Military Action: Hillary Clinton Calls It "A Moral Duty" "Under International Law"


I mentioned earlier that Clintons will only make a decision based upon how it affects their popularity. This seals it. Besides being from RedState which will be the only defense not of Hillaries words. ANyways flame on:

The RS Insider was briefly impressed this morning at some chatter around the Hill. Hillary is on board! She’s recognized the national security and humanitarian interests in Iraq!

In a surprising call for military strength, the RS Insider heard, Hillary Clinton is demanding a “robust mandate to protect civilians”, including the troops necessary to “fully implement that mandate.” "We have," the RS Insider heard Senator Clinton had said, “a moral duty and a responsibility under international law to stand up for the safety of the millions of civilians” who “who remain vulnerable to attack.” So, Hillary Clinton has decided to support the mission in Iraq!

Well, no.

For Senator Clinton and other Democrats, Iraq is a problem for Republicans. Democrats are more interested in protecting their campaigns than in protecting Iraqis. That “moral duty” to protect civilians only applies to Sudan.

But Iraq? Despite conceding that we have “vital national security interests” in Iraq, Hillary Clinton says she would take US troops “off the streets in Baghdad” and would not let them “protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.”

Sudan + violence = send troops, protect civilians!

Iraq + violence + vital national security interests = withdraw!
 
I mentioned earlier that Clintons will only make a decision based upon how it affects their popularity. This seals it. Besides being from RedState which will be the only defense not of Hillaries words. ANyways flame on:

The "RedState Insider", Maz? Really, can't you do better than their inuendo and hearsay?
I mean, look at this:
In a surprising call for military strength, the RS Insider heard, Hillary Clinton is demanding a “robust mandate to protect civilians”, including the troops necessary to “fully implement that mandate.” "We have," the RS Insider heard Senator Clinton had said, “a moral duty and a responsibility under international law to stand up for the safety of the millions of civilians” who “who remain vulnerable to attack.” So, Hillary Clinton has decided to support the mission in Iraq!
It amounts to rumor, in my book. Or, this tidbit:
"We have," the RS Insider heard Senator Clinton had said, “a moral duty. . ."
Um, isn't that "hearsay once removed?" as Mow would call it? It smacks of tabloid journalism to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no big fan of Mrs. Clinton anymore. . . but I don't think she's as villainous as righties would like to paint her.
 
I can see her supporting Sudan and for political reason she has to get herself left o IraQ to win the party so it is easy to believe. I am really just wanting to get fired up responses from lefties. This cite has so many hate post from both sides of the sepctrum I just simply wanna even it out when I see too much on one side or the other. But anyways onto facts:

Now this is from her website. I hope she isn't lying on herself, I mean how scandulous is that?
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON HAS RELEASED THE FOLLOWING LETTER ON DARFUR


The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500


Dear Mr. President:

I write with great concern about the crisis in Sudan. Despite the work of the African Union, violence against civilians and aid workers in Darfur is increasing and spilling across the border into Chad. Between 200,000 and 400,000 people have been killed, and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other credible experts continue to warn that three million civilians are displaced and at risk in Darfur and in eastern Chad. The situation in eastern Sudan is also of concern.

The United States and United Nations (U.N.) now possess extensive, official accounts of the violence and, through a U.N. Panel of Experts and other sources, we also know who may be responsible. The Government of Sudan - reported by the U.S. State Department on March 8, 2006 to be responsible for the genocide in Darfur - continues to deny the existence of a crisis. It continues to threaten retaliation against an international intervention, and, according to a U.N. report dated January 30, 2006, it continues to introduce additional military aircraft into Darfur. The United States can and must do more. Below are 13 ways in which you can take action.

Convene a meeting of world leaders to address the crisis in Darfur. For 100 weeks, the international community has watched, with little meaningful response, as the first genocide of this millennium has been carried out by the Government of Sudan against the people of Darfur. I urge you to convene, without delay, a meeting between leaders of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the African Union, and other interested world leaders, to map out an action-plan for Darfur. The millions of displaced victims in Darfur deserve at least this much.

Appoint a Presidential Envoy to Sudan. To promote lasting peace in both Darfur and eastern Sudan, and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to peace negotiations and agreements, I urge you to consider the appointment of a Presidential Envoy to Sudan. Like Senator Danforth, your previous Envoy to Sudan, a new Envoy should participate personally in peace talks, oversee and coordinate U.S. engagement in Sudan, and report directly to you on these efforts.

Lead the U.N. Security Council in authorizing a peacekeeping mission in Darfur. To protect civilians from continued violence - much of which is documented explicitly in a 42-page U.N. report published on January 27 and the U.N. Secretary-General's monthly reports to the Security Council - I urge you to push the U.N. Security Council to authorize, under Chapter VII, a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

On January 12 and March 10, 2006, the African Union endorsed this mission in principle. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has begun planning this mission, in accordance with the U.N. Security Council's Presidential Statement of February 3, 2006.

Efforts to broker a peace agreement for Darfur must not forestall efforts to protect civilians. Our continued inaction will enable the killings to continue. This fact cannot be ignored.

A U.N. mission in Darfur must now be authorized with a clear and robust mandate to protect civilians; and be supplied with the troops, air- and ground-mobility, and communications network required to fully implement that mandate.

The Government of Sudan must either cooperate with this mission or face sanctions, in accordance with the existing U.N. Security Council Resolutions that are described below.

Support the African Union. According to U.N. officials, deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur may take six to nine months. To protect civilians in the interim, I urge you to support the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur in two ways. First, I urge you to support the funding needs of the African Union mission for the next nine months. As you know, the United States' share of these costs is estimated at $10 million per month.

Second, in accordance with United States Senate Resolution 383, which I co-sponsored, I urge you to lead NATO in providing assistance to the A.U. peacekeepers in Darfur, particularly in the areas of command and control, logistics, intelligence, and airlift. I called for NATO assistance in Darfur more than 12 months ago, at the Munich Conference on Security. Since then, NATO has been helpful, particularly with airlift, but it can and should do more.

Third, to improve the ability of the existing African Union peacekeepers to deter violence, I urge you to explore mechanisms that would provide African Union commanders in Darfur with specific, timely, standardized information about imminent attacks against civilians in Darfur.

Enforce the no-fly zone that has been established by the U.N. Security Council and endorsed by the U.S. Congress. Despite the enactment of a no-fly zone by the U.N. Security Council in March 2005 - nearly one year ago - the Government of Sudan continues its aerial assaults against civilians in Darfur. This is unacceptable, and I urge you to work with members of NATO, the U.N. Security Council, and the African Union to immediately enforce the ban on offensive overhead flights in Darfur that was established by Security Council Resolution 1591.

On March 2, 2006, the U.S. Senate adopted Resolution 383 calling on you to take steps to enforce the no-fly zone in Darfur. Senator Biden and others have suggested that enforcement of the flight ban would require no more than 12 to 18 fighter planes and a handful of AWACs. I urge you to work other countries to mobilize these resources, and to ensure that the Government of Sudan ceases its overhead assaults. Our continued failure on this issue is unacceptable.

Similarly, I urge you to raise with Khartoum the findings of a U.N. report dated January 30, 2006, which suggest that the Government of Sudan continues to introduce additional offensive military aircraft into Darfur.

Lead the U.N. Security Council in enforcing Resolution 1591, to freeze the assets and travel of certain dangerous individuals. I urge you to work with other members of the U.N. Security Council to fully implement Resolution 1591, which authorized the Security Council to impose travel bans and asset freezes on any individuals believed by a Panel of Experts to constitute a threat to stability, to violate international human rights law, to impede the peace process, or to conduct offensive overhead military flights.

The Panel of Experts has identified several individuals who have perpetrated such violations of international law, and these individuals must be prevented from organizing or perpetrating additional violence, and be sanctioned in full accordance with Resolution 1591. At the very least, the Security Council should call the named individuals to the United Nations for dialogue and questioning.

Lead the U.N. Security Council in enforcing Resolution 1564, to hold accountable the Government of Sudan for its documented failure to meet its international obligations to end violence and protect civilians in Darfur. I urge you to work with the U.N. Security Council to fully implement Resolution 1564, which calls on the Security Council to consider "additional measures as contemplated in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, such as actions to affect Sudan's petroleum sector and the Government of Sudan or individual members of the Government of Sudan," if the Government of Sudan fails its previous obligations under international law, including U.N. Security Council Resolution 1556 and the Joint Communiqué dated July 3, 2004.

Several official reports, including a U.N. report published on January 27, 2006, demonstrate unequivocally that the Government of Sudan has failed its obligations. It has failed to protect civilians in Darfur, and it has failed to punish members of the military and the Janjaweed for violations of international human rights law. These realities and Resolution 1564 should now compel the Security Council to consider Article 41 measures against the Government of Sudan.

Ensure that the U.N. Security Council listens to the experts. I urge you to convene a briefing for members of the Security Council by experts who can describe the situation in Darfur, eastern Chad, and eastern Sudan. The Security Council should hear testimony from Juan Mendez, Special Advisor to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide. As you know, the Security Council did not allow Mr. Mendez to present his observations in October 2005.

Stop the violence from spreading into Chad. I urge you to monitor tensions along the Chad-Sudan border and to focus the U.N. Security Council on this important issue. The U.N. Secretary-General noted in his January 30 report to the Security Council that "there has been a worrying build-up of armed forces of the two States and local militias on both sides of the border," and that "it is vitally important that the situation in the border areas of Chad and the conflicts in the Sudan do not combine to propel the two countries and the whole region towards confrontation and conflict."

More specifically, I urge you to work with the Security Council and the African Union to monitor implementation of the February 8, 2006 accord between the Presidents of Chad and Sudan, and to deter all parties from escalating the conflict. The safety of at least three million civilians along the Chad-Sudan border depends on your attention to this issue.

Call publicly for better behavior from Khartoum. Using Resolutions 1591 and 1564 and other points of leverage, I urge you to call on the Government of Sudan - particularly the National Congress Party in Khartoum - to immediately desist from violence against civilians; protect safe passage for aid workers; cooperate fully with international peacekeepers; engage constructively in the peace talks in Abuja; diffuse tensions along the Chad-Sudan border; and disarm and punish the Janjaweed and other groups responsible for genocidal violence in Darfur.

I urge you to call similarly on the Government of Sudan to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement without delay and in full consultation with the Government of Southern Sudan, and to protect civilians and peacefully address the situation in eastern Sudan.

Work with the U.N. Security Council to address attacks by rebel groups in Darfur.

I urge you to work with the Security Council to make it clear to all rebels and perpetrators of violence in Sudan and Chad that attacks against civilians and aid workers are violations of international law; and that continued international consideration of their grievances depends directly upon their immediate cessation of violence against civilians.

Plan for reconstruction in Darfur. Through a new Presidential Envoy or other U.S. officials, I urge you to begin working with the World Bank and other stakeholders on a Joint Assessment Mission to plan for reconstruction in Darfur. This may help to accelerate the peace process by demonstrating to the Darfur rebels and the Government of Sudan that peace can bring financial dividends, and, once peace has been established, it will help to speed reconstruction and promote stability.

Support reconstruction in southern Sudan. I urge you to provide strong, material support to the Government of Southern Sudan as it builds a stable state, economy, and society in the wake of decades of conflict. Similarly, I urge you to encourage the Government of Southern Sudan to engage constructively in the Darfur peace negotiations.

During the last century, in Nazi Europe, Cambodia, and elsewhere, the international community failed to protect millions of innocent people from genocide and horrific crimes. We look back and wonder how the world allowed those killings to continue. We must find a way to protect civilians in Darfur, without further delay.

As you know, I and other members of the U.S. Congress recognized the genocide in Darfur in July 2004. In September 2004, then Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same. A few months later, in January 2005, a U.N. International Commission of Inquiry established by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1564 also found strong evidence of genocide in Darfur. In February 2006, Secretary of State Rice said that "genocide was committed and in fact continues in Darfur." Even so, international agreement on the existence of genocide has little connection to the need or basis for action.

Hundreds of acts of violence in Darfur, many constituting crimes against humanity and war crimes - along with specific descriptions of the perpetrators - have been recorded in detail by the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, the African Union, the NGO community, and other organizations. I urge you to read these gruesome accounts, and to also review the list of individuals who have been identified by the U.N. Panel of Experts established by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591. In the case of Darfur, we are now obligated by the U.N. Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, several statutes of international human rights law, and existing U.N. Security Council resolutions to transform our awareness into action.

Therefore, I urge you, as President of the United States, to remind the international community of its commitments and to work urgently with the United Nations, the African Union, and NATO to protect civilians and address the growing crises in Darfur, eastern Chad, and eastern Sudan. Thank you for your attention to these urgent matters.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Then there is this statement from the same source:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON THE FEINGOLD-REID AND REED-LEVIN AMENDMENTS...May 15, 2007...

"Tomorrow, I will cast my vote to send the President a clear message: Democrats are united in fighting to change course, redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and end this war as soon as possible.

When the Senate votes on motions to allow debate on both the Feingold-Reid and Reed-Levin Amendments, I will vote for cloture on both. I do so because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group offered a way forward for beginning the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. But President Bush rejected those recommendations and refuses to work with Congress to develop a strategy that will enable our troops to start coming home.

President Bush vetoed the bipartisan bill to fund the troops, refuses to change course, and stubbornly denies the reality on the ground and the will of the American people.

We will continue to press him to follow the will of the people. I will continue to pursue with Senator Byrd our legislation to deauthorize the war by October 11, 2007. I will continue to do everything in my power to convince the president to change course and to work with my colleagues in the Senate to bring an end to this war as soon as possible."
 
I mentioned earlier that Clintons will only make a decision based upon how it affects their popularity. This seals it. Besides being from RedState which will be the only defense not of Hillaries words. ANyways flame on:


Your biased and dishonest website has cherry picked Senator Clinton's words to make it appear she meant something she did not.

What a surprise.

So here's the truth.

The quotes about Dafur are from two different statements, one in June 2006 and the other in March 2007. Here are links to them and context:


“We have a moral duty and a responsibility under international law to stand up for the safety of millions of people in Darfur who remain vulnerable to attack. The time for rhetoric has passed. We urgently need the President to appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan and work with other countries to meet the African Union’s request for U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. We need sustained, high-level attention to this ongoing crisis.”

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=258129&&

Lead the U.N. Security Council in authorizing a peacekeeping mission in Darfur. To protect civilians from continued violence – much of which is documented explicitly in a 42-page U.N. report published on January 27 and the U.N. Secretary-General’s monthly reports to the Security Council – I urge you to push the U.N. Security Council to authorize, under Chapter VII, a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

On January 12 and March 10, 2006, the African Union endorsed this mission in principle. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has begun planning this mission, in accordance with the U.N. Security Council’s Presidential Statement of February 3, 2006.

Efforts to broker a peace agreement for Darfur must not forestall efforts to protect civilians. Our continued inaction will enable the killings to continue. This fact cannot be ignored.

A U.N. mission in Darfur must now be authorized with a clear and robust mandate to protect civilians; and be supplied with the troops, air- and ground-mobility, and communications network required to fully implement that mandate.

The Government of Sudan must either cooperate with this mission or face sanctions, in accordance with the existing U.N. Security Council Resolutions that are described below. ...

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=252800


Clearly Senator Clinton is not advocating a US Military action in Dafur, or starting a war there as Bush did in Iraq. She's advocating a peacekeeping mission sponsored by the UN. Further, the situation in Dafur is completely different from that in Iraq right now. Different problems require different solutions.

As to the Iraq cherry picked words, they're from an interview Senator Clinton did with The New York Times this past March. Here's a link to the article, following some of what she said, and its full context:


Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, she replied: ''Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they are at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, What is this getting us? What is this doing for us?''

''No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,'' she added. ''It's going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem; we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority -- you can go down the lines, if, if, if -- ''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...936A25750C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


These are well considered plans that address real problems that need to be solved. There's nothing in there that will make Clinton popular but good sound reasoning and hard choices that make an excellent case for her being President.
 
No one died in Somalias peace keeping effort or in Boznia...right? Wrong. We simply go stand with our weapons and if we get shot at the ROE prevents agressive reprisal for enemy actions. In other words your saying you support the killing of our troops as long as it is for your cause and as long as we don't shoot back. Good call.

P.S. I posted your same quotes before you did. SO it isn't right wing smear. SHe supports protecting civillians in Sudan but not in Iraq. Simple and easy.
 
Good job, Nick!
And, good job, Mazda, too! Good job of getting pertinent, truthful citations into the debate!

Asking the President to work with the international community and the UN to make a statement to Sudan, and asking the President to withdraw from our unilateral war on a nation that doesn't want us there, are completely compatible stances. Sudan = human rights. Iraq = oil. Get it?
 
So because Iraq has oil the people should be allowed to be ethnically clensed?
 
Your biased and dishonest website has cherry picked Senator Clinton's words to make it appear she meant something she did not.

What a surprise.

So here's the truth.

The quotes about Dafur are from two different statements, one in June 2006 and the other in March 2007. Here are links to them and context:

Thanks, Nick, for that post. I was preparing a similar--if not, identical post--in response to this bs (even though it isn't really worthy of a response) until I saw that you covered things pretty well. :kiss:

Do you have some evidence of current ethnic cleansing in Iraq?

The only "ethnic cleansing" taking place in Iraq is that of American soldiers by insurgents, as both Sunni and Shia sects are uniting to purge American troops from the country. That's one of the many reasons Senator Clinton supports a phased withdrawal.
 
Oh I see so Lance, Nick and Random, you believe that there will be no ethnic clensing in Iraq after we depart?
 
Oh I see so Lance, Nick and Random, you believe that there will be no ethnic clensing in Iraq after we depart?

If there is, then, by all means the United States (along with the United Nations) should get involved. The assumption that it will happen is pretty pessimistic, and speaks very poorly of the puppet regime Bush has put in place.
 
Oh I see so Lance, Nick and Random, you believe that there will be no ethnic clensing in Iraq after we depart?

No amount of U.S. forces is going to stop or contain the violence in Iraq if there is no leadership from or political agreement within the Iraqi government. That is why it is crucial that we engage all parties in Iraq (except, of course, al Qaeda). As long as the Sunnis do not feel that they are a part of the "new Iraq" then the violence will continue. U.S. troops cannot change that. As I've said before, this is a political problem, not a military problem and it needs to be solved as such.
 
This might be an old one, but I got this in an email today. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on regarding Hillary ... I thought this was funny enough to pass along.
Chelsea Clinton asked a returning US Soldier about fear.

He said there were only 3 things he was afraid of:

Osama, Obama and Yo Mama.




sorry Lance, it was just too good not to share with the enemy. (*8*)
 
Oh I see so Lance, Nick and Random, you believe that there will be no ethnic clensing in Iraq after we depart?

Which begs the question: How long do you want American troops to stay in Iraq and how many casualties are you willing to take to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other?
 
Until Islam is no longer bent on our destruction. First Iraq then Iran then whoever holds their head up next. We can do it now or do it later. I know we will do it later cuz that's how America is with long struggles, zero guts. We will end up in military conflict in the middle east regardless of whether we continue our current war. I simply prefer to keep shooting until their morale improves and they like America.

:)
 
Until Islam is no longer bent on our destruction. First Iraq then Iran then whoever holds their head up next. We can do it now or do it later. I know we will do it later cuz that's how America is with long struggles, zero guts. We will end up in military conflict in the middle east regardless of whether we continue our current war. I simply prefer to keep shooting until their morale improves and they like America.

:)

Oh? So, like, When Hell freezes? ;)
 
No I see an end to our Soldiers on Iraq soil. That will come with the next election or shortly there-after. I don't see an end to our military involvement. That is unless we remove our adiction to oil.

If that were to happen, then I foresee us leaving them to kill each other like we do in AFrica. While we drop some food in every now and then to make our collective conscience as a nation feel better.

Then again were I nostradameus, I would fore tell in the next 6 to 8 years we will pay a heavy civillian price for being American and capitolist. We will then be back in the middle east shooting extremist and whatever else gets in the way. I am not speaking of something I hope for, just something I know will occur over time.
 
Until Islam is no longer bent on our destruction. First Iraq then Iran then whoever holds their head up next. We can do it now or do it later. I know we will do it later cuz that's how America is with long struggles, zero guts. We will end up in military conflict in the middle east regardless of whether we continue our current war. I simply prefer to keep shooting until their morale improves and they like America.

:)

Lumping all of "Islam" with the fundamentalist terror faction of the religion certainly doesn't help matters. We can never live peacefully with Muslims until we realize that not all of them hate us and that a vast majority disapprove of terrorists acting in the name of their religion. This should not be seen has a religious war and defining it as such (e.g. Bush calling it a "crusade") only makes matters worse.
 
Back
Top