Obama Gay?

[sr71plt]

It started out as a comment on sexuality (but, of course, for political purposes)--with sexuality being a good enough topic for this board. And it broadened from there. There actually (knock on wood) has been little political stuff on this board for this presidential election in contrast to the last.

The finger (this is for you, trysail--and, yes, it's the middle finger ) for threads like this, though, should be pointed at the original poster. (The point on trysail is that he's the original--and unusually only--poster for his irrelevant shit threads).

 

[anon606]

R.Richard

Obviously, I'm not putting my point across well.

The thread started with "is Obama gay?" and wondered after his ability to go to a country where homosexuality was illegal.

I was trying to point out that representatives of foreign governments aren't generally subject to local law because those governments always have military forces. Once one is outside of the law, there is only power.

No, Amb. Stevens wasn't killed as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, but now it is up the US and Libya to decide how each of them are going to act, what each is prepared to do. In this, there is no law, only power.

It's not like Libya was obligated to protect Amb Stevens, you know. Stevens had US Marines for that.

IMHO, between sovereignties, there is no "right" or "wrong", only power. I'm Machiavellian that way.

As I recall, a Republican Congress backed Clinton by giving him authority to use military force. Some of that is doing it very publicly so that our opponent knows that the President really has got a loaded gun.

A Democrat congress also gave President Bush that kind of backing. Evidently they didn't think the guy would actually use it.

If you're looking for some moral or legal or rational justification or even just a plausible excuse for what anybody is doing in this, go right ahead.

 

[JackLuis]

]Libya arrests four in connection with U.S. embassy attack

Looks like we can call back the B2's. Libya sees the light.

_____
RR are you saying Obama is gay, or is reported to be gay?

Being gay is not a crime, but being a Wall St. Shill ought to be.

 

[TxRad]

Maybe some people didn't understand the question about the egg.

I do know the difference between the big end of an egg and the small.

The real question was, what difference does it make since you break an egg in the middle for an omelet. Since the original question was on whether Obama was gay or not and then the question was who attacked the consulate, Gulliver's travels is not the answer to either.

Sarcasm doesn't work on people who don't actually understand what they are saying.

 

[sr71plt]

Then again maybe some of us were just adding to the overall craziness of the thread.

 

[TxRad]

Then again maybe some of us were just adding to the overall craziness of the thread.

Just having two out of the top three crazies around here on the same thread was enough for me. Add to that posting drunk at the very least and....

 

[colddiesel]

R.Richard

It's not like Libya was obligated to protect Amb Stevens, you know. Stevens had US Marines for that.

In fact, host countries do have obligations to protect foreign diplomatic staff. They too frequently do not meet those obligations but that is not the point.

The Marines have only very very limited legal capacity to do their work and none at all outside the designated diplomatic area.

The clowns on this thread that think it would be either legally or diplomatically possible or sensible to go in all guns blazing are deluding themselves. The Presidents legal options are probably limited to posturing, such as sending a couple of destroyers to visit (whoever the president is).

He does have illegal (extra legal) options, such as asking the appropriate agency to ensure the perpetrators meet a nasty accident, but he ain't gunna tell us about that option.

 

[anon606]

@colddiesel

Host countries have obligations?

Really? And just who is going to make them live up to those obligations and how? Do they have obligations if they decide not to? Is it an obligation if they CAN decide not to? Does a nation have sovereignty if it can't decide?

I'm not arguing for being reckless or the use of military force in this case - that's not reasonable IMHO - but the idea that there is some overarching legal system superseding national sovereignties is ... I'll call it what it is: religious.

It's done with treaties, and treaties are enforced with ... power.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

The President of the United States is to conduct relations with foreign countries. If Obama is a homosexual ...

I thought the USA was generally known as the "Great Satan", at least in some Islamic countries. So in terms of conducting relations, wouldn't dealing with Satan also be concerning?

I can just see it ...

Secretary: "The President of the USA is on the phone, sir."
Prime Minister: "You mean, the Great Satan?"
Secretary: "That's the one, sir."
Prime Minister: "Put him on, I want to discuss those aircraft carriers out in the Gulf"
Secretary: "There's a rumor, put out by his opponents, that he's a homosexual, sir."
Prime Minister: "Hang up on him at once!"

As if.

 

[colddiesel]

@colddiesel

1 Host countries have obligations?

2 Really? And just who is going to make them live up to those obligations and how? Do they have obligations if they decide not to? Is it an obligation if they CAN decide not to? Does a nation have sovereignty if it can't decide?

3 I'm not arguing for being reckless or the use of military force in this case - that's not reasonable IMHO - but the idea that there is some overarching legal system superseding national sovereignties is ... I'll call it what it is: religious.

4 It's done with treaties, and treaties are enforced with ... power.

Re 1. Sections 27 and 29 of the Vienna Convention 1961.

Re 2 They have an obligation, The all too frequent failure to meet it does not of itself deny the original obligation.

Re 2 Second part. Course it does, they may decide not to decide too.

Re 3 Call it what you like. Religious is an absurd comment but possibly not entirely out of your particular context.

Re 4 No you are wrong. Treaties are enforced by agreement such as the Vienna Convention. Alternatively, by the suggestion/threat of action, but not by such action itself (because once action contrary to the Convention is taken the whole matter falls out side normal protocols.)

Non - agreements may be enforceable by power but reliance on power alone thus contravening the convention may well cause a wrong greater than the original breach - which is why Obama's options are so limited in the particular instance.

 

[sr71plt]

@colddiesel

Host countries have obligations?

Really? And just who is going to make them live up to those obligations and how?

These are two different things. Yes, the diplomatic codes on host countries' obligations to diplomats accredited to them are as old as the hills--and probably the most respected and adhered to of any international code.

Living up to the obligations is another issue altogether. Very few governments don't live up to these obligations because of code on this is really, really strong. Nearly ever case of an incident, though, has been a one-off attack that the government was not complicit in--and there's very little prevention possible for one-off attacks no matter what security is put into place. There's always going to be a couple or two that get pulled off.

Iran broke this code with the U.S. embassy back in 1979, and the international community is still reeling from that--and Iran, internationally, has been a marked state ever since.

I don't see that any countries are breaking that code at the moment. Mobs in the street are not the host government. It's close to impossible to prevent the one-off insurgent attack on an embassy or ambassador (which is what the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was). Eight U.S. ambassadors have been assassinated since the 1950s. One was in Cyprus (Roger Davies) where I've served extensively. And you wouldn't believe the security the Cypriots are still putting in place there for the ambassador and U.S. embassy out of the embarrassment of having this happen in their country. (My last tour there, I had two Cypriot policemen following me around whenever I couldn't duck them.)

 

[anon606]

@colddiesel

First, that's a treaty and any "obligation" would have to be enforced by the armed force of the other signatories.

Second, the United States IS NOT a signatory to that 1961 protocol. In fact, the US hasn't signed on to any of the additional protocols since the 1949 convention treaty.

Regarding sr71plt's points, which I am glad of:

Not all power is immediate nor even military. The very LAST thing Cyprus wants is for the US to pull everybody and leave.

Now, Iran really doesn't seem to care, does it? Of course not. They don't have to strictly abide by any treaty, and neither does the US. I keep hearing that the US has to be a beacon to the world but despite being such a beacon ( relative to the conduct of other nations ) I don't see that it is making any difference.

Iraq broke a dozen treaties but made no difference at all - until force was applied.

Regarding colddiesel's last point, I shall demonstrate:

Colddiesel, if you use one more verb in any forum post, I'm going to put a garnishment on your checking account!

Let's see how much "enforcement" there is in a threat that there is no ability nor will to enforce by the use of some form of power.

CD, no more verbs. I mean that.

 

[ProxyAccount]

As illustrated by the previous poster, power doesn't have be military. The greatest part of the USA's power is economic, both as an economic superpower (at least for now) and as one of the biggest contributors to the World Bank. If the United States wants to punish Libya for failing to protect the consulate (the Libyan security forces just ran away), it could by cutting direct foreign aid (currently about $2.5 billion) and killing future indirect assistance via the World Bank. Of course, who in the administration should pay for failing to heed the advance warning that they had of an impending attack on the consulate, two days before it happened?

 

[xssve]

Google Jeff Gannon.

 

[colddiesel]

I Have added a couple of comments in bold letters

@colddiesel

First, that's a treaty and any "obligation" would have to be enforced by the armed force of the other signatories.

Don't agree, it's a convention of acceptable behavior. There's a whole raft of possible sanctions short of force.

the United States IS NOT a signatory to that 1961 protocol. In fact, the US hasn't signed on to any of the additional protocols since the 1949 convention treaty.

So what! The important point isn't the legalistic one, but the fact that by its conduct The USA adheres very closely to the convention, in fact far more assiduously than most nations.

Regarding colddiesel's last point, I shall demonstrate:

Colddiesel, if you use one more verb in any forum post, I'm going to put a garnishment on your checking account!

Let's see how much "enforcement" there is in a threat that there is no ability nor will to enforce by the use of some form of power.

CD, no more verbs. I mean that.

You have certainly demonstrated something, - but I'm far too courteous an old gentleman to say exactly what.

 

[JackLuis]

As illustrated by the previous poster, power doesn't have be military. The greatest part of the USA's power is economic, both as an economic superpower (at least for now) and as one of the biggest contributors to the World Bank. If the United States wants to punish Libya for failing to protect the consulate (the Libyan security forces just ran away), it could by cutting direct foreign aid (currently about $2.5 billion) and killing future indirect assistance via the World Bank. Of course, who in the administration should pay for failing to heed the advance warning that they had of an impending attack on the consulate, two days before it happened?

I'd like to point out that 10-16 Libyan guards died resisting the attackers, last report I saw was 10.

I also read that the Libyan's may have leaked the Ambassador's whereabouts to the perp's, out of gross stupidity or malice.

Carry on.

Obama is Gay because...?

 

[ProxyAccount]

Remember, there were two attacks: one at the consulate and the other at the safe-house. The attack on the safe-house is why it's suspected that there was a leak from within the Libyan security force. Wanis al-Sharef, from the Libyan Interior Ministry, [link=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/]reported[/link] that Libyan guards "retreated when the building was stormed". At least one was injured by gunshots to his leg.

 

[R. Richard]

A foreign embassy or consulate is considered to be the territory of the foreign country. Invasion of a foreign embassy or consulate is considered to be an act of war.

The 9/11 invasion and destruction of the USA Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was an act of terrorism, as even the Obama WH has now admitted. The attackers used shoulder launched rockets and mortars. The use of shoulder launched rockets or mortars requirs some training, in advance, particularly for mortars. Thus, the invasion was not a protest that got out of hand, but a military assault on USA territory. As far as I'm aware, from news reports only, no Libyan guards were killed, although at least one was wounded.
The Libyan government did nothing to protect the USA Consulate, which may be all that they could do. Libyan citizens then attacked at least one militia. Apparently Libyan citizens can do more than the Libyan Army. Interesting.

As to the original posting, the concern with Obama's possibly homosexuality is involved with sharia law. If Obama was a thief, sharia law would not apply, unless he stole in a Muslim Caliphate. However, in sharia law, there are crimes which are not against people, property or the state. There are crimes that are against Allah. The penalty for crimes against Allah is death, at least among fundamentalist Muslims.

Thus, a homosexual Obama would not have committed a crime not against people, property or the state. He would have committed a crime against Allah. Where he committed the crime is not important, the crime is against Allah, who is deemed by fundamentalust Muslims to be everywhere.

I didn't say the Obama was/is homosexual. I simply posted
an article that made such charges and named names and places. It's easy to just make charges. When it gets down to posting names and places, that adds a bit of authenticity to the charges, which charges are still not proved.