• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Syria

Should the U.S intervene in Syria?


  • Total voters
    46

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
What is the up side?

Hmmm... Hmmm... Hmmm... *still thinking* Good time to buy defense stocks?

Obama is clearly in a tough spot here. I mean, he's got his bosses in Israel telling him to get his ass into Syria and take care of a problem (that affects them much more than us). But then, he's got his bankers in China telling him that he better not launch the first missile into Syria... or there will be hell to pay. And then he's got the British and the rest of Europe cheering him on, but doing so while having their thumbs planted deep in their asses.

What's a fellow to do? How 'bout just for once, to try something new & different, we mind our own fucking business for a change? Crazy, radical thought, I know. But just this once, could we try that??? :dunno:
 

Mayhem

Banned
Hmmm... Hmmm... Hmmm... *still thinking* Good time to buy defense stocks?

Obama is clearly in a tough spot here. I mean, he's got his bosses in Israel telling him to get his ass into Syria and take care of a problem (that affects them much more than us). But then, he's got his bankers in China telling him that he better not launch the first missile into Syria... or there will be hell to pay. And then he's got the British and the rest of Europe cheering him on, but doing so while having their thumbs planted deep in their asses.

What's a fellow to do? How 'bout just for once, to try something new & different, we mind our own fucking business for a change? Crazy, radical thought, I know. But just this once, could we try that??? :dunno:

Saudi Arabia Backs Syria Strikes, Boosting White House Case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/saudi-arabia-syria_n_3853460.html

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called on the international community Sunday to take action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, giving a boost to President Barack Obama's goal of assembling a multinational coalition to intervene in the conflict.

Al-Faisal said Saudi Arabia would back a U.S. strike on Syrian government targets, provided the military intervention was "the will of the Syrian people."

The comments, first reported by Al Jazeera, were made during a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, convened in order to discuss how the 22-member league should respond to the escalating violence in Syria. The meeting came less than two weeks after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus killed more than 1,400 people -- widely believed to be the work of Assad's government.

In Washington, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry spent the weekend making a forceful case to members of Congress that the U.S. should respond militarily to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on a massive scale. A number of lawmakers have said they would be more likely to support American involvement if the U.S. acts as part of an international coalition, rather than unilaterally. Statements like those from Saudi Arabia's al-Faisal could go a long way toward helping the White House press its case this week to a reluctant and divided Congress.

"It is time for the international community to assume its responsibilities and to take deterrent measures against the Syrian regime," al-Faisal said, according to Al Jazeera. He argued that the Arab League's opposition thus far to international action in Syria "only encourages the regime to pursue its crimes."

"We call upon the international community with all its power to stop this aggression against the Syrian people," he said. As for whether Saudi Arabia would back a unilateral U.S. strike on Syrian military targets, al-Faisal said, "We stand by the will of the Syrian people. They know best their interests, so whatever they accept, we accept, and whatever they refuse, we refuse."

It's no secret among international observers that Saudi Arabia has been financing Syrian rebels for some time. But in the Middle East, a region characterized by complex alliances and rivalries, al-Faisal's comments Sunday were unexpectedly resolute. Still, it's unclear whether Saudi Arabia will succeed in convincing other Arab League nations that intervention in Syria is merited.

A number of the league's largest members -- including Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria and Tunisia -- all still formally oppose any foreign military action on the ground in Syria, despite the escalation of the current conflict by the use of chemical weapons.

Al-Faisal's response is the strongest statement of support offered by an Arab government thus far for U.S. action in Syria, and it comes at a time when the Obama administration faces dwindling support for intervention from traditional allies like Britain and Italy.

On Friday, Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino ruled out the possibility of Italy's participation in a strike on Syria, saying instead that "keeping up diplomatic and political pressure is the only solution" to the two-year-old war in the country.

British Prime Minister David Cameron recently put the question to Parliament of whether the UK should participate in any multinational strikes on Syria. MPs across the political spectrum voted resoundingly "no."
 
What's a fellow to do? How 'bout just for once, to try something new & different, we mind our own fucking business for a change? Crazy, radical thought, I know. But just this once, could we try that??? :dunno:

That's not really something different. That's, like, America Classic. See, we've been dealing with New America post WW2, but way back when isolationism was the word of the day. It's why America was as late as it was to engage in WW1 and WW2. Ultimately NeoCons and the Holocaust spawned New America, because back in the late '40s people decided that what was at the time America Classic wasn't sweet enough compared to Peps... huh, I think I might have gotten too wrapped up in that New/Classic metaphor...
 
Hmmm... Hmmm... Hmmm... *still thinking* Good time to buy defense stocks?

Obama is clearly in a tough spot here. I mean, he's got his bosses in Israel telling him to get his ass into Syria and take care of a problem (that affects them much more than us). But then, he's got his bankers in China telling him that he better not launch the first missile into Syria... or there will be hell to pay. And then he's got the British and the rest of Europe cheering him on, but doing so while having their thumbs planted deep in their asses.

What's a fellow to do? How 'bout just for once, to try something new & different, we mind our own fucking business for a change? Crazy, radical thought, I know. But just this once, could we try that??? :dunno:

We can’t pivot from the Middle East. Like it or not, the world often needs a policeman, and it’s the United States or no one. A little chemical weapons use can’t be ignored. Had we acted the first time Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, thousands of victims from this attack could have been spared. When we demonstrate fecklessness in dealing with certain countries (e.g. North Korea, Russia, Iraq), other countries watch and make their own judgments as to whether the United States will confront them. Weakness and empty rhetoric are provocative.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
We can’t pivot from the Middle East. Like it or not, the world often needs a policeman, and it’s the United States or no one. A little chemical weapons use can’t be ignored. Had we acted the first time Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, thousands of victims from this attack could have been spared. When we demonstrate fecklessness in dealing with certain countries (e.g. North Korea, Russia, Iraq), other countries watch and make their own judgments as to whether the United States will confront them. Weakness and empty rhetoric are provocative.

While I agree with your sentiments, I have to ask the practical question, which is, who is going to pay for the United States to continue being the world's policeman? The U.S. (taxpayer) is responsible for roughly 50% of the military spending in the world. In light of the pure fact that the American educational system is sub-standard and domestic infrastructure spending is not to a level to keep the power grid or the public transportation system in line with what other developed countries have, should we, can we, continue this level of spending on global policing, even if it leads to our own detriment and eventual ruin?

I was in Detroit last year, and many parts of that city still have not recovered from the riots that took place way back in the 1960's. The same burned out buildings that were present then are still present now. Yet, we had the money to rebuild a bridge in Iraq eight times (at last count)??? :wtf: I've had a bizarre fascination with ancient Rome since I was a kid. And one thing I learned in studying Rome and other societies of that and later eras: there has never been, in recorded history, a nation which has been able to succeed long term while ignoring its domestic infrastructure. Not one that I know of. And I don't believe the U.S. is going to break that record. So while I think it's fine to want to help those in need, doing so while marching to your own extinction is not a wise thing to do, IMO.

The U.S. went from being the greatest creditor nation in the history of the world to being the greatest debtor nation in the history world about 25 years ago under Ronald Reagan - and part of the reason for that was a huge increase in military spending (basic Keynesianism disguised as Supply Side Theory). And it's just gotten worse since then. Wars cost money. And lacking money of your own, you are forced to seek debt financing from others. Debt (that you can't immediately repay) makes you weak. And owing money to an ideological enemy (China) makes one especially weak. So the honest question remains (and please believe me, I mean this with all due respect to you or anyone else who will answer): who is going to pay for us to be the cop on the beat?
 
The only reason to help Syria and other similar barbarian countries are refugees.

None of the western country does not want them.

So it is much easier and cheaper trying to figure out the situation in their garbage country or at least to prevent refugees from crossing the border.
 
America is so worried about policing the world, but yet we can't even take of our shit at home. Like Tupac Shakur once said " They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor " Let them people handle their own shit. America has been on the losing side of wars starting with Vietnam to the present. (The Gulf War only kept Iraq out of Kuwait.)
 
Yes because the use of chemical weapons makes it a must.
 

Philbert

Banned
OK...the new Libtard Foreign Policy...take LSD and fuck.
Hmmmmmmmm...
Let us check with the Al Qada and resistance fighters in Syria...it might work.
 

Mayhem

Banned
OK...the new Libtard Foreign Policy...take LSD and fuck.
Hmmmmmmmm...
Let us check with the Al Qada and resistance fighters in Syria...it might work.

Hmmmm :doa82: You may have just intertwined the Syria and Marijuana topics. Grow some killer bud, roll it into blunts and cigarettes, pack them into "Parliament" style cigarette packs and airdrop the shit out of it over AlQueda territory. They get good and baked and eventually calm the fuck down.
 
While I agree with your sentiments, I have to ask the practical question, which is, who is going to pay for the United States to continue being the world's policeman? The U.S. (taxpayer) is responsible for roughly 50% of the military spending in the world. In light of the pure fact that the American educational system is sub-standard and domestic infrastructure spending is not to a level to keep the power grid or the public transportation system in line with what other developed countries have, should we, can we, continue this level of spending on global policing, even if it leads to our own detriment and eventual ruin?

I was in Detroit last year, and many parts of that city still have not recovered from the riots that took place way back in the 1960's. The same burned out buildings that were present then are still present now. Yet, we had the money to rebuild a bridge in Iraq eight times (at last count)??? :wtf: I've had a bizarre fascination with ancient Rome since I was a kid. And one thing I learned in studying Rome and other societies of that and later eras: there has never been, in recorded history, a nation which has been able to succeed long term while ignoring its domestic infrastructure. Not one that I know of. And I don't believe the U.S. is going to break that record. So while I think it's fine to want to help those in need, doing so while marching to your own extinction is not a wise thing to do, IMO.

The U.S. went from being the greatest creditor nation in the history of the world to being the greatest debtor nation in the history world about 25 years ago under Ronald Reagan - and part of the reason for that was a huge increase in military spending (basic Keynesianism disguised as Supply Side Theory). And it's just gotten worse since then. Wars cost money. And lacking money of your own, you are forced to seek debt financing from others. Debt (that you can't immediately repay) makes you weak. And owing money to an ideological enemy (China) makes one especially weak. So the honest question remains (and please believe me, I mean this with all due respect to you or anyone else who will answer): who is going to pay for us to be the cop on the beat?

Rey, I was just about to say something about the price of war but I think I have a solution. How about we do a fundraiser so that the world who so desperately need us as police can help pay for it? I mean, as shitty as that sounds-them paying for our guys to go off and die-it's better than the alternative.
 
I'm going to say yes because I want the results to be less lopsided and because Spider-man is my favortie superhero. Also, as many jobs that will be lost because of the cost of war and how many lives that will change, not to mention the toll it will take on families, I have this arrogant and probably inapproriate belief that America will bounce back from any negative effect that comes from us intervening. Oh and let's not forget that our current economic state isn't completely to blame on our wars; although, I do get it makes us vulnerable for some new financial shit storms to occur.
 
Hmmmm :doa82: You may have just intertwined the Syria and Marijuana topics. Grow some killer bud, roll it into blunts and cigarettes, pack them into "Parliament" style cigarette packs and airdrop the shit out of it over AlQueda territory. They get good and baked and eventually calm the fuck down.

hahaha! ...chemical warfare :joint:
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Rey, I was just about to say something about the price of war but I think I have a solution. How about we do a fundraiser so that the world who so desperately need us as police can help pay for it? I mean, as shitty as that sounds-them paying for our guys to go off and die-it's better than the alternative.

I was thinking that we do it "Roman style": arm the IRS as a paramilitary strike force and let them impose and collect a global tax. Every country that claims to be a "friend" or ally, that spends less than we do on military spending as a percent of GDP, has to contribute a sum (to the U.S. Treasury) that puts them at least to where we are (roughly 4.5% of GDP). So Britain, France, Germany, Japan (1% of GDP?! Oh, you little fellows better get ready for this tax hit!), Italy, South Korea (they're spending only 2.5% and we're paying to protect their sorry asses?! Really?! :mad:) and Canada would need to figure out how to write some checks. A little less talk and a lot more action from that lot! Unless you have some skin in the game, your mouth should stay clamped shut.

Am I serious or joking? Oh, joking of course (he said while stroking a Roman gladius).
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
As the head of the IRS Expeditionary Force, all they'd need to do to keep things square is deliver about $22.3 billion to my hotel room before we got suited up. And hell, if they had Sung Hi Lee deliver the money (and hang around for a few hours... or days), I'd have no problem with knocking it down to $22 billion.

Japan on the other hand (at 1%), I think we'd show up there with a troop of Boy Scouts (full of sugary snacks) and some of the hippy kids from Sea Shepherd and just set up shop in Tokyo.

All jokes aside, I do resent the fact that we allow our desire to be the Cop of the World to get us into more silly shit than any sane country should be in. And while these little pacifist countries reap the benefits, we pay to protect them. Too much tail wagging the dog for my taste.
 
This is something that I totally agree with Obama on. He is going about it the right way by seeking Congress' approval. it seems that he learned from his predecessors mistakes. Good for him.
 
Are you talking about Iraq? Bush did seek Congress' approval and got it and it was bipartisan. 58% of senate Dems voted for it.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

You know something? You are right. I basically forgot about it. Even Hillary voted to authorize it. But they all say they were duped so Bush is a war criminal or something like that. That said, Obama is going about this the right way. Biden is a separation of powers guy and no doubt he is holding Obama's feet to the fire on this one as is Kerry.
 
Top