• 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

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
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.

I think it was the UN that Bush disregarded. Not that I agreed with the war, but basically, fuck the UN. We should bail, and tell them to stay out of our business, were to busy fixing OUR country, for a change.
 

Deepcover

Closed Account
Didn't Reagan get approval to invade Grenada and succeeded? So it seems it is the same for the current US President atm. President Obama is doing the right thing by going to Congress first. Even if he doesn't get approval I believe he is still going to strike anyways. Which will be disappointing to me. We'll see.

Don't expect a slam dunk
 
I have sympathy for the folks that have been gassed and tortured and killed, but (sadly) that shit happens all over. I think this is going to end badlly. If Assad is such a world-renowned shitbag, why isn't there some special forces operation to just take his crazy head off?
 
Assad is the one leader in the Arab world that doesn't look all jihaded out.

And the last guy I would have thought that would resorted to this. To use chemical weapons on your own people is beyond criminal. The US and others should respond. Sadly we probably will have to go this one alone.
 
So again, it's not the act of killing a bunch of civilians it's just the method used?
Yeah yeah, it's goes against international law, yadda, yadda yadda but doesn't killing innocent people in general go against some universal law?
How about in parts of the world where starvation is used as a weapon? Wouldn't that be a more gruesome death than getting gassed?

I don't get the distinction that causes the moral outrage. Sure sarin gas is probably alot more efficient at killing you than getting bombed with conventional weapons or getting your door kicked in and shot, but dead is dead.
 
So again, it's not the act of killing a bunch of civilians it's just the method used?
Yeah yeah, it's goes against international law, yadda, yadda yadda but doesn't killing innocent people in general go against some universal law?
How about in parts of the world where starvation is used as a weapon? Wouldn't that be a more gruesome death than getting gassed?

I don't get the distinction that causes the moral outrage. Sure sarin gas is probably alot more efficient at killing you than getting bombed with conventional weapons or getting your door kicked in and shot, but dead is dead.
Yeah, I thought about that. but if there were door to door execution squads and they were killing children too there would be an outcry much the same.
 
I don't know. Honestly I wasn't following this civil war until the chems were used.

Edit: Which proves your point :)
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
So again, it's not the act of killing a bunch of civilians it's just the method used?
Yeah yeah, it's goes against international law, yadda, yadda yadda but doesn't killing innocent people in general go against some universal law?
How about in parts of the world where starvation is used as a weapon? Wouldn't that be a more gruesome death than getting gassed?

I don't get the distinction that causes the moral outrage. Sure sarin gas is probably alot more efficient at killing you than getting bombed with conventional weapons or getting your door kicked in and shot, but dead is dead.


To be fair, it's pretty damn tough being a dictator when the Cop of the World won't even give you some written guidelines.

From what I can tell so far, nukes are strictly forbidden (unless you're a BFF of China - then we'll just shout angry words at you every couple of years). Gas is a pretty big no-no. Napalm, we're just not sure about. Put that down as a maybe. Helicopter gunships... well, you're OK as long as you stick to machine guns and grenade launchers. But rockets should only be used once or twice a week. Mortars and landmines won't even earn a peep. Basic torture, starvation, gang rapes and slave labor? Hey, don't even worry about that stuff. If that bothered us, we'd have to go down to ol' Mexico and kick their asses too.

Hopefully Obama will task Uncle Joe with putting out a memo to other dictators, so they don't wind up in the same mess Assad is in. Just learn to terrorize civilians the way they do in Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and we're all good to go. Just keep it on the down-low and we're fine with whatever you do. :yesyes:
 
Assad is the one leader in the Arab world that doesn't look all jihaded out.

And the last guy I would have thought that would resorted to this. To use chemical weapons on your own people is beyond criminal. The US and others should respond. Sadly we probably will have to go this one alone.

The French said they would join the U.S. if a military strike were to happen
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
The French said they would join the U.S. if a military strike were to happen

I read that French tanks have 8 speed transmissions: 1 gear for forward, 7 in reverse.


:D
 
To be fair, it's pretty damn tough being a dictator when the Cop of the World won't even give you some written guidelines.

From what I can tell so far, nukes are strictly forbidden (unless you're a BFF of China - then we'll just shout angry words at you every couple of years). Gas is a pretty big no-no. Napalm, we're just not sure about. Put that down as a maybe. Helicopter gunships... well, you're OK as long as you stick to machine guns and grenade launchers. But rockets should only be used once or twice a week. Mortars and landmines won't even earn a peep. Basic torture, starvation, gang rapes and slave labor? Hey, don't even worry about that stuff. If that bothered us, we'd have to go down to ol' Mexico and kick their asses too.

Hopefully Obama will task Uncle Joe with putting out a memo to other dictators, so they don't wind up in the same mess Assad is in. Just learn to terrorize civilians the way they do in Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and we're all good to go. Just keep it on the down-low and we're fine with whatever you do. :yesyes:

that about sums it up.
 
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.
Good idea.
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).
Maybe you should remember just how successful your military has proven over time before you consider such an action. You need friends.
You should also consider that you're not paying to protect other countries, you're paying to support the bloated parasitical military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned you about.
I have sympathy for the folks that have been gassed and tortured and killed, but (sadly) that shit happens all over. I think this is going to end badlly. If Assad is such a world-renowned shitbag, why isn't there some special forces operation to just take his crazy head off?
Because the elites may yet profit from him.
So again, it's not the act of killing a bunch of civilians it's just the method used?
Yeah yeah, it's goes against international law, yadda, yadda yadda but doesn't killing innocent people in general go against some universal law?
How about in parts of the world where starvation is used as a weapon? Wouldn't that be a more gruesome death than getting gassed?

I don't get the distinction that causes the moral outrage. Sure sarin gas is probably alot more efficient at killing you than getting bombed with conventional weapons or getting your door kicked in and shot, but dead is dead.
The gas is an issue because it is de facto indiscriminate and capable of eliminating whole countries (think Beluxe, etc).
With artillery shells you can claim that you thought there were no civilians in an area or target areas where there are no civilians.
Last i heard WP (white phosphorous) is illegal if used as an incendiary but ok when used to lay smoke.
I read that French tanks have 8 speed transmissions: 1 gear for forward, 7 in reverse.


:D
I read that the French Leclerc can engage helicopters and fire missiles from it's main cannon but that the M1 can't.

Personally I think that we should mount strategic strikes but NOT put boots on the ground if possession and or use of chemical weapons can be proven.
It worked for Clinton and his F15s in Iraq; where was that WMD again?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I read that French tanks have 8 speed transmissions: 1 gear for forward, 7 in reverse.


:D


FUCK!!! I can't rep you for this. The people that own this site need to fix that fucking stupidity ASAP. But anyway, I know you are sort of a firearms enthusiast...I have a WWII French infantry rifle for sale...it's only been dropped once....
 

Mayhem

Banned
Senate Committee Votes Yes On Syria Resolution To Bomb Assad

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/syria-resolution-vote_n_3867690.html

Overcoming reservations from the left, the right and the American public, a Senate committee Wednesday passed a resolution to bomb Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons.

In a delayed markup of a resolution to authorize the use of military force, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7, with one present, to let President Barack Obama mount a bombing campaign aimed at the Syrian regime's weapons of mass destruction for up to 90 days, albeit within a more limited scope than Obama had requested. Specifically, the committee included language that would prohibit the use of U.S. troops on the ground "for the purpose of combat operations.

Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) voted for the resolution.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) voted against the authorization, while Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) voted present.

The committee also voted 14-5 to table an amendment from Paul that would clarify the president's constitutional authority to use military force in the event that Congress voted against intervention in Syria. Paul's amendment would include language in the resolution to specify that if the authorization failed to pass Congress, the president "would be in violation of the Constitution" if he ordered a military strike against the Syrian government anyway.

In arguing for his amendment, Paul said that his fellow lawmakers should dispense with the Obama administration's claim that such a action would be short of war. "This will indeed be a war," he said.

Rubio, Flake, McCain and Barrasso all voted to table Paul's amendment.

McCain, long a proponent of intervention in Syria's two-year civil war, demanded -- and won -- an amendment that said the U.S. aim was to change the momentum in the war in favor of the rebels.

The Senate resolution crafted by Menendez and Corker specifies that it is directed at weapons of mass destruction, seeking to deter their further use and to "degrade" Syria's ability to use them. McCain told reporters before the vote that he believed "in the strongest terms" that a provision must be included that would help create conditions for Assad's departure. The senator thus moved closer to calling for the sort of drive to effect regime change that some libertarians and liberals oppose.

"When Bashar Assad remains in an advantageous position, he will never leave Syria. He has to know that he is losing," McCain said. "There is no policy without that, and there is no strategy without that, except for significant attacking of facilities that deliver chemical weapons against the Free Syrian Army."

McCain added that both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have said they favor changing the momentum on the ground in Syria. "So I don't know why they should be resistant to that being a sense of purpose embodied in the legislation," he said.

Udall offered an amendment that would only authorize naval and air base military strikes outside Syrian territory or airspace "as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate." He said the measure would ensure that the U.S. role remained limited and not leave room for an open-ended "bombing campaign."

The amendment failed 17-1, as other members of the committee argued it would "tie the president's hands" by placing too many restrictions on his ability to act effectively.

"This is micromanagement that frankly is not only unnecessary, but we really can't tell the president of the United States what tactics he has to employ," McCain said.


The Senate resolution that passed the committee calls for the White House to present a plan within 30 days of the resolution's enactment. It gives Obama 60 days to act, with the option of extending the action for another 30 days. Congress can disapprove of the extension.

Before senators worked out their compromises, they attended a classified briefing Wednesday morning with Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that ended up running nearly four hours. Hagel was late for a House hearing on the Syria resolution.

Also speaking before the vote, Corker had said there was "some degree of flexibility" for additions to the draft resolution, though he declined to offer specifics on which amendments would be considered. The committee's top Republican conceded that it was tough to bring lawmakers together in support of military action that was both narrow and broad enough to address everyone's concerns, but added that it was "not a fair assessment" to suggest the committee didn't have the votes to continue.

Paul, who is expected to filibuster a vote on the resolution on the Senate floor, told reporters that he didn't see a "clear-cut or compelling American interest" to justify taking action in Syria.

"I see a horrible tragedy, but I don't see that our involvement will lessen the tragedy," Paul, one of the most vocal opponents of Syria intervention, said after the classified briefing.

He nonetheless acknowledged that the resolution would likely be approved by both the full Senate. "The only chance of stopping what I consider to be bad policy will be in the House," Paul said.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding its own hearing with Kerry and Hagel on Wednesday. The fate of any resolution in the lower chamber appeared less certain than in the Senate.
 
I keep hearing all the pundits say that we need to attack Syria because if we don't we'll look "weak". That is by far the stupidest reason to ever get involved in a war/military conflict. As John Stewart said last night, "what are we 7th graders?" You're going to have to give me a better reason that
 
Top