# So their going ahead with a bombing campaign on Syria.



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

I hope these idiots realize this could lead us into a major war if Russia and China decide to say no with force.

Senate Committee Votes Yes On Syria Resolution To Bomb Assad

:|


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Maybe Crash McCain could lead the airstrike.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

As a bomb. Fill his ass up with Heinz and drop him from 5000 feet. He'll take out a few I think. And we'll be one less asshat. :mrgreen:


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Regime change from Assad to Alqeada we win how?


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm sure we'll spend more money and help arm them better so they can turn them back on us. The government always seems to enjoy that.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

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.


What kind of cowardly vote is "present."


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

Its the one obummer always used when a senator.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

The vote was a committee vote on what to bring to the floor for a general vote.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Seneca said:


> The vote was a committee vote on what to bring to the floor for a general vote.


Politicians voting on what to vote on gotta love that.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

roy said:


> Maybe Crash McCain could lead the airstrike.


How about we drop him on them.. From 40k feet.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Not sure how to call this one, I think Obama may have been hoping they would actually vote no. Then he could go ahead and bomb Syria and make himself look even more powerful. With "his" military.
But I am getting pretty tired of this ideal that as the world power we are automatically designated as the policeman for the world.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Obama went thru congress so that he has someone to blame when it goes wrong


----------



## BigCheeseStick (Aug 7, 2013)

About says it all.
View attachment 2545


----------



## BigCheeseStick (Aug 7, 2013)

tango said:


> Obama went thru congress so that he has someone to blame when it goes wrong


And so he wouldn't get impeached! For as many wild riots and hate crimes as there would have been, if he hadn't gone through congress even HE would have been thrown from office!


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

I already sent emails to both Senators and all four congressmen from my state to leave it alone, I recommend any of you that agree the US has no business in Syria do the same. It seems odd to me that Assad starts using chemical weapons when the tide is turning in his favor. I would not be surprised to learn that someone decided to make martyrs for Allah out of some civilians in order to bring in air support for their revolution.


----------



## watcher (Aug 24, 2013)

Maybe the current idiot in the white house will make a mistake and kill off a mess of civilians...That should make the world real happy...


----------



## BigCheeseStick (Aug 7, 2013)

watcher said:


> Maybe the current idiot in the white house will make a mistake and kill off a mess of civilians...That should make the world real happy...


If we have ANYTHING to do with it or not, you _KNOWWWWW_ dozens or even hundreds of civilians will be killed and the US will be blamed. "Makes good copy" and boosts news ratings.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Each Tomahawk cruise missile cost 1.5 million, and only caries 250 lbs of explosive. I am willing to bet especially since they have plenty of time to move their arms that the Tomahawks will cost more then the damage they do. Goes along with Afghanistan where we out spend our enemy over a thousand to one and then say we are winning, when they even state that their goal is to defeat us economically the same they did with Russia.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Yes, and the news coverage makes us bigger targets for the fanatics.

The US intervening in Syria is one of the few remaining steps to having us branded as the bully with a "god" complex.
This will eventually lead to the Russians and Chinese attempting to put a stop to us. 
That will fix the USA money situation in a way that the feds don't have to take responsibility. It will lead to UN action to "save" the USA and in so doing allow the small arms treaty and the UN "bill of Rights" to be adopted in the USA.

I see it as a possible future with some evidence to convince me that it will happen.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Yay! Lets go to war!








A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.


----------



## Carp614 (Jan 21, 2013)

Senate committee vote begets full floor vote in the senate. 

The House will be next, and it is anything but a foregone conclusion there.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

The best outcome is a unilateral no vote in the house and senate, swiftly followed by repealing certain aspects of the war powers act. Like the part that gives the president 90 day to wage war before seeking congressional approval. 

There is an old adage, a joke, that suggests that it is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. In this instance it is better to ask for permission, which is the way it is supposed to be. The legislature decides whether or not to go to war and the executive abides by that decision. 

There is a reason for it to be this way, actually there are a couple of reasons but the big one is that if you put the decision to go to war and the ability to go to war in the hands of one person you will eventually find that person pondering the question is it better to ask for forgiveness or ask for permission.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

still cant wrap my head around the logic- We are going to bomb Syrians, to teach Syrians that they shouldn't bomb Syrians?
here's a copy of the votes-
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 ***** (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.
and, I am thankfull Tom Udall voted the way I WANTED HIM TOO>


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Deebo said:


> 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 ***** (D-Del.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) voted for the resolution.


K, I won't let this go away... sorry...

These people voted to commit treason.

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE. Al Qaida is a sworn enemy of the United States. The United States has ratified their statement of being our enemy through more than 10 years of continual declaration of a "state of emergency" citing the so-called "war on terror." It is an act of Treason according to our Constitution to provide material aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of our nation.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Al Qaida Voice spoken throu a fan --"Obamma, I am your father!!"


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Nathan, 
They were simply voting on whether or not to bring the issue to the floor for a vote. It's not treason, it's simply the process by which issues are framed for debate. It's the voting that will occur in a week or so from now that will carry the weight.


----------



## jc-hunter (Nov 13, 2012)

The correct thing to do is, the opposite of whatever Obama and Congress want to do. After all, they seldom or never do anything right.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Seneca said:


> Nathan,
> They were simply voting on whether or not to bring the issue to the floor for a vote. It's not treason, it's simply the process by which issues are framed for debate. It's the voting that will occur in a week or so from now that will carry the weight.


Hmm. I'll say... Fair enough - but anyone who votes for military action on the floor in my opinion (and the definitions in the constitution) would be voting for treason. And you would hope that would be enough to make them not want to even bring it to the floor for a vote...


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

How hot should we prepare the tar? I think any of them that vote for bombing should be tarred and feathered first, just like the old days..Then, as Mr Jefferson stated, tried for treason.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

If the US is planning a surgical cruise missile/ drone strike to wipe out Assads chemical weapons factory I don't think anybody in the west would be against that, but Obama hasn't said exactly what his 'military action' would be, and that's what makes people uneasy; for example whether he's planning to just blitz the chem weapons factory and leave it at that, or whether he's also planning to put boots on the ground or whatever.

_BBC news item- "Some elements of the Syrian chemical weapons complex may be buried underground but large parts of it can easily be seen on satellite images. 
Much of it is reasonably close to populated areas - and this is the problem. Attacking such sites with regular explosive bombs might well wreak considerable damage but it could also open up chemical weapons stocks to the air, disperse them over a large area, and potentially cause large numbers of civilian casualties."
BBC News - Syria crisis: How could US target chemical weapons?_

PS- Also many people in the west are not totally convinced that Assad did use chems or whether he was framed.
We're also not sure who the bad guys really are, the Assad regime or the insurgents; for example the Syrian Christian community is over 2 million and has existed fine in Syria for many years, but if the insurgents take over they might get hassled.


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> If the US is planning a surgical cruise missile/ drone strike to wipe out Assads chemical weapons factory I don't think anybody in the west would be against that, but Obama hasn't said exactly what his 'military action' would be, and that's what makes people uneasy; for example whether he's planning to just blitz the chem weapons factory and leave it at that, or whether he's also planning to put boots on the ground or whatever.
> 
> _BBC news item- "Some elements of the Syrian chemical weapons complex may be buried underground but large parts of it can easily be seen on satellite images.
> Much of it is reasonably close to populated areas - and this is the problem. Attacking such sites with regular explosive bombs might well wreak considerable damage but it could also open up chemical weapons stocks to the air, disperse them over a large area, and potentially cause large numbers of civilian casualties."
> ...


A lot of the points you bring up at the reason we have to say no!

First - where did Assad get the chem weapons? It is most likely he is NOT producing them - even in the senate hearings they say he may have gotten them from 'various different states' - although no one mentioned that he may have gotten them from Iraq. According to the reports coming out prior to the US's initial invasion to Iraq there was a lot of traffic going from suspected chem stores directly into Syria. Occam's razor anyone? But if they admit that Ol' Saddamy just offloaded his WMDs to Assad they might have to admit that W wasn't completely Full of it...

Second - Where is the proof of chemical weapon use? The VERY limited proof they do have points to it having been the rebels and not Assad that used them. Also, Assad is WINNING, why bring the international community into this even more by using them?

Third - Who are we going to help? There are several different factions and from what I've seen, all are bad. You have the Jihadists some are directly associated with Al QAIDA, a sworn enemy of the US. You have the rebels who are shooting prisoners in the back and beheading civilians, including a mother and her 1 month old baby.

The whole thing is a joke of a crock...


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Syria's oil resources are only modest but the West craves every drop. Perhaps the insurgents have secretly cut a sweet oil deal with Obama to give him oil if he helps them bust Assads ass.
Oil industry﻿ experts say oil will run out "sometime this century", so it's the waking nightmare of every Westerner that they'll one day have to pedal around on bikes instead of using their cars, hence their mad scramble to invade everywhere for every drop of oil to put off D-Day (Dry-Day) as long as possible, at which time we'll be plunged back into the stone age with nothing to fuel our planes, tanks, and ships, right General?

*"Ugh"..*


----------



## Nathan Jefferson (May 11, 2013)

Or its just the way to start WWIII since China and Russia are lining up across from us. Russia won't back down, China might but they do need to find SOMETHING to do with all those millions of young men that have no prospects... All the power hungry would-be tyrants see something to gain by going to war...


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The USA doesn't get oil from Syria. We have no dog in this fight other than the poodle in the WH.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The USA doesn't get oil from Syria. We have no dog in this fight other than the poodle in the WH.


As long as I have a boy (man) in the rotation to the Middle East I disagree. No one dare attack us with conventional weapons.

Now I do not know if we have the intelligence to knock out chemical storage or not regardless of which sides has those weapons. If we do I am all for destroying them regardless of which side has them.

The rest of what I have to say would be a threat. Unlike the President I do not give heads up by threatening.


----------



## BigCheeseStick (Aug 7, 2013)

Lets not forget. All China needs to do is say. "Hey, YOUR RENTS DUE!" Then what? I'm SURE there's _some kind_ of "failure to pay clause" in all the contracts where they agreed to loan us trillions and trillions of dollars. That we continue to borrow and borrow against as fast as we can get our hands on it.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

China, which owns an estimated $1.32 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, is the number-one investor among foreign governments, according to the May 2013 figures released by the U.S. Treasury. This amounts to over 23.2% of the U.S. debt held overseas and nearly 8% of the United States' total debt load.

Learn more: After China, who are the largest investors in U.S. debt?

Are These Big Numbers a Problem?

There are two reasons why China's huge investment in U.S. government bonds has stirred controversy in recent years. First, if the country stops buying or elects to sell even a small portion of its position, Treasury prices would fall and yields would rise. The result of higher rates, in turn, would likely be slower economic growth and higher borrowing costs for the U.S. government. Second, China's huge Treasury position is seen as leaving the United States economically vulnerable to the decisions of a foreign government.

That may seem like a potential danger, until you consider why China is buying so much U.S. debt. The reason is highly technical in nature, but the short answer is that China is buying Treasuries to help depress the value of its currency (the yuan). A cheaper yuan makes the country's exports less expensive for foreign buyers, thereby keeping the country's export-based economy chugging along. Consequently, the Chinese economy would suffer as much, if not more than, that of the United States if China were to suddenly stop buying U.S. debt.

Further, China continues to generate a massive amount of dollar earnings by virtue of its huge trade surplus with the United States. These dollars need to be invested somewhere, and the U.S. Treasury market - due to its enormous size - is one of the few places that China can recycle its surplus greenbacks. Consider, for example, that the Australia's bond market is only about 3% as large as the U.S. bond market. If China were to try to funnel more cash into the Australian bond market - or that of another smaller nation - the impact of its buying would be enormous, and it would disrupt the entire market. The U.S. bond market is one of the few in which this isn't the case, which explains why over 40% of the country's total reserves are invested in Treasuries.

It's also important to keep in mind that since China holds such a large position in U.S. debt, the nation has a vested interest in maintaining the health of the Treasury market. Naturally, this provides ample motivation for China to avoid any action that would cause Treasury prices to plunge. Having said that, China did utilize its large position in Japanese government bonds to influence discussions surrounding Japan's purchase of disputed islands during September 2012.

An Alternative View

Another take on the China issue comes from Thomas Donlan's editorial "Second Grade Arithmetic" in the December 8, 2012, issue of Barron's:

"It's an ominous sign, by the way, that China has curtailed its role as the chief enabler of the U.S. borrowing addiction -- and even more ominous that few Americans have even noticed. Between September 2011 and September 2012, China reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasury debt 9%, from $1,270 billion to $1,155 billion. ... we had better hope the rest of the world does not join in."


----------



## BigCheeseStick (Aug 7, 2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

BigCheeseStick said:


> Lets not forget. All China needs to do is say. "Hey, YOUR RENTS DUE!" Then what? I'm SURE there's _some kind_ of "failure to pay clause" in all the contracts where they agreed to loan us trillions and trillions of dollars. That we continue to borrow and borrow against as fast as we can get our hands on it.


That is not true. The debt they hold has dates due. We pay the interest every year and must pay the principal on the due date. This is paid with new debt every year the budget is not balanced. We do not necessarily sell the new debt to China. It goes to whoever will buy it including the Federal Reserve recently.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

IMO, the US only has three things china needs/wants, natural resources, great technology and farm land. If we default and China gets real pushy they can call in the debt and ask for resources in payment and I can see nobama giving the Chinese almost anything, as that will help bring down the US which is what nobama father wanted and congress will go along if they get to keep their jobs.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

If there are such weapons there, im sure all this threatening and "we arent gonna tolerate this" two weeks of bullstuffing has assured that any key weapons or munitions are long since moved. No, I AM NOT advocating for action, but also, this is playing out all over the world like Jersey shore and Hooney BooBoo. 
We are, well, we might, well, we should, well we will, well we.....


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

If we do go to this, and I hate to even think about this, dont Bullshit around, level everything, give all American citizens 10 days to come home, then seal off ALL INCOMING INTERNATIONAL evrything, and return to concentrating on what we need to, Putting Americans FIRST...


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The USA doesn't get oil from Syria. We have no dog in this fight other than the poodle in the WH.


You shouldn't insult poodles that way!


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Nathan Jefferson said:


> Hmm. I'll say... Fair enough - but anyone who votes for military action on the floor in my opinion (and the definitions in the constitution) would be voting for treason. And you would hope that would be enough to make them not want to even bring it to the floor for a vote...


It's a possibility that it won't make it to the floor. Say they do go ahead and vote for a limited strike. What objective is accomplished? In my opinion nothing would be accomplished, except we'll spent a bunch of money on tomahawk missiles and will spend more money to replace them.

I've heard it said that by not striking it would embolden our enemies, by sending the message that we are weak and will back down or not back up what we say. Maybe it's time to change the message, because the one we have been sending isn't working out all that well. We don't need to be involved in every dust up or international spat, yet that's the message we currently send.


----------



## split (Sep 2, 2013)

Please use this website to email all your representatives at once.
Once you enter in your info once, it remembers and you can quickly send a short message on any subject
Email Congress

Keep the messages short, just one sentence tops.
Each time I hear about Syria, I send an email that reads "No Military action against Syria" or "Stay out of Syria"


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Seneca said:


> ....a limited strike. What objective is accomplished? In my opinion nothing would be accomplished, except we'll spent a bunch of money on tomahawk missiles and will spend more money to replace them..


Yup, it'll certainly put a smile on the faces of the big arms manufacturers..


----------

