Real World Event Discussions

John McCain: If We Don’t Invade Syria, They’ll Hate Us For Not Invading Them (Seriously)

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, November 23, 2015 03:57
VIEWED: 4374
PAGE 1 of 4

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:56 PM

Quote:

“David, we should not be…our actions should not be dictated by whether Bashar al-Assad used these chemical weapons or not, first of all. Sooner or later he mostly likely would, in order to maintain his hold on power but what has happened here is the President drew a red line about chemical weapons, thereby giving a green light to Bashar al-Assad to do anything short of that…”

Of course, no beating of the war drums could be complete without a little fearmongering and McCain delivered: “As you know, a flood of weapons is coming in from Russia and Iran. Iranians are on the ground in Syria.”

Just in case that wasn’t enough, McCain made sure to throw in the J-word: “…there is every risk of a stalemate that could go on for months and months, while the jihadists flood in…”

David Gregory tried to bring the Senator back down to earth but suggesting that, perhaps, we might want to be a little bit more certain about the use of chemical weapons before we declare war on Syria. McCain’s reply to that: “Well, one of the lessons, obviously, and we hear this a lot from the administration, is that we had false information about weapons of mass destruction with Iraq…”

“Hear a lot from this administration…” I hope he means the BUSH administration because they’re the ones that stated unequivocally that we knew that Iraqi WMDs existed and where they were. They’re also the ones that said, “Oops, we were wrong.” Ten years later and John McCain, still eager to whitewash the disaster of the Iraq War, will not admit that it was all based on a lie.


Hey, hey, hey, time for another war!!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 9:56 PM

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb, uh, whoever"




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Is this guy for real?




He's not the problem. They are. Yes, some are just that crazy. We helped in Serbia. we helped in Libya, but we're not gonna help these Muslims?

Quote:


Of course, no beating of the war drums could be complete without a little fearmongering and McCain delivered: “As you know, a flood of weapons is coming in from Russia and Iran. Iranians are on the ground in Syria.”



Is it 'fear mongering' if it's true ? Yes or No, please.

Quote:


I hope he means the BUSH administration because they’re the ones that stated unequivocally that we knew that Iraqi WMDs existed and where they were. They’re also the ones that said, “Oops, we were wrong.” Ten years later and John McCain, still eager to whitewash the disaster of the Iraq War, will not admit that it was all based on a lie.



A " lie " which both Bill and Hillary promoted as well, during and after Bill's 2 terms in the White House.

Funny, no one ever remembers that Bill lied too. And even got charged for it, but let's not bother w/ such trivial matters, huh?




Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:23 PM

The media keeps emphasizing that this was a "small scale use."

That makes a difference to me. If it was a one-timer, it might have been a mistake, a test, an accident, even a trial to see what the reaction would be.

I think what Obama meant was, "If chemical weapons are used as a deliberate, recurring policy, that's a red line."

'Course, that ain't what he SAID.
And, of course, that red line wasn't, "You use chemical weapons even once, we invade and keep coming until we've got your ass."

There are degrees of involvement, of response. Air strikes, drone operations, a no fly-zone enforced by the USA-- all of those are military actions involving the US military, an institution already over worked. Arming the rebel forces, or increasing the armorment of them, would be a satisfactory response as well.

Maybe Obama oughtta send a request to Congress, for a Declaration of War, a draft to enlarge the army, and a massive budget request for weaponry and personnel budgets, to get an up or down vote on the record for how far Congress is willing to go. Maybe oughtta recommend a tax increase to fund same. Call the hawks' bluff, as it were.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:47 PM

So, taking out a village or a few blocks, is crossing the 'red line'. But just a couple of 'small area' bursts, like breaking up an angry crowd... that's kosher ?


Got it.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:23 AM

Is there seriously anyone left on the planet who gives two fucks what John McCain has to say about anything at all?

This is the dude who picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. That tells you everything you need to know about his decision-making capabilities.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Is this guy for real?




He's not the problem. They are. Yes, some are just that crazy. We helped in Serbia. we helped in Libya, but we're not gonna help these Muslims?

Quote:


Of course, no beating of the war drums could be complete without a little fearmongering and McCain delivered: “As you know, a flood of weapons is coming in from Russia and Iran. Iranians are on the ground in Syria.”



Is it 'fear mongering' if it's true ? Yes or No, please.




*IF* it's true. Big "IF".

And yes, it can still be fear mongering even if it's true.

Kim Jong Un has a nuclear weapon (allegedly), and there's still plenty of fear mongering going on in the West about him. It's true he has nukes (maybe even more than one, possibly), but that still doesn't make him any kind of imminent threat.

A fertilizer plant in West, Texas has killed more people with chemical weapons than the Syrian military has. Where's the outrage there? Where's the massive manhunt for the criminal mastermind who was CEO of the plant?





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, taking out a village or a few blocks, is crossing the 'red line'. But just a couple of 'small area' bursts, like breaking up an angry crowd... that's kosher ?


Got it.





What would you say if Assad's military were using AR-15s with high-capacity magazines to kill people?


Chemical weapons don't kill people, after all - people kill people. And the problem isn't chemical weapons at all.

Right?

Isn't that your - and the NRA's - stance?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, May 2, 2013 4:20 AM

found this over on CNN.com:

Quote:



http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/opinion/miller-obama-syria-no-win/index.
html?hpt=hp_t3


The fact is, Obama has no good options. He'll pick the least worst one, providing some kind of weapons to the rebels. That will make us feel better, neutralize the liberal interventionists and conservative Republicans who've been blasting him and respond to those who say he's backing away from his red line.

It won't turn the tide in Syria or necessarily prevent al-Assad from using chemical weapons. The other alternatives -- do nothing or design a proactive and comprehensive military strategy to take out the al-Assads -- aren't in the cards.




A nuanced and thorough examination of the situation and the options. Rap and the knee-jerkers won't like it because it's not John Wayne simplistically talking about kicking Assad's ass or bombing them all back to the stone age.

How many dollars and lives do they want Obama to spend to remove this bozo? Well, of course that's a rhetorical question-- they don't REALLY care what it costs, especially not in lives or the blood of America's not-rich, or if it succeeds or not, they just want to be able to hang the price tag around Obama's neck, and on any other Democrat.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:15 AM

The whole situation is deeply distressing. A civil war and a proxy war for numerous other countries who each support their own faction for their own reasons. Russia and Iran support Assad. Western nations and Saudi Arabia support the opposition. Islamist extremists benefit. No one can just waltz in without careful considerations of every other outsider's reaction.

How can anything good ever come of this?

Meanwhile you have 1.4 million refugees and many more internally displaced in need of support. 70.000 killed. World heritage sites damaged or destroyed.

You want to do something, but what can you really do that might not make things worse? Well, I guess everyone with fingers in the pie could spontaneously decide to work together to minimize all that civilian suffering but it hasn't happened so far, so...

I'm having a cynical Thursday morning.



NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME