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

NIKI2

Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:42 PM

Yes, Brenda, unfortunately he is very much for real. Our Favorite War Monger, is John McCain. Imagine if he'd won...we'd still be officially in Iraq, have no plans to leave Afghanistan, probably be in Libya and on our way to Syria...and maybe North Korea, too...

I agree, NewOld, "The fact is, Obama has no good options." Of course the right wants war; it benefits the military-industrial complex, and enhances "America's might". They always want war. And Mike, there are far too many who listen to John Wayne McCain, you know that perfectly well...they're out there hollering right along with him. Like Rap...who isn't worth responding to, since he'll never give up on his defense of Iraq and the mythical WMDs, much less show an ounce of common sense when it comes to war ANYWHERE. We shouldn't even acknowledge him anymore, he's been so far left behind; McCain says what he says as much for political reasons as because it's what he believes; Rap never gets beyond Blind Belief. Right - Good; Left - Bad; it's that simple for him, on EVERYTHING.

Rouka, you nailed it. And you're not having a Cynical Thursday, you're having a Thursday. Aren't all wars pretty much proxy wars--especially nowadays? It's truly a global village, and everyone has bets on one pony or the other.

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

AURAPTOR

Thursday, May 2, 2013 10:17 PM

Quote:

---

U.S. policy on Syria still lacks coherence

By Editorial Board, Published: May 1

THE MUDDLE that is President Obama’s policy on Syria has grown still muddier. On Tuesday the president backed away from a “red line” he had drawn on the use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, setting the threshold for proof of a violation in such a way as to virtually exclude the possibility that one could ever be confirmed. Yet that same day his aides leaked to The Post and other news organizations the news that the president might soon reverse his long-standing opposition to providing Syrian rebels with arms. And the administration readied yet another effort to persuade Russia to abandon its support of the Assad regime in favor of a negotiated political transition.

Can any coherence be found in this? A charitable interpretation might be that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid immediate U.S. intervention but wants to pressure Moscow into changing its position by letting it be known that the alternative is greater U.S. support for the rebels. If so, Mr. Obama is being too clever. His weak and legalistic words about the need to verify a “chain of custody” on any chemical-weapons use and his declaration that even a hard confirmation would lead only to a “rethink [of] the range of options” simply invite further chemical attacks.

... But if Mr. Obama continues to pursue a policy of awaiting U.N. consensus and deferring to Russia, the result will be more crossings of his red line — and grave damage to U.S. interests.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-policy-on-syria-still-lacks-
coherence/2013/05/01/dbda6cfc-b27b-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html

---