jclalor 12 #1 March 5, 2012 Thank God he's still only a Senator and not the President. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-syria-usa-mccaintre8241jp-20120305,0,7245643.story Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #2 March 5, 2012 Meh. Apparently we as a world community would rather tolerate a government murdering their citizens. Apparently we don't care. Now Iran on the other hand...... We (the USA) have some rather fucked up foreign policies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 March 5, 2012 They're safe ....... no Oil (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 March 5, 2012 QuoteThank God he's still only a Senator and not the President. Are you aware that Obama has actually already made air strikes on about 6 middle east nations? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #5 March 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteThank God he's still only a Senator and not the President. Are you aware that Obama has actually already made air strikes on about 6 middle east nations? I can think of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and what 6th country? Somalia?"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 March 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteThank God he's still only a Senator and not the President. Are you aware that Obama has actually already made air strikes on about 6 middle east nations? Yeah, but those were Obama's idea. Airstrikes on Syria are from a Republican so that's how we know it's bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #7 March 5, 2012 >Apparently we as a world community would rather tolerate a government >murdering their citizens. "America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. . . . Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice." -John Quincy Adams, 1821 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #8 March 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThank God he's still only a Senator and not the President. Are you aware that Obama has actually already made air strikes on about 6 middle east nations? Absolutely. I have also stated my opposition to him doing so. His airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen were not against nation states, but against terrorist residing there. Airstrikes against a nation such as Syria would be a whole different animal. Just like Iraq, military strikes would do nothing but galvanize the vast majority of the Syrian population against us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #9 March 5, 2012 Quote They're safe ....... no Oil yeah no shit! but for those that don't know, Syria is a proxy of Iran. So in effect a strike on Syria is a strike on Iran.... So I say bomb the fucking shit out of them and hang each and every memeber of that dictator and then in the end...hang the SOB himself by his fucking balls!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #10 March 5, 2012 Quote Quote Quote They're safe ....... no Oil yeah no shit! but for those that don't know, Syria is a proxy of Iran. So in effect a strike on Syria is a strike on Iran.... So I say bomb the fucking shit out of them and hang each and every memeber of that dictator and then in the end...hang the SOB himself by his fucking balls! I spent two weeks in Syria in 2005, outside of being detained by the Syrian secret police on the Lebanese - Syrian border for 6 hours, it was a great trip, wonderful people, and beautiful ancient ruins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 March 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteThank God he's still only a Senator and not the President. Are you aware that Obama has actually already made air strikes on about 6 middle east nations? So with McCain it would have been *60* by now. and we would have sent more troops to Iraq, not removed them. And every soldier remaining would have been sent to Libya. McCain seems to have never met a situation he couldn't solve with some use of force. When Obama uses force, McCain complains he didn't use enough force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #12 March 6, 2012 Quote and beautiful ancient ruins. Aha, so you admit Syria lacks beautiful modern ruins? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 March 6, 2012 QuoteSo with McCain it would have been *60* by now. and we would have sent more troops to Iraq, not removed them. McCain would have been bound by the Iraq SOFA that Bush signed just as Obama was - that's a red herring. Quote And every soldier remaining would have been sent to Libya. At least he would have gotten approval from Congress for it, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Penn.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 March 6, 2012 News: Obama administration moves to aid Syrian opposition Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/06/obama_administration_moves_to_aid_syrian_opposition I thought Obama and his liberal supporters were opposed to the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries? First Libya, now Syria. And yet the liberals remain silent without so much as a peep in protest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #15 March 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteNews: Obama administration moves to aid Syrian opposition Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/06/obama_administration_moves_to_aid_syrian_opposition I thought Obama and his liberal supporters were opposed to the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries? Looks like you were wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 March 6, 2012 QuoteNews: Obama administration moves to aid Syrian opposition Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/06/obama_administration_moves_to_aid_syrian_opposition I thought Obama and his liberal supporters were opposed to the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries? They only oppose it when it's a Republican and they have been told to oppose it. Notice none of them had a problem with Clinton going into Bosnia with airstrikes for exactly the same reason McCain wants to bomb Syria? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 March 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo with McCain it would have been *60* by now. and we would have sent more troops to Iraq, not removed them. McCain would have been bound by the Iraq SOFA that Bush signed just as Obama was - that's a red herring. Nonsense - we toppled the last government. What stops us from changing the terms? (Think Darth Vader with Lando...."Pray I do not alter the agreement further.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #18 March 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo with McCain it would have been *60* by now. and we would have sent more troops to Iraq, not removed them. McCain would have been bound by the Iraq SOFA that Bush signed just as Obama was - that's a red herring. Nonsense - we toppled the last government. What stops us from changing the terms? (Think Darth Vader with Lando...."Pray I do not alter the agreement further.") I guess they all missed it when McCain said we should have stayed in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 March 7, 2012 Quote I guess they all missed it when McCain said we should have stayed in Iraq. But did he say it because in 2008 he was in favor of 100 years of occupation, or merely because Obama directed the departure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuote I guess they all missed it when McCain said we should have stayed in Iraq. But did he say it because in 2008 he was in favor of 100 years of occupation, or merely because Obama directed the departure? I'm always amazed when seemingly intelligent people believe political manipulation. Perhaps this will help undo the brainwashing. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/dnc-vs-mccain/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote I guess they all missed it when McCain said we should have stayed in Iraq. But did he say it because in 2008 he was in favor of 100 years of occupation, or merely because Obama directed the departure? I'm always amazed when seemingly intelligent people believe political manipulation. Perhaps this will help undo the brainwashing. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/dnc-vs-mccain/ "Maybe a hundred. … We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. " How is that not showing McCain in favor of 100 years of occupation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 March 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I guess they all missed it when McCain said we should have stayed in Iraq. But did he say it because in 2008 he was in favor of 100 years of occupation, or merely because Obama directed the departure? I'm always amazed when seemingly intelligent people believe political manipulation. Perhaps this will help undo the brainwashing. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/dnc-vs-mccain/ "Maybe a hundred. … We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. " How is that not showing McCain in favor of 100 years of occupation? Because you also said this: QuoteMcCain seems to have never met a situation he couldn't solve with some use of force. When Obama uses force, McCain complains he didn't use enough force. Whereas McCain's statement had to do with a peaceful presence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #23 March 7, 2012 In this instance, I agree with McCain on this more than I disagree with him. I think it's a disgrace that the international community has dithered rather than using air power to reduce the wholesale killing of civilians by the military. There are times when it's morally reasonable and necessary for the international community, including the US - but not necessarily restricted to the UN - to intervene militarily in a sovereign nation to stop or forestall humanitarian atrocities. It can be done, to a limited, yet still rather effective, degree via enforced no-fly zones, together with air-to-ground strikes. NATO did it in Kosovo, and again in Libya, and each time with at least some measurable amount of success, and with a relatively minimal risk to Allied personnel (i.e., compared to boots on the ground). The same should have been initiated in Syria weeks ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #24 March 7, 2012 QuoteWhereas McCain's statement had to do with a peaceful presence. A "peaceful" US military presence in Iraq is oxy-moronic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
