New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

McCain gets his wish on Syria . . . but will it make things worse?

Congratulations Senator McCain – President Obama has announced the bombing (in Syria) will start in 5 minutes. Er . . . that doesn’t sound right. Let me check again. Correction – my bad – Obama actually said he will begin the arming of Syrian rebels in 5 minutes. In related news, the rebels immediately pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. This is not a joke.

At this stage I invite the “progressives” on this board to discuss their past affinity for the concept of “multilateralism” and “actions within an agreed upon UN framework”. I’m allowed to do this because I have consistently posted in this forum AGAINST American involvement in Syria. So let’s hear it, those of you on the left – shouldn’t have Obama waited for a UN resolution, harsher sanctions, and a fact finding mission?

No – of course he should not. The last UN fact finding mission to Syria resulted in the bizarre declaration that it was the rebels who had used Sarin poison gas against Assad’s army. That of course was quickly “walked back” by more responsible voices in the UN. . . But it does illustrate the basis for the knee-jerk GOP aversion to UN control of anything.

I’m all over the map this morning, aren’t I? Actually, I’m not. The enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend. Although we can all agree the UN is a joke, and hasn’t actually “fixed” anything anywhere, that doesn’t make either the GOP or the Obama administration my friend this morning.

In an ideal world, if you determine someone is guilty of “war crimes” you would arrest them and bring them to trial in an international court of law. Yeah – good luck with that. I don’t think Assad’s “team of rivals” is going to slap the cuffs on him and put on the tarmac at Al-Assad International Airport for pickup by UN helicopters. The UN would never vote for that anyway. Russia – a permanent member of the Security Council by virtue only of their nukes – would veto it. Do you get the connection between Nukes and power aspirations of other tin horn insane despots now?

Russian technicians helped Syria create its Sarin gas stockpiles. If you have to ask how we know this, you could be too dumb to be a member of this board. And Russia has been shipping boatloads of conventional arms to Assad, so he can fend off the “democratic aspirations” of the Syrian people. Well, some of them have democratic aspirations, probably. Others just pledged allegiance to the flag of Al Qaeda and the oppression for which it stands. And Assad is also getting assistance – material, manpower, and advice - from Hezbollah and Iran.

So Russia – explain to me why you’re in league with Islamists assisting Assad, while machine gunning them down in Chechnya, on your own doorstep? Oh - that’s right. That old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing again. How’s that working out for you?

Back to Assad, and his war crimes. Here’s my advice to Mr. Obama, although I doubt it will actually work: Have NATO or some other “coalition of the willing” issue an arrest warrant for Assad, based on his war crimes. Close the Syrian airspace and ports of Syria. Expel Syrian diplomats from all coalition members.

Again, this probably WONT result in Assad turning up bound and gagged on the airport tarmac. But it’s a darn sight safer than sending surface to air missiles to Al Qaeda, and we can at least say we did everythign short opening up a new war front.

Full disclosure – the arming of Syrian rebels is just THIS close to being a “wag the dog” scenario, in the midst of IRS, NSA, Benghazi, and DOJ wiretap scandals, isn’t it? I have a screenplay outline I will be shopping around Hollywood, as soon as I can get representation. Working title - "A Sad Day for us all"
 
It's easy, ASOT

1. If it helps?....the Right will credit McCain.

2. If it doesn't help?....the Right will blame the President.

3. Whichever way Matt Drudge spins it?....that's the way YOU'll spin it.

1-2-3 :)

((Sorry...forgot....4-5-6-7-8-9-10 Don't want to set off an anxiety attack. :) ))
 
It's easy, ASOT

1. If it helps?....the Right will credit McCain.

2. If it doesn't help?....the Right will blame the President.

3. Whichever way Matt Drudge spins it?....that's the way YOU'll spin it.

1-2-3 :)

((Sorry...forgot....4-5-6-7-8-9-10 Don't want to set off an anxiety attack. :) ))

gecko - directionally correct, but perhaps more nuanced than your summarization. we first have to determine the defintion of "works". if assad's forces desert him in the face of rising rebel firepower; if he dies from an IED in his conference room or shot in the head by a disgruntled army general; if he flees for Russia with his entourage - both sides will claim this a a win.

And then we can repent at lesiure what happened to the shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles that went missing in the chaos that followed.
 
I think I'll defer my judgment until I see what is actually going to happen in Syria.

No need for you to bother with that though. We already knew your opinion prior to your posting it.
 
The lefties aren't touching this one in droves. President Peace Prize is again arming Islamist "rebels" to facilitate yet another jihadist takeover of a middle eastern nation. And they still don't get it...:(
 
gecko - directionally correct, but perhaps more nuanced than your summarization. we first have to determine the defintion of "works". if assad's forces desert him in the face of rising rebel firepower; if he dies from an IED in his conference room or shot in the head by a disgruntled army general; if he flees for Russia with his entourage - both sides will claim this a a win.

And then we can repent at lesiure what happened to the shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles that went missing in the chaos that followed.

My point is.....whatever happens? The Rightwing Media spin on it will be whatever helps a Republican and/or disparages the President...

and will be YOUR spin. 100% Guaranteed
 
The lefties aren't touching this one in droves. President Peace Prize is again arming Islamist "rebels" to facilitate yet another jihadist takeover of a middle eastern nation. And they still don't get it...:(

See, ASOT? Marvin will blame the President....for a policy the guy HE voted for for President in 2008 (McCain) endorses.
 
See, ASOT? Marvin will blame the President....for a policy the guy HE voted for for President in 2008 (McCain) endorses.

He is the president Gordo, whether you like it or not. McCain can't authorize arming the Syrian "rebels". Do you support Obama's intent to arm the Syrian "rebels"?
 
The lefties aren't touching this one in droves. President Peace Prize is again arming Islamist "rebels" to facilitate yet another jihadist takeover of a middle eastern nation. And they still don't get it...:(

i dont think obama's intent is to create another jihadist regime. he's boxed in by his ill advised "red line in the sand" monologue, just as he boxed himself into a corner by announcing - years in advance - withdrawal dates from other points in the middle east. this is the problem with using attempting to use theoretical foreign policy positions as campaign tactics - you appeal to your voter base, but then come to regret having trashed your other options.

in my opinion, sending huge "aid" to pakistan which is the largest known repository of al qaeda executive management and cooperation with the pakistani military - is a more egregious mistake. we should cut all aid until (ha ha) they act responsibly.
 
See, ASOT? Marvin will blame the President....for a policy the guy HE voted for for President in 2008 (McCain) endorses.

gecko - this is soooooo tedious - trying to explain to you OVER AND OVER that simply because someone votes for a candidate, doesn't mean you support 100% of that candidate's impulsive views. That doesn't even happen among democrats, unless they're brain dead.

i voted for romney in 2012 (and bob barr in 2008) - yet i share none of romney's social values - i'm secular, pro choice, pro marriage equality, in favor of a gun control amendment, etc. Yes - the economy IS that important, and we have a certifiable idiot ruining the economy now.
 
gecko - this is soooooo tedious - trying to explain to you OVER AND OVER that simply because someone votes for a candidate, doesn't mean you support 100% of that candidate's impulsive views. That doesn't even happen among democrats, unless they're brain dead.

i voted for romney in 2012 (and bob barr in 2008) - yet i share none of romney's social values - i'm secular, pro choice, pro marriage equality, in favor of a gun control amendment, etc. Yes - the economy IS that important, and we have a certifiable idiot ruining the economy now.

"pro choice"....yet you show up on threads about abortion talking in "pro-life" talking points?!?!?
 
"pro choice"....yet you show up on threads about abortion talking in "pro-life" talking points?!?!?

gecko - seriously - you can't be this much of a liar or a fool. please link to ANY thread where I have favored making abortion illegal again.

this is the reason you are so disrespected on this board. you are without honor.
 
Congratulations Senator McCain – President Obama has announced the bombing (in Syria) will start in 5 minutes. Er . . . that doesn’t sound right. Let me check again. Correction – my bad – Obama actually said he will begin the arming of Syrian rebels in 5 minutes. In related news, the rebels immediately pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. This is not a joke.

At this stage I invite the “progressives” on this board to discuss their past affinity for the concept of “multilateralism” and “actions within an agreed upon UN framework”. I’m allowed to do this because I have consistently posted in this forum AGAINST American involvement in Syria. So let’s hear it, those of you on the left – shouldn’t have Obama waited for a UN resolution, harsher sanctions, and a fact finding mission?

No – of course he should not. The last UN fact finding mission to Syria resulted in the bizarre declaration that it was the rebels who had used Sarin poison gas against Assad’s army. That of course was quickly “walked back” by more responsible voices in the UN. . . But it does illustrate the basis for the knee-jerk GOP aversion to UN control of anything.

I’m all over the map this morning, aren’t I? Actually, I’m not. The enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend. Although we can all agree the UN is a joke, and hasn’t actually “fixed” anything anywhere, that doesn’t make either the GOP or the Obama administration my friend this morning.

In an ideal world, if you determine someone is guilty of “war crimes” you would arrest them and bring them to trial in an international court of law. Yeah – good luck with that. I don’t think Assad’s “team of rivals” is going to slap the cuffs on him and put on the tarmac at Al-Assad International Airport for pickup by UN helicopters. The UN would never vote for that anyway. Russia – a permanent member of the Security Council by virtue only of their nukes – would veto it. Do you get the connection between Nukes and power aspirations of other tin horn insane despots now?

Russian technicians helped Syria create its Sarin gas stockpiles. If you have to ask how we know this, you could be too dumb to be a member of this board. And Russia has been shipping boatloads of conventional arms to Assad, so he can fend off the “democratic aspirations” of the Syrian people. Well, some of them have democratic aspirations, probably. Others just pledged allegiance to the flag of Al Qaeda and the oppression for which it stands. And Assad is also getting assistance – material, manpower, and advice - from Hezbollah and Iran.

So Russia – explain to me why you’re in league with Islamists assisting Assad, while machine gunning them down in Chechnya, on your own doorstep? Oh - that’s right. That old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing again. How’s that working out for you?

Back to Assad, and his war crimes. Here’s my advice to Mr. Obama, although I doubt it will actually work: Have NATO or some other “coalition of the willing” issue an arrest warrant for Assad, based on his war crimes. Close the Syrian airspace and ports of Syria. Expel Syrian diplomats from all coalition members.

Again, this probably WONT result in Assad turning up bound and gagged on the airport tarmac. But it’s a darn sight safer than sending surface to air missiles to Al Qaeda, and we can at least say we did everythign short opening up a new war front.

Full disclosure – the arming of Syrian rebels is just THIS close to being a “wag the dog” scenario, in the midst of IRS, NSA, Benghazi, and DOJ wiretap scandals, isn’t it? I have a screenplay outline I will be shopping around Hollywood, as soon as I can get representation. Working title - "A Sad Day for us all"

I don't want us intervening in Syria. However, I just wanted to respond to the UN-bashing. Yes, the UN is a deeply troubled organization. Unfortunately, much of what is wrong with it can be traced to things that the US would never allow to be fixed.... such as the unilateral veto right held by the five permanent Security Council members. Picture how dysfunctional the US would be if five states (not even the five biggest or five most powerful, but rather the five successors to the most powerful states of 70 years ago) could each independently block any action by the federal government.

Yet, despite that dysfunction, I would not claim the the UN hasn't actually "fixed" anything, anywhere, as you believe. The UN's election observers have helped to shepherd nascent democracies into the world with election monitoring, and the UN's humanitarian programs have helped bring living standards in poor nations up considerably. The forum of the UN has also helped to facilitate peaceful resolutions of countless issues that, in other eras, might have turned ugly. That includes issues like border disputes, and administration of the open sea, space, and Antarctica. The UN also set up the IPCC, which has been doing critical work synthesizing the international understanding about climate change -- very likely the most important issue to the human race for the next century.

The UN isn't perfect, but the world is vastly better off than it was in the era before such an organization.
 
I don't want us intervening in Syria. However, I just wanted to respond to the UN-bashing. Yes, the UN is a deeply troubled organization. Unfortunately, much of what is wrong with it can be traced to things that the US would never allow to be fixed.... such as the unilateral veto right held by the five permanent Security Council members. Picture how dysfunctional the US would be if five states (not even the five biggest or five most powerful, but rather the five successors to the most powerful states of 70 years ago) could each independently block any action by the federal government.

Yet, despite that dysfunction, I would not claim the the UN hasn't actually "fixed" anything, anywhere, as you believe. The UN's election observers have helped to shepherd nascent democracies into the world with election monitoring, and the UN's humanitarian programs have helped bring living standards in poor nations up considerably. The forum of the UN has also helped to facilitate peaceful resolutions of countless issues that, in other eras, might have turned ugly. That includes issues like border disputes, and administration of the open sea, space, and Antarctica. The UN also set up the IPCC, which has been doing critical work synthesizing the international understanding about climate change -- very likely the most important issue to the human race for the next century.

The UN isn't perfect, but the world is vastly better off than it was in the era before such an organization.

ark - we'll have to agree to disagree. my biggest beef with the united nations ISNT the veto power of the security council (although I agree its outmoded).

rather, I take exception to the UN charter which specifically guarantees "state security" (i.e., keeping governments, even unelected despots in power) and is totally mute on human rights, freedom of worship, censorship/free press, etc. This is why people suffer all over the world, and the UN does nothing.
 
Back
Top