McCain Invades Syria to Back Rebels

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The US has invoked the international human rights laws in criticizing and in some cases, taking direct action against, certain nations in the world, claiming their law is breaking international law and thereby giving greater credence to the international law, so they hold international law higher than individual law when it suits, just not when it doesn't fit their agenda.

I cannot think of a single case in which the US has claimed the law of a given country is unenforceable because it contravenes international law.

**Jihadin**

We didn't eat our enemy heart....execute prisoners in a assembly line like atmosphere...AQ fighting alongside of them...What's Russia stance now on religion?

**dogma**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So the US has never condemned a nation's breaches of human rights under international law, regardless of the nation's own laws and punishments?

The US has condemned many countries, and has occasionally cited international law as evidence that other countries should also condemn the relevant countries; but it has never claimed international law supersedes domestic law.

**Andrew1975**

I mean, look at all the usual suspects popping up in this thread to comment that there's no way the US should go in to Syria... I suspect their opinions would be very different if there was a Republican President arguing strongly for intervention.

I can't speak for everybody, but I really could care less who is advocating it. McCain is a republican and I think he should know better being a war veteran himself. There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict. We have no friends there and we are not going to win any. As far as I am concerned, we can legitimately view both sides as hostile to American values.....let them kill each other, save us from having to do it later, the next time one of these flair ups happens in a place we actually could give two gaks about.

As for aid. I think there are some pretty oil rich countries over there that could probably afford to start sorting out aid in their own corner of the world.

**sebster**

Andrew1975 wrote:
I can't speak for everybody, but I really could care less who is advocating it.

Sure, it isn't the only reason people might oppose the war. I mean, my position is at most cautious support for a very limited intervention, if experts advise it, so I certainly get the real and good reasons for opposing further intervention.

But whether the President is a D or an R does play an important part in the opinions of a significant portion of dakka.

McCain is a republican and I think he should know better being a war veteran himself. There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict. We have no friends there and we are not going to win any. As far as I am concerned, we can legitimately view both sides as hostile to American values.....let them kill each other, save us from having to do it later, the next time one of these flair ups happens in a place we actually could give two gaks about.

Given the diverse and often conflicting nature of the various rebel groups, that's a really sweeping statement.

**Andrew1975**

But whether the President is a D or an R does play an important part in the opinions of a significant portion of dakka.

Maybe on other issues. I think Syria is different, if not the opposite. I see a lot of Republicans rattling sabers because, I think they want to see Obama get his butt handed to him, they really don't think any farther than that. That is how polarized and ugly politics have gotten here. People want to see the POTUS go to war and lose lives and treasure just to make him look bad. Complete ignorance.

Most people know that this would be a really hairy situation and would rather not see their party waste the political capitol on this one. But of course you have McCain.

Given the diverse and often conflicting nature of the various rebel groups, that's a really sweeping statement.

Thanks for making my point for me! The nature of the groups is basically erratic. It's not even a coin flip to see which one would come out on top, more of a roulette spin, with very few or any groups being a good option for us.

I don't even give Iraq or Afghanistan much of a chance, what we built there will not last long enough to be worth the effort, Syria certainly wont.

Who's loyalties are we going to win in Syria? Seriously! Oh there might be something that lasts a month or so, but nothing lasting and nothing worth the effort.

**sebster**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe on other issues. I think Syria is different, if not the opposite. I see a lot of Republicans rattling sabers because, I think they want to see Obama get his butt handed to him, they really don't think any farther than that. That is how polarized and ugly politics have gotten here. People want to see the POTUS go to war and lose lives and treasure just to make him look bad. Complete ignorance.

Most people know that this would be a really hairy situation and would rather not see their party waste the political capitol on this one. But of course you have McCain.

I'm not sure any politicians are acting like that, not because they lack the cynicism, more because it implies a level of planning and wheels within wheels that don't really work that well in the real world (given how unpredictable and chaotic things tend to be).

I think what we're seeing the same old Hawks continuing to be hawks, the doves continuing to be doves, and the bulk in the middle waiting until it's clear which way either public opinion or establishment momentum is going to drag this thing.

My comment about wasn't on the folk in Washington, it was more on the public, the folk who come wandering in to threads like this.

Thanks for making my point for me! The nature of the groups is basically erratic. It's not even a coin flip to see which one would come out on top, more of a roulette spin, with very few or any groups being a good option for us.

I don't even give Iraq or Afghanistan much of a chance, what we built there will not last long enough to be worth the effort, Syria certainly wont.

Who's loyalties are we going to win in Syria? Seriously! Oh there might be something that lasts a month or so, but nothing lasting and nothing worth the effort.

That's all pretty reasonable.

**Andrew1975**

I'm not sure any politicians are acting like that, not because they lack the cynicism, more because it implies a level of planning and wheels within wheels that don't really work that well in the real world (given how unpredictable and chaotic things tend to be).

I think what we're seeing the same old Hawks continuing to be hawks, the doves continuing to be doves, and the bulk in the middle waiting until it's clear which way either public opinion or establishment momentum is going to drag this thing.

My comment about wasn't on the folk in Washington, it was more on the public, the folk who come wandering in to threads like this.

I was talking about regular people and politicians. Seriously last time I was in my bar, I heard people who hate Obama, just wishing he would go into Syria and screw it up by either getting his but handed to him, losing troops, arming the wrong people, not finding the WMDs or worse that the rebels have the WMDs and we are supporting them. Seriously they wanted the countries credibility to take another hit just to make Obama look bad.

These hawk R politicians are doing the same thing. They will rattle sabers, but as soon as the POTUS goes in and anything bad happens they will blame the hell out of him for it. I can tell just by how they jumped on a nothing of a phrase like "Red Line", seriously that phrase was all about saying nothing, but threatening everything. But the politician could not wait to throw Obama on the cross for it, they wanted immediate action on the WMD strike before there was any proof. It was like they wanted Obama to make the same miss step Bush made, just so they could point and laugh.....Then they got upset when Obama wasn't stupid enough to flinch.

Its as if, instead of wanting what is best for the country, they just want what is the worst possible outcome for the opposite party, no matter what the cost to the country.

Its disgusting.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict.

Explain to us all how it is a "black on black" conflict.

**Andrew1975**

dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict.

Explain to us all how it is a "black on black" conflict.

White hats=good guys, black hats=bad guys. You know like the old cowboy films.

Black on Black. Bad guys killing other bad guys. I call that a win/win.

Did you think I was making some kind of racial slur? I sure wasn't speaking about black on black violence.

**Jihadin**

Dogma...thought you were familiar with the military?

**Andrew1975**

Jihadin wrote:
Dogma...thought you were familiar with the military?

Oh he is.....hes just up to his usual games.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:

White hats=good guys, black hats=bad guys. You know like the old cowboy films.

Black on Black. Bad guys killing other bad guys. I call that a win/win.

Did you think I was making some kind of racial slur?

Yes, because the phrase "black on black" commonly references conflict within the black community, both possessively and dismissively.

Jihadin wrote:
Dogma...thought you were familiar with the military?

I am, but Andrew has, in this thread, demonstrated a general ignorance regarding the nature of the parties to the Syrian conflict; dismissing the matter as a Muslim problem. In the past he has also proven unable to identify the borders of the Middle East, so I think I can be forgiven for assuming the worst regarding the "black on black" comment.

**Frazzled**

High Emperor Aggron wrote:
We need to help the rebels, we were rebels once.

Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.
Government is Assad. They need to die.
Where's Predator when you need him?

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:

Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.
Government is Assad. They need to die.
Where's Predator when you need him?

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Oh people's opinions on Syria are certainly political. I mean, look at all the usual suspects popping up in this thread to comment that there's no way the US should go in to Syria... I suspect their opinions would be very different if there was a Republican President arguing strongly for intervention.

I don't care who is in the White House. Looking at it objectively, marching into Syria is a bad idea on every level. We should stick to sending supplies to the refugee camps in Turkey.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

High Emperor Aggron wrote:
We need to help the rebels, we were rebels once.

Now by rebels to you mean the ones that are not connected to Al-Queda? Who were slitting the throats of captives week after the conflict started and eat the hearts of their enemies, who are accused of using chemical weapons, who shelled civilians and who have some groups just looking to carve out their own little empire?
Or do you mean the Al-Queda affiliated rebels (who are the most effective fighters) who will probably stay on in a post-war Syria and set up their training camps, as well as get access to plenty of military grade hardware to continue their campaign on the West?

**Andrew1975**

Yes, because the phrase "black on black" commonly references conflict within the black community, both possessively and dismissively.

Yes because I thought Syria is where the Crips and Bloods have moved their latest conflict.

Actually now that I think about it, its not too far off.

The phrase you are looking for is "black on black crime" or "black on black violence", which if you can read contextually has noting to do with what is going on, as most people can see.

Honestly, I thought you might think I was referencing "Black on Black" as in covert operations and secret wars, but again reading contextually I make no reference to that either.

I am, but Andrew has, in this thread, demonstrated a general ignorance regarding the nature of the parties to the Syrian conflict; dismissing the matter as a Muslim problem. In the past he has also proven unable to identify the borders of the Middle East, so I think I can be forgiven for assuming the worst regarding the "black on black" comment.

No you are not forgiven, mister Anal. This from a guy who argues The Greater Middle East has nothing to do with the Middle east. Go back to trolling somewhere else.

At its base this is a Muslim issue. This all comes down to Sunni vs Shiite, that is the base issue here, its Muslims fighting other Muslims over the interpretation of a book! And yes I know there is more behind it than that, but not to many of the actually believers.

Like I said up to his usual stupid games. Go derail another thread.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.
Government is Assad. They need to die.
Where's Predator when you need him?

I all honesty, I think you're on to something there. Now, who has Robert Rodriguez's phone number?

**MeanGreenStompa**

What's that you say McCain? We need to find 'the right people' to give money and guns to?

Meet some nice folks there did you Johnny?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-senator-mccain-pictured-syrian-rebel-kidnapper-paper-172141362.html

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain was photographed during a trip to Syria with a man implicated in the kidnapping by Syrian rebels of 11 Lebanese Shi'ite pilgrims a year ago, a Lebanese newspaper said on Thursday.
McCain, a Republican, has been an outspoken advocate for U.S. military aid to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad and made a short, highly publicised trip to meet rebel commanders in Syria three days ago.
He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.
However, he may have crossed paths with men linked to a group notorious in the region for kidnapping the pilgrims, the Daily Star said.
The paper said that as well as McCain's photographs with rebel commanders, one image showed the face of Mohammad Nour - identified by two freed hostages as the chief spokesman and photographer for the Northern Storm brigade that kidnapped them.
The image demonstrates the difficulty of identifying who the West might want to deal with and could possibly further inflame the delicate sectarian balance in a conflict that is spilling over Lebanon's borders.
A spokesman for McCain said none of the people he met identified themselves as Nour and it had not been his intention to meet anyone of that name.
"A number of the Syrians who greeted Senator McCain upon his arrival in Syria asked to take pictures with him, and as always, the senator complied. If the individual photographed with Senator McCain is in fact Mohammad Nour, that is regrettable," spokesman Brian Rogers said.
"But it would be ludicrous to suggest that the senator in any way condones the kidnapping of Lebanese Shia pilgrims or has any communication with those responsible. Senator McCain condemns such heinous actions in the strongest possible terms."
The hostages were seized in northern Syria as they returned from a pilgrimage in Iran. Lebanese officials flew to Turkey on Thursday in the latest effort to secure the release of the remaining nine hostages.
McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict. The uprising-turned-civil war has become increasingly bloody and has claimed more than 80,000 in over two years of conflict.
"The senator believes his visit to Syria was critical to supporting the many brave Syrians who are fighting for their lives and the freedom of their country against a brutal regime and its foreign allies that are massacring Syrian citizens on Syrian territory," the spokesman said.

**djones520**

If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

**MeanGreenStompa**

djones520 wrote:
If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

You will remain disappointed...

**djones520**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
djones520 wrote:
If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

You will remain disappointed...

Hardly, I've been around the internet long enough to understand the fact that people don't give a damn about equality when it gets in the way of sticking it to the other side.

**Jihadin**

He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.

Comedy F'ing GOLD right there

McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict. The uprising-turned-civil war has become increasingly bloody and has claimed more than 80,000 in over two years of conflict.

Stay the course Obama....STAY THE COURSE!!!!

**MeanGreenStompa**

djones520 wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
djones520 wrote:
If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

You will remain disappointed...

Hardly, I've been around the internet long enough to understand the fact that people don't give a damn about equality when it gets in the way of sticking it to the other side.

So, not hardly then... Also, I heard that lazy bastard Obama made a serving marine hold an umbrella for him, the despot!

Jihadin wrote:
He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.

Comedy F'ing GOLD right there

McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict. The uprising-turned-civil war has become increasingly bloody and has claimed more than 80,000 in over two years of conflict.

Stay the course Obama....STAY THE COURSE!!!!

I have faith, especially now Russia trolled the conflict with free anti aircraft stuff for the bad guys in power (as opposed to the other bad guys they're fighting) as a massive F**K YOU to the Western potential for intervention.

Let the UN rule on it and let the Arab League deal with it.

Its not our problem.

**Jihadin**

You know Putin had a big smile on his face when he signed that deal with Assad. Always good for the USA to have an occasional "check" by another Super Power

**djones520**

Jihadin wrote:
You know Putin had a big smile on his face when he signed that deal with Assad. Always good for the USA to have an occasional "check" by another Super Power

If we do head in, you know B-2's are going to lead the strike and make those missiles dissapear. That is if the Israeli's don't beat us to it.

Putin is still on top, since that's more money for his country, but it's hardly a "check".

**Jihadin**

B2's eh.....better make sure they go after the surface to surface missles to. Assad has nothing to lose and the Russians have all to gain. We start striking his missile sites then every ship in the Med becomes a target. I wouldn't put it pass Assad to nail ships in the Suez Canal or awaiting their turn to go through the Canal. I see three or four days of missile tossing on both sides...then Assad asking Putin for "Peace Keepers" so he can put his country back together.....and behead some generals for starting a shooting match with the west without his orders......UN be like...."eeerrrrr"........US be like...WTH/WTF?...Isreal goes to War...invades Egypt....turns back due to the financial impact of removing wreckage from the Canal because of Assad. Bombs Hezbollalalala. Speeds up jewish housing projects....US plans to land a MEU in Syria....does not because of Sequester....Republicans blame Obama.....Obama blames Republicans....Democrats give a low shout out and continues to distance themselves from Obamacare....reelection concerns in the House and Senate.....Syria then takes a major backseat because of another push on the 2nd Amendment with banning Assault Weapons....which my M1 carbine is consider an assault weapon because of the bayonet stud...World War Z bombs in theaters....Kim Kardasian goes to jail for tax evasion.......Eric Holder says Feth you all and stays in charge of the DoJ.....more reporters and media gets investigated because somehow it got leak that the MEU in the Med was suppose to invade Syria....Jay Carney gets a HUGE PAY RAISE (dude seriously deserves it because Q&A with the press) Fox News still has hotter chicks.....Frazz post more weiner legion attack dogs....never mix Oxy with Ativan..or was that Oxy with Vicadin....eh who cares..I feel gooood

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Jihadin wrote:
B2's eh.....better make sure they go after the surface to surface missles to. Assad has nothing to lose and the Russians have all to gain. We start striking his missile sites then every ship in the Med becomes a target. I wouldn't put it pass Assad to nail ships in the Suez Canal or awaiting their turn to go through the Canal. I see three or four days of missile tossing on both sides...then Assad asking Putin for "Peace Keepers" so he can put his country back together.....and behead some generals for starting a shooting match with the west without his orders......UN be like...."eeerrrrr"........US be like...WTH/WTF?...Isreal goes to War...invades Egypt....turns back due to the financial impact of removing wreckage from the Canal because of Assad. Bombs Hezbollalalala. Speeds up jewish housing projects....US plans to land a MEU in Syria....does not because of Sequester....Republicans blame Obama.....Obama blames Republicans....Democrats give a low shout out and continues to distance themselves from Obamacare....reelection concerns in the House and Senate.....Syria then takes a major backseat because of another push on the 2nd Amendment with banning Assault Weapons....which my M1 carbine is consider an assault weapon because of the bayonet stud...World War Z bombs in theaters....Kim Kardasian goes to jail for tax evasion.......Eric Holder says Feth you all and stays in charge of the DoJ.....more reporters and media gets investigated because somehow it got leak that the MEU in the Med was suppose to invade Syria....Jay Carney gets a HUGE PAY RAISE (dude seriously deserves it because Q&A with the press) Fox News still has hotter chicks.....Frazz post more weiner legion attack dogs....never mix Oxy with Ativan..or was that Oxy with Vicadin....eh who cares..I feel gooood

Are you Tom Clancy?

**Jihadin**

Just a average guy doing a Hero job

**sebster**

Andrew1975 wrote:
I was talking about regular people and politicians. Seriously last time I was in my bar, I heard people who hate Obama, just wishing he would go into Syria and screw it up by either getting his but handed to him, losing troops, arming the wrong people, not finding the WMDs or worse that the rebels have the WMDs and we are supporting them. Seriously they wanted the countries credibility to take another hit just to make Obama look bad.

Wow, that's terrible.

These hawk R politicians are doing the same thing. They will rattle sabers, but as soon as the POTUS goes in and anything bad happens they will blame the hell out of him for it. I can tell just by how they jumped on a nothing of a phrase like "Red Line", seriously that phrase was all about saying nothing, but threatening everything. But the politician could not wait to throw Obama on the cross for it, they wanted immediate action on the WMD strike before there was any proof. It was like they wanted Obama to make the same miss step Bush made, just so they could point and laugh.....Then they got upset when Obama wasn't stupid enough to flinch.

I don't think politics is that, well, elaborate, if you get my meaning. It's fair more chaotic and opportunistic. The Hawks are in favour of intervention because, simply, they're almost always in favour of dropping bombs somewhere. That's what makes them hawks.

If Obama follows them and it all turns to gak, then sure, they'll be the first complaining that Obama screwed it up, certainly. But I don't think they're setting a deliberate trap they can hammer him on later, because I don't think that kind of cynicism really works - the political landscape is too chaotic for that kind of elabortate traps to pay off.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.

That's really, really simplistic. There is no unified rebellion, all loyal to the same outside parties.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't care who is in the White House. Looking at it objectively, marching into Syria is a bad idea on every level. We should stick to sending supplies to the refugee camps in Turkey.

No-one is talking US troops on the ground here. I don't know how many more times that has to be said.