McCain and Graham won't support strike without all out war

[SuckOnThis]

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement that they want much more than just limited action against Syria.

?we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President?s stated goal of Assad?s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America?s friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world ? all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.?

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/..._id=&Issue_id=

[TheSquealer]

In todays news, McDonalds workers went on strike with the bizarrely unrelistic goal of doubling their pay because "life's unfair". In other news, hundreds of children were gassed to death in Syria, because it was a Thursday.

[Tom_PM]

I saw a few moments of McCain on Leno last night. I don't like Jay so can't watch it much before the urge to change channel kicks in. But I saw McCain say that Obama only wanted to make a token few strikes to appease Americans. Every chance he gets, jab, twist, jab some more.

When asked what he would do he said he would crater every runway, then said he would not use any troops. He would supply the rebels with weapons. I suppose he thinks it always works out great when America supplies weapons. Like to Iraq, to Afghanistan and to Iran. All shining examples of success. ?

[baddog]

Sounds like Leno is funnier than ever

[crockett]

McCain is a fool that has had his 10 mins long past run out. Graham is just a nut job that needs to go back to where ever the fuck he came from.

They are both prime examples as to why the Republican party is completely useless for anything but pointing and laughing at.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by crockett

McCain is a fool that has had his 10 mins long past run out. Graham is just a nut job that needs to go back to where ever the fuck he came from.

They are both prime examples as to why the Republican party is completely useless for anything but pointing and laughing at.

And what's your suggestion considering Obama told the Syrians and the world that the United States wouldn't stand for the use of chemical weapons against anybody let along children and women? Launching a few cruise missiles at targets where chemical weapons are thought to be stored after giving them 2 weeks to move shit is pathetic. If that's all Obama has up his sleeve Assad and Iran will just laugh. I agree with McCain, the US invests billions and billions into high tech weaponry so US soldiers don't have to die. Deliver Assad a truly punishing blow OR get on TV and apologize to the country and the world for being such a dumbass.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

I saw a few moments of McCain on Leno last night. I don't like Jay so can't watch it much before the urge to change channel kicks in. But I saw McCain say that Obama only wanted to make a token few strikes to appease Americans. Every chance he gets, jab, twist, jab some more.

When asked what he would do he said he would crater every runway, then said he would not use any troops. He would supply the rebels with weapons. I suppose he thinks it always works out great when America supplies weapons. Like to Iraq, to Afghanistan and to Iran. All shining examples of success. ?

An American president shouldn't be writing checks with his mouth that his ass can't cash.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by Mutt

An American president shouldn't be writing checks with his mouth that his ass can't cash.

I agree, and I think it's simply politics. He has the war powers act on his side just like Reagan,Clinton, Bush and Obama have already used. This allows strikes and a notification to congress within 60 days. This is not even remotely debatable; he does NOT have to let congress debate or vote whatsoever. I personally believe this is Obama and future candidates forcing all congressman to SAY where they stand so they can't waffle on it later. Just mho but it fits.

Biden has said we have incontrovertible evidence of where the missiles came from, when they came, where they landed and that it was chemical weapons. We could have struck at those locations long ago. It's all about appeasing people at this point and I can't say I'd blame anyone for now forcing people to declare where they stand even though I don't like it. People are bitching at Obama if he doesn't strike, the way he's spoken already, if he does strike, if he strikes alone, if he doesn't strike alone, if he strikes before asking congress, if he doesn't strike before asking congress. At least this way nobody can come back and say it was all him. Pretty shitty position to be in but at this point he's WELL schooled in how it's going to go down. Just imho.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

People are bitching at Obama if he doesn't strike, the way he's spoken already, if he does strike, if he strikes alone, if he doesn't strike alone, if he strikes before asking congress, if he doesn't strike before asking congress. At least this way nobody can come back and say it was all him. Pretty shitty position to be in but at this point he's WELL schooled in how it's going to go down. Just imho.

This is a perfect example of how a liberal thinks. With emotion. Emotional responses, leading to inaction due to an inability to accept some obvious and unpleasant truths.... that there are no good decisions but they must be made swiftly and action must be carried out swiftly. ALL OF THIS stems from his single remark about "crossing the red line". Thats it. Otherwise, he would not be compelled to act at all. Obama put himself in this place. Its not anyone else's fault but his.

He is asking congress because he has to. Not because he does not have the authority to strike on his own, but because he and Biden spent a great deal of time arguing that Bush was Hitler II and had no authority to do anything with the military without the consent of congress. Biden practiced constitutional law as did Obama. Obama tried to say something and not sound weak and it was an empty remark that of course was soon tested. Once it was tested, it was quite clear that he had no plan.. in fact, he hadn't thought about it past his "red line..." remark.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama 2007.

“The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.”
Biden 2007

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
Obama 2007

Obviously the whole "President and the use of force/War Powers Act" stuff is not clear at all if no one can agree on it on either side of the aisle. But when it was Bush in the hot seat, they seemed to be pretty clear that the President using the military without taking it to Congress was an impeachable offense. Of course, today.... now that roles are reversed and its Obama that has to contemplate the use of military force.... not so much.

[dyna mo]

if anybody posts after this, the consequences will be the same.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. ?

i'm open, so crimes against humanity are a threat to our national security interests?


is that what he is saying or is there actually a threat in syria to our national security interests?

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm open, so crimes against humanity are a threat to our national security interests?


is that what he is saying or is there actually a threat in syria to our national security interests?

you are crazy, you posted after the red line...

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by crockett

McCain is a fool that has had his 10 mins long past run out. Graham is just a nut job that needs to go back to where ever the fuck he came from.

I think he's due more than 10 mins; He is a war hero.

But his ten years are up.

[onwebcam]

Obama and Democrats Have Found a Friend: John McCain

Barack Obama, to hear his advisers tell it, has finally found The One he has been looking for: John McCain.

“We have been looking literally for years for someone we can cut deals with, and finally someone has stepped up,” a White House official said. West Wing aides say they now talk with McCain roughly every other day.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...ccain-n1647826

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm open, so crimes against humanity are a threat to our national security interests?


is that what he is saying or is there actually a threat in syria to our national security interests?

A neighbor is starting to fill its diapers. No threat to you and me but then we don't count.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

In todays news, McDonalds workers went on strike with the bizarrely unrelistic goal of doubling their pay because "life's unfair".

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement that they want much more than just limited action against Syria.

?we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President?s stated goal of Assad?s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America?s friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world ? all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.?

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/..._id=&Issue_id=

How else are they going to get their buddies those big weapons contracts without a protracted war?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Obama may be the follow up to the "boy that cried wolf" -- or we have finally found Saddam's chemical weapons. The rumor, as I recall, was quite a few of Saddam's remaining SCUD missile launchers were transferred to the Syrians too ...

Maybe, the Russians are worried we will discover these unconfirmed weapon's source? How many of these weapons that "do not exist" are in shipping crates from Iran?

Are US made weapons reaching rebel factions via the Sunnis? Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind.

John McCain and Lindsay Graham can pound on the table for their political drama all they want -- they are both known assholes.

Lot of room for speculation here ...

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

This is a perfect example of how a liberal thinks. With emotion. Emotional responses, leading to inaction due to an inability to accept some obvious and unpleasant truths.... that there are no good decisions but they must be made swiftly and action must be carried out swiftly.

Really? Do you listen to what has been said in Russian and Chinese media? That "it is" the rebels which uses chemical weapons. Not the regime.

That's why we should think like a "liberal". And not just f*cking bomb places from rumours or when we hear "one side of the story".

Besides that, wars are bad.

But, that's just my opinion.

[marcop]

Originally Posted by baddog

Sounds like Leno is funnier than ever

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

I saw a few moments of McCain on Leno last night. I don't like Jay so can't watch it much before the urge to change channel kicks in. But I saw McCain say that Obama only wanted to make a token few strikes to appease Americans. Every chance he gets, jab, twist, jab some more.

When asked what he would do he said he would crater every runway, then said he would not use any troops. He would supply the rebels with weapons. I suppose he thinks it always works out great when America supplies weapons. Like to Iraq, to Afghanistan and to Iran. All shining examples of success. ?

i'm convinced that mccain wants every american to relive his pow/war experience.

[Tom_PM]

Sorry, no he doesn't have to ask before acting. War Powers Act, bro.

Watching Rand Paul now already saying the evidence we have is not enough for him to vote Yes. What a shocker.

BTW, I'm liberal on social issues and very conservative on war and money. Again, nice try though, but dead wrong.

[Tom_PM]

Of course Russia and China magically "know it is rebels". I wonder how we know where they were launched, where they landed, that Sarin was used, that orders were sent out for gov. forces to use their gas masks. What is it that the Russians "know"? As compelling as that? We should drone whoever did it, not whoever we feel like. Hows that for liberal? lmfao

[Tom_PM]

"The president does not need congressional approval for limited military interventions, and the executive branch has not sought it in the past."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...fd5_story.html


etc. Not worth debating, it's not required, but he wants it. And no matter what, he'll be doing the wrong thing, amirite? yawn

edit: "The president called them into the Oval Office Friday night to tell them two things: that he's now decided to use military force, but also that he was reversing course and would seek congressional approval.

His reasoning, according to officials who were in the room? He wants members on the record, rather than simply criticizing from outside whatever action he takes."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...on-the-record/

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I think he's due more than 10 mins; He is a war hero.

But his ten years are up.

McCain has gone from a respected pow to a war monger. He has long ago cashed his check for what this country owes him for his service.

McCain is now trying to cash the checks of the men whom have to do it today.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by maxjohan

Really? Do you listen to what has been said in Russian and Chinese media? That "it is" the rebels which uses chemical weapons. Not the regime.

That's why we should think like a "liberal". And not just f*cking bomb places from rumours or when we hear "one side of the story".

Besides that, wars are bad.

But, that's just my opinion.

Oh... yeah, i keep forgetting to get my real news from Russia and China. My bad. They clearly have no agendas or bias. The two nations that side with every backwards, oppressive and murderous regime in the world clearly got a monopoly on the truth. Oh... and Russia has a naval base in Syria which is strategically important to them and one which they'd like to keep.

Funny how you think 2 nations well known for controlling and restricting the press is where you get your best, unbiased information just because they tell you what you want to hear. You do think like a liberal.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by maxjohan

Really? Do you listen to what has been said in Russian and Chinese media? That "it is" the rebels which uses chemical weapons. Not the regime.

So why does the Kremlin back Assad so staunchly?

There are three primary reasons, as illustrated by this report from Krishnadev Calamur of NPR.

1) Strategic: Syria's port of Tartus hosts the only remaining international military base outside of the former Soviet Union.

2) Financial: As of June 2012, Russia?s economic interests in Syria total approximately $20 billion, about $5 billion of which are weapons sales.

3) Philosophical: Andranik Migranyan, director of the New York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, a nongovernmental organization funded by private Russian donors that is considered close to the leadership in Moscow, told NPR's Robert Siegel: "Russia's position is very easy to understand."

"First, Russia is against any regime change from outside of Syria or any other country because according to Russia, any attempt to change the regimes, they are ended up in a chaos and results are quite opposite what were the intentions," Migranyan said. "This was proved in Iraq after the invasions of Americans over there. This was proved in Libya. This was proved in Egypt. And Russia is against principally this regime changes."

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Funny how you think 2 nations well known for controlling and restricting the press is where you get your best, unbiased information just because they tell you what you want to hear. You do think like a liberal.

How do you know what's real and not? I sure don't and I admit that. Of course they could be having agendas. But so could the American side of it.

At least I can put 2+2 together and see that the Russians aren't "cleaning up" in muslim countries. Why all these wars? Is it really worth it? Too see people suffer?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by maxjohan

How do you know what's real and not? I sure don't and I admit that. Of course they could be having agendas. But so could the American side of it.

At least I can put 2+2 together and see that the Russians aren't cleaning up in muslim countries. Why all these wars? Is it really worth it?

I guess you've never heard of Georgia, Degestan and Chechnya. Its ok, you're American. It's not expected of you. Don't let any facts get in the way of your emotional ranting.

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

So why does the Kremlin back Assad so staunchly?

There are three primary reasons, as illustrated by this report from Krishnadev Calamur of NPR.

1) Strategic: Syria's port of Tartus hosts the only remaining international military base outside of the former Soviet Union.

2) Financial: As of June 2012, Russia’s economic interests in Syria total approximately $20 billion, about $5 billion of which are weapons sales.

3) Philosophical: Andranik Migranyan, director of the New York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, a nongovernmental organization funded by private Russian donors that is considered close to the leadership in Moscow, told NPR's Robert Siegel: "Russia's position is very easy to understand."

"First, Russia is against any regime change from outside of Syria or any other country because according to Russia, any attempt to change the regimes, they are ended up in a chaos and results are quite opposite what were the intentions," Migranyan said. "This was proved in Iraq after the invasions of Americans over there. This was proved in Libya. This was proved in Egypt. And Russia is against principally this regime changes."

Seriously, I don't know if this is the truth or not. It could be. You may be right. I admit, I'm not a very big fan of China.

From what I've heard before from news. I don't know a lot about Russia. It's seldom something written in the news about them, here. Where I live.

More than the anti gay laws. Of course. That was quite huge in the news, here.

[dyna mo]

the cold war was never ended. perestoika put it on hold.

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I guess you've never heard of Georgia, Degestan and Chechnya. Its ok, you're American. It's not expected of you. Don't let any facts get in the way of your emotional ranting.

Yes. They may have been in wars. But take this as an example, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

They were having trouble with radical muslim groups. In their country.

USA are having trouble with "other" muslim countries.

Big difference?

I'm not a russian fan boy or somthing like that. I just try to be as unbiased, as possible. And try to see things for what they are.

And I'm not from the USA.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by maxjohan

I'm not a russian fan boy or somthing like that. I just try to be as unbiased, as possible. And try to see things for what they are.

And I'm not from the USA.

Every nation is biased. Every culture is biased. Every person is biased. Every news outlet is biased in its reporting. Everything you think... every thought you have. Every idea that enters your conscious mind has already passed through a wide array of cognitive biases before you are even consciously aware of them. There is not such thing as "unbiased". It is an impossibility.

Every nation is acting in its own best interests and biased towards its own interests. Everything they say and do is going to be biased towards their own interests and political/military/economic goals and objectives.

That does not however change the simple fact that a nation gassed over 1000 innocent people. What to do about it? There are no good answers. The worst answer of all of the bad answers is "do nothing".

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Every nation is biased. Every culture is biased. Every person is biased. Every news outlet is biased in its reporting. Everything you think... every thought you have. Every idea that enters your conscious mind has already passed through a wide array of cognitive biases before you are even consciously aware of them. There is not such thing as "unbiased". It is an impossibility.

Every nation is acting in its own best interests and biased towards its own interests. Everything they say and do is going to be biased towards their own interests and political/military/economic goals and objectives.

Why do you feel the need, to fill up lots of text. Saying, bascially the same thing, over and over again? I get it. You could just say: Everything is biased.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

That does not however change the simple fact that a nation gassed over 1000 innocent people.

Did you read that in biased or unbiased news? Because sometimes, there is a thing that's called truth. And that's what I strive to follow and find out about.

Surely, the best thing you can do in such a situation is to go and murder more people by dropping bombs all over the place, in this case, Syria. Like some f*cking lunatic.

And, you've yet to quote me on the facts that I think wars are bad. You just quote me like you see fit, and what suits your "world view".

[maxjohan]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

There is not such thing as "unbiased".

Most people are emotional to some degree. Just saying.

Don't let any facts get in the way of your emotional ranting.

Thanks, by the way.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Mutt

And what's your suggestion considering Obama told the Syrians and the world that the United States wouldn't stand for the use of chemical weapons against anybody let along children and women? Launching a few cruise missiles at targets where chemical weapons are thought to be stored after giving them 2 weeks to move shit is pathetic. If that's all Obama has up his sleeve Assad and Iran will just laugh. I agree with McCain, the US invests billions and billions into high tech weaponry so US soldiers don't have to die. Deliver Assad a truly punishing blow OR get on TV and apologize to the country and the world for being such a dumbass.

Obviously, we have to make some sort of response to the use of chemical weapons but it sure as hell doesn't need to be US troops on the ground. Do I think a missile strike will do much? Likely not, but that's about as much as we should do. It's a civil war it's not our fight. The only reason we are even involved is to protect US business interest in the region and to put another knife in Russia's back.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Obviously, we have to make some sort of response to the use of chemical weapons but it sure as hell doesn't need to be US troops on the ground. Do I think a missile strike will do much? Likely not, but that's about as much as we should do. It's a civil war it's not our fight. The only reason we are even involved is to protect US business interest in the region and to put another knife in Russia's back.

why can't we send them some anti-chemical spray and some food? seems we can make some shit to combat chem weapons, gas masks, whatever, hell, i'm sure we've got something clever to defense it, point is it's still military shit($$$ cha-ching), jut not offensive... and to treat the injuries, our healthcare system is well-versed on how to cash on on treating people.......