McCain trying to drag us into another war.

On Monday afternoon, Arizona Republican John McCain became the first U.S. Senator to call for air strikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

"[T]he United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through air strikes on Assad's forces," he said. "To be clear: this will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country. The ultimate goal of air strikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad."

Can you believe this nutjob? We're trying to get out of a decvade-long war and this guy is trying to drag us back into one??? See why I wouldnt vote for him? I think he's lost touch with reality. Why are US airstrikes in Syria in our national interest?

Dennis324 wrote:On Monday afternoon, Arizona Republican John McCain became the first U.S. Senator to call for air strikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

"[T]he United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through air strikes on Assad's forces," he said. "To be clear: this will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country. The ultimate goal of air strikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad."

Can you believe this nutjob? We're trying to get out of a decvade-long war and this guy is trying to drag us back into one??? See why I wouldnt vote for him? I think he's lost touch with reality. Why are US airstrikes in Syria in our national interest?

I can understand this so long as it is just air strike, just like Libya (which I think is what he's getting at). How is this in the US's interests? Assad is Iran's closest ally and his government allows Iranian weapons to be shipped through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. If you can get a US/Israel friendly government in Syria you further isolate Iran, weaken Hezbollah, and make Israel somewhat safer. Thats the second best thing to taking out Iran directly.

I can see that I guess. Still...I'm war-weary.

Dennis324 wrote:
Can you believe this nutjob? We're trying to get out of a decvade-long war and this guy is trying to drag us back into one??? See why I wouldnt vote for him? I think he's lost touch with reality. Why are US airstrikes in Syria in our national interest?

well, what do you expect from a vampire:



:-P

What he should be doing is telling the Arab League to man the fuck up, quit hiding behind the US's skirts and solve their own goddamn problems. The Saudis have more than enough (US-bought) equipment to stage their own no-fly zone, with the Kuwaitis probably not that far behind. They just don't want to use it in case they accidentally hit a school or something and get blamed for the civilian casualties.

Amen to that! I suspect that the Arab league sees us as a tool to be used whenever they need us. "Let the US send its young people to fight and die, Most arent Muslims anyway. LEt the west sacrifice their blood and become weakened in the process".

But
I tellya something else. If Iran manages to get a nuke (if they havent already), it will start an arms race with all the nations of the Arab League. The whole region will become destabilized. Are they gonna want us to fight their war for them then?

I can concede the need to try to destroy Hezbollah. But it seems like maybe we could hit them more stratgivcally if we did it covertly. Further, airstrikes most likely mean civilian deaths and Iran, Syria and anyone else who hates us and Israel will use that to weaken our postion with other nations.

I just saw an interesting report where a USAF retired Col talked about Iran and also the possibility of attacking Syria. I thought he did a good job illustrating some problems and how we might accomplish what McCain wants to do.

(I couldnt post the video for some reason, but here's the link)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1496168217001/why-attacking-syria-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems

I was mildly surprised at something the Col said. Israeli forces are good. REAL good at what they do. But Col Leighton flat out said Israel would have trouble hitting numerous targets especially if they were of the deep bunker variety and didnt have extremely good intel on them. (Not a quote).

One other thing he brought up was that Syria is alied with and supported by Iran, RUSSIA and CHINA. Which makes me wonder what the ramifications of attacking Syria would be. Will those other countries retaliate? Is the possibility there that this could be the opening salvo in another World War?

Oh, I almost forgot. He talked of us buiding a coalition to strike Syria. I'd rather it be a multinational coaltition than us unilaterally going in on our ow. But his suggestion was that we join with Jordan, Turkey and maybe even Iraq. My question...do we want to trust those countries? I know we arent exactly at war with them, but really....do YOU trust them?

I think we could trust Jordan and the Turkish military (the secular counterpart to their government) in such a partnership. I really don't think Russia and China value Iran or Syria enough to risk damaging relations with the US/NATO (China needs us for trade, while Russia knows better). Besides, world war is basically impossible in the age of nuclear weapons.

Here's 1 thing I worry about.

I worry that if Iran develops a nuke, then there will be an arms race with the other Muslim / Arab nations in the region. All of em will probably be scrambling to get nukes at that point.

None of them like Jews. I know...I've talked with many over the years.
I also happen to believe that many Arabs do not hold the sanctity of life as highly as Western nations do. You can see this in the way they treat their own people. The whole Arab Spring thing revolves around the mistreatment of people. (TGhe ironic thing is that many civilians were harmed / killed by their own in the protests. Plus you saw how those people treated women reporters in Egypt). There are a lot of evil people in this world and somehow it seems like a lot of em are concentrated in the middle east. An exxageration of course, but it just seems that way to me.

Also I dont think you can trust those people. I think they'll turn on you in a heartbeat. ITs in their own religion (Islam). A lot of hateful people over there with little compassion for the innocent.

So imo, I just dont think we can trust them. Turkey hindered us during the buildup to the IRaq war. Jordan may be a different case, I dunno. We seem to get along fairly well with Jordan, but ..eh...I dunno. I still wouldnt turn my back on em.

Bottom like for me. If the people in that region hate a group of people so much that they want to persecute or kill or drive them out, why should I want to ally with them?

Bryant wrote:
I can understand this so long as it is just air strike, just like Libya (which I think is what he's getting at). How is this in the US's interests? Assad is Iran's closest ally and his government allows Iranian weapons to be shipped through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. If you can get a US/Israel friendly government in Syria you further isolate Iran, weaken Hezbollah, and make Israel somewhat safer. Thats the second best thing to taking out Iran directly.

Hey Bryant. I thought this was an interestng article. IT comes from WorldNEt Daily and goes along with what you were saying:

Post-Assad Syria would drop special Iran, Hezbollah ties
Main opposition leader in exile says new government would align with Arabs, Gulf

The collapse of the 40-year-old Assad regime in Syria would radically change the politics of the Middle East, reducing the influence of Iran and its Islamist proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, the main Syrian opposition leader in exile has said.

Syria would align itself with the Arab League and the Gulf, Syrian National Council leader Burhan Ghalioun told the Wall Street Journal in an interview in France.
Link

I found this on World NEt, but actually the article comes from a Jerusalem Post article. They pretty much go along with you in this. I actually see your point. I just wonder if maybe we would be better off using our State Dept to further isolate the regime and perhaps use our CIA to covertly train the revolutionaries? Perhaps going so far as to perform 'hits' on key targets with agents? I mean, if we are gonna kill people with airstrikes, why not do it covertly instead and reduce the possibility of civilian deaths? Plus we could claim plausable deniability if the question ever arose.

(Btw...I love talking this stuff).