I'd rather not, with the possibility of conflict with Iran in the next year looming I'd rather not start anything else.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10584409-mccain-calls-for-us-led-airstrikes-on-assad-forces
QuoteMcCain calls for US-led airstrikes on Assad forces
By msnbc.com staff
Arizona Sen. John McCain called for American-led airstrikes on President Bashar Assad's forces in Syria. McCain says the goal of the U.S.-led air strikes should be to establish and defend safe havens for delivering humanitarian and military aid in Syria.
"Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives," McCain said. "The only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power."
McCain called for the airstrikes in a Senate floor speech on Monday afternoon.
The speech emphasized that "the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad's forces."
"To be clear: This will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country," McCain said.
The Arizona senator added that the mass atrocities that NATO intervened in Libya to prevent in Benghazi are now a reality in Homs. "Indeed, Syria today is the scene of some of the worst state-sponsored violence since Milosevic's war crimes in the Balkans, or Russia's annihilation of the Chechen city of Grozny," he said.
McCain commended the Obama administration's efforts in orchestrating international sanctions against the Assad regime, but added that the policy of diplomacy is increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the ground in Syria.
"In the face of this new reality, the Administration's approach to Syria is starting to look more like a hope than a strategy," he said. "So, too, does their continued insistence that Assad's fall is 'inevitable.'"
Read the full text of Sen. John McCain's remarks
The conflict in Syria started last March with protests calling for the ouster of authoritarian President Assad in some of the country's impoverished hinterlands.
The protests spread as the government waged a bloody crackdown on dissent, and many in the opposition have taken up arms to defend themselves and attack government troops. The U.N. says more than 7,500 people have been killed in the uprising.
McCain explained that the United States also has a clear national security interest in stopping the violence in Syria and forcing Assad to leave power. The current regime supported Palestinian terrorist groups and funneled arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, he said, adding that it also remains a committed enemy of Israel.
"The ultimate goal of airstrikes 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," McCain said.
Since Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria, a concerted course of action similar to the one in Libya is not likely, but McCain said a joint military mandate is still feasible. He gave the example of NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, which took place without a formal authorization from the U.N.
"The Syrian people deserve to succeed, and shame on us if we fail to help them," the senator concluded.
He's a pilot, can't he do this himself?
I don't think he would survive the Homs Hilton.
Looks like Vogue took down their Asma story from last year. :P
I wonder where she is, anyway. Probably hiding in a New York penthouse or London somewhere.
Whatever Obama is doing at the time, pick the opposite. How shrewd.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2012, 06:39:00 PM
I'd rather not, with the possibility of conflict with Iran in the next year looming I'd rather not start anything else.
Target practice, think of it as a rehearsal for air ops in mullah land.
Besides, isn't this thing about wrapped up?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:14:52 PM
Whatever Obama is doing at the time, pick the opposite. How shrewd.
Did you even read the article?
He was actually rather supportive of the Obama Adminstrations policy, just thinks they need to take the next step.
Not sure I agree with him, because I haven't really followed the Syria story much.
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
McCain would be sitting on a throne of skulls. And chained to the throne, a naked Palin frothing at the mouth.
I like your imagination.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 10:00:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
McCain would be sitting on a throne of skulls. And chained to the throne, a naked Palin frothing at the mouth.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Femot-fappery.gif&hash=58bf8e81edcc38a410b21b8eaddfad0a7dd13af5)
I think it's more of a story if McCain doesn't want to intervene in a conflict :mellow:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 10:00:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
McCain would be sitting on a throne of skulls. And chained to the throne, a naked Palin frothing at the mouth.
HOT!
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
Georgia had settled down by election day, so probably two.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 07:16:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
Georgia had settled down by election day, so probably two.
Which one would be the other one, because I don't think Johnny Skyhawk would've surrounded himself with the same anti-Saddamites as Bush did. He would've been too busy leveling Afghanistan into surplus driveway gravel.
Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking about 2000, when he truly had a chance to be a great American President, not 2008.
I liked McCain in2000. It is a tragedy he was not elected over Gore or Bush.
Concur. Were it not for Iraq we would have had a much stronger hand against Iran. We would have toasted their nuclear facilities years ago.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 06, 2012, 07:57:10 AM
I liked McCain in2000. It is a tragedy he was not elected over Gore or Bush.
Yes, yes it is.
Actually, I got caught up in the McCain mania back then. I really liked his talk on Campaign Finance reform. Coming from a political family and seeing more fund raisers then I cared to remember somewhat influenced me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 07:16:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
Georgia had settled down by election day, so probably two.
He'd stick to SOFA so Iraq's gone. Afghanistan, Syria and he wanted more on Libya too. He also called for increased military involvement in Yemen - but not intervention - I think it was more counter-terrorism. So if we discount Iraq, Yemen and Iran we're up to four countries he's wanted to intervene or increase the military presence in but possibly up to five or six.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 05:53:29 PM
He'd stick to SOFA so Iraq's gone. Afghanistan, Syria and he wanted more on Libya too. He also called for increased military involvement in Yemen - but not intervention - I think it was more counter-terrorism. So if we discount Iraq, Yemen and Iran we're up to four countries he's wanted to intervene or increase the military presence in but possibly up to five or six.
Libya's already wrapped up. I was counting Syria and Iran. Afghanistan I'd forgotten about, that makes three.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:14:52 PM
Whatever Obama is doing at the time, pick the opposite. How shrewd.
I think McCain is a much stronger war hawk than he is an Obama basher. This has nothing to do with Obama, McCain just really likes advocating wars.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 05:56:26 PMLibya's already wrapped up. I was counting Syria and Iran. Afghanistan I'd forgotten about, that makes three.
McCain wanted more in Libya. Given that the way the countries gone and is going I don't think it would be wrapped up yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 07:16:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
Hmm. How many damned wars would we be fighting right now if McCain had become prez?
Georgia had settled down by election day, so probably two.
Really, my view is if they'd been any more confrontational with the Russians then it would have been a prelude to WW3.
Docking that coast guard vessel with relief supplies and flying some more in via the airport was most they could do, short of flying in troops to Tbilisi to 'stop' the Russians taking the city.
Back on topic, is anyone at all optimistic about what might happen in Syria ?
The rest of this year is going to be a bloody time in Syria.
I can't foresee any policy that's going to significantly affect the amount of fighting/slaughter.
I find the position of many on the left, that intervention or what is happening now is caused by western imperialism, as bizarre as the fewer siren calls from the right for air strikes and fuller military backing for the rebels.
I think they'll blow it like Egypt did. Possibly become a different sort of Iranian puppet than they are now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2012, 07:09:27 PM
I think they'll blow it like Egypt did. Possibly become a different sort of Iranian puppet than they are now.
What do you mean by Egypt blew it?
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2012, 05:58:07 PM
I think McCain is a much stronger war hawk than he is an Obama basher. This has nothing to do with Obama, McCain just really likes advocating wars.
Correct.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2012, 07:06:33 PM
Back on topic, is anyone at all optimistic about what might happen in Syria ?
The rest of this year is going to be a bloody time in Syria.
I can't foresee any policy that's going to significantly affect the amount of fighting/slaughter.
I find the position of many on the left, that intervention or what is happening now is caused by western imperialism, as bizarre as the fewer siren calls from the right for air strikes and fuller military backing for the rebels.
Seal it off & let them fight it out. I think the West is damned if we intervene & possibly damned if we don't. Safest thing is to do nothing. Whomever prevails will hate us, so to hell with both sides.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2012, 07:06:33 PM
Back on topic, is anyone at all optimistic about what might happen in Syria ?
The rest of this year is going to be a bloody time in Syria.
I can't foresee any policy that's going to significantly affect the amount of fighting/slaughter.
I find the position of many on the left, that intervention or what is happening now is caused by western imperialism, as bizarre as the fewer siren calls from the right for air strikes and fuller military backing for the rebels.
Seal it off & let them fight it out. I think the West is damned if we intervene & possibly damned if we don't. Safest thing is to do nothing. Whomever prevails will hate us, so to hell with both sides.
I think that's the one thing you can't do, as it's already drawing in all sorts of players, only the Israelis seem to be not involving themselves, I guess because they were ok with the Assads in power.
Israel hasn't intervened probably because of the old devil you know thing really. Coudl always be trusted to be the hardline enemy without actually doing any real damage to them directly, preferring to do it via proxies a la Cold War style.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
I think the West is damned if we intervene & possibly damned if we don't. Safest thing is to do nothing. Whomever prevails will hate us, so to hell with both sides.
That's invariably the case.
Whether it's Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Egypt or Syria, it's going to go to hell no matter how much blood and money the West pours into that part of the world, because they're all moon-worshipping tribal sand monkeys.
The only success story we've ever had was Kuwait, and that was because we restored the original assholes everybody already hated.
Michael Moore, comes out in supports of the Syrian rebels/revolutionaries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqMDGCyYKrU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqMDGCyYKrU&feature=related)
And get's slated by the extreme left and the dingbats/conspiracy nuts. :lol: