McCain: No Military Role for U.S. in Syria Despite Bloodshed

I know its from FOX but the article is real
McCain: No Military Role for U.S. in Syria Despite Bloodshed

"Frankly, I don't see a military option," he said, citing the absence of an organized rebellion which the U.S. could support with air power. He instead called for stepped-up sanctions, something the Obama administration has started to pursue.

"I think it's clear that Bashar Assad is willing to kill his own people," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's going to be a very bloody time, I'm afraid, in Syria."

It means that Syria has no interest for the american government, since John McCain is backed and funded by the big oil companies the only reason that libya has a interest for NATO and america is because of the Resources, but gaddifi is in the way.


See? If you Oil and Resources they will come for you with either manufactured rebels rise up or come for you with bombs.

McCain to Obama: "Nothing to steal here...Move along."

And all along I thought the US was all about Humanitarian Missions now. This is what Libya is all about, right? Right?

Damn! Lied to again.

reply to post by jude11


Some examples of the US' humanitarian resolve.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/831fcfcae33e.jpg[/atsimg]

Huh.. Funny how Syria doesn't have much 'black gold' nor minerals while the country gets raped and plundered yet Libya gets NATO help even though the 'rebels' were doing just fine. Huh.

reply to post by OneLife


But taking over Syria would have a strategic advantage against Iran