McCain calls for US-led strikes on Syria without UN mandate

McCain calls for US-led strikes on Syria without UN mandate

rt.com

Who needs diplomacy, or international law? Not former presidential candidate (R-AZ) John McCain, who became the first senator to publicly call for a US-led military strike on Syria in order to halt the nearly year-long conflict there.

Taking the Senate floor, McCain said there will be no UN mandate for the air strikes he deems the only way to stop the violence – but that a mandate isn’t necessary.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Really? So forget international law lets just do whatever we want, I mean come on were America we do what we want. The only way we should be allowed to intervene in other conflicts is if the general population votes for it. How many conflicts are we currently involved in, I mean come on we have problems at home shouldn't we be focusing on those first?

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

"The real question for U.S. policy is whether we will participate in this next phase of the conflict in Syria, and thereby increase our ability to shape an outcome that is beneficial to the Syrian people, and to us."

Constitutional deceleration of War,is the ONLY mandate needed,if war is the answer.

The UN's track record?
"F"

Wow... I think they call that a war of aggression when any other nation does it. McCain has become downright questionable in his mental stability since he lost his run for the White House. I'm serious. Some of his more recent ideas leave me wondering if he's still playing with a full deck. He's a Vietnam Vet...He WAS there and DID that. He's just not thinking straight. Perhaps he ought to retire or something.

McCain needs to retire. He's completely tarnished his past with the crap he's pulled over the past 10 years. I have no respect for the man, and as a veteran, he sickens me. Not ONE American boot should step foot in Syria. Period. Unless, of course, he's volunteering. Then, he can go.

reply to post by Brandon88
yepers that is McCain your talking about , not that law means any thing to him as long as he can write it or make it become law, see NDAA2012, or has the words war in it, do I hear drum beats of war? I do I do it is McCain at it again

I can't believe I wanted him to be elected President. Yeesh, talk about hindsight being 20/20.

Can you imagine how thin our military would be spread? We'd still have a huge force in Iraq, a "surge" force in Afghanistan, ground troops in Libya, Syria...

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
let McCain be the first to go!!! he seems so eager to be the one to pull the trigger, wounder if he could still fly?

reply to post by DaTroof
oh come on that's not all, if McCain had his way there would be troops in the streets of the USA and most of the world, not that we not but close to it, and he said hes not for war? seems he beats the drums louder than anyone.

I dont remember Bush needing the UN to attack Afghanistan or Iraq, so... its not like its a groundbreaking new idea.

A load of rubbish all the way around.

First - there is no such thing as international law. You can't have international law without international authority. You can't have international authority without international enforcement of that authority. You can't have international enforcement without some kind of international force actually capable of doing something to enforce said international authority.

The closest thing to an international force is the U.S. military - almost exclusively. Not to count out our allies - but no one can dominate several theaters at one time like we currently are (while paying half our population to exist, as well... imagine what we could do with a functional tax and funding structure).

The U.N. has very little authority without the U.S. Just the way reality pans out, much to the butt-hurt of smaller nations who still wish the world consisted only of Europe and Mesopotamia.

Second - We need no U.N. authorization. Granted, it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least make an appearance before the three ring circus prior to taking action - but it is completely unnecessary. Look at Russia's actions over the past several decades, or Iraq and Iran, for that matter. Where was the U.N. when they launched unsanctioned attacks on other U.N. member nations? With their hand in the cookie jar.

Third - Air strikes aren't the answer to policing operations. Libya is a prime example of that. We took out the leadership of that country (a VERY questionable decision to begin with) and the rebellion went ape-# with no way to effectively influence the trajectory of events. Now, people are being executed for being black migrants (because someone made the claim that scores of migrant workers were being hired to defend the Ghadafi regime) - or just black... or not well liked. It's a witch-hunt over there.

If we'd committed ground forces, it wouldn't have happened nearly on such a scale; if at all. Although we may have rapidly found new enemies in our initial allies once the regime fell and they wanted to go about the traditional circus courts and theocratic oligarchies popular in the Middle East. That would be most entertaining for the next fifteen years.

Which is why we can't decide to "support from afar" in terms of rebellions. You either get your hands dirty with them and state your claim... or you sit back and eat some pop-corn. The alternative is simply to resort to genocide and purge the whole region of life using patterned dispersal of strategic yield nuclear warheads... but humans are far too fickle to understand the practicality behind such shrewd logic.

Any other approach is simply going to result in unmanageable chaos.

He's dangerously stretching his logic. A moral defeat for America? I bet you 75% of American's can't even find Syria on a map, let alone tell you why we should bomb them. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Well Mr. McCain, using your logic why didn't we intervene in Sudan? Nigeria? Uganda?

John McCain is an old fool, he should be strapped to a rocket and fired to the moon.

Originally posted by Brandon88


Really? So forget international law lets just do whatever we want, I mean come on were America we do what we want. The only way we should be allowed to intervene in other conflicts is if the general population votes for it. How many conflicts are we currently involved in, I mean come on we have problems at home shouldn't we be focusing on those first?

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Question... Is Syria following international law by butchering their citizens? They obviously cant protect themselves, so it looks like someone needs to intervene...Not saying it has to be the United States, but someone needs to step in

reply to post by jhn7537


Let them rebel on their own if their stuck under a corrupt gov't, isn't that what we had to do. If somebody wants to get involved whys it have to be us? We stick our nose in everything, even when we don't have the funds for it. Doing that will come back to bite us in the rear. We could end up bogging ourselfs down for another 15 years, do we really need that right now.

reply to post by jhn7537


Civilians are being killed because the Free Syrian Army are moving into urban areas and engaging the Syrian army. In a sense using them as human shields. Western media continues to assert that somehow these civilians are opposed to the Assad regime and that they elected to be occupied by defector forces. This is a tiny portion of the population dissenting. The Syrian army then is forced to engage the Free Syrian Army with civilians everywhere. They have AK's and RPGs while the government has tanks, BOOM. Yes, civilians are being killed but the real truth is that Western powers want to dispose another leader so they can install another jihadist backed regime and undermine their political and financial assets. This is the same thing that happened in Libya. "intervention" sent the entire country into chaos, now hundreds of black Libyans are being targeted. Don't let the media hype you up.

reply to post by jhn7537


The big question is: Is Syria butchering it's own citizens? Are we the public being fooled yet again by our government controlled media into believing there is another dictator killing his own people? Just like Libya? And we know the big lie of Libya don't we!

When you have US, UK controlled and armed terrorists like Al-Qaeda posing as government troops running around killing people left, right and centre who is to say the Syrian government are the ones with their fingers on the triggers. Those terrorists are armed to the teeth and all the arms came directly from the US and UK.

I work in the Oil & Gas industry overseas in Algeria. The Algerians here and the visiting Syrian workers all say the same thing. The killings are not being done by Assad. They are being done by Western Controlled Al-Qaeda. This is another Libya scenario. Demonize the government so you can get public approval for invasion. And the invasion is not for OIL it is for domination and control of an Iranian and Russian ally.

reply to post by Brandon88

Let them rebel on their own if their stuck under a corrupt gov't, isn't that what we had to do.

Honestly, this is why I think we should not have kindergarten and grade school level history courses. We wouldn't have fared "nearly as well" as we had without the French.

France was, quite literally, using the American Revolution as a proxy war with their old rivals, the British Empire (and the British were imposing a lot of their new rule on us because we were busy making ships for France and anyone else who would pay).

In all likelihood, our rebellion would have barely made it off the ground were it not for France wanting to stick it to the British and secure future shipbuilding contracts.

If somebody wants to get involved whys it have to be us?

Congress is where those types of things are decided. People can be of differing opinions on the issue and propose we take varying types of action.

We stick our nose in everything, even when we don't have the funds for it.

We have the funding for it. Granted - doesn't mean we should do it, or that it is consistent with the mission of our armed forces - but we have the funding.

The reason you think we don't is that it all gets returned to meth addicts via "earned income credits" and other such programs that ultimately end up paying people to breed like rabbits and file for disability for being "psychologically unable to hold a job" (lazy as all holy #) while people recovering from broken spines have to fight a war to receive disability.

Of course, the National Government has been operating in gross violation of the Tenth Amendment for the past 100 years, and over 70% of the budget goes toward unconstitutional (even treasonous) spending programs designed to make the population dependent upon government handouts (solidifying the power of the oligarchy and giving a vote-purchasing mechanic to candidates).

Doing that will come back to bite us in the rear.

Can't be any worse than 'trade' with China. An oxymoron if there ever was one.

We could end up bogging ourselfs down for another 15 years, do we really need that right now.

Again - that's what Congress is for. I'm a strategist and enlisted type. Once the people who like to think they are in charge figure out what we are doing, it's up to people like myself to tell them how we're going to go about it. Then they ignore us, and come up with some stupid plan that fails so epically that they don't even bother making a campaign ribbon for it.

I can't convince you that we should or shouldn't go to help Syria out with their little rebellion. I simply know that we need to be all in, or all out. Trying to sit on the fence or play politics with it simply causes bad things to happen.

I'm fine with either decision, to be honest. I don't think you can really place a "right" or "wrong" on the decision to engage or not engage - but there is a right and a wrong way to do both of them, and I'd like to see us do something the right way as opposed to one of the many stupid ways.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


I wouldnt say its necessarily "hyping" me up. Ideally Id like to see peace in te region with no women and children be killed off as collateral damage... I live here in Chicago just like you, I see this stuff being plastered all over the western media we deal with, i accept that the majority of the world news I read and see here is extremely subjective, but I always feel there is a grain of truth in most stories you read today... Either way, I feel that men can risk their lives, they can try to overthrow a government all they want, when innocent women and children start being killed it truly starts to bother me, because they are the innocent pawns in this whole mess...

reply to post by jhn7537


That is the truth of all war.

No war is truly fought by soldiers and soldiers, alone. People feed those soldiers (and/or militants). People interact with them, befriend them (before and during the conflict), and will act instinctively to preserve the life of someone they care about.

In that respect, you can't ever have a war that maintains an ounce of civility.

Every war is an idealistic war - a contest of wills and an attempt to force another into submission.

As Stalin said: "You cannot fight a revolution with silk gloves."

Whether the rebels are "the problem" or the government is, from your perspective - it is a fact of life that war will always be a messy business that involves more than simply the combatants.

reply to post by Aim64C


I agree with most of what you just said as for the french involvement in our revolution yes they did play a considerate part in it, I feel that the more important thing we received from them was the model on how to actually follow through on a revolution. We basically took note of how the french acted and repeated. The only difference was that we weren't guillotining heads off in a public square.