• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: John McCain Slips Across Border Into Syria, Meets With Rebels

What on Earth convinces you that the rebels would hold free elections? You seem pretty certain about the outcome, so I am just curious what gave you that confidence.

Because a transition government, guided by the UN, has succeeded in bringing rudimental democracy to a number of previous dictatorships in recent years. The reasons for this are many:

1. The UN has cash to offer.
2. The UN has development projects to offer.
3. The UN has foreign aid to offer.
4. The UN will provide a venue for the new government to interact with other countries.
5. The UN has cash to offer (yeah, this is worth listing twice).

For these reasons, the transitional government will be inclined to go with UN recommendations as opposed to those without nearly the resources that the UN has. Finally, the leader of the transitional government, a US educated gentleman, has assured the UN that a democratic process is the goal of the rebel coalition.
 
The essence of the problem is the lingering presence of bone-headed pols (along with their childish brainwashed followers) in the US with their stupid, archaic ideas about the nature of the world, i. e. the notion that the institutions/govts the US gummint claims are bad are just the "bad guys" of the world while the people/institutions that oppose them are the "good guys."

It hasn't occurred to these baby-minded idiots (i. e. mccain) that in nearly every case, what the mainstream media (with its penchant for reducing the world to Dr. Seuss-like analogies) dubs an "oppressive regime" is merely faced with the difficult situation of being forced to take extreme measures to keep its country together, because the alternative is chaos, given the motivations and hostility of the independent factions within the country.

That is the current situation faced by Assad in Syria, with various rebel groups vying for control, setting the state for a never-ending Civil War, and it's eerily similar to the situation that existed in 19th century America during the Civil War. Just as Lincoln had to wage war against the US's own people to keep the nation afloat, so does Assad have to do the same.

And the argument that preserving liberties trumps the need for security is only applicable in cases where the long-term consequences of maintaining that security far exceed the benefits of preserving freedoms. That's the situation faced by people in the US today, with the gummint constantly seeking new ways to trounce of individual rights in the name of "security." In this case, the security justification is merely a ruse and the actual motives behind them are nefarious.

That is not the case with Syria's regime. If Assad doesn't beat down the forces that are threatening to destabilize his regime, then factions w/ideas more repressive will likely seize power, resulting in even fewer freedoms. It needn't be said that women in Syria--despite how bad their current predicament is--would hae even fewer rights if, say, a Sunni rebel faction were to seize power in Syria.
 
Because a transition government, guided by the UN, has succeeded in bringing rudimental democracy to a number of previous dictatorships in recent years. The reasons for this are many:

1. The UN has cash to offer.
2. The UN has development projects to offer.
3. The UN has foreign aid to offer.
4. The UN will provide a venue for the new government to interact with other countries.
5. The UN has cash to offer (yeah, this is worth listing twice).

For these reasons, the transitional government will be inclined to go with UN recommendations as opposed to those without nearly the resources that the UN has. Finally, the leader of the transitional government, a US educated gentleman, has assured the UN that a democratic process is the goal of the rebel coalition.

The UN is worthless because it has no teeth.
 
The UN is worthless because it has no teeth.

While this is true in regard to states in violation of treaties and UNSCRs (such as the Iranian regime and before that Saddam), its work in development is another matter. The UN has a very strong influence over countries tied to development and aid packages. For example: the UN was able to prevent Kenya from withdrawing from Rome because of the aforementioned carrots.
 
Last edited:
I've never understood why politicians seem to want to engage these fanatical groups. They really never seem to accomplish much with these little meetings. I remember Obama talking about engaging Ahmadinejad. That worked out well too. :roll:

And that is Obama's fault? It takes 2 to tango.
 
McCain's the odd man out. I doubt what he does matters to anyone really.
 
I would like to see us stay out of it, but if we do get involved, I say we kill bo sides.

Just let them kill each other. Maybe we can help pick up the pieces if it helps Israel's security and Turkey's as well.
 
Just let them kill each other. Maybe we can help pick up the pieces if it helps Israel's security and Turkey's as well.

I'm fine with that, too. My comment was in referrence to us becoming involved.
 
I don't have objections to Senator McCain's going to Syria. Having open lines of communication and engaging in fact-finding can be beneficial.

Having said that, Senator McCain should not be entering into commitments and there's no evidence that he did.
 
There are Americans that ally themselves with extreme Islamists. He should not meet with America! There are Europeans that ally themselves with extreme Islamists. He better not be going there next! Oh, yeah, and obviously we better stop talking to pretty much the entire Mideast. There's not a state to be found without those who ally themselves with extreme Islamists. If he wants to deal with a group wherein no one allies themselves with extreme Islamists, we better make him ambassador to the moon.

Are we really gonna refuse to meet with any group that have some members who ally themselves with extreme Islamists? What kind of idiotic foreign policy is that?



You know the best part? The OP poster thinks we should engage in talks with Iran and that we should talk with Assad. Laughable hypocrisy.

"The OP poster thinks we should engage in talks with Iran and that we should talk with Assad.

Me too. We should mind our own friggin' business. Assad helped us by providing refuge for the Iraqis we drove out of Iraq. He's a hell of a lot better leader than al Maliki. We should definitely talk with Iran, except it would cause those armament manufacturer's stock to go down. Can't have that. OH, I forgot, there's a little OIL in Syria and great pipeline routes and port facilities. That'd be some good business for USA corporations. Don't ya' think? You've already answered.
 
Newsflash: America loves war and will do whatever it takes to further war. Oh most of the people abhore it of course. And some politicians are good at pretending they hate it. But none the less America = War. More people are against the wars than for it and more money goes to the military than anything else. Broken government is obviously broken.
 
Well, crapping all over a pow war hero is one way to spend the holiday.

So it is not okay to disagree with someone's politics as long as they are a war veteran?
 
I am aware, and I am also aware that they are not Al Qaida. Perhaps you were referring to my question, instead? They would have to be pretty bad to as bad or worse than Assad. Do you think they would be, and if so why?

People may start to wonder why I keep turning the questions back on the people advocating one side or another in this conflict. The reason is that I have never heard anyone say anything that was substantively backed up that would cause me to want either side to win. So far, I am entirely unconvinced of any good outcome in Syria.

Heya Dezaad. :2wave: Indeed they be just as bad. If you have read what I have down so far, what are your thoughts on all that I have said.

While AQ and the MB are separate groups. AQ is mixed in with MB. I don't blame ya for thinking the way we do. In this conflict.....there are no good guys. Course as you can see half around here don't even have a clue as to what is taking place around there.
 
Either we support al Qaeda connected rebels, or the Hezbollah-connected Assad regime.

Yeah, we couldn't possibly lose....:roll:

Weapons manufacturers certainly wouldn't.
 
So it is not okay to disagree with someone's politics as long as they are a war veteran?

Inside comment, related to another thread.
 
I wonder if John McCain realizes he is an illegal alien in Syria?
 
So it is not okay to disagree with someone's politics as long as they are a war veteran?



No, it's not okay. Unless, of course, his name is Kerry or he is a democrat or a progressive. LOL!
 
And that is Obama's fault? It takes 2 to tango.

Did I say it was Obama's fault? I just said it's a waste of time trying to talk to insane brainwashed people. It's like trying to talk sense into a drunk.
 
Heya Jack :2wave: .....So I guess the Final End Game would be to help the Hapless Sunni Muslims commit Genocide upon the Shia and Zaydi Muslims. Allow them to continue on to subjugate them and give them Rule over all of them or any that can survive their total desolation.

Hand over another Country that Sunni cannot take over by their own selves? All the while as they persecute others of different religions. Subjugate their own women and that New World Order format of Same Sex relationships. While at the same time always stabbing us in the back and using us to do the Work they Can't handle.

Then Hand over Iran and any other Shia ran Countries to the Sunni.....as once again. They will not be able to take care of anything on their own without the help of anyone else with their Ancient Dispute over who Should be the one to have Power and rule over all Muslims.

Do you think the Sunni will stop stabbing us in the back once they get all their Power?

Yeah McCain has the Right to go and see for himself. He also has the Right to have a foot put up his azz. I will volunteer.

Greetings, MMC.:2wave:
The optimum moment for action was about 18 months ago, when the secular rebels were at their most influential. Since then, our inaction weakened the secular forces and gave an opening to the Sunni radicals. Regardless, the destruction of the Asad regime remains hugely in our interest, even if the successor is a not-especially-friendly Sunni regime. Such a result would be a strategic defeat for both Hezbollah and Iran. And don't worry about Sunnis taking over in Iran; that won't happen.:cool:
 
By stating that i want peace in the region through diplomacy makes me a hypocrite..... Oh yea i forgot you think anyone but Assad is amazing :roll:

Peace is a noble desire but looking back at the history of the middle east, it doesn't come without strength and violence. Then everybody hates the emerging winner; then another faction wins, then everyone hates them. Its a vicious circle occurring ad nauseum and bringing about a temporary cessation of force.

I'm tired of the US being the world's police force, having our people die for their insanity, and the US taxpayer funding it.

If anyone here thinks the dynamics of the middle east will change without an act of God or a tactical thermonuclear show of force, then you're no more rational than John McCain. No offense, just my :twocents:
 
Last edited:
Now what was that about these rebels? What is the reason we should continue to listen to the Syrian Rebels who have been busted out lying and deceiving those in the West. You didn't think that Idris actually has any control over Al Nusra now.....did you?

That is correct, Idris has no control over Al Nusra. That's what I've said. They're separate entities. Which is why, y'know, it's important to not lump them together as if they were one and the same. :roll:

You do understand that when Al Nusra tells Idris to Jump. The Putz will do so as high he can.....and without any hesitation whatsoever.

What if he tells Idris to lick his own elbow?

Did you think the Syrian rebels were any better themselves?

You continue to commit your mistake of lumping all the rebels into a one-size-fits-all mold that doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. I am of the opinion that there are elements under Salim Idris's command in the FSA that are "better" than Jahbat al-Nusra - yes, absolutely.
 
I think you are Mistaken on that.....greatly so.....evidenced. ;)

Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group.....

Did you say something about the FSA not operating under Al Nusra? :roll:

Yes I did. I'd repeat it, but the very article you just linked does it for me by explicitly stating they are separate groups. Maybe you missed it though, since the article didn't put that line in bold maroon font.

I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in whereby if a minority of FSA elements defect to Al-Nusra, then the FSA is under command of Al-Nusra, but that's one strange world.

Btw.....how did the Syrian Rebels get ManPads out of Libya? Considering the Saud and the Qataris don't have them to give away for sale?

How the **** should I know -maybe some friendly Sunni foreign groups smuggled them in? Maybe they captured them from the Syrian army who got them from the Russians? Or maybe the CIA accidentally "misplaced" a shipment? :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom