Thread: Senator John McCain visits Syrian rebels - A.K.A AL-QAEDA

Leave Syria to Syrians, Mr. McCain

by Conservative Action Alerts on May 28, 2013

On Memorial Day, Senator John McCain met with Gen. Salim Idris, chief of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, and over a dozen rebel commanders.

According to an Associated Press report, Jay Carney said that the Administration was aware of McCain’s Memorial Day Excursion, but declined to say whether or not the Armed Services and Foreign Relation committees member was delivering any message on their behalf.

Short of sending American soldiers, the Arizona Senator is pushing to provide U.S. weapons to the Syrian rebels in addition to creating a no-fly zone.

The American Government should not become involved in the internal affairs of Syria, despite their current situation. We have no business or authority being there, regardless of our being asked by those who wish us to empty our purse on their behalf.

Supplying provisions for war to the Syrian rebels, regardless of whether or not their actions are noble, is as good as being in the war ourselves. This type of pipeline of arms is what the American People criticized F.D.R. for before our involvement in the Second World War — and those were even going to our friends in the United Kingdom.

Obama must resist calls for intervention into other people’s affairs, else we find our own men and women fighting a war for for other people’s freedom.

Refusing to engage in wars that are not ours to fight is a common-sense conservative position, one which was the rule of most of our history as a nation.

Leave international “humanitarian” wars and interventions to the progressive liberals who invented them. Conservatives have no interest in shedding blood unless it is for America First which is also called defense.

May Mr. McCain stand alone in the push for American military involvement in Syrian affairs.

http://www.conservativeactionalerts....ans-mr-mccain/

Jane Fonda Pulled the Same Shit and Republicans rag on her still

Soooooo whats the deal here GOP

Either fix this Lunatic or expect to be labeled with John "Attack the World" McCain

How much money did he raise for his interest I wonder?
What a bunch of dirt bags we have in office.

Will The Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up; Please Stand Up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJO5H...layer_embedded

http://www.alipac.us/f9/why-isn%92t-...7/#post1346586

1. The Arizona Senator is pushing to provide U.S. weapons to the Syrian rebels "AL-QAEDA" - John McCain can go to Prison for the rest of his life for that alone

2. In addition to creating a no-fly zone. "A No Fly Zone is an Act of War"

3. Aiding, Abetting, Giving Comfort to Known Terrorist's in the "Never Ending" Fake War On Terror can get you locked up until the "Never Ending War" "Ends" according to The NDAA.

4. Any History Buff's out there? 70+ Years after WWII and they are STILL looking for the Last of the Nazi's to Prosecute .... Shits looking Bad Slim Shady

Let’s Be Clear: Establishing a ‘No-Fly Zone’ Is an Act of War

May 30, 2013
By Alex

The term is a euphemism that obscures the gravity of what its advocates are suggesting — a U.S. air attack on Syria.

Conor Friedersdorf May 29 2013, 6:00 AM ET



Kudos to Josh Rogin for breaking the news that “the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone inside Syria.” But wouldn’t it be a more powerful story without the euphemism?

Relying on the term “no-fly-zone” is typical in journalism. But that is a mistake. It obscures the gravity of the news.

Here’s how an alternative version of the story might look: “The White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for bombing multiple targets inside Syria, constantly surveilling Syrian airspace alongside U.S. allies, and shooting down Syrian war planes and helicopters that try to fly around, perhaps for months.”

The term “no-fly-zone” isn’t analytically useless. It’s just that folks using it as shorthand should make sure everyone reading understands that, as Daniel Larison put it right up in a headline, “Imposing a No-Fly-Zone in Syria Requires Starting a New War.” That becomes clearer some paragraphs later in Rogin’s article, when he discussed Senator John McCain’s advocacy for a “no-fly-zone.” “McCain said a realistic plan for a no-fly zone would include hundreds of planes, and would be most effective if it included destroying Syrian airplanes on runways, bombing those runways, and moving U.S. Patriot missile batteries in Turkey close to the border so they could protect airspace inside northern Syria,” he wrote.

The article also quotes Robert Zarate, policy director at the hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative. His euphemisms of choice: “No doubt, the United States and its like-minded allies and partners are fully capable, without the use of ground troops, of obviating the Assad regime’s degraded, fixed, and mobile air defenses and suppressing the regime’s use of airpower.”

Does anyone think he’d describe Syrian planes bombing a U.S. aircraft carrier as “obviating” our naval assets? The question before us is whether America should wage war in Syria by bombing its weapons, maintaining a presence in its airspace, and shooting at its pilots if they take off. On hearing the phrase “no-fly-zone,” how many Americans would realize all that is involved?

I trust “start a war against Syria” would poll poorly.

That’s why advocates of that course hide the consequences of what they propose behind a euphemism. If only there were a deliberative body that the Constitution charged with declaring war, so that it would be impossible to start any wars of choice without the voice of the people being heard.

Source: 013/05/lets-be-clear-establishing-a-no-fly-zone-is-an-act-of-war/276319/


http://economicrisis.com/lets-be-cle...ct-of-war/9435