Well, I have to agree he was on the wrong side of the amnesty issue in my opinion, too. And many of his fellow Arizonans apparently disagree with him on this issue as well. Neither of these things however constitutes evidence of dementia, or anything more than political disagreement. However, political "lampoon" such as you posted is not debate or argument - it's just foolish trolling and when one sees it in a place where a debate is supposedly going on and expected, rather than SNL or Letterman or Colbert, where little more IS ever expected, it kind of screams out, "I can't think of anything better to say, so there! Neener neener neener...". Seriously, it begs return fire and is evidence of absolutely nothing.

Well, I have to agree he was on the wrong side of the amnesty issue in my opinion, too. And many of his fellow Arizonans apparently disagree with him on this issue as well. Neither of these things however constitutes evidence of dementia, or anything more than political disagreement. However, political "lampoon" such as you posted is not debate or argument - it's just foolish trolling and when one sees it in a place where a debate is supposedly going on and expected, rather than SNL or Letterman or Colbert, where little more IS ever expected, it kind of screams out, "I can't think of anything better to say, so there! Neener neener neener...". Seriously, it begs return fire and is evidence of absolutely nothing.

I think there is a legitimate place for lampooning and ridicule with cartoons, photoshopped photos, etc. it cuts through the fog. My main disagreement with McCain on the Syrian issue was he took the word of a young graduate student as to whether the Syrian 'Rebels' were dominated by Radical Islamist or not ... when within a day or so it showed that she had an compromising relationship with some of the 'Rebel' groups -- which hardly makes her out to be an unbiased source... This information was posted on this thread.

McCain has a tendency to become unmovable - rigid on a subject regardless of the evolving evidence. His mindset (IMO) goes back to politics of 30 years ago - assuming compromise with the Democrats can be achieved equitably not noticing that in 2013 Democrats are controlled by leftist ideology - they are not the mild liberals of the past. For a man of 78 (I think) being stuck in the mindset of three decades ago is a sign of cognitive impairment that comes often to man of his age as senility sets in. And yes - while not a psychologist I am heavily trained in medicine and health subject matters.

Well, I have to agree he was on the wrong side of the amnesty issue in my opinion, too. And many of his fellow Arizonans apparently disagree with him on this issue as well. Neither of these things however constitutes evidence of dementia, or anything more than political disagreement. However, political "lampoon" such as you posted is not debate or argument - it's just foolish trolling and when one sees it in a place where a debate is supposedly going on and expected, rather than SNL or Letterman or Colbert, where little more IS ever expected, it kind of screams out, "I can't think of anything better to say, so there! Neener neener neener...". Seriously, it begs return fire and is evidence of absolutely nothing.

I think there is a legitimate place for lampooning and ridicule with cartoons, photoshopped photos, etc. it cuts through the fog. My main disagreement with McCain on the Syrian issue was he took the word of a young graduate student as to whether the Syrian 'Rebels' were dominated by Radical Islamist or not ... when within a day or so it showed that she had an compromising relationship with some of the 'Rebel' groups -- which hardly makes her out to be an unbiased source... This information was posted on this thread.

McCain has a tendency to become unmovable - rigid on a subject regardless of the evolving evidence. His mindset (IMO) goes back to politics of 30 years ago - assuming compromise with the Democrats can be achieved equitably not noticing that in 2013 Democrats are controlled by leftist ideology - they are not the mild liberals of the past. For a man of 78 (I think) being stuck in the mindset of three decades ago is a sign of cognitive impairment that comes often to man of his age as senility sets in. And yes - while not a psychologist I am heavily trained in medicine and health subject matters.

Now we're getting somewhere.

One mans "immovability" is another's "commitment" and "courage of one's convictions", usually depending on nothing more than who disagrees with whom. I can't be sure what else you have to talk about when you generalize about his immovability, but it would appear that because his position on some things doesn't align with yours (as it doesn't with mine some of the time), and he doesn't change his mind to agree with you or jump on the bandwagon when public opinion turns against him (which some might call "flip-flopping", and a bad thing...), he's demented. Neither does the fact that he's of a collegial mentality, and handles frustration far better than most, no matter how recalcitrant and hard-headed the opposition, mean that he is demented. I think his perspective is that SOMEBODY in the room has to go on acting like an adult, and beyond lip service that actually never happens with the left. If we took this kind of water cooler head-shrinking seriously, every politician in America, left, right & center, would be claimed by his detractors to be "demented". And well actually, I guess every one is by somebody sometime, and this is just an example of it, and shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that. BTW, I presume your diagnosis applies to Lindsey Graham as well, since the digital dollplay included him.

It's a mistake to focus on the personalities of anyone in this way, except the president, and that's because the decision ultimately rests in that one man's hands, and HIS personality, and motivation, therefore really ARE relevant. I have very little appreciation for Obama's mindset & political orientation, maturity, judgment, or honesty, but I don't even think HE'S demented. There's plenty to fuel a lively debate about Syrian intervention, without the cross-dressing and amateur psychology. If lampooning and ridicule is all you've got, and helps you cut through mental fog, then be my guest. I'm not for silencing anybody - truly. I'm just sayin' what I think deserves to be taken seriously (and not). Cheap shots like that in the public square tend to make me look a little harder, dig a little deeper, and perhaps even reconsider my own position, even if I started out sharing the same opinion.

Normally, I don't like to ask questions like this, but when somebody makes a point and then claims "expert opinion" as you have, then they open the door themselves. So you are an MD, or were a corpsman, or what? I'd like to know just what your qualifications are to diagnose mental incapacity in a public figure you've never even examined (when, and I realize this is just the PUREST coincidence, that person's position just HAPPENS to differ from yours and you HAPPEN to be a critic of that person's point of view; some might say there's perhaps, oh, well, I hate to even suggest it, but the tiniest lack of professional objectivity there...).

Can we get back to the OP, please?

What will the US and France do?

If there is an attack, what will the targets be?

What will the consequences be?

What will be the next step?

What is the intended result?

What will be the unintended consequences?

Etc., etc.

No one knows except Obama and he keeps changing his mind.

Can we get back to the OP, please?

What will the US and France do?

If there is an attack, what will the targets be?

What will the consequences be?

What will be the next step?

What is the intended result?

What will be the unintended consequences?

Etc., etc.

I agree ... I will answer the latest from Hawker directed to me via PM

How Obama is really bombing on Syria

Say this for Barack Obama: He’s got a gift for taking a bad situation and making it worse.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/08/how-obama-is-really-bombing-on-syria/

This whole thing gets stranger and stranger ... Obama, Assad Go Head-to-Head in US Interview Duel

Presidents Barack Obama and Bashar Al-Assad will go head-to-head in dueling US television interviews, as a crucial week dawns for the US leader's push for air attacks on Syria.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Obama--Assad-go-head-to-head-in-US-interview-duel

I am in the U.S. right now back on one of my roughly annual visits to see brothers and sisters still living here.

I have heard a lot of that topic lately in the U.S.

I guess that most of the time people are quite reluctant to get involved in "another war". no matter how many times someone says it's not "another war". it's a strike using stand-off weapons. No "boots on the ground" involved.

Most Americans I have talked to simply don't believe that U.S. troops on the ground won't be eventually involved ..... they are deeply suspicious of ALL elected politicians and simply don't believe what they hear there political "leaders" say is true.

The Little Boy(s) who cried Wolf have cried Wolf to many times now, and most people don't want to hear that call again.

My sense of the mood in the U.S. right now, even from those who say they support some kind of limited military action (to punish the Syrian government) is that all politicians, on both or all sides of the question are being called fools. slow to respond, and ineffective in responding to the Syrian dilemma.

I guess to summon up the mood I sense is this, from both sides when they talk about all politicians stance on this subject is:

" <deleted>> it, it's all politics anyhow. Not one of those politicians is worth the s--t it would take to bury him or her in anyhow."

That's my take on what I'm hearing right now.

That's from all sides, left and right, Liberal or Conservative. no matter what is there their "side" many Americans just are sick of the Politicians that supposedly lead them.

All politicians are pretty well disliked right now.

This Syrian thing is just an illustrated example of how useless ALL politicians are.

It looks like Obama is off the hook for his stupid red line remark. The Russians have saved him and nothing real will get done about the chemical weapons, but he can pretend like he won.

An interesting 24 hours!

First, Kerry makes a hypothetical suggestion that Syria could dispose of its chemical weapons. This, lo and behold, gets firmed up into something a bit more positive by Putin and the Syrian FM. Then Obama says that he's unlikely to act without the approval of Congress, knowing perfectly well that the House of Representatives is likely to vote against a strike.

Do I detect a fairly rapid retreat onto safer ground?

As I said on another forum a couple of weeks ago, "This weekend, next week, sometime, never?"

An interesting 24 hours!

First, Kerry makes a hypothetical suggestion that Syria could dispose of its chemical weapons. This, lo and behold, gets firmed up into something a bit more positive by Putin and the Syrian FM. Then Obama says that he's unlikely to act without the approval of Congress, knowing perfectly well that the House of Representatives is likely to vote against a strike.

Do I detect a fairly rapid retreat onto safer ground?

As I said on another forum a couple of weeks ago, "This weekend, next week, sometime, never?"

Yes, Obama will retreat, I just don't know how rapid he can move after shooting himself in the foot so many times.

Oh he can run but he can not hide from himself and his hideous handeling of foreign affairs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ

Putin ups the ante ... and I have read elsewhere, Congress would have to vote under Putin's deal (not verified)

Putin: No Syria deal unless US renounces air strikes on Assad

Russian president Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that a plan to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons "will work out only" if the United States and its allies "pledge to renounce the use of force" against the country.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/321373-putin-syria-plan-wont-work-unless-us-renounces-strikes

At this rate he is going to have Obama kissing his ring.

Putin ups the ante ... and I have read elsewhere, Congress would have to vote under Putin's deal (not verified)

Putin: No Syria deal unless US renounces air strikes on Assad

Russian president Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that a plan to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons "will work out only" if the United States and its allies "pledge to renounce the use of force" against the country.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/321373-putin-syria-plan-wont-work-unless-us-renounces-strikes

Well, what did you expect? Do you think Assad will hand over his chemical weapons stocks without getting something in return?

I don't think that Assad will hand over his chemical weapons stocks no matter what. He might hand over half of the huge amount that he has and then delay, delay, delay until Obama is on to something else.

At least Assad has now admitted that he has chemical weapons. He never did so before (in spite of the fact that everybody knew it).

At this rate he is going to have Obama kissing his ring.

He will have to wait in line behind the King of Saud.

A quandry for sure, I'm reminded of a line from a Tom Waits song - 'Two dead ends but you've still gotta choose'. The moderate rebels are a myth, as is the existence of a Syrian government in waiting, just as it was with Libya.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/there-are-no-moderate-syrian-rebels/

The moderate Syrian rebels, like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, are a myth; an imaginary character used to tell soothing stories to children. Unfortunately the storytellers think that we’re the children.

The Syrian Civil War is a religious war. It’s not a war over democracy or freedom. It’s a conflict between two totalitarian systems, one loosely based on a mixture of Islam and Socialism, and the other more rigidly based on Islam. Both are brutal and merciless to anyone who doesn’t belong. Both have their death squads and extensive corruption on the inside.

A quandry for sure, I'm reminded of a line from a Tom Waits song - 'Two dead ends but you've still gotta choose'. The moderate rebels are a myth, as is the existence of a Syrian government in waiting, just as it was with Libya.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/there-are-no-moderate-syrian-rebels/

The moderate Syrian rebels, like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, are a myth; an imaginary character used to tell soothing stories to children. Unfortunately the storytellers think that we’re the children.

The Syrian Civil War is a religious war. It’s not a war over democracy or freedom. It’s a conflict between two totalitarian systems, one loosely based on a mixture of Islam and Socialism, and the other more rigidly based on Islam. Both are brutal and merciless to anyone who doesn’t belong. Both have their death squads and extensive corruption on the inside.

I actually think the rebels are a very factionalized, incohesive collection of different interests. Jihadists are an important component - or are multiple components - for sure and for certain. As far as I'm concerned militant muslims are as bad as - or worse than - Assad. So advocates of intervention cherry pick the faction they consider the most benign toward the west, and then cry for intervention to aid them and to avenge the gas victims on that basis. Opponents of intervention characterize the Al Quaeda-aligned elements as dominant and proceed on that assumption (although I don't really think this amounts to "sympathy for Assad", "Obama-hating" or "a Jewish conspiracy", all of which are just about tied for terminal silliness). The truth is that the rebels fighting in Syria are a soup, and I don't really think it will, in the end, prove to have been possible to sort through that, support some we consider "friendly" but not others we consider mortal enemies, and avoid promoting the wrong faction to control of Syria. That being the case, I've yet to hear a plan or strategy that addresses this, and explains what's going to happen after the fall of Assad as the inevitable competition of armed factions begins, or muslim factions take over, and the civilian slaughter begins anew with new waves of terror precipitated toward the west. The "Obama plan" was so fundamentally flawed at its very core, and so badly presented, that Putin has now bested him with a proposal that many opponents of military action will hold their noses and seize upon, even though anyone with a pulse realizes Putin is hardly the type that can be trusted to act in anything but his own interest. It's Putin who is now the grand statesman, Putin who wields newfound regional influence, and Putin who keeps Assad right where he is, ensures his defeat of the rebels, and closes the book on whatever credibility Obama and the U.S. had left.

A quandry for sure, I'm reminded of a line from a Tom Waits song - 'Two dead ends but you've still gotta choose'. The moderate rebels are a myth, as is the existence of a Syrian government in waiting, just as it was with Libya.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/there-are-no-moderate-syrian-rebels/

The moderate Syrian rebels, like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, are a myth; an imaginary character used to tell soothing stories to children. Unfortunately the storytellers think that we’re the children.

The Syrian Civil War is a religious war. It’s not a war over democracy or freedom. It’s a conflict between two totalitarian systems, one loosely based on a mixture of Islam and Socialism, and the other more rigidly based on Islam. Both are brutal and merciless to anyone who doesn’t belong. Both have their death squads and extensive corruption on the inside.

I actually think the rebels are a very factionalized, incohesive collection of different interests. Jihadists are an important component - or are multiple components - for sure and for certain. As far as I'm concerned militant muslims are as bad as - or worse than - Assad. So advocates of intervention cherry pick the faction they consider the most benign toward the west, and then cry for intervention to aid them and to avenge the gas victims on that basis. Opponents of intervention characterize the Al Quaeda-aligned elements as dominant and proceed on that assumption (although I don't really think this amounts to "sympathy for Assad", "Obama-hating" or "a Jewish conspiracy", all of which are just about tied for terminal silliness). The truth is that the rebels fighting in Syria are a soup, and I don't really think it will, in the end, prove to have been possible to sort through that, support some we consider "friendly" but not others we consider mortal enemies, and avoid promoting the wrong faction to control of Syria. That being the case, I've yet to hear a plan or strategy that addresses this, and explains what's going to happen after the fall of Assad as the inevitable competition of armed factions begins, or muslim factions take over, and the civilian slaughter begins anew with new waves of terror precipitated toward the west. The "Obama plan" was so fundamentally flawed at its very core, and so badly presented, that Putin has now bested him with a proposal that many opponents of military action will hold their noses and seize upon, even though anyone with a pulse realizes Putin is hardly the type that can be trusted to act in anything but his own interest. It's Putin who is now the grand statesman, Putin who wields newfound regional influence, and Putin who keeps Assad right where he is, ensures his defeat of the rebels, and closes the book on whatever credibility Obama and the U.S. had left.

THANK YOU! You have encapsulated my thoughts, which exasperation and frustration have precluded me from doing. Yes, it's a statesman that's required and filling the void we have Vladamir Putin. Where are the statesmen of the West that aren't instead looking for adulation or to fill their pockets?

An interesting announcement on the BBC this afternoon (Breaking News so no details).

The rebels (which ones?) have categorically refused to accept Putin's plan.

Now hold on... I thought it was Assad who was going to give up his chemical weapons, not one of the rebel factions. Does this mean that this group of rebels would then be the only group who had chemical weapons, and therefore they could no longer blame Assad? Is it in fact an admission that it was the rebels who perpetrated the outrage in Damascus, and Assad has been telling the truth all along?

I tend to agree with Putin anyway..... it's a choice between Assad's government, unpleasant though it may be, and total chaos, which would be worse. But then I'm not a Syrian.

...

Now hold on... I thought it was Assad who was going to give up his chemical weapons, not one of the rebel factions. Does this mean that this group of rebels would then be the only group who had chemical weapons, and therefore they could no longer blame Assad? Is it in fact an admission that it was the rebels who perpetrated the outrage in Damascus, and Assad has been telling the truth all along?

...

OMG. That is TOTALLY wrong. There is no such admission. There is no evidence the opposition has chemical weapons.

The Syrian National Coalition, the U.S.-backed exile opposition group, labeled Damascus’ pledge to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile “useless stalling” by Assad’s government.

“The proposal is a political strategy that aims to stall for more time, which will allow the regime to cause more death and destruction for the Syrian people, and more threats to the nations and peoples of the region,” the opposition coalition said.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russia-syria-chemical-weapons-rebels-20130911,0,2612017.story

An interesting announcement on the BBC this afternoon (Breaking News so no details).

The rebels (which ones?) have categorically refused to accept Putin's plan.

Now hold on... I thought it was Assad who was going to give up his chemical weapons, not one of the rebel factions. Does this mean that this group of rebels would then be the only group who had chemical weapons, and therefore they could no longer blame Assad? Is it in fact an admission that it was the rebels who perpetrated the outrage in Damascus, and Assad has been telling the truth all along?

I tend to agree with Putin anyway..... it's a choice between Assad's government, unpleasant though it may be, and total chaos, which would be worse. But then I'm not a Syrian.

It is quite simple. The rebels know that unless the USA is providing Close Air Support for them they will lose the war. So anything that prevents the USA from intervening is also refused by the rebels.

It is the same situation as in Libya 2011. The rebels were retreating on all fronts. Then the USA and NATO duped the Security Council into passing 2 resolutions for an "arms embargo" and a "no-fly-zone". The "Coalition of the Willing" then decided to expand that "mandate" to full CAS and massive weapons deliveries including airdrops. And now the USA are surprised that Russia and China won't allow them to pull the same stunt in Syria.

OMG. That is TOTALLY wrong. There is no such admission. There is no evidence the opposition has chemical weapons.

Read post #11 on the other thread on Syria.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/662877-syria-chemical-attack-distressing-footage-under-analysis/

But, yes, MikeOboe, that makes good sense.

An interesting announcement on the BBC this afternoon (Breaking News so no details).

The rebels (which ones?) have categorically refused to accept Putin's plan.

Now hold on... I thought it was Assad who was going to give up his chemical weapons, not one of the rebel factions. Does this mean that this group of rebels would then be the only group who had chemical weapons, and therefore they could no longer blame Assad? Is it in fact an admission that it was the rebels who perpetrated the outrage in Damascus, and Assad has been telling the truth all along?

I tend to agree with Putin anyway..... it's a choice between Assad's government, unpleasant though it may be, and total chaos, which would be worse. But then I'm not a Syrian.

Of course the rebels oppose Putin's plan! It keeps Assad in power! They're called "rebels" because they're rebelling against the Assad regime. Getting rid of the chemical weapons doesn't solve their problem. Why would anyone expect them to support it?

Most seem to forget that before he drew his manly red line, Obama had already drawn what amounted to another one saying "Assad must go". That's why this Putin plan is such a coup and shuts Obama down. He's been picked cleaner than a Christmas goose, and Assad actually gets rewarded for his use of chemical weapons. They're buying him an insurance policy underwritten by Putin himself.

Putin's main concern with all this is surely that he does not want all the jihadists winning in Syria and then moving on to Chechen and Novgorno Karabaksh (or whatever it's called in Latin text).

His muslim states are currently fairly under control, but a success in Syria would give all the troublemakers the confidence to move on his southern flank. Better to let the Syrian government wipe them out.

Also, we find that the Russians are on the same side as Israel in this situation. It would be much better for Israel to have a badly damaged Bashar al-Assad on their Northern border than a variety of jihadist factions with Syria's armoury open to them. America is pretty much out of the picture now - no current policy and no future policy. Game, set and match to VP.