John McCain Caught Playing iPhone During Senate Syria Hearing

[Fox12]

What I want to know (this doesn't really relate to the article but this is the only one I found that deals with Syria) is why does America (or at least the government) feel the need to shove themselves into other people's business?

I feel like this is Vietnam all over again... but for different reasons. (By that I mean, they went to Vietnam for no reason or at least no solid justified reason) Does Syria have any ties to the States?

Nope! But we're 'merica, which means we have to get involved as the world police, because we can. Then we act surprised whn other nations hate us later.

After all, nothing bad happened as a result of the 1953 Iranian coup, right? Except for that hostage crisis in 1979, but lets forget about all that. Or when we armed those Afghanistan rebels against the Soviet Union... except when those rebels became the Taliban and supported those responsible for 9/11. Oh well, it can't happen THIS time, right?

 

[deathjavu]

Except this isn't a boring lecture, this is a decision that has more weight than anything in history. This is bigger than the Cuban missile crisis. If the decision is made to attack Syria, then Iran is in the war, due to there mutual defense agreement. Also, China and Russia back Syria and Iran, and Russia has made claims this could go Nuclear if the US makes the wrong decision. This doesn't just put Syrian lives at risk, it puts the whole world at risk. This is as close as we have ever come to WW3, and the fact that the man so vocally endorsing this war is playing a fucking iphone game during the session is despicable.

So instead I'll just say "Here's to World War III! Been a long time coming and it looks like this powder keg is finally about to blow!" Given how most news outlets that I've heard/read make it seem like a done-deal that Congress is going to support Obama's desire to launch an attack (due to the number of high-ranking congressmen/women who have already announced their support for the war), we really are heading in that direction. There's no way Russia and/or China are just going to sit back and let this happen. Hell, North Korea might decide to do something as well.

Wow, there is a lot of really poor analysis of international politics in this thread. Like, really, really awful. We're talking Homefront levels of fictional hypothesizing.

1. Russia is not going to war over Syria. They're just not. That's a totally ridiculous move for them to make, and whatever else Putin is (authoritarian, muscular, somehow still well-liked) he is NOT stupid . Will they *****? Yes. Will they make some diplomatic middle fingers like they did by preventing US citizens from adopting Russian orphans? Yes. Will they go to war?

No, no, no, no, and fucking no chance in hell. Write your WWIII fanfic somewhere else. Hopefully with a more believable plot.

Also, China is just anti-interventionism because they're afraid of intervention in China if people there try to revolt. Their interest is really just that limited.

After all, nothing bad happened as a result of the 1953 Iranian coup, right? Except for that hostage crisis in 1979, but lets forget about all that. Or when we armed those Afghanistan rebels against the Soviet Union... except when those rebels became the Taliban and supported those responsible for 9/11. Oh well, it can't happen THIS time, right?

I feel like this is Vietnam all over again... but for different reasons. (By that I mean, they went to Vietnam for no reason or at least no solid justified reason)

2. Anyone comparing this to other US interventions without mentioning Libya (the most recent, with the most similar geopolitical positioning, with the most similar background leadup) is either under-informed or deliberately cherry-picking their examples.

3. NOTHING WAS BEING DECIDED IN THIS MEETING. Nothing. It was just intended to bring the senators who hadn't been following the situation (i.e., idiots/jerks, because seriously at least 100,000 people are dead) up to speed.

But no, instead we get fearmongering overblown knee-jerk reactions that a lazy newswriter decided would be an easy cash-in. I blame journalists for publishing such a fluffball of a piece.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

I would be perfectly fine with them holding hearings over an actual poker game as well, and feel that would be better than what they currently do to decide these things. I don't see that it diminishes the capability nor does it diminish their public view. I see it is those who actually get their undies in a wad over such things as the ones behaving immature and irresponsibly considering handling important issues such as this is better done with a cool head than an uptight environment. Considering Neurologists actually prescribe video games for men his age to improve their cognitive function, him playing games improves his actual ability to make better decisions, as such would improve his ability to make better decisions in regards to the topic of the hearing as well.

So when looking at the actual effect of him playing a game during this, I view that as behaving more responsibly to ensure he has the cognitive ability to think clearly rather than dull his cognitive abilities by boring himself to death through a 3 hour lecture about a subject he has already thoroughly studied.
The " pretending to give a shit" is far more immature than increasing your cognitive function, and should be considered far more irresponsible than actually doing something to help you make better decisions.

While the thought of Congress deciding decisions affecting our country over a game of Poker is humorous (and would make me actually watch C-SPAN), it also misses my point. I'm well aware of how doing idle things helps improve cognition and keeps one focus, but these guys need to show a firm and professional outlook to their job. You wouldn't want a doctor or a lawyer to idly update their Facebook inbetween a surgery or a trial, and while I'm aware that something as simple as a Poker game could help keep someone focused from a scientific standpoint, it looks bad from a societal standpoint. If McCain has his mind made up or is keeping himself focused through some idle gesture, he should at least do it in a discrete manner that doesn't cause a shitstorm like this one caused.

This isn't reassuring is what I'm saying. I get that this is "technically" a good thing, but if you're just taking this at face value, it just seems irresponsibility and reflects poorly not only on McCain, but also on the Senate in general, and while I'm aware that political corruption is not necessarily an anomaly, I would at least hope that they would try and appear professional.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I would be perfectly fine with them holding hearings over an actual poker game as well, and feel that would be better than what they currently do to decide these things. I don't see that it diminishes the capability nor does it diminish their public view. I see it is those who actually get their undies in a wad over such things as the ones behaving immature and irresponsibly considering handling important issues such as this is better done with a cool head than an uptight environment. Considering Neurologists actually prescribe video games for men his age to improve their cognitive function, him playing games improves his actual ability to make better decisions, as such would improve his ability to make better decisions in regards to the topic of the hearing as well.

So when looking at the actual effect of him playing a game during this, I view that as behaving more responsibly to ensure he has the cognitive ability to think clearly rather than dull his cognitive abilities by boring himself to death through a 3 hour lecture about a subject he has already thoroughly studied.
The " pretending to give a shit" is far more immature than increasing your cognitive function, and should be considered far more irresponsible than actually doing something to help you make better decisions.

While the thought of Congress deciding decisions affecting our country over a game of Poker is humorous (and would make me actually watch C-SPAN), it also misses my point. I'm well aware of how doing idle things helps improve cognition and keeps one focus, but these guys need to show a firm and professional outlook to their job. You wouldn't want a doctor or a lawyer to idly update their Facebook inbetween a surgery or a trial, and while I'm aware that something as simple as a Poker game could help keep someone focused from a scientific standpoint, it looks bad from a societal standpoint. If McCain has his mind made up or is keeping himself focused through some idle gesture, he should at least do it in a discrete manner that doesn't cause a shitstorm like this one caused.

This isn't reassuring is what I'm saying. I get that this is "technically" a good thing, but if you're just taking this at face value, it just seems irresponsibility and reflects poorly not only on McCain, but also on the Senate in general, and while I'm aware that political corruption is not necessarily an anomaly, I would at least hope that they would try and appear professional.

Doctors and Lawyers do exactly that, and I don't see why anyone would think they shouldn't. LOL
Why shouldn't a surgeon do something in their idle time while waiting for the patients anesthesia to take effect? Why shouldn't a lawyer while waiting on the Jury to come back from the bathroom update their Facebook? It is the social view of this that is wrong, why should they change their own actions, rather than us expect society to progress forward to a better understanding of this works?

 

[Dark Knifer]

Yeah seems a bit unproffesional butI imagine this stuff gets really boring and goes around in circles a lot.

The operation being considered is a limited strike with no ground forces being deployed in order to punish the regime for its use of chemical weapons against civilians.

I'm confused what this means. Will they be attempting to bomb the leaders quarters, military bases what?

I don't know much about this so could you elaborate or send me a link of what the intent behind these air strikes would be?

 

[crepesack]

Now I'm wondering if I've ever played against john mccain in virtual poker.

 

[mistwolf]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

Obama is not a liberal. He is a centrist at best. Most of the time, he is center-right. There are almost no "liberal" representatives in US government at the current time, which makes me sad as a radical leftist. But Obama could have run Republican a decade ago and been quite popular (Pre teabaggers). Because of the tea party and other radicat rightwingers having so much influence, the entire spectrum has been pulled so far right that what used to be slightly right is now the far left, and it benefits noone not to have a true alternative.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

I would not define Obama as a liberal, all of his administration has been marked by exceedingly right-wing authoritarian actions, from sheltering Wall Street to his unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers.

The biggest con the American government has pulled off is managing to convince the public that there's still an actual difference between the democrats and the republicans in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Fine humor me, why are they so close that is just an illusion that they are different?

The biggest example in is all over the news. Obama wants to go to war with Syria because they supposedly have weapons of mass destruction. The US has done no actual investigating of the situation and the UN inspections have turned up no conclusive evidence that any chemical weapons were used at all, much less that they were used by the Syrian government, but despite this, Obama wants war anyway. Nevermind that one of his major campaign platforms was a promise to open up peaceful negotiations with the middle eastern countries. Nevermind that this is exactly how Bush got us into Iraq.
Someone very powerful in the government wants to go to war, so we will go to war. The Dems and Reps will argue about it in front of the camera, but they'll still authorize it.
The platforms of the parties serves no purpose but to give the illusion that the two major parties are different from each other on some meaningful level. In truth, on any issue that is of real importance beyond some kind of petty social issue, they all go the same way.

 

[newwiseman]

Wish I got $174,000 a year to play games during hearings...

 

[chadachada123]

The Dems and Reps will argue about it in front of the camera, but they'll still authorize it.
The platforms of the parties serves no purpose but to give the illusion that the two major parties are different from each other on some meaningful level. In truth, on any issue that is of real importance beyond some kind of petty social issue, they all go the same way.

While I completely agree with you on the state of affairs, I will say that, for the past couple of years, the Republican and Democrat parties have both been having some fissures growing within them. While the Dems have seen decent loses to the Green and Libertarian parties, the GOP has seem both massive loses to the Libertarian/Ron-Paul-Republican side *and* a fissure between the neo-cons and the, well, actual conservatives like Rand Paul.

And I think that this is good, because it means that the Neo-Cons like McCain and the straight-up authoritarians like Pelosi can no longer hide behind party unity.

My own Congressman, for example, has said that he will steadfastly oppose any and all Syrian intervention until it poses a direct threat to the US (which he also recognizes will likely never happen in this lifetime).

My point is that, well, times may just be changing in the next decade or two, as people become more educated and less willing to trust someone just because of the letter next to their name.

 

[Weaver]

No wonder he's for involvement in Syria: He seems like a bettin' man.

 

[RJ Dalton]

The Dems and Reps will argue about it in front of the camera, but they'll still authorize it.
The platforms of the parties serves no purpose but to give the illusion that the two major parties are different from each other on some meaningful level. In truth, on any issue that is of real importance beyond some kind of petty social issue, they all go the same way.

While I completely agree with you on the state of affairs, I will say that, for the past couple of years, the Republican and Democrat parties have both been having some fissures growing within them. While the Dems have seen decent loses to the Green and Libertarian parties, the GOP has seem both massive loses to the Libertarian/Ron-Paul-Republican side *and* a fissure between the neo-cons and the, well, actual conservatives like Rand Paul.

And I think that this is good, because it means that the Neo-Cons like McCain and the straight-up authoritarians like Pelosi can no longer hide behind party unity.

My own Congressman, for example, has said that he will steadfastly oppose any and all Syrian intervention until it poses a direct threat to the US (which he also recognizes will likely never happen in this lifetime).

My point is that, well, times may just be changing in the next decade or two, as people become more educated and less willing to trust someone just because of the letter next to their name.

To quote C-3PO: "I wish I had your confidence."
Speaking as an educated man, there's really not much intelligence in the educated community these days. Especially if their education is American.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yeah seems a bit unproffesional butI imagine this stuff gets really boring and goes around in circles a lot.

The operation being considered is a limited strike with no ground forces being deployed in order to punish the regime for its use of chemical weapons against civilians.

I'm confused what this means. Will they be attempting to bomb the leaders quarters, military bases what?

I don't know much about this so could you elaborate or send me a link of what the intent behind these air strikes would be?

Considering Obama has been advised by our intelligence and military that it does not matter if he strikes now or in the near future, they know where to strike already.
What that is supposed to mean is that our intelligence believes they have been tracking these weapons and know where they are and know where the facilities that make such weapons are located, and they plan on taking out the weapons themselves. That much is usually a given in this situation, however, whether or not they also plan on attacking the Syrian military units themselves that have been responsible for deploying the weapons, or the leaders responsible is still up for consideration.

The biggest issue here is this really is a no win situation. There is no " good" force to aid that has a chance in hell of taking command of the nation regardless of who wins at this point. The Syrian government is brutal, and the only organization that has the manpower and ability to seize control if the Syrian government is taken out is backed by Al-Qaeda. So either way, it isn't like either side is going to be a good choice in the end. The best we can do is attempt to stop the chemical weapons, and hope they don't just think of something else horrific to do instead. Although I would think if people in other nations really wanted to aid those affected by this bloodbath taking place, it would honestly be to adopt or send aid to some of the young children orphaned by this and get them the hell out of there or at least help them improve their situation. The conditions in the Refugee camps in neighboring nations such as Lebanon are becoming grimmer by the day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23803308

 

[Gorrath]

Yeah seems a bit unproffesional butI imagine this stuff gets really boring and goes around in circles a lot.

The operation being considered is a limited strike with no ground forces being deployed in order to punish the regime for its use of chemical weapons against civilians.

I'm confused what this means. Will they be attempting to bomb the leaders quarters, military bases what?

I don't know much about this so could you elaborate or send me a link of what the intent behind these air strikes would be?

Another person weighed in on this before I got the chance and his explanation is pretty sound. The only thing I would add is that it is not explicit what the targets will be, so really we don't know. Presumably, we would target the chemical weapons themselves and any manufacturing facilities that we suspect are involved in their creation (if there are any). The issue I see is that the limited strike does not say how limited, and though it's been said that we will not use ground forces at all, the resolution passed by the committee (10-7 vote) is rather broad for my tastes.

I can't offer a link as such because I've been getting my information from the radio, but I'm sure all the networks are carrying the story. As always though, I'd probably look to a non-American news network for information about the whole thing.

 

[deathjavu]

Now it's all about "supporting YOUR team" or ideology, regardless if that ideology matches up with the reality or not.

You do understand that President Obama, a Liberal, also supports immediate action in Syria, right? This isn't really a case of supporting YOUR team.

I would not define Obama as a liberal, all of his administration has been marked by exceedingly right-wing authoritarian actions, from sheltering Wall Street to his unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers.

The biggest con the American government has pulled off is managing to convince the public that there's still an actual difference between the democrats and the republicans in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Fine humor me, why are they so close that is just an illusion that they are different?

The biggest example in is all over the news. Obama wants to go to war with Syria because they supposedly have weapons of mass destruction. (1) The US has done no actual investigating of the situation and (2) the UN inspections have turned up no conclusive evidence that any chemical weapons were used at all, (3) much less that they were used by the Syrian government, but despite this, Obama wants war anyway. (4) Nevermind that one of his major campaign platforms was a promise to open up peaceful negotiations with the middle eastern countries. (5) Nevermind that this is exactly how Bush got us into Iraq.
Someone very powerful in the government wants to go to war, so we will go to war. The Dems and Reps will argue about it in front of the camera, but they'll still authorize it.
The platforms of the parties serves no purpose but to give the illusion that the two major parties are different from each other on some meaningful level. In truth, on any issue that is of real importance beyond some kind of petty social issue, they all go the same way.

Congratulations, you are factually wrong on the first two points, only correct on the third because of a technicality (the purpose of the UN squad was merely to confirm chemical weapons had been used, determining who used them was not part of their mission), irrelevant on the fourth point, and factually wrong again on the fifth (primarily because of the word "exactly" which does not mean exactly what you appear to think it means).

Your impassioned "everyone is just as bad as everyone else politics is pointless" message is quite revelatory, however. It reveals either the fallacy of moderation in the negative sense or a desire to withdraw from political discussions while still attempting to maintain the moral high ground.