Syria and WMDs

plavonica wrote:
Robear wrote:

Ask yourself, without the UN, how *would* countries communicate quickly and easily, and how would they convene to agree on international norms?

IRC?

Only if they're willing to conform to international norms for wang jokes.

Robear:

As far as I can tell, Syria is not signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, so use of them, especially within their own borders, violates nothing. If anything, all the rhetoric you just said has the ring of a US posturing as a defector world ruler - one that, I might add, does not even stop to consider the welfare or lives of people who are not Americans, all rhetoric to the contrary. As a world ruler, that classifies as "iron fisted tyrant" to me, and probably to a lot of people.

Larry, who should enforce international norms, given that most of them exist to prevent the worst abuses of human rights? Yes, Syria was not signatory, but how should we handle a country's use of chemical weapons internally? Should it be prevented, or allowed? If it is allowed, how is that not worse than a limited attack to degrade that country's ability or desire to use them?

Is it worst to prevent a country using proscribed weaponry to slaughter it's own citizens, or to allow them to do so? How do we draw the line for intervention in another country's affairs? As you noted, we're willing to let them slaughter their citizens with ordinary weapons. Should there be no intervention at all? Isn't limited intervention better than nothing at all?

I read your argument as "either do everything possible, or nothing", with the accusation of being an "iron-fisted tyrant" applied to any course of action except "do nothing". But isn't there a moral culpability attached to standing by and watching slaughter as well? Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" standard you're applying here.

What would you have the US do?

At least it's being given careful care and attention by everyone involved...

Well, ALMOST everyone

IMAGE(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/4/1378289219195/John-McCain-tweet-008.jpg)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...

While stressing that Washington's primary goal remained "limited and proportional" attacks, to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.

How totally unexpected...

Here's my problem with our approach in a nut shell... I had been looking for the whole quote and jibboom's link to the Guardian had it. The bold part...

This is Boehner's statement:

"I'm going to support the president's call for action, and I believe my colleagues should support the president's call for action," Boehner said after meeting the president at the White House. "The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behaviour is not to be tolerated."

We need to get the hell off our high horse. We are NOT the only nation with the capacity and capability. The US seems to think more and more that it's always right... There was a period of time where I would agree that the US was doing what was morally correct and trying to uphold some sense of justice in the world. The big difference is that the US was doing it TOGETHER with other nations united in a common cause. WW1 and WW2 come to mind.

In my opinion, we've squandered that sense of goodwill with the US as the world's peacekeeper, and we continue to look more and more like a powerful bully that does what it wants when it pleases, because there isn't anyone else that can stop us.

I am still against any military action by the US in Syria, especially if we do this alone without any other nation agreeing and in fact, against the wishes of most countries. Which is exactly where this seems to be going. The US doesn't seem to want to be bothered with diplomacy anymore and instead just deals with things by force because it's the easier solution. This is certainly not our fight, and we never should have gotten involved by declaring a "Red line."

Why don't we just stop trying to turn the middle-east into a democracy? That's clearly not going to happen anytime soon and yet we keep throwing lives and money into that blackhole.

The Arab League have urged UN-backed "deterrent actions" against Syria. Are they tyrants, too? Shouldn't they have intervened earlier? After all, they are Syria's neighbors. Even if the US does not have a legitimate interest in reaching around the world to do this, could we not legitimately do so at the request of countries in the region?

What happens to US credibility if we set a "red line", it's crossed, and we don't respond? (That's the Realpolitik aspect, I think.)

My point is not that I'm gung-ho for war. It's that this is a long-running, very difficult problem with no easy answers, not even the old "the US is meddling again" stuff, for the simple reason that ignoring this will lead to more chemical attacks on civilians in Syria.

Boehner is wrong, of course, since Britain and France and some of the Gulf states are willing to help us directly with this.

If we "don't want to be bothered by diplomacy", why have we spent the last two years trying to work out a solution with Assad?

As for goals, isn't "preventing the use of chemical weapons" a solid one?

Robear wrote:

Boehner is wrong, of course, since Britain and France and some of the Gulf states are willing to help us directly with this.

If we "don't want to be bothered by diplomacy", why have we spent the last two years trying to work out a solution with Assad?

As for goals, isn't "preventing the use of chemical weapons" a solid one?

We in Britain do not wish to help you with this.

Preventing chemical weapon use is laudable but it's not really the driving force behind the USA's foreign policy now is it?

jibboom wrote:

Preventing chemical weapon use is laudable but it's not really the driving force behind the USA's foreign policy now is it?

Doesn't that imply that we want to go in for other reasons? If so, why now, and not in the last two years?

Robear wrote:
jibboom wrote:

Preventing chemical weapon use is laudable but it's not really the driving force behind the USA's foreign policy now is it?

Doesn't that imply that we want to go in for other reasons? If so, why now, and not in the last two years?

Robear: That's my point.. The US is using the chemical weapons as an excuse to attempt another regime change in the middle east because "we don't like those guys." At least that's my take on things.

Rather than lob some missiles into that tinder box we should be ratcheting up the diplomacy. I have a hard time believing that we, and the other nations, have exhausted diplomatic options. The US is like Mikey from the cereal commercials. We're going to fire on another country because we can and that's an easy excuse for other nations to step away and say, "well, they're going to deal with it..." in other words, "Give it to Mikey, he'll eat anything."

If we fire on Syria alone, we need to be prepared to accept complete and sole responsibility for our actions and the repercussions that those actions have. The US doesn't have to deal with the refugees, we don't have to deal with the potential collateral damage in innocent lives and damaged infrastructure, those problems fall to the people there and the neighboring countries. So what then are we accomplishing by firing on Syria other than making it potentially worse?

Yes I know the counter argument will be, "If we do nothing, Assad will use chemical weapons again." There's the other argument as well "Other nations will be emboldened to use WMDs."

I have no doubt that Assad will do it again, and he's going to do it regardless of if we act or not. I would suggest that he might be more apt to use chems if we DO fire on him. The second argument, that other nations like Iran and North Korea will be more apt to use WMDS is a weak argument in my opinion, it has no legs because you cannot compare Syria and it's leadership to other countries. It's an apples and oranges type of thing.

Robear wrote:

Larry, who should enforce international norms, given that most of them exist to prevent the worst abuses of human rights? Yes, Syria was not signatory, but how should we handle a country's use of chemical weapons internally? Should it be prevented, or allowed? If it is allowed, how is that not worse than a limited attack to degrade that country's ability or desire to use them?

Is it worst to prevent a country using proscribed weaponry to slaughter it's own citizens, or to allow them to do so? How do we draw the line for intervention in another country's affairs? As you noted, we're willing to let them slaughter their citizens with ordinary weapons. Should there be no intervention at all? Isn't limited intervention better than nothing at all?

I read your argument as "either do everything possible, or nothing", with the accusation of being an "iron-fisted tyrant" applied to any course of action except "do nothing". But isn't there a moral culpability attached to standing by and watching slaughter as well? Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" standard you're applying here.

What would you have the US do?

Stay out of it until it becomes an existential threat. Your country's existence is not in question. Leave it to the players to handle the situation.

As JC said, your country has proven that it cares only about its own interests in essence, and will advance them even if the UN is prepared to stand against them. Even when they make no sense. I'm biased against the US because you guys betrayed us when we were your allies, but I think there's more material to grind now.

It is not your problem. The world is not your problem. Your morality is not universal. Your culture is not universal. Your views are not universal. Forcing other people to do what you want at the point of a gun IS the action of an iron-fisted tyrant, even if that tyrant thinks it's right, as I'm sure all tyrants have assured themselves they are.

If you have to act, devote at best a tenth of the firepower of the lead player. That way, there's no question about your role. It is to help, not to rule.

Once again, I kind of have a chip on my shoulder about this - just so we're clear where I'm coming from.

stevenmack wrote:

At least it's being given careful care and attention by everyone involved...

Well, ALMOST everyone

IMAGE(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/4/1378289219195/John-McCain-tweet-008.jpg)

You know, a lot of employers would fire someone for doing that.

LarryC wrote:

Stay out of it until it becomes an existential threat. Your country's existence is not in question. Leave it to the players to handle the situation.

As JC said, your country has proven that it cares only about its own interests in essence, and will advance them even if the UN is prepared to stand against them. Even when they make no sense. I'm biased against the US because you guys betrayed us when we were your allies, but I think there's more material to grind now.

It is not your problem. The world is not your problem. Your morality is not universal. Your culture is not universal. Your views are not universal. Forcing other people to do what you want at the point of a gun IS the action of an iron-fisted tyrant, even if that tyrant thinks it's right, as I'm sure all tyrants have assured themselves they are.

If you have to act, devote at best a tenth of the firepower of the lead player. That way, there's no question about your role. It is to help, not to rule.

Once again, I kind of have a chip on my shoulder about this - just so we're clear where I'm coming from.

What you are suggesting is that we switch to a non-interventionist policy. I can certainly understand your perspective on that. I just think that we've *already* intervened, for over a year, and yet that did not seem to set people off so much as an actual military intervention might.

And yet, I don't see anything like a condemnation of the other players who have actually done more than we have, and in some cases contributed actual military units, or brought in outside forces like Hezbollah and Al Quaeda, who have committed their own atrocities. It seems like the US is made to be the only player at fault here, when in fact, we're not at all the worst player on the field.

Is there perhaps a dual standard here? The problem is, if you're upset with the other interventionists, well then, how do you suggest they be stopped? It seems like an idealistic, don't intervene approach has been violated by numerous countries in their own extended interests. How then is it improper for the US to jump in, after two years of relative restraint, when a threat line was crossed? It's hard for me to see the US as a problem, but the other countries as no problem at all, when they are in fact far deeper in this than we are. The logic must be consistent.

It is not your problem. The world is not your problem. Your morality is not universal. Your culture is not universal. Your views are not universal. Forcing other people to do what you want at the point of a gun IS the action of an iron-fisted tyrant, even if that tyrant thinks it's right, as I'm sure all tyrants have assured themselves they are.

So then add Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah and Al Quaeda to the list of tyrants, I guess. They've already done far worse than we are contemplating.

We've stated that action would not extend to toppling the regime. And the Arab League has asked the UN to act. How do you account for that? Why is Saudi or Iranian projection of power and their morality and culture and views good, but not the US? Has the US never been a player here before? That's obviously not true.

But how do you account for the fact that some of Syria's neighbors in the region would approve of our attack? Clearly, there's more here than just US Imperialism. As I said... It's not that simple.

How do you deal with the fact that Syria's neighbors have *already* decided on interventions, some for Assad, some against? I argue that non-intervention has failed on all sides. Now we need something else, because multiple international and terrorist interventions have already made the situation worse.

Robear: That's my point.. The US is using the chemical weapons as an excuse to attempt another regime change in the middle east because "we don't like those guys." At least that's my take on things.

But seriously, why now, and not with the first reports back in December? This doesn't hang together. It implies that there is some other factor in play. So... What?

And what do you think about Saudi Arabia, Iran and others trying to induce regime change as well? Don't they get any opprobrium? Or do they get a pass because they are, I dunno, not "superpowers"?

This is quite complicated. We've always had the role of enforcer in the Middle East, just like the Soviets did at one time, and Great Britain and France before them. Not only do we make our own choices as to what we'd like to see there, and those choices can change rapidly as US Administrations change, but we also intervene at the request of nations in the region. Currently, for example, we're guaranteeing the survival of several of the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan and Israel, at least.

So this is not simple. There's a past here, and a future to consider. In the past, the US was crucified for supporting dictators. Now, we've taken out several. One was done in on false pretenses and clearly the situation there is as bad or worse than before. Another was taken out in circumstances similar to Syria will little damage outside the country, and so far is reasonably stable. Another was removed peacefully by the Army with our support, but they then removed his successor without our support - and are now rewriting the country's Constitution to avoid Islamism as a guiding principle. For the last two years, some have attacked us for supporting the rebels, and some for standing by doing relatively little. There's no clear path here.

Syria has been the subject of military intervention by Iran, Saudi Arabia (via proxies and money), Lebanon (as both Syrian government and Iranian proxies) and outside Islamist organizations like AQAP and others, who have sent fighters and materiel. How are we somehow worse than these? Can't we do *any* good?

And surely it's hard to argue that if one country gets away with gassing it's own people, others will begin to think they can too?

I'm not trying to stir emotions here, just to emphasize that this does not seem to me to be a situation where anyone has the high moral ground. It seems like a practical decision might be the only thing possible. If the US has a national interest here, first and foremost, it would seem to be "don't make threats and fail to back them up". Whether the threat was stupid is, at this point, not the biggest issue for the US. It's our future credibility in this regard that is a problem.

The moral arguments are all tough, but they are most emphatically not one-sided.

I don't consider those actors as acting outside the realm of self preservation. Syria is near enough to their borders that they have sufficient self-preservation motives to care. You don't. Your concerns are imperialistic.

Robear wrote:

SNIP...

We've stated that action would not extend to toppling the regime. And the Arab League has asked the UN to act. How do you account for that? Why is Saudi or Iranian projection of power and their morality and culture and views good, but not the US? Has the US never been a player here before? That's obviously not true.

SNIP...

See my post from earlier today stating quite the opposite.

LarryC wrote:
Robear wrote:

Larry, who should enforce international norms, given that most of them exist to prevent the worst abuses of human rights? Yes, Syria was not signatory, but how should we handle a country's use of chemical weapons internally? Should it be prevented, or allowed? If it is allowed, how is that not worse than a limited attack to degrade that country's ability or desire to use them?

Is it worst to prevent a country using proscribed weaponry to slaughter it's own citizens, or to allow them to do so? How do we draw the line for intervention in another country's affairs? As you noted, we're willing to let them slaughter their citizens with ordinary weapons. Should there be no intervention at all? Isn't limited intervention better than nothing at all?

I read your argument as "either do everything possible, or nothing", with the accusation of being an "iron-fisted tyrant" applied to any course of action except "do nothing". But isn't there a moral culpability attached to standing by and watching slaughter as well? Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" standard you're applying here.

What would you have the US do?

Issues with this...

Stay out of it until it becomes an existential threat. Your country's existence is not in question. Leave it to the players to handle the situation.

As JC said, your country has proven that it cares only about its own interests in essence, and will advance them even if the UN is prepared to stand against them. Even when they make no sense. I'm biased against the US because you guys betrayed us when we were your allies, but I think there's more material to grind now.

It is not your problem. The world is not your problem. Your morality is not universal. Your culture is not universal. Your views are not universal. Forcing other people to do what you want at the point of a gun IS the action of an iron-fisted tyrant, even if that tyrant thinks it's right, as I'm sure all tyrants have assured themselves they are.

If you have to act, devote at best a tenth of the firepower of the lead player. That way, there's no question about your role. It is to help, not to rule.

Once again, I kind of have a chip on my shoulder about this - just so we're clear where I'm coming from.

Issue with your issues...

The WORLD is everyone's problem. Not just ours, not just yours, not just Syria's. This is the fundamental flaw of nationalism, as best as I can figure. Making the world a better place should be everyone's mission, we all live here, and until we can figure out some kind of warp drive, we're all going to continue living here on this speck floating in the void.

Is the US actually doing this? No, but saying that no one except the main players in a conflict should be involved SHOULD be laughable... as we should all, no matter our country, be unhappy that there are people who are being killed for their religious beliefs, race, ethnicity, cultural background, bubblegum flavor, whatever. I would have preferred we gotten involved in a lot of conflicts over the years to stop what was basically ethnic or racial cleansing, as it makes me mad that we get involved in oil wars, but not in those.

Now, is that how the US or any other major players on the global scale really work? Hell no. But, I think that's stupidly unfortunate. I wish it was the way all countries worked. I keep hoping Peter Wiggin will appear and create the Free People of Earth.

Demosthenes:

As much as I would like to agree with you, I'm part of a people who were subjected to hundreds of years of tyrannical rule (and arguably suffer its effects to this day) in the name of "doing good." I suspect myself of having ulterior motives when I want to intervene, but more than that, I suspect world powers of the same. Neither your view nor mine is universal and we have no right to impose our people's ways onto other people's ways. That is the way of domination, tyranny, and cultural extermination.

Now clearly, many of your people are just fine with this, clearly, but I reserve the right to not be fine with it.

Neither your view nor mine is universal and we have no right to impose our people's ways onto other people's ways.

Unless of course, a group's views include killing everyone of a different view. That's why I supported intervention in Rwanda. I don't think we need to make everywhere a democracy... given the amount of corporate and private lobbying in the US, I jokingly doubt we even count as one anymore, anyway. But... I really do support intervention in the case of one group trying to oppress another group. If I had been in England during Manifest Destiny, I would have supported intervention against the US while we were destroying native groups as well.

Demosthenes wrote:
Neither your view nor mine is universal and we have no right to impose our people's ways onto other people's ways.

Unless of course, a group's views include killing everyone of a different view. That's why I supported intervention in Rwanda. I don't think we need to make everywhere a democracy... given the amount of corporate and private lobbying in the US, I jokingly doubt we even count as one anymore, anyway. But... I really do support intervention in the case of one group trying to oppress another group. If I had been in England during Manifest Destiny, I would have supported intervention against the US while we were destroying native groups as well.

Yeah, I'd say Syria has already passed the point of "domination, tyranny, and cultural extermination." I can understand the slippery slope here, but as far as this specific case that's a no-go.

LarryC wrote:

I don't consider those actors as acting outside the realm of self preservation. Syria is near enough to their borders that they have sufficient self-preservation motives to care. You don't. Your concerns are imperialistic.

So, Saudi Arabia and Iran acting directly and through proxies to otherthrow Assad are acting in self preservation? Come on, Larry. By that logic, you'd be fine if the Israelis crossed the border and drove on Damascus, or if Syria just took over Lebanon again.

I honestly think you're special-casing to avoid the actual complexity of the problem. The US is a convenient target for outrage, but it should not be the only one, and probably not even the largest concern.

jibboom wrote:

Robear wrote:

SNIP...

We've stated that action would not extend to toppling the regime. And the Arab League has asked the UN to act. How do you account for that? Why is Saudi or Iranian projection of power and their morality and culture and views good, but not the US? Has the US never been a player here before? That's obviously not true.

SNIP...

See my post from earlier today stating quite the opposite.

We're getting into word confusion here, for which I apologize. What the US *has done* for the last two years has consistently aimed at bringing down Assad. That's not in question, nor is it new. However, the current strike under plan has been described as not being intended, by itself, to topple the regime.

It's entirely consistent for us to regard this as having more than one function, since we've positioned ourselves squarely against Assad and have been providing relief aid, military advice, and probably (covertly) military supplies for quite a while now.

But you've not made any comments about the much more robust involvement of the Saudis, the Iranians, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda and it's various affiliates, Turkey or the Gulf States. If you're going to judge the US, how much worse have they been?

You can always find an exception if you're looking for one, CheezePavilion. There's always a reason. It's not the reason that I object to. It's the hubris. The urge to imperialism. The idea that you know better and that you'll "make them see it" at the point of a gun. "We're no worse than a petty tyrant in Syria," is, to me, not enough reason to go start another war that'll do god know how much more damage than the tyrant himself. For hubris.

Robear:

So, Saudi Arabia and Iran acting directly and through proxies to otherthrow Assad are acting in self preservation? Come on, Larry. By that logic, you'd be fine if the Israelis crossed the border and drove on Damascus, or if Syria just took over Lebanon again.

I honestly think you're special-casing to avoid the actual complexity of the problem. The US is a convenient target for outrage, but it should not be the only one, and probably not even the largest concern.

Yes, I would be okay with those. They live near each other and they're neighbors. They need to settle their differences their way. The problem is only complex if you want to see it that way. My views are not always popular among my people. The US is not always convenient target for outrage where I am.

LarryC wrote:

You can always find an exception if you're looking for one, CheezePavilion. There's always a reason. It's not the reason that I object to. It's the hubris. The urge to imperialism. The idea that you know better and that you'll "make them see it" at the point of a gun. "We're no worse than a petty tyrant in Syria," is, to me, not enough reason to go start another war that'll do god know how much more damage than the tyrant himself. For hubris.

How do you explain the last two years of diplomacy and mostly relief aid, as well as support to the Free Syrian Army? And why is it that you regard only us as a problem for intervening? I'm sure the Syrians would be much happier if *all* the external actors left; well, except for the rebels and Shi'ites and Sunnis, who *want* us there helping to defend them against the Alowite elite, which after all was a repressive dictatorship. But then, you've described efforts to end that dictatorship as Imperialism...

As I said, it's more complicated than you're willing to admit here. There is no moral high ground. At this point, there is just naked international interests in play. (One of them being that many countries don't want to see the use of chemical weapons against civilians rewarded.)

LarryC wrote:

You can always find an exception if you're looking for one, CheezePavilion.

But you won't always find the exception in the case that's actually under discussion.

There's always a reason. It's not the reason that I object to. It's the hubris. The urge to imperialism. The idea that you know better and that you'll "make them see it" at the point of a gun. "We're no worse than a petty tyrant in Syria," is, to me, not enough reason to go start another war that'll do god know how much more damage than the tyrant himself. For hubris.

What is it we're trying to make them see?

LarryC wrote:

Yes, I would be okay with those. They live near each other and they're neighbors. They need to settle their differences their way. The problem is only complex if you want to see it that way. My views are not always popular among my people. The US is not always convenient target for outrage where I am.

Then what of the Arab League asking the UN for action? Is that not allowed? Or is it American Imperialism if we respond? Are you okay with it now, since the US is a UN member? Or is this somehow outside the pale of allowable responses, even though it comes from the neighboring countries? (Or some of them, anyway, I doubt the Saudis agreed).

This is not a poke, but rather, an illustration of the difficulties of attempting a simplistic view of the situation. If you believe the regional countries have a right to work out their own response, then you have to admit that they could ask a world power to intervene - and they have, via the UN.

And if you believe the US has enough influence to *force* them to make the request, then the idea that the US has no self-interest in the region just got blown up, because countries will work to maintain their influence in regions they consider important, and the US controlling the Arab League would be a world-class power level that any country would work to maintain, given the chance.

Robear:

As I said, it's more complicated than you're willing to admit here. There is no moral high ground. At this point, there is just naked international interests in play. (One of them being that many countries don't want to see the use of chemical weapons against civilians rewarded.)

Let's not drag it on for too long. I'd like to explain as briefly as I can.

I'm not looking for a moral high ground. You are. You are looking at this from your POV, your morality, your culture. Those are, apparently, the only things that matter. At that point, you're imposing your culture and your values on other people. There is, of course, naked international self-interest. That's what I already said I see here. The moralizing and the complexity are just confounders, IMO. The relief and aid are morale-boosters. They "win hearts and minds," as it were. It's part of imperial propaganda. Let's not confuse my objection and biases against US military action as the same as me singling out the US. I happen to not like British and French interference, either.

Then what of the Arab League asking the UN for action? Is that not allowed? Or is it American Imperialism if we respond? Are you okay with it now, since the US is a UN member? Or is this somehow outside the pale of allowable responses, even though it comes from the neighboring countries? (Or some of them, anyway, I doubt the Saudis agreed).

This is not a poke, but rather, an illustration of the difficulties of attempting a simplistic view of the situation. If you believe the regional countries have a right to work out their own response, then you have to admit that they could ask a world power to intervene - and they have, via the UN.

I would be a bit more okay with it if the Arab League acted as a spearhead and you placed all US personnel under direct command of Arab military leaders. It's still interference, though. I get queasy when people butt into other people's businesses with too-practiced excuses. I hope this response has been enough.

CheezePavilion:

What is it we're trying to make them see?

It was an idiomatic expression for taking what you want through brute force and war.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

What is it we're trying to make them see?

It was an idiomatic expression for taking what you want through brute force and war.

But that's at odds with what you're saying about hubris. There's no hubris involved in taking what you want through brute force and war. That's just straight up aggression.

Looking at your response to Robear, I'd agree that people often use a 'moral' justification as a fig leaf to cover their naked aggression, but that's a different matter from the hubris actually being the motivation in the first place.

Farscry wrote:
stevenmack wrote:

At least it's being given careful care and attention by everyone involved...

Well, ALMOST everyone

IMAGE(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/4/1378289219195/John-McCain-tweet-008.jpg)

You know, a lot of employers would fire someone for doing that.

Very true. A lot of employers would also fire people who can't do their basic job functions. It'd be nice to clear out congress.