• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

The government is the only entity with munitions that large. It's not just having a gun. It's the technical capability. It's the precision.

The fact that not a single canister fell on Assad held territory is another smoking gun.

Sailor, I'll ask you very directly- do you believe Obama, Hagel and Kerry are intentionally lying and created the documents they showed to Congress that showed emails and planning from Assad?

There are only two options:

1. It's a planned and prepared group of lies orchestrated by the WH, State Department and DOD.
2. The emails and other documents are true.

Which is it?
 
i don't know if Assad gave the order or one of his subordinates did it without authorization. That may never be proven one way or another. But the technical data in the UN report, as reported in the NY times, is pretty telling - especially the part where they analyzed the impact craters and determined that the munitions came from a regime base. Add that to the evidence in the US intelligence estimate, which documented muzzle flashes and other firing activity from regime bases consistent in timing and direction with the gas, and also add to that the fact there were three or four separate, coordinated events. All this adds up to a pretty darn good circumstantial, forensic case that regime forces were the culprits. I have not seen any similarly compelling evidence from the Russians to back up their claim that the rebels did it.
 
Yep. Appears I may have been wrong about Assad vis a vis the gassing of the innocents.
 
61raddeac said:
I agree but doesn't necessarily mean we should get involved militarily. IMO
Click to expand...

This has been my point. He has been killing rebels for a while now. He didnt sign the treaty so it isn't as though he is breaking good faith. He hasn't attacked an ally. He isn't threatening the security of the US.

He now wants to join the treaty and give up his weapons. I think that is great if it happens. Doesn't mean we need to get involved and create some more jihadists when we kill incidental civilians with our bombs.
 
RJKarl said:
The government is the only entity with munitions that large. It's not just having a gun. It's the technical capability. It's the precision.

The fact that not a single canister fell on Assad held territory is another smoking gun.

Sailor, I'll ask you very directly- do you believe Obama, Hagel and Kerry are intentionally lying and created the documents they showed to Congress that showed emails and planning from Assad?

There are only two options:

1. It's a planned and prepared group of lies orchestrated by the WH, State Department and DOD.
2. The emails and other documents are true.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

We are talking about going to war. The standards of proof ought to be pretty high. If they were not high in the past, we have paid dearly. I have seen news reports. I have not seen documents demonstrating that Assad ordered the gas attacks. If you have such authentic documents, please share them with us.

Having said that I would not support an attack on Syria under the current circumstances for several reasons, most of which have been stated clearly by me and others before:

1. Syria does not constitute a national security threat to the United States.
2. The circumstances and the individuals responsible for the use of poison gas, although becoming clearer, still remain murky.
3. There is little indication of what good an air strike against Assad's forces on Syria will accomplish. Most people in the US and world-wide remain skeptical that it will do any good at all. Indeed, the air strikes may make matters worse. Air strikes did little to change Saddam's behavior, or that of the North Vietnamese, or even Hitler.
4. The President has no authorization from Congress to launch an attack on Syria, and this is not an issue of either national security or a clearly demonstrated need for immediate military action.
5. Nor does the President have the support of the international community for such an air strike, either through the United Nations, or through popular international support. As far as I know, there is not a single country on earth, including Israel and the US, where a majority of the population favors an American air strike against Assad's forces.
6. An international diplomatic process, which, unlike an air strike, enjoys wide-ranging international support, is under way. It may be able to prevent any repetition of poison gas attacks in the future, something which no air strikes could achieve.
 
Last edited:
By the way, for anybody interested in just war theory, hitting Assad's forces with cruise missiles does not meet St. Augustine's standards on most points:

1. War must be in self-defense. Obama's planned attack fails because Syria has made no attack against the United States.
2. The war is a last resort because all efforts at peace making have been exhausted. Clearly these efforts are far from exhausted and, in fact, are just getting started.
3. All possible efforts have been made to protect innocent civilians. That remains to be seen.
4. No taking of the opponent's territory. I guess, Obama's plan to attack Syria finally meets one of the standards of a "just war." As far as I know, the US has no plans to annex parts of Syria.

One out of four, when all four are necessary for a "just war," is pretty weak, and we should expect and demand better from an American President, much less a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

All in all, I think that President Obama made the right choice in not attacking.
 
Nive dance arounf the post.

"We are talking about going to war. The standards of proof ought to be pretty high. If they were not high in the past, we have paid dearly. I have seen news reports. I have not seen documents demonstrating that Assad ordered the gas attacks. If you have such authentic documents, please share them with us."

I referred to the documents that show Assad's complicity in the gas attacks. They were also testified about in open session of Congress.

You didn't answer the question:

Do you believe Obama, Kerry and Hagel intentionally lied about these documents to the world?
 
RJKarl said:
Nive dance arounf the post.

"We are talking about going to war. The standards of proof ought to be pretty high. If they were not high in the past, we have paid dearly. I have seen news reports. I have not seen documents demonstrating that Assad ordered the gas attacks. If you have such authentic documents, please share them with us."

I referred to the documents that show Assad's complicity in the gas attacks. They were also testified about in open session of Congress.

You didn't answer the question:

Do you believe Obama, Kerry and Hagel intentionally lied about these documents to the world?
Click to expand...

I would not phrase the question in such a polemical fashion. I believe that Obama. Kerry and Hagel probably believe that they have sufficient evidence to indicate Assad was personally responsible for the gas attacks but I have not seen it. Not because I disbelieve that they are being sincere in their statements on the matter but because I have not seen all the news reports and all the documents. And until I do, I will withhold judgment. If you have seen convincing proof and can post the links, then I would be interested in reading it. On the whole though, I consider the discussion about whether or not President Obama should launch cruise missiles as much more important, than these sterile speculations about the President's and his advisors' sincerity. If you ask a good question, then you are much more likely to receive an informative answer.
 
bobknightfan said:
Seems like I've seen this movie before.....and all the people who are opposing action now...even the slightest action...are the people who were waving flags and gung-ho for "supporting the president" and rushing into something much, much, much more significant then. (And had not changed their minds nearly two years later, in November, 2004.)
Click to expand...

It's not a movie. It's from a philosopher/theologian, who lived over 1500 years ago, and he was a rather bright and influential fellow.

bkf, you might consider taking advantage of the fact that there are rational arguments, not just ad hominem arguments.

For you, why does a mistake in the past trump proper action in the present. This does not seem to be a constructive attitutde that allows for or appreciates progress much.

Just for the record, before there is any misunderstanding: I did not vote for Bush in either 2000, or 2004, nor was I particularly enthusiastic about or in favor of his invasion of Iraq.
 
Can you elaborate Bob? I am not sure what you are getting at. Please explain.
 
"For you, why does a mistake in the past trump proper action in the present. This does not seem to be a constructive attitutde that allows for or appreciates progress much."

Iraq was never a "mistake". It was a desired action that use a campaign of intentional lies to prove a political theory.
 
Over on another thread we've started working on getting rid of vices. Maybe on this one we could start confirming some virtues. Let's start with forgiveness. It's a nice Christian virtue.
 
sailordeac said:
Over on another thread we've started working on getting rid of vices. Maybe on this one we could start confirming some virtues. Let's start with forgiveness. It's a nice Christian virtue.
Click to expand...

Flip-flopper.
 
RJKarl said:
"For you, why does a mistake in the past trump proper action in the present. This does not seem to be a constructive attitutde that allows for or appreciates progress much."

Iraq was never a "mistake". It was a desired action that use a campaign of intentional lies to prove a political theory.
Click to expand...

RJ, just curious, are you familiar with words such a "tedious" or expressions such as "missing the point"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top