The Red Line: Part Deux

#751
#751
lawgator1 said:
These are the kinds of things that they would be briefed on and discuss with the administration and the military.....

If they bothered to pay any attention.

I just think that there are certain members who are going to vote no just because its Obama who has proposed it.
Click to expand...

They are voting "No" because thats what the people want. Has nothing to do with who proposed it
 
#752
#752
lawgator1 said:
Has it occurred to you that maybe they support it because they've been briefed on the situation, know more than you do, and think it is the correct action?
Click to expand...

It has occured to me that Graham and McCain have been advocating much more aggressive US involvment in Syria for quite some time and I think they are completely nuts for it.

I have no doubt they think it's the "correct action" or only incorrect because it's not large enough in scope.
 
Last edited:
#753
#753
VolsNSkinsFan said:
They are voting "No" because thats what the people want. Has nothing to do with who proposed it
Click to expand...

This endless trash the GOP only crap gets old.

Plenty of Dems are already firm no's. Who are they against?

Plenty of Dems were against Iraq - was that to get at W or could it have been what they or their constituents wanted.
 
#757
#757
lawgator1 said:
Has it occurred to you that maybe they support it because they've been briefed on the situation, know more than you do, and think it is the correct action?
Click to expand...

it's 2003 all over again and the hawkish neo-conservatives will stop at nothing to justify war against Iraq
 
#758
#758
lawgator1 said:
Has it occurred to you that maybe they support it because they've been briefed on the situation, know more than you do, and think it is the correct action?
Click to expand...

Not for one split second! Neither McCain nor Graham have done anything without political gain as their first thought.
 
#759
#759
MG1968 said:
it's 2003 all over again and the hawkish neo-conservatives will stop at nothing to justify war against Iraq
Click to expand...


This is very different from 2003.

1) We have video of the rockets being launched.

2) We intercepted the orders to carry out the attack.

3) The military operation contemplated here is a specific targeting, not an invasion.

4) There is no history of the decision makers having a personal bias or prior beef with the leadership in Syria.

5) We are not relying on suspect information from unreliable third parties to determine what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#760
#760
lawgator1 said:
This is very different from 2003.

1) We have video of the rockets being launched.

2) We intercepted the orders to carry out the attack.

3) The military operation contemplated here is a specific targeting, not an invasion.

4) There is no history of the decision makers having a personal bias or prior beef with the leadership in Syria.

5) We are not relying on suspect information from unreliable third parties to determine what happened.
Click to expand...

We had absolute 100% proof Sadam gassed the Kurds.
 
#761
#761
lawgator1 said:
This is very different from 2003.

1) We have video of the rockets being launched.

2) We intercepted the orders to carry out the attack.

3) The military operation contemplated here is a specific targeting, not an invasion.

4) There is no history of the decision makers having a personal bias or prior beef with the leadership in Syria.

5) We are not relying on suspect information from unreliable third parties to determine what happened.
Click to expand...

what is the purpose of a strike? We've been told that it is not to remove chemical weapons. We've been told that it is not regime change. The US is not under imminent threat, nor are any of it's allies.

What "punishment" will be gained by firing a "shot across the bow"?

Remember the cruise missile strike against that aspirin factory in The Sudan? What did that accomplish?

and don't repeat your previous gibberish of the decision makers having information we're not privy to. According to you, the justification for the Iraq war was based on lies. Have you not stopped to consider the same thing is happening now?

At least in 2003 the US had a coalition of the willing. Obama can't even get support from England this time around.
 
#762
#762
lawgator1 said:
Read it. It does not come close to saying that.
Click to expand...

From the transcript:

It was humanity drew a line decades ago that i think if we ignore, we do so to the peril of many other people who can suffer.
Click to expand...

If that is the justification, then I'm fine with it. But, if so, then why haven't we done things to prevent the use of chemical munitions, rather than just react to their use?

We could have bombed them moments after the President's redline speech. In fact he could have changed the speech to something akin to "Use of chemical munitions is an unacceptable act and we will not tolerate it. Therefore, we've just struck your weapons facilities and they no longer exist."

Or he could have sent a secret diplomatic cable to Assad saying something like, "Dear President Assad,
We, the American People, find the use of Chemical Weapons to be unacceptable. The next sound you hear will be your chemical munitions being destroyed. Have fun in your civil war."

Or he could have said nothing at all and had the CIA and Mossad destroy the chemicals covertly. Then all we would get would be mysterious news reports of strange explosions around Syria, similar to the mysterious campaign against Iranian nuclear scientists.

If this was really about a humanitarian gesture to save others from suffering, then we would have done something before they suffered.

Oh, and we would also have noticed the other 100,000 who have died to kinetic (i.e. non-chemical) munitions over the past 2 years and maybe tried to do something about that.

But, since we didn't do anything prior, this really all boils down to saving face, which, having been to war, I can say is a pretty sharty reason to start a new one.
 
#764
#764
Does McCain and Graham have stock in Haliburton or something or have they lost their damn minds?
 
#767
#767
lawgator1 said:
This statement is patently false.
Click to expand...

it's been weeks since the strike, do you still think Assad's stockpile of former Iraqi chemical munitions is still in the same place?

You're obviously not in the military, if you were, you'd know that using exploding munitions to destroy chemical weapons doesn't always work out. Just ask a veteran of Desert Storm.
 
#768
#768
MG1968 said:
it's been weeks since the strike, do you still think Assad's stockpile of former Iraqi chemical munitions is still in the same place?

You're obviously not in the military, if you were, you'd know that using exploding munitions to destroy chemical weapons doesn't always work out. Just ask a veteran of Desert Storm.
Click to expand...


You said "we have been told" that the plan isn't to do something to degrade their capacity to use chemweps down the line, but in fact we have been told that is a key objective.

Will it be successful? I don't know, my crystal ball is in the shop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#769
#769
lawgator1 said:
You said "we have been told" that the plan isn't to do something to degrade their capacity to use chemweps down the line, but in fact we have been told that is a key objective.

Will it be successful? I don't know, my crystal ball is in the shop.
Click to expand...

Obama's "shot across the bow" remark had nothing to do with degrading or eliminating Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. Only recently has administration policy solidified around destruction of capability.

The problem is, without boots on the ground, this strategy won't work. You don't need a crystal ball to know that.
 
#772
#772
MG1968 said:
Obama's "shot across the bow" remark had nothing to do with degrading or eliminating Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. Only recently has administration policy solidified around destruction of capability.

The problem is, without boots on the ground, this strategy won't work. You don't need a crystal ball to know that.
Click to expand...

Sort of like the boots we didn't put on the ground in Libya?
 
#774
#774
Syria is said to be hiding weapons, moving troops

The main Western-backed opposition group says that during the buildup last week to what seemed like an imminent U.S. attack, the army moved troops as well as rocket launchers, artillery and other heavy weapons into residential neighborhoods in cities nationwide. Three Damascus residents, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, confirmed such movements.

One man said two members of the elite Republican Guards broke into an empty house he owns and showed him an official document stating they were authorized to do so because Syria is at war. A woman in another area said soldiers moved into a school next to her house.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top