AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by HallGator, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +492
    repped sir.

    And the Russians seem to threaten to get involved for the primary reason that Putin wants another example of him spanking Obama.
  2. tim85
    Online

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,774
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +969
    I'm pretty sure wgb's post was in sarcasm, but his point is inadvertently well-said and well-received.
  3. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +492
    :laugh:

    I'll take him at his word for that post.
  4. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +448
    0bama's bluff has been called. He should have never threatened military action to begin with bcause it paints you into a corner with no options. Do nothing, your bark is worse than your bite.
  5. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,501
    Likes Received:
    840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Seems you read more into it than I put. The fact is you can't trust the intelligence coming out of that part of the country. Don't you recall Iraq? If I am smart enough to figure that out you would think all of those knowledgeable folks who are advising him could and would advise caution from the start.
  6. malligator
    Offline

    malligator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,222
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ahwatukee
    Ratings Received:
    +260
    There was pretty clear evidence 10 years ago that Iraq's WMDs went across the border to Syria. If we truly were there to get the WMD we should have had the balls to go after them no matter where they went. We didn't, and now the chickens have come home to roost. Going in now is a too little, way too late.
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,005
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,274
    It was a little sarcastic in tone, but an honest view. In retrospect, Obama shouldnt have put anything out there to corner himself. I'm probably not as concerned as others are about what backing away from those statements will say to the "bad guys." I think doubling down on stupid is far more dangerous and self-defeating in the long run, especially when there are no clear objectives at stake. I wish leadership would step up and disavow previous statements as bad policy, but I couldnt imagine any POTUS doing that. So I expect either a limited intervention, or a weasely rhetorical backtrack without admiting the not-so smart aspects of previous positions.
  8. VAg8r1
    Offline

    VAg8r1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    Syria had the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even if the reports that Saddam's alleged stockpile of chemical weapons were moved to Syria, that transport did not create the problem. Syria also has a long history of using chemical weapons against its own people. Hafez al-Assad the father of Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against civilians to put down an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982.

    What the original linked article essentially said was that other elements of the Syrian government may have been responsible for the use of the chemical weapons rather than Bashar Assad himself, not that the Syrian military did not use the chemical weapons.

    From that article
    The individual responsible for ordering the attack may very well be the brother of Bashar Assad.
    Fox News
    • Like Like x 1
  9. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    4,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,920
    All I know is I am pretty war weary. We still have to deal with the aftermath of two wars right now, no small matter for the vets and families who have served.

    That said, though I am not here to defend or not the president, I have to disagree that he's partial to warmongering. He obviously isn't completely opposed but he's never struck me as the type, and not even now as they are considering intervention.

    Even if the evidence is currently not a slam dunk--what should we do if it becomes 100% clear? This is only partially about humanitarian intervention, but more about not letting governments such as Assad's get away with using chemical weapons, which is a legitimate global concern.

    On the other hand, war is often really stupid and is it's own animal separate from the underlying justifications for it, so I am especially troubled by this reality, regardless of what Assad may or may not have done.
  10. VAg8r1
    Offline

    VAg8r1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    Of course, if Obama does do something, he will be accused of a "wag the dog" strategy of ordering an attack solely for political purposes.
  11. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,005
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,274
    I do appreciate the deliberation and caution in foreign matters. Of course, this is simply my view from the outside looking in. Some people see that as a liability or weakness, but I don't, really. Not to say that there have not been bad decisions or errors, but I at least get feeling that he won't be allow himself to be boxed into a "doctrine." But again, some people see this as incoherent rather than a positive thing.
  12. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +448
    Accused by whom? I said it was a bad move to open his mouth and threaten action. It paints him in corner with little option.

    I am pretty indifferent. As someone who had an Infantry company as part of SFOR 8 in Bosnia, I wasn't thrilled with Clinton using every tactic in the book to get the story off Monica Lewinsky and on to something else, but when he made his case and documented the ethnic cleansing going on, I agreed with him.

    0bama needs to make his case and if these accusations are true, I will support the action. Yes, we are war weary. There are multiple studies on how fatigued the Army is right now and we discuss these in War College. However, you simply can NOT let these actions go unchallenged.

    Russia and China can go to hell and get their ass kicked in the process too. If these two countries want to simply sit by and let one of two evils in Syria gas their own people, those bastards don't deserve to live. Russia and China had a chance here to play global leaders and condemn these actions, but instead threaten the US if we do anything. **** that. And I don't give a rat's ass if our POTUS is a limp wristed closet homosexual who wants to pervert the way of life in this country.

    If 0bama does nothing, then that's OK too. It still doesn't remove the fact that he should have kept his mouth shut and not lay out ultimatums.
  13. austingtr
    Offline

    austingtr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,842
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +427
    Borrowing more money to bomb a country that is at war with itself, without purpose, mission, end game, or rationale is moronic. And there is a danger than Russia might find an excuse to cause us trouble, and give Iran an excuse to go to war with Israel. Sounds like a lose, lose proposition. We can't afford any of this.

    But luckily, Obama saves face no?
  14. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    The Brits just voted down military action today. Cameron will abide by the decision which reflects the will of the public. I suspect it would be voted down in our congress as well which also would reflect the will of our citizens. But of course we were against Obamacare and they crammed that bad boy.

    Will Obama go it alone and bypass Congress?
  15. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    I didn't mean that you stated these conclusions, but that they follow from the article. If, as alleged in the article, our intelligence is less than what the administration claims, why would they claim it? Are we to think Obama can't wait to bomb Syria, when he probably had enough excuse to do so a year ago.
  16. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Good post though I don't necessarily agree on drawing a line. You do that of course in the expectation that you will achieve a goal on the cheap. It didn't work and now he probably has to back it up, but one assumes that was part of an earlier calculation and may have occurred as a matter of policy without the threat. It all depends on how it turns out, but I think the action demands a response, red line or not. Unlike the previous occupant, I think the president is both careful and intelligent, and while he may do the wrong thing, he has mostly done the right things in foreign policy matters so far.
  17. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,501
    Likes Received:
    840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    At this point I really don't know. My biggest concern is the same one I voiced before. Mainly he has to back up what he said earlier about their use of chemical weapons and this could prove to be a more iffy response than it may have appeared at the time.
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,814
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +492
    I am just about all out of fracks that I give regarding the ME.
  19. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,153
    Likes Received:
    4,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,920
    People don't like uncertainty. They want leaders who are decisive or at least ones that act like they are. But decisiveness without prudence can be disastrous...then again, one can have all the prudence in the world and results of a decision can still be disastrous.

    In any case, imho, his best move is to get Congressional approval. If they say no, then other options would have to be explored. Sometimes just following procedure actually enhances ones capital too.

Share This Page