US moves naval group closer to Syria

[SGOS]

Decision made. Going in.

Under Bush, the administration said it knew Saddam had WMD.  And maybe he could have, but the weapons inspectors could find no proof.  Politicians "knew" Saddam had them too, but no actual proof was shown to the voters.  The voters generally "knew" Saddam had had WMD based on the word of our leaders.

The parallel here is very similar.  Perhaps Assad used chemical weapons.  There's a 50% chance that he did (probably less than that as it could have been Assad, the rebels, or some terrorist group), but in spite of our leaders "knowing", no proof has been shown to the voters, and inspections teams can't verify anything.  This is Iraq all over again, at least with regards to actual evidence.

When you bomb some country, it's good to be able to provide relevant evidence to justify the action.  Either way, we are going to turn the tide on this civil war and help the side that hates us the most win victory.  And I'll bet these guys are laughing their asses off right now.

[josephpalazzo]

Decision made. Going in.

Under Bush, the administration said it knew Saddam had WMD.  And maybe he could have, but the weapons inspectors could find no proof.  Politicians "knew" Saddam had them too, but no actual proof was shown to the voters.  The voters generally "knew" Saddam had had WMD based on the word of our leaders.

Well, this is true but missing in that picture is that Saddam wanted to make others believe he had WMD's. Even his own generals, after the US invasion, were stunned in finding out he hadn't any WMD's. So yes, the Bush administration did spike the info, and Saddam willingly poured more wine into the cocktail.

[Hydra009]

The parallel here is very similar.  Perhaps Assad used chemical weapons.  There's a 50% chance that he did (probably less than that as it could have been Assad, the rebels, or some terrorist group), but in spite of our leaders "knowing", no proof has been shown to the voters, and inspections teams can't verify anything.

What was this figure derived from?   :-s  Reminds me of theists saying that there's a 50/50 chance that God exists.   :-|

Various governments have put forth some evidence, the JIC report, for example, but no slam dunk case yet.  Other evidence, allegedly of a highly sensitive nature, is being withheld for the time being.  Though we have heard from reporters on the ground that alleging that the rebels have come under chemical weapons attack.  And in defiance of the odds (and the international community), it's pretty likely that Assad's regime did launch at least one chemical weapons attack.

[SGOS]

The parallel here is very similar.  Perhaps Assad used chemical weapons.  There's a 50% chance that he did (probably less than that as it could have been Assad, the rebels, or some terrorist group), but in spite of our leaders "knowing", no proof has been shown to the voters, and inspections teams can't verify anything.

What was this figure derived from?   :-s  Reminds me of theists saying that there's a 50/50 chance that God exists.   :-|

[Hydra009]

It was derived from the two, possibly three suspects that could have launched the attack.

A poor methodology.  Two suspects who might have done it does not make it a 50/50 chance and attempting to derive a likelihood from that alone is embarrassingly poor reasoning.  Especially when more information actually is available.

No other information is available so that's about the best you can do.

I didn't post those links for my health, you know.   :-|

If you know something no one else knows, then that would change the 50/50 odds, but since you don't, you have no more to go on than faith, something common in theist arguments by the way.

Oh, so close!

 This is the same argument I had with holders of faith in Saddam's WMD 10 years ago.

Always with the Iraq, as if they were identical situations.  They're not, and neither the situation, the reasoning behind intervention, nor the scale of the intervention is similar.  In one case, a brutal civil war and humanitarian-disaster-in-progress that has recently gone WMD and threatens to deteriorate even further.  On the other, a brutally oppressive but largely contained situation where unilateral action was pre-planned and the public and international community were deliberately misled.

Iraq was so terrible and so profoundly jarring that I'm not surprised that people are still stuck in Iraq mode, reacting to a new situation as if it were the old one.  It's fortunate that not everyone knee-jerked that way.

As far as you can tell.  However, that is clearly not the case.  And these predictable accusations (even if they weren't horribly, horribly mistaken) do nothing for your argument, such as it is.

[Smartmarzipan]

Assad: U.S. attack on Syria will bring 'repercussions' (VIDEO)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... g/2784995/

Syrian President Bashar Assad has denied in an interview that his country had used chemical weapons against his own people and warned of "repercussions" for any U.S. strike against his country.

"You should expect everything," Assad told CBS' Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning. "You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government. It's not only the government are not the only player in this region. You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideology. You have everything in this region now. So you have to expect that."

He also warned that terrorist groups who support his regime might also respond to any U.S. strike with attacks on their own.

"Our soldiers in another area were attacked chemically, our soldiers," the Syrian president told CBS. "They went to the hospital, as casualties because of chemical weapons. But in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations. We're not there. Our forces -- our police, our institutions don't exist. How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidences? We're not like the American administration. We're not social media administration or government. We are the government that deals with reality."

He called on Obama to "present what you have as evidence to the public, be transparent."

[josephpalazzo]

Of course, if Assad threatens the US, the US should cower down.

Of course, if Assad denies the use of chemical weapons, that must be true.

Of course if the US intelligence was wrong on Iraq, it must be wrong on Syria.

Of course if the Republicans vote against Obama, they must be right.


  :Hangman:

[billhilly]

[josephpalazzo]

Democrats don't count.

 :P

[Hydra009]

Assad: U.S. attack on Syria will bring 'repercussions' (VIDEO)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... g/2784995/

Syrian President Bashar Assad has denied in an interview that his country had used chemical weapons against his own people and warned of "repercussions" for any U.S. strike against his country.

Denial and threats.  Sounds like exactly the kind of reaction a falsely-accused person would have.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Whenever I hear a government official ask me to trust him, I get doubly skeptical.

[Hydra009]

Though "bombing the middle east" is an awfully general  way of putting otherwise pretty dissimilar actions, but yeah, they sure were/are.  Independently of the details of the situations, it seems.

Libya caused quite a stir, too.  Sadly, the impeachment call did not garner much support.  Oh well, there's always next time to grind that axe.