DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - 13 rebel fighters were killed and dozens wounded in an UN/US airstrike...

**Imiweevierm** · 08-29-2012, 11:32 PM

@ Speak: Snuck in an edit while you were responding so I'll include here:

And most of that is pretty much dead on. We're no longer running the show, but we are aiding in enforcing the no fly zone under a NATO banner (they're using 11 US jets, but under the designation of NATO). Taking out surface to air missiles is in line with the enforcement of a no fly zone (can't enforce a no fly zone if your planes are being shot out of the sky). He laid out what some of the things our role would include, but that doesn't exclude the things he didn't mention.

He didn't even mention patrolling the "no fly zone." Naturally ... it does not seem that a "supporting role" would include doing the main work of the operation, i.e. missions. (An attorney's secretary provides support to her boss by taking dictation, not by arguing motions in court, for example.) This led me into believing that we would not be doing those things.

Of course, he could have said something like "including but not limited to" but even that would have been somewhat deceptive as he characterized U.S. involvement as a "supporting role." Logically, this would not include flying the missions/conducting airstrikes but rather supporting those that are ... especially when the President leaves those items out of his list! Again, I do not believe these were mistakenly omitted. His words were carefully chosen to downplay U.S. involvement and conceal the fact that the U.S. would still be carrying out attacks.

So, nevermind. I can't see any way of him bungling his words there. Yeah, he got me good. I'll give you credit though -- you were not deceived.

08-29-2012, 11:32 PM	#27
Imiweevierm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	@ Speak: Snuck in an edit while you were responding so I'll include here: And most of that is pretty much dead on. We're no longer running the show, but we are aiding in enforcing the no fly zone under a NATO banner (they're using 11 US jets, but under the designation of NATO). Taking out surface to air missiles is in line with the enforcement of a no fly zone (can't enforce a no fly zone if your planes are being shot out of the sky). He laid out what some of the things our role would include, but that doesn't exclude the things he didn't mention. He didn't even mention patrolling the "no fly zone." Naturally ... it does not seem that a "supporting role" would include doing the main work of the operation, i.e. missions. (An attorney's secretary provides support to her boss by taking dictation, not by arguing motions in court, for example.) This led me into believing that we would not be doing those things. Of course, he could have said something like "including but not limited to" but even that would have been somewhat deceptive as he characterized U.S. involvement as a "supporting role." Logically, this would not include flying the missions/conducting airstrikes but rather supporting those that are ... especially when the President leaves those items out of his list! Again, I do not believe these were mistakenly omitted. His words were carefully chosen to downplay U.S. involvement and conceal the fact that the U.S. would still be carrying out attacks. So, nevermind. I can't see any way of him bungling his words there. Yeah, he got me good. I'll give you credit though -- you were not deceived.
	Quote