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

**XqrkN4a0** · 08-29-2012, 11:32 PM

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

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.

Alright, I understand where you're coming form now, thanks. He was clear as mud about what exactly would be going on there. Whether this was bad communication, intentional deception, or changing the plans due to the situation changing, I'm not sure. But none of that changes the fact that what he says isn't reflecting what's going on.
Yeah, he got me good. I'll give you credit though -- you were not deceived. Sure, but it's hard to be deceived if I never really listened to Obama in the first place. I'm guessing it just stems from the fact that long ago I figured that Presidential speeches are usually just flowery language, good intentions, and hot air and you'll have to look elsewhere (such as heads of the military) to get any actual info. Heck, you could probably even take this post I made about Bush in 2005 and retool it a bit to fit Obama on Libya today:

Bush says stuff about things.... - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

(On a side note, scroll through that thread and see how left leaning this board was under Bush. Made me chuckle a bit)

08-29-2012, 11:32 PM	#28
XqrkN4a0 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 387 Senior Member	@ Speak: Snuck in an edit while you were responding so I'll include here: 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. Alright, I understand where you're coming form now, thanks. He was clear as mud about what exactly would be going on there. Whether this was bad communication, intentional deception, or changing the plans due to the situation changing, I'm not sure. But none of that changes the fact that what he says isn't reflecting what's going on. Yeah, he got me good. I'll give you credit though -- you were not deceived. Sure, but it's hard to be deceived if I never really listened to Obama in the first place. I'm guessing it just stems from the fact that long ago I figured that Presidential speeches are usually just flowery language, good intentions, and hot air and you'll have to look elsewhere (such as heads of the military) to get any actual info. Heck, you could probably even take this post I made about Bush in 2005 and retool it a bit to fit Obama on Libya today: Bush says stuff about things.... - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives (On a side note, scroll through that thread and see how left leaning this board was under Bush. Made me chuckle a bit)
	Quote