Hey, Pat.
While me you and Zeb may disagree PASSIONATELY about the President; we do agree on a number of things.
I most certainly respect your opinion, and view you as a valued poster on PWI.
I just wanted to send out a quick note to let you know I wasn’t ignoring your post.
I’ll post more within the next 2-3 days.
Thanks Mufasa, I appreciate that…
They would not even have had to bomb the chemicals themselves, just his ability to make war…shoot down helicopters, bomb air bases, take out tanks, troop carriers, etc, anything to help the “rebels” win, rebels who have now morphed into Al-Qaeda and ISIS elements unfortunately.
The Russians were trying to avoid another Libya situation where their ally is taken out by rebels due to American’s influences. They were protecting their interest in Syria.
The Russians have come in and taken Syria’s VX & Sarin weapons…
But does it matter they are still using chemical weapons to kill people? I guess not because they seem to be able to use all the Chlorine they want to and no one gives a shit. Oh yeah, too late now, the Russians are running things in Syria and we dare not bomb now!
So, if the Russians and Syrians are so afraid of military retaliation from the United States, WHY THE HELL ARE THEY STILL USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS? If Obama has so much influence, why doesn’t he tell tell the Russians to STOP ASSAD FROM GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE USING CHLORINE?
They’re not afraid now. But alas, it’s too late.
As expected, this is a ludicrously evasive and general answer. You aren’t going to slither away from this. What specific act were Putin and Assad trying to avoid in offering Obama millions of pounds of sarin, VX, and mustard? What specifically were they trying to stop Obama from doing? You know the answer. Everyone does. Further refusal to explicitly concede that four is the sum of two twos will only make you look worse (if that’s possible after your utter faceplant on the basic numbers and dates last night). Save the editorialization. You and I both know with certainty that you aren’t equipped to editorialize. You proved that beyond doubt last night.
But you do know the answer to this question. What is it?
Edit: don’t worry, we are about to get to the chlorine attacks you don’t understand. You know, the ones you said killed “thousands” (they have killed nowhere near thousands). First, it’s important that we get you through this first step.
They obviously were afraid he was going to bomb them, right? Which I basically spelled out above but it went over your head so I have to answer again.
Now…about those Chlorine attacks?
edit - Let me just stop you now and say this: I know where this is going. We argued about it before. You didn’t convince me then and you are not going to convince me now. I can somewhat agree up to a certain point, but beyond that no way. So that’s it.
So tell me all about chlorine and why we shouldn’t punish the Syrians for using it even though we told them not to use chemical weapons against their people and they did again if you want to. I’m not buying your explanation. It’s weak, people still died, and we did nothing.
And when I say nothing I mean we got the Russians to remove Sarin and VX but caved to Syria’s use of chlorine bombs and it still makes us look weak, sorry but that’s my opinion and you’ve offered nothing at all to change it.
How does Syria disobeying a threat by the United States and using chlorine gas to kill their own people make the US look strong? They friggin disobeyed us and crossed the red line and we did nothing. How does that make us look strong?
[quote=“Gkhan, post:732, topic:210298, full:true”]
They obviously were afraid he was going to bomb them, right? Which I basically spelled out above but it went over your head so I have to answer again.[/quote]
As you’re aware, you aren’t even close to capable of sending something over my head. You were trying to worm your way out of honest and direct English, for reasons that will be obvious. More on this in my next post, hopefully this afternoon.
[Quote]
Now…about those Chlorine attacks?[/quote]
The ones I taught you basic shit about the other night? Don’t you worry, we’re very much getting there.
[Quote]
edit - Let me just stop you now and say this: I know where this is going. We argued about it before. [/quote]
It wasn’t an argument. As is your wont, you didn’t know anything about any of this and predictably filled the enormous gaps of your ignorance with babbled horseshit. A group of us spent a great deal of time teaching you basic facts about the topic over which you were shitting yourself, holding your hand through journeys into your immense confusion, tearing your fantasies to shreds.
But in a sense you sound like me now. I told you days ago that I didn’t want to subject myself to such a useless tour of your stupidity again. I told you we’d been here before and that it hadn’t been pleasant for you and that there was no reason for us to do it again. But YOU kept nipping at my heels, trying to pull me into this. YOU kept shitting into your hand and tossing bombs into this thread – bombs I already took away from you the last time around. Do you understand that metaphor? You’re saying things I already beat. Again and again. And you’re annoying me by trying to force me into beating them all over again.
Wish granted. We’re in the middle of it. A substantive post is forthcoming.
In the meantime, you have something to do (aside: you’re a fucking worm for not having done it already). You have to deal with what’s below. You have to respond to it, and your response has to concede that you spoke without knowing even basic things about that which you were speaking (i.e., that you are an idiot). I’m not sure how you have failed to understand this, but you don’t just keep getting do-overs and take-backs. I’m not your fucking dad playing t-ball with his 7-year-old child, letting him fuck up without consequence again and again and again. You whined and whined about off-topic Syria/chemical weapons, and then, when it finally came time to put your money up, you gritted your teeth, stabbed yourself in the dick with a screwdriver, and dove face-first into a burning dumpster. It was gloriously pathetic.
I mean, these (see below) were literally the first “substantive” words of yours on the topic of Syrian chemical weapons I read in this thread…and they were bullshit. Objectively wrong. Utterly confused. Thought up and typed out by somebody who doesn’t actually know even very basic name-date-number shit about the subject of his incessant and incoherent babbling.
So, without further ado, this is what you must respond to:
[Quote] [Quote]Gkhan:
But Obama did nothing but watch thousands die in gas attacks which were not sarin, or VX.
Assad uses Chlorine gas, kills 1,500 civilians after you told him he could not use chemical weapons against civilians.[/quote]
Smh:
Jesus jumping fuck, you can’t write two contiguous sentences without sitting on your own balls.
You just really don’t understand any of this, do you? You don’t even have, like, the bare facts of a Wikipedia read-through (which makes it extra goddamn irritating that you so loudly impose your confusions on other people).
“Thousands die in gas attacks which were not sarin,” eh? Obama did “nothing”?
That number, 1500 (the real number is 1491, if I recall correctly), comes from a SAMS report. You wouldn’t know this because you are an uninformed, babbling idiot – and you clearly don’t read any of this stuff – but SAMS broke the numbers down very precisely.
Of that 1491, more than 1300 – the vast majority – died in a single event, at Ghouta…
…on August 21, 2013 …
…In a fucking sarin attack.
The subsequent death toll has been negligible by comparison, for reasons that will become clear.
As for whether or not Obama “did nothing”: answer the question in my previous post, and we shall see.
Edit:
This isn’t part of the two-post progression I mentioned in my last post. That is still pending, awaiting your answer. This was simply an aside demonstrating to you what I’ve been saying all along – that you just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Ever. You can’t get basic facts right, you aren’t remotely sharp enough to wing it, you don’t follow international politics as closely as someone would have to in order to opine so often and loudly on world affairs as you do, and you have the analytical skill of a russet potato. Just look at this post and what made it possible: you offered up a stupid interpretation based on objectively false claims of fact. You literally don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and I end up having to teach you all of this ludicrously basic shit (if you’re whining like a bitch about how badly you want to debate chemical weapons attacks in Syria, you better fucking know enough about them not to faceplant so pathetically as you did above), holding your hand through fervid bouts of delirium and incoherence. It’s a useless waste of my time, arguing with someone who can’t argue back.
Anyway, answer the question from my previous post. It’ll be fun to see whether you can admit that, assuming you answer the question correctly, you’ve stabbed yourself in your own stomach.[/quote]
Good luck. As I said above, I will be writing and sending a separate post on the red line/chlorine. Mind you, if you don’t respond directly to the above, this exchange is simply over – and in such a way that nobody could mistake for anything less than an execution.
Ok, I asked YOU at least 3 questions you have not answered. I’m still waiting and it’s been so long I can’t even remember what the questions were nor do a really give a fuck if you answer them or not.
Because you won’t and I could really give 2 fucks.
Furthermore, if the question is what did the Russians and Syrians expect the Obama Administration to do, I feel I already answered it.
Convince me that it is ok for the Syrians to use chemical weapons against their own people after we threatened them not to. That’s the basis of this argument, not 1 person dead, not 1,500 people dead. If I got a number wrong, tough shit, maybe I didn’t read an article
as well as I should have, but at least I don’t have an entire ARGUMENT TOTALLY WRONG.
You could attack me for that, and that’s what you are best at. But convincing me I am wrong is something else, something you have not been able to do with all your personal attacks and walls of text which amount to absolutely nothing as far as the original argument goes.
I answered 2 of your questions or statements or whatever the hell they were. You have answered none of mine. Ever. If you are not satisfied or think attacks will substitute for an answer then you are mistaken and this argument will cease to continue.
First, drop the conditional, you shameless fucking worm. It isn’t a question of “if” you got things wrong. You did. You know that you did. It is a matter of objective numerical fact that you did. I cited the report proving that you did. Don’t hide behind if. You wanted this. You wanted it bad enough to keep nagging me about it even after I told you I didn’t care to waste the time. Now take what you’ve earned. If you don’t want me to have the opportunity to treat you like this (which is not to say that you don’t deserve it, because you do), then either don’t debate me OR do the minimal amount of homework necessary to figure out the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground next time.
Second, you didn’t just “get a number wrong.” You have been bleating like an infirm goat about chemical weapons attacks in Syria. I finally cave and move to address your posts on the topic, and the first one I look at is a direct and furious faceplant, a failure to understand the most elemental name-date-number data of the very issue you’re loudly shouting about. You want to argue with me about Chemical weapons attacks in Syria and you don’t fucking know which chemical weapons attacks have taken place in Syria? You want to talk Assad gassing his own people and you don’t fucking know what Ghouta is, when it happened, which chemicals were used, and what percentage of all Syrian chem deaths it comprises? That’s like wanting to loudly and buffoonishly argue about WWII without knowing who Hitler was, what D-day means, and who won the damn thing.
Fuck you. Fuck you for wasting my time like this, you utter imbecile. This isn’t refusal to answer a question (note: I don’t owe you posts, and you aren’t entitled to my goddamn time, and when I don’t answer a question you ask, it’s because I don’t want to deal with this kind of pathetic cretinism)…this is intellectual dishonesty. It’s “I haven’t done the reading and I don’t know what the hell is going on, lemme babble into your face all the same.” It’s illegitimate.
I will continue destroying you on the substance when you explicitly account for this – when you explain that despite the fact that you nagged at me multiple times in an attempt to draw me into a Syria chemical attacks argument, you didn’t have a bare-bones, Wikidepia-level grasp of Syria chemical attacks. Otherwise you’d have known that Ghouta accounts for more than 1300 of the 1500 dead, and it was a sarin attack. That isn’t a detail. It’s 90 percent of the discussion. Square your shoulders to your ignorance of it – or fuck off.
None of this is the slight bit relevant. I might never have heard of Hitler, but if you ask me if I think putting 6 million people into gas chambers and killing them is right or wrong or should be stopped, I think I would answer yes.
In which you would obviously and ignorantly respond: not all 6 million died in gas chambers…some were shot, some were starved, some were worked to death, some were killed by dogs, some were stabbed, some were tortured to death, some were run over by vehicles, some were drowned in pits, some were electrocuted on high voltage fences, some were killed in death marches…to which I would respond: who the fuck cares!?
Detail or no detail, once again you miss the point of the argument. You miss the forest while arguing whether the trees are oak or pine.
And once again, twice again, three times I have responded to your questions and ANSWERED THEM. If you don’t like or can not comprehend the answer, screw you.
Instead of insulting me, instead of trying to show everyone your pseudo-intellectualism, why not do something novel…why not actually present a frikkin argument which can actually change my opinion, since you have not, will not and consistently fail to do so miserably.
I brought up one, that’s ONE argument, ONE QUESTION, which you constantly refuse and do not answer. Once again I say:
You do not answer…
BECAUSE
YOU
CAN’T.
IF
YOU
DO
YOU
KNOW
YOU
ARE
WRONG
there
I
copied
another
of
your
asshole
tactics
have a good one.
The details of Syrian chemical attacks are not “the slight bit relevant” (sic) to an analysis of Syrian chemical attacks. This is what you’re going to go with, you fucking parody of an ignoramus?
As I said, you’re a worm, a sniveling and dishonest piece of shit who’s been exposed and still won’t clean himself up, preferring to loudly deny that the egg all over his face is really there. I caught you with your pants down, knowing nothing about the subject you were trying to bait me in on, and you decide to go with it’s okay that I didn’t know my ass from a hole in the ground, BECAUSE FORREST.
We never got the chance to get to arguments – you shit yourself out of the gate. You didn’t even know how to write your own name at the top of the test.
But don’t worry, I’m still going to follow up on my previous post – in detail. At which point it will become clear to you why you actually did want to know at least a little bit about chemical attacks in Syria before arguing with me about chemical attacks in Syria (lol that you have made it possible for me to type sentences like that, you ineffectual dumbass). Tomorrow.
If your goal was to do this, you have succeeded.
But you are so full of yourself you can’t even see that I HAVE admitted what you said and answered your questions AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
You have yet to answer one of mine.
It is you who are the sniveling worm. But unlike me, you will NEVER admit this truth about yourself. Better to deflect your lack of a response by writing unceasing personal attacks about me.
If your goal was to win the argument and change my opinion, you have failed miserably and continue to do so.
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION ALREADY OR SHUT UP, PLEASE.
Because instead of answering the question and attempting to change my opinion, you have instead attacked me.
For the 50th time: (and I will spell it out for you in small bites so you can reply to each one if you choose so it will be easier for you:)
Obama made a red line threat
The Russians made a deal with Obama and took the Sarin and VX gas out of the country. That much we can agree upon.
Syria used chlorine against his own people in direct violation of the Obama red line threat.
Obama did not back up his threat, America was made to look weak because of THIS.
So tell me how Assad, not some random Arab with chemical strapped to his back as you alluded to trying to derail the subject as you have done so many times in the past, but Assad, his government, his troops, using chemical weapons like Chlorine, and I don’t give a rats ass if it’s not potent as VX or Sarin or if you can buy it at Walmart next to your apartment, or how abundant it is, against his own people, not the people of Iraq, not the people of Iran, not the people of Lebanon, or Yemen, but against the same people Assad governs, that being the people of Syria, in direct violation of the Obama red line threat makes America’s foreign policy look strong.
And, of course, why the American administration if they are so strong, did not persuade the Russians, once they got into the country, to persuade the Assad Administration to cease the use of CHLORINE attacks against his own people to go along with the agreement between the Russians and Americans in regards to Syria’s chemical weapons use.
I won’t hold my breath.
Way more than 6 million died in Nazi concentration camps. The total number is closer to 13 million, 6 million were Jews. So if you want to talk details that’s a major one. 6 to 7 million were not Jews and died in many various horrible ways. In some ways the gassed oned were lucky compared to those subjet to the Nazi doctors.
Arguments that are nuanced enough to account for at least some of the world’s complexity – the kind that avail themselves of fact and data rather than fecal gibberish – take time. Someday perhaps you will make one and find this out for yourself.
Just kidding: you won’t. You’re one of the stupidest and most intellectually dishonest people with whom I’ve ever had the regrettable misfortune to interact. You tried desperately to debate me on chemical weapons attacks in Syria without knowing the bare facts about chemical weapons attacks in Syria, like which ones featured which chemicals and killed how many people on what dates. This I proved beyond doubt using your own addled, fact-free, utterly embarrassing words – which somehow didn’t stop you from trying to lie and worm your way out of owning your ignorance (“if I got a number wrong” is the most fatuous and cowardly method of addressing a ludicrous faceplant that I’ve seen in PWI).
You are a waste of my time and are therefore last on my to-do list. A post is forthcoming. When it comes will be a function of when I get around to finishing it and checking the numbers, because it required some arithmetic. If you were anything more than a dimwitted and dishonest piece of shit, I might be more specific or thoughtful. You are not, so I will be what I’m being now, which is honest.
Then forget it.
Number checking? Arithmetic? You obviously can not read or comprehend the nature of the question I posed above because it requires none of this. This sounds to me like another ploy to further bog down this thread and deflect the answer to the question I posed with more idiotic insults and useless walls of unrelated text.
It’s obvious the best you can do is attack me. I can see it is a waste of my time as well waiting for an answer which will never come.
You have failed to convince me differently or change my opinion on this matter.
I’m done. Have a good one.
The point I was trying to make was this: smh insulted me saying i could not argue about Syrian chemical attacks crossing the Obama red line without knowing the background of it.
He alluded to arguing about the second World War without knowing who Hitler was and I explained even if you had no clue who Hitler was or who the Nazi’s were, you could still argue the deliberate extermination of 6 million people is wrong.
This of course was ignored and answered with a wall of insults so I could see why you’d only view one side of this so-called conversation.
[quote=“Gkhan, post:742, topic:210298, full:true”]
Then forget it. [/quote]
I mention that my post is going to be difficult and substantive: You lose interest. Delicious.
But no, I won’t forget it. The world is not the reductive fantasy you cling to like a fucking child. It will never be accommodated by the simplistic, superficial, fact-free, number-free, flattening, detail-averse, distinction-blind, juvenile, effortless (this last word I use in its most derogatory sense) pablum that dribbles out of your mouth at a fourth-grade reading level.
You keep saying this, but you’re confused. I don’t want to change your opinion. You are a shamelessly dishonest idiot. Your opinion is worthless to me, and in fact I would be troubled to learn that we shared this or that belief/position/conviction.
I am doing this because you nagged at me enough times to piss me off. I’m doing this to shut you the fuck up. I already did that in an enormous way, by proving that you knew jack shit about the basic material you were bleating about. This –
– is dispositive proof that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, that you don’t follow this stuff, that you aren’t capable of discussing it. It’s a lie. It’s buffoonishly wrong on the most fundamental level. It betrays deep ignorance shielded by infinite incuriosity. If you knew anything about chemical weapons attacks in Syria, you wouldn’t have been able to write it, you utter clown.
And now I’m going to keep going. As I said, you’ll see it when I get to it.
ok I won’t hold my breath.
I cannot speak for smh, but he wrote extensively on the subject in the debacle that was the “Obama has failed at everything thread”.
smh_23 wrote:
“To reiterate a last time: The threatened strikes and the disarmament are one and the same matter, because the threatened strikes made possible the disarmament, and to have gone through with the strikes would have been to reject the disarmament deal. They were mutually exclusive alternatives, and the correct alternative was chosen. Choice by choice, the correct choice was made. You do not have the shadow of a case here.”
http://www.columbiauniversity.net/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/FourFuncForce.pdf
Obama’s threat of military force in response to a violation of the chemical red line he established constituted an act of DETERRENCE. “Do not carry out action X, for if you do, I will strike you upon the head with this club.” Deterrence is always a peaceful exercise of force, and by definition it has failed when the threat of force has to be carried out.
When the treat of force is carried out, deterrence ends and COMPELLENCE begins. “I am now going to hit you over the head with this club and will not stop until you acquiesce to my demands.” In other words, compellence entails that actor A successfully compels actor B to carry out an action (or not to carry out an action) that it otherwise would not have. (or would have). Compellence does not necessarily require that violence be employed, but can be accomplished by the threat of it or through other means (economic sanctions). Ergo, it can take both peaceful and physical forms. Deterence failed and compellence began. The Obama administration’s deployment of military forces to the region coupled with clear signaling of its intent constituted an act of peaceful compellence, and a successful one at that when Assad reluctantly agreed to relinquish his chemical weapons arsenal.