Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

If someone is threatening to hit you with a baseball bat. You say “If you do that, I’m going to stick that bat up your ass.” He hits you in the face then says, “Sorry, I’ll put my bat down now.”
[/quote]

If you think that this analogy is apt, then you are not equipped for this discussion.

If you know that it is not apt and yet have posted it anyway, then you are not equipped for this discussion.

Either way, it doesn’t look good for you.

Here is how you would have phrased it if you had taken the time to think about reality:

Someone is threatening to hit a bystander with a bat. You say, “If you hit that bystander, that’s a red line you’re crossing, and my calculus is going to change.” They hit the bystander. You step up to them and raise your bat. They scramble to confer with their people. They say, “wait wait wait, the bat is yours if you don’t hit.” And then you take their bat and burn it.

202

[quote]pat wrote:

I’d like it noted that you have insulted me and disparaged me multiple times, repeatedly and I have not returned in kind once.[/quote]

I have not made any factual error and then refused to acknowledge that error, so you have no equivalent charge to bring. I am not insulting you–I’m not calling you fat or retarded or any of the other actual insults that we see tossed around PWI from time to time. I am criticizing your behavior in this thread, and I am doing it with simple documentation. I have posted the relevant excerpts–excerpts wherein you made ludicrous claims that you could not have made if you had been even moderately informed on the topic at hand and that betray a fundamental and inexcusable ignorance of a matter on which you were loudly and confidently attempting to opine. I am more than willing to post these excerpts again for your convenience.

203

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]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.[/quote]

You can try as you might. They were not the same, they were different. Different threats issued at different times for different reasons. It was not tied together, except that they had made a fool of him by using them with a looming empty threat hanging over their heads. Had obama insisted that Syria not use and turn over there chemical weapons, then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. The fact that they used them in spite of the threat shows they have no regard or fear of the American threat.

Despite all of that, and the multiple failures in Syria and Iraq, the reserves have been called up and leaves cancelled in my area. War is looking more and more imminent because he was unwilling to do what it took to keep the peace.

[/quote]

You are arguing from intuition (as opposed to structured reasoning). This isn’t an attack upon your intellect, but rather upon your method. As SMH stated earlier, you are indeed attempting to play tennis without a racket. You began the Syria argument with little to no understanding of basic international relations, much less contextual knowledge of the Syrian chemical disarmament deal.

One of your glaring errors throughout this argument has been your muddled understanding of the employment of force in world politics. While the reasons actors employ force are myriad, producing such a list would be far too descriptive and provide little analytical utility. Instead, four general categories encompassing all of these provide a valuable conceptual framework. These include defense, deterrence, compellence, and swaggering.

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.[/quote]

Read this:

[/quote]

A rag of an op-ed. Which demonstrates what, exactly? Don’t slap up an opinion piece which mirrors your own. Address the specific assertations I made into post. [/quote]

But that’s hard![/quote]

Indeed, especially when it concerns extremely complex high politics. You must have the patience of a Buddhist monk given the facts you’ve argued ad nauseam. [/quote]

same could be said of the facts you’ve argued.

“The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.[1][2] Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3]”

to say that chemical weapons should not be classified as weapons of mass destruction because they do not kill enough people is a nonsense statement by the statistics stated above.

By the same logic nuclear arms should not be classified as weapons of mass destruction because firebombings caused more deaths and destruction.

What how would you classify a neutron bomb? It only kills people and does not destroy buildings. So according to your logic, or lack thereof, it would not be classified as a weapon of mass destruction, well, because it doesn’t cause enough destruction, correct?

And how could you possibly classify a biologic weapon as a weapon of mass destruction? Was biological warfare even successfully used in the 20th-21st Century to even classify it?

[/quote]

Again, refer to my criticism of the term WMD itself. Conventional munitions would have inflicted greater casualties than their chemical counterparts. Chemical weapons are effective tools for psychological operations, but there are more effective and less costly weapons in a state’s conventional arsenal. Is it more effective and efficient to impale your enemies than to simply kill them with infantry weapons? The answer is decidedly no, but the horrific and unconventional manner in which they are killed serves as a powerful message to potential adversaries. Like Vlad the impaler, Saddam Hussein understood this when he utilized chemical weapons in Halabja.

204

[quote]pat wrote:
you simply miss the fact that the deterrent didn’t work[/quote]

As has been explained to you multiple times, nobody is claiming that Ghouta didn’t happen.

Deterrence–a term you seem to have learned yesterday, from Bismark–doesn’t work all the time. Threats are ignored, and ignorance of them is a question that is largely outside of American control. I have explained again and again and again to you that these are bi-and-multi-polar processes, and even weak actors have more control over their immediate actions than do the strongest superpowers. See Iran and N. Korea and Iraq. See the Melians–Thucydides had this figured out 2,500 years ago, and yet it is still finding a way to evade you.

I addressed all of this already, but you let it pass you by because you have been over your head by a few miles throughout this debate and you have not engaged on any of the substance. Assad’s stupid decision to ignore American threats does not stand as evidence of any American mishandling. Obama’s responses to the circumstances present at each step of the decision-making process were rational and sought the alternative of greatest benefit to American security and international interests, with the ultimate result that he compelled the surrender of the weapons in question under the threat of force. When you tried to identify an irrational decision on Obama’s part and offer an alternative–which is something you should have done before deciding to criticize anybody for anything–you came up with literally nothing, as expected. Again and for the last time, you do not have a case.

Edited

205

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
He thinks I am right. I know I am.
[/quote]

He makes no argument whatsoever. He throws a single sentence in about the “red line,” pushing the same facile nonsense I’ve been pulling apart easily for a week now.

As for you being right: For reasons that have been painstakingly explained to you, you are not right, and, in fact, you do not even understand the facts of the situation to such an extent as might have allowed you to be right. You literally did not have the bare-bones “this is what happened” grasp of reality before you formed your opinion, and you proved this to me and everybody else with your own evidence and in your own words. And two of the better posters on international relations, one of whom is in almost every other instance my political and philosophical antipode, have weighed in and confirmed that you are not right. In case you’re wondering: Yes, it is legitimate to appeal to the people when “the people” A] Have followed along in the debate and read the specific arguments constituting it, and B] understand the relevant points and questions much better than the debater to whom the appeal is addressed.

So, you don’t get paid enough and neither do I. And I don’t enjoy debate that is not honest (this debate has been about as honest as a 60’s-era cigarette ad). And for all the words exchanged, there has been just about no engagement on the facts. Now it seems that we’ve entered the phase wherein you Google “Obama + Syria + Failure” and link to whatever unevidenced, flimsy, and/or tangential op-ed or article you can find, tossing other people’s badly-argued throwaway lines up in the hopes that they will stick. The point of contention between you and I is this:

[quote]

This is the timeline of relevant events. I contend that the rational and correct choice was made at each step along the way, and that the greatest possible benefit to American security and international interest was pursued and acquired with each new development. You contend that the situation was somehow mishandled by the Obama administration. Because they are reactionary and at the very least bipolar, diplomatic efforts like the one under present consideration are judged according to which choices were made under which circumstances. That is, we judge a side with regard to what it could control and how it used what it could control to pursue and win benefit: Its decisions, step by step, and the alternative decisions available to it.

So, go ahead. Choose a decision from that timeline and say which alternative choice Obama and his people should have made, and why, and how things would have turned out differently, and how this different result would have entailed greater benefit to American security interests. This is the necessary implication of your criticism: That something should have been done differently by the Obama administration given the circumstances at that point in time. So go for it: Which step, and why?[/quote]

If you want to answer the question, take your time and come up with an answer. If you will not or cannot point to a particular, specific point in that timeline at which an alternative choice was more rational and stood a reasonable chance of better serving American interests than the choice made by the Obama administration, then you do not have an argument to make and this debate should end abruptly.[/quote]

It’s painfully simple. Obama drew this ‘red line’ as a deterrent to use chemical weapons. Assad used chemical weapons anyway. The deterrent did not work and hence was a failure. What is so complicated about that? A deterrent was issued and it did not work.
What happened after that was just a bunch of posturing and face saving maneuvers which you bought into hook, line and sinker.

What should he have done differently in this case? Not issue the red line. Or he could have issued the the disarmament threat before Assad used them.
He could have issued a ‘no fly zone’ early on. He could have backed the rebels before they got overrun by terrorists. Or instead of pretending he cared, he could have simply declared neutrality wished them all the best of luck. Any of those would have been better than what he did.[/quote]

You adopted my use of deterrence but continue to ignore the successful act of peaceful compellence that followed its violation, which is decidedly more difficult to achieve. Power is when state A makes state B do something it otherwise would not have done (or vice versa). The Assad regime’s relinquishment of its chemical weapons arsenal is just that.

Was the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal an undeniable diplomatic and strategic victory for US foreign policy toward Syria, or not? I don’t want you to respond with the state of Syria as a whole, which only God himself could have prevented. [/quote]

And how do we know that Assad has relinquished all of his chemical arsonal? Because he said so? He didn’t admit he had them until he used them. Now we are supposed to trust that he turned them all in?

Here’s what we have so far:

  • Obama issues ‘red line’ threat on the use of chemical weapons.
  • Assad uses chemical weapons.
  • Obama issues another threat if Syria does not turn over all it’s chemical weapons in a week.
  • Russia responds asking us to hold off while it negotiates.
  • Syria provides list of chemical weapons cache.
  • Those listed weapons are dismantled.
  • Syria devolves into utter chaos.
  • Syria becomes a safe haven for terrorists
  • Civil war rages on in Syria claiming 150,000 lives and displacing 7 million more.
  • A third of the country is now controlled by IS and has moved it’s activities in to Iraq
  • We are now close to war.

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it. This whole thing was a side show and did nothing to stem the violence in the region that is destabilizing the entire region. The disarmament did not help one iota, the larger problem. We had chances to stem the violence and did nothing. A destabilized Syria is a huge problem for the security of the U.S.
Where is the victory here?
As stated before, many times, the ‘red line’ was only one of many failures with regards to the Syrian problem.
And it is a failure. If you issue a deterrent and the deterrent is breached, that constitutes a failure. You don’t have to look further than that.
Again, so what if Assad gave up “some” of it’s chemical weapons? If anything, that was a failure as well. Not because they gave up chemical weapons, but that it gave them time to regroup and rearm with the help of Russia who is backing Assad.

Assad got away with using chemical weapons and his punishment was to exchange them for conventional weapons. I suppose that’s better. Or really it’s not.

206

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I’d like it noted that you have insulted me and disparaged me multiple times, repeatedly and I have not returned in kind once.[/quote]

I have not made any factual error and then refused to acknowledge that error, so you have no equivalent charge to bring. I am not insulting you–I’m not calling you fat or retarded or any of the other actual insults that we see tossed around PWI from time to time. I am criticizing your behavior in this thread, and I am doing it with simple documentation. I have posted the relevant excerpts–excerpts wherein you made ludicrous claims that you could not have made if you had been even moderately informed on the topic at hand and that betray a fundamental and inexcusable ignorance of a matter on which you were loudly and confidently attempting to opine. I am more than willing to post these excerpts again for your convenience.[/quote]

Your falsely accusing me of being dishonest. That’s not very nice.
Don’t act like it was justified, it was petty.

207

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
you simply miss the fact that the deterrent didn’t work[/quote]

As has been explained to you multiple times, nobody is claiming that Ghouta didn’t happen.

Deterrence–a term you seem to have learned yesterday, from Bismark–doesn’t work all the time. Threats are ignored, and ignorance of them is a question that is largely outside of American control. I have explained again and again and again to you that these are bi-and-multi-polar processes, and even weak actors have more control over their immediate actions than do the strongest superpowers. See Iran and N. Korea and Iraq. See the Melians–Thucydides had this figured out 2,500 years ago, and yet it is still finding a way to evade you.

I addressed all of this already, but you let it pass you by because you have been over your head by a few miles throughout this debate and you have not engaged on any of the substance. Assad’s stupid decision to ignore American threats does not stand as evidence of any American mishandling. Obama’s responses to the circumstances present at each step of the decision-making process were rational and sought the alternative of greatest benefit to American security and international interests, with the ultimate result that he compelled the surrender of the weapons in question under the threat of force. When you tried to identify an irrational decision on Obama’s part and offer an alternative–which is something you should have done before deciding to criticize anybody for anything–you came up with literally nothing, as expected. Again and for the last time, you do not have a case.

Edited[/quote]

It IS evidence of American mishandling. It did nothing, nada, to stem the tide of violence, stabilize the situation, or brings any terms of peace to the situation. In other words it did nothing.
Assad came out of this smelling like a rose. We called for his ouster, yet did nothing to assist. Now the opposition has been overrun with terrorist. We oust him now, we have an al qaeda run nation.
Nothing about depriving Syria of some chemical munitions can be constituted as a success.
It’s so bad now, we’re better off with Assad at the helm.

208

[quote]pat wrote:

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it.
[/quote]

You keep saying this. The OPCW vetted the disclosure lists in person, but, more importantly, U.S. intelligence confirmed the estimates before the agreement was even drafted. One of the fortunate surprises in the run-up to the agreement was that U.S. and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of the Syrian chemical arsenal. But you didn’t know any of this, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.

Edited

209

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
you simply miss the fact that the deterrent didn’t work[/quote]

As has been explained to you multiple times, nobody is claiming that Ghouta didn’t happen.

Deterrence–a term you seem to have learned yesterday, from Bismark–doesn’t work all the time. Threats are ignored, and ignorance of them is a question that is largely outside of American control. I have explained again and again and again to you that these are bi-and-multi-polar processes, and even weak actors have more control over their immediate actions than do the strongest superpowers. See Iran and N. Korea and Iraq. See the Melians–Thucydides had this figured out 2,500 years ago, and yet it is still finding a way to evade you.

I addressed all of this already, but you let it pass you by because you have been over your head by a few miles throughout this debate and you have not engaged on any of the substance. Assad’s stupid decision to ignore American threats does not stand as evidence of any American mishandling. Obama’s responses to the circumstances present at each step of the decision-making process were rational and sought the alternative of greatest benefit to American security and international interests, with the ultimate result that he compelled the surrender of the weapons in question under the threat of force. When you tried to identify an irrational decision on Obama’s part and offer an alternative–which is something you should have done before deciding to criticize anybody for anything–you came up with literally nothing, as expected. Again and for the last time, you do not have a case.

Edited[/quote]

It IS evidence of American mishandling. It did nothing, nada, to stem the tide of violence, stabilize the situation, or brings any terms of peace to the situation. In other words it did nothing.
Assad came out of this smelling like a rose. We called for his ouster, yet did nothing to assist. Now the opposition has been overrun with terrorist. We oust him now, we have an al qaeda run nation.
Nothing about depriving Syria of some chemical munitions can be constituted as a success.
It’s so bad now, we’re better off with Assad at the helm. [/quote]

And yet this discussion is, and has been since the first post, entirely and only related to the question of chemical weapons and the “red line.” Again, your inability to think critically and specifically about critical and specific points is causing you problems, forcing you to post this rambling, scattered, addled mishmash of entangled conjecture, misinterpretation, and penumbra.

210

[quote]pat wrote:

Your falsely accusing me of being dishonest. That’s not very nice.
Don’t act like it was justified, it was petty.[/quote]

[Emphasis mine. One excerpt among many, but all I really need.]

[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]

211

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
you simply miss the fact that the deterrent didn’t work[/quote]

As has been explained to you multiple times, nobody is claiming that Ghouta didn’t happen.

Deterrence–a term you seem to have learned yesterday, from Bismark–doesn’t work all the time. Threats are ignored, and ignorance of them is a question that is largely outside of American control. I have explained again and again and again to you that these are bi-and-multi-polar processes, and even weak actors have more control over their immediate actions than do the strongest superpowers. See Iran and N. Korea and Iraq. See the Melians–Thucydides had this figured out 2,500 years ago, and yet it is still finding a way to evade you.

I addressed all of this already, but you let it pass you by because you have been over your head by a few miles throughout this debate and you have not engaged on any of the substance. Assad’s stupid decision to ignore American threats does not stand as evidence of any American mishandling. Obama’s responses to the circumstances present at each step of the decision-making process were rational and sought the alternative of greatest benefit to American security and international interests, with the ultimate result that he compelled the surrender of the weapons in question under the threat of force. When you tried to identify an irrational decision on Obama’s part and offer an alternative–which is something you should have done before deciding to criticize anybody for anything–you came up with literally nothing, as expected. Again and for the last time, you do not have a case.

Edited[/quote]

It IS evidence of American mishandling. It did nothing, nada, to stem the tide of violence, stabilize the situation, or brings any terms of peace to the situation. In other words it did nothing.
Assad came out of this smelling like a rose. We called for his ouster, yet did nothing to assist. Now the opposition has been overrun with terrorist. We oust him now, we have an al qaeda run nation.
Nothing about depriving Syria of some chemical munitions can be constituted as a success.
It’s so bad now, we’re better off with Assad at the helm. [/quote]

And yet this discussion is, and has been since the first post, entirely and only related to the question of chemical weapons and the “red line.” Again, your inability to think critically and specifically about critical and specific points is causing you problems, forcing you to post this rambling, scattered, addled mishmash of entangled conjecture, misinterpretation, and penumbra. [/quote]

No, that was your sole focus not mine. See page 2:

Smh:
Are you referring to this “red line” we’ve heard so much about? Or is this about ISIS? If the former, I hear that the Finns are unloading some cargo of interesting origin in Hamina as I write this.

pat:
The ‘red line’ was one of many failures in Syria. Ignoring it in the first place was the biggest failure. We’re only seeing the very first implications of letting that situation go to hell.

YOU focused on the ‘red line’, it was never my sole focus.

212

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your falsely accusing me of being dishonest. That’s not very nice.
Don’t act like it was justified, it was petty.[/quote]

[Emphasis mine. One excerpt among many, but all I really need.]

[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]

[/quote]

I was being deliberately dismissive, what’s the problem?

213

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it.
[/quote]

You keep saying this. The OPCW vetted the disclosure lists in person, but, more importantly, U.S. intelligence confirmed the estimates before the agreement was even drafted. One of the fortunate surprises in the run-up to the agreement was that U.S. and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of the Syrian chemical arsenal. But you didn’t know any of this, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.

Edited[/quote]

Oh, so you’re contending that you know they gave all of the chemical weapons up. Nobody else in the world would make that definitive statement. Nobody knows, there is no way to verify.

214

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your falsely accusing me of being dishonest. That’s not very nice.
Don’t act like it was justified, it was petty.[/quote]

[Emphasis mine. One excerpt among many, but all I really need.]

[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]

[/quote]

I was being deliberately dismissive, what’s the problem?[/quote]

What?

Deliberately dismissive?

What are you talking about?

So you knew that the Syrian government could not have used all of their chemical stockpile up, but you still wrote, and I quote, “Maybe they used all [the chemical weapons] they had”? Am I reading you correctly? And this is chalked up to being “deliberately dismissive?” What exactly is entailed by that?

“Well, when I said I hadn’t had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, I was just being deliberately dismissive.”

215

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it.
[/quote]

You keep saying this. The OPCW vetted the disclosure lists in person, but, more importantly, U.S. intelligence confirmed the estimates before the agreement was even drafted. One of the fortunate surprises in the run-up to the agreement was that U.S. and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of the Syrian chemical arsenal. But you didn’t know any of this, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.

Edited[/quote]

Oh, so you’re contending that you know they gave all of the chemical weapons up. Nobody else in the world would make that definitive statement. Nobody knows, there is no way to verify.[/quote]

Nope, I’m not contending that at all. Follow along.

[quote]
Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.[/quote]

But, again, you didn’t know that the list had been verified against CIA estimates and also by the OPCW, because you don’t have the basic facts of the case.

216

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your falsely accusing me of being dishonest. That’s not very nice.
Don’t act like it was justified, it was petty.[/quote]

[Emphasis mine. One excerpt among many, but all I really need.]

[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not [the Syrians] gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had. Initially they said they didn’t have any, so I don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia.
[/quote]

[/quote]

I was being deliberately dismissive, what’s the problem?[/quote]

What?

Deliberately dismissive?

What are you talking about?

So you knew that the Syrian government could not have used all of their chemical stockpile up, but you still wrote, and I quote, “Maybe they used all [the chemical weapons] they had”? Am I reading you correctly? And this is chalked up to being “deliberately dismissive?” What exactly is entailed by that?

“Well, when I said I hadn’t had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, I was just being deliberately dismissive.”
[/quote]

Yes, deliberately dismissive. Of course I knew they didn’t use their stock pile up. But hey if you need to tear me down to feel better about yourself, over petty off hand cheeky comments, go nuts.
My point in that post was that it didn’t matter what happened after because they had already used the chemical weapons more than once. Get it? Probably not.

217

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it.
[/quote]

You keep saying this. The OPCW vetted the disclosure lists in person, but, more importantly, U.S. intelligence confirmed the estimates before the agreement was even drafted. One of the fortunate surprises in the run-up to the agreement was that U.S. and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of the Syrian chemical arsenal. But you didn’t know any of this, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.

Edited[/quote]

Oh, so you’re contending that you know they gave all of the chemical weapons up. Nobody else in the world would make that definitive statement. Nobody knows, there is no way to verify.[/quote]

Nope, I’m not contending that at all. Follow along.

[quote]
Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.[/quote]

But, again, you didn’t know that the list had been verified against CIA estimates and also by the OPCW, because you don’t have the basic facts of the case.[/quote]

So? What’s your point? So you believe they got them all? Okay, good for you. And how has that panned out for the Syrian problem over all?
Not good. Oh, but it’s far from the worst case scenario, right? I suppose everybody could be dead.

218

[quote]pat wrote:
Yes, deliberately dismissive. Of course I knew they didn’t use their stock pile up.[/quote]

But you wrote the opposite. Just typed it with a string of other points that were not sarcastic and that you were actually offering as fact. That’s weird.

[quote]
My point in that post was that it didn’t matter what happened after because they had already used the chemical weapons more than once. Get it? Probably not.[/quote]

No, I don’t get it, because you literally typed “maybe they used all they had,” which has nothing to do with “it didn’t matter what happened after because they had already used the chemical weapons more than once.” Literally nothing.

And then you claimed that the Syrians were giving their stockpile to Russia. Why? Deliberate dismissiveness again?

And then you claimed that the deal had nothing to do with the threat of American strikes. Deliberate dismissiveness yet again?

219

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it.
[/quote]

You keep saying this. The OPCW vetted the disclosure lists in person, but, more importantly, U.S. intelligence confirmed the estimates before the agreement was even drafted. One of the fortunate surprises in the run-up to the agreement was that U.S. and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of the Syrian chemical arsenal. But you didn’t know any of this, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.

Edited[/quote]

Oh, so you’re contending that you know they gave all of the chemical weapons up. Nobody else in the world would make that definitive statement. Nobody knows, there is no way to verify.[/quote]

Nope, I’m not contending that at all. Follow along.

[quote]
Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.[/quote]

But, again, you didn’t know that the list had been verified against CIA estimates and also by the OPCW, because you don’t have the basic facts of the case.[/quote]

So? What’s your point? So you believe they got them all? [/quote]

The point is right there for you to read. A third time:

[quote]
If you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons…until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude[/quote]

My point is that your preternaturally ignorant estimation is inferior to the CIA’s estimation until you can bolster your claim with evidence, which you don’t seem interested in, or capable of, doing.

My larger point is that you seem to be getting worse at this whole argument/debate thing as time goes on. Which is fairly remarkable.

220

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

We do not know if Assad gave up all it’s chemical weapons, chances aren’t good since we are taking Assad’s word for it.
[/quote]

You keep saying this. The OPCW vetted the disclosure lists in person, but, more importantly, U.S. intelligence confirmed the estimates before the agreement was even drafted. One of the fortunate surprises in the run-up to the agreement was that U.S. and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of the Syrian chemical arsenal. But you didn’t know any of this, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, if you want to argue that the deal wasn’t any good because Assad still has weapons, offer evidence that Assad still has weapons. “We jist don’t know” doesn’t cut it, because until you can offer evidence of your doubt, the CIA’s estimates carry more weight than your speculation by a factor of astronomical magnitude.

Edited[/quote]

Is this the same US intelligence that stated there were WMD’s in Iraq?