Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]cwill1973 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]

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

And that figured out where OBL lived, yeah.

You can either cast doubt on the estimates or you cannot argue that Assad still has chemical weapons. I can cast doubt on much pre-Iraq intelligence by citing documentary evidence which refutes much of it (and, much more importantly, derides the way in which the evidence was twisted and presented and selectively chosen). Until you can do the same here, you have no case.

You can present evidence that Assad remains in possession of chemical weapons, or you cannot use such an argument as evidence of the Syrian deal’s inadvisability, because so long as you are just some guy entering his utterly uninformed conjecture into a keyboard, the CIA’s estimation and the OPCW’s verification and vetting processes best you 10 times out of 10.

222

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I really didn’t think it was that big a deal. I wrote that in the same tone as if I would have said: Maybe they used them all, maybe they sent them to Mars, maybe they brush their teeth with Sarin gas because they think it prevents cavities. ← I.E. I was saying what happened next didn’t matter because it was too little too late. That was the point.
I sense you will take any opportunity to level a personal attack.

223

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Was the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal a undeniable diplomatic and strategic victory for US foreign policy toward Syria, or not? [/quote]

Maybe. But don’t get too carried away. Finding a cherry in the pile of dog shit that is Obama’s foreign policy does not make it an ice cream sundae.[/quote]

How many chemical weapons have been destroyed to date? Last time I checked very few.

224

[quote]pat wrote:
I really didn’t think it was that big a deal. I wrote that in the same tone as if I would have said: Maybe they used them all, maybe they sent them to Mars, maybe they brush their teeth with Sarin gas because they think it prevents cavities. ← I.E. I was saying what happened next didn’t matter because it was too little too late. That was the point.
I sense you will take any opportunity to level a personal attack.[/quote]

Here is the quote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Well considering the ‘red line’ existed to prevent the use of chemical weapons and the Assad regime did in fact use said chemical weapons the ‘red line’ was a failure.
And we have no way to verify whether or not the 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.
That’s not the only failure.
We have the ‘no-fly’ zone failure. We have the failure to back the moderate opposition until the moderates were over run by radicals, so there are no longer any ‘good guys’ in Syria to back.
Our hands off policy paid off. It gave Al Qaeda and its counter parts a safe place to retool, regroup and become stronger, which gave rise to ISIS. When then took over parts of Syria and Iraq, which put us in a crisis in Iraq which puts us on the brink of war.
I am not sure how you can spin that into success but I am sure you’ll find something.[/quote]

There is nothing sarcastic about that line, surrounded by actual arguments you were trying to make and serving no purpose and no point as sarcasm. “Our hands off policy paid off” is sarcasm–it is clearly the opposite of what you’re arguing, it functions in an obvious sarcastic capacity to highlight the extent to which you think our hands off policy didn’t in fact pay off, and it is directly followed by a list of evidence in literal contradiction of it. This is clear sarcasm. By contrast, the line about Assad having used his stockpile is not sarcasm and betrays nothing but ignorance.

And then you went on to claim that Syria was giving its stockpile to Russia, and that the CWC deal had nothing to do with the threat of American force. Your squirming here is embarrassing and telling all at once.

Edited

225

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Risk reward. You proposed a solution with biblical shitloads of risk, and essentially no reward. Obama took a solution with no risk and a tangible reward. Again, you offer absolutely no evidence that any decision relating to the question of Syrian chemical weapons was mishandled, and no viable alternative choice that would have represented a better risk/reward ratio. You do not have a case.[/quote]

Obama screwed it up for years to get it into this position. You are now asking someone for a magic solution?

There are many things Obama could have done to prevent the current circumstances. His mistakes are legion. I cannot believe anyone defends him.[/quote]

This is the tail end of a very long argument. Go ahead and read it, and then address a specific point, or don’t. In which case you should find somebody else with whom to exchange vague generalities.

Edited in the name of civility. Hopefully it sticks.[/quote]

Go ahead and insult me, you have before. I skimmed the topic. You are grossly wrong on so many points. As I said, I cannot believe anyone makes a defense of the man.[/quote]

Why is he wrong?

I think he was not trying to insult you, but rather asking for a more substantive post. Saying that he is “grossly wrong on some many Points”( Big Banana ) doesnt make him wrong. So again why is he wrong?
[/quote]

I wish I had the time to dissect things point by point, but unfortunately I do not. My original reason for posting was to question why anyone is defending these failed policies. They were clearly the wrong thing to do at the time and the failed results speak for themselves.

My big question is why defend them? Is it fear of evil Republicans that tricks people into defending bad Democrats and their failed policies?

226

[quote]pat wrote:

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

It doesn’t matter whether it was your “sole focus.” You made a claim about the red line and the question of Syrian chemical weapons, and I took issue with that claim, and I attacked that claim. I signaled to you very clearly that I was challenging your specific misinterpretation of a specific series of events relating to Syria’s chemical weapons. And that’s what I’ve done.

The embarrassing nonsense you’re pushing (“deliberately dismissive”) as a feeble defense of your many errors over the course of this thread is frustrating, but it is a small aside to the primary narrative here, which is that you have not argued anything of substance (and in fact have argued much plain and simple error), you have ignored entire write-ups in favor of regurgitating the simplistic claims in response to which the said write-ups were written in the first place, and you have shown no interest in the principles or process of good argumentation. You seem to believe that you haven’t been beaten if you simply pretend you haven’t been beaten and keep on trucking (a tactic you tried in the Proof of god thread, and only abandoned after having been told that you were wrong by a chorus of intercessors).

I have argued my case to my complete satisfaction, and I assume that you have somehow done the same for yourself. Rather than head around the circle for another revolution, this argument needs to be given the mercy-blow it deserves.

227

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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

It doesn’t matter whether it was your “sole focus.” You made a claim about the red line and the question of Syrian chemical weapons, and I took issue with that claim, and I attacked that claim. I signaled to you very clearly that I was challenging your specific misinterpretation of a specific series of events relating to Syria’s chemical weapons. And that’s what I’ve done.

The embarrassing nonsense you’re pushing (“deliberately dismissive”) as a feeble defense of your many errors over the course of this thread is frustrating, but it is a small aside to the primary narrative here, which is that you have not argued anything of substance (and in fact have argued much plain and simple error), you have ignored entire write-ups in favor of regurgitating the simplistic claims in response to which the said write-ups were written in the first place, and you have shown no interest in the principles or process of good argumentation. You seem to believe that you haven’t been beaten if you simply pretend you haven’t been beaten and keep on trucking (a tactic you tried in the Proof of god thread, and only abandoned after having been told that you were wrong by a chorus of intercessors).

I have argued my case to my complete satisfaction, and I assume that you have somehow done the same for yourself. Rather than head around the circle for another revolution, this argument needs to be given the mercy-blow it deserves.[/quote]

I only need one fact about the ‘red line’. Obama issued a deterrent and that deterrent failed. And nothing you can say or do will change that fact.
The rest is just smoke and mirrors trying to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat.

Further, with all this giving up of chemical weapons, it appears they are still being used…

Oh I know. Chlorine gas isn’t a real chemical weapon. Or other some such nonsense.
So Syria gave up all it’s chemical weapons yet they still are using chemical weapons. Yeah, that worked.

228

[quote]pat wrote:
I only need one fact about the ‘red line’. Obama issued a deterrent and that deterrent failed. And nothing you can say or do will change that fact.
The rest is just smoke and mirrors trying to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat.
[/quote]

I have addressed this more times than I care to remember. I explained why this isn’t a “mishandling.” I explained that deterrence fails regularly, and I gave examples. I explained that the stupid decisions of small tyrants are largely outside of U.S. Control. I laid the facts out carefully, and I evaluated each step in the decision-making process as they should be evaluated–with respect to their cost-benefit ratios and the cost-benefit ratios of alternative options. I made all of this very clear. I challenged you to produce an irrational decision relating to the “red line” and the rational alternative which was overlooked. As anybody could have predicted, you failed to come remotely close to producing a halfway sensible or informed answer.

All along the way, you have ignored entire arguments, opting to stuff your fingers into your ears and repeat a single burst of facile bullshit that has been addressed by me and others far too many times. The line I quoted above was directly addressed more than one time today, but you will not counter counterpoint: You will only regurgitate a single line you cooked up before you knew anything at all about this issue.

And to top all of that off, you came into this discussion spouting egregious error and falsehood–error and falsehood which proved beyond the possibility of doubt that you did not know anything about this matter when you began opining on it–and then you refused to acknowledge your errors despite having been presented with direct evidence of them. And now, after days’ worth of that, you claim that you were being “deliberately dismissive,” whatever that means.

229

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh I know. Chlorine gas isn’t a real chemical weapon. Or other some such nonsense.
So Syria gave up all it’s chemical weapons yet they still are using chemical weapons. Yeah, that worked.
[/quote]

I was wondering if you would discover the allegations of chlorine use at any point in this discussion.

Do you think I want to get into the difference between a banned chemical weapon and one of the most common industrial agents which unfortunately can be used as a chemical weapon?

Do you think I want to have to explain that Syria’s having acceded to the CWC makes it much easier for international regulatory bodies to investigate and deal with allegations of attacks like those at Kafr Zita?

Do you think that I want to have to show that the removal of a thousand tons of nerve gasses and blister agents from a war-torn Jihadist beehive is in concrete service of U.S. domestic and international interest regardless of the possibility that now we’ll have to deal with some common industrial chlorine as well?

Do you think I want to have to go back and prove that you absolutely weren’t talking about chlorine, with its ubiquitous presence as an industrial agent all over the world, when you were speculating that chemical weapons remained in Syria, because, first of all, you were offering specific conjecture related to Syrian deceit and chicanery, which would not have been at all necessary because the CWC does not prohibit chlorine gas itself and the Syrians were thus not obligated to surrender chlorine gas, being as it is a non-banned substance?

Do you think, after this horrid debate, that I want to have to fight those simple points out?

I don’t. At all.

230

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh I know. Chlorine gas isn’t a real chemical weapon. Or other some such nonsense.
So Syria gave up all it’s chemical weapons yet they still are using chemical weapons. Yeah, that worked.
[/quote]

I was wondering if you would discover the allegations of chlorine use at any point in this discussion.

Do you think I want to get into the difference between a banned chemical weapon and one of the most common industrial agents which unfortunately can be used as a chemical weapon?

Do you think I want to have to explain that Syria’s having acceded to the CWC makes it much easier for international regulatory bodies to investigate and deal with allegations of attacks like those at Kafr Zita?

Do you think that I want to have to show that the removal of a thousand tons of nerve gasses and blister agents from a war-torn Jihadist beehive is in concrete service of U.S. domestic and international interest regardless of the possibility that now we’ll have to deal with some common industrial chlorine as well?

Do you think I want to have to go back and prove that you absolutely weren’t talking about chlorine, with its ubiquitous presence as an industrial agent all over the world, when you were speculating that chemical weapons remained in Syria, because, first of all, you were offering specific conjecture related to Syrian deceit and chicanery, which would not have been at all necessary because the CWC does not prohibit chlorine gas itself and the Syrians were thus not obligated to surrender chlorine gas, being as it is a non-banned substance?

Do you think, after this horrid debate, that I want to have to fight those simple points out?

I don’t. At all.[/quote]

You just can’t stand it can you? lol…
We didn’t specify particular chemicals. It doesn’t matter.
So not only did the ‘red line’ fail, but even amongst this ‘disarmament’ ‘vicotry’ Assad not only still had chemical weapons, but also even used them.

So that’s not just a fail, that’s an EPIC FAIL.

Check and mate.

231

[quote]pat wrote:

You just can’t stand it can you? lol…
We didn’t specify particular chemicals. [/quote]

Yes we did. We compelled accession to the CWC and its list of banned chemicals, of which chlorine itself is not a part. There is chlorine gas in use within 50 miles of your house, and almost definitely much, much closer. It is not a banned substance. We specified exactly which chemicals the Syrians were to surrender.

You really have no problem whatsoever with arguing points that you don’t understand and saying things that you’ve just made up.

How many simple, avoidable errors can you make in one thread? How much anal storage capacity do you have?

You’ve got that right. This has been the single worst argument I’ve had around here, and you have committed some of the worst solecisms I’ve ever seen in PWI. You are making things up, claiming error as fact, refusing to engage in actual debate, and refusing to acknowledge your mistakes, even going so far as to explain that you made a bunch of ignorant errors in order to be–and I quote–“deliberately dismissive.”

And here, above, you have once again simply made something up. “We didn’t specify particular chemicals.” I’m beginning to think that you are actually unintelligent, rather than simply dishonest. Never mind the fact that you wrote that piffle without having looked into the matter. Let’s talk common sense. Do you think that we would accept the surrender of a chemical weapons stockpile without a definition for “chemical weapons”? Do you think that we would be party to a weapons convention that did not specify which weapons it was banning? Do you think that this is how the world operates? Do you think that we walk into a room and say, “give up the bad stuff,” and then we just take whatever is presented to us?

Edited

232

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You just can’t stand it can you? lol…
We didn’t specify particular chemicals. [/quote]

Yes we did. We compelled accession to the CWC and its list of banned chemicals, of which chlorine itself is not a part. There is chlorine gas in use within 50 miles of your house, and almost definitely much, much closer. It is not a banned substance. We specified exactly which chemicals the Syrians were to surrender.

You really have no problem whatsoever with arguing points that you don’t understand and saying things that you’ve just made up.

How many simple, avoidable errors can you make in one thread? How much anal storage capacity do you have?

You’ve got that right. This has been the single worst argument I’ve had around here, and you have committed some of the worst solecisms I’ve ever seen in PWI. You are making things up, claiming error as fact, refusing to engage in actual debate, and refusing to acknowledge your mistakes, even going so far as to explain that you made a bunch of ignorant errors in order to be–and I quote–“deliberately dismissive.”

And here, above, you have once again simply made something up. “We didn’t specify particular chemicals.” I’m beginning to think that you are actually unintelligent, rather than simply dishonest. Never mind the fact that you wrote that piffle without having looked into the matter. Let’s talk common sense. Do you think that we would accept the surrender of a chemical weapons stockpile without a definition for “chemical weapons”? Do you think that we would be party to a weapons convention that did not specify which weapons it was banning? Do you think that this is how the world operates? Do you think that we walk into a room and say, “give up the bad stuff,” and then we just take whatever is presented to us?

Edited[/quote]

233

[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? 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.[/quote]

Your solution would fare as badly or worse than the Iraq war. It’s amazing that the same people who support military interventions in this shithole or that one are also the ones who have little to no understanding of international politics and the use of military force itself.

234

That was actually meant to be a gif of approval lol.

235

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
That was actually meant to be a gif of approval lol.[/quote]

Haha I figured that if it was Stephen I was in the clear.

236

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You just can’t stand it can you? lol…
We didn’t specify particular chemicals. [/quote]

Yes we did. We compelled accession to the CWC and its list of banned chemicals, of which chlorine itself is not a part. There is chlorine gas in use within 50 miles of your house, and almost definitely much, much closer. It is not a banned substance. We specified exactly which chemicals the Syrians were to surrender.

You really have no problem whatsoever with arguing points that you don’t understand and saying things that you’ve just made up.

How many simple, avoidable errors can you make in one thread? How much anal storage capacity do you have?

You’ve got that right. This has been the single worst argument I’ve had around here, and you have committed some of the worst solecisms I’ve ever seen in PWI. You are making things up, claiming error as fact, refusing to engage in actual debate, and refusing to acknowledge your mistakes, even going so far as to explain that you made a bunch of ignorant errors in order to be–and I quote–“deliberately dismissive.”

And here, above, you have once again simply made something up. “We didn’t specify particular chemicals.” I’m beginning to think that you are actually unintelligent, rather than simply dishonest. Never mind the fact that you wrote that piffle without having looked into the matter. Let’s talk common sense. Do you think that we would accept the surrender of a chemical weapons stockpile without a definition for “chemical weapons”? Do you think that we would be party to a weapons convention that did not specify which weapons it was banning? Do you think that this is how the world operates? Do you think that we walk into a room and say, “give up the bad stuff,” and then we just take whatever is presented to us?

Edited[/quote]

lol… you mad.

237

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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? 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.[/quote]

Your solution would fare as badly or worse than the Iraq war. It’s amazing that the same people who support military interventions in this shithole or that one are also the ones who have little to no understanding of international politics and the use of military force itself. [/quote]

Uh, what are you talking about? Nothing in this post has anything to do with military intervention.

238

[quote]pat wrote:
lol… you mad.[/quote]

This childish line is quite telling of both your approach to this discussion and your knowledge of the subject, so in some respects it is quite appropriate.

239

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You just can’t stand it can you? lol…
We didn’t specify particular chemicals. [/quote]

Yes we did. We compelled accession to the CWC and its list of banned chemicals, of which chlorine itself is not a part. There is chlorine gas in use within 50 miles of your house, and almost definitely much, much closer. It is not a banned substance. We specified exactly which chemicals the Syrians were to surrender.

You really have no problem whatsoever with arguing points that you don’t understand and saying things that you’ve just made up.

How many simple, avoidable errors can you make in one thread? How much anal storage capacity do you have?

You’ve got that right. This has been the single worst argument I’ve had around here, and you have committed some of the worst solecisms I’ve ever seen in PWI. You are making things up, claiming error as fact, refusing to engage in actual debate, and refusing to acknowledge your mistakes, even going so far as to explain that you made a bunch of ignorant errors in order to be–and I quote–“deliberately dismissive.”

And here, above, you have once again simply made something up. “We didn’t specify particular chemicals.” I’m beginning to think that you are actually unintelligent, rather than simply dishonest. Never mind the fact that you wrote that piffle without having looked into the matter. Let’s talk common sense. Do you think that we would accept the surrender of a chemical weapons stockpile without a definition for “chemical weapons”? Do you think that we would be party to a weapons convention that did not specify which weapons it was banning? Do you think that this is how the world operates? Do you think that we walk into a room and say, “give up the bad stuff,” and then we just take whatever is presented to us?

Edited[/quote]

lol… you mad.[/quote]

I was beginning to think I’d won this debate–nay, I was sure that I’d won it–but then I read this post, this shining three-word thermonuclear bomb of a post, and I’m afraid that it is my duty as a gentleman to admit defeat when it unveils itself and pulls me into its icy embrace. Victory is yours.

240

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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? 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.[/quote]

Your solution would fare as badly or worse than the Iraq war. It’s amazing that the same people who support military interventions in this shithole or that one are also the ones who have little to no understanding of international politics and the use of military force itself. [/quote]

Uh, what are you talking about? Nothing in this post has anything to do with military intervention.[/quote]

“If it were me, the crossing of the red line would have resulted in the targeting of known chemical weapons with missile strikes and the threat of more targeted strikes on the regime if he didn’t turn himself in pronto along with an immediate no-fly zone.”

Again, you have no place discussing the use of military force if you are this naive.