I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
That’s what we should have done in Eastern Europe. Putin, if you don’t “turn yourself in” we’ll bomb Moscow. Report to GITMO at once!
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
If you relax it goes in easier…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think? [/quote]
Is the above not military intervention?
Again, your policy subscription 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. You have written nothing to demonstrate that you do not belong in this category.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
That’s what we should have done in Eastern Europe. Putin, if you don’t “turn yourself in” we’ll bomb Moscow. Report to GITMO at once![/quote]
Hahaha. It’s like a scene from a really dreadful Tom Clancy impersonator’s spy thriller.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
If you relax it goes in easier…[/quote]
The same goes for reading the foundational works of world politics.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[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.[/quote]
How is this pertinent? They are no longer in Syrian possession and are slated to be made harmless.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think? [/quote]
Is the above not military intervention?
Again, your policy subscription 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. You have written nothing to demonstrate that you do not belong in this category. [/quote]
You mean we’d win the war? OK I can live with that result. Thanks.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think? [/quote]
Is the above not military intervention?
Again, your policy subscription 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. You have written nothing to demonstrate that you do not belong in this category. [/quote]
You mean we’d win the war? OK I can live with that result. Thanks.[/quote]
You believe that the situation to be so simple that applying your recommendations would ensure American “victory” in Syria?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think? [/quote]
Is the above not military intervention?
Again, your policy subscription 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. You have written nothing to demonstrate that you do not belong in this category. [/quote]
You mean we’d win the war? OK I can live with that result. Thanks.[/quote]
Ah boy. The unfortunate thing is that you’ve betrayed enough fundamental, crushing ignorance of foreign affairs and international news over the course of the last few days that I’m not entirely sure you don’t actually think that when somebody says that something might go like Iraq, they mean it might go swimmingly.
This debate really didn’t go your way, did it?
I assume that you’re not going to be addressing my last substantive post to you, wherein I identified yet another example of your willingness–or is it eagerness?–to simply make things up. Another egregious error that you will no doubt refuse to acknowledge, as if your silence might soften your defeat.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think? [/quote]
Is the above not military intervention?
Again, your policy subscription 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. You have written nothing to demonstrate that you do not belong in this category. [/quote]
You mean we’d win the war? OK I can live with that result. Thanks.[/quote]
You believe that the situation to be so simple that applying your recommendations would ensure American “victory” in Syria? [/quote]
Well, if you had read the rest of what I had written, I never said that. I said it would at least have slowed the deterioration of the situation in Syria. Given the rebels time to maneuver and gain ground and slow if not stop the influx of terrorists into the region.
Instead we have the worst case scenario. The region is mired in civil war, overrun with terrorists who have now also moved in and taken over a third of Iraq. The worst thing that could have happen did happen.
Aside from all the other nonsense, Assad is still using chemical weapons as recently as April. So clearly they forgot a few.
Playing softball didn’t work and it’s too late to play hardball. The only people we’d be helping now is al qaeda.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I also found this gem of yours while searching Pat
" 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."
[/quote]
Hmmm, found the same “gem” twice did you? Good man.
And who are you that I should care what you think? [/quote]
Is the above not military intervention?
Again, your policy subscription 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. You have written nothing to demonstrate that you do not belong in this category. [/quote]
You mean we’d win the war? OK I can live with that result. Thanks.[/quote]
Ah boy. The unfortunate thing is that you’ve betrayed enough fundamental, crushing ignorance of foreign affairs and international news over the course of the last few days that I’m not entirely sure you don’t actually think that when somebody says that something might go like Iraq, they mean it might go swimmingly.
This debate really didn’t go your way, did it?
I assume that you’re not going to be addressing my last substantive post to you, wherein I identified yet another example of your willingness–or is it eagerness?–to simply make things up. Another egregious error that you will no doubt refuse to acknowledge, as if your silence might soften your defeat.[/quote]
lol
ok,
If it were successful Syria wouldn’t use chemical weapons. Seems kinda obvious to me. You lost.
I think you guys will have to agree to disagree when it comes the nuances of chemical weapons, SOFA, and the like. Can we get back to our beloved Fuhrer? I see he has whittled the employment rate down to nearly 6%. And he dropped gas prices a dime!
[quote]pat wrote:
Addressed many times (not that you have seemed to notice). Nobody has claimed that Ghouta did not happen. But it isn’t evidence of the mishandling that you need to demonstrate in order to win (or to begin to participate in) the debate. That mishandling is a function of the rationality or irrationality of the response to Ghouta. I laid out the decision-making process and assessed each decision many times throughout this thread, and you, of course, were as unable to refute any of it as you were unable to propose a viable alternative choice that would have entailed greater benefit and/or less risk to United States security and interests.
In short, you have not identified an irrational or detrimental decision that Obama made on the subject of Syrian chemical weapons, and you have not come within a hundred million miles of refuting my argument, made several times over the course of this thread, that the rational choice was made at each step of the way.
[quote]
Addressed, again, many times. Russia negotiated with the U.S. after Assad had agreed to the surrender of his chemical stockpile in a bid to avoid a U.S. attack. The Russo-Syrian deal came about in response to an American move to act, and represented a concrete strategic good: The surrender of a stockpile of chemical weapons and the removal of it from a war-torn and unstable country overrun by Islamic extremists.
In compelling the Syrian accession to the CWC under threat of military force, Obama made good on his warning of a red line and a “change [in] calculus”–a change in calculus absolutely being entailed by the act of dispossessing a sovereign state of weapons it would rather keep, under pain of fire coming out of the sky.
[quote]
Again, already addressed. Chlorine is a widely available industrial chemical, and it is not a banned substance under the CWC. There are industrial stores of chlorine near to your house. There is nothing about the possible use of chlorine as a chemical weapon that alters the concrete American interest in dispossessing an unstable country of 1000 tons of actually banned (and much more effective) chemical weapons like Sarin and Mustard.
But of course, and just like so much else we’ve touched on in this argument, you didn’t know any of this. In fact, you went so far as to claim that we did not specify particular chemicals–another egregious falsehood to add to the “deliberately dismissive” claims you made about Assad having used all of his chemical weapons before the deal, Assad having given his stockpile to the Russians, and the weapons deal not having had anything to do with avoidance of forthcoming American military strikes.
And, yet again (not that anybody expected different, at this point), when you were alerted to yet another error resultant from your apparent affinity for simply making shit up, you ignored and ignored and ignored, and refused to acknowledge your obvious mistakes, and tried simply to press forward.
So, to recap, you have not made a hint of a cogent argument, you have ignored every detail of every argument put to you, you have said a staggering number of things that simply weren’t correct, and, in a fit of almost impressively consistent intellectual dishonesty, you have petulantly refused to acknowledge your errors and failings.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Not what I was asking.
So, how many deaths and how much destruction would a weapon have to cause before it is a weapon of mass destruction? You are talking about Obama’s calculus changing when you can not do simple arithmetic. 15000 people were killed or wounded in this attack and it is not a weapon of mass destruction?
I asked you if you consider a nuclear bomb to be considered a weapon of mass destruction, since firebombing caused more deaths. 2 points you have ignored and did not address. You accuse us of not knowing our basic facts, yet when facts are presented, you conveniently ignore them.
1500 dead or wounded…not a weapon of mass destruction? Why not?
How many dead or wounded would it take for a weapon to be considered a weapon of mass destruction?
Why do you agree that nuclear arms are weapons of mass destruction when firebombing caused more deaths in WWII? (I’ll spell it out simply, it is the same analogy as you saying conventional arms cause more deaths then chemical, yet in your opinion 1 is a WOMD and 1 is not, please explain why this is so).
I don’t care about governments using the threat of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction to cause fear and for propaganda. That’s not the point!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
and then they move on and attack another bystander and instead or raising your bat to threaten them, you slap on sanctions. And they laugh at you and mock you and continue to beat the next bystander senseless.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
and then they move on and attack another bystander and instead or raising your bat to threaten them, you slap on sanctions. And they laugh at you and mock you and continue to beat the next bystander senseless.[/quote]
What exactly is the next attack? The chlorine attack?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Smh. I suppose you also believe Iran has only benign peaceful intentions for its nuclear aspirations. The recent reports by on-the-ground medical personnel that Assad is still using crude chlorine bombs would tend to prove he still has chem weapons. Assad knows Obama has no stick to back up his words. Why would he rid himself of all of his most valuable weapons?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Too late, they still hit the bystander. Why would his calculus have to change? The fact that his calculus changed was a sign of weakness.