[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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]
possibly it is you who can not think critically, since his posts make perfect sense to me. The same could be said of what you are arguing.
Assad giving up his weapons is meaningless because he already used them. If he felt threatened, he would not have used them. Why do you excuse this action?
Reaqan said Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall and the wall was torn down.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not and we invaded.
Obama told Syria not to use chemical weapons and chemical weapons were used.
Do you at least admit that the threat of a “red line” should not have been used if you were not going to back up your threat if the line was crossed?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Come on? Seriously? Chlorine is available in every supermarket on the planet. A “chlorine bomb” is simply a container of chlorine attached to a conventional explosive as a dispersal mechanism. They’re not even remotely effective. AQ in Iraq detonated a couple then stopped using them because the chlorine caused hardly any casualties compared to the high explosives.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
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. [/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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]
possibly it is you who can not think critically, since his posts make perfect sense to me. The same could be said of what you are arguing.
Assad giving up his weapons is meaningless because he already used them. If he felt threatened, he would not have used them. Why do you excuse this action?
Reaqan said Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall and the wall was torn down.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not and we invaded.
Obama told Syria not to use chemical weapons and chemical weapons were used.
Do you at least admit that the threat of a “red line” should not have been used if you were not going to back up your threat if the line was crossed?[/quote]
Have you not been participating in this debate? You are offering points that I have countered a dozen times in the last day. Your logical framework is facile and your narrative is simplistic and incomplete and I have told you why more times than I care to recall. Address my counterpoints or move on, because I’m not going to keep rebuilding from scratch every time somebody decides to forget the arguments that have been offered to them. If you want to have this discussion, go into the history of this thread and find my many near-identical responses to these exact points you’ve made here and address them in such a way that the argument progresses. I have tired of doing donuts in the local parking lot.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not…[/quote]
Then by pat’s logic and yours this amounts to a failure of foreign policy.[/quote]
Of course it is, because both Bush and Obama were stupid enough not to have availed themselves of the mind-control chamber beneath the White House lawn.
If a president makes a threat, and then that threat is ignored, the president has mishandled the situation.
If the president makes a threat, and then that threat is ignored, and then the actor who ignored the threat is forced to give up something he doesn’t want to give up in order to avoid punishment at the hands of the president’s military, then the president shouldn’t have made the threat in the first place. Never mind that the threat led him to something he wanted, and never mind that acceptance of the offer was the obviously rational choice, and never mind that the compulsion of the offer to surrender amounted to a precise carry-through of the original threat itself.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not and we invaded.
[/quote]
And if Saddam had relented as the American military prepared for an invasion, and rushed to sign an agreement to allow the weapons inspectors in and to allow them to destroy his arsenal, what would Bush’s rational choice have been? What would he have done? Are you starting to get this?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
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. [/quote]
Same could be said of you.
[/quote]
The same could be said of anybody. Whether it would be correct is another matter.
“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. [/quote]
Why not? We use targeted drone strikes in Pakistan against terrorist cells. We targeted a chemical weapons factory in the Sudan. We also had a no-fly zone in effect in both Iraq after Gulf War I and in Libya during the revolution.
Again, your policy subscription would fare as badly or worse than the Iraq war.
[quote]
How so, exactly? Were you against the no-fly zone imposed in Lybia?
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]
What’s your resume regarding international politics and the use of military force? Were you adviser to Jimmy Carter or something?
[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]
Explain how this would not have worked? How could the situation in Syria and Iraq be any worse than it is now? Please tell me. I gotta hear this.
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]
You believe that the situation to be so simple that applying your recommendations would ensure American “victory” in Syria? [/quote]
Please tell us your solution.
Of course Obama was so wise and so strong a ruler that he created a red line knowing it would not be followed, that Syria would totally disregard his warning, then by his great omnipotence, foresaw that the Syrians would be persuaded by the Russians to give up their chemical weapons.
He’s such a great leader it’s unbelievable. How he planned it all out like that! We should all elect him king.
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]
Do you at least admit that the threat of a “red line” should not have been used if you were not going to back up your threat if the line was crossed?[/quote]
Have you not been participating in this debate? You are offering points that I have countered a dozen times in the last day. Your logical framework is facile and your narrative is simplistic and incomplete and I have told you why more times than I care to recall. Address my counterpoints or move on, because I’m not going to keep rebuilding from scratch every time somebody decides to forget the arguments that have been offered to them. If you want to have this discussion, go into the history of this thread and find my many near-identical responses to these exact points you’ve made here and address them in such a way that the argument progresses. I have tired of doing donuts in the local parking lot.
[/quote]
Once again…a direct question ignored. If Obama was not going to back up his threat of Syria crossing the red line, do you think it was wrong of him to draw the line…yes or no.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not…[/quote]
Then by pat’s logic and yours this amounts to a failure of foreign policy.[/quote]
Of course it is, because both Bush and Obama were stupid enough not to have availed themselves of the mind-control chamber beneath the White House lawn.
If a president makes a threat, and then that threat is ignored, the president has mishandled the situation.
If the president makes a threat, and then that threat is ignored, and then the actor who ignored the threat is forced to give up something he doesn’t want to give up in order to avoid punishment at the hands of the president’s military, then the president shouldn’t have made the threat in the first place. Never mind that the threat led him to something he wanted, and never mind that acceptance of the offer was the obviously rational choice, and never mind that the compulsion of the offer to surrender amounted to a precise carry-through of the original threat itself.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not and we invaded.
[/quote]
And if Saddam had relented as the American military prepared for an invasion, and rushed to sign an agreement to allow the weapons inspectors in and to allow them to destroy his arsenal, what would Bush’s rational choice have been? What would he have done? Are you starting to get this?[/quote]
Ok makes sense.
edited:
Only difference is Assad used chemical weapons which, according to Obama’s first calculus formula, should have been grounds for an attack.
So it makes no difference to you whether Assad used the weapons or not? Heeded Obama’s threat or not? The means doesn’t matter, only the ends? I bet Assad’s kicking himself for not using more chemical weapons before eventually surrendering them.
Bush told Saddam that he would invade if weapon expectors were not allowed access to sites. They were not…[/quote]
Then by pat’s logic and yours this amounts to a failure of foreign policy.[/quote]
No, because Bush made good on his threat. Obama did not.[/quote]
The goal? Get Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons. The method? Threat of air strikes. The outcome? Syria relinquishes its chemical weapons. The details are worth discussing. What’s not worth discussing are my first six sentences. You can try to twist a hundred which ways but it’s an exercise in futility. And it’s not as if there aren’t real foreign policy fuck ups of Obama to discuss.