[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And it’s not as if there aren’t real foreign policy fuck ups of Obama to discuss.[/quote]
then how in holy hell did we get hung up on this ONE for 12 pages?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And it’s not as if there aren’t real foreign policy fuck ups of Obama to discuss.[/quote]
then how in holy hell did we get hung up on this ONE for 12 pages?[/quote]
Egos were at stake.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And it’s not as if there aren’t real foreign policy fuck ups of Obama to discuss.[/quote]
then how in holy hell did we get hung up on this ONE for 12 pages?[/quote]
Egos were at stake.[/quote]
Sooooo, what other fuck ups can you mention. He killed Osama, Gadaffi, the Egyptian revolution and the Generals kicking out the Muslim Brotherhood, killed Anwar Awlaki, won a Nobel Peace Prize, I mean if you’re going to let Syria and Iraq slide, nothing else looks too bad.
[quote]anonym wrote:
smh,
I like the cut of your jib. Always a pleasure to read your contributions.[/quote]
Thank you sir, that’s very kind of you.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Sooooo, what other fuck ups can you mention.
[/quote]
I’ve been through them all many times. Obama’s foreign policy is an absolute fucking disaster. The havoc that this man is wreaking on the American people and her allies is literally unparalleled in history. Unfortunately only a tiny percentage of “the people” actually follow foreign policy events. The rest are fixated on things like gay marriage and Kim Kardashian - is she pregnant? Is she not pregnant? Has she put on weight? Has she not put on weight? It’s going to take another 911 for people to wake up and realise that the ship of state is being steered by a maniac.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I have posted Obama’s precise words a couple of times over the last few pages. If you care to reference them, you will notice that they contain no specific promise of any attack. They reference a “red line” and promise a “change [in] calculus.” On the technical end of things (which doesn’t really matter much one way or another), there are a variety of possibilities that can be entailed by a “change [in] calculus,” and among them is most certainly the dispossession of a chemical weapons arsenal under the direct threat of force. It is a punishment, and it contains within it the unanimous acknowledgement that the threat-maker is willing to use force.
Put more simply, the deal materialized in response to U.S. preparations to attack. It is direct evidence that both Russia and Syria believed that Obama was moving to launch a punitive military strike–that the threat was working its way through the system.
Much more important is what happened next. The taking of the deal was the rational choice given those circumstances at that point in time. It represented a concrete victory and the removal of a real threat to international stability, at no U.S. cost. I have been hammering away about rational decision-making and cost-benefit ratios because they are by far the best way to judge these things. The alternative to the deal–to refuse the surrender of the stockpile and go ahead with the punitive airstrikes–was an irrational choice. It would have accomplished next to nothing relative to its alternative, it would have entailed substantially more risk, and it would have meant the conscious decision to say “no thanks” to an offer that would dispossess a Jihadist haven of 1000 tons of nerve and blister agents.
It is foolish, then, to build a simplistic-to-the-point-of-perfidy timeline that goes like this: “Obama said don’t, they did, and then Obama didn’t strike.” It ignores the sequence of decisions that actually constitutes international diplomacy, and it tacitly advocates for a ludicrously irrational alternative series of events wherein the lesser–and I mean really the lesser–of two mutually exclusive options would have been elected and executed, to measurable detriment to American security interests.
Now, do I care that Assad used the weapons, on a personal level? Of course. I am not some kind of monster. But, as I’ve said a few times throughout this thread, foreign affairs can be a callous proposition. American military and intelligence officials are not losing sleep over dead Syrian civilians. But you can bet that they do a lot of thinking about chemical weapons arsenals in failing states.
Edited
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And it’s not as if there aren’t real foreign policy fuck ups of Obama to discuss.[/quote]
then how in holy hell did we get hung up on this ONE for 12 pages?[/quote]
Egos were at stake.[/quote]
One dreadfully inflated one at least.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
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]
Peaceful compellence was achieved and was preferable to physical compellence. I have stated this multiple times.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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]
The Ukraine.
[/quote]
No definite article precedes Ukraine. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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]
A little too late, I’m afraid…
[/quote]
Again, international relations is not a realm for the faint of heart, but for rational egoism. Interpersonal ethics cannot be cogently applied to global politics.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And it’s not as if there aren’t real foreign policy fuck ups of Obama to discuss.[/quote]
then how in holy hell did we get hung up on this ONE for 12 pages?[/quote]
Egos were at stake.[/quote]
One dreadfully inflated one at least.[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that. Pat is a good poster and seems like a good guy. I just happen to disagree with him on this one.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
No definite article precedes Ukraine. Sorry, couldn’t resist.[/quote]
Only for the last 20 years. And it’s still used in German, Italian and French.
Question: when you speak disparagingly about the masses, do you refer to them as hoi polloi or the hoi polloi?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[/quote]
No definite article precedes Ukraine. Sorry, couldn’t resist.[/quote]
What? Are you an English teacher? Who cares?
What’s the matter? Don’t you know what a direct question is or are you afraid to answer one?
All you can do is complain about sentence structure? Nice. What’s next? Hitler and the Nazis?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[/quote]
No definite article precedes Ukraine. Sorry, couldn’t resist.[/quote]
What? Are you an English teacher? Who cares?
What’s the matter? Don’t you know what a direct question is or are you afraid to answer one?
All you can do is complain about sentence structure? Nice. What’s next? Hitler and the Nazis?
[/quote]
I’ve answered several to no avail. I must be writing in invisible ink.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Pat is a good poster[/quote]
I think that if I tried my hand at the intellectual dishonesty that was so often and so plainly offered by Pat over the course of this thread, I would be swarmed by jagged teeth and torn to gory pieces. It is not rare at all that two people disagree here, and it is not rare that their debate turns hot or stern–but real dishonesty is actually relatively uncommon, particularly among people who come here often.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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]
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.[/quote]
Is the above not referring to the crisis in Ukraine?
[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]
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.
[/quote]
This. The conduct of foreign affairs should be an inflexible and uninformed endeavor, ignorant of changing circumstances and and new strategic opportunities.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[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]
Iran seeks the bomb to enhance its prestige and serve as a deterrent against regime change.
As far as chlorine gas goes, refer to Sexmachine’s excellent post regarding their ubiquity and lack of efficacy.
Chemical weapons were the most valuable in the Syrian arsenal? What empirical evidence are you bashing that statement upon? The fact that they were relinquished in lieu of having valuable conventional weapon systems targeted by American air strikes is quite telling of Syrian strategic thinking.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
No definite article precedes Ukraine. Sorry, couldn’t resist.[/quote]
Only for the last 20 years. And it’s still used in German, Italian and French.
Question: when you speak disparagingly about the masses, do you refer to them as hoi polloi or the hoi polloi?[/quote]
Ja ja, es ist die Ukraine aus Deutsch. Ich weiss es.
However, being referred to as “the borderlands” didn’t reek of sovereignty to the framers of the Ukrainian constitution.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
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]
Peaceful compellence was achieved and was preferable to physical compellence. I have stated this multiple times, yet you continue to circumvent this.