[quote]Bismark wrote:
Iran seeks the bomb to enhance its prestige and serve as a deterrent against regime change.
[/quote]
Conjecture. Esoteric arguments are fine and well speaking of these things in a university classroom, but I would rather just quote their leaders. These idiots want to nuke Isreal.
Deputy Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said “Iran’s warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map.”
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
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]
I missed this the first time around.
You may suppose whatever you’d like about my opinion of Iran, but your supposition will have nothing to do with my actual opinions and, anyway, will have jack and shit to do with this discussion.
As for chlorine bombs, this has been addressed by at least three separate posters, including me, over the course of this discussion. That you are trying to use Assad’s probable use of chlorine gas as a one-line argument against my detailed posts on the rationality and relative beneficence of the chemical weapons deal is evidence only that you are biased or uninformed. Chlorine gas is a common industrial (and, indeed, domestic) agent and is not itself banned under the CWC to which Syria was compelled to accede in September 2013. Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations. Everything I’ve written here has been in the pages of international news publications for months now.
More generally, here we encounter the problem with the “shoot first, Google a few things later” style of debate. I’m sure you thought you’d found some gleaming secret weapon when you discovered Assad’s use of chlorine gas. But alas.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
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]
I missed this the first time around.
You may suppose whatever you’d like about my opinion of Iran, but your supposition will have nothing to do with my actual opinions and, anyway, will have jack and shit to do with this discussion.
As for chlorine bombs, this has been addressed by at least three separate posters, including me, over the course of this discussion. That you are trying to use Assad’s probable use of chlorine gas as a one-line argument against my detailed posts on the rationality and relative beneficence of the chemical weapons deal is evidence only that you are biased or uninformed. Chlorine gas is a common industrial (and, indeed, domestic) agent and is not itself banned under the CWC to which Syria was compelled to accede in September 2013. Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations. Everything I’ve written here has been in the pages of international news publications for months now.
More generally, here we encounter the problem with the “shoot first, Google a few things later” style of debate. I’m sure you thought you’d found some gleaming secret weapon when you discovered Assad’s use of chlorine gas. But alas.[/quote]
Tell me again why Assad would truly give up all his chemical weapons when he knows Obama will not act when Assad again uses them? If Obama doesn’t act, the rest of the world, perhaps save Israel, will not act. With all the chaos and fighting going on in Syria there is no way in hell any inspectors can claim with certainty they collected all banned chem weapons. Only a naive fool would believe otherwise.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
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]
I missed this the first time around.
You may suppose whatever you’d like about my opinion of Iran, but your supposition will have nothing to do with my actual opinions and, anyway, will have jack and shit to do with this discussion.
As for chlorine bombs, this has been addressed by at least three separate posters, including me, over the course of this discussion. That you are trying to use Assad’s probable use of chlorine gas as a one-line argument against my detailed posts on the rationality and relative beneficence of the chemical weapons deal is evidence only that you are biased or uninformed. Chlorine gas is a common industrial (and, indeed, domestic) agent and is not itself banned under the CWC to which Syria was compelled to accede in September 2013. Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations. Everything I’ve written here has been in the pages of international news publications for months now.
More generally, here we encounter the problem with the “shoot first, Google a few things later” style of debate. I’m sure you thought you’d found some gleaming secret weapon when you discovered Assad’s use of chlorine gas. But alas.[/quote]
Tell me again why Assad would truly give up all his chemical weapons when he knows Obama will not act when Assad again uses them? If Obama doesn’t act, the rest of the world, perhaps save Israel, will not act. With all the chaos and fighting going on in Syria there is no way in hell any inspectors can claim with certainty they collected all banned chem weapons. Only a naive fool would believe otherwise.[/quote]
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.
Tell that to the people who have been injured and killed by chlorine gas attacks which were prohibited by the CWC Syria signed. Most valuable as in most difficult to replenish. Look for other chem weapon usage if the rebels start to gain the upper hand. I hear old Neville could use a few more advisers.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
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]
I missed this the first time around.
You may suppose whatever you’d like about my opinion of Iran, but your supposition will have nothing to do with my actual opinions and, anyway, will have jack and shit to do with this discussion.
As for chlorine bombs, this has been addressed by at least three separate posters, including me, over the course of this discussion. That you are trying to use Assad’s probable use of chlorine gas as a one-line argument against my detailed posts on the rationality and relative beneficence of the chemical weapons deal is evidence only that you are biased or uninformed. Chlorine gas is a common industrial (and, indeed, domestic) agent and is not itself banned under the CWC to which Syria was compelled to accede in September 2013. Its impact on this debate is imperceptible, except insofar as Syria’s having acceded to the CWC, which does ban chlorine’s use as a weapon, makes it much easier for the OPCW to investigate and deal with the allegations. Everything I’ve written here has been in the pages of international news publications for months now.
More generally, here we encounter the problem with the “shoot first, Google a few things later” style of debate. I’m sure you thought you’d found some gleaming secret weapon when you discovered Assad’s use of chlorine gas. But alas.[/quote]
Tell me again why Assad would truly give up all his chemical weapons when he knows Obama will not act when Assad again uses them?[/quote]
Except that this entire discussion is revolving around a series of events the central incident of which involved a Russo-Syrian offer existentially contingent upon the Russo-Syrian belief that Obama was in fact preparing to launch punitive strikes against Assad’s regime in retaliation for its having used chemical weapons at Ghouta. If you take the time to understand this last sentence–and you really should, because it is an entirely uncontroversial account of the bare facts of the matter on which you are presently opining–you cannot in good faith write things like “[Assad] knows Obama will not act.” Do you know what we are talking about here? Do you know the simple facts of the matter?
[quote]
With all the chaos and fighting going on in Syria there is no way in hell any inspectors can claim with certainty they collected all banned chem weapons. Only a naive fool would believe otherwise.[/quote]
Only a naive fool would pretend that there is not some measure of uncertainty built into any deal with any regime on any matter at any time. This does not render diplomacy a fruitless exercise, and it is a conjectural and facile criticism of the deal by which Syria was forced to accede to the CWC. I explained earlier that Assad’s chemical weapons disclosure was checked against CIA estimates, and, one of the surprises of the mid-September talks was that American and Russian intelligence agreed on the size of Assad’s stockpile. Then, after the agreement was hammered out, the OPCW conducted inspections on site. If you would like to argue that the deal was no good because Assad hid chemical weapons from American intelligence and the OPCW, then you need some kind of evidence. Otherwise, your fantastically uninformed speculation carries less weight–“less” is an understatement here–than the estimations of the hundreds of experts who conspired to verify the terms of the deal in the run-up to Syria’s accession to the CWC. All this is not to mention the simple fact that Assad would be taking an enormous risk by holding onto banned chemicals.
And even if Assad managed to hold on to some Sarin, this is a criticism of the deal’s execution more than it is one of its nature and existence. To pretend that the uncertainties built into the execution of agreements between powers render those agreements irrational–this is naive and foolish. Or is it the case that, when my uncle smelled weed out by his pool, he was stupid to have searched my cousin’s room and person for contraband because, after all, my cousin could have had an ounce stuffed up his ass?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Tell that to the people who have been injured and killed by chlorine gas attacks which were prohibited by the CWC Syria signed. Most valuable as in most difficult to replenish. Look for other chem weapon usage if the rebels start to gain the upper hand. I hear old Neville could use a few more advisers. [/quote]
You were talking about chlorine? Jesus.
I thought you were talking about the speculation that Sarin and Mustard were hidden.
The chlorine answer has already been provided to you a bunch of times. If you want to address the responses, go ahead and find them. They haven’t changed. But do everybody a favor and get the basics on your own before entering the debate. Understand what the CWC is and why chlorine is not a banned chemical.
Edit: It appears that you were talking about either, or both, or I don’t really know because you don’t seem to have a clear argument. So both of my responses stand.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Tell that to the people who have been injured and killed by chlorine gas attacks which were prohibited by the CWC Syria signed. Most valuable as in most difficult to replenish. Look for other chem weapon usage if the rebels start to gain the upper hand. I hear old Neville could use a few more advisers. [/quote]
Chlorine gas is not listed as a banned compound in the OPCW. If sophisticated chemical are relatively ineffective on the battlefield, improvised chlorine dispersing devices are even more so. This is not a controversial position among the intelligence community. The Syrian regime has resorted to dropping barrel bombs filled with combustible fuel and shrapnel from helicopters, which is indicative of the depletion of their conventional arsenal. Where have I indicated any affinity for appeasement? Syria is not Nazi Germany circa 1939. Not even close.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.
I know what chlorine gas is. You’re missing the point completely. The purposeof disarming chemical weapons is so that chemical weapons are not used. It isn’t meant to get creative on different ways to poison people.
If he threw a bottle of Windex at them, it would still be a chemical assault.
If the purpose of removing chemical weapons is so that chemical aren’t used. He found another way to assault using chemicals against his own people.
So if the point of disarming chemical weapons is to keep him from using chemicals on his people and he weaponizes other chemicals and uses them, then it was a failure.
You’re so focused on me, you fail to see the obvious.
I suspect this will continue
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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]
Accusing me of dishonesty indicates to me you don’t have a point. It’s a flat lie. You just accuse me of dishonesty when the facts aren’t on your side.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
All I have been doing is repeating myself. Over and over again.
My mother is a war criminal ! I knew it !
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[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]
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.[/quote]
What’s the point if he just weaponizes other chemicals and uses them?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[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]
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.[/quote]
What’s the point if he just weaponizes other chemicals and uses them?[/quote]
You’re basically asking that Syria revert to a pre-industrial period, which is an obvious impossibility. Chlorine gas is not an effective chemical weapon, which themselves are ineffective weapons. Assad has relinquished his regime’s military grade chemical weapons. What is so difficult for you and Gkhan to understand about this?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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]
Accusing me of dishonesty indicates to me you don’t have a point. It’s a flat lie. You just accuse me of dishonesty when the facts aren’t on your side.[/quote]
You’ve been shifting the goal posts of this discussion as you went from sheer ignorance of its subject to a grossly misinformed position.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[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]
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.[/quote]
What’s the point if he just weaponizes other chemicals and uses them?[/quote]
What is the point of the Chemical Weapons Convention? What is the point in taking 1000 tons of Sarin and Mustard gas out of a failing state that is overrun by Islamic terrorists? You need somebody to explain these things to you?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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]
Accusing me of dishonesty indicates to me you don’t have a point. It’s a flat lie. You just accuse me of dishonesty when the facts aren’t on your side.[/quote]
I have not accused you of dishonesty. I’ve posted your dishonesty in your own words. An accusation is unproved; your dishonesty throughout this thread is anything but that. You have claimed:
–That Assad may have used up all of his weapons.
–That the Syrians were giving their weapons to the Russians.
–That Syria’s accession to the CWC had nothing to do with the threat of American force.
–And, most recently, that “we didn’t specify particular chemicals.” My response to which went like this:
To which you replied:
Notice that your words were not wrong in my opinion or my interpretation: They were simply wrong. Factually inaccurate. Make-believe. Bullshit. I am running out of ways to explain your errors to you. And notice further that, instead of owning your error, you ignored and obfuscated and refused to acknowledge what every single poster in this discussion can plainly see. Just like all the times before. Or perhaps you were being “deliberately dismissive” yet again.
This is the height of dishonesty in argument. Or should I say nadir?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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]
Accusing me of dishonesty indicates to me you don’t have a point. It’s a flat lie. You just accuse me of dishonesty when the facts aren’t on your side.[/quote]
You’ve been shifting the goal posts of this discussion as you went from sheer ignorance of its subject to a grossly misinformed position.[/quote]
This. Exactly.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
All I have been doing is repeating myself. Over and over again.[/quote]
It’s useless to continue. They say they answered my questions, yet when I ask them a direct question they ignore it and attack grammatical errors.
They make statements and when I ask them to clarify, they do not.
They say we are wrong and give explanations that clearly make no sense and when I ask them to explain further because they defy logic, they refuse.
Go back to my posts pages ago where I ask questions, and answer them. If not I see no reason to continue.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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]
Accusing me of dishonesty indicates to me you don’t have a point. It’s a flat lie. You just accuse me of dishonesty when the facts aren’t on your side.[/quote]
You’ve been shifting the goal posts of this discussion as you went from sheer ignorance of its subject to a grossly misinformed position.[/quote]
Nice, resorting to flowery insults when you won’t even address a couple of simple questions. What? Afraid that I might point out the absurdity of your position?