Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]smh_23 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]

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]

I tell you what’s dishonest, is pretending you are making a point when your true goal is to attack my character and myself. You’re only interested in tearing me down by any method possible. That’s your only real goal as these are matters of opinion. And because I disagree with your opinion, you sought to make it personal, I would appreciate if you would just admit that. I have not returned in kind, which I want duly noted.

342

Biz, because you do not personally believe chemical weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction but still believe they should be banned, do you think it was a wise decision for Obama to threaten the Syrian regime? And do you think it was wise of them to take these weapons out of Syria? And if you do, what the hell does any of this have to do with anything other than the fact that you are basically arguing about minutae?

343

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
My questions, good lord, again.?

Ok Bis. You said that chemical weapons are not a weapon of mass destruction. Reason was they do not cause enough deaths or mass destruction. I want to know, using the same logic, how nuclear weapons could be considered weapons of mass destruction when in fact conventional firebombing could cause more deaths and destruction than nukes or at least they did during WWII?

In the gas attacks on the Kurds under Saddam in Iraq, I quoted stats which said 150,000 people may have been killed or wounded. Is that number not high enough for chemical weapons to be considered a weapon of mass destruction and if not, how many people would have to be killed in your opinion to make it one?

How many people have biological weapons killed in the 20th Century? How can you confirm this? And how can it be considered a weapon of mass destruction?[/quote]

Chemical weapons are considered WMDs where or not they destroy massively.[/quote]

What part of my position that WMD is a normative and emotive term which lacks analytical rigor don’t you understand?[/quote]

Nobody is saying you don’t believe they are. You can believe what you want, doesn’t make it true.
Be it an arbitrary label or not, conventional wisdom considers them WMD’s.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/[/quote]

And yet you continue to avoid addressing my specific criticism of the term along with my analysis of chemical weapons vis-a-vis other so called WMD.

344

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Chemical weapons are considered WMDs where or not they destroy massively.[/quote]

And just because someone does not agree with this designation does not make it not so. btw it was 150,000 killed or wounded in Saddam’s attacks and that’s still a hell of a lot.

Biz, call the UNODA and tell them to put AK’s on the list. Hell they have treaties trying to ban weapons in space, land mines, WOMD’s so Ak’s wouldn’t be out of the question.[/quote]

The post above applies to both you as much as it does Pat.

The AK example was clearly a rhetorical device to illustrate your flawed mechanical logic. The fact that you didn’t understand this shows your are illy equipped for this discussion.

Space- Space represents the final frontier of warfare. Satellite systems facilitate reconnaissance, communication, navigation, and guided weapon systems that modern forces so heavily rely upon. Targeting an adversary’s satellite array would severely curtail those functions. The purpose of a treaty banning weaponry in space is to avoid future security dilemmas and subsequent arms races among space-states.

Land mines- Again, a weapon that kills indiscriminately and often maims or kills non-combatants.

WMD- The great powers do not welcome peer competitors, particularly of the nuclear variety.

345

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The AK example was clearly a rhetorical device to illustrate your flawed mechanical logic. The fact that you didn’t understand this shows your are illy equipped for this discussion.
[/quote]

No, my response about Ak’s was also a rhetorical device that illustrates you do not understand sarcasm and continue to dodge the questions I have asked you in this debate.

If you do not think chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, yet still believe they should be banned, what in the hell does that have to do with Obama issuing Syria a warning not to use them?

  1. Do you agree with Obama issuing Syria a warning?
  2. Because the Syrians used chemical weapons ( mass destruction weapon or not) and did not heed Obama’s warning, do you think that makes him look weak in the eyes of the world?
  3. Are you glad the chemical weapons were removed from Syria?
  4. Do you think the Russians negotiated the deal with the Syrians because
    a. they were afraid Obama ordering a bombing raid against their ally?
    or
    b. they didn’t want the weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists?
  5. Had the Syrians not given up their weapons, do you think the United States would be bombing Syria, or do you think they would cave to Russian pressure not to do so?

and you ignored the fact that Saddam’s attack killed OR WOUNDED 150000 people! How does that NOT make chemical weapons weapons of Mass Destruction?

Nothing to fear here, the chemicals don’t kill a lot of people, Saddam never had any chemicals to begin with and nothing should be done to stop these people, just ask Biz:

346

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Chemical weapons are considered WMDs where or not they destroy massively.[/quote]

And just because someone does not agree with this designation does not make it not so. btw it was 150,000 killed or wounded in Saddam’s attacks and that’s still a hell of a lot.

Biz, call the UNODA and tell them to put AK’s on the list. Hell they have treaties trying to ban weapons in space, land mines, WOMD’s so Ak’s wouldn’t be out of the question.[/quote]

The post above applies to both you as much as it does Pat.

The AK example was clearly a rhetorical device to illustrate your flawed mechanical logic. The fact that you didn’t understand this shows your are illy equipped for this discussion.

Space- Space represents the final frontier of warfare. Satellite systems facilitate reconnaissance, communication, navigation, and guided weapon systems that modern forces so heavily rely upon. Targeting an adversary’s satellite array would severely curtail those functions. The purpose of a treaty banning weaponry in space is to avoid future security dilemmas and subsequent arms races among space-states.

Land mines- Again, a weapon that kills indiscriminately and often maims or kills non-combatants.

WMD- The great powers do not welcome peer competitors, particularly of the nuclear variety. [/quote]

I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you think it’s a misnomer to call them WMD’s. They are widely recognized as such and are so referred by the many, not the few. It’s petty semantics at very best.
Seriously who cares? They are recognized and considered as weapons of mass destruction by most western governments who refer to them as such. Whether you, personally, think they don’t meet your rigorous criteria is irrelevant. This is a stupid topic. Move on.

347

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

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]

I have not. The chlorine gas attack was just the point after kick. It serves to prove that Assad is not deterred in using chemicals to poison his people.
Is it not the point of removing chemicals weapons to stop people from being poisoned to death? Yet they were poisoned again just with different poisons. Assad is not deterred from poisoning people.

I have always contended that the ‘red line’ was a failure because it was ignored.
I have always stood by the fact that meeting a breach of the threat with another threat is simply bad business. It means we are not serious and would have been better had not to issue any threats.[/quote]

https://blackboard.angelo.edu//bbcswebdav/institution/LFA/CSS/Course%20Material/SEC6302/Readings/Lesson_3/Art.pdf

The redline that chemical weapons use would change American “calculus” in Syria represented ambiguous deterrence. Ignored is the wrong word to use. Assad gambled that he could utilize chemical weapons with no consequence. Even if no red line had been spoken of, the use of CBRN is of grave concern to the international society of states, especially so for its most powerful inhabitants, which Assad was certainly aware of. Deterrence failed. No one is disputing that. That is no fault of anyone in the American foreign policy establishment, unless the CIA’s elite “Men who stare at goats” unit were then vacationing in rural Georgia. The ensuing result of successful peaceful compellence was directly connected to the aforementioned deterrence.

Deterrence: “Do not carry out action X, for if you do, I will strike you upon the head with this club.”

The redline did not present such an explicit threat of force, but merely a change of “calculus”, which is why the qualifier ambiguous is added. Deterrence functions most effectively when it is clearly presented to potential adversaries. However, if such an explicit conditional threat was issued and avoided by the Assad regime, over 1000 tons of military grade chemical weapons would still be in danger of falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. What benefits American and international security more: the removal of a 2,000,000 lbs of military grade chemical weapons from a jihadist beehive, or the preservation of roughly 1,500 Syrian nationals? International relations is a callous endeavor informed by rational egoism, whose ethics are decidedly guided by consequentialism. While the loss of innocent life was nothing short of tragic, to choose the latter would be nothing short of weakness underpinned by naive idealism.

Compellence: “I am now going to strike you upon the head with this club until you acquiesce to my demands.”

Compellence can take a peaceful or physical form. The Assad regime’s relinquishment of its military grade chemical weapons arsenal to avoid the actualization of the threat of American punitive strikes undeniably constitutes peaceful compellence. Nothing would be gained by targeted strikes because they were not necessary to enlist the cooperation of the Assad regime. Indeed, such punishment would greatly endanger the diplomacy that made the Syrian chemical deal possible. In addition, no such threat was issued in the initial ambiguous deterrence, so the concerns of a loss of face in the absence of physical compellence are misplaced.

348

O.k.

I get it.

So, what do you think about the Affordable Healthcare Act?

349

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Chemical weapons are considered WMDs where or not they destroy massively.[/quote]

And just because someone does not agree with this designation does not make it not so. btw it was 150,000 killed or wounded in Saddam’s attacks and that’s still a hell of a lot.

Biz, call the UNODA and tell them to put AK’s on the list. Hell they have treaties trying to ban weapons in space, land mines, WOMD’s so Ak’s wouldn’t be out of the question.[/quote]

The post above applies to both you as much as it does Pat.

The AK example was clearly a rhetorical device to illustrate your flawed mechanical logic. The fact that you didn’t understand this shows your are illy equipped for this discussion.

Space- Space represents the final frontier of warfare. Satellite systems facilitate reconnaissance, communication, navigation, and guided weapon systems that modern forces so heavily rely upon. Targeting an adversary’s satellite array would severely curtail those functions. The purpose of a treaty banning weaponry in space is to avoid future security dilemmas and subsequent arms races among space-states.

Land mines- Again, a weapon that kills indiscriminately and often maims or kills non-combatants.

WMD- The great powers do not welcome peer competitors, particularly of the nuclear variety. [/quote]

I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you think it’s a misnomer to call them WMD’s. They are widely recognized as such and are so referred by the many, not the few. It’s petty semantics at very best.
Seriously who cares? They are recognized and considered as weapons of mass destruction by most western governments who refer to them as such. Whether you, personally, think they don’t meet your rigorous criteria is irrelevant. This is a stupid topic. Move on.[/quote]

WMD offers governments political blank checks. Consider the Iraq war. The premise that Iraq possessed WMD was used as the basis for constructing securitizing speech acts and building support from a misinformed populace for one of the most squanderous military campaigns in American history. It matters a great deal. Words have power.

350

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
O.k.

I get it.

So, what do you think about the Affordable Healthcare Act?[/quote]

You follow my reasoning and concur with the conclusion?

351

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Chemical weapons are considered WMDs where or not they destroy massively.[/quote]

And just because someone does not agree with this designation does not make it not so. btw it was 150,000 killed or wounded in Saddam’s attacks and that’s still a hell of a lot.

Biz, call the UNODA and tell them to put AK’s on the list. Hell they have treaties trying to ban weapons in space, land mines, WOMD’s so Ak’s wouldn’t be out of the question.[/quote]

The post above applies to both you as much as it does Pat.

The AK example was clearly a rhetorical device to illustrate your flawed mechanical logic. The fact that you didn’t understand this shows your are illy equipped for this discussion.

Space- Space represents the final frontier of warfare. Satellite systems facilitate reconnaissance, communication, navigation, and guided weapon systems that modern forces so heavily rely upon. Targeting an adversary’s satellite array would severely curtail those functions. The purpose of a treaty banning weaponry in space is to avoid future security dilemmas and subsequent arms races among space-states.

Land mines- Again, a weapon that kills indiscriminately and often maims or kills non-combatants.

WMD- The great powers do not welcome peer competitors, particularly of the nuclear variety. [/quote]

I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you think it’s a misnomer to call them WMD’s. They are widely recognized as such and are so referred by the many, not the few. It’s petty semantics at very best.
Seriously who cares? They are recognized and considered as weapons of mass destruction by most western governments who refer to them as such. Whether you, personally, think they don’t meet your rigorous criteria is irrelevant. This is a stupid topic. Move on.[/quote]

It’s a view widely - nay, almost universally - held in the field. It’s not something Bismarck just came up with.

352

You wrote this:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Next question: Do you think it was stupid for Obama to threaten Syria with a Red Line if it was not going to be backed up?
[/quote]

To which I responded:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
(This is what I’m talking about when I complain about the regurgitation of points that have already been addressed, and addressed, and addressed, addressed again. This thread feels somewhat like a charmless remake of Groundhog Day.)

I have countered this line of reasoning–and this is meant to be an actual estimate, not an exaggeration–eight to twelve times over the course of this thread. With the same (simple, obvious, really not at all controversial) counterargument. Which then went unaddressed.

Most recently, on the very same page as the post of yours which I’m presently responding to:

[One sentence has been adapted so that your words are directly addressed.]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This entire discussion is revolving around a series of events the central incident of which involved a Russo-Syrian offer existentially contingent upon the [correct] 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 “[Obama’s threat] was not going to be backed up.”[/quote]
[/quote]

To which you responded:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, had the Syrians not caved, would be be bombing the hell out of Syria now?
[/quote]

My point being that that this…

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Next question: Do you think it was stupid for Obama to threaten Syria with a Red Line if it was not going to be backed up?
[/quote]

…and this…

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, had the Syrians not caved, would be be bombing the hell out of Syria now?
[/quote]

…are the same question, getting at the same notion, expressing the same line of reasoning. You made a point (in the form of a question), I countered the point, and you re-made your original point without addressing a word of the counterpoint. (You also threw in a minute goal-post adjustment: Bombing “the hell” out of Syria? What about bombing the Hades out of him? Would Purgatory count for anything?)

Which is a long way of saying that the answer to the second question is the answer to the first, because they are the same question.

Edit: And you can bring Ukraine into this discussion, but we’re going to get a handle what should be this very simple point before we move on to anything else. You think I’m wrong about Obama moving on his threat? You think the Russians were wrong about it? And the Syrians? The French? The NYT, the WSJ, the WP, AP, Reuters, AFP, the PM of Syria? You think we’re all wrong? Give a reason; counter my argument.

353

[quote]pat wrote:

I tell you what’s dishonest, is pretending you are making a point when your true goal is to attack my character and myself. You’re only interested in tearing me down by any method possible.[/quote]

I’m not “interested” in anything like that. I have documented your many errors throughout this thread in the hopes that you would do what you should do and acknowledge them. Because I don’t want to play Marco Polo in the sewer with you. There is no point in my debating someone who doesn’t know the basic facts that he should have known before having formed an opinion on the matter at hand. There is no point in my debating someone who will make things up, get them wrong, and then shove his head up his own ass and pretend nothing’s happened while inventing pitiable defenses like “I was being deliberately dismissive.” There is no point in arguing with somebody about topic X while at the same moment having to teach them a bunch of basic shit about topic X.

Most recently, you said that “we didn’t specify chemicals.” As I explained to you in my response, not only is this claim egregiously false–i.e. wrong, not true, invented, dreamed up, bullshit, poppycock, hogwash, gobbledygook, piffle, twaddle, etc.–but it also betrays a truly fundamental ignorance of the simple “way things work.” It is, in other words, not just factually inaccurate, but symptomatic of a much more pervasive ignorance, a deeper-rooted one.

We didn’t specify chemicals. How could you believe that shit? Do you honestly think that the world works like that, or ever has? It’s fucking difficult to fathom.

[quote]
That’s your only real goal as these are matters of opinion.[/quote]

Perhaps this has been the problem all along.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, and, more importantly, I’ve made my arguments. If you were going to address them, I assume you’d have done it already. That’s it.

354

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You think we’re all wrong? Give a reason; counter my argument.
[/quote]

I said the Russians would not let Obama or the US take out another of her allies. Do you even look at the articles I posted?

As soon as we threatened Syria, Russia sent 12-16 warships near by and bolstered Syrian defenses with anti-ship, anti-aircraft missiles. They didn’t do this so we could all sing kumbaya. They clearly sent a message to the Obama administration not to strike Syria. If we had, the Russians made sure it would not be another cakewalk like Libya. Once this was done, they then presented Obama with a peaceful resolution.

Maybe the Russians feared the chemical weapons would fall into extremist’s hands and they brokered a deal to get them out of there.

I’m done with this topic. We agree with many issues here. I said in various posts I agree with you. I said I see Biz’s points even though I don’t agree with most of them. I also acknowledged you answered many of my questions.

We are arguing about minutiae.

I want to hear Sex Machine talk about Obama’s other foreign policy failures and talk about the disastrous Affordable Health Care Act.

355

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You think we’re all wrong? Give a reason; counter my argument.
[/quote]

I said the Russians would not let Obama or the US take out another of her allies. Do you even look at the articles I posted?[/quote]

If side A offers side B something that side A has and side B wants, in explicit exchange for side B’s decision not to hit side A with a tire iron, what did side A believe about side B’s intention to hit side A with the tire iron in the first place? I actually want you to answer this question.

[quote]
As soon as we threatened Syria, Russia sent 12-16 warships near by and bolstered Syrian defenses with anti-ship, anti-aircraft missiles. They didn’t do this so we could all sing kumbaya. They clearly sent a message to the Obama administration not to strike Syria.[/quote]

And the Obama administration clearly sent a message saying that it was going strike anyway. Hence the offer of the deal. Hence the belief among the Russians and Syrians and French and press and analysts that a strike was forthcoming. If you want to prove all of them wrong, you need more than “I think Russia wouldn’t let them. Look, ships!”

So, Obama is not going to strike. Why offer the deal if you are Russia-Syria? Your position needs simple logical continuity, and each decision-maker needs a rational motivation for his decision.

356

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Do you even look at the articles I posted?

[/quote]

Also, you need to fix your timeline.

That article is about posturing that took place in May, 2013, when the question was simply whether Assad was going to stay or go.

It has nothing to do with Ghouta, which took place 4 months later and gave the United States a compelling justification for military intervention. Your evidence was not a warning against Obama’s intentions to make good on his “change [in] calculus.”

357

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

I’m done with this topic. We agree with many issues here. I said in various posts I agree with you. I said I see Biz’s points even though I don’t agree with most of them. I also acknowledged you answered many of my questions. [/quote]

OK, understood. I responded while you were editing this I think (or I just plain missed it). But I’m certainly amenable to letting the debate rest.

[quote]
We are arguing about minutiae.[/quote]

Sort of. It’s important to be able to get the small things right. Otherwise, one has no chance at the big things.

[quote]
I want to hear Sex Machine talk about Obama’s other foreign policy failures and talk about the disastrous Affordable Health Care Act.[/quote]

How long have you got? He is not a fan. Really. Which, by the way, says something about his position in this thread.

358

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You think we’re all wrong? Give a reason; counter my argument.
[/quote]

I said the Russians would not let Obama or the US take out another of her allies. Do you even look at the articles I posted?[/quote]

If side A offers side B something that side A has and side B wants, in explicit exchange for side B’s decision not to hit side A with a tire iron, what did side A believe about side B’s intention to hit side A with the tire iron in the first place? I actually want you to answer this question.

[quote]
As soon as we threatened Syria, Russia sent 12-16 warships near by and bolstered Syrian defenses with anti-ship, anti-aircraft missiles. They didn’t do this so we could all sing kumbaya. They clearly sent a message to the Obama administration not to strike Syria.[/quote]

And the Obama administration clearly sent a message saying that it was going strike anyway. Hence the offer of the deal. Hence the belief among the Russians and Syrians and French and press and analysts that a strike was forthcoming. If you want to prove all of them wrong, you need more than “I think Russia wouldn’t let them. Look, ships!”

So, Obama is not going to strike. Why offer the deal if you are Russia-Syria? Your position needs simple logical continuity, and each decision-maker needs a rational motivation for his decision.[/quote]

The question really should be, if you are Obama, and your goal is to punish the Syrians, why would you take this deal? And if you are Assad, why use the weapons in the first place? The Russians offered us a deal to test our resolve.

You can say that it’s good the weapons are no longer in Syria, but it doesn’t negate the fact that Assad already used them regardless of Obama’s threats.

The Russians offered us a deal to see if we were serious. We took it and they proceeded to invade the Crimea.

Reasons you think Obama is strong: Due to the threat of war, the chemical weapons have been removed from Syria.

Reasons why I think Obama looks weak: Assad ignored his warning, people died. Russia invaded the Crimea even though there was a defensive treaty in place with NATO.

If we are bargaining from strength, why haven’t we brokered a similar deal to get the Russians out of the Ukraine?

359

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Chemical weapons are considered WMDs where or not they destroy massively.[/quote]

And just because someone does not agree with this designation does not make it not so. btw it was 150,000 killed or wounded in Saddam’s attacks and that’s still a hell of a lot.

Biz, call the UNODA and tell them to put AK’s on the list. Hell they have treaties trying to ban weapons in space, land mines, WOMD’s so Ak’s wouldn’t be out of the question.[/quote]

The post above applies to both you as much as it does Pat.

The AK example was clearly a rhetorical device to illustrate your flawed mechanical logic. The fact that you didn’t understand this shows your are illy equipped for this discussion.

Space- Space represents the final frontier of warfare. Satellite systems facilitate reconnaissance, communication, navigation, and guided weapon systems that modern forces so heavily rely upon. Targeting an adversary’s satellite array would severely curtail those functions. The purpose of a treaty banning weaponry in space is to avoid future security dilemmas and subsequent arms races among space-states.

Land mines- Again, a weapon that kills indiscriminately and often maims or kills non-combatants.

WMD- The great powers do not welcome peer competitors, particularly of the nuclear variety. [/quote]

I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you think it’s a misnomer to call them WMD’s. They are widely recognized as such and are so referred by the many, not the few. It’s petty semantics at very best.
Seriously who cares? They are recognized and considered as weapons of mass destruction by most western governments who refer to them as such. Whether you, personally, think they don’t meet your rigorous criteria is irrelevant. This is a stupid topic. Move on.[/quote]

It’s a view widely - nay, almost universally - held in the field. It’s not something Bismarck just came up with.
[/quote]

I am not sure where it’s widely viewed. It’s minutia at best, but chemical weapons are commonly considered WMDs.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2332a.htm

“Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
(2) the term â??weapon of mass destructionâ?? meansâ??
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/cw.htm

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/emergency-services/training-course-wmd.pdf

Perhaps some people don’t agree they are weapons of mass destruction. But by all conventional definitions they are considered as such. I understand that some people may not consider them as such because they don’t kill enough people at a time, but they are widely considered by most WMDs. I have provided 9 sources to the affirmative.

360

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You think we’re all wrong? Give a reason; counter my argument.
[/quote]

I said the Russians would not let Obama or the US take out another of her allies. Do you even look at the articles I posted?[/quote]

If side A offers side B something that side A has and side B wants, in explicit exchange for side B’s decision not to hit side A with a tire iron, what did side A believe about side B’s intention to hit side A with the tire iron in the first place? I actually want you to answer this question.

[quote]
As soon as we threatened Syria, Russia sent 12-16 warships near by and bolstered Syrian defenses with anti-ship, anti-aircraft missiles. They didn’t do this so we could all sing kumbaya. They clearly sent a message to the Obama administration not to strike Syria.[/quote]

And the Obama administration clearly sent a message saying that it was going strike anyway. Hence the offer of the deal. Hence the belief among the Russians and Syrians and French and press and analysts that a strike was forthcoming. If you want to prove all of them wrong, you need more than “I think Russia wouldn’t let them. Look, ships!”

So, Obama is not going to strike. Why offer the deal if you are Russia-Syria? Your position needs simple logical continuity, and each decision-maker needs a rational motivation for his decision.[/quote]

The question really should be, if you are Obama, and your goal is to punish the Syrians, why would you take this deal? [/quote]

  1. To take something from someone under threat of force is to punish them. There is no way around this. So the entire premise of this line of reasoning is flawed.

  2. If you are Obama, your goals are many. The narrow goal of a punitive response to Ghouta was eclipsed by the possibility of accomplishing a much less narrow goal–one that had been impossible for decades. I wrote thousands of words on the rationality of Obama’s decision to take the deal, and the irrationality of the alternatives. I will re-post them if you did not read them.

[quote]
And if you are Assad, why use the weapons in the first place?[/quote]

He made a stupid choice. He is hardly the first.

[quote]
The Russians offered us a deal to test our resolve.[/quote]

No. The Russians don’t want American sights trained on a customer, friend, and trade partner–because American sights are dangerous fucking things. The misconceptions that are swirling around PWI regarding the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Russia are staggering in number and severity, and I’m not going to take it upon myself to deal with them.

[quote]
You can say that it’s good the weapons are no longer in Syria, but it doesn’t negate the fact that Assad already used them regardless of Obama’s threats.[/quote]

I have addressed this directly. Keywords: Melians, Bush, threat, out of American hands, small tyrants make stupid decisions, “by sole virtue of the fact that.” You can counter if you care to, but, again, I’m not doing donuts anymore.

[quote]
The Russians offered us a deal to see if we were serious.[/quote]

No. See above.

[quote]
Assad ignored his warning, people died.[/quote]

[This is a duplication of my same response to this same point just a few lines above this.]

I have addressed this directly. Keywords: Melians, Bush, threat, out of American hands, small tyrants make stupid decisions, “by sole virtue of the fact that.” You can counter if you care to, but, again, I’m not doing donuts anymore.

[quote]
Russia invaded the Crimea even though there was a defensive treaty in place with NATO.[/quote]

Separate issues. Nothing about Russia’s having assumed we were going to bomb Syria carries logical implications of emboldenment. On the contrary.