Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So: That we took 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of a deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck is “not pertinent” to an evaluation of the chain of diplomatic events which led to the taking of the 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of the deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck.

[/quote]

I still can’t get over the undervaluing of this result.[/quote]

Indeed. It’s “not pertinent.” To an evaluation of the question of chemical weapons in Syria. It makes one wonder what exactly is pertinent.

Oh, right: A few people dead in an attack with a chemical that is not itself banned under the CWC and that is sitting in an enormous container at the gym down the street from me.

“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

It’s just dishonesty at this point. It’s just plain dishonesty.

422

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You chose to ignore them and drone on and on about where and who has possession of the chemical arsonal. Things that are not pertinent. [/quote]

So: That we took 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of a deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck is “not pertinent” to an evaluation of the chain of diplomatic events which led to the taking of the 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of the deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck.

That the rational and correct decision was made in each instance–this is not that pertinent.

That it is a direct good to have won Syrian accession to the CWC regardless of the simple and inevitable fact that there will still be dual-use chemicals like chlorine which can be strapped to bombs in order to kill a few people–this is not pertinent.

That Obama promised a “red line” beyond which his “calculus” would change–that he hinted at a nonspecific punishment–and then changed his calculation and punished Assad once the “red line” was crossed: This is not pertinent.

Got it.[/quote]

Which then he denied saying and that it was the international community’s ‘red line’.[/quote]

We are talking about results. You worry about what presidents say. I’ll worry about what they do.

[quote]
Which he drew another line in the sand rather than take a definitive stance.[/quote]

Addressed. The deal came in the run-up to an attack. Refusal of the deal would have been the irrational choice. I made that argument at length, and, like every other argument that’s been put to you by all of us, you did not acknowledge it. So that’s that.

And it breaks your addled and tangential (here, again, the unwillingness or inability to think with specificity) chain of contingent “which’s.” Along with your argument.

423

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So: That we took 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of a deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck is “not pertinent” to an evaluation of the chain of diplomatic events which led to the taking of the 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of the deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck.

[/quote]

I still can’t get over the undervaluing of this result.[/quote]

Indeed. It’s “not pertinent.” To an evaluation of the question of chemical weapons in Syria. It makes one wonder what exactly is pertinent.

Oh, right: A few people dead in an attack with a chemical that is not itself banned under the CWC and that is sitting in an enormous container at the gym down the street from me.

“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

It’s just dishonesty at this point. It’s just plain dishonesty.[/quote]

You cannot buy chlorine gas at a store…lol. You seriously think the poison chlorine gas is just bleach?
Oh brother!
You can make chlorine gas out of household chemicals, but you cannot buy it. And the weapons were hardly crude. Chlorine gas has been used as a weapon since WW1. It turns to hypochlorous acid in your lungs, which I am sure doesn’t hurt at all.
Those ‘few people’ who were attack with chlorine gas died horrific painful deaths, deaths said to resemble a mustard gas attack.
I can’t believe you likened chlorine gas as if they just tossed a few bottles of Clorox at them. Chlorine gas is highly toxic and deadly. The smell of bleach is not chlorine gas.

And no it’s not considered a chemical weapon:
http://www.opcw.org/news-publications/publications/history-of-the-chemical-weapons-convention/

424

Fuck it. I’ve got better things to do. I’m satisfied with my arguments and with the agreement of the posters who agreed with me. And I’m really satisfied that your accusation of my dishonesty turned out to be…wait for it…dishonesty on your part. If you disagree, go over that little exchange again–the one wherein I told you to post evidence of your claim, to which you responded that you had no idea whether your claim had been true or not. That is the kind of delicious irony that only comes around once every few months. Anyway, I’m done.

Edit: Or am I? Every time I want to be, something pulls me back in. Like a whirlpool of fabrication.

425

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So: That we took 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of a deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck is “not pertinent” to an evaluation of the chain of diplomatic events which led to the taking of the 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of the deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck.

[/quote]

I still can’t get over the undervaluing of this result.[/quote]

Indeed. It’s “not pertinent.” To an evaluation of the question of chemical weapons in Syria. It makes one wonder what exactly is pertinent.

Oh, right: A few people dead in an attack with a chemical that is not itself banned under the CWC and that is sitting in an enormous container at the gym down the street from me.

“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

It’s just dishonesty at this point. It’s just plain dishonesty.[/quote]

You cannot buy chlorine gas at a store…lol.
[/quote]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.[/quote]

I said you can buy chlorine, not chlorine gas (which is then made easily from the chlorine). So, you lose again. Even on the nitpicks. At least you are consistent.

Also, there’s this, isn’t there?

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/295132?lang=en®ion=US

Lol indeed.

426

[quote]pat wrote:

You cannot buy chlorine gas at a store…lol. You seriously think the poison chlorine gas is just bleach?
Oh brother!
You can make chlorine gas out of household chemicals, but you cannot buy it. And the weapons were hardly crude.
[/quote]

Why do you keep making stuff up pat? Google “Syria + chlorine + crude” and you’ll find every major news source and expert on the planet describing them as “crude weapons.” That’s why they stopped using chlorine gas in 1915 and switched to things like mustard gas - which is, you know 2000-3000 times more toxic.

427


Deadly chlorine gas production facility. The United Nations must be notified.

428

Chemical weapons stockpile.

429

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Fuck it. I’ve got better things to do. I’m satisfied with my arguments and with the agreement of the posters who agreed with me. And I’m really satisfied that your accusation of my dishonesty turned out to be…wait for it…dishonesty on your part. If you disagree, go over that little exchange again–the one wherein I told you to post evidence of your claim, to which you responded that you had no idea whether your claim had been true or not. That is the kind of delicious irony that only comes around once every few months. Anyway, I’m done.

Edit: Or am I? Every time I want to be, something pulls me back in. Like a whirlpool of fabrication.[/quote]

You really thought chlorine gas was bleach? No wonder you disregarded as no big deal when in fact, it’s a pretty big deal.

I am not sure you understand the term dishonest. Sticking to my guns is not dishonest. You’re going to keep accusing me of it, I guess it’s the only tool in the shed. Resorting to ad hominems.
I am going to state once again why I think the ‘red line’ portion was a failure of U.S. diplomacy, not a success, despite the removal of chemical weapons, which I agree is a good thing, but a modest consolation prize, maybe a little detail will help:

  • Obama laid out a ‘red line’ which Assad blatantly ignored. Now when it was being confirmed that Assad did cross this ‘red line’, obama backed away from the statement. He tried to claim it was the international community’s ‘red line’ not his. Why would he try to back away from the statement, especially since it was recorded? I can only imagine because he did not know what to do at the time. If he had a plan, he sure didn’t seem like he did.
  • At the time of the breach, we had no plan, we were not prepared. So we scrambled up another threat, this time about Assad coughing up the weapons. It doesn’t matter that the threat was vague. One usually does that to cloak one’s plans so as to keep said enemy off guard. But it was us caught off guard. I believe that obama didn’t think they would have the balls to use chemical weapons. He appeared surprised at the development and tried to back away from his own statement.
  • Also at this time, we had been calling for Assad ouster, demanding he step down to the opposition allowing the people to decide their government.
  • We had the opportunity to not only do away with the chemical weapons themselves, we had the opportunity to do away with Assad.
  • Russia supported Assad, so Russia brokered a deal with him that benefitted both of them and pacified us just enough. Assad did not give up his chemical arsenal for nothing, in return Russia armed him well with conventional and arguably more effective weapons than the chemicals themselves. It was a small thing for Assad to dump his weapons stash in lieu of even more effective weapons. This was not a public part of the agreement, but the arms shipments are pretty well known.
  • Such a thing bought him time. He had time to retool, reorganize, and reshape his image. It was like Christmas morning.
  • The time also bought him an opposition more repugnant than himself as terrorists flowed into the country taking up the opposition.
    All of this could not have worked out more perfectly for Assad. He emerged stronger. All his legitimate opposition disappeared.
  • While the west is wearing hazmat suits disposing of his nasty chemicals, he’s taking the bubble wrap off and taking in that ‘new car smell’ of top notch Russian weaponry that will prove far more effective than all his dirty bombs combined.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-syria-russia-arms-idUSBREA0G0MN20140117

  • The U.S. no longer calls for him to step down because what now lurks beneath is worse.
  • Assad is as strong as ever, the region is far more dangerous and destabilized than it has been in a long time and the clouds of war are threatening to draw us in once again.
  • Getting rid of chemical weapons is a good thing, however in this case it did little for our cause, save for saving a little face. We reduced the chemical threat only to face a more formidable conventional threat.
  • The cherry on top for Assad is that he still uses chemical weapons, not household bleach, but deadly chlorine gas, which is in fact considered a chemical weapon and has been since WW1. And he’s getting away with it. Nobody is telling him to stop, nobody is threatening him if he doesn’t stop and nobody is calling for him to step down anymore.

So we didn’t stabilize the Syrian situation, we didn’t get rid of Assad and we haven’t stopped him from using chemical weapons. Assad is slowly turning the tide of his opposition and recapturing lost territory. Where do you think the terrorists are going to go?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syrian-opposition-elect-president-24442506

Where you find any of this dishonest I don’t know. I’m not making this stuff up, though I wish I were.

430

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Fuck it. I’ve got better things to do. I’m satisfied with my arguments and with the agreement of the posters who agreed with me. And I’m really satisfied that your accusation of my dishonesty turned out to be…wait for it…dishonesty on your part. If you disagree, go over that little exchange again–the one wherein I told you to post evidence of your claim, to which you responded that you had no idea whether your claim had been true or not. That is the kind of delicious irony that only comes around once every few months. Anyway, I’m done.

Edit: Or am I? Every time I want to be, something pulls me back in. Like a whirlpool of fabrication.[/quote]

You really thought chlorine gas was bleach?
[/quote]

Uh, no.

When did I say this?

Post my exact words.

Verbatim.

431

And to echo Sexmachine, why do you keep making shit up?

432

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So: That we took 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of a deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck is “not pertinent” to an evaluation of the chain of diplomatic events which led to the taking of the 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of the deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck.

[/quote]

I still can’t get over the undervaluing of this result.[/quote]

Indeed. It’s “not pertinent.” To an evaluation of the question of chemical weapons in Syria. It makes one wonder what exactly is pertinent.

Oh, right: A few people dead in an attack with a chemical that is not itself banned under the CWC and that is sitting in an enormous container at the gym down the street from me.

“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

It’s just dishonesty at this point. It’s just plain dishonesty.[/quote]

You cannot buy chlorine gas at a store…lol.
[/quote]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.[/quote]

I said you can buy chlorine, not chlorine gas (which is then made easily from the chlorine). So, you lose again. Even on the nitpicks. At least you are consistent.

Also, there’s this, isn’t there?

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/295132?lang=en®ion=US

Lol indeed.[/quote]

No that’s not what you said, you said this exactly:
"“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

They didn’t buy it at the store and it wasn’t crude. I was the one who told you can make it in the sink, but at your own peril. Don’t clean your shower with Clorox and ammonia. Now you expect me to believe after you said the above that you knew all along chlorine bleach wasn’t chlorine gas?

Who’s being dishonest now?

433

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So: That we took 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of a deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck is “not pertinent” to an evaluation of the chain of diplomatic events which led to the taking of the 2,000,000 pounds of schedule 1 banned chemical weapons out of the deteriorating jihadist clusterfuck.

[/quote]

I still can’t get over the undervaluing of this result.[/quote]

Indeed. It’s “not pertinent.” To an evaluation of the question of chemical weapons in Syria. It makes one wonder what exactly is pertinent.

Oh, right: A few people dead in an attack with a chemical that is not itself banned under the CWC and that is sitting in an enormous container at the gym down the street from me.

“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

It’s just dishonesty at this point. It’s just plain dishonesty.[/quote]

You cannot buy chlorine gas at a store…lol.
[/quote]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.[/quote]

I said you can buy chlorine, not chlorine gas (which is then made easily from the chlorine). So, you lose again. Even on the nitpicks. At least you are consistent.

Also, there’s this, isn’t there?

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/295132?lang=en®ion=US

Lol indeed.[/quote]

BTW, you know you need a license to buy that shit right?

434

[quote]pat wrote:
No that’s not what you said, you said this exactly:
"“2,000,000 pounds of nerve and blister agents + Syrian accession to the CWC, at no cost to the United States? Mishandled. Failure. Why? Because here are a few people who died from a crude chlorine bomb. Yes, chlorine, the stuff you can buy at the store.”

They didn’t buy it at the store[/quote]

I didn’t say they did.

[quote]
and it wasn’t crude.[/quote]

Again, stop making shit up.

[quote]
I was the one who told you can make it in the sink, but at your own peril. Don’t clean your shower with Clorox and ammonia. Now you expect me to believe after you said the above that you knew all along chlorine bleach wasn’t chlorine gas?

Who’s being dishonest now?[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Where in my post is there anything about bleach being chlorine gas?

Post the excerpt, verbatim, wherein I called chlorine gas bleach. Verbatim. Or, once again, retract yet another load of arrant bullshit.

Edited

435

Pat:

You do know how easy it is to synthesise chlorine gas, right?

Just mix chlorine bleach with clear ammonia. Presto. Chlorine gas.

That’s the amateur method, though. If you’re serious about this, get out of the household cleaning aisle and head over to pool supplies, where you will pick up some chlorine crystals and hydrochloric (muriatic) acid. Mix until crystals are dissolved, and enjoy!

Note: I do not advocate use of chlorine gas on civilians.

436

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Pat:

You do know how easy it is to synthesise chlorine gas, right?

Just mix chlorine bleach with clear ammonia. Presto. Chlorine gas.

That’s the amateur method, though. If you’re serious about this, get out of the household cleaning aisle and head over to pool supplies, where you will pick up some chlorine crystals and hydrochloric (muriatic) acid. Mix until crystals are dissolved, and enjoy!

Note: I do not advocate use of chlorine gas on civilians.

[/quote]

Indeed.

Hence the comment: You can buy chlorine at the store.

Edited

437

[quote]pat wrote:
it wasn’t crude[/quote]

It is, at this point, almost hard to believe that you’re still trying to pull this nonsense. (Or are you being “deliberately dismissive” here again?) What is it about the basic principles of argument–or, rather, the basic principles of reason–that you find so unappealing? Have the answer before you say the answer. This is a principle that helped me through the first grade, and I’ve been fortunate to have hung onto it.

From your early and sadly unacknowledged errors regarding the simple facts of the matter on which you were at the time opining, to the accusations you fabricated about my having been ignorant of certain chemical attacks in Syria, to the accusations you fabricated about my having thought that chlorine gas was composed entirely of bleach (a word I hadn’t used) bought at the store (aside: Do you think I’ve ever bought bleach before? Do you think that when I bought this bleach, I failed to observe that it was a container full of liquid and not gas? Do you think that I failed to observe that when I used the bleach, I didn’t die and/or have to go to the hospital for respiratory irritation?), to the thousands of words’ worth of pure substantive argument which you dismissed with lines like “what’s to address?”–this thread has been a master class in bullshit. I now feel I’m ready to jump headlong into the political arguments in the comments section below music videos on Youtube.

438

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Pat:

You do know how easy it is to synthesise chlorine gas, right?

Just mix chlorine bleach with clear ammonia. Presto. Chlorine gas.

That’s the amateur method, though. If you’re serious about this, get out of the household cleaning aisle and head over to pool supplies, where you will pick up some chlorine crystals and hydrochloric (muriatic) acid. Mix until crystals are dissolved, and enjoy!

Note: I do not advocate use of chlorine gas on civilians.

[/quote]

Yes, I know it’s easy to synthesize chlorine gas. Are you really thinking that this is something they synthesized in their sink? Home made weapons? No, there were high pressure containers of industrial chlorine gas.

439

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You cannot buy chlorine gas at a store…lol. You seriously think the poison chlorine gas is just bleach?
Oh brother!
You can make chlorine gas out of household chemicals, but you cannot buy it. And the weapons were hardly crude.
[/quote]

Why do you keep making stuff up pat? Google “Syria + chlorine + crude” and you’ll find every major news source and expert on the planet describing them as “crude weapons.” That’s why they stopped using chlorine gas in 1915 and switched to things like mustard gas - which is, you know 2000-3000 times more toxic.[/quote]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/us-syria-crisis-idUSBREA4C0O720140513

So go on… Show me where it says these were crude weapons made in someone’s sink.

440

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
it wasn’t crude[/quote]

It is, at this point, almost hard to believe that you’re still trying to pull this nonsense. (Or are you being “deliberately dismissive” here again?) What is it about the basic principles of argument–or, rather, the basic principles of reason–that you find so unappealing? Have the answer before you say the answer. This is a principle that helped me through the first grade, and I’ve been fortunate to have hung onto it.

From your early and sadly unacknowledged errors regarding the simple facts of the matter on which you were at the time opining, to the accusations you fabricated about my having been ignorant of certain chemical attacks in Syria, to the accusations you fabricated about my having thought that chlorine gas was composed entirely of bleach (a word I hadn’t used) bought at the store (aside: Do you think I’ve ever bought bleach before? Do you think that when I bought this bleach, I failed to observe that it was a container full of liquid and not gas? Do you think that I failed to observe that when I used the bleach, I didn’t die and/or have to go to the hospital for respiratory irritation?), to the thousands of words’ worth of pure substantive argument which you dismissed with lines like “what’s to address?”–this thread has been a master class in bullshit. I now feel I’m ready to jump headlong into the political arguments in the comments section below music videos on Youtube.[/quote]

I think you think you’re some kind of jedi. “This is not a big deal”.
Bullshit.
The man dropped high pressure chlorine gas canisters on people for the purpose of killing them.
The fact that you can kill youself in your own house by being stupid not withstanding, this was a deliberate chemical attack? What is so hard to understand about it.