Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pat wrote:
And we have no way to verify whether or not the gave up all their chemical weapons or not. Maybe they used all they had.[/quote]

No, we know with certainty that they didn’t use all they had, because we’ve got 1000 tons of Mustard and Sarin that we just finished taking from them.

Again, no. It was the OPCW, not Russia, which oversaw the inspections and on-site destructions, and then it was Norway and Denmark which shipped the remaining weapons north to Finland, Germany, and the U.S. Navy.

42

^ Why post on topics without having learned their most rudimentary basics? An interpretation cannot possibly be useful if it doesn’t rest on a foundation of lucid understanding. The two points I corrected in this last post involve information familiar to just about anybody who even casually follows the news. The same thing happened in the Baghdad thread. There isn’t much use–for either of us–in playing tennis if you don’t bring a racket.

43

Why some people consider this a failure was because Obama threatened to bomb Syria if they crossed the red line, which was use of chemical weapons. The weapons were used regardless and we did not bomb them due to Russian pressure. Sure we reached a compromise which worked out to our advantage, but I think it gave Putin the feeling that he could do what ever he pleased in Eastern Europe and we would do nothing to retaliate. We put sanctions on Russia, they basically laughed at us and made a huge oil agreement with China.

44

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why some people consider this a failure was because Obama threatened to bomb Syria if they crossed the red line, which was use of chemical weapons. The weapons were used regardless and we did not bomb them due to Russian pressure. Sure we reached a compromise which worked out to our advantage, but I think it gave Putin the feeling that he could do what ever he pleased in Eastern Europe and we would do nothing to retaliate. [/quote]

They escaped American strikes because they capitulated (because we, and probably France, were moving to bomb them), not because of “Russian pressure.”

And “We’ll give you what you want if you don’t bomb us” is not a compromise. It’s a defeat.

Or would you consider it a compromise if Obama were to sign away a chunk of our military’s armament in capitulation to the Syrian or Russian government’s having signaled a strike on American targets?

I don’t think so. I think you’d consider it an unqualified loss, because that’s just what it would be.

45

Also, this entire failure narrative is logically incompatible with the facts.

Russia and Syria had but one reason to move for a quick deal following Kerry’s hint: They believed, correctly, that strikes were imminent. Had Putin and Assad thought no military action was forthcoming, they would have had no reason to jump at the possibility of surrendering 1000 tons of chemical weapons. Indeed, they would have had every reason not to. But they did jump at it, and hard, with the result that a promise to surrender an entire stock of WMD was made and signed within days–all of which was contingent upon the Russo-Syrian assumption that U.S. threats were nearing actualization.

46

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Idle threats are dangerously stupid things to do. If you don’t mean it, don’t threaten it. If you don’t back up what you say, nobody will take you seriously, and nobody does.
[/quote]

Like I said, Syria’s chemical weapons are being turned into sand in Finland right now…because Assad capitulated…because the U.S. (in concert with the French) moved to make good on its threat. If the chemical weapons had not been surrendered, and we had done nothing, then your point would be correct. But that isn’t what happened. We dispossessed a tyrant of his most dangerous weapons simply by signaling that we were going to dole out punishment. This is power.[/quote]

Too little too late. They already used the chemical weapons. That’s what the red line was designed to stop, and it didn’t stop it.
The only reason they turned in what ever they did was because Russia asked them to, nothing we did had anything to do with it.

47

Oh, look what we have here:

48

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Also, this entire failure narrative is logically incompatible with the facts.

Russia and Syria had but one reason to move for a quick deal following Kerry’s hint: They believed, correctly, that strikes were imminent. Had Putin and Assad thought no military action was forthcoming, they would have had no reason to jump at the possibility of surrendering 1000 tons of chemical weapons. Indeed, they would have had every reason not to. But they did jump at it, and hard, with the result that a promise to surrender an entire stock of WMD was made and signed within days–all of which was contingent upon the Russo-Syrian assumption that U.S. threats were nearing actualization.[/quote]

That’s not the facts.
The ‘Red Line’ drawn by obama was that if Syria used chemical weapons, then they would be struck. Syria used chemical weapons and were not struck. ← These are the facts and they are not disputable.

Syria had nothing to fear from another American threat. Russia is damn sure not scared of what the U.S. might do. Chemical weapons even to the Russians are below moral standards. They didn’t want them either. But that was another threat, that wasn’t the ‘red line’.

But let’s not fixate on one thing. There’s lot’s of failures in Syria. The failure to inact a no-fly zone. Failure to back the moderates while they existed, allowing Syria to become a terrorist strong hold where groups like ISIS can get well funded, armed, and organized. All of which led to the larger failure resulting the the crisis we’re in now.

But stop with the chemical disarmament and the fictitious ‘red line’. The red line was not about disarmament, it was about use. They were threatened, they used them anyway and we did nothing about it, PERIOD. The red line was a failure. Let’s move on.

49

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Idle threats are dangerously stupid things to do. If you don’t mean it, don’t threaten it. If you don’t back up what you say, nobody will take you seriously, and nobody does.
[/quote]

Like I said, Syria’s chemical weapons are being turned into sand in Finland right now…because Assad capitulated…because the U.S. (in concert with the French) moved to make good on its threat. If the chemical weapons had not been surrendered, and we had done nothing, then your point would be correct. But that isn’t what happened. We dispossessed a tyrant of his most dangerous weapons simply by signaling that we were going to dole out punishment. This is power.[/quote]

Too little too late. They already used the chemical weapons. That’s what the red line was designed to stop, and it didn’t stop it. [/quote]

That’s the thing about a threat: All you can do is make it, and then follow through on it. You can’t control anybody’s decision to heed it. So we say: “You use chemical weapons, bad things will happen to you.” They use them. And then they have to give up their CW arsenal in order to avoid attacks by the most powerful military on the planet.

Again: We made a threat, Assad made the irrational decision to test us, and then he had to capitulate to stop us from bombing him. This is not a failure in any rational interpretation of the events. Diplomacy is about what’s gotten and what’s given up, not about the mushy spin-job some Fox analyst pulls out of his ass and feeds to you. We got something concrete and extremely important: We dispossessed an unstable state of its WMD (big, considering the possibility that Assad falls some day, and the uncertainty regarding who or what might replace him). And we gave up nothing, at all. We didn’t even have to drop a bomb–we just had to motion toward the trigger. This is a concrete victory.

[quote]
The only reason they turned in what ever they did was because Russia asked them to, nothing we did had anything to do with it.[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Again, you need to read up on these kinds of things before you offer opinions on them. Why did the Russians and Syrians both jump at the possibility of a deal? What was it they were trying to avoid, exactly?

50

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Also, this entire failure narrative is logically incompatible with the facts.

Russia and Syria had but one reason to move for a quick deal following Kerry’s hint: They believed, correctly, that strikes were imminent. Had Putin and Assad thought no military action was forthcoming, they would have had no reason to jump at the possibility of surrendering 1000 tons of chemical weapons. Indeed, they would have had every reason not to. But they did jump at it, and hard, with the result that a promise to surrender an entire stock of WMD was made and signed within days–all of which was contingent upon the Russo-Syrian assumption that U.S. threats were nearing actualization.[/quote]

That’s not the facts.
The ‘Red Line’ drawn by obama was that if Syria used chemical weapons, then they would be struck. Syria used chemical weapons and were not struck…[/quote]

…Because they gave us their chemical weapons arsenal in order to avoid being struck.

Why do you think the Russians and Syrians jumped at a hint Kerry dropped on September 9? Why do you think they pushed a complete capitulation on chemical weapons through the necessary channels in days? What was their motivation?

51

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why some people consider this a failure was because Obama threatened to bomb Syria if they crossed the red line, which was use of chemical weapons. The weapons were used regardless and we did not bomb them due to Russian pressure. Sure we reached a compromise which worked out to our advantage, but I think it gave Putin the feeling that he could do what ever he pleased in Eastern Europe and we would do nothing to retaliate. [/quote]

They escaped American strikes because they capitulated (because we, and probably France, were moving to bomb them), not because of “Russian pressure.”

And “We’ll give you what you want if you don’t bomb us” is not a compromise. It’s a defeat.

Or would you consider it a compromise if Obama were to sign away a chunk of our military’s armament in capitulation to the Syrian or Russian government’s having signaled a strike on American targets?

I don’t think so. I think you’d consider it an unqualified loss, because that’s just what it would be.

[/quote]

“Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision,” Interfax said, quoting the state-run Rossiya-24 channel’s yet-to-be-aired interview.

52

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why some people consider this a failure was because Obama threatened to bomb Syria if they crossed the red line, which was use of chemical weapons. The weapons were used regardless and we did not bomb them due to Russian pressure. Sure we reached a compromise which worked out to our advantage, but I think it gave Putin the feeling that he could do what ever he pleased in Eastern Europe and we would do nothing to retaliate. [/quote]

They escaped American strikes because they capitulated (because we, and probably France, were moving to bomb them), not because of “Russian pressure.”

And “We’ll give you what you want if you don’t bomb us” is not a compromise. It’s a defeat.

Or would you consider it a compromise if Obama were to sign away a chunk of our military’s armament in capitulation to the Syrian or Russian government’s having signaled a strike on American targets?

I don’t think so. I think you’d consider it an unqualified loss, because that’s just what it would be.

[/quote]

“Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision,” Interfax said, quoting the state-run Rossiya-24 channel’s yet-to-be-aired interview.[/quote]

You’re quoting Assad’s spin on Russian television as evidence? Jesus Fuckin Christ.

53

You know what? Let’s agree to disagree. If you understand the situation poorly enough to be able to suggest that Syria may have used up all of its chemical weapons arsenal while–and I literally mean “while,” as in, “at the exact second that”–thousands of tons of that very arsenal are being shipped to and processed in Finland, Germany, and the Mediterranean; if you understand the situation poorly enough to claim that you “don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia,” when in fact nobody has given or claimed to have given anything to Russia and the entire process of disarmament and neutralization has been overseen by an intergovernmental Hague body in cooperation with the Norwegians, Finns, Germans, Italians, and Americans–if you understand the situation this poorly, then this debate is frankly not worth either your time or mine.

This is to say nothing of the fact that you’re making the ridiculous (and I do mean ridiculous: Nobody who even casually follows the news would half-agree with you) argument that the U.S. airstrike threat had nothing to do with the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons…by citing an Assad’s interview with Russian news? (How trustworthy was Assad when he said he didn’t have chemical weapons? Or is it just when he says something you like that you are willing to suspend you rational faculties?)

I recently remarked to Bismark that I try to stay away from discussion of foreign affairs on PWI, because there is far too much abject fundamental ignorance and bad argumentation. My commitment to that objective is newly reinvigorated.

54

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Also, this entire failure narrative is logically incompatible with the facts.

Russia and Syria had but one reason to move for a quick deal following Kerry’s hint: They believed, correctly, that strikes were imminent. Had Putin and Assad thought no military action was forthcoming, they would have had no reason to jump at the possibility of surrendering 1000 tons of chemical weapons. Indeed, they would have had every reason not to. But they did jump at it, and hard, with the result that a promise to surrender an entire stock of WMD was made and signed within days–all of which was contingent upon the Russo-Syrian assumption that U.S. threats were nearing actualization.[/quote]

That’s not the facts.
The ‘Red Line’ drawn by obama was that if Syria used chemical weapons, then they would be struck. Syria used chemical weapons and were not struck…[/quote]

…Because they gave us their chemical weapons arsenal in order to avoid being struck.

Why do you think the Russians and Syrians jumped at a hint Kerry dropped on September 9? Why do you think they pushed a complete capitulation on chemical weapons through the necessary channels in days? What was their motivation?[/quote]

They already used the chemical weapons. And we have no way of knowing whether or not what they gave up is all of it or not. Syria provided the information about where and how much they had. We have no way of knowing if they gave them all up or if they retained some. They initially said they didn’t have any. We all knew it was a lie and we are relying on them for the information about their stock pile.
But it doesn’t much matter what they gave up since they already used them.
And again, this is one of many screw ups in Syria.
Assad is no longer effectively in control of the country. Syria is now a terrorist hotbed. A safe haven for terrorists to organize, regroup, plan and carry out terrorist attacks. And they have wasted no time in implementing terrorism.

And now, we not only have terrorists from Syria streaming into Iraq and taking over the country, we have what’s left of the Assad regime bombing Iraqi citizens.
So now, Syria and Iraq are linked and now anything we do in Iraq will include Syria as well.

We are in deep, deep trouble in that part of the world. There is no diplomatic solution, it’s going to take a war. This isn’t the end, it’s only the beginning.

55

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You know what? Let’s agree to disagree. If you understand the situation poorly enough to be able to suggest that Syria may have used up all of its chemical weapons arsenal while–and I literally mean “while,” as in, “at the exact second that”–thousands of tons of that very arsenal are being shipped to and processed in Finland, Germany, and the Mediterranean; if you understand the situation poorly enough to claim that you “don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia,” when in fact nobody has given or claimed to have given anything to Russia and the entire process of disarmament and neutralization has been overseen by an intergovernmental Hague body in cooperation with the Norwegians, Finns, Germans, Italians, and Americans–if you understand the situation this poorly, then this debate is frankly not worth either your time or mine.

This is to say nothing of the fact that you’re making the ridiculous (and I do mean ridiculous: Nobody who even casually follows the news would half-agree with you) argument that the U.S. airstrike threat had nothing to do with the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons…by citing an Assad’s interview with Russian news? (How trustworthy was Assad when he said he didn’t have chemical weapons? Or is it just when he says something you like that you are willing to suspend you rational faculties?)

I recently remarked to Bismark that I try to stay away from discussion of foreign affairs on PWI, because there is far too much abject fundamental ignorance and bad argumentation. My commitment to that objective is newly reinvigorated. [/quote]

56

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You know what? Let’s agree to disagree. If you understand the situation poorly enough to be able to suggest that Syria may have used up all of its chemical weapons arsenal while–and I literally mean “while,” as in, “at the exact second that”–thousands of tons of that very arsenal are being shipped to and processed in Finland, Germany, and the Mediterranean; if you understand the situation poorly enough to claim that you “don’t exactly trust them when they say they gave them all to Russia,” when in fact nobody has given or claimed to have given anything to Russia and the entire process of disarmament and neutralization has been overseen by an intergovernmental Hague body in cooperation with the Norwegians, Finns, Germans, Italians, and Americans–if you understand the situation this poorly, then this debate is frankly not worth either your time or mine.

This is to say nothing of the fact that you’re making the ridiculous (and I do mean ridiculous: Nobody who even casually follows the news would half-agree with you) argument that the U.S. airstrike threat had nothing to do with the surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons…by citing an Assad’s interview with Russian news? (How trustworthy was Assad when he said he didn’t have chemical weapons? Or is it just when he says something you like that you are willing to suspend you rational faculties?)

I recently remarked to Bismark that I try to stay away from discussion of foreign affairs on PWI, because there is far too much abject fundamental ignorance and bad argumentation. My commitment to that objective is newly reinvigorated. [/quote]

Oh brother.
You’re the one who got all winded about ‘disarmament’ when that wasn’t even the point.
I don’t know what you fail to understand about this whole ‘red line’ drawn up by obama.
It wasn’t about disarmament it was about the use of chemical weapons. You’re bringing in a bunch of bullshit that have nothing to do with the fact that the ‘red line’ had to do with use of chemical weapons, not possession.

The whole disarmament thing is secondary if not totally irrelevant to the point.
You keep chirping about disarmament which had nothing to do with the fact that the ‘red line’ in question was about the use of chemical weapons.
The use of chemical weapons.
The second military threat with regards to disarmament came after they had already used them, this was not the ‘red line’. The ‘red line’ had to do with Assad using chemical weapons.

You claiming I don’t understand the situation, you cannot even focus on the right topic.
I am talking about one thing, you start talking about something altogether different and claim I don’t understand.

You brought up the whole disarmament thing. It wasn’t mentioned, you brought it up. You brought it up, associated it with this ‘red line’ of obama’s when it had actually nothing to do with the ‘red line’ at all.

You can’t just dump a whole bunch of stuff in, not related to what was discussed and then claim that I or anybody else doesn’t understand.

I am betting you cannot even admit that the ‘red line’ was in regards to the use of chemical weapons and not disarmament.

57

[quote]pat wrote:

But it doesn’t much matter what they gave up since they already used them.
[/quote]

My last post: This is very wrong, and it illustrates why I don’t want to continue having this conversation.

It doesn’t much matter? International relations is a game for the callous more than it’s a game for people with bleeding hearts: What didn’t much matter to American interests was, in fact, the Ghouta attack. Some Syrian civilians died…and? Obama kills Arab civilians by dropping things on them on a monthly if not weekly basis. Do we like seeing civilians die? No. But our generals aren’t losing sleep over the women and children of Ghouta.

What does matter to us is the stockpile of chemical weapons in unstable regions of the world. Though they aren’t really all that powerful or all that much worse than “conventional” weapons, they represent a path of escalation that leads much more quickly and much more decidedly in the direction of total war. They are also better suited for attacks on urban civilian populations than on military targets. Does that sound like the kind of thing we want lying around a failing state that’s being overrun by jihadists? No.

So, we want the weapons out and gone. And what do we get? The weapons out and gone. How do we get it? We make a threat, the threat goes unheeded, we move to strike, and Assad capitulates. Not because Russia fuckin asked him to–because “America is going to attack you” is not a pleasant thing for foreign leaders to hear, and this is exactly what Assad was hearing in September 2013.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the subject. If you don’t agree, I’m alright with that.

58

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why some people consider this a failure was because Obama threatened to bomb Syria if they crossed the red line, which was use of chemical weapons. The weapons were used regardless and we did not bomb them due to Russian pressure. Sure we reached a compromise which worked out to our advantage, but I think it gave Putin the feeling that he could do what ever he pleased in Eastern Europe and we would do nothing to retaliate. [/quote]

They escaped American strikes because they capitulated (because we, and probably France, were moving to bomb them), not because of “Russian pressure.”

And “We’ll give you what you want if you don’t bomb us” is not a compromise. It’s a defeat.

Or would you consider it a compromise if Obama were to sign away a chunk of our military’s armament in capitulation to the Syrian or Russian government’s having signaled a strike on American targets?

I don’t think so. I think you’d consider it an unqualified loss, because that’s just what it would be.

[/quote]

“Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision,” Interfax said, quoting the state-run Rossiya-24 channel’s yet-to-be-aired interview.[/quote]

You’re quoting Assad’s spin on Russian television as evidence? Jesus Fuckin Christ.[/quote]

You’re claiming that Assad was actually afraid of a U.S. strike? It was never going to happen. They are empty threats.

59

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

But it doesn’t much matter what they gave up since they already used them.
[/quote]

My last post: This is very wrong, and it illustrates why I don’t want to continue having this conversation.

It doesn’t much matter? International relations is a game for the callous more than it’s a game for people with bleeding hearts: What didn’t much matter to American interests was, in fact, the Ghouta attack. Some Syrian civilians died…and? Obama kills Arab civilians by dropping things on them on a monthly if not weekly basis. Do we like seeing civilians die? No. But our generals aren’t losing sleep over the women and children of Ghouta.

What does matter to us is the stockpile of chemical weapons in unstable regions of the world. Though they aren’t really all that powerful or all that much worse than “conventional” weapons, they represent a path of escalation that leads much more quickly and much more decidedly in the direction of total war. They are also better suited for attacks on urban civilian populations than on military targets. Does that sound like the kind of thing we want lying around a failing state that’s being overrun by jihadists? No.

So, we want the weapons out and gone. And what do we get? The weapons out and gone. How do we get it? We make a threat, the threat goes unheeded, we move to strike, and Assad capitulates. Not because Russia fuckin asked him to–because “America is going to attack you” is not a pleasant thing for foreign leaders to hear, and this is exactly what Assad was hearing in September 2013.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the subject. If you don’t agree, I’m alright with that.[/quote]

Where’s your evidence that Assad was actually afraid of an American military strike? Where is your evidence that Assad capitulated to pressure by the U.S.?
Kerry’s threat was that they turn over their chemical weapons in a week, they did not and we did not respond militarily.

60

[quote]pat wrote:

It wasn’t about disarmament it was about the use of chemical weapons. You’re bringing in a bunch of bullshit that have nothing to do with the fact that the ‘red line’ had to do with use of chemical weapons, not possession.
[/quote]

And the use would have been punished, as promised, if the lead-up to the punishment had not featured the offer–[u]made by the Russians and Syrians in a direct bid to avoid the punishment[/u]–of Syria’s chemical arsenal.

Diplomatic affairs are about rational decisions. Of fucking course Ghouta and the destruction of the arsenal are related–the one is existentially contingent on the other. This is not complicated. From which alternative do we reap greater benefit: limited punitive airstrikes, or the capitulation of a war-torn, jihadi-riddled state’s chemical arsenal, offered up in fear of the said limited punitive airstrikes?

The rational choice was made. The greater benefit was gotten. The diplomacy went as it should have. No failure–at all. None. A huge concession was won, at no cost to the United States.

Anyway, yes, you did in fact get a bunch of fundamental factual claims totally wrong. Why did you suggest that Assad might have used up all of his arsenal? Did you not know that 1000 tons of it is right now being dragged around northern Europe? You obviously did not, or else you could not have made the suggestion that you made: The two are mutually incompatible. And why did you claim that the Syrians are giving their weapons to Russia? Did you not know that they are in fact giving their weapons to Finland and Germany and the U.S. Navy, under the direction of the OPCW? You could not have known this, because otherwise you would not have made the claim that you made: The two, again, are mutually incompatible. And why…why…would you argue, based on “what Assad said on Russian TV,” that the U.S. airstrikes had nothing to do with the Chemical weapons deal, when this is so obviously incorrect as to almost seem like satire or trolling?

That is simply too much error for me. Like I said, if you want to play tennis, you need a racquet. I know I promised the last one would be my last post, but I’ll try and stick with it this time.