Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How the hell did you get:
“Was the Syrian chemical weapon question mishandled, or was it not?”

from:
“The actual point of debate was whether or not Assad crossed the ‘red line’ and if the U.S. response was appropriate or toothless and meaningless.”[/quote]

Because they are the same question.

The red line [on chemical weapons] and the U.S. response [to the use of chemical weapons] is the “Syrian chemical weapons question.” Whether the response was “appropriate” or not is whether or not it was “mishandled.” Everything we’ve discussed–the cost-benefit ratios of the respective decisions (actually, you didn’t discuss this, despite it’s being the crux of the entire matter), the American threat of force, the specifics of the deal, the desperate chlorine gas argument you clung to in the end–has been a body in orbit around the central specific matter, and the central specific matter has been unambiguous from the first page.

Again, we have now reached the stage in the debate whereat you try to go back and waffle on the goalposts. Which is sufficient proof of the debate’s having come to a decisive end.[/quote]

No, they don’t mean the same thing, at all. You’re question deals solely in the scope of chemical weapons and whether they were mishandled or not. I make no reference to whether or not chemical weapons were handled or not. It’s in plain yellow and black.
You cannot change my statement to mean anything you want to. I was not and am not talking about how the chemical weapons were handled.
They are being shipped out and destroyed which is a good thing, but it’s not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the use of chemical weapons crossing what obama called a red line and whether or not allowing Russia, a clear backer of the regime, to negotiate a disarmament with them on chemical weapons while Russia continues to arm the regime to the teeth.
I take no issue with the ‘handling’ of the weapons stockpile.
I take issue with that being to only response, entrusting Russia with the negotiations, following a threat with another threat, allowing the situation on the ground to deteriorate into a sectarian hell hole, allowing the Russians to bolster the military capabilities of somebody we publically declared we want gone. All this stuff went horribly wrong. And none of it has to do with how chemical weapons were handled. It’s the only thing that was handled and how well it yet to be fully known. Syria is a disaster, handling of the chemical weapons is a small part of it.

582

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How the hell did you get:
“Was the Syrian chemical weapon question mishandled, or was it not?”

from:
“The actual point of debate was whether or not Assad crossed the ‘red line’ and if the U.S. response was appropriate or toothless and meaningless.”[/quote]

Because they are the same question.

The red line [on chemical weapons] and the U.S. response [to the use of chemical weapons] is the “Syrian chemical weapons question.” Whether the response was “appropriate” or not is whether or not it was “mishandled.” Everything we’ve discussed–the cost-benefit ratios of the respective decisions (actually, you didn’t discuss this, despite it’s being the crux of the entire matter), the American threat of force, the specifics of the deal, the desperate chlorine gas argument you clung to in the end–has been a body in orbit around the central specific matter, and the central specific matter has been unambiguous from the first page.

Again, we have now reached the stage in the debate whereat you try to go back and waffle on the goalposts. Which is sufficient proof of the debate’s having come to a decisive end.[/quote]

No, they don’t mean the same thing, at all. You’re question deals solely in the scope of chemical weapons and whether they were mishandled or not. I make no reference to whether or not chemical weapons were handled or not. It’s in plain yellow and black.
You cannot change my statement to mean anything you want to. I was not and am not talking about how the chemical weapons were handled.
They are being shipped out and destroyed which is a good thing, but it’s not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the use of chemical weapons crossing what obama called a red line and whether or not allowing Russia, a clear backer of the regime, to negotiate a disarmament with them on chemical weapons while Russia continues to arm the regime to the teeth.
I take no issue with the ‘handling’ of the weapons stockpile.
I take issue with that being to only response, entrusting Russia with the negotiations, following a threat with another threat, allowing the situation on the ground to deteriorate into a sectarian hell hole, allowing the Russians to bolster the military capabilities of somebody we publically declared we want gone. All this stuff went horribly wrong. And none of it has to do with how chemical weapons were handled. It’s the only thing that was handled and how well it yet to be fully known. Syria is a disaster, handling of the chemical weapons is a small part of it.[/quote]

You may continue your insults. It seems to make you feel better.

583

[quote]Bismark wrote:
To Gkhan and Pat,

I am reposting this as it has been ignored multiple times.

The redline did not present an explicit threat of force, but merely a change of “calculus”, which is why the qualifier ambiguous precedes deterrence. Deterrence functions most effectively when it is clearly presented to potential adversaries. However, if such an explicit conditional threat was issued and sagely 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 is nothing short of tragic, to choose the latter would be nothing short of weakness underpinned by naive idealism.

Global politics take place in an anarchic environment, as no overarching authority exists above states to regulate their behavior toward one another, much less toward their own citizens. International law is more accurately described as a loose collection of norms states must individually AGREE to be bound by. They do so to mitigate international conflict, reduce transaction costs of bilateral agreements, and encourage mutually beneficial norms of behavior. International law is often enforced only as far as it benefits the most powerful states in the international political system. Compelling Syria to accede to the CWC and to relinquish one of the largest military grade chemical weapons arsenals in the world is nothing short of a concrete victory for American and international security. 2,000,000 lbs of schedule 1 blister and nerve agent are no longer in danger of being commandeered Islamist extremists.

As far as the use of chlorine gas is concerned, of what tangible consequence is it to American and international security? It is a schedule 3 chemical, and is several hundred to several thousand times less lethal than mustard sulfur, sarin, and VX nerve agent, respectively. Yes, it is despicable that Assad is utilizing chlorine gas as an indiscriminate area weapon, regardless of their efficacy. However, interpersonal ethics cannot be cogently applied to intergroup ethics, especially so in the grand realm of international politics. Again, prudent foreign policy is not guided by emotive morality, but rather by rational egoism. It is a discipline underpinned by the ethics of consequentialism. [/quote]

I agree ‘change in calculus’ vague but to say it wasn’t a threat of military force isn’t all together correct.

From:

“Obama is correct to argue that the international community has long drawn a “red line” condemning the use of chemical weapons, but his point blurs the fact that his “red line” comment in August 2012 was made in the context of what it might take for the U.S. to get involved militarily in Syria. While Obama may have had some justification for drawing that line based on international conventions, the decision to tie U.S. military involvement to Assad using chemical weapons was Obamaâ??s red line.”

While he didn’t say it explicitly, he meant it implicitly.
While getting rid of chemical weapons is a good thing it did little to emasculate Assad. If anything he is now stronger than he was. The situation there is dire. A more aggressive stance could have both eliminated chemical weapons and weakened Assad. We had an option to do that and didn’t and now we can’t.

584

[quote]kamui wrote:

Then, what’s your problem with Assad’s chroline gas attacks ?

Would you prefer it if he kill rebels with conventional bombs, which would destroy a few millenia old cities and the whole industrial infrastructure of Syria in the process ?

[/quote]

He’s trying to establish the Obama threats were worthless because of the fact that Assad USED the weapons. Never said if he feels their use was morally sound.

585

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, I never said chlorine gas was on the banned list and I never even said it should. All I said was despite the chemical disarmament Assad still found a way to use toxic chemicals to kill people.
The point being, despite not having his most dangerous chemical weapons, Assad is not deterred from using chemicals as weapons to kill people.
Do you disagree this happened?[/quote]

I agree that his men improvised, and found a way to work around the ban. Who would have thought that a murderer would still kill people even after one type of weapon was taken out of his hands.

If Roe vs Wade were overturned tomorrow, and abortion were made illegal in all fifty states and the District of Columbia, would you consider the entire venture a failure if you learned about a back-alley abortion being performed in Compton with a coat hanger, in clear defiance of the law?

[/quote]

And that’s all I was saying with regards to the chlorine gas use. I didn’t say it was a great weapon, nor comparing it’s effectiveness to mustard, sarin or anything else.[/quote]

But what is your answer to his very appropriate and on-target question. Answer the question. Would you consider the people responsible for Roe’s reversal (and, let’s presume, the passage of a national abortion criminalization act) to have failed? Yes or no?[/quote]

If the goal was just to reverse Roe then yes, if it was to stop abortions no.

If the redline was drawn to make Assad give up his weapons, yes. If it was a threat telling him not to use them no.

What was Obama’s original purpose for drawing the red line? Why did Obama’s calculus suddenly change?

586

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
stupid, fucktwat, idiotic, asshole, cocksucking, nimrod

[/quote]

But on the bright side, Nimrod was a mighty hunter.[/quote]

But he should have stayed out of the construction business.

587

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The actual point of debate was whether or not Assad crossed the ‘red line’ and if the U.S. response was appropriate or toothless and meaningless.
[/quote]

When Obama issued the red line threat, did he say “Assad, give up all your chemical weapons?” Or did he say "Assad, if you use chemical weapons you are crossing a red line drawn by the international community? Does anyone even remember or care what the original origin of the damn red line threat to Syria was?

588

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
How the hell did you get:
“Was the Syrian chemical weapon question mishandled, or was it not?”

from:
“The actual point of debate was whether or not Assad crossed the ‘red line’ and if the U.S. response was appropriate or toothless and meaningless.”[/quote]

Because they are the same question.

The red line [on chemical weapons] and the U.S. response [to the use of chemical weapons] is the “Syrian chemical weapons question.” Whether the response was “appropriate” or not is whether or not it was “mishandled.” Everything we’ve discussed–the cost-benefit ratios of the respective decisions (actually, you didn’t discuss this, despite it’s being the crux of the entire matter), the American threat of force, the specifics of the deal, the desperate chlorine gas argument you clung to in the end–has been a body in orbit around the central specific matter, and the central specific matter has been unambiguous from the first page.

Again, we have now reached the stage in the debate whereat you try to go back and waffle on the goalposts. Which is sufficient proof of the debate’s having come to a decisive end.[/quote]

No, they don’t mean the same thing, at all. You’re question deals solely in the scope of chemical weapons and whether they were mishandled or not. I make no reference to whether or not chemical weapons were handled or not. It’s in plain yellow and black.
You cannot change my statement to mean anything you want to. I was not and am not talking about how the chemical weapons were handled.
They are being shipped out and destroyed which is a good thing, but it’s not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the use of chemical weapons crossing what obama called a red line and whether or not allowing Russia, a clear backer of the regime, to negotiate a disarmament with them on chemical weapons while Russia continues to arm the regime to the teeth.
I take no issue with the ‘handling’ of the weapons stockpile.
I take issue with that being to only response, entrusting Russia with the negotiations, following a threat with another threat, allowing the situation on the ground to deteriorate into a sectarian hell hole, allowing the Russians to bolster the military capabilities of somebody we publically declared we want gone. All this stuff went horribly wrong. And none of it has to do with how chemical weapons were handled. It’s the only thing that was handled and how well it yet to be fully known. Syria is a disaster, handling of the chemical weapons is a small part of it.[/quote]

You may continue your insults. It seems to make you feel better.[/quote]

Where in that post did I insult you?

I said you’re waffling on the goalposts. I did not insult you, I described what it is that I see you doing. Your argument began as a repetition of a facile koan: Obama failed because Assad used chemical weapons. When this point was pulled apart with gleeful ease, you began searching for an escape route. You thought you’d found one in the chlorine attacks, but that digression suffered the fate it deserved (though not as quickly as it should have). Now you’re trying to push whatever this is.

Since the first page, the topic and scope of this argument have been as unambiguous as the affronts to honest debate have been bold and common.

589

[quote]Bismark wrote:
To Gkhan and Pat,

I am reposting this as it has been ignored multiple times.

The redline did not present an explicit threat of force, but merely a change of “calculus”, which is why the qualifier ambiguous precedes deterrence. Deterrence functions most effectively when it is clearly presented to potential adversaries. However, if such an explicit conditional threat was issued and sagely 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 is nothing short of tragic, to choose the latter would be nothing short of weakness underpinned by naive idealism.

Global politics take place in an anarchic environment, as no overarching authority exists above states to regulate their behavior toward one another, much less toward their own citizens. International law is more accurately described as a loose collection of norms states must individually AGREE to be bound by. They do so to mitigate international conflict, reduce transaction costs of bilateral agreements, and encourage mutually beneficial norms of behavior. International law is often enforced only as far as it benefits the most powerful states in the international political system. Compelling Syria to accede to the CWC and to relinquish one of the largest military grade chemical weapons arsenals in the world is nothing short of a concrete victory for American and international security. 2,000,000 lbs of schedule 1 blister and nerve agent are no longer in danger of being commandeered Islamist extremists.

As far as the use of chlorine gas is concerned, of what tangible consequence is it to American and international security? It is a schedule 3 chemical, and is several hundred to several thousand times less lethal than mustard sulfur, sarin, and VX nerve agent, respectively. Yes, it is despicable that Assad is utilizing chlorine gas as an indiscriminate area weapon, regardless of their efficacy. However, interpersonal ethics cannot be cogently applied to intergroup ethics, especially so in the grand realm of international politics. Again, prudent foreign policy is not guided by emotive morality, but rather by rational egoism. It is a discipline underpinned by the ethics of consequentialism. [/quote]\

yeah, I get all of that. Did Syria cross the red line or not?

“The redline did not present an explicit threat of force, but merely a change of “calculus”, which is why the qualifier ambiguous precedes deterrence. Deterrence functions most effectively when it is clearly presented to potential adversaries.”

So what you are saying is because there was a change of calculus it did not present an explicit threat of force because it was ambiguous? So, according to the quote, it did not function most effectively.

If it did not function effectively, how was it a success? He made a threat and then HE moved the goal posts!

590

In this case, the structure is Damascus.

[quote]
In a city battle on my turf, I would prefer small conventional weaponry. I don’t want to die with the rebels.[/quote]

I’m not sure the soldiers who would have to carry those small conventional weaponry would take the time to politely ask you if you’re a rebel or an innocent “wrong placed wrong timed” civilian.

And i’m not sure they want to die because “chemical weapons are bad”.

591

The responses have not changed. The arguments have not changed. These reversals and re-visitations of settled points are wasting your time as much as they are anybody else’s.

592

What was Obama’s red line threat? Was it Assad, if you use chemical weapons, you are going to have to give up your entire stock pile, or was it Assad, don’t use chemical weapons on your own people?

593

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

If it did not function effectively, how was it a success? He made a threat and then HE moved the goal posts!
[/quote]

After Bismark beats you, will you promise to forget that his did it so that then you can come back with the same objections and fight it out for a fifth time? It’s just so goddamn fun and enriching.

I said it a while ago: This debate is like a charmless and dishonest re-make of Groundhog Day.

594

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The responses have not changed. The arguments have not changed. These reversals and re-visitations of settled points are wasting your time as much as they are anybody else’s.[/quote]

At this point, i’m starting to think that even if Assad used water cannons to fight syrian jihadists someone would manage to blame Obama for it.

595

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The responses have not changed. The arguments have not changed. These reversals and re-visitations of settled points are wasting your time as much as they are anybody else’s.[/quote]

well then what was it? Please fill me in. I’m guessing it was vague. Why so, if America is so powerful it can do what it pleases and bomb anyone it pleases? Why be vague?

Reagan said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” Not Mr Gorbachev, if you are feeling like it, could you please, kind of maybe take a bunch of bricks out of that wall you have set up over there."

Reagan’s quote is from a position of power.

596

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

If it did not function effectively, how was it a success? He made a threat and then HE moved the goal posts!
[/quote]

After Bismark beats you, will you promise to forget that his did it so that then you can come back with the same objections and fight it out for a fifth time? It’s just so goddamn fun and enriching.

I said it a while ago: This debate is like a charmless and dishonest re-make of Groundhog Day.[/quote]

He’s the one who said in the fn quote the threat wasn’t effective. READ IT!

597

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The responses have not changed. The arguments have not changed. These reversals and re-visitations of settled points are wasting your time as much as they are anybody else’s.[/quote]

At this point, i’m starting to think that even if Assad used water cannons to fight syrian jihadists someone would manage to blame Obama for it.

[/quote]

No one’s saying that.

598

[quote]Reagan said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” Not Mr Gorbachev, if you are feeling like it, could you please, kind of maybe take a bunch of bricks out of that wall you have set up over there."

Reagan’s quote is from a position of power.[/quote]

That’s exactly why Gorbatchev did nothing about it during more than two years.

And it was not even a threat. It was a challenge : “if you’re serious about the glasnost and perestroika : here is a way to prove it”.

599

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The responses have not changed. The arguments have not changed. These reversals and re-visitations of settled points are wasting your time as much as they are anybody else’s.[/quote]

well then what was it? Please fill me in. I’m guessing it was vague. Why so, if America is so powerful it can do what it pleases and bomb anyone it pleases? Why be vague?

Reagan said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” Not Mr Gorbachev, if you are feeling like it, could you please, kind of maybe take a bunch of bricks out of that wall you have set up over there."

Reagan’s quote is from a position of power.
[/quote]

Horrible analogy, for reasons already touched on by kamui. Reagan wasn’t issuing a threat. Did you not know that?

As for your rhetorical questions, half of which I don’t even understand (“Why so, if America is so powerful it can do what it pleases and bomb anyone it pleases?” What are you talking about? Who has ever argued that America can bomb anyone it pleases? Or did that come from you?), why don’t you and Pat do everybody a favor and stop arguing in rhetorical questions. It’s lazy and it doesn’t help you, at all. If you have an argument, make it. Then it will be clear that it was already addressed a few times, and we can be done with this. So go for it: Make an argument the conclusion of which is “Obama mishandled the situation under present consideration.”

Or don’t. I am happy to stick around only to enjoy the denouement at this point.

600

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I am happy to stick around only to enjoy the denouement at this point.[/quote]

Then it seems you have more than a mote of hope left.

As for me, I was perfectly happy allowing the thread to degenerate into discussions of Islamic jurisprudence as it relates to swimming pools containing the pee of infidels, or pollution of lakes in Judea by suicidal demon-possessed hogs, or even a discussion of Mongol field surgical disinfectants made from horse urine.

Anything to avoid hearing the same explanation of how a legal chemical used as a weapon is an illegal chemical weapon, again.