Obama has Failed at Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

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

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.
[/quote]

This is just the kind of denouement that I was hoping for.

I will follow you down whatever road you see fit to go. I do have a slight preference for horse urine as disinfectant, though.

602

Actually, the demonic swine are giving me second thoughts.

603

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Actually, the demonic swine are giving me second thoughts.[/quote]

Well, then, I will put up a repost of what I wrote last night. It was a follow up to the nice, civil discussion SexMachine and GKhan and I were having about the Decapolitan demon-afflicted man in the graveyard mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, before Pat came back with his “blah blah blah chlorine gas blah blah chemical weapons convention blah blah blah red line” stuff.

:wink:

Varqanir wrote
…or else the man was suffering from schizoid delusions and the mass drowning of the herd of pigs was just a coincidence.

SexMachine wrote:
Maybe his name really was legion and he was just suffering from Tourette syndrome.

Gkhan wrote:
And the pigs got tired of listening to him yell, so they committed mass suicide.

Varqanir wrote:
The larger question, of course, is just what a herd of two thousand pigs was doing in Judea.

Were they intended for consumption by the Romans? Even if so, that’s a lot of pigs living close enough to what was probably the town of Gerasa’s primary water source. Even if the Gentiles of the area weren’t bothered by the stench and the filth of two thousand pigs, wouldn’t the constant deluge of pigshit into the lake cause major health problems?

It was probably bad enough that the Jewish community had to drink, wash and bathe with water polluted (both ritually and literally) by contact with voluminous pigshit, but then along comes this itenerant Nazarene preacher/exorcist who drives the entire herd into the lake. I’m no expert on the laws of kashrut, but it occurs to me that a sudden influx of two thousand demon-possessed swine carcasses probably wouldn’t do much in the way of enhancing the purity of a body of water.

So on the one hand we have the Gentiles of the town screaming about the loss of literally tons of pork, which their Roman patrons were likely none too pleased about, and on the other hand you have the Jewish community, who is justifiably pissed off about the lake being further polluted by a bunch of dead pigs who are also harboring the unclean spirits of a man who lived in a graveyard.

Must have been a tough job, being Jesus.

604

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“Obama mishandled the situation under present consideration.”

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

No one has said Obama mishandled the situation UNDER PRESENT CONSIDERATION. You see, you have to add that in order to make your argument stick.

First off, I asked you if Assad had not accepted THE RUSSIAN PROPOSAL, would we be bombing Syria? You said yes. You said the threat of force made the Russians intercede and got Assad to give up his chemical arms. THE THREAT OF FORCE is what caused them to come to the table… Your words.

So when I said America can bomb anyone they want at any time, wouldn’t that be a THREAT OF FORCE? Isn’t that what you said brought Russia to the table, because if not, I am thoroughly confused.

But now you are saying Obama never issued a direct threat to bomb Syria. His threat was vague. If he was speaking from a position of power, why the vagueness in his threat? Why not say what you mean and mean what you say?

He said if Syria used chemical weapons against his people then it was crossing a red line and there would be vague consequences. Next he said the international community drew the red line. So which is it?

What exactly was the red line and what was the threat? If Obama said "if you cross the red line (using chemical weapons against his own people) there would be consequences and Assad used chemical weapons against his own people so Obama’s threat was a failure.

Luckily Obama’s calculus had changed, now it does not matter if Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Now, since the Russians brokered a deal to let Obama save face and Assad remain in control, he took it. It was a win for the West and a win for Russia and Assad.

So, yes, under present consideration, the outcome was a good one. Assad is without chemical weapons and left with ones you can buy on line, weak ones that can be made in a kitchen sink and should not be called or considered chemical weapons, and they can not fall into the hands of terrorists, which would not matter since they too could buy them on line and make them in a kitchen sink.

But if Obama threatened to PREVENT Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people in a position of force, then Obama’s threat was a failure under present consideration.

And although it was a good win-win outcome, without the intercession of the Russians, it would not have happened. So if anyone is looking good under present conditions, it is the Russians because they win as negotiators.

605

The whole argument the way I see it breaks down to this: Obama said don’t use chemical weapons on your own people, if you do, it will cross a red line I have drawn, strike that, the international community has drawn and there will be some kind of consequences. Assad used the chemicals, so the red line was a failure.

Other people who think Obama’s threat was vague and could mean anything up to bombing or just giving up chemical weapons per a Russian negotiation, think the situation was a win, regardless of whether or not Assad used the weapons, because the red line threat was just vague enough to mean any consequence, and it was a huge win for the United States and the Russians. People who interpret this vague calculus changing red line seem to think it was a success.

and that’s where we stand.

That’s an interesting thought about the pigs in ancient Israel. Never thought the Romans could have brought that herd in, but hell, it stands to reason.

606

Pig Husbandry in Iron Age Israel and Judah by the famous Levantine archaeologist Israel Finkelstein:

607

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“Obama mishandled the situation under present consideration.”

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

No one has said Obama mishandled the situation UNDER PRESENT CONSIDERATION. You see, you have to add that in order to make your argument stick.[/quote]

I have to add it because I am debating people who are so incompetent or dishonest that they must be continuously reminded that what we are talking about is what we are talking about and anything we say while we’re talking should relate to what we’re talking about.

[quote]
First off, I asked you if Assad had not accepted THE RUSSIAN PROPOSAL, would we be bombing Syria? You said yes. You said the threat of force made the Russians intercede and got Assad to give up his chemical arms. THE THREAT OF FORCE is what caused them to come to the table… Your words.[/quote]

My words, and also “what happened.” The latter being somewhat more important.

[quote]
So when I said America can bomb anyone they want at any time, wouldn’t that be a THREAT OF FORCE? Isn’t that what you said brought Russia to the table, because if not, I am thoroughly confused.[/quote]

I can tell.

[quote]
But now you are saying Obama never issued a direct threat to bomb Syria. His threat was vague. If he was speaking from a position of power, why the vagueness in his threat? Why not say what you mean and mean what you say?[/quote]

Why didn’t he say something different? I don’t know, I don’t live in his head and I haven’t had the occasion to ask him. Perhaps leaders like to keep their options relatively open by speaking in ways that do not too greatly constrict their future decision-making abilities while at the same time being direct enough to make their wishes known and to imply what needs to be implied. Because perhaps somewhere down the line the unconstrained decision-making process might lead to things like concrete foreign policy victories which further American interests.

[quote]
He said if Syria used chemical weapons against his people then it was crossing a red line and there would be vague consequences. Next he said the international community drew the red line. So which is it?[/quote]

Addressed. You worry about what was said. I’ll worry about action and outcome. And we’ll see who ends up with his head farther up his ass.

[quote]
What exactly was the red line and what was the threat? If Obama said "if you cross the red line (using chemical weapons against his own people) there would be consequences and Assad used chemical weapons against his own people so Obama’s threat was a failure.[/quote]

Addressed literally a dozen times. Keywords: Presidents succeed and fail insofar as their decisions and their reactions to the decisions of outside actors are rational or irrational, Melians, George Bush, Saddam Hussein. That’s the last time I respond to this point without your having responded to its rebuttals. This paragraph will be pasted into my posts until then.

[quote]
Luckily Obama’s calculus had changed, now it does not matter if Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Now, since the Russians brokered a deal to let Obama save face and Assad remain in control, he took it. It was a win for the West and a win for Russia and Assad.[/quote]

Addressed. Deals tend to entail benefit to both sides. The benefit to us was such that the deal was the rational choice.

[quote]

But if Obama threatened to PREVENT Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people in a position of force, then Obama’s threat was a failure under present consideration. [/quote]

Addressed literally a dozen times. Keywords: Presidents succeed and fail insofar as their decisions and their reactions to the decisions of outside actors are rational or irrational, Melians, George Bush, Saddam Hussein. That’s the last time I respond to this point without your having responded to its rebuttals. This paragraph will be pasted into my posts until then.

[quote]
And although it was a good win-win outcome, without the intercession of the Russians, it would not have happened. So if anyone is looking good under present conditions, it is the Russians because they win as negotiators.[/quote]

Yep, they come rushing in with a concrete deal to try to stop the most powerful military on the planet from bombing their client and trading partner, and they look good. Because they are “negotiators.” And we look weak. I’m sure, if the roles were reversed, and we surrendered a bunch of Israeli armaments in order to stop the Russians from punishing them for something they’d done to their own people, you would consider us to have come out looking strong, and the Russians to look weak. Re-read that last sentence. Now re-read it again.

Edited

608

On the subject of pigs and the Bible, one of the best interviews ever given:

609

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Yep, they come rushing in with a concrete deal to try to stop the most powerful military on the planet from bombing their client and trading partner, and they look good.

Edited[/quote]

If the Russians said to Israel, if you attack Hezbollah we will bomb you…and they attack, who looks weak? Israel or the Russians?

610

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Addressed. You worry about what was said. I’ll worry about action and outcome. And we’ll see who ends up with his head farther up his ass.

[/quote]

Did Assad giving up his chemical weapons prevent him from gassing his own people, yes or no?

Obama drew a red line told Syria not to use chemical weapons against his own people. Assad used chemical weapons. Obama’s red line was a failure. This is because Assad is an irrational actor? Thought you said you don’t make excuses for Assad. If his goal was to stop Assad from using chemical weapons he was a failure. He could have taken every chemical weapon, every knife, bomb, every stick, every stone. It does not negate the fact that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in spite of Obama’s warning. It’s great Assad doesn’t have any chemical weapons anymore,except for cheap ones you can buy on line and make in a kitchen sink, but it is a little too late. ASSAD USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE THREAT OF FORCE ISSUED BY OBAMA. HIS THREAT WAS A FAILURE. For the people who were killed, it doesn’t matter if Assad gave up every conceivable possible weapon under the sun. Great that it turned out that way, but without the Russians, it would never have happened.

Obama is a great president because the Russians presented a deal so he could save face because the threat of force failed at stopping Assad from gassing his own people.

611

Make that analogy correct. What exactly did the Russians say? And what happens next? Who does what to whom?

Then, go back and read the thousands of words that have been written on threats and strength and decision-making and Bush and the Melians and the proper paradigm for the evaluation of matters like these. Because they directly addressed the point you’re trying to make here…and they did it days ago and pages back. Days ago and pages back.

Then, for Christ’s sake, come up with a response that is worth reading. Because the post I’m quoting, the facile analogy which you know to be incomplete already-dealt-with horseshit, is not worth either of our time.

612

The previous response was to the penultimate of the posts before it. The one wherein you made a fuckin terrible, plainly dishonest analogy.

I’m not pulling your leg when I say this shit has been addressed. And I’m not going to respond to another point that was refuted a week ago.

613

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Obama drew a red line told Syria not to use chemical weapons against his own people. Assad used chemical weapons. Obama’s red line was a failure. This is because Assad is an irrational actor? Thought you said you don’t make excuses for Assad. [/quote]

The rational/irrational paradigm is about the evaluation of Obama, not Assad. But why know what your opponent has argued? Surely that isn’t what debate is about, right?

All this time that you’ve been making the same simplistic arguments that were being made and responded to a week ago, I’ve thought that you were being difficult–“deliberately dismissive,” to avail myself of a new favorite–but now I suspect you actually haven’t read any of it. Or, you certainly haven’t understood it. Either way, my time is really not all that valuable, but it is slightly too precious for me to allow myself to write the same things multiple times to you.

614

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Obama is a great president because the Russians presented a deal so he could save face[/quote]

The Russians now conduct foreign policy with the goal that American presidents save face?

That pain in your ass? It’s your skull.

615

Russia implies that Israel should think twice about doing X to its own citizens.

Israel does X to its own citizens.

Russia prepares to bomb Israel.

The U.S. and Israel rush to offer the Russians the surrender of 2,000,000 pounds or Israeli armaments–armaments the dispossession of which represents a serious Russian security interest, one which had been impossible for more than a decade prior. They do this in a bid to stop Russia from punishing Israel.

Russia takes the armaments under threat of force.

In this scenario, the U.S. is strong, and Russia is weak? You come on to PWI and sing Obama’s praises–oh what a fucking lion of a leader? No, I did not think so.

See, analogies can be useful. You just have to make sure to you aren’t building them with dung.

616

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

That pain in your ass? It’s your skull.[/quote]

That’s pretty funny. I’m using that one eventually.

617

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

That pain in your ass? It’s your skull.[/quote]

That’s pretty funny. I’m using that one eventually.[/quote]

What’s mine is yours good sir.

Besides, I’m using your nuclear backed currency line eventually myself.

618

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Obama is a great president because the Russians presented a deal so he could save face[/quote]

The Russians now conduct foreign policy with the goal that American presidents save face?

That pain in your ass? It’s your skull.[/quote]

Quoted from a your post above:

[quote]
Addressed. Deals tend to entail benefit to both sides. The benefit to us was such that the deal was the rational choice.[/quote]

But it did not stop Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people. He obviously can’t do it again, but he already did it, in spite of the warning. What’s so hard to figure out about what I am saying?

619

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Addressed. You worry about what was said. I’ll worry about action and outcome. And we’ll see who ends up with his head farther up his ass.

[/quote]

Did Assad giving up his chemical weapons prevent him from gassing his own people, yes or no?
[/quote]

More argument by rhetorical question.

Is that really an effective method, or is it not?

Is it lazy, or is it not?

As for the point you’re languidly and vaguely circling, my response is this, as it will be until you figure out a way to write something halfway-substantive which addresses points that have been available to you for days and days:

620

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Obama is a great president because the Russians presented a deal so he could save face[/quote]

The Russians now conduct foreign policy with the goal that American presidents save face?

That pain in your ass? It’s your skull.[/quote]

Quoted from a your post above:

[quote]
Addressed. Deals tend to entail benefit to both sides. The benefit to us was such that the deal was the rational choice.[/quote][/quote]

There is nothing in that post about Russia doing anything so Obama can save face. The Russian benefit was obvious, and it had nothing to do with making Obama look good. That’s what your “so” meant, and that nugget of gilded wisdom is all yours.

[quote]
But it did not stop Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people. He obviously can’t do it again, but he already did it, in spite of the warning. What’s so hard to figure out about what I am saying?[/quote]

What’s hard to figure out about that? Obviously nothing. It’s written in English.

What’s hard to figure out about “this point has been addressed a dozen times and amounts to absolutely nothing in the context of this argument.”