[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Russia implies that Israel should think twice about doing X to its own citizens.
Israel does X to its own citizens.
[/quote]
At this point Russia looks weak. Yes or no?
Obama didn’t imply anything. He, and the international community issued a red line saying Assad, do not use chemical weapons and in spite of all the force and power the United States can project abroad, it did not stop Assad from using the weapons against his own people. That is my argument. You can talk for pages whether or not chlorine is a gas or if it’s banned or if it’s dangerous or if you can make it in a fucking sink. Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, Obama issued Syria a threat and Syria laughed in his face, much the same way the Russians mocked us when we slapped sanctions on us after they took the Crimean.
What exactly was the threat of the Red line? That’s all I’m asking. Don’t use chemical weapons or SOMETHING will happen to you? The Russians came with the proposal to remove the chemical weapons to defuse the situation. If they did not, what would have happened? Does anyone even know?
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.”[/quote]
Amounts to absolutely nothing in the context of the argument? In my opinion, it is the argument.
Great, he gave up chemical weapons. Win win. what do you want me to say? Not arguing that. Not my point. The negotiations came out great. Excellent.
But the red line to STOP Assad, rational or irrational, failed. He was not stopped.
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Russia implies that Israel should think twice about doing X to its own citizens.
Israel does X to its own citizens.
[/quote]
At this point Russia looks weak. Yes or no?
[/quote]
No. [See arguments with 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, Iran, North Korea, threats ignored all the time. Every time I post this in response to your same old single line of reasoning, it becomes a little bit closer to impossible for you to succeed in this debate.] Strength and weakness are functions of responses to the decisions that outside actors make, not those decisions themselves (over which no final control is possible).
But it doesn’t matter, does it? You don’t get to choose a point in the very beginning of the tightly-connected chain of events and decide that that’s where your’re going to close your eyes, pretend history ended, and make your lazy half-judgement. Why stop and judge it all there? Because…well…for no fucking reason at all other than it’s the only place where you can half-pretend that you’re right.
So, again:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Just to illustrate the elite-level incompetence on display in this discussion, I want to highlight that you said this…
[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]
…in direct response to this…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Which is to say that you’re not even reading the words that are written to you. Or, not reading them correctly, anyway.
In case you don’t see it: How did you manage to read that “Presidents succeed and fail insofar as their decisions and their reactions to the decisions of outside actors are rational or irrational,” and manage to come away with the idea that I was talking about Assad?
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.[/quote]
Just to illustrate the elite-level incompetence on display in this discussion, I want to highlight that you said this…
[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]
…in direct response to this…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Which is to say that you’re not even reading the words that are written to you. Or, not reading them correctly, anyway.
In case you don’t see it: How did you manage to read that “Presidents succeed and fail insofar as their decisions and their reactions to the decisions of outside actors are rational or irrational,” and manage to come away with the idea that I was talking about Assad?[/quote]
I knew you were talking about Obama,
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
decisions of outside actors are rational or irrational.[/quote]
Ok, misread it, thought you were talking about the decisions of outside actors being rational or irrational but you said the decisions based on the actions of outside actors are either rational or irrational…ok, got it.
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?
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.[/quote]
Just to illustrate the elite-level incompetence on display in this discussion, I want to highlight that you said this…
[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]
…in direct response to this…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Which is to say that you’re not even reading the words that are written to you. Or, not reading them correctly, anyway.
In case you don’t see it: How did you manage to read that “Presidents succeed and fail insofar as their decisions and their reactions to the decisions of outside actors are rational or irrational,” and manage to come away with the idea that I was talking about Assad?[/quote]
I knew you were talking about Obama, but the irrational outside actor would be Assad? Yes or No. You can’t even follow your own statement, and you mock me thinking I got it wrong?
[/quote]
Edit: Saw your edit
"Presidents succeed and fail
insofar as [presidents’] decisions
and [presidents’] reactions to the decisions of outside actors
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?
interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]
Interesting indeed.
Another bad analogy. A chain of events wherein one’s sister is raped can rarely, if ever, result in a desirable gain-loss ratio. On the other hand, a chain of events wherein some civilians in some other country die can very often result in a desirable gain-loss ratio. Because the two are not comparable and thus are not analogs.
Analogies work in tight circumstances only, and even then they are suspect. The analogy to Russia/Israel works, because it does not shift the conversation to an incomparable, emotional pile of mush. It maintains the political relationships and the selfsame stakes. Sister-rape, on an interpersonal level, is an analog of domestic nuclear holocaust on a geopolitical level. It is most certainly not comparable to a few dead Syrian civilians.
So answer the correct question without cutting it off at step number 1.
No one said “don’t touch her” in this story.
At most, we said “Please put a condom before you rape my jihadist sister”.
And our rapist is now castrated.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Assad was going to rape your sister you said don’t touch her or I’ll kill you. He rapes her anyway and you cut his balls off. He still raped her. You can’t deny that. In spite of your warning, he still raped her. He may not be able to do it again, but he still did it. So how’s that a victory?
interesting how you ignored this. [/quote]
?
So we should let the rapist still have the tools to continually perform the act?
Apprehending/punishing offenders - in anyway shape or form - is not a success?
[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?
[/quote]
[/quote]
This has been my point from the beginning. Thank you for recognizing it. I fear, the more ways I put it, the less it was understood.
The red line was about use.
The change in calculous was military.
The action though having some benefit, was insufficient.
These are the points, have been, and simple have not been understood between all the name calling and insults.
[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[/quote]
You’re flat full of your own shit you cannot see past it. The only person moving things around is you. I cannot say your dishonest because I believe you believe your own bullshit.
My arguments have not changed, never changed and still remain. You’re focus may have changed, but that’s not my fault.
Let’s put it this way, if you really had a point, why would you need to use ad hominems? Would the points not stand on their own?
My points stand on their own. The things you think I meant I didn’t say, and the things you think I said I didn’t mean. That’s not my fault, that’s yours. You simply stop reading as soon as you find something you think you can jump on. You’re so angry you don’t make any sense.
That’s your fault not mine.
Perhaps you’re to emotional for this kind of talk.
I have been trying to figure out what the hell your were arguing? Or why you are so mad? You keep talking about the removal of chemical weapons, a point I haven’t seen anybody disagree with. But damn it I must be stupid for not disagreeing with it.
[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.[/quote]
You’ve called me dishonest, unintelligent, stupid, etc.
I am not waffling on shit, I have said the same thing from the beginning.
Obama laid ‘red line’ Assad crossed it. ← This isn’t difficult. The purpose of the red line was so Assad wouldn’t use chemical weapons. The only possible counter argument would be to say Assad didn’t use chemical weapons.
There are only 2 options here.
Or are you trying to say the red line wasn’t a threat against using chemical weapons? I means seriously. The only way you can ‘gleefully’ pull it apart is to say something completely wrong.
Yes, the ‘red line’ failed, fucking duh. If it did not, Assad would not have used chemical weapons, fucking duh.
Now the ‘red line’ was issued in the context of the use of military force as verified here:
Obama didn’t change his calculus. He accepted a deal.
Nobody has argued that the removal of chemical weapons is anything but a good thing, but it was far from a sufficient response. He let the Russians, Assad supporters broker the deal, while the Russians are arming the shit out of Assad, making him stronger. Allowing the opposition to be overrun by terrorists, and essentially letting the country go to hell, in exchange for chemical weapons.
You are focused on the amount and ferocity of the chemicals removed. Hey, a good thing. Wonderful. Meanwhile, Assad got stronger in the process. A little embarrassing for the U.S. since we called for his ass. The place is a mess, the fighting is in Iraq now too and I am supposed to celebrate the removal of chemical weapons only? I would much rather they have chemicals ad be peaceful and stable than not have them and be a violent shithole powder keg.
It’s is good terrorists can’t get their hands on chemical weapons? Hell yes. I don’t want these same terrorists to get their hands on Scud missiles and Migs either, though. I don’t want them to have effective conventional weapons either.
Now the chlorine gas incident proves one thing that simply flies right past you and I have no idea why, because it’s so stupid simple. Assad still uses chemicals to kill people. This is a re-violation of the ‘red line’, it’s a violation of the treaty he signed, it’s a violation of every agreement.
It’s a blatant disregard of everything he agreed to.
You’re argument is simply, ‘Oh well chlorine gas isn’t as bad as mustard’, so what, that makes it ok? No biggie? It’s ok to use chemicals to kill people so long as they are not the super dangerous ones?
For the millionth time the failures:
Red line was crossed.
Russians brokered a deal to remove chemical weapons, which benifited both Assad and Russia.
Assad is stronger than ever.
The situation in Syria is even more unstable
Terrorists have overrun the opposition.
The fighting is crossing borders.
The instability of that region is a detriment to world security.
And the cherry on top, is that the ‘red line’ was so effective, and the deal brokered with Russia is so well done, that Assad still uses chemicals to kill people. Oh, well it’s chlorine (not like you can buy in the store, or internet) not Sarin, so it’s cool to kill people with that.
Maybe you’re the obtuse one. Maybe you’re the dishonest one. Maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand this situation at all. Maybe it’s you whose totally missing the points.
Listing factiods about when, where, how, and by who these chemicals from Syria are being done away with aren’t points. It’s a single point. Syria is giving up chemical weapons. We will never be able to verified if they in fact gave up everything but they gave up a lot. That’s wonderful but it’s not enough. We agreed to far to little while those, who are not friends of the U.S., do not have any of our intentions in mind, broker a deal that strengthens their hand and does just enough to pacify.
I don’t have much time to fuck around with you today, but get your head out of your ass and quit acting like a jerk. I have made my points clear. Which have been the same ones all along, adding only the chlorine gas attack. All you have done is rant aimlessly about chemical disarmament. You have addressed maybe one to one and half points.
It’s much easier to get clarity with people when they don’t turn into raving lunatics when you disagree with them.
I am not shifting goal posts, you’ve just been reading into things they way you want them to read, and when I tell you that wasn’t the meaning, you accuse me of moving the goal post.
If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you will see I have been making the same general points the entire time. I have added details to support them, but I have never wavered.
And if I am such a waste of time to you, the simplest thing to do is nothing. I never forced you to respond. And if I am so stupid, why waste your time. If I think somebody is stupid I don’t respond. You can tell if I don’t think a conversation is worth having because I don’t respond.
I don’t have this overwhelming desire to show people how much I don’t care, but posting a response saying ‘I don’t care.’
I am curious, do you know what you are even arguing for? I have seen you ‘refute’ a lot of things nobody has said or intimated. Or is this just some sort of ego trip for you?
That’s all I have time for today. I’ll be expecting you to blow your fucking top completely off, ah but hell keyboards are cheap, bang away.
[quote]pat wrote:
I’ll be expecting you to blow your fucking top completely off, ah but hell keyboards are cheap, bang away.[/quote]
I’ll surprise you and simply say that I have no interest in continuing this debate with you, given all that’s happened. I am satisfied with where it lies, and I’m fine with you thinking whatever you want of what just happened here.
I do still want to know Gkhan’s answer to this question:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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?
[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To be fair, I was being a little too mocking, and a simple misinterpretation is not something that should be mocked, so you have my apologies.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
I’ll be expecting you to blow your fucking top completely off, ah but hell keyboards are cheap, bang away.[/quote]
I’ll surprise you and simply say that I have no interest in continuing this debate with you, given all that’s happened. I am satisfied with where it lies, and I’m fine with you thinking whatever you want of what just happened here.[/quote]
In this case, the structure is Damascus.
[/quote]
Well I cannot speak for Assad. I don’t really know how much he cares about the structures, nor do I know if he used chemical weapons to preserve the structures or he likes the cruelty of poison over artillery.
I was merely stating why one might wish to use chemical weapons vs. conventional.
My opinion is that conventional weapons are more effective in general and that chemicals, though preserving structures are more trouble than they are worth.
I personally would not choose chemical weapons unless I wanted to be particularly cruel and wanted the psychological effect to intimidate my enemies. But I don’t actually understand the use, because they seem to me to be weapons of mad men. Not being one, I don’t get it. I can merely theorize, I don’t have anyway of really knowing.
[quote]
Sure, it merely increases your odds at survival, it’s certainly no guarantee. You have a better chance at an army sweeping an area, then if they blow the whole place to smithereens, or poison the entire area.
[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.[/quote]
Gasoline is a legal chemical, if you pour it on somebody and set them on fire that is an illegal act using a legal chemical.