# Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417 "2013-09-09T16:04:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 45
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/881 "2013-11-16T02:25:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is interesting. Interesting? Rather, it is boring to see you pursue one more silly partisan feud in place of actually discussing the points of this thread. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/882 "2013-11-16T02:35:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > From one single post by you above: There were many on topic questions addressed to you John Mace but we receive no response. Do you deny making this personal attack in the midst of it all? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Looks like in addition to being fooled by W and Obama, we can now add Mitt Romney to the list. Leading to that insult from John Mace (above) that had nothing to do with the discussion here is some of discussion on this thread back in October: QUOTE=John Mace;16751410]I can’t remember losing any sleep in Jun 2012 over Syria’s chemical weapons. And the entire civilized world thought they were so much of a threat that they did… nothing. Some threat they must have been! [/QUOTE] Above John Mace is casual about there being a threat from Syria’s Chemical weapons and he backs his lack of concern about the CW threat with some reckoning that the entire civilized world did nothing - so not much threat from the internal killing of non-combatants by the Assad Regime and the tons and tons of chemical weapons stockpiled in the midst of an ongoing civil war. But then why does Mace think it’s great that Syria is getting rid of it’s CW? Why does it suddenly matter to Mace if there is no threat? WHy does Mace have ‘serious concern’ with Assad’s CWs falling into al Qaeda’s hands right after writing “…some threat they must have been!” See the next post: > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Don’t get me wrong-- I think it’s great the Putin arranged for Syria to get rid of its CWs. I doubt they will really get rid of all of them, but they’ll probably get rid of most, and that will make it less likely for them to fall into the wrong hands (are they any right hands for CWs)? Of course, I do have some serious concern that we’re doing this in the middle of a civil war, and that might increase the odds of them getting lose, but it’s too lake to stop now. So if indeed Mace cares or is concerned about a CW threat in Syria like most, it is time for Mace to give some credit to Obama for setting the red line, and for threatening strikes when the red line was crossed, and for very wisely taking the opportunity that threat of force produced to give diplomacy and CW experts the chance to remove the threat from tons of CW being located in the midst of the Syrian Civil War as we see happening right now. This is fair and pertinent commentary by my and others on a thread titled “Can Anyone Defend the Admin Syria Drive?” I and many have defended the Administration’s entire Syria Drive. Those who attack it appear to prefer to fling insults, or go away when things did not turn out as the originator of this thread hoped it would. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/883 "2013-11-16T03:36:36Z")
Dammit, NFbW, you just got back. Warning, failure to follow Tom’s instructions. Leave personalities out of this. Merely go after the posts and the arguments. The leash you’re on? It’s not very long. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/884 "2013-11-16T12:32:26Z")
I believe it is a good time to share some of the many posts that I so whole-heartedly agree with on this topic … and look right off the bat is XT. The Swords have been beaten into ploughshares on Syria. Just want to show that there is a great deal of unanimity in defense of the reality that the dismantling of chemical weapons in Syria and destruction of all CW production facilities is a huge diplomatic and reduction of a national security threat for the civilized world and the USA. The proper use of threat of force, but acceptance that diplomatic means is the best way out… This is important in my mind because of the partisan game being played with respect to Iran in Congress. So I don’t think this thread should die… And I think people should learn from a a success on disarming rogue regimes. That’s it. I congratulate all these writers for getting it right: > [@XT](#): > > For us that’s wouldn’t be a major campaign, especially if it was 200 air strikes/cruise missiles. That would actually be a pretty small campaign…for us. > > Depends. If Obama comes out strongly and says that this is a great idea, thanks to the Russians for proposing it, and we are totally in favor of it, but we want UN verification of the turn over to the Russians and assurances by the Russians of security and safety, blah blah blah, then I think this could be a positive for Obama (not to mention a huge bonus to the Russians if they pull this off). > > It’s all in how Obama et al package this and how they respond…and also on how firm they are on us getting those assurances that the nasty things WILL be turned over to the Russians and that the Russians will safeguard them and ensure that the Syrians (or the rebels) don’t have access to them in the future. Myself, I’d also press for Assad to formally accept responsibility for their use and an apology and pledge to not use them in the future, but that might be a bridge too far. > [@Miller](#): > > “Unbelievably small” is a pretty relative term, isn’t it? Three hundred armed Spartans make a pretty impressive show of force, generally speaking. Three hundred armed Spartans holding the pass at Thermopylae against the whole weight of the Persian empire? That’s an unbelievably small force, in terms of what they accomplished. > > So, it sounds to me like Kerry is saying that we can accomplish the goal of degrading Assad’s chemical weapon capability with a smaller show of force than one would expect. I have my doubts about the veracity of the claim, but it is not remotely “incoherent.” > > I’m also not entirely clear how Syria surrendering control of its chemical weapon stockpiles is not a win for Obama. If we can be assured that Assad will not use chemical weapons, and do it without firing a single shot, isn’t that the best possible outcome for this administration? > [@XT](#): > > You seem hung up on that phrase for some reason. It’s just rhetoric. Interestingly enough, if the Syrians DO go for this Russian thing then it says that they were worried about the ‘unbelievably small’ attack enough to take these steps. > [@Miller](#): > > Still not seeing the downside for Obama, here. For weeks, I’ve been hearing about how Obama’s “line” speech placed him in an untenable position, forcing him to choose between a politically unpopular attack, or doing nothing, and making the US look weak. Here’s his perfect out: our threats brought Syria to the negotiating table, and talks are proceeding. Repeat as necessary whenever US intervention is brought up, until your time in office winds down and you can dump it in the next guy’s lap. > > Or, if he’s genuinely worried about chemical weapons in Syria, he has an opportunity to resolve it peacefully, and if Assad drags his feet too much, well, we still have plenty of cruise missiles lying around. > [@XT](#): > > It might be a ruse, though if I were Obama I’d make sure it’s on a definite time table and verifiable. However, the important point here is that they are obviously alarmed enough about our proposed ‘unbelievably small’ attack to warrant having said ruse. Also, if it stops them using chemical weapons in the future then it’s already accomplished the only meaningful point of this entire exercise. To me, it seems more like it’s you with blinders on about this whole thing, to be honest. > > Yup, I’ve heard it several times. I think it can be applicable to this situation from either perspective. Maybe Assad can dance long enough that Obama is out and someone else, less likely to bomb his country is in. Maybe the donkey WILL learn to sing. Or, maybe Assad dies tonight from hot, kinky sex with a 20 year old male love slave with the donkey egging him on. > [@elucidator](#): > > Wouldn’t it be part and parcel of this sneaky ruse that he not use them again? Isn’t that rather the whole point? > [@Bob Ducca](#): > > I have Great Satin sheets on my bed. > Word this morning is that Obama and Putin got the ball rolling on this plan last week at the G20, so Kerry didn’t necessarily step in anything when he brought it up. Sounds like he was actually on-message. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > LOL! Obama just pulled the rug out from under all his detractors! > > Secret negotiations to avoid war? Check! > > Solves the issue at hand without firing a shot? Check! > > Played the recalcitrant Republican Congress as his bitch? Check! > > Let Russia save face and play a role in this? Check! > > Obama had long been in discussion on how to end this well BEFORE he announced his decision to send it to Congress for approval. And lo and behold, the Obama-hating idiots played right into his plan and talked about bombing and attacking or hurting the president or blah blah blah. Obama knew that and knew the talk would force Syria to play their hand before they were ready, and then he used Putin to step in and look like a dealmaker. Obama doesn’t need public credit but we all know who this masterful job of diplomacy belongs to. > > I look forward to the GOP shitting themselves and trying to figure out how getting Syria to give up its chemical weapons without firing a shot is bad for America! 😃 > [@XT](#): > > We won’t be going in there to secure anything. Obviously the Russians will, perhaps with UN observers. Unless you think that they are just sitting around out in the open where anyone can get them I don’t see the problem unless and until Assad and his regime (and more importantly his army) completely collapses…at which time it becomes moot, since when/if that happens we’d be in exactly the same boat. The difference is that in the mean time, Assad and his merry men will presumably at the minimum not be using them on his own people, which is the goal of this entire exercise. > > Don’t be ridiculous. Of COURSE he does. It will be huge for him if he can be seen to be the force behind this entire effort. It’s going to go a long way to re-branding him and his rep. The last thing in the world he would want is for, having done all of this, to have Assad turn around and use the nasty things again. That would make him look incredibly bad and would completely reverse any good he’s gained in this little drama. > [@XT](#): > > No, though obviously the details will have to be worked out. But however they work out, I don’t think the situation will warrant having thousands of Russian soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder with weapons drawn to fulfill the goal of ensuring that Assad doesn’t use the things again against his own people. > > Horseshit. They HAD that already, considering they have been running interference at the UNSC level for Syria for years. They did the similar things in Iraq and Libya, though they weren’t as tight with them as with Assad and Syria. It’s one of their hallmarks and always has been. I think THIS time they decided that they had to do more than stonewall at the UNSC level and let the chips fall where they might. The prospect of US military strikes, which you dismissed obviously pushed them into further action. Funny, that. > > There is no NEED for the US to attack as long as the Syrians don’t use the things again. Russia is going to stand assurance to that. The only delusional fantasy here is yours and runs the gamut from needing thousands of soldiers to guard the stockpiles to semantic discussions about the size of our strike and how it couldn’t possibly scare Assad et al into doing anything. 😛 > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Let’s be clear here: All movement on the issue of the Syrian CW’s was initiated by President Obama. He made threats, called their bluff, and everyone from Syria to Russia got scared Obama was going to attack for real and agreed to the UN deal. What quotes you dig up is simply a humble man willing to give others credit for his own achievements. Nothing moves without Obama’s threats and diplomacy. Russia has no reason to do this except to prevent the US from attacking Syria, something he believed Obama was willing to order > > If you still think its all Russia’s doing, why don’t you dig up a few quotes from the past years on whether Russia will act or not. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/885 "2013-11-16T14:10:42Z")
[Albania won’t be host site for destruction of Syria chemical weapons](http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-chemical-weapons-20131116,0,7241255.story) If France and the USA are so determined to have the chemical weapons destroyed, they should bloody well do it themselves in their own country, instead of leaning on some small and poor country which has enough problem to deal with already. Apparently the destruction of the chemicals leaves a large amount of poisonous material. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/886 "2013-11-16T14:36:12Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > [Albania won’t be host site for destruction of Syria chemical weapons](http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-chemical-weapons-20131116,0,7241255.story) > > If France and the USA are so determined to have the chemical weapons destroyed, they should bloody well do it themselves in their own country, instead of leaning on some small and poor country which has enough problem to deal with already. Apparently the destruction of the chemicals leaves a large amount of poisonous material. I have no problem doing it here in the US where we are already destroying the US CW arsenal ---- but that might not be cost effective getting them here. I can’t speak for France. Why not have the great diplomat Putin take them back to Russia, after all the Russians were largely responsible for allowing Assad to build up this huge arsenal of CW in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/887 "2013-11-16T14:40:27Z")
I agree with Rune too. I didn’t mean to leave anyone off of the consensus on Syria List. > [@Rune](#): > > Again I do not see you taking the step to support sending US men on the ground in Syria. You are not offering substantial different strategy than the one pursued by the Obama administration. You are merely criticizing Obama on his form, for something he said, or for having substandard spin doctors. And that’s really not that interesting. Certainly not to an international audience. Syria is about Syria, not the USA. Whether the USA is being taken serious is also mostly irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/888 "2013-11-16T14:42:37Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > The UN mission is probably going to be a complete wash if you only accept 100% efficiency as success. Personally I think that if they manage to destroy even just say 10% of the chemical weapons, then 10% is better than nothing. Have you changed your opinion on that projection? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/889 "2013-11-16T15:21:20Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why not have the great diplomat Putin take them back to Russia, after all the Russians were largely responsible for allowing Assad to build up this huge arsenal of CW in the first place. It’s not Russia’s responsibility that Syria has accumulated chemical weapons. Supposedly it’s not even illegal under international treaties – only using them. And Russia finished destroying all their own arsenals. Doubt they’re looking for another batch. Also they’ve got enough environmental disasters to deal with as it is. I supposed it’ll take a technological advanced and stable society to dispose of the weapons in a responsible manner. Ideally they could be sent to Saudi Arabia or Qatar – they are the ones that orchestrated the civil war. But they are a bunch of fuck heads that can’t be entrusted to wipe their own arses, at worst they’d just see it as an opportunity to have their own arsenal. Or to Turkey. They’ve also been quite gun-ho about the whole thing. But really it should be done in Syria. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Have you changed your opinion on that projection? Yes. It appears to could be remarkable successful. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/890 "2013-11-16T15:45:09Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Dammit, NFbW, you just got back. > > Warning, failure to follow Tom’s instructions. Leave personalities out of this. Merely go after the posts and the arguments. > > The leash you’re on? It’s not very long. I could certainly use a clarification on it being ok to go after posts and the arguments as long as personalities are left out of it. My post just before yours was written not having seen TomandDebb’s warning. That being said I can find nothing I wrote that was about personality. It was all about the arguments on the topic of this thread. And part of that post had to do with the lack of argument from my opponent and the personal attacks that replace a good argument. I mean no disrespect for the moderators but I truly don’t know what is improper about trying to get the discussion back to the topic and the facts and the arguments. Here is the exchange where I am trying to do just that: > [@](#): > > There were many on topic questions addressed to you John Mace but we receive no response. Do you deny making this personal attack in the midst of it all? -Notfooledbyw. > Quote: Originally Posted by John Mace Looks like in addition to being fooled by W and Obama, we can now add Mitt Romney to the list. I will try to avoid such technique but I honestly don’t see the problem there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=44)