NotfooledbyW: “John Mace does not care if any murderous dictator has WMD. . . .” is different from John Mace actually saying “On my part, I didn’t care whether he had WMDs or not. I didn’t see that as a reason to go to war.”
For one thing, it generalizes improperly. For another thing, it removes the context.
My views really are closer to yours than to most of the others here, but I was dismayed by the comment, because I don’t think it’s fair. I want to agree with you, but there are rules of logic and rhetoric. It might seem like having to fight with one arm tied behind your back, but it’s necessary. Otherwise, anyone might as easily generalize something you or I have said, or quote without context. I hate it when it’s done to me, so I can’t very well approve when it’s done to someone else.
Good Post and fair enough. Sticking to the Syria discussion I can cite John Mace directly and make the same exact point.
This is what he wrote on this thread. ‘’
I do not recall losing any sleep over Syria’s chemical weapons in June 2012 either, but both John Mace and I were not President of the United States or running for that job in June 2012.
Now I voted for President Obama to return to the Oval Office because I am impressed with the military policy he pursues that most of the Democrats to my left barely can put up with.
So I can work, do my job and enjoy life with friends and family I expect and appreciate that Obama and his national security team and our intelligence services will do their best to make decisions on issues like Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
I don’t lose sleep but I care about a murderous dictator like Assad having control of or losing control of a 1000 Ton CW arsenal to any group that resembles al Qaeda.
I can’t say that I believe John Mace shares that concern because of the context in which he wrote what he wrote above added to what he has written since.
The reason I believe it is correct to point out that John Mace does not care if Assad, who is a murderous dictator, has chemical weapons , would be because it is difficult to take John Mace serious when he mocks the President with such an off base comedy routine about what is a serious threat in the region for now and more than a threat to scores of Syrians who were gassed to death last August the Assad regime.
I don’t feel bad about untying that hand behind my back you mentioned at times when under attack by someone who writes ‘we all love big brother’ in an discussion about Obama’s handling of the chemical weapons threat that has unfolded for the past two months or so.
John Mace put on record regarding a murderous dictator “I didn’t care whether he had WMDs or not” and that means to me that Mace does not care if any murderous dictator has WMDs or not. I don’t see that as a leap since he also says he didn’t lose sleep over Assad’s CW and has consistently made fun of Obama’s serious efforts to rid the world of 1000 tons of deadly chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war.
I believe there are many posters here who opposed military strikes as an option against Assad’s regime and I certainly believe they care about the threat that that those CW posed. But John Mace has not shown me that he cares about Assad’s CW as a threat.
[/QUOTE]
Mace seems to me to care about Syria’s WMD only as it affords an opportunity to make a political knock against the current Administration.
The positive sign that Mace mentioned has arrived well over a week ago. So why is Mace still riding the weapons were not a threat worth losing sleep over, if indeed the start of actually dismantling the arsenal is a positive sign as Mace said it would be.
Why is it a positive sign we should ask Mace. It has to be that a threat is being eliminated. The CWC experts are not in Syria at some risk to themselves to dismantle a Tiddly-Wink or Slinky factory.
It is time, if Mace cares about a CW threat in Syria, to help us put Magiver’s no threat argument down and give some credit to Obama for setting the red line, and for threatening strikes when the red line was crossed, and for giving diplomacy and experts the chance to remove the threat from the Syrian Civil War as we see happening right now.
The *‘entire civilized world’ *is *‘willing’ *and massively engaged *‘to do’ *something about Syria’s CW arsenal right now and Syria has not used CWs outside their own borders.
The “entire civilized world” isn’t doing anything that Russia and Syria aren’t allowing them to do. And in the end, Assad stays in power. Win-win for them both.
Well, that was also a poor thing to say in a proper debate. Obviously, we do not all love big brother.
Anyway, let’s let this drop; I don’t want to be written up for “junior modding.” I have strong opinions on proper debate technique, but, at best, it belongs in another thread. (At worst, it belongs in the Pit!)
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.
Thanks Yogsouth. There appears to be no interest anymore by those who attacked and ridiculed **Obama’s Syria Drive **any more.
That has to be because they were all wrong about Obama’s red line forcing Syria to give up its Chemical Weapons Arsenal.
Without the “Red Line” and the threat to use even a small amount of force there would have been no reason for Putin to force Assad to give his CW arsenal up.
But he did. The “Red Line” drawn in the Syrian sand has produce a tremendous accomplishment thus far and there are no signs that a huge problem in the midst of that civil war is being removed.
These conservatives can’t be too happy with their poor assessments and predictions as we are seeing the CW inspection, removal and destruction success taking place in Syria:
There was never any real threat from Obama. He simply didn’t have the political capital to spend. The support wasn’t there. He’s too busy getting spanked over a health bill with his name on it which has driven his popularity into the 30’s. All Putin gets credit for is saving Obama’s face. As was predicted this has fallen off the news cycle and unless NotfooledbyW comes back it’s a dead issue.
Should have checked first. Out of the penalty box and back fighting this windmill again. must have been his response that triggered an email alert to the thread.
Hey, maybe GM can install a new transmission and call it “Obama Syrian Drive”. For those times when you really want to drive like you mean it. Red line not include. See your dealer for payment options.
It seems more likely that the strategic location of Syria was more important to Russia and the US than anything else.
If it’s only about the use of chemical weapons, why was regime change being discussed as early as August 2011 before Syria confirmed in July 2012 that it had chemical weapons? Are we still aiding the rebel factions in Syria, even as the chemical weapons stockpiles are being destroyed?
That said, I don’t see how people can have such a narrow view of this situation and only declare that either Putin lost or Obama lost. Putin doesn’t have to worry about the US bombing Syria and we don’t have to worry about Syria having and using chemical weapons.
Whether Obama had support or political capital is a side-issue as Yogsouth points out:
If this is supposed to be a debate forum it would behoove Magiver to defend his very weak argument as to why Obama’s lone and courageous political red line stand, against his own base, can be called, ‘never a real threat’ by conservatives like Magiver and declared to be final, debate over, dead issue on the basis of a conservatives political hay making.
You can see that all we get from Magiver is a repeat after repeat of his argument and no response to what the other side has to say.
Its as if conservatives believe that repetition is what makes things true and not walking down the path of reason.
QUOTE=Magiver;16846972]As was predicted this has fallen off the news cycle and unless NotfooledbyW comes back it’s a dead issue.
Should have checked first. Out of the penalty box and back fighting this windmill again. must have been his response that triggered an email alert to the thread.
Hey, maybe GM can install a new transmission and call it “Obama Syrian Drive”. For those times when you really want to drive like you mean it. Red line not include. See your dealer for payment options.
[/QUOTE]
The preference for conservatives to fall back on personal attack rather than discuss the issues with facts logic and reason is duly noted.
And what is wrong with bringing quotes from the past as events unfold to credit writers or discredit writers for the actual words they put down in a debate forum.
When you are wrong about something six months before an outcome it shows you are not truly dedicated to finding the truth about events and issues - you are interested in political partisan game winning.
When time passes and you are shown to be wrong - you declare dead issue.
The CW clearing in Syria is not a dead issue. It is on track to be a record setting elimination of CW in the midst of a civil war. Putin gets credit for finally forcing Assad to admit they had them and give them up. But there is little doubt that Obama’s red line and his determination to strike with or without support at home or abroad has brought the ongoing good news and successes about.
And why is it conservatives that always must insist that they are right so the discussion must end?
Thanks for an intelligent assessment that the view that Obama or Putin lost is narrow. Putin did gain some time to work with Assad. But that is a gain for Obama too in the sense that the rebels were getting too mixed up with terrorist from outside Syria.
My point also applies to the moral gains or losses between Putin and Obama alongside the strategic ones.
On the moral matter of stockpiling and using chemical weapons on non-combatants there is no doubt that Obama has it won and Putin has lost.
Putin is backing the dictator that has committed mass murder- there is no win or gain on the morality side if this issue for Putin.
That is a huge point that has not been made and should be.
The preference for conservatives to fall back on personal attack rather than discuss the issues with facts logic and reason is duly noted.
And what is wrong with bringing quotes from the past as events unfold to credit writers or discredit writers for the actual words they put down in a debate forum.
When you are wrong about something six months before an outcome it shows you are not truly dedicated to finding the truth about events and issues - you are interested in political partisan game winning.
When time passes and you are shown to be wrong - you declare dead issue.
The CW clearing in Syria is not a dead issue. It is on track to be a record setting elimination of CW in the midst of a civil war. Putin gets credit for finally forcing Assad to admit they had them and give them up. But there is little doubt that Obama’s red line and his determination to strike with or without support at home or abroad has brought the ongoing good news and successes about.
And why is it conservatives that always must insist that they are right so the discussion must end?
[/QUOTE]
I cant change the way that the quote came out (passed the edit window) but all of that post was by NotFooledbyW, and I don’t want any of it attributed to me nor do I wish to cross the line in regards to quote changing.
Can a mod please fix?
Also, on the off chance that the rebels win, we don’t have to worry about the chemical weapons being lost in the chaos and falling into the hands of terrorists.
Please note that I purposely used the word ‘many’ in front of conservatives. Hardly a broad brush.
And I am addressing what is going on by some conservatives on this forum to declare debates finished when they are not.
Yes in reference to the **personal attack **by a conservative rather than reply to the point that was made.
Is it now that when a conservative makes a personal attack rather than respond on topic that they are not a conservative when they do it.
That is interesting.