# Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852 "2013-09-14T17:20:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/561 "2014-01-06T00:15:15Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why have you responded the way you did for pointing something out that you decided is apropos of nothing? I already explained my reasoning. If you claim that specifying the nationality of truck drivers wasn’t apropos of nothing, please cite the post it was in response to. > [@](#): > > Why do you get to decide a fact I wish to introduce into the topic is ‘apropos of nothing’ and then turn that into an assumption about my motive or intent? It was apropos of nothing, and I made no assumptions about your motive or intent, I made a reasoned conclusion about the _meaning_ of what you wrote. That’s how written communication works. Note that I didn’t draw any inferences from this conclusion, or speculate as to your motives r intent. Would you like me to link to posts where you make wild assumptions about others’ motives and intents? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/562 "2014-01-06T00:16:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I said the red line comment was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity of US policy, and painted Obama into a corner have having to propose a stupid plan to bomb Syria over CW use. I never said red line related to the civil war. I said the civil war is a much more important issue than CW. > > I’ve had it with your inability to read other peoples’ posts and your propensity to use the English language in ways nobody else does. That is interesting because what did you mean when you wrote this? “1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy.” - Ravenman 01-02-2014 11:20 AM 002a1120. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/563 "2014-01-06T00:51:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added in red. So that’s what this is about? Ravenman never said that. You just made it up. > > What he said was, there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was a mistake to invoke the “red line”. Two completely separate things. You don’t quite get it either I see. Ravenman wrote this: “1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy.” - Ravenman 01-02-2014 11:20 AM 002a1120. You just told me that Ravenman said, \*“there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war.” \* Are you sure you are speaking for Ravenman? Because that is exactly the my point of contention with Ravenman. I’m saying the elimination of the CW was an Administration achievement that was in my view masterfully done. That masterful use of the threat of force to get a national security threat to our allies in that region and matter of international laws and norms being enforced is an end in and of itself and does not depend on in any way whether or not the civil war is ended. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/564 "2014-01-06T01:26:10Z")
Repeating the same nonsense over and over again for 12 pages doesn’t make it correct. You seem to be the only one who thinks this whole thing was “masterful”, and I doubt that 12 more pages is going to make any difference. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/565 "2014-01-06T01:28:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I said the red line comment was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity of US policy, and painted Obama into a corner have having to propose a stupid plan to bomb Syria over CW use. I never said red line related to the civil war. I said the civil war is a much more important issue than CW. No you said the red line WAS A MISTAKE and you said the elimination of strategic ambiguity was not a GOOD IDEA. It is right here: {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy 1. It probably wasn’t a good idea to declare a “red line” on CW use, because it eliminated the advantages of strategic ambiguity. -Ravenman 01-02-2014 11:20 AM 002a1120}} ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/566 "2014-01-06T01:36:02Z")
Um…that’s exactly what he said he said. Not much of a gotcha, **NotfooledbyW**. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/567 "2014-01-06T01:50:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This thread is about his “masterful legacy” wrt the CW deal for Syria. Obama’s “read line” comment is generally recognized as having been a mistake. Generally reciognized by whom? Is ‘generally recognized’ a sound means to determine fact and a reasonable viewpoint? If the red-line comment contributed to the CW deal for Syria and Ravenman agrees the CW deal is good, how does Ravenman then determine that the red line comment was a mistake? Since you seem to know where this ‘generally recognized’ collective of minds might know, then could you get an answer to how something considered good can be s mistake on how it was initiated? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/568 "2014-01-06T01:58:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Um…that’s exactly what he said he said. Not much of a gotcha, **NotfooledbyW**. No. I’m referring to his claim this evening. - I never said red line related to the civil war. \* That contradicts this: {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}} That is relating the mistake of making the red line statement to the loss of focus on the civil war ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/569 "2014-01-06T02:14:43Z")
Question for H. Action. When you drive your car do you drive safely from point A to point B? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/570 "2014-01-06T02:35:09Z")
I have to say, Not, I’ve never seen anyone who could construct a more complicated argument than you do. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/571 "2014-01-06T02:50:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I said the red line comment was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity of US policy, and painted Obama into a corner have having to propose a stupid plan to bomb Syria over CW use. You said the redline comment was not a good idea, but be that as it may, - didnt you say at least once that destruction of Syria’s CW arsenal was a good thing? And you did oppose missile strikes prior to the Geneva deal and still do right? But if you Are saying the open and unambuguous announcing of a plan to bomb Syria after the red-line was crossed was stupid then how do you get to the outcome you say is good? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/572 "2014-01-06T03:49:18Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No. I’m referring to his claim this evening. Reread what you quoted and wrote: > [@Ravenman](#): > > I said the red line comment was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity of US policy, and painted Obama into a corner have having to propose a stupid plan to bomb Syria over CW use. I never said red line related to the civil war. I said the civil war is a much more important issue than CW. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No you said the red line WAS A MISTAKE and you said the elimination of strategic ambiguity was not a GOOD IDEA. See the problem? Here, I’ll break it down: **Ravenman** : I said the red line comment was a mistake **NotfooledbyW** : No, you said the red line WAS A MISTAKE **Ravenman** : It was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity. **NotfooledbyW** : And you said the elimination of strategic ambuguity was not a GOOD IDEA. You parroted, word for word, statements **Ravenman** wrote and said he didn’t say them. Will you, at long last, admit a mistake? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > - I never said red line related to the civil war. \* > That contradicts this: > {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}} > > That is relating the mistake of making the red line statement to the loss of focus on the civil war No, it’s not. He’s saying the red line was bad policy on its own merits, and that U.S. policy should have focused on ending or ameliorating the war itself. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Question for H. Action. > > When you drive your car do you drive safely from point A to point B? Most days, anyway. Question for you: Do you stand by this statement? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Many scoffed at the idea that the CW could be safely removed from an active war zone. They have been shown to be wrong too. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/573 "2014-01-06T11:37:18Z")
No. To the first question.about admitting a mistake absolutely not Yes to the last one ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/574 "2014-01-06T11:49:54Z")
{{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy)).-Ravenman Ravenman is relating the red line comment to a failed outcome of the civil war. In that context of failure by the Admin, Ravenman is calling the red line comment a mistake. It’s ckear you are not applying context to your intervention into this dispute. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/575 "2014-01-06T13:14:21Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No. To the first question.about admitting a mistake absolutely not You _didn’t_ repeat exactly what **Ravenman** said, then claimed he didn’t say it? Even though it’s right there in plain text? Remarkable. Aren’t you the guy [who once said:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16357816&postcount=233) > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I make mistakes now and then but I own up to it. What happened to that? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Yes to the last one Ok. _How_ have they been shown to be wrong? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy)).-Ravenman > > Ravenman is relating the red line comment to a failed outcome of the civil war. In that context of failure by the > Admin, Ravenman is calling the red line comment a mistake. It’s ckear you are not applying context to your intervention into this dispute. I read the whole thread, I know the context. Yes, he believes the red line to have been a mistake, as he’s written that repeatedly. He hasn’t written that the red line prevented the civil war from ending, only that it was bad policy, and that the Administration should have focused on the war, and not one category of weapons that’s responsible for a miniscule portion of the casualities thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/576 "2014-01-06T18:02:41Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Obama made the red-line comment is what was done was done. At last. Now please explain why Obama’s statements and actions cannot be criticized because they occurred in the past. > [@](#): > > What’s done is done is fine but that is only in the context that I have explained. One should not call the red-line statement a mistake in hindsight because it did not resolve something that it was not ever meant to directly resolve in the first place. What was done was done and it had nothing to do with the resolving the civil war. OK, fair enough. I’m not calling it a mistake because it did not resolve the civil war. I’m calling it a mistake for reasons that have nothing to do with the civil war. > [@](#): > > Ravenman is relating the red line comment to a failed outcome of the civil war. In that context of failure by the Admin, Ravenman is calling the red line comment a mistake. It’s ckear you are not applying context to your intervention into this dispute. No, the red line statement had nothing to do with the civil war. And it isn’t really a dispute - it is pretty obvious to everyone else that you’re badly wrong. So, again - I for one am not criticizing Obama’s red line comment because it did not bring an end to the civil war, but for different reasons. Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize it, and the fact that it happened in the past has no relevance? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/577 "2014-01-06T22:24:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the red line statement had nothing to do with the civil war. And it isn’t really a dispute - it is pretty obvious to everyone else that you’re badly wrong. > > So, again - I for one am not criticizing Obama’s red line comment because it did not bring an end to the civil war, but for different reasons. Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize it, and the fact that it happened in the past has no relevance? . Then you must not assess the results - the Geneva Deal - the removal of CW - as good. Ravenman thinks the deal is good. How does he call what produced something good a mistake? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/578 "2014-01-06T23:23:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I read the whole thread, I know the context. Yes, he believes the red line to have been a mistake, as he’s written that repeatedly. He hasn’t written that the red line prevented the civil war from ending, only that iot was bad policy, and that the Administration should have focused on the war, and not one category of weapons that’s responsible for a miniscule portion of the casualities thereof. You wrote, “the Administration should have focused on the war, and not one category of weapons that’s responsible for a miniscule portion of the casualities thereof”. Since you relate the Civil War getting (insufficient focus) to the separate issue of CW use getting (too much focus) it verified what I’ve said. Was there insuffient focus on the war? Ravenman is on record on the other thread saying there was no proposed ‘US policy’ that I agree for the Administration to focus on alone. So why not focus on both? The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil war. {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy)).-Ravenman there is no {{“… single individual anywhere who ever proposed a US policy toward the Syrian civil war that had a realistic chance of things having turned out nicely by now.” }}-Ravenman And do you stand by your statement that you sometimes drive your car safely? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/579 "2014-01-06T23:38:28Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > . Then you must not assess the results - the Geneva Deal - the removal of CW - as good. Ravenman thinks the deal is good. > > How does he call what produced something good a mistake? Not so fast. You claimed (to the extent that your posts contain any definite meaning) that criticism of the red line comment was not appropriate, because it was in the past. Do you stand by that? **Ravenman** ’s criticism is in the past, and what’s done is done. Therefore thrusting your opinion about it into the discussion is illegitimate - you can’t do that, by your own standards. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/580 "2014-01-07T07:13:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not so fast. You claimed (to the extent that your posts contain any definite meaning) that criticism of the red line comment was not appropriate, because it was in the past. Do you stand by that? Of course I won’t stand by your version of what I said. Your set up is not correct. Ravenman said _{{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}}_ which is not appropriate because the red line comment from the past was a separate policy matter that was and is wholly separable from the civil war. It is so separable that Obama could focus on both and Ravenman has no way to measure or assess how much focus Obama put on the civil war and/or the CW issue. It is a ridiculous argument that Ravenman is making. So silly I said he shouldn’t make it. And I did not say the red line comment cannot be criticized because it is in the past. Do you recall I posted that he should take that to another thread if he wants to tie it to the civil war as the reason for the mistake. And what do you mean when you say, OK Fair enough? I wrote roughly the same thing before, _“What’s done is done is fine **but that is only in the context that I have explained**. One should not call the red-line statement a mistake in hindsight because it did not resolve something that it was not ever meant to directly resolve in the first place. What was done was done and it had nothing to do with the resolving the civil war.”_ Ravenman’s comment _{{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}}_ based on basic understanding of the English language can mean nothing else than Ravenman is arguing that some or all or minimal focus on the CW meant Obama did not focus enough or properly or satisfactorily to Ravenman on resolving the civil war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852.md?page=30)