# 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:** 30
**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, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/581 "2014-01-07T07:27:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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? By all means criticize Obama’s red-line comment… here or on the other thread. Let’s see all your reasons and the logic behind it on its own since unlike Ravenman you claim your criticism has nothing to do with bringing an end to the civil war. So you agree that Obama could focus on both and resolve one or the other. It did not matter which one Obama focused on. Is that correct? Let’s see your reasons… your different reasons. ---
**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, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/582 "2014-01-07T07:54:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. You just wrote, _"You seem to be the only one who thinks this whole thing was “masterful”_ What does it take J.Mace? I have said and explained and clarified from the very start that I do not think the “WHOLE THING” is masterful I think the Russia/UNSD deal that was reached was masterfully done and it is a very significant achievement. I tried to tell you when your wrote,\* “there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war.” \* Is that written on a stone tablet brought down from the mountain by Moses? What do you mean 'there isn’t anything"? Come on . I never said anything was masterful about Obama’s policy on ending the civil war. I tend to agree with Ravenman on those days when he defends Obama by saying no one has ever offered up a US policy that could end the civil war nicely… I don’t require it to be ended nicely just so it ends, but I agree that there has been no options to be considered or _ **FOCUSED** _ upon to end the civil war. so who are you talking about when you write, \* “there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war.” \*? Because it isn’t me. ---
**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 7, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/583 "2014-01-07T13:08:11Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. I’ve lost whatever point you were trying to make here. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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? Because they aren’t totally compatible. For instance, if keeping the weapons out of the hands of terrorists is the goal, then the U.S. should strongly back Assad. If removing Assad from power is the goal, that entails the risk that he’d be pressed into using chemical weapons. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil war. [/quote] It hasn’t accomplished anything yet. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And do you stand by your statement that you sometimes drive your car safely? Almost always, roughly 4378 of the last 4380 days. Ready to explain how people who scoffed at the idea of removing chemical weapons from a war zone safely have been shown to be wrong? Ready to admit your mistake in restating **Ravenman** ’s position in post 565? It’d give your credibility a much-needed boost. ---
**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, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/584 "2014-01-07T14:25:05Z")
Only a real scoffer would not realize that the international unity and massive amount of cooperation going into the effort to remove the Threat of CW from a civil war zone is not an accomplishment in itself. And there is no excuse even for a scoffer to not know that control of the CW for use as a weapon has been already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians, is already a significant accomplishment of its own. ---
**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 7, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/585 "2014-01-07T14:37:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Only a real scoffer would not realize that the international unity and massive amount of cooperation going into the effort to remove the Threat of CW from a civil war zone is not an accomplishment in itself. If’s that’s in response to this: > [@](#): > > Ready to explain how people who scoffed at the idea of removing chemical weapons from a war zone safely have been shown to be wrong? …then it’s another goalpost shift. If it’s not in response to that, I’d still like a response. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And there is no excuse even for a scoffer to not know that control of the CW for use as a weapon has been already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians, is already a significant accomplishment of its own. As long as the weapons are at Syrian military bases, they can be used as a weapon. It’s not _likely_ Assad would order that they be seized back from OPCW control and used, but neither is it unthinkable. Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/586 "2014-01-07T22:46:36Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Only a real scoffer would not realize that the international unity and massive amount of cooperation going into the effort to remove the Threat of CW from a civil war zone is not an accomplishment in itself. What international unity? Every politician who suggested intervention had his head handed to him. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/587 "2014-01-08T02:15:10Z")
I wrote, “The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil war.” And H.Action replied “It hasn’t accomplished anything yet” which tells me H.Action is not interested in a reasonable discussion about this. I say H.Action is not reasonable on this because when I present a factual point that, **“control of the CW for use as a weapon has been already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians”** H.Action does not agree that it is an accomplishment at all becsuse it is NOT LIKELY but it is THINKABLE. To THINK that Assad would seize the CW back from OPCW control and then as an affront to his biggest ally, Putin, would use CW now to go ahead and gas defenseless men women and children, is sufficuent cause in a mind such that H.Action has now engaged, to draw upon the most mystifying farcical ends of all absurdity to argue that the Geneva Deal, the UNSC Resolution, and the OPCW has not accomplished anything at all yet. That is nothing at all, Nothing. The Lavrov/Kerry deal H.Action is arguing has not accomplished anything yet. Nothing. If I were irresponsable enough to argue unlikely but thinkable possibilities I could say no Geneva deal, no red-line, no OPCW initiative, no iternational unity, and process to take control of Assad’s CW it certainly would be thinkable that Assad would keep gassing the civilians in all the towns were rebel opposition were strong and if he ran out of chemicals he could just whip up some more. But I wont. Oh yes another accomplishment is that Assad’s production capabilty of deadly wesponized gases had also been 100% destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/588 "2014-01-08T02:43:26Z")
A couple of minor fixes to the first paragraph of the previous post: I wrote, “The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil war.” And to that H.Action replied, “It hasn’t accomplished anything yet” which tells me H.Action is not interested in a reasonable discussion about this. I say H.Action is not reasonable on this because when I present a factual point that, “control of the CW for use as a weapon has already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians” H.Action does not agree that it is an accomplishment at all becsuse H.Action says it is NOT LIKELY but it is THINKABLE that Assad would seize the CW back from OPCW control and then as an affront to his biggest ally, Putin, would use CW now to gas defenseless men women and children. That thinkable event is sufficuent cause in a mind such that H.Action has now engaged, to draw upon the most mystifying farcical ends of all absurdity to argue that the Geneva Deal, the UNSC Resolution, and the OPCW working plan has not accomplished anything at all yet. That is nothing at all, Nothing. The Lavrov/Kerry deal H.Action is arguing has not accomplished anything yet. Nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/589 "2014-01-08T02:46:13Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Oh yes another accomplishment is that Assad’s production capabilty of deadly wesponized gases had also been 100% destroyed. so Assad, someone with a military industrial complex at his disposal, can’t do what a religious cult could do in Japan. Huh. ---
**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 8, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/590 "2014-01-08T02:53:37Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I wrote, “The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil > war.” And H.Action replied “It hasn’t accomplished anything yet” which tells me H.Action is not interested in a reasonable discussion about this. Says the guy who avoids direct questions like the plague, shifts goalposts constantly, and refuses to admit his mistakes. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I say H.Action is not reasonable on this > because when I present a factual point that, **“control of the CW for use as a weapon has been already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians”** H.Action does not agree that it is an accomplishment at all becsuse it is NOT LIKELY but it is THINKABLE. To THINK that Assad would seize the CW back from OPCW control and then as an affront to his biggest ally, Putin, would use CW now to go ahead and gas defenseless men women and children, is sufficuent cause in a mind such that H.Action has now engaged, to draw upon the most mystifying farcical ends of all absurdity to argue that the Geneva Deal, the UNSC Resolution, and the OPCW has not accomplished anything at all yet. That is nothing at all, Nothing. The Lavrov/Kerry deal H.Action is arguing has not accomplished anything yet. Nothing. More likely, Assad would just stash some chemical weapons if he were interested in keeping control of them (unlikely, as he benefits from the new status quo), but yes, it is certainly possible that the weapons could return to Syrian control. When the weapons are physically removed from Syria, hopefully without the people transporting them being attacked, then something will have been accomplished. Is the removal and destruction of the weapons not the goal you’ve been trumpeting? Why the sudden change? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If I were irresponsable enough to argue unlikely but thinkable possibilities I could say no Geneva deal, no red-line, no OPCW initiative, no iternational unity, and process to take control of Assad’s CW it certainly would be thinkable that Assad would keep gassing the civilians in all the towns were rebel opposition were strong and if he ran out of chemicals he could just whip up some more. But I wont. > > Oh yes another accomplishment is that Assad’s production capabilty of deadly wesponized gases had also been 100% destroyed. Once the massive extant stockpile is gone, that will be meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/591 "2014-01-08T03:58:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Once the massive extant stockpile is gone, that will be meaningful. That assumes Assad can’t reproduce a chemical that’s been around for a long time. ---
**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 8, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/592 "2014-01-08T04:04:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That assumes Assad can’t reproduce a chemical that’s been around for a long time. Oh, I assume most any nation can produce at least some type of chemical weapon. But, the destruction of Syria’s existing stock, and its willing forfeiture of production equipment, would be a meaningful accomplishment. It would not be a guarantee of future compliance. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/593 "2014-01-08T04:33:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Oh, I assume most any nation can produce at least some type of chemical weapon. But, the destruction of Syria’s existing stock, and its willing forfeiture of production equipment, would be a meaningful accomplishment. > > It would not be a guarantee of future compliance. It will be meaningful if he falls and control is lost. But the country selling him the weapons will substitute others of equal lethality to maintain the status quo as long as it’s cost effective to do so. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/594 "2014-01-08T11:54:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > More likely, Assad would just stash some chemical weapons if he were interested in keeping control of them (unlikely, as he benefits from the new status quo), but yes, it is certainly possible that the weapons could return to Syrian control. > > When the weapons are physically removed from Syria, hopefully without the people transporting them being attacked, then something will have been accomplished. Is the removal and destruction of the weapons not the goal you’ve been trumpeting? Why the sudden change? > > Once the massive extant stockpile is gone, that will be meaningful. There is no change at all. My statement is that some of the overall goal has already been achieved. You argue that nothing has been achieved. Your argument based upon unlikely but thinkable possibilities that nothing has been achieved is absurd. That is moving the goal post from my ‘some’ to your ‘all or none’ approach. I did not write that all has been achieved. I wrote that two things that are meaningful have been achieved with the process of the completion to finality the entire goal stiil ongoing and very likely to be safely accomplished as is the international community’s intent and mission and plan. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/595 "2014-01-08T12:15:09Z")
When anyone here intends in the future to drive their car safely from point A to point B do you consider that planned trip to be very likely to be safely accomplished as planned or not? ---
**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 8, 2014, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/596 "2014-01-08T13:51:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It will be meaningful if he falls and control is lost. But the country selling him the weapons will substitute others of equal lethality to maintain the status quo as long as it’s cost effective to do so. And politically expedient, mind. The thing is, chemical weapons aren’t actually all that useful, and probably aren’t worth the heat to Russia or Syria. But yes, re-arming is always a possibility. And meanwhile, shells and machine guns get the job done just fine. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There is no change at all. My statement is that some of the overall goal has already been achieved. You argue that nothing has been achieved. Your argument based upon unlikely but thinkable possibilities that nothing has been achieved is absurd. That is moving the goal post from my ‘some’ to your ‘all or none’ approach. I did not write that all has been achieved. I wrote that two things that are meaningful have been achieved with the process of the completion to finality the entire goal stiil ongoing and very likely to be safely accomplished as is the international community’s intent and mission and plan. Here’s where we differ: the things you listed (“Geneva deal, no red-line, no OPCW initiative, no iternational unity, and process to take control of Assad’s CW”) are _means_, what I named (“When the weapons are physically removed from Syria, hopefully without the people transporting them being attacked, then something will have been accomplished”) is an _end_. My criteria for accomplishment is the desired end being achieved. The red line, the Geneva deal, OPCW inspection - all are only meaningful to the extent they serve this end, because taken on their own have no value, they do not fulfill the desired goal, they are only means, and not ends in themselves. It’s not a shift of goal posts, because I didn’t alter my criteria from “some things have been accomplished” to “nothing’s been accomplished yet”, I was always of the latter opinion, as my posts clearly indicate. Sorry, but I’m not held to the standards for accomplishment that you believe in; I can’t shift _your_ goal posts. Speaking of, ready to explain how those who scoffed at the idea of the weapons being safely removed from a war zone have been shown to be wrong? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/597 "2014-01-09T11:41:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > And politically expedient, mind. The thing is, chemical weapons aren’t actually all that useful, and probably aren’t worth the heat to Russia or Syria. But yes, re-arming is always a possibility. And meanwhile, shells and machine guns get the job done just fine. > > Here’s where we differ: the things you listed (“Geneva deal, no red-line, no OPCW initiative, no iternational unity, and process to take control of Assad’s CW”) are _means_, what I named (“When the weapons are physically removed from Syria, hopefully without the people transporting them being attacked, then something will have been accomplished”) is an _end_. My criteria for accomplishment is the desired end being achieved. The red line, the Geneva deal, OPCW inspection - all are only meaningful to the extent they serve this end, because taken on their own have no value, they do not fulfill the desired goal, they are only means, and not ends in themselves. > > It’s not a shift of goal posts, because I didn’t alter my criteria from “some things have been accomplished” to “nothing’s been accomplished yet”, I was always of the latter opinion, as my posts clearly indicate. Sorry, but I’m not held to the standards for accomplishment that you believe in; I can’t shift _your_ goal posts. > > Speaking of, ready to explain how those who scoffed at the idea of the weapons being safely removed from a war zone have been shown to be wrong? How much means is required to achieve an end? My goal post stands where ‘two ends’ have already been accomplished. One is that it is not possible today for Assad to kill civilians unless he agregiously violates the UNSC Resolution that he signed. That is a major deterrent that protects human lives from death or severe injury from weapon that all but a few nations in the world refuse to manufacture stockpile and use. Having a deterrent in place is an end. You moved my goal post to a requirement that there is only one end that must be completed before calling it an accomplishment. Have you never heard of accomplishing a milestone? There can be several target dates to set certain objectives which are ends in themselves to measure progress. One critical milestone objective was to locate, verify, and take possession of then CW weapons so the Syrians could not use them to kill civilians. The OPCW have hit that major milestone SAFELY and are continuing in the midst of a war zone to safely transport the CW to the port city safely. One scoffer, gone now from this thread scoffed heartily at the idea of inspectors attempting to enter war zone suggesting scoffingly that they would be shot by snipers. That scoffer is proven wrong and will only be proven correct if the entire OPCW operation is abandoned because there is no way to safely transport some of the CW to a port. However destruction in place is the normal way to dispose of CW but removing them was chosen in order to expedite the removal from a war zone. Destruction in place remains an option because where the chemicals are stored is secure. And on those days you say you drive your car safely from point A to point B do you consider prior to setting out on that planned trip that it will be safely accomplished as planned and that you will be alive and unharmed when you arrive at point B? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/598 "2014-01-09T11:51:35Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > In the middle of an ongoing war? Yes Tom “in the middle of an ongoing war’”. Yes there was a one week delay but, “Syria begins removal of chemical arms material The vessel has been accompanied by naval escorts provided by Denmark and Norway Reuters January 7, 2014” > [@](#): > > Beirut: Syria has moved the first batch of chemical weapon materials out of the country after transporting it from two sites to the port city of Latakia and onto a Danish vessel, the international chemical weapons watchdog said on Tuesday. > “The vessel has been accompanied by naval escorts provided by Denmark and Norway, as well as the Syrian Arab Republic,” the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said in a statement. > “It will remain at sea awaiting the arrival of additional priority chemical materials at the port.” > **[Syria begins removal of chemical arms material](https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/syria-begins-removal-of-chemical-arms-material-1.1274976)** > > The vessel has been accompanied by naval escorts provided by Denmark and Norway ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/599 "2014-01-09T11:56:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is coming down on Syria like a ton of bricks? It gives Assad some time to stall and negotiate while he kills the rebels, and in a few months when everyone has lost interest, he can hand over some chem weapons and say he is done. Or just declare that he can’t agree to anything. Nothing will happen - nobody except the French were willing to go along with military action, so they aren’t going to use military force six months from now either. Russia and Putin come out of this pretty well - Syria is a client state, so Russia can get some hard currency from selling Assad weapons, and does not have to worry about another Islamofascist regime in the area. Obama looks fairly weak, ineffectual, and lucky. It is only Putin who is giving Obama an out. BHO wasn’t even sure he could get his own Congress to authorize him to do something he could have done all along. > > I suppose this deal, if it goes thru, is better than air strikes, but that isn’t saying much. And it is really hard to see this as any kind of master stroke by Obama. Obama tried to get permission from everybody to do something, couldn’t get it, and now Putin is pulling his chestnuts out of the fire. > Should have. Didn’t. And won’t. They are all too aware of what happened when they passed resolutions about Iraq that implied that they meant what they said. > > Regards, > Shodan Now there’s a perfect example of scoffing gone bad. ---
**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 9, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/600 "2014-01-09T13:05:40Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How much means is required to achieve an end? Depends on the exact situation, there’s no one answer to this. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] My goal post stands where ‘two ends’ have already been accomplished. One is that it is not possible today for Assad to kill civilians unless he agregiously violates the UNSC Resolution that he signed. That is a major deterrent that protects human lives from death or severe injury from weapon that all but a few nations in the world refuse to manufacture stockpile and use. [/quote] It wasn’t possible for him to attack a civilian neighborhood without violating the Geneva Convention. Wasn’t much of a deterrent, evidently. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Having a deterrent in place is an end. 😕 Why all this crowing about the deal to destroy the weapons then, if _that’s_ not the end? You’re all over the road here. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] You moved my goal post to a requirement that there is only one end that must be completed before calling it an accomplishment. [/quote] Please read up on the [moving the goalposts fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) before accusing me of it. Again, I can’t commit the fallacy by moving goalposts you set for yourself. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Have you never heard of accomplishing a milestone? There can be several target dates to set certain objectives which are ends in themselves to measure progress. One critical milestone objective was to locate, verify, and take possession of then CW weapons so the Syrians could not use them to kill civilians. [/quote] Those are means, not ends. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] The OPCW have hit that major milestone SAFELY and are continuing in the midst of a war zone to safely transport the CW to the port city safely. One scoffer, gone now from this thread scoffed heartily at the idea of inspectors attempting to enter war zone suggesting scoffingly that they would be shot by snipers. That scoffer is proven wrong and will only be proven correct if the entire OPCW operation is abandoned because there is no way to safely transport some of the CW to a port. However destruction in place is the normal way to dispose of CW but removing them was chosen in order to expedite the removal from a war zone. Destruction in place remains an option because where the chemicals are stored is secure. [/quote] Seriously? So, if two dozen drivers are killed in ambushes, it still means the weapons were removed “safely” as long as the mission isn’t totally abandoned? I called it: you have your own definition of “safely” that bears no relationship to how anyone else uses the word. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And on those days you say you drive your car safely from point A to point B do you consider prior to setting out on that planned trip that it will be safely accomplished as planned and that you will be alive and unharmed when you arrive at point B? Yes, because there’s no reasonable cause to assume I won’t arrive safely. Now, if I were driving through disputed territory in a particularly brutal civil war, the calculus changes dramatically. The safe or unsafe nature of the journey comes from the _outcome_, not the _intent_ behind it. [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=29) [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=31)