# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/621 "2014-01-10T03:14:00Z")
Magiver wrote, _"Assad is still busy slaughtering people and unless Syrians are mentally challenged he still has the capacity to make more chemical weapons. It’s not like there’s only one CW and it’s hard to make._ Assad’s capacity to make more CW has been SAFELY destroyed under OPCW supervision and yes in a war zone. Being wrong about common reported news adds weight to my long ago reached conclusion that you are wrong about most things most of the time ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/622 "2014-01-10T03:36:14Z")
If they think they can why do the scoffers think they can’t? “The Joint Mission encourages the Syrian Arab Republic to continue its efforts to complete the removal of chemical materials as soon as possible in a **safe** and timely manner.” [http://opcw.unmissions.org/Portals/opcw-un-syria/07.01.2014OPCW-UN%20PressStatementfinalEN.pdf](http://opcw.unmissions.org/Portals/opcw-un-syria/07.01.2014OPCW-UN%20PressStatementfinalEN.pdf) > [@](#): > > The Joint Mission encourages the Syrian Arab Republic to continue its efforts to complete the removal of chemical materials as soon as possible in a safe and timely manner. Noting the complexity of the operation and the security situation in the country, the Joint Mission will continue to assist the Syrian Arab Republic in fulfilling its obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) and the decisions of the OPCW Executive Co ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/623 "2014-01-10T04:14:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Magiver wrote, \* “exposing tons of CW to a convoy that can be attacked driving through a war zone isn’t a particularly bright thing to do.” \* > > The experts working for the OPCW decided they could safely transport tons of CW quickly through a war zone rather than take more time and destroy them in place. Thank you Magiver for informing us that all the professionals and experts at OPCW are not particukarly bright for making that decision. . uh huh. you mean like the experts who did the software for Obama care. They literally had years to put that together. What could possibly go wrong in a war zone in another country with a convoy we can’t directly protect. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/624 "2014-01-10T04:19:51Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Assad’s capacity to make more CW has been SAFELY destroyed under OPCW supervision and yes in a war zone. Again, unless Syrians are stupid the ability to make CW’s cannot be destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/625 "2014-01-10T11:00:16Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What could possibly go wrong in a war zone in another country with a convoy we can’t directly protect. The ObamaCare website is working pretty good now. You need to move on. There is no reasonableness to making an argument that when a set of experts don’t perform well in one objective that means all experts cannot perform well at any other objective. But the absolute fallacy of your argument that “we can’t directly protect” a convoy is that that there are reports out indicating that Syria has reported that the compound where the CW to be transported was being stored was under attack by rebel or Islamist forces. So you are arguing that a sitting target is protectable but a temporarily moving target is not. On the contrary militarily and security-wise it would be best to heavily temporarily secure the transit route and then provide a heavily armed security bubble moving with the convoy for a few days rather than to leave the CW sitting like a duck on a pond for the terrorists to continually threaten. But hey you want the CW to be a sitting duck for the entire duration of the war instead of being SAFELY removed / and you are the only qualified expert that should have a say on the matter? I see! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/626 "2014-01-10T11:33:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The main objective of the op is to prove that a political endeavor with no internal public/political support and no international support is a stroke of genius. This was accomplished by forcing Putin to do his bidding to rid Syria of chemical weapons by 2014. All this was done with the threat of an unbelievably small use of force. I think Putin is also working on a cure for cancer so it should be a good year. The main objective of the op is to successfully argue that a national security endeavor involving longstanding acceptance by the community of nations of the CW norms of international law, with minority internal public/political support and limited international support was accomplished in a masterful way by overcoming the political challenges that impeded the efforts to achieve an extraordinary international agreement that is producing a better than desired outcome than was originally sought. This was accomplished by forcing Putin to yield to Obama’s underlying objective and endeaver to rid Syria of chemical weapons by 2014. All this was done with the threat of an unbelievably small use of force. A truly amazing act of leadership in using the threat of force in a masterful way to achieve a diplomatic outcome where the force need not be used. Masterful Indeed! [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/627 "2014-01-10T12:17:01Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > Oh, and there’ll be no UNSC resolution out of this - That scoffing has been shown to be wrong. ---
**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 10, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/628 "2014-01-10T14:17:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I made no mistake. I used the word ‘safely’ exactly in the way you did. Manifestly untrue. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And that is not my argument at all. My argument is posted. No need for a rewrite. That was your argument, at least as of post 606. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This is one of my arguments. H.Action cited it but did not address it. Go back and read the text and anyone can see that. > “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.” > > The CW are not under Assad’s command and control and it is unlikely to change. That is what is called a milestone accomplishment reached by the OPCW. I don’t dispute any of that, except for treating those thing as ends, rather than means to the end of the removal and destruction of the weapons. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No he didnt, he said Assad would or Assad wouldn’t but then Shodan broke his own argument with himself and said nothing would happen. > > Shodan wrote, _“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.”_ > That’s pretty sloppy. He ‘might’ hand ‘some’ over which is already proven not true. He has handed all his CW over to OPCW. Or with much more assertiveness that Assad will declare that he can’t agree to anything. And then Shodan summarizes by concluding that nothing can’t happen. Yes, it was vague, and covered a lot of bases. Take it up with him. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Originally Posted by 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. > > H.Action replied, “I’ve lost whatever point you were trying to make here.” > You might want to go back and see what I said. It doesn’t make any more sense on re-reading. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I never argued or depended on an argument that there is not much danger moving the weapons through Syria and to the port. Well, you said those who scoffed at the idea of removing the weapons from a war zone safely had been shown to be wrong, so yes, at first, you did. Then, after much prodding for an explanation, you switched to claiming that this just meant that risks would be assessed, and that bad things might happen. It’s just as sloppy and vague as you accuse **Shodan** of being. That does not mean the “scoffers” have been shown to be wrong, especially as very few weapons have been moved to the port so far. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’ve argued clearly that two major milestone have been completed safely in a war zone. And I am arguing that the Syrians, Russians and OPCW inspectors will take all precautions to finish their mission to remove the CW safely. They will not quit, they will destroy the weapons in place if that is required for safety. Those were the easy parts, since the weapons were already at Syrian military bases. Transporting them through contested territory to the coast is the dangerous part, and what your “scoffers” were worried about. Of course they’ll take precautions. No one believes otherwise. Is that the position you think you’re arguing against? That the convoys will take no precautions, and _that’s_ why it’d be unsafe to move the weapons? You realize, of course, that if it proves too dangerous to remove the weapons to the ports and they are instead destroyed in place, that proves people who doubted they could be removed safely **right** , not wrong. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Shodan argued that nothing will happen. You argued that nothing significant has happened. You are both wrong but just by different degrees. No, I said nothing had been accomplished yet. It likely will, of course, but hasn’t yet. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/629 "2014-01-10T18:05:13Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The ObamaCare website is working pretty good now. You need to move on. There is no reasonableness to making an argument that when a set of experts don’t perform well in one objective that means all experts cannot perform well at any other objective. WTH? the [website](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/obamacare-website-medicaid-uninsured_n_4550316.html)is [not working](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/white-house-declares-obamacare-website-fixed-but-problems-persist/) fine [now.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/problems-remain-with-three-state-run-obamacare-websites/) People who thought they were signed up aren’t and the security issues haven’t been addressed yet. On top of that millions of people lost their insurance or had their premiums go up. This was a complete fuck up and the buck stops on Obama’s desk. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But the absolute fallacy of your argument that “we can’t directly protect” a convoy is that that there are reports out indicating that Syria has reported that the compound > where the CW to be transported was being stored was under attack by rebel or Islamist forces. So you are arguing that a sitting target is protectable but a temporarily moving target is not. A secured base is easier to defend than a moving convoy. This is not disputable. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/630 "2014-01-10T18:11:31Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The main objective of the op is to successfully argue that a national security endeavor involving longstanding acceptance by the community of nations of the CW norms of international law, with minority internal public/political support and limited international support was accomplished in a masterful way by overcoming the political challenges that impeded the efforts to achieve an extraordinary international agreement that is producing a better than desired outcome than was originally sought. > > This was accomplished by forcing Putin to yield to Obama’s underlying objective and endeaver to rid Syria of chemical weapons by 2014. All this was done with the threat of an unbelievably small use of force. A truly amazing act of leadership in using the threat of force in a masterful way to achieve a diplomatic outcome where the force need not be used. Masterful Indeed! You clearly think Obama walks on water. To suggest Putin yielded to Obama is so fucking funny it’s bizarre. Putin got exactly what he wanted and that was an agreement from the UN to do nothing in regards to the Syrian civil war. The Americans got stuck with a bill because Obama stuck his foot in his mouth and needed to save face. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/631 "2014-01-10T23:27:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > WTH? the [URL=" > > A secured base is easier to defend than a moving convoy. This is not disputable. You have no concept of duration. That is what we are addressing. Extra precaution for a few days compared to precaution and full protective security for years. After the CW has been transferred to the port city the security requirement in the war zone is no longer necessary. So what is easier today since the CW that’s been moved is no longer there. No more CW to protect is the easiest CW to protect. Your argument is pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/632 "2014-01-11T01:21:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Putin got exactly what he wanted and that was an agreement from the UN to do nothing in regards to the Syrian civil war. The threat of strikes by Obama was in response to CW used to kill civilians. It had nothing to do with a UN agreement that you cant tell us what that agreement actually is. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/633 "2014-01-11T01:45:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > To suggest Putin yielded to Obama is so fucking funny it’s bizarre. It happened in this sequence of time. Obama told Putin the CW should be removed - Putin said no. Assad killed civilians with CW. Putin did not offer to get CW out of Iraq. Obama threatened to bomb Syria. After the threat of strikes Putin changed his position and took Kerry’s suggestion that destroying the CW was the way to avert strikes. That reality. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/634 "2014-01-11T03:42:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The threat of strikes by Obama was in response to CW used to kill civilians. It had nothing to do with a UN agreement that you cant tell us what that agreement actually is. The inferred threat of strikes was a toothless gesture by Obama. He has no support. He legally can’t wage war. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/635 "2014-01-11T03:47:27Z")
> [@](#): > > "Instead, you are now arguing that safety can never be assured, even for us civilians driving around the U.S…-H.Action That is not my argument as I said. That is simply a fact that supports what I have been trying to clarify for you. Or are you ‘arguing’ that when you ‘safely’ travel from A to B your safety is absolutely assured? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/636 "2014-01-11T03:50:30Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It happened in this sequence of time. > > Obama told Putin the CW should be removed - Putin said no. > > Assad killed civilians with CW. > > Putin did not offer to get CW out of Iraq. > > Obama threatened to bomb Syria. > > After the threat of strikes Putin changed his position and took Kerry’s suggestion that destroying the CW was the way to avert strikes. > > That reality. [If Assad fails to comply](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/world/la-fg-syria-chemical-deal-20130915), Kerry said the United Nations Security Council would consider a resolution to impose punitive measures that could include sanctions. Russia remains opposed to any resolution that would allow armed intervention in Syria, however, so the U.N.'s ability to enforce the disarmament is uncertain and critics said Assad had little incentive to comply. Even if Obama is stupid enough to go against political and public desires to stay out of it and launches a couple of pity missiles it won’t change anybody’s mind. [This is per the Syrian government and rebels.](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10293591/Syrias-rebels-and-soldiers-agree-military-strikes-will-change-nothing.html) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/637 "2014-01-11T03:55:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You have no concept of duration. And you have no concept of vulnerability. ---
**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 11, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/638 "2014-01-11T13:53:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is not my argument as I said. That is simply a fact that supports what I have been trying to clarify for you. Or are you ‘arguing’ that when you ‘safely’ travel from A to B your safety is absolutely assured? What is your argument, then? Explain why people who scoffed at the idea of the weapons being safely removed from a war zone have been shown to be wrong, without arguing that safety can never be assured, or that the drivers doing the removing will take precautions. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/639 "2014-01-11T15:41:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The inferred threat of strikes was a toothless gesture by Obama. He has no support. He legally can’t wage war. If it was toothless as you as a partisan so sloppily opine, why did Putin wait for a toothless gesture to be made before Putin finally agreed to convince Assad to give up his entire CW arsenal? It was Obama who took the initiative on CW trying at least since June 2013 to get Putin to help rid the overall conflict of the CW danger. It was not until after the threat if US strikes that Putin got to seriously accepting that the CW must go. That is Putin yielding to Obama no matter what the partisan hacks and isolationist zealots of the world have made it out to be. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-us-unsc-deal-reached-what-it-it-means-for-masterful-us-president-and-sec-of-state-legacy/668852/640 "2014-01-11T18:55:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And you have no concept of vulnerability. That is a major failure of a counterpoint since it is not even close to being true. I have addressed ‘vulnerability’ and agree that vulnerability is higher for a three day duration for a convoy on the move. But, the point you have miserably failto grasp is that I have pointed out to you that because of the increase in vulnerability when moving it will be necessary to increase the security force that moves with the convoy for a few days. But then the security need is gone. So that temporary necessary increase in security takes a few days and then there is zero requirement for any security at all after that. Your lack of appreciation for reducing the threat to zero compared to a need to protect CW for years and years and years is likely attributable to your highly partisan point of view on this issue. [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=31) [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=33)