have you? You actually believe that Obama has done anything to save one single person in Syria? One single person?
Nothing has or will change in Syria and the UN resolution made sure of that.
But you write that Putin changed his mind because he did not want the annoyance to interfere in the killing?
Was that an error on your part?
Why would Putin have to deal with an interference if Obama never threatened any use of force whatsoever?
Your errors and inconsistencies are beginning to add up.
I did not say a list does not exist. That was you. It cannot be said unless you’ve seen the declaration and have verified there is no list. Apparently you have not done so.
We can’t know with certainty but Obama’s there has been no use of CW on women and babies reported since a push for air strikes has been made.
So yes. I think some lives are being saved every minute the peaceful dismantling of Assad’s CW arsenal moves on.
Since its far easier to kill people with conventional weaponry, its really foolish to try to claim killing has been reduced…especially of ‘women and babies’.
Its a pity that it isnt 50 years ago; your monochromatic obsessive thought process would have made you a star at Pravda.
When you present an analysis on the most recent CW attack in August where there are calculations showing that rockets and payload for conventional explosives weigh less and cost less than chemical rockets then get back to us. Also I’d like your calculation of how many conventional rockets it would have taken to kill the same amount of people and livestock.
Once a conventional assault begins initial survivors can take shelter or flee to open spaces where the assailants would not likely be firing rickets
Plus conventional rockets require accuracy where CW require a breeze.
Granpa? What’s a “Pravda”?
<mod hat on>
Perilously close to breaking two rules. Accusations of lying and personal attacks. Rein it in, please.
</mod hat off>
Putin was never threatened with force. Why do you keep making such an absurd statement?
Take a moment to review what I wrote in Post 16685745 and that you cited in order to provide yet another incorrect response. You will be able to see the error of your ways I hope. I wrote, *“…if Obama never threatened any use of force…” *and there is no reference to Putin as the one that Obama was threatening to use force upon, now is there?
Now to make this simple I will rewrite my overall statement to:
"But you write that Putin changed his mind because he did not want the annoyance to interfere in the killing? Was that an error on your part? Why would Putin have to deal with an interference if Obama never threatened any use of force ***AGAINST SYRIA, a RUSSIAN CLIENT STATE and TROUBLED PARTNER IN THE REGION ***whatsoever? -Revised 9/22 Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post rev16685745)
Now if you can respond to that revised version as you did before within the actual context of what I have written I’d be glad to answer any question you might have. But for now your responding question, “Putin was never threatened with force. Why do you keep making such an absurd statement?” does not merit a reply because I have not made a statement that Obama threatened to use force against Putin.
It is you that has clearly stated in Post 16685290 that, "Putin didn’t want any unbelievably small annoyances " which is your clear recognition that Putin was responding to Obama’s threat of the use of military force against Putin’s partner in the region, namely and in this case, Syria. Italics mine in the following quote:
I look forward to your response now that it has been made quite clear that Obama did in fact threaten to use military force against Syria and according to you Putin did not want it to happen because it might interfere with Syria’s military capability to kill rebels.
It’s pretty simple. There was never a credible threat made by Obama regarding Syria. He couldn’t be bothered to protect his own diplomats in Benghazi and he didn’t have the backing to launch an attack on Syria. He didn’t have proof that Assad was the person responsible for the use of CW’s and therefore didn’t have the UN backing to make the attack. It was a toothless threat to begin with. What he could have done was push for a punch of resolutions in the UN authorizing action in Syria. Putin got him to agree NOT to do this REGARDLESS of what occurs in Syria. For this Obama got a face saving way out of his own diplomatic blunder. Absolutely nothing changes in Syria.
Which is to say, it has not gotten worse. Did he promise you he was going to make everything all hunky-dory, or just stop it from getting worse?
Well that’s a pretty stupid question. He didn’t promise me anything. It’s not about me or John Mace or anybody else you try to redirect Obama’s mistakes onto. He made a political blunder, not us.
Nice try though. If you can’t argue a point, create a new one.
Oh, I’d be happy to argue a point. Make one.
I’ve posted many points. Pick one.
Where did you get that Putin got Obama not to pursue UN authorization for action in Syria? You are making this fun, Magiver.
You need to read this link: Russia Says U.S. Using Syria Chemical Weapons Deal To Seek U.N. Resolution Threatening Force Against Assad Government | HuffPost The World Post
That does not square at all with what you wrote, “What he could have done was push for a punch of resolutions in the UN authorizing action in Syria. Putin got him to agree NOT to do this REGARDLESS of what occurs in Syria.”
Do you want to take that back?
And then there’s this about the list in the same report:
You have some serious problems with your arguments Magiver.
from the Washington Post: *Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.
*
Here you go Magiver, now walk me through it.
The name “Putin” does not appear anywhere within that quote. Obama, Syria, U.N., yes. No Putin.
My cousin Clay ate a bug when we were both six. He claims, to this very day, that I made him eat the bug. If he were to produce a quote from the Waco Herald-Tribune to the effect that Clay Thompson ate a bug, that would not be substantial proof that I made him eat a bug.
Any of this getting through?
Was GW Bush the **gold standard **for your version of success. That stooge’s ‘success’ started two separate wars in the first two years of an eight year term taking 6,766 US Service Member’s lives so far, with most of them killed in action after their Commander in Chief declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq and after the “Taliban is no longer in existence” in Afghanistan. Is that your ideal Werekoala? If it is I hope to hell we never see that kind of ‘success’ again. Ever.
Most know about the Mission Accomplished PR shot, but I believe this Bush statement in September 2004 too should be remembered by all, since Americans continue to perish in the first of Bush’s two wars.
Let’s see your standard is (one point - get the bad guy out of power) and (one point - end the war)
I’ll stick with President Obama. Let’s tally it up.
Obama took out Bin Laden. That is a big part of success by your standards since that’s the terrorist that attacked on September 11, 2001. Bush didn’t get him for seven years. (Obama total Score +1)
**Obama took out Gadhafi **- didn’t lose a soldier in that ‘war’ and that war is over . (Obama total Score +3)
**Obama reversed Taliban momentum **after Bush left that mess to him in 2008. (Obama total Score +3.5) Bush was losing war (Bush total score -0.5)
Bush got Saddam Hussein, but couldn’t control the aftermath and the reason for toppling was bogus. (Bush Total Score +0.5)
Obama ended the war in Iraq. (Obama total Score +4.5)
No contest yet and Obama has three years to go. Assad might be gone by then without getting a single US Warrior killed or wounded. Wouldn’t that be awesome Werekoala?
so you think the state department agreed to this even though obama said military intervention was still an option.
Basically you’re just arguing for the fun of it.