Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy.

[Marley23]

@NotfooledbyW

We need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain Bush from invading Iraq once Bush decided to do so.

No, we need to stick to the subject instead of debating the Iraq War yet again. That goes for you and for anybody who is arguing with you.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Marley23

No, we need to stick to the subject instead of debating the Iraq War yet again. That goes for you and for anybody who is arguing with you.

Magiver and others have made the point that Obama has failed in leadership on Syria when compared to Bush on Iraq and they are citing a false fact that Bush was able to get the UNSC to authorize the US invasion of Iraq under 1441. That is not true at all and demonstrates that Magiver’s pattern of facts for his argument against Obama is deeply flawed.

I cannot help it that Magiver’s argument on Syria against Obama is based upon a misinterpretation of the language within UNSC Resolution 1441.

I have cited tons of facts that refute Magiver’s assertion.

So how can we have a great debate on Syria and Obama’s legacy and leadership if one side maintains an argument by comparison to Bush but his facts are based upon nothing that can be reinforced. And then no one is allowed to challenge that obvious misinterpretation?

Do you agree with me or Magiver whether the UNSC authorized Bush to invade Iraq, as it applies to this topic that in both cases, Syria and Iraq, the UNSC has insisted upon a two step process prior to any chance the UNSC would authorize military force against Syria today exactly as the did regarding Iraq in 2003.

[tomndebb]

@NotfooledbyW

We need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain Bush from invading Iraq once Bush decided to do so.

NO. We need both of you to knock it off and stop derailing this thread. You are turning this into one more act of perseveration on your part, and your one-trick-pony act has already passed its due date.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[NotfooledbyW]

Apparently Obama’s lone threat to use military force against Syria was quite enough so much that his leadership was so strong that the UNSC did not have to authorize the use of force in order to get Assad to quickly comply. This is an unprecedented pace of chemical weapons destruction both in quantity, capacity and in calendar days.

Kerry Pleased With Syria Chemical Disarmament BALI, Indonesia October 6, 2013 (AP)

Kerry, speaking at a press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said the Assad regime deserves credit for its speedy compliance thus far with the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of the weapons. However, Kerry stressed that Assad is not off the hook yet and needs to continue to comply with U.N. demands.

“Let me be crystal clear,” Kerry said, “we’re very pleased with the pace of what has happened with respect to chemical weapons.” He noted that on Sunday, just over a week after the Security Council and the international chemical weapons watchdog acted, experts had started the process of destroying the stockpiles.

“I think that was a terrific example of global cooperation, of multilateral efforts to accomplish an accepted goal and they have moved with equal speed to get on the ground in Syrian and begin the operations,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-russia-set-talks-syria-deal-20487615

Is anyone ready to come back to revise their predictions of just a few weeks ago? Or is this topic never to be discussed if it doesn’t go against Obama and Democrats somehow?

09-14-2013, 03:38 PM chappachula
The agreement looks great on paper. But , like so many UN issues, **it totally lacks teeth.**So right now, we can only hope that somehow it works. But, for me, it’s hard to see how.

A few days ago, Obama was talking about taking action and launching missiles. I’m not sure it was a good idea–but it did seem to scare Assad.
Now, Obama is talking about dismantling WMD, which is a great idea, of course. **But with no threat of action if it fails, **I don’t see why Assad will be scared enough to comply.
But we’ll have to wait several months to see.

And when did Obama ever take the threat of military action off the table if the diplomatic efforts should fail?

[NotfooledbyW]

This is wholly about the Syria discussion:

We also need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain President Obama
from striking SYRIA if Obama decides it is nevessary to do so if the CW destruction plan and set diplomacy should be deliberately caused to fail.

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

This is wholly about the Syria discussion:

We also need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain President Obama
from striking SYRIA if Obama decides it is nevessary to do so if the CW destruction plan and set diplomacy should be deliberately caused to fail.

I don’t cite things I never said. You really need to learn how debates are conducted.

[NotfooledbyW]

Today 01:06 AM Magiver

This is wholly about the Syria discussion:

We also need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain President Obama from striking SYRIA if Obama decides it is necessary to do so if the CW destruction plan and set diplomacy should be deliberately caused to fail. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW

I don’t cite things I never said. You really need to learn how debates are conducted. -Today 01:06 AM Magiver October 9, 2013.

No you need to go back and review the pattern of facts you have presented to make your argument as part of this debate. This is how debate works. I am challenging a significant fact in your pattern of facts.

Your argument depends on a belief on your part that the UNSC is able and capable of ‘CONSTRAINING’ President Obama in the event in the future he decides to bomb Syria or take any kind of military action against Syria on his own.

You have set up your baseless argument within this discussion about Syria that Obama’s UNSC SYRIA Resolution contains no teeth because it does not contain the language that the UNSC ‘does not constrain’ as it did in the case of Iraq.

I challenged your baseless argument when I asked you to provide “a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain” Obama from using military force against Syria without UNSC authorization.

Your response thus far has been to deny that you wrote an explicit sentence.

Again this is not how debate works Magiver.

As you can see I asked for a cite from you that defines and confirms … YOUR ARGUMENT /

So if your response means that you are no longer making an argument that the UNSC can restrain a US President from taking military action against any other sovereign nation without UNSC authorization… then I will accept that as fact that you now agree with me that neither UNSC resolution on Iraq **or Syria **constrains the US President from taking military action without UNSC authorization to do so.
There is therefore no difference between 2003 and the present situation with regard to matters of “CONSTRAINT” or “Authorization to use Force by the UNSC”

Both are two step processes.

And to show your pattern of facts Magiver I am posting some excerpts of the discussion thus far. You have clearly made an argument that 'language in the UNSC Resolution that does NOT constrain member states of taking military action means that it is giving an authorization to use military force sanctioned and supported by the UNSC.

And your argument is wrong because your pattern of facts to support it is wrong.

@NotfooledbyW

Here you go Magiver, now walk me through it.

@NotfooledbyW

How’s come “no hidden trigger” or “automaticity” with respect to the “use of force” for Bush on Iraq meant that Resolution 1441 had teeth, but the same language in the Syria resolution means that it ‘has no teeth’?
How do you reconcile that contradiction in your mind - Magiver and Terr?

@Magiver

Language in 1441, specifically inserted into it, provided direct recourse against against Iraq absent a UN response (this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security). No such language exists in the Syrian resolution.

@Magiver

There’s nothing hidden about it. It states outright that members could act against Iraq if the UN did not. No such statement exists in the Syrian resolution.

@Magiver

explained in post 314. And again, Bush had 1441, approval from Congress, international support, international cooperation, and public support.

Obama has none of this. It was all a case of foot-in-mouth disease that a rookie politician wouldn’t normally make. You don’t draw lines unless you have the political capital to back them up. He shot his mouth off just like he did as a Senator about the Iraqi troop withdrawal timeline of 2008. And that’s fine when you’re not the man in charge. It’s just bullshit for public consumption.

@NotfooledbyW

Members can act when they want to even if the UNSC does not authorize it. That’s why Kofi Anan said Bush’s invasion of Iraq was illegal. **So why did you write in one of your Obama dissing arguments **that Bush had UN support for the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003?
Does there really have to be such a statement in the Syria Resolution. Israel and Turkey are member states… if Syria’s CW are used against them during this dismantling they can act against Syria to defend against an imminent threat.

@Magiver

because the line added to the resolution expressly sanctioned it and that’s why it was added in the first place. Kofi’s full of shit.

And I’ll just keep repeating that Bush had all the support he asked for and** Obama had none at the time **he drew his line and he still has none.

@NotfooledbyW

Again where does 1441 mention anything that could be interpreted that a majority of UNSC members that ‘sanctioned’ Bush’s bombing and ground invasion of Iraq. You have misread and misinterpreted the two words ‘not constrain’ and use that error of reason and judgment to call Kofi Annan full of shit.

We do not constrain you and you do not constrain yourself from being wrong, but that does not mean anyone who can read 1441’s language, supports or approves or sanctions you and your error.

But keep it up, I’m glad you are not constrained.

@Magiver

I cited the relevant passage that allowed military intervention. Your sentence structure makes no sense but it appears to be an attempt to move the goal posts.

@NotfooledbyW

Your original statement was that the UNSC ‘authorized’ Bush to kick the inspectors out and bomb and invade Iraq in March 2003. Your new replacement word for ‘not constrain’ is shifty but not accurate.

You ignore the language that precedes the ‘not constrain’ language in the paragraphs you cited in order to falsly claim that the UNSC authorized the war. Your cite clearly stated that 1441 contains no hidden trigger and no automaticity for war, but you cannot admit that your cite is accurate.

You won’t read and accept as a fact what is written in your original cite. Therefore you need to find a new cite that makes it clear that the UNSC ‘authorized’ the US invasion of Iraq.

You said authorized so let’s have a cite that says war was authorized by the UNSC although Kofi Annan clearly says it was not, just like everbody else who knows what they are talking about.

@Magiver

I didn’t replace anything. That’s the language that was specifically put it for the express purpose of attacking Iraq if they failed to comply.

@Magiver

Lets review the current situation. Putin, the supplier of weapons for Assad who is his puppet in the region, has agreed to remove the weapons based on a list provided by… Assad. **the UN resolution that Putin pushed through does not allow for military action **if this does not go as planned. Putin is in charge of the chicken coop.

Best case scenario, he sells more conventional weapons to Assad than CW’s in the future and the circle of death continues.

@Magiver

Already discussed. language was inserted in 1441 that provided for military intervention. You can drive around with goalposts all day long looking for an argument but it doesn’t change anything. Bush had the approval he needed to wage war. **Obama does not. ** His statement about red lines were without merit. He was shooting his mouth off.

@NotfooledbyW

You said the UNSC authorized military intervention. That is false. Kofin Annan tells you that is false. Your ‘provided for’ is different than ‘authirized’ and that is a moved goal post like no other. And you fail to take your ‘provided for’ in context.
Anyway why does Bush say he will invade Iraq without a UNSC Resolution?

@NotfooledbyW

Bush himself disagrees with Magiver. If 1441 authorized Bush’s military invasion of Iraq in November 2002, why did Bush challenge the UNSC to authorize a second resolution authorizing military action in February 2003?
Bush did in February 2003 exactly what Obama must do if the need to strike Syria arises during the dismantling of Assad’s CW arsenal.

The truth is right here cited for Magiver:
Both Iraq 2003 and Syria 2013 were two step processes for the UNSC to authorize war.

Magiver’s fact pattern for his errant opinion does not concur with the reality of what took place then and now.

@NotfooledbyW

Dr Hans Blix commenting on Syria definitely does not agree with Magiver’s pattern of facts that Bush had UNSC authorization to attack Iraq in 2003 contained in UNSC 1441 in order to knock Obama for failing to get UNSC authority to attack Syria in the very first CW or WMD Resolution passed against Syria.

I have presented the facts and the words from the authorities involved.

Magiver is alone in the world on this one.

I don’t think there is one poster here that agrees that Bush was authorized by the UNSC to attack the people of Iraq for the most flimsy if reasons the world has ever seen.

At least in Syria the WMD exist and were recently used to indiscriminately kill hundreds of non-combatants including women and children.

@Magiver

The resolution authorized military action. The sentence inserted into the resolution was done so expressly toward that purpose. This is not up for debate.

@Magiver

That’s factually incorrect. You keep inserting your own goal posts to suggest the language in 1441 did not authorize military action when it clearly did. It states clearly that absent UN action the member states can act upon failure of SH to cooperate. I gave a cite that indicated the inspectors did not receive unconditional access when it was demanded.

You are factually wrong about this and way beyond left field as it applies to Obama. There was no indication that he attempted to put together any kind of political backing before making statements implying such action. He shot his mouth off about “red lines” drawn and it took Putin to fix it politically.

@NotfooledbyW

We need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain Bush from invading Iraq once Bush decided to do so.

[tomndebb]

NotFooledbyW, you were told to drop the discussion of the Iraq war. Repeated references to the UNSC argument after having been told by two separate Mods to stop it, are a direct flouting of Mod instructions.

This is a Warning to stop.

[ /Moderating ]

[NotfooledbyW]

Is there any nation, power or authority in the world that can constrain President Obama from using unilateral military force against the Assad regime in the future if Obama chooses to do it?

Reports thus far show positive signs that US military force will not be required.

UPDATE 2-Chemical weapons watchdog says Syria cooperating with mission
Wed Oct 9, 2013 9:55am EDT

By Anthony Deutsch

THE HAGUE, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Syrian officials have been constructive and cooperative in the early stages of the programme to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, the head of the global chemical weapons watchdog said on Wednesday.

Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said that experts aimed to visit 20 sites in the coming days and weeks, and could eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons by mid-2014 if they won support from all sides in its civil war.

“The cooperation has been quite constructive and I would say the Syrian authorities have been cooperative,” Uzumcu told a news conference in The Hague, where the OPCW is based.

I like it. This is very good news. It appears good news concerning something attributable to President Obama finds little interest on all discussion forums and news reporting and political websites.

What can be done to change a universal problem such as this?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Peremensoe

I am amazed that people are swallowing the idea that international inspectors will be able to effectively survey all these sites in the midst of a very active civil war.

Do you continue to be amazed Peremensoe?

I will kindly keep you updated as to the success of this endeaver by some very competant and professional weapons inspectors.

This in today;

. Most of the chemical agents are believed to be stored in territory under the control of forces loyal to President Bashar al Assad, who has pledged to ensure the safety of dozens of OPCW experts conducting verification activities in a war zone.

The team in Syria, now consisting of 27 field experts, will enter only those areas where inspectors will be safe, said Malik Ellahi, political adviser to director general Uzumcu. “The OPCW will only go and conduct its mission if it is assured security.”

For the field team’s access to areas where hostilities are continuing, the Syrian government and the United Nations will need to negotiate ceasefires with rebel forces.

“We are confident of the ability of our colleagues in the U.N. to work with all groups within Syria to create those conditions,” Malik said. “If we don’t get clearance, we won’t move.”

An OPCW official speaking on condition of anonymity said the chemical sites believed to be now in rebel-held or contested territory were mostly emptied before fighting started there, but they would still need to be inspected at some point to ensure they were no longer being used.

Roughly 100 experts from the chemical weapons regulator will be required to carry out the labour-intensive procedure of either incinerating or chemically neutralizing toxic agents used for warfare. (Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

I like it. This is very good news. It appears good news concerning something attributable to President Obama finds little interest on all discussion forums and news reporting and political websites.

What can be done to change a universal problem such as this?

there just aren’t that many people out there buying bridges at the moment. Which I believe was Peremensoe’s point.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

there just aren’t that many people out there buying bridges at the moment. Which I believe was Peremensoe’s point.

There are fewer than thst who are willing to admit they were wrong about what has been accomplished in Syria without firing a shot.

Wrong about the list, Wrong about civil war preventing inspections. Wrong about Obama setting a red line…,. Wrong about zone of lethality of CW vs conventional. … Wrong about Putin spanking Obama …

Where have all the wrong one’s gone?

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

There are fewer than thst who are willing to admit they were wrong about what has been accomplished in Syria without firing a shot.

Wrong about the list, Wrong about civil war preventing inspections. Wrong about Obama setting a red line…,. Wrong about zone of lethality of CW vs conventional. … Wrong about Putin spanking Obama …

Where have all the wrong one’s gone?

well lets review Peremensoe’s point and see if it can be explained to you. Assad, a quasi-puppet leader under Russian control is in charge of picking the sites he says has CW’s. He’s given time to do this. The CW’s Assad lists are then entrusted to the Russians for disposal. The UN proposition agreed to by Putin specifies that no action is taken if this isn’t accomplished.

Exactly what do you think has been accomplished? Do you really think Assad is giving up CW’s? Do you think it alters Assad’s ability to kill his enemies?

[Peremensoe]

I haven’t been folliwing the thread and don’t intend to get back into it, but for the record–

Yes, I remain extremely dubious, to say the least, of the good-faith cooperation of Assad and co., and of the basic practicality of carrying out inspections in a war zone. I see a lot of blithe talk about things that “will” happen.

And again–to the extent that the whole effort has averted strikes by the US, France, et al., this still looks like a victory for Assad. With or without CWs, he still has the airfields and the heavy weapons.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Peremensoe

I haven’t been folliwing the thread and don’t intend to get back into it, but for the record–

Yes, I remain extremely dubious, to say the least, of the good-faith cooperation of Assad and co., and of the basic practicality of carrying out inspections in a war zone. I see a lot of blithe talk about things that “will” happen.

And again–to the extent that the whole effort has averted strikes by the US, France, et al., this still looks like a victory for Assad. With or without CWs, he still has the airfields and the heavy weapons.

I see your dubiosity remains in effect amidst the reality of Assad’s tremendous cooperation that is overtaking the pessimistic short view of people that view current events primarily as a way to trash the current president, no matter what happens.

Had Obama not drawn the red-line and some other nation did, and the same events occurred, then we’d hear more of the leading from behind claptrap that we heard on Libya.

Just for the record it is understandable why you don’t wish to engage in this subject for a while…

Dubious folk should sit in the center and allow events to play out before predicting that Assad would not cooperate or inspectors can’t get the work done during a civil war.

And how is it a victory for Assad? Obama did not seek to do enough to depose Assad with military action. Obama’s objective was to punish him for using CW on non-combatants so they will not be used again.

And that objective has been met and Assad and the international community with the support of Russia and Iran are dismantling Assad’s chemical arsenal so that it won’t happen again as the diplomacy toward a transitional government moves forward.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

The UN proposition agreed to by Putin specifies that no action is taken if this isn’t accomplished.

Is Obama constrained in any way imaginable from using military action against Syria by that UN proposition?

If your answer is no then what is your point?

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

Is Obama constrained in any way imaginable from using military action against Syria by that UN proposition?

If your answer is no then what is your point?

Yes, he’s constrained by a political process that does not allow him to run around killing people. We’ve been over this before. It’s not his personal army. Syria poses no threat to the United States.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

Yes, he’s constrained by a political process that does not allow him to run around killing people. We’ve been over this before. It’s not his personal army. Syria poses no threat to the United States.

That was not the question. Why did you avoid answering whether or not it is your argument that the UNSC can constrain a US President from unleashing military strikes on any nation if that President determines it must be done.? The UNSC has no constraint on US Power.

The domestic political situation is a separate issue. What about the UNSC Magiver. Will you answer the question?

[Magiver]

@NotfooledbyW

That was not the question. Why did you avoid answering whether or not it is your argument that the UNSC can constrain a US President from unleashing military strikes on any nation if that President determines it must be done.? The UNSC has no constraint on US Power.

The domestic political situation is a separate issue. What about the UNSC Magiver. Will you answer the question?

I answered your question, you just don’t understand it. The President doesn’t have the power to wage war. That you don’t understand the political nature of this is mind boggling.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Magiver

I answered your question, you just don’t understand it. The President doesn’t have the power to wage war. That you don’t understand the political nature of this is mind boggling.

The President has power to wage war for sixty days and Syria was most likely a two to three day affair.

So I understand very well what power the US President has, now you may answer the question any time.

“Is Obama constrained in any way imaginable from using military action against Syria by that UN proposition?”

Yes or no?