It is a fact, and I have proven this fact, that there are more refugees in Lebanon than in Jordan. And almost as many in Turkey.
If the thread is being hijacked to a discussion about the ending the civil war in Syria why not start another thread. This is about ridding that civil war of chemical weapons which is a major accomplishment in a serious process that is extensively underway right now. That process was engaged only after the President threatened the use of military force and the other side quit its longstanding policy to keep them. The threat of force has worked to achieve a diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons issue.
I understand those proven wrong need to change the topic on this thread but as long as they recognize they are changing it perhaps the clowning about the OP can be eliminated and it will express my views on that.
If one poster wishes to discuss girls in school in Afghsnistan in a serious way that thread is open.
I have not commented on girls attending school in Syria because the Taliban are not a threat to ban girls from school in Syria. American soldiers have been killed and wounded fighting the Taliban in Afghanustan so if anyone thinks it funny to post irrelevant quips about girls in school on this thread I am not amused.
Is that a fact?
There is a major flaw in your inaccurate complaint against my view of what I consider to be magnificent. I am very specific about it. No excuse for a misinterpretation of what I said. You call the outcome good. I call the means to achieving that specific outcome is magnificent and I believe using the threat of force to achieve a diplomatic resolution without using military force is magnificent. What is wrong with that?
But you don’t use words the same way as the rest of us. For instance, you are now claiming that you think the means are magnificent, which has a couple of problems.
[ul][li]No, you didn’t. You said “masterful”, which is a different word, and since we cannot determine exactly what you mean by either word, misinterpretation is not only possible, it is practically unavoidable.[/li][li]No, you didn’t. You said Obama and Kerry’s legacy was what was magnificent or masterful or quisling or whatever, not the process. [/ul]So the process didn’t work earlier, since Obama’s threat of force did not force a deal and the world had to wait until Putin put forth a deal, and therefore if you think the process is magnificently masterful quisling, you must be giving the credit to Putin and not to Obama.[/li]
And now we see evidence that the process isn’t working now, at the first deadline, and Obama’s threats of force are not pushing anyone to abide by Putin’s agreement.
So, far from being masterfully magnificent, Obama is looking like a complete buffoon. Again.
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t misinterpret you, I looked at your OP.
To recap the entire thread, Obama’s declaration of a “red line” was probably a mistake, because he needed to find a way to enforce the red line after it had been clear that it had been violated many, many times. So he proposed military strikes that were deeply unpopular for several reasons, as you know. There’s just no question that the White House was boxed in on the CW issue, politically alone with no plan that had any support anywhere, really… until Putin decided to be helpful and broker an end to an unfortunate series of events.
To recap:
- It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy
- It probably wasn’t a good idea to declare a “red line” on CW use, because it eliminated the advantages of strategic ambiguity. The advantages of strategic ambiguity are obvious, and it is rather embarrassing for the United States to have such tough language fail to deter a rather puny nation from such despicable actions.
- The threat of the use of force was not taken seriously by most observers, probably including Syria, because of the significant opposition in Congress to military strikes and the widespread opposition among the American public.
- The threat of strikes raised the hopes of the Syrian opposition that the cavalry was coming to their rescue, only to have their hopes dashed. It seems that the opposition is still pretty pissed about that.
- We were just lucky that we found a good end to this episode, but I do not define “lucky” as synonymous with “masterful.” That is a fact, not an opinion.
I am confused…the ship that was going to remove the CW weapons from Syria has not done so.
In addition, Syria (probably) retains its capability to produce more nerve gas (the location and size of these facilities is unknown).
The Syrian civil war continues-most recently, the rebels destroyed a 13th century Christian church.
How is all of this “masterful”?
You’ve made an error. I did not say that you claimed that Obama could not bomb Syria or that you claimed this is a major violation. I am pointing out that your derisive comment about the diplomatic breakthrough is weak and flawed because Obama still can bomb Syria and this is not anything close to a major violation of the UNSC deal that is being enforced.
So this is not a major violation, and Obama can bomb Syria for it. What’s he gonna do about a major violation, nuke the place?
Regards,
Shodan
Limit your response to this and see what you can opine on:
"Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached - what it it means for masterful US President and Sec of State legacy. Fantastic, everybody must admit that. Lets monitor how it goes.
You can’t credibly thrust your opinion that Obama made a mistake to draw a redline over use of Chemical Weapons in Syria because what was done was done. Obama had masterfully used the threat of military force to peacefully (our part) achieve a national security objective of ridding an out of control civil war of the very serious threat of the proliferation and use of chemical weapons in Syria and potentially spreading outside of Syria.
Overall assessment of policy toward resolving the conflict in Syria is not defined as masterful masterful by me. That claim that I have is false.
Explain your thinking to me some more here. Because it appears that you are saying that I should not point out mistakes made in the past, because the past is over. Is that what you’re saying? If I’m anywhere in the ballpark, could you answer this question: What the fuck?
Also, I’ve never heard of “credibly thrusting my opinion.” Who, in this case, the the receptacle for my credibly thrusting opinion? I’m just not getting it. Or perhaps this is a compliment in that you’re calling my thrusting INCREDIBLE, which I must admit I have heard before, but this time it’s a bit… uhm, awkward.
Was it all part of Obama’s plan to have nearly two-thirds of the American public oppose air strikes in Syria? If massive public opposition to his threats was not part of his plan, then the plan cannot be called masterful.
No it wasn’t. Clinton said use of chemical weapons was a red line on August 11, 2012, and Obama said the same on August 20 of the same year. Syria used sarin gas on March 19, 2013. Cite, as if it would do any good.
Do your posts have any meaning at all?
Regards,
Shodan
He has all the options that he had before he masterfully forced Assad and Putin to agree to dismantle a CW arsenal that is going on before are very eyes. Obama did not give up anything to gets the agreement and the process underway.
NfbW, did you watch Forrest Gump and conclude that the lead character had a masterful command of business because of the success of his shrimp boat?
I asked you to limit your response to this: Russia/US UNSC Deal Reached. When you can separate that the separate issue in your mind from reaching a deal that ends the bloodshed in Syria then you will understand my point. All redline comments by the Administration were not part of achieving an end to the conflict. Ridding Syria of CW is an end in itself. So you calling the redline policy a mistake it is you opinion that it did not end the civil war. Perhaps you think the redline comment was detrimental in ridding Syria of chemical weapons even as the civil war rages on. But that makes no sense so I doubt you believe that.
And your idea that Obama did not handle the CW matter well because the public opposed it and Congress was resisting the threat and use of force us opposite the reason I say Obama handled the CW matter absolutely masterful.
Obama has Republicans on record opposing using a threat of the use of military force to disarm CW from a civil war going on close to Israel. Republicans were rejecting Netanyahu’s support for bombing Syria. Plus when a President proceeds in policy deemed necessary regardless of polls that and things work out as they did it is masterful indeed.
Why?
There is no parallel in your fiction that shows Gump used the threat of force to get someone to sell a Shrimp Boat to him. Neither did Lt Dan threaten use of force to get someone to sell him stock in MacIntish/Apple,
Was it an end before the civil war broke out? Does it end CW complications threats such as CW falling into the hands of terrorists in the midst of a civil war? If it ends that it is an end unto itself isn’t it?
What color is the line that Syria crossed by missing it’s deadline? Because whatever it is that’s the color of the floor Obama is standing on except for that spot in the corner.