Trying to parse this - you’re saying it should be regarded as an end in itself, separate from the civil war, because of the risk of chemical weapons fallining into the hands of terrorists?
The process isn’t underway; it’s stalled because the first deadline hasn’t been met. And Obama didn’t force Putin to do anything.
And he doesn’t have the same options. The agreement was specifically NOT written under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, and thus there is no mechanism specified to enforce it. Unless you believe the US has the power to enforce all UN agreements no matter what the UN thinks, in which case your user name is singularly un-apt.
Could you please explain what this means, in English? I don’t speak Gibberish.
Regards,
Shodan
Additional it was an end unto itself before the civil war broke out. It could not cease to be an end in itself just because the civil war broke out. And when the peaceful disarming of Syria’s CW arsenal the end unto itself will be ended, whether or not the civil war itself has ended or not.
All the attempts here to dump the CW end into the end of civil war are not considering all those reasons why they should not.
But then the clowning around and complaints about an adjective I used might have to stop so they won’t.
Could you explain to Shodan that if Putin and Assad did not agree to dismantle the CW arsenal until after military force was threatened to be used - the timing of that change in policy can be linked to the threat of force and should be.
Shodan seems to have a problem with that concept.
I did.
That is, I restricted my comments to what you posted, and some of my post was in response to your gibberish. But I responded directly to the issues raised in your post, and you end up whining about my post anyway.
You have these tendencies to occasionally make reasonable requests, like to respond to one specific issue, and then go ahead and whine about a response that did exactly what you asked? If you stop and think about that a little bit, you might understand why your posts are relentlessly mocked by folks like me, who are generally liberal; folks like Shodan, who is conservative; and folks like John Mace who is moderate to libertarian. You manage to alienate everyone with behavior like this, which is unsurprising, but you continually seem to be surprised and aggravated by the responses you get to your posts.
Look in the mirror, dude. There’s the problem with these debates.
I get all that, I just wanted to know why it’s a separate issue from the civil war, since the chemical weapons were used to kill people in that civil war. Is it just because of the risk of terrorists getting the weapons, and that’s all? If so, shouldn’t our policy be to make that as unlikely as possible?
That could be the case, but it isn’t necessarily so.
If one part of the process is stalled that means it has started and is therefore still very much underway. Even citizens of the Kingdom of Jibber most likely would understand that.
To further clarify if the stalled part of the process leads to an unresolvable stoppage of the entire process then it would be correct to state that the process is no longer underway.
Translation. You are wrong the way you wrote it.
Because he just wants to discuss how awesome Obama and Kerry are. Any comments to the contrary are off-topic.
It’s not just because of the risk of terrorists.
Had Putin led Assad three years ago to destroy the CW the chance of being used in the civil war would have been reduced if not eliminated.
Putin/Russia waited until after civilians were killed and after Obama threatened military strikes.
So as and end in itself the CW threat and the masterful deal established to end it was has always clear been separate and a apart from the civil war.
It is not the case but If “if” the civil war completely or significantly obstructed the means to the elimination of CW from the war zone then there would be an inseparable link of the civil war to the CW threat as a matter of US policy. But that is not the case. Many scoffed at the idea that the CW could be safely removed from an active war zone. They have been shown to be wrong too.
I get that feeling too.
Trying to parse your meaning again. You’re saying the threat of the chemical weapons falling into terrorist hands, and the threat that they’d be used at all as a weapon of war, make them worthy of being categorically separate from other weapons at Assad’s disposal (eg, tanks, rockets, machine guns)?
That makes sense.
Well, not yet they haven’t. As of today, the weapons are still at Syrian military bases.
It takes special powers to totally miss the point that Forrest Gump repeatedly bungled his way into success.
Yes, I was clearly alluding to Forrest Gump threatening to bomb other shrimpers in order to become a millionaire. I was also alluding to the Red Line that Gump drew which allowed him to get on the football team. I was also cleverly referencing his ping pong championship to being a reference to Obamacare. I hope you understand that Gump’s role in opening up China is just like Obama opening up Libya to the world after Qaddafi’s removal. And Gump’s being awarded the Medal of Honor is just like Obama getting the Nobel Prize, right down to the part where Barack mooned the international media during his speech.
No, wait, I didn’t mean any of that at all. You totally and completely missed the whole goddamned point.
You have altered my specific statement containing an adjective I used in direct connection specifically to the US/Syria/Russia/UNSC deal by applying that adjective to a separate issue - ending the civil war in Syria. Your commentary therefore has nothing to do with what I have stated.
If you could find anywhere that I have stated that Obama and Kerry have been masterful on resolving the civil war in Syria your comments would be on topic and I would have to respond.
For the record I believe there is no military option to force a diplomatic end to that conflict. There is arming the rebels but they have been fractured by foreign fighters flooding in with ties to terrorists. There is no masterful solution to this mess. But thanks to the US/Syria/Russia/UNSC deal it appears that CW within about a half a year will be no longer included as part of resolving this mess.
Dumb Gump luck on the part of Obama? I say no.
And think about when a political resolution might involve a new government for Syria. That government will not have worry about maintaining control of a huge CW stockpile and destroying it when control of the military if Assad goes could be a real disaster or if Russia loses its leverage it now has over Assad.
CWs gone six or ten months from today is huge and will be a major achievement recognized for decades to come.
So if I get into my car and turn the key, and the engine floods, that means I am on my way to the grocery store. Oooookay.
I don’t think it’s me that is having problems with the concept.
Obama threatened force, but couldn’t get any other countries except France to go along, and he was about to ask permission from Congress to use force, and not get it. Then Putin pulled his chestnuts out of the fire with this deal, which is now stalled at the first deadline. So you are correct that Obama was threatening force, but it didn’t work. And Putin wasn’t forced into anything - even you can’t believe* that Obama was threatening force against Russia.
So you think the civil war started because Assad had chemical weapons. That’s an interesting concept, and I would like to hear the logic underlying it. Most people think it started with a series of protests against the horrors of the Assad regime. I did a bit of superficial browsing, and I am unable to find any reference anywhere from the rebels that their goal was to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons. No doubt you have some, assuming your assertion is based on anything real. If not, I doubt anyone will be surprised.
I am still eager for an explanation of what exactly this meant, if anything. What was done? That chemical weapons had already been used? We have already seen that this is far from true. That the Secretary of State had said the same thing nine days earlier? I thought that was part of Obama’s master plan to alienate most of the rest of the world, Congress, and two thirds of the American populace so he could issue threats that nobody was going to support.
What exactly “was done”?
Regards,
Shodan
*I hope.
First of all, you accused me of going off-topic in a post where I didn’t. I responded to some bizarre phrase you had about “thrusting” my opinion, and then I pointed out that Obama’s threat to bomb Syria over CW use fell flat in Congress and in public opinion, with nearly 2/3rds of Americans opposing the use of force in Syria over the CW issue.
Second of all, you complain about comments about the civil war in this thread and you go on and ignore your own pleas to stay on-topic. Physician, heal thyself.
Like how Tony Blair is still celebrated today for his major achievement in disarming another country of WMD in 2003? I bet most posters in this thread will not remember what country I’m referring to without looking it up, and I bet the vast majority of Americans won’t have the foggiest clue what I’m talking about… mostly because that event is almost totally forgotten.
Without Googling it, do you know what I’m talking about?
If you never get to the grocery store for the rest of your life because of a flooded engine I’d guess the process of you going to the grocery store has been stopped. Weapons inspectors in Syria will not be that easily defeated from completing their mission.
If you can walk to the grocery store the process you started is not stopped / Is It?
How about calling a cab? We have three cars and a motorcycle and two bicycles as an alternate.
Now myself back in the day when engines were able to flood, I would let the car sit a spell and try again before going under the hood.
But if you can’t walk or are not near death there is always calling a tow truck and getting your car fixed so the process of you getting to the grocery store is not stopped.
But you are right if you die of disease old age or starvation before completing that trip to the store for groceries - your process will be stopped.
Lets hope the hearse for your final journey does not flood or breakdown because that would be too Ironic.
But I See no parallel in Syria because the agency disarming Syria is bigger than one forlorn soul that cannot make it to the grocery store no way no how if his car engine floods.
Ravenman missed this:
There was some masterful handling alright, but it was done by Putin. Putin got everything he wanted: No CWs, Assad still in power, the rebels fractured and ineffective.
Obama got very little. No CWs (assuming that happens), but Assad still in power (even though he “must go”) and no chance anymore to help the rebels.
It’s like making what you think is a pretty good move in chess, and your opponent then moves one of his pieces and says: Checkmate!
And, of course, the Syrian people are the biggest losers. Still more than 2M refugees and bombs dropping every day. Gee, Mr. Obama, thanks for nothin!
I didn’t respond to it because I think it is patently ridiculous that you think Obama bested Republicans by cleverly getting Republicans and the vast majority of the American people to agree that Obama’s threats were stupid.
Getting your political opponents and nearly 2/3rds of the electorate to agree that you are wrong is a version of winning that only you can believe in. I mean that sincerely: only you can think that is a win.
The problem the rest of us have with calling this a great achievement is we recognize how little has actually been achieved. Most of what we’ve had up to this point are promises that things will be done in the future. And now the first time one of the significant promised events was due to take place, it didn’t happen. Which renews our skepticism over the value of those promises.
The agreement didn’t specify any consequences. Mr Awesome Funtime Fanastic (AKA Obama) might draw another line in the sand and call it Bright Red. But he doesn’t have any political support to back it up and everybody knows it including the Syrians, Putin and that cute little dog at the end of the street. There’s only one person on planet Earth who doesn’t appear know this.
Obama got what he probably desired most of all: no US involvement in another Middle East war. And thanks for that. Putin got terrorist attacks and slightly veiled Saudi terror threats for their upcoming Olympics and a bottomless pit in Syria to pour their resources into if they want.
There was never any realistic act by Obama or the USA that could have stopped the civil war or made it safe for the refugees to return home. The conflict needs to be resolved by the people in the region. By the Syrians, and by having Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey coming to an agreement.