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

[NotfooledbyW]

Key set of paragraphs from my preceding post and reply to John Mace:

{{{{{Disarmament is also about preventing the outbreak of war. Because particular weapons technologies are considered to be destabilizing to international relations, people view their elimination as a contribution to peace and security. Even if war breaks out, disarmament prevents their use in combat or escalation of hostilities.

Translated to the U.S.-Russian framework agreement and the OPCW and UN Security Council decisions, forcing Syria to give up its chemical weapons arsenal will prevent a future Ghouta from occurring during the civil war. By bringing about Syria’s accession to the CWC and by identifying a central role for the OPCW, Russia and the United States have made chemical disarmament in Syria a longer-term responsibility of the global community rather than a temporary, ad hoc reaction to a pressing problem by a few.

If successful, those disarmament decisions may inject a fresh dynamic into the so-called Helsinki process on eliminating nonconventional weapons from the Middle East. The final document of the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference still requires the convening of a meeting on that subject. Nevertheless, some of the core assumptions about regional security, in particular, with regard to the strategic relationships among Egypt, Israel, and Syria, will have to be revisited in terms of the doctrinal relationships between their respective weapons holdings. Thus, for example, Syria’s chemical weapons served a doctrinal function similar to Israel’s nuclear weapons as an instrument of last resort in case of an existential threat to the state. As the former will soon be eliminated, this could have an impact on current regional security postures or on the prospects of other countries joining the CWC or the Biological Weapons Convention. If Israel were to join the CWC after the completion of Syria’s disarmament, Egypt would become wholly isolated, globally and within the Arab League, as a CWC nonparty.[23] If Egypt were to join the CWC under international pressure, how would this affect its bargaining position within the NPT context?}}}}}

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_11/Ridding-Syria-of-Chemical-Weapons-Next-Steps

[John_Mace]

Footnote, dude. Footnote. No one needs you to quote the exact same thing in two posts, one following the other.

CWs accounted for 1%, at most, of the deaths in the Syrian Civil War, which is ongoing as we speak.

[NotfooledbyW]

I do prefer to go direct to sources when I wish to learn things about what’s happening in the world:

{Background Briefing in Geneva Special Briefing Senior State Department Officials Geneva, Switzerland September 14, 2013}

Read more at this link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/09/214255.htm

So, let me finish by saying that we think there are a number of things that got achieved here, many of which the Secretary mentioned, but I just want to mention them again, because I think they are important.

First, that we worked constructively with the Russians to address an international situation of great concern to the international community, and we hope this will also be a deterrence to other countries seeking or having WMD, including Iran and North Korea.

We believe that once this is implemented – in fact, just merely taking control, international control of these weapons, will immediately more effectively degrade and diminish the CW threat. And we think that’s quite important. As the Secretary said, he, the President of the United States, have always hoped that a diplomatic solution, rather than military action, would get us to this place.

We agreed on the scope of the program, how large it was and what types of chemical weapons involved. And, as I said, we have a briefer who can answer that question for you.

We agreed on specific timelines. For all of this to happen in the – by the first half of 2014 is daunting, to say the least. And that within a week, Syria has to put forward a comprehensive listing. So you will see the timelines.

We agreed on an unprecedented use of CWC special procedures. For expeditious destruction and stringent verification, we put in place that Syrians must provide immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all sites. There was agreement to destroy all CW, including consideration for destruction outside of Syria as one modality worth pursuing.

We, I think, strengthened the executive council of OPCW’s extraordinary procedures and full implementation through a Security Council resolution, bringing the entire weight of the international community to bear.

And, of course, in the event of noncompliance, the sides commit to impose measures under Chapter 7 in that UN Resolution.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Footnote, dude. Footnote. No one needs you to quote the exact same thing in two posts, one following the other.

CWs accounted for 1%, at most, of the deaths in the Syrian Civil War, which is ongoing as we speak.

What’s your point. I agree with that. The analysis I provided I’m sure was made by experts that know that statistic. If you cannot comment on the meat of the report why bother telling us something that everybody knows. I posted a particular paragraph that refutes your ‘footnote wisdom’ on this matter. I see you cannot respond to it other to complain about duplication of posting.

[Little_Nemo]

Okay, Not, let me just ask you a simple question that I think cuts to the heart of the issue.

As of January 4, 2014, what percentage of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal has been destroyed?

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

CWs accounted for 1%, at most, of the deaths in the Syrian Civil War, which is ongoing as we speak.

Mace responded to a report I posted to tell me that the civilian deaths in the war are ongoing as we speak.

The first line in the analysis I posted reads as this:
{“The Syrian civil war continues to bring the greatest devastation onto civilians by means of conventional weapons.” }

As I expected Mace would not read the report and then comment on it.

[Shodan]

@NotfooledbyW

If you cannot comment on the meat of the report why bother telling us something that everybody knows.

Why don’t you tell us something that we don’t know - namely, what was “done” that meant that no one can criticize Obama for his comment?

I see you cannot respond to it other to complain about duplication of posting.

Well, he has a point. You have an annoying habit of repeating nonsense without explaining it.

So why don’t you break new ground, and explain what you meant by the “what’s done is done” remark? What was done?

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Cite how you know CW disarmament experts in the military and international political world will not recognize this eight month disbarment achievement for the significance it will have on history and the Syrian Civil war.

You want me to cite something that will or will not happen in the future? I don’t think you know what a “cite” is.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Little_Nemo

Okay, Not, let me just ask you a simple question that I think cuts to the heart of the issue.

As of January 4, 2014, what percentage of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal has been destroyed?

Syria’s CW stockpile is 100 % entirely under the control of the OPCW. Syria cannot kill people with them.

And what does the Pentagon say about when the Cargo Ship Cape Ray will start destroying Syria’s CW:

But its mission to destroy 700 tons of Syria’s bulk chemical weapons can’t begin until Russian trucks can transport the weapons to the Syrian port of Latakia to the Norwegian and Danish tankers that will ferry them to the Cape Ray.

That was supposed to be Dec. 31, so it’s late. Pentagon officials say they expect the ship to depart in the next two weeks.

It is expected to depart in the next two weeks.
So what is the timeline to destroy 700 Tons of Syria’s CW?

Destroying the chemical weapons should take about 45 days, but another 45 have been built into the schedule to account for weather delays.

It will be 45 days plus allowing 45 days for bad weather:

Lets run some rough numbers. June is 182 days. Minus 16 days = 166 days to complete a 45 day project. I’d say the process is in pretty good shape. What do you think?

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

You want me to cite something that will or will not happen in the future? I don’t think you know what a “cite” is.

Read my words that you re-posted before answering and get back to me. I want you to cite “HOW YOU KNOW”… I have cited a couple of analysis that by experts on the subject of CW destruction etc and I accept there explanations as to why. To be fair I wanted to see if you had any ‘experts’ or if it was just you opining for the sake of opining.

[John_Mace]

Nothing in your cite say that this will be recognized for decades to come.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Shodan

Well, he has a point. You have an annoying habit of repeating nonsense without explaining it.

Are you talking about this:

Key set of paragraphs from my preceding post and reply to John Mace:

{{{{{Disarmament is also about preventing the outbreak of war. Because particular weapons technologies are considered to be destabilizing to international relations, people view their elimination as a contribution to peace and security. Even if war breaks out, disarmament prevents their use in combat or escalation of hostilities.

Translated to the U.S.-Russian framework agreement and the OPCW and UN Security Council decisions, forcing Syria to give up its chemical weapons arsenal will prevent a future Ghouta from occurring during the civil war. By bringing about Syria’s accession to the CWC and by identifying a central role for the OPCW, Russia and the United States have made chemical disarmament in Syria a longer-term responsibility of the global community rather than a temporary, ad hoc reaction to a pressing problem by a few.

If successful, those disarmament decisions may inject a fresh dynamic into the so-called Helsinki process on eliminating nonconventional weapons from the Middle East. The final document of the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference still requires the convening of a meeting on that subject. Nevertheless, some of the core assumptions about regional security, in particular, with regard to the strategic relationships among Egypt, Israel, and Syria, will have to be revisited in terms of the doctrinal relationships between their respective weapons holdings. Thus, for example, Syria’s chemical weapons served a doctrinal function similar to Israel’s nuclear weapons as an instrument of last resort in case of an existential threat to the state. As the former will soon be eliminated, this could have an impact on current regional security postures or on the prospects of other countries joining the CWC or the Biological Weapons Convention. If Israel were to join the CWC after the completion of Syria’s disarmament, Egypt would become wholly isolated, globally and within the Arab League, as a CWC nonparty.[23] If Egypt were to join the CWC under international pressure, how would this affect its bargaining position within the NPT context?}}}}}

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_...ons-Next-Steps
yes I posted it twice … and still J.Mace has not found time to respond to it. And I see you simply call it nonsense. Your dismissal of this analysis as nonsense is duly noted. But I will give you a second chance if you read it and and tell me about any problems or thoughts you might have about it.

[John_Mace]

Can you post that again? Someone might have missed it the last 3 times you posted it.

This time, though, can you highlight each instance of “if”, “may” or any other such qualifying words? Also, please highlight the words “decades to come” in there. I’m sure everyone missed that.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Nothing in your cite say that this will be recognized for decades to come.

I didn’t say it did. I’ve been saying that this will be recognized (by experts and officials and historians interested in disarming the world of WMD) for decades to come as a most significant development in the international peace and security operations. You pooh-pooh it. The point is your pooh-ing means nothing now and never will.

[John_Mace]

You made a wild, unsupportable prediction, then scoured the internet to find some obscure article that was vaguely related to your claim, but proved nothing. Anyone can do that. It doesn’t mean squat.

[John_Mace]

Oh, I’m sorry. I skipped a step. After making your wild assertion, when you were challenged on it, you moved the goalpost. Then you scoured the internet…

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Can you post that again? Someone might have missed it the last 3 times you posted it.

This time, though, can you highlight each instance of “if”, “may” or any other such qualifying words? Also, please highlight the words “decades to come” in there. I’m sure everyone missed that.

Ok. You asked. But I will ALSO post all the statements that are not based upon ‘if’ ‘may’ or any other qualifier words that I believe are significant. There’s plenty there to think about no matter how many qualifier words were use.
NO IF: …*Disarmament is also about preventing the outbreak of war. *
NO IF: …Because particular weapons technologies are considered to be destabilizing to international relations, people view their elimination as a contribution to peace and security.
…Even if war breaks out, disarmament prevents their use in combat or escalation of hostilities.
***Nfbw: And I contend that it would be a good thing in the event that war breaks out, how about you J.Mace? What is your thinking on that “IF”.
NO IF: …*Translated to the U.S.-Russian framework agreement and the OPCW and UN Security Council decisions, forcing Syria to give up its chemical weapons arsenal will prevent a future Ghouta from occurring during the civil war. *
NO IF: …By bringing about Syria’s accession to the CWC and by identifying a central role for the OPCW, Russia and the United States have made chemical disarmament in Syria a longer-term responsibility of the global community rather than a temporary, ad hoc reaction to a pressing problem by a few.
… If successful, those disarmament decisions may inject a fresh dynamic into the so-called Helsinki process on eliminating nonconventional weapons from the Middle East. The final document of the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference still requires the convening of a meeting on that subject. Nevertheless, some of the core assumptions about regional security, in particular, with regard to the strategic relationships among Egypt, Israel, and Syria, will have to be revisited in terms of the doctrinal relationships between their respective weapons holdings.

***Nfbw: Boy J.Mace you got us there. But what do you think would be the benefit of doing nothing about the CW arsenal? Remember this was written in last year. Before the CW process was underway. And the first 'IF" appears to be coming quite true.

NO IF:… Thus, for example, Syria’s chemical weapons served a doctrinal function similar to Israel’s nuclear weapons as an instrument of last resort in case of an existential threat to the state.
NO IF:… As the former will soon be eliminated,
… this could have an impact on current regional security postures or on the prospects of other countries joining the CWC or the Biological Weapons Convention.

***Nfbw: Again, J.Mace would it not be good for other countries to join the CWC or BWC? I think so. What do you think?

… If Israel were to join the CWC after the completion of Syria’s disarmament, Egypt would become wholly isolated, globally and within the Arab League, as a CWC nonparty.[23]

… If Egypt were to join the CWC under international pressure, how would this affect its bargaining position within the NPT context?
***Nfbw: Again, J.Mace wouldn’t those to 'IFs" be good things if it all worked out that way…

Or do you still prefer that Obama’s masterful call for a red line drawn on the use of chemical weapons to kill civilians in Syria, and then to follow up despite opposition in the voting public, to threaten to punish the Assad regime with limited military strikes, which forced Putin to convince Assad to give up his CW arsenal and join the CWC had not happened?

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

You made a wild, unsupportable prediction, then scoured the internet to find some obscure article that was vaguely related to your claim, but proved nothing.

Your statement, “*You made a wild, unsupportable prediction, then scoured the internet to find some obscure article that was vaguely related to your claim, … *” is not true. I read this report among many at the time and put it as a short-cut onto my laptop. You should not go around accusing people of things that you have no knowledge of what you are claiming to be a fact.

Thus coming from you that it, ‘proved nothing’ surely means nothing.

I did not post it to prove anything. I posted it to show there is expert opinion on the subject that upholds my expressed view.

You’ve crapped out J.Mace with your pooh pooh-ing argument of Obama’s masterful accomplishment getting Putin to cave and require Assad to agree to destroy his CW arsenal.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

Why is your current line of questions using the word ‘remembered’ instead of recognized as you acknowledged I wrote when you quoted me? Now that you mention Libya I remember it and recognize it. So my point stands.

You remembered that Libya agreed to disarmament AFTER I told you so, and you’re still correct because… What?

I don’t think any poster on this board has ever had a bigger set of balls in never failing to acknowledge a single error.

[John_Mace]

@NFBW

I posted a particular paragraph that refutes your ‘footnote wisdom’ on this matter.

@NotfooledbyW

I did not post it to prove anything. I posted it to show there is expert opinion on the subject that upholds my expressed view.

You posted it to prove I was wrong, but you didn’t post it to prove anything, except you posted it to show that it “upholds” your view.

Well, you’ve got all sides of that argument covered!