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

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

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

You write that I remembered that Libya agreed to disarmament AFTER you told me so. I am right because you have a word problem. I originally used the word ‘recognized’ and you moved that to ‘remembering’. I explained to you that my original phrase *‘recognize for decades’ * applies to experts and officials on WMD disarmament and national security and international law. You are practicing ‘snippet’ debate since you have not responded to my explanation as to why I am still right. You are responding to the snippet that I claim to be right but you don’t address the reasons I’ve given you. And then you get personal about it.

How about you and the whole deal on the most aggressive timeline of that Syria is being disarmed. I have seen no acknowledgment that you were wrong. You see nothing personal. That is how we should keep it.

@John_Mace

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.

You claim I posted something to ‘prove’ you were wrong. That is not correct. As Ravenman has done above you have a ‘word problem’. Your word is ‘prove’. My original comment you are referring to is that I cite expert analysis that **‘refutes’ **your ‘footnote wisdom’. That is not citing proof. It refutes you. Now if you can refute the refuting - give it shot.
And just for fun we’ve been through the ‘missed deadline’ deal already and one of the scoffers was Magiver. Here’s how that one went down and that is likely how this December 31 deadline will go down.
Tom Tildrum (Post 16682346) wrote, "The LA Times is reporting that Syria may miss the first deadline in the deal, for providing an inventory. Let’s hope the deal as a whole stays on track.”
Then we got the Magiver scoff:
"*that can’t be. Kerry drew a line in the sand. He didn’t color code it but it sure sounded red to me. And Assad said it was no problem so the clock’s ticking. 6 more days and we’ll know where all of them are.

And NotfooledbyW has extolled the virtues of our dear leader’s diplomacy. So it’s GOING to happen. And we’ll be able to prove it because… well it’s just GOING to happen. Rest assured.*" - Magiver 09-20-2013 02:08 AM 263a0208.
You can rest assured all Syria’s CW will be destroyed this year.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Little_Nemo

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.

Here’s the catastrophe from the deal that was supposed to happen from one of this thread’s greatest scoffers at the deal:
I Originally wrote, “Fantastic,… Lets monitor how it goes.” and then chappachula in post #018 on 09-14-2013 at 02:37 PM 257p0237 gave us the scoffer’s prediction of all time:

Yeah, so far so good… But “So far” is, what?–a whole 15 hours now?

As for monitoring: There is a nice, specific timetable for doing lots of good things. But the only punishment mentioned in the agreement for not meeting that timetable is -gasp!-(play scary music)—passing a resolution at the UN.

We’re talking about a ruthless dictator who is fighting for his life. He knows that the UN will never pass any serious resolution against him, because Russia has veto powers at the Securtiy Council.

So—I predict:

1.According to the timetable, UN inspectors will arrive in Syria next week.
Not according to the timetable, they will be shot at repeatedly by snipers.
2. The UN will spend 6 months debating how to protect the inspectors, which nations will send their soldiers to create a UN force, etc. Then another 6 months to debate whether that blue-helmeted force will be allowed to carry weapons, or just act as observers.
3. Assad will build entire new bunkers , visible to US satelites, to hide his chemical weapons. But of course, the bunkers are only storage facilities for a baby food manufacturer, and they were not mentioned in the original UN resolution, so they are off limits to UN inspectors.
4. Eventually,(2 years from now?) one small box holding 5 chemical artillery shells will be “discovered”, because Assad brought it out of the bunker for the purpose of letting the inspectors have something to do.
4a. The New York Times will report that some chemical weapons has been discovered.
4b. At 8:00 pm, CNN will show graphic powerpoint charts listing each artillery shell and it’s potential kill radius.
4c. At 9:00 pm, The world press will begin referring to Assad’s “cache” of chemical weapons
4d. By 10 pm the “cache” will be referred to as “Assad’s last remaining cache” of chemical weapons.
5. The now-famous “last remaining cache” of weapons will be displayed on TV as it is loaded onto a ship bound for Russia, to be dismantled by experts.
5a. The world press will be announce that the cache contained the only known chemical weapons left in Assad’s possession, and all of them were dismantled
6. The NY Times will say how wonderful it is to see the world and the UN acting so decisively.
7. All sides will declare that Assad has fulfilled the UN’s requirements, the problem is solved forever.
8. Assad will decide not to use his remaining chemical weapons, at least for a few more months.
9. Assad will instead attack Israel.
10. Israel will respond with a few bombs on Damascus and Assad’s air bases. 10 Scud missile launchers will be destroyed, 100 Syrian soldiers will die, and one bomb falls on a private home, killing 5 children.
11. The world will condemn Israel for being the aggressor and bombing children of a poor, innocent nation which poses no threat because it no longer has any chemical weapons because of the great diplomacy of Obama.
12. Israeli intelligence will release photos of Assad’s chemical weapons.
13. The world will ignore the photos --which are obviously fake, because Obama was such a great Diplomat of Peace.
and then they will condemn Israel for using the photos to try to distract attention from its cruel and intentional bombing of those 5 children.

-chappachula #018 09-14-2013 02:37 PM 257p0237

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

I am right because you have a word problem.

<snip>

You claim I posted something to ‘prove’ you were wrong. That is not correct. As Ravenman has done above you have a ‘word problem’.

Ah, yes. Everyone, except you, has a “word problem”. Once again your thread has degenerated into you claiming words mean things that no one else accepts.

Yep, there’s a “word problem” here alright.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Ah, yes. Everyone, except you, has a “word problem”. Once again your thread has degenerated into you claiming words mean things that no one else accepts.

Yep, there’s a “word problem” here alright.

Nope you are wrong again. I’m not saying everyone except me has a word problem. I pointed to a specific word problems that you have right here on this thread. That you cannot address it tells the tale. No one has contested the meanings of words I’ve been using.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Nope you are wrong again. I’m not saying everyone except me has a word problem. I pointed to a specific word problems that you have right here on this thread. That you cannot address it tells the tale. No one has contested the meanings of words I’ve been using.

All the remaining people who are participating in this thread are contesting the meaning of words you are using. That is all that is left of this debate-- your insistence that words mean something different than what the dictionary says and what the rest of us think.

[Little_Nemo]

@NotfooledbyW

Here’s the catastrophe from the deal that was supposed to happen from one of this thread’s greatest scoffers at the deal:

I Originally wrote, “Fantastic,… Lets monitor how it goes.” and then chappachula in post #018 on 09-14-2013 at 02:37 PM 257p0237 gave us the scoffer’s prediction of all time:

Why on Earth are you telling me about something chappachula posted? Are you having trouble coming up with credible responses to the things I’ve posted?

@NotfooledbyW

You can rest assured all Syria’s CW will be destroyed this year.

Allow me to repeat the points I’ve been making and note that you’ve admitted these facts are correct:

1. No Syrian chemical weapons have been destroyed at this point.
2. The destruction of Syrian chemical weapons was supposed to have begun by now but it hasn’t happened yet.

So will Syria’s chemical weapons all be destroyed in 2014? Maybe. But pretending it’s a sure thing is foolish. And pretending it’s already happened is delusional.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

All the remaining people who are participating in this thread are contesting the meaning of words you are using. That is all that is left of this debate-- your insistence that words mean something different than what the dictionary says and what the rest of us think.

John Mace’s statement is false. Little Nemo just posted a reply to me that has nothing to do with the meaning of words I am using.

H.Action perhaps tried get into a long drawn out discussion about the meaning if safety.

I have a point on the safety of the OPCW inspectors and workers. Do you think OPCW workers will be the ones driving the trucks containing dangerous chemicals and weapons on rebel held roads? Or do you think that dangerous task will be performed by Russians?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

H.Action perhaps tried get into a long drawn out discussion about the meaning if safety.

No, that’s not what I tried to do. First I asked why the U.S. should have a policy on Syrian chemical weapons at all, but you didn’t follow up on that. Then, after an article was posted detailing the security issues with transporting the weapons, I questioned your assertion that “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.”

Your response, bizarrely, was this:

@NotfooledbyW

Are you saying that removing the CW from Syria to be destroyed is not ever going to happen and that Syria is still in control of those chemical and then 8 month plan is a farce because Syria will never give up it CW because Putin masterfully bitch slapped Obama around when Obama put the brakes on the Cruise Missile shower for Assad?

This is a question by the way to find out how far you agree with the scoffers.

That’s either a massive goalpost shift, or you think “safely” means “possibly”. Either way, you didn’t actually address the security concerns that you so confidently dismissed before.

@NotfooledbyW

I have a point on the safety of the OPCW inspectors and workers. Do you think OPCW workers will be the ones driving the trucks containing dangerous chemicals and weapons on rebel held roads? Or do you think that dangerous task will be performed by Russians?

Does it matter? Call me soft-hearted if you wish, but I consider Russian lives to be just as valuable as OPCW workers’, and it’s surreal to suggest that it’s wrong to question whether the weapons can be removed safely, on the grounds that it’d only be Russians getting killed.

[Shodan]

@NotfooledbyW

Are you talking about this:

snip of the SOS reposted for the third time.

Yes, this is the stupid and annoying habit that I and others are objecting to.

yes I posted it twice … and still J.Mace has not found time to respond to it.

Tell you what - how about if you save the horseshit complaints about how other people aren’t responding to you until you answer the question I have posed to you several times already.

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.

What was “done”?

Answer the question. Don’t repost bullshit for the umpteenth time, don’t make up meanings for words you don’t understand, just tell us what was “done” and why it makes criticism of Obama’s “red line” off limits.

Just answer the question.

Regards,
Shodan

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

Does it matter? Call me soft-hearted if you wish, but I consider Russian lives to be just as valuable as OPCW workers’, and it’s surreal to suggest that it’s wrong to question whether the weapons can be removed safely, on the grounds that it’d only be Russians getting killed.

I consider Russian lives to be just as valuable as OPCW workers lives as do you. So why would you suggest that I don’t.

i’d say the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin considers the lives of Russian soldiers, who may be driving the trucks, to be quite valuable too. If you disagree with that let me know. If you agree then think about it for a while on what that means toward getting those dangerous chemicals moved safely. And that the threats to safety put forth have been, weather, terrorists, and very powerful roadside bombs that right now I would presume would be set by Syrian rebel forces rather than incoming terrorists.

[Shodan]

Answer the question.

Regards,
Shodan

[NotfooledbyW]

I am not complaining. Review all the posts if anyone thinks I am. I am reiterating a fact that certain posters do not respond to on-topic subject matter that I have contributed to the debate. When substantive posts are not responded to on any way, I don’t complain. It tells me they can’t.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

You write that I remembered that Libya agreed to disarmament AFTER you told me so. I am right because you have a word problem. I originally used the word ‘recognized’ and you moved that to ‘remembering’.

rec·og·nize - transitive verb – : to know and remember (someone or something) because of previous knowledge or experience : to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

Things that are quickly forgotten do not fall into the common definition of the words “recognize.”

Face it: you claimed that disarming Syria of CW “will be a major achievement recognized for decades to come.” I pointed out that Libya’s renunciation of a wider variety of WMD programs is not well remembered just ten years later. The fact that Libya is barely remembered today (except by me, apparently) without prompting is evidence that disarming another crappy country of CW will not be an event that will not be considered a “major achievement” in 2023, 2033, or 2043.

Here comes the clue bus: it won’t even be considered a “major achievement” in 2014 if this all continues to plan. “Major achievements” are things like killing bin Laden, eliminating intermediate range nuclear forces, or negotiating a peace between Israeli and Egypt. This just doesn’t measure up.

You are practicing ‘snippet’ debate since you have not responded to my explanation as to why I am still right.

Because you’re basically right about nothing. If you told me it was night outside, I’d still check my watch, because your version of what “night” means changes every three days and doesn’t match what liberals, centrists, or conservatives understand it to mean.

Plus, on the snippet debate, why can’t you answer the question that has been posed many times now: you said "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. "

What the hell does that mean?

I said Obama shouldn’t have drawn a red line and you responded with this nonsense, then ran away from your statement as quickly as you could. Here we are, responding “to on topic subject matter that [you] have contributed to the debate” and you won’t respond. Yet another example of how you can’t defend your statements without twisting the meaning of words, backing off of your nonsense, or shifting the goalposts.

Why can’t I point out that Obama should never have announced a red line? Pretty much everyone agrees that it was a mistake, except for you.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Shodan

Answer the question. Don’t repost bullshit for the umpteenth time, don’t make up meanings for words you don’t understand, just tell us what was “done” and why it makes criticism of Obama’s “red line” off limits.

I will at times respond to people who dont have much patience that follow up with personal attacks such that I am reposting bullshit and making up meanings of words without definitively addressing the charges beyond having the ability to do so.

My conversation with Ravenman had to do with the overall context of his criticizing Obama’s policy on the civil war in Syria as well as getting the Russuan/US deal done as if the two issues were one policy or one end in itself.

I don’t see your interest in context to be very high so I have not made it a priority to respond to you with the personal attacks and all that.

So if you can explain why the information I reposted for John Mace is bullshit I’d like to hear your explanation as to why. This is not a complaint by the way. I really don’t expect one because what I posted is not bullshit.

[John_Mace]

@NFBW

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.

Translation: Obama did something kinda stupid, but I need to divert attention away from that because I only want to talk about Obama in a positive light. Anyone posting otherwise is just posting silly comments, or is a naysayer or a neocon. Facts are not important where Obama’s image is concerned.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

Why can’t I point out that Obama should never have announced a red line? Pretty much everyone agrees that it was a mistake, except for you.

You can. I was saying that the Red Line comment was done having nothing to do with Obama’s policy (if there was a policy to be had at all) on putting a stop to the civil war in Syria. You have argued if memory serves me that the two separate issues are one.

I wrote simply that you can’t credibly criticize what was said (Red-Line) on a matter international law with regard to the use of chemical wespons on civilians. In stating that, lets be clear now, I was attempting to oppose any attemiprs to include Obama’s failure to stop the bloodshed in Syria means that Obama’s accomplishment on disarming Syria of CW cannot be called masterful by anyone including me. That is not a credible argument. It clearly is not credible because had Obama not ever drawn the red line in upholding norms if international law the results that we now see in process would likely not be happening at all. It was not a mistake to draw the redline if the end or objective was to punish to reduce the use if CW in the future or to force Assad to join the CW convention and get rid of them.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Translation: Obama did something kinda stupid, but I need to divert attention away from that because I only want to talk about Obama in a positive light. Anyone posting otherwise is just posting silly comments, or is a naysayer or a neocon. Facts are not important where Obama’s image is concerned.

Case on point - Snippet Commentary at its finest.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

You can. I was saying that the Red Line comment was done having nothing to do with Obama’s policy (if there was a policy to be had at all) on putting a stop to the civil war in Syria. You have argued if memory serves me that the two separate issues are one.

I wrote simply that you can’t credibly criticize what was said (Red-Line) on a matter international law with regard to the use of chemical wespons on civilians. In stating that, lets be clear now, I was attempting to oppose any attemiprs to include Obama’s failure to stop the bloodshed in Syria means that Obama’s accomplishment on disarming Syria of CW cannot be called masterful by anyone including me. That is not a credible argument. It clearly is not credible because had Obama not ever drawn the red line in upholding norms if international law the results that we now see in process would likely not be happening at all. It was not a mistake to draw the redline if the end or objective was to punish to reduce the use if CW in the future or to force Assad to join the CW convention and get rid of them.

So, it wasn’t part of his policy, yet it was the lynchpin of his policy in the end.

Got it. Crystal clear, as always!

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

So, it wasn’t part of his policy, yet it was the lynchpin of his policy in the end.

Got it. Crystal clear, as always!

Your re-write of what I wrote is not even close. It is absurd. What was said the red-line comment was not part of the policy to find a way to stop the Civil War and the killing. It was the lynchpin of the policy to stop the civil war.
Just as an example of what I am talking about. This entire personal attack rather than genuine discussion has taken place after I tried to stop the clowning three days ago.

I wrote on 01-02-2014 at 10:19 AM. "*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." -NotfooledbyW 01-02-2014 10:19 AM 002a1019

It is quite clear and no one bothered to cite it and respond directly. What happened next was in a follow up post I used the word magnificent instead of masterful (woe is me) and then in many cases the snippet-teers went to work.

Ravenman then went on explain 01-02-2014 11:20 AM why he thought putting the red-line out there was probably a mistake.

Ravenman’s first item in his re-cap ignored the above request I had made (at 10:19 AM ) above, He wrote, “*1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy.” *- Ravenman 01-02-2014 11:20 AM 002a1120.
Ravenman’s first item in his recap is so absurd there is not much use in going through the rest. Here’s why. Calling the red-line statement a mistake because it hindered focus on the brutal civil war holds the President of the United States to be incapable of focusing on more than one issue at a time. And secondly being two separate issues, or ends in themselves Ravenman has no objective ideas as to what more Administration focus on the civil war could have done or that the red-line and subsequent removal of CW in the midst of the civil war could have made matters worse. And had Obama said the US will not respond or assess a response if the CW red line were crossed would have been the only mistake that Obama could make - if you stick to the point in my OP that the Russian/Syria deal was a masterful accomplishment for this Administration as it went down and primarily because Obama drew a red line in the sand and stood for missile strikes as a credible option after the line was crossed. Obama did not propose sending US ground troops in to secure the CW as Romney did. Romney was tougher. He’d order in the troops… Screw that UNSC and OPCW crap that does not work… You know the Republican hard line that UN Inspections don’t ever work. Force is the only thing those Tyrants understand.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I consider Russian lives to be just as valuable as OPCW workers lives as do you. So why would you suggest that I don’t.

i’d say the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin considers the lives of Russian soldiers, who may be driving the trucks, to be quite valuable too. If you disagree with that let me know. If you agree then think about it for a while on what that means toward getting those dangerous chemicals moved safely. And that the threats to safety put forth have been, weather, terrorists, and very powerful roadside bombs that right now I would presume would be set by Syrian rebel forces rather than incoming terrorists.

Ok, to recap, you write:

@NotfooledbyW

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 question this, you respond with nonsense:

@NotfooledbyW

Are you saying that removing the CW from Syria to be destroyed is not ever going to happen and that Syria is still in control of those chemical and then 8 month plan is a farce because Syria will never give up it CW because Putin masterfully bitch slapped Obama around when Obama put the brakes on the Cruise Missile shower for Assad?

This is a question by the way to find out how far you agree with the scoffers.

You ignore my reply to that, then write this:

@NotfooledbyW

H.Action perhaps tried get into a long drawn out discussion about the meaning if safety.

I have a point on the safety of the OPCW inspectors and workers. Do you think OPCW workers will be the ones driving the trucks containing dangerous chemicals and weapons on rebel held roads? Or do you think that dangerous task will be performed by Russians?

So, was that just a shifting of goalposts, from “safely” to “safe to OPCW workers only”, or what? Why else bring up the nationality of truck drivers?