Answer the question. What was “done”?
Regards,
Shodan
When we call you on BS posts, it isn’t a personal attack. Personal attacks are forbidden in this forum, and if you think someone here is attacking you personally, go ahead and summon a moderator. But just because posters representing the entire political spectrum slice your poor arguments to shreds and mock your logic does not entitle you to play the part of a victim of ad hominem.
Which do you think is the more important issue: 130,000 killed in a civil war, or around 1,300 killed in CW attacks? On which issue did Obama draw the red line? There’s no doubt that the White House made CW the focus of its Syria policy.
Really? Two separate issues? Would we be talking about CW use if there wasn’t a civil war going on? Of course not. Yet another argument that depends on us to be totally thoughtless in order to take it seriously.
Now who is changing the topic? You want me to propose alternative policies now? I thought you said I should stop talking about the civil war, now you’re complaining I haven’t put forth a proposal to successfully end it. Talk about duplicitous debating: “Shut up about this topic and put forth your proposals on that same topic! But shut up about it!”
But you didn’t answer the question: what did you mean “what was done was done?”
Right on cue, Ravenman does not yet respond to my request and clarification of what I meant when I described Obama’s achievement ‘masterful’ to get the Russia/US deal in Geneva.
I’ll post it again:
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
Ravenman Wrote, “Which do you think is the more important issue: 130,000 killed in a civil war, or around 1,300 killed in CW attacks?”
NF: Both. Most were killed in a Civil War that there is not much that can be done about it. The latter are part of Syria’s violation of International Norms and there is something that could be done about it. And it was ‘masterful’ in the way that something is being done about it. And you did not respond to my point that the Administration can respond to more than one thing at a time. The question you are asking does not refute my point. Not even close. Do you think the Administration can focus on both issues? If not why not?
Ravenman Wrote, *“Really? Two separate issues? Would we be talking about CW use if there wasn’t a civil war going on? Of course not.” *
NF: Talking about one of two separate issues does not make them one issue. You have no point there. They are totally separate issues as I pointed out to H. Action. The CW issue existed before the civil war broke out. The CW issue would still be there had the Civil War been resolved first or it could have been a major catastrophe of untold proportions… (spilling onto bordering states) (Terrorists getting ahold of them) Then we’d be talking about the CW issue and Obama would be blamed for not doing something about it. No excuse that a civil war was going on … I’d bet. My point is that the two issues are separate and could be dealt with separate and the proof is that the CW issues is scheduled to be out of the way by the middle of this year … perhaps the civil war will be settled by then too, perhaps not. Being separate I can say that. If you think they are one inseparable issue then you cannot say that. If the CW are destroyed by June this year - what will you say… Obama made a mistake and focused on the same issue. Like I said, that argument is absurd.
Ravenman cited a third of a sentence I wrote, “*Ravenman has no objective ideas as to what more Administration focus on the civil war could have done…” *
To which Ravenman cannot respond to the point: "Now who is changing the topic? You want me to propose alternative policies now? I thought you said I should stop talking about the civil war, now you’re complaining I haven’t put forth a proposal to successfully end it. Talk about duplicitous debating: “Shut up about this topic and put forth your proposals on that same topic! But shut up about it!”
NF: Ravenman snipped my full statement pretty good. It is self-explanatory. I am posting my full statement here:
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.*
NF: I am contesting Ravenman’s insistence that Obama made a mistake by focusing on the CW at the expense of resolving the civil war.
Having seen this…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16984194&postcount=8
I thought Ravenman and I are in agreement when he wrote there is no “… single individual anywhere who ever proposed a US policy toward the Syrian civil war that had a realistic chance of things having turned out nicely by now.”
I just did not expect that Ravenman believes himself that more Administration focus on the civil war could have made the civil war better or turn out nicely by now. So where is the mistake in focusing simultaneously on the CW matter and doing what can be done to put an end to the civil war.
I also have been posting comments from experts on CW who have expressed an opinion that the elimination of CW can be very helpful in resolving the overall civil war. But those posts have been ignored up until now also.
Why don’t you just respond to the question about what you meant by “what was done was done” instead of posts rehashing ten quotes from prior pages and other threads?
“Resolving” is an interesting word. The elimination of CWs, in and of itself, does very little if anything to “resolve” the civil war since they played a minuscule role in said war. Now, the method of their elimination, in which we have had to ally ourselves with Putin and, by extension, Assad in order to eliminate them, has tilted the balance heavily towards Assad, thus “resolving” the war in his favor. I don’t think anyone can credibly deny that Assad is much more entrenched in power than he was last summer.
Nope not at all. I asked you a couple of questions. I’ll ask you again.
So why would you suggest that I don’t think Russian lives to be just as valuable as OPCW workers lives?.
Putin considers the lives of Russian soldiers …to be quite valuable too If you disagree with that let me know. Do you disagree with that?
I asked you to think about what it means to get those dangerous chemicals moved safely knowing that Putin considers the lives of Russian soldiers, who may be driving the trucks, to be quite valuable. Do you think anything about it?
Here’s a new question. Is there a difference between soldiers and civilians of any nationality when it comes to doing dangerous things but doing them safely?
And now, why does bringing up a fact that the nationality of the truck drivers must be a shift of goal posts from “safely” to “safe to OPCW workers only”, or what?
You say, “the method of their elimination”, in which we have had to ally ourselves with Putin and, by extension, Assad in order to eliminate them, **has tilted the balance **heavily towards Assad, thus “resolving” the war in his favor."
The alternative to that would be leaving CW in place, no bombing is your position I believe, and I guess hoping the CW do not fall into the hands of foreign fighters linked to terrorist organizations. Is that how you see what would happen if the method of elimination were never conceived or implemented?
Do you accept a report I posted, that the secular Syrian rebels we wanted to help were being infiltrated by Islamists and fighters with terrorist links prior to the August CW attack on civilians that has led to the ‘method of elimination’ that you say favors Assad?
Obama made the red-line comment is what was done was done. Your 20-20 vision hindsight that it was a mistake because it took focus off the civil war is not an examination of the comment in the context that this thread is about.
When will you respond to this instead of arguing that the word masterful in the OP is wrongly used because the civil war is not resolved?
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
And do you have a reply to this:
*"I thought Ravenman and I are in agreement when he wrote there is no “… single individual anywhere who ever proposed a US policy toward the Syrian civil war that had a realistic chance of things having turned out nicely by now.”
I just did not expect that Ravenman believes himself that more Administration focus on the civil war could have made the civil war better or turn out nicely by now. So where is the mistake in focusing simultaneously on the CW matter and doing what can be done to put an end to the civil war." *
Because you said the weapons could be removed from a war zone safely, then said, apropos of nothing, that the dangerous task of driving weapon-laden trucks would be performed by Russians.
No.
I don’t know what this means.
Not particularly, no.
Depends. It could just be your odd style of communication, or it could be you trying to walk back your claim that people who “scoffed at the idea that the [chemical weapons] could be safely removed from an active war zone” had been “shown to be wrong”, into something like “people who scoffed at the idea that [chemical weapons] could be removed without danger to OPCW workers, have been shown to be wrong.”
Do you stand by this statement:
…or not?
This doesn’t make any sense at all. What do you mean?
I don’t really understand this either. My hindsight that it was a mistake to take attention off the civil war? My hindsight that it was a mistake to change focus on the comment on context of the remark? Or this thread?
Dude, I have no clue what you’re trying to communicate. I’ll respond to your questions once you provide an intelligible answer. Thank you for finally responding to the requests for clarification on the “done is done” comment, but your clarification just doesn’t make any sense at all. Can you try again?
I’m guessing here, since NotfooledbyW has a, let’s say, unusual communication style, but I think he’s trying to say “What’s done is done”.
(meaning from Wikipedia:It usually means something along the line of: the consequence of a situation (which was once within your control), is now out of your control, that is, “there’s no changing the past, so forget about it and move on.”).
Is this your meaning NotfooledbyW? I am asking because, God forbid, someone gets quoted out of context in this thread.
Obama made the red-line comment; what’s done is done.
ETA: No idea what thrusting an opinion means. Interjecting?
This thread is about his “masterful legacy” wrt the CW deal for Syria. Obama’s “read line” comment is generally recognized as having been a mistake. How is that NOt relevant to what this thread is about?
Does it have anything to do with Obama? Yes
Does it have anything to do with Syria? Yes
Does it have anything to do with CWs in Syria? Yes
Does it have anything to do with the UN Deal? Yes.
Does it support a “masterful” legacy? No
So, the only reason this would not be relevant to the topic of this thread is if we wish to suppress any evidence that conflicts with the OP’s premise.
But why would that ever suggest that I don’t think Russian lives are just as valuable as OPCW workers lives? I have not said anything about the Russian drivers not removing the chemical weapons and chemicals from the war zone safely.
I sort of think that’s what he means, but it’s just so lame to assert that on this board. Don’t like Bush because of the Iraq war? What’s done is done, no sense talking about it. Oppose abortion? Roe is the law, what’s done is done… Had a terrible meal and you want to Pit the restaurant? Water under the bridge!
The whole point of this forum is to discuss events, future or past. To try to say it is illegitimate to discuss past events is just nonsensical. Which is why I have to assume he is driving (thrusting?) at something else, but he can’t explain his thoughts clearly.
I left out ‘into to this topic’ after ‘thrusting an opinion’ … so yes interjecting. is fine.
What’s done is done is fine but that is only in the context that I have explained. One should not call the red-line statement a mistake in hindsight because it did not resolve something that it was not ever meant to directly resolve in the first place. What was done was done and it had nothing to do with the resolving the civil war.
And I have no doubt that I am correct seeing as how the red-line comment has led to the impressive international deal and the process of removing the CW from the civil war in an unprecedented schedule for completion. And Ravenman is not arguing that I am aware of that the red line comment was a mistake because it somehow hurt the removal of CW from the civil war. It was a mistake according to Ravenman’s explanation because it hurt the civil war policy some how.
Because, in response to discussion of security threats to removing the weapons, you felt the need to point out, apropos of nothing, that the risk would be borne by Russians and not OPCW workers. It’s fine if that’s not what you meant to convey, but it shouldn’t be a mystery why your remarks raised that possibility.
For a guy who complains about “snippet commentary”, you sure do a lot of it. Any intetest in answering the direct question I’ve put to you several times, the one that concerns the substance of the issue, which you claim to care about?
It is a false statement that I have said it is illegitimate to discuss past events.
I can’t make you read, accept or explain why you think you should do this, but here goes again.
One should not call the red-line statement a mistake in hindsight because you believe it did not resolve something that it was not ever meant to directly resolve in the first place.
I didn’t say not to discuss it. I said take it to another thread if you want to call it a mistake because it deprived the civil war of its proper due focus from an Administration that you apparently feel cannot handle two things involving Syria at once. But then on the other thread that was started focused on the Civil War you make the argument that I agree with. So who knows why you made the point of weakened focus here.
Emphasis added in red. So that’s what this is about? Ravenman never said that. You just made it up.
What he said was, there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was a mistake to invoke the “red line”. Two completely separate things.
Why have you responded the way you did for pointing something out that you decided is apropos of nothing?
Why do you get to decide a fact I wish to introduce into the topic is ‘apropos of nothing’ and then turn that into an assumption about my motive or intent?
I said the red line comment was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity of US policy, and painted Obama into a corner have having to propose a stupid plan to bomb Syria over CW use. I never said red line related to the civil war. I said the civil war is a much more important issue than CW.
I’ve had it with your inability to read other peoples’ posts and your propensity to use the English language in ways nobody else does.