I already explained my reasoning. If you claim that specifying the nationality of truck drivers wasn’t apropos of nothing, please cite the post it was in response to.
It was apropos of nothing, and I made no assumptions about your motive or intent, I made a reasoned conclusion about the meaning of what you wrote. That’s how written communication works. Note that I didn’t draw any inferences from this conclusion, or speculate as to your motives r intent.
Would you like me to link to posts where you make wild assumptions about others’ motives and intents?
Ravenman wrote this: “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.
You just told me that Ravenman said, *“there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war.” * Are you sure you are speaking for Ravenman? Because that is exactly the my point of contention with Ravenman.
I’m saying the elimination of the CW was an Administration achievement that was in my view masterfully done. That masterful use of the threat of force to get a national security threat to our allies in that region and matter of international laws and norms being enforced is an end in and of itself and does not depend on in any way whether or not the civil war is ended.
Repeating the same nonsense over and over again for 12 pages doesn’t make it correct. You seem to be the only one who thinks this whole thing was “masterful”, and I doubt that 12 more pages is going to make any difference.
Generally reciognized by whom? Is ‘generally recognized’ a sound means to determine fact and a reasonable viewpoint? If the red-line comment contributed to the CW deal for Syria and Ravenman agrees the CW deal is good, how does Ravenman then determine that the red line comment was a mistake? Since you seem to know where this ‘generally recognized’ collective of minds might know, then could you get an answer to how something considered good can be s mistake on how it was initiated?
I never said red line related to the civil war. *
That contradicts this:
{{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}}
That is relating the mistake of making the red line statement to the loss of focus on the civil war
You said the redline comment was not a good idea, but be that as it may, - didnt you say at least once that destruction of Syria’s CW arsenal was a good thing? And you did oppose missile strikes prior to the Geneva deal and still do right? But if you
Are saying the open and unambuguous announcing of a plan to bomb Syria after the red-line was crossed was stupid then how do you get to the outcome you say is good?
Ravenman: I said the red line comment was a mistake NotfooledbyW: No, you said the red line WAS A MISTAKE
Ravenman: It was a mistake because it eliminated strategic ambiguity. NotfooledbyW: And you said the elimination of strategic ambuguity was not a GOOD IDEA.
You parroted, word for word, statements Ravenman wrote and said he didn’t say them.
Will you, at long last, admit a mistake?
No, it’s not. He’s saying the red line was bad policy on its own merits, and that U.S. policy should have focused on ending or ameliorating the war itself.
{{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy)).-Ravenman
Ravenman is relating the red line comment to a failed outcome of the civil war. In that context of failure by the
Admin, Ravenman is calling the red line comment a mistake. It’s ckear you are not applying context to your intervention into this dispute.
You didn’t repeat exactly what Ravenman said, then claimed he didn’t say it? Even though it’s right there in plain text? Remarkable. Aren’t you the guy who once said:
What happened to that?
Ok. How have they been shown to be wrong?
I read the whole thread, I know the context. Yes, he believes the red line to have been a mistake, as he’s written that repeatedly. He hasn’t written that the red line prevented the civil war from ending, only that it was bad policy, and that the Administration should have focused on the war, and not one category of weapons that’s responsible for a miniscule portion of the casualities thereof.
Now please explain why Obama’s statements and actions cannot be criticized because they occurred in the past.
OK, fair enough.
I’m not calling it a mistake because it did not resolve the civil war. I’m calling it a mistake for reasons that have nothing to do with the civil war.
No, the red line statement had nothing to do with the civil war. And it isn’t really a dispute - it is pretty obvious to everyone else that you’re badly wrong.
So, again - I for one am not criticizing Obama’s red line comment because it did not bring an end to the civil war, but for different reasons. Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize it, and the fact that it happened in the past has no relevance?
You wrote, “the Administration should have focused on the war, and not one category of weapons that’s responsible for a miniscule portion of the casualities thereof”.
Since you relate the Civil War getting (insufficient focus) to the separate issue of CW use getting (too much focus) it verified what I’ve said.
Was there insuffient focus on the war? Ravenman is on record on the other thread saying there was no proposed ‘US policy’ that I agree for the Administration to focus on alone. So why not focus on both?
The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil
war.
{{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy)).-Ravenman
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.” }}-Ravenman
And do you stand by your statement that you sometimes drive your car safely?
Not so fast. You claimed (to the extent that your posts contain any definite meaning) that criticism of the red line comment was not appropriate, because it was in the past. Do you stand by that?
Ravenman’s criticism is in the past, and what’s done is done. Therefore thrusting your opinion about it into the discussion is illegitimate - you can’t do that, by your own standards.
Of course I won’t stand by your version of what I said.
Your set up is not correct. Ravenman said {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}} which is not appropriate because the red line comment from the past was a separate policy matter that was and is wholly separable from the civil war. It is so separable that Obama could focus on both and Ravenman has no way to measure or assess how much focus Obama put on the civil war and/or the CW issue. It is a ridiculous argument that Ravenman is making. So silly I said he shouldn’t make it.
And I did not say the red line comment cannot be criticized because it is in the past. Do you recall I posted that he should take that to another thread if he wants to tie it to the civil war as the reason for the mistake.
And what do you mean when you say, OK Fair enough?
I wrote roughly the same thing before, “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.”
Ravenman’s comment {{1. It was a mistake to make CW, as opposed to the brutal civil war, the focus of Administration policy}} based on basic understanding of the English language can mean nothing else than Ravenman is arguing that some or all or minimal focus on the CW meant Obama did not focus enough or properly or satisfactorily to Ravenman on resolving the civil war.