By all means criticize Obama’s red-line comment… here or on the other thread. Let’s see all your reasons and the logic behind it on its own since unlike Ravenman you claim your criticism has nothing to do with bringing an end to the civil war. So you agree that Obama could focus on both and resolve one or the other. It did not matter which one Obama focused on. Is that correct?
Let’s see your reasons… your different reasons.
You just wrote, "You seem to be the only one who thinks this whole thing was “masterful”
What does it take J.Mace? I have said and explained and clarified from the very start that I do not think the “WHOLE THING” is masterful I think the Russia/UNSD deal that was reached was masterfully done and it is a very significant achievement.
I tried to tell you when your wrote,* “there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war.” *
Is that written on a stone tablet brought down from the mountain by Moses?
What do you mean 'there isn’t anything"? Come on . I never said anything was masterful about Obama’s policy on ending the civil war. I tend to agree with Ravenman on those days when he defends Obama by saying no one has ever offered up a US policy that could end the civil war nicely… I don’t require it to be ended nicely just so it ends, but I agree that there has been no options to be considered or FOCUSED upon to end the civil war.
so who are you talking about when you write, * “there isn’t anything that can be called masterful if it doesn’t end the civil war.” *? Because it isn’t me.
I’ve lost whatever point you were trying to make here.
Because they aren’t totally compatible. For instance, if keeping the weapons out of the hands of terrorists is the goal, then the U.S. should strongly back Assad. If removing Assad from power is the goal, that entails the risk that he’d be pressed into using chemical weapons.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil
war.
[/quote]
It hasn’t accomplished anything yet.
Almost always, roughly 4378 of the last 4380 days.
Ready to explain how people who scoffed at the idea of removing chemical weapons from a war zone safely have been shown to be wrong?
Ready to admit your mistake in restating Ravenman’s position in post 565? It’d give your credibility a much-needed boost.
Only a real scoffer would not realize that the international unity and massive amount of cooperation going into the effort to remove the Threat of CW from a civil war zone is not an accomplishment in itself.
And there is no excuse even for a scoffer to not know that control of the CW for use as a weapon has been already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians, is already a significant accomplishment of its own.
If’s that’s in response to this:
…then it’s another goalpost shift. If it’s not in response to that, I’d still like a response.
As long as the weapons are at Syrian military bases, they can be used as a weapon. It’s not likely Assad would order that they be seized back from OPCW control and used, but neither is it unthinkable. Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched.
What international unity? Every politician who suggested intervention had his head handed to him.
I wrote, “The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil
war.” And H.Action replied “It hasn’t accomplished anything yet” which tells me H.Action is not interested in a reasonable discussion about this. I say H.Action is not reasonable on this
because when I present a factual point that, “control of the CW for use as a weapon has been already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians” H.Action does not agree that it is an accomplishment at all becsuse it is NOT LIKELY but it is THINKABLE. To THINK that Assad would seize the CW back from OPCW control and then as an affront to his biggest ally, Putin, would use CW now to go ahead and gas defenseless men women and children, is sufficuent cause in a mind such that H.Action has now engaged, to draw upon the most mystifying farcical ends of all absurdity to argue that the Geneva Deal, the UNSC Resolution, and the OPCW has not accomplished anything at all yet. That is nothing at all, Nothing. The Lavrov/Kerry deal H.Action is arguing has not accomplished anything yet. Nothing.
If I were irresponsable enough to argue unlikely but thinkable possibilities I could say no Geneva deal, no red-line, no OPCW initiative, no iternational unity, and process to take control of Assad’s CW it certainly would be thinkable that Assad would keep gassing the civilians in all the towns were rebel opposition were strong and if he ran out of chemicals he could just whip up some more. But I wont.
Oh yes another accomplishment is that Assad’s production capabilty of deadly wesponized gases had also been 100% destroyed.
A couple of minor fixes to the first paragraph of the previous post:
I wrote, “The focus on CW did accomplish some good to come out of that clusterfuck of a civil war.” And to that H.Action replied, “It hasn’t accomplished anything yet” which tells me H.Action is not interested in a reasonable discussion about this. I say H.Action is not reasonable on this because when I present a factual point that, “control of the CW for use as a weapon has already been removed as a tactical weapon to be used against innocent civilians” H.Action does not agree that it is an accomplishment at all becsuse H.Action says it is NOT LIKELY but it is THINKABLE that Assad would seize the CW back from OPCW control and then as an affront to his biggest ally, Putin, would use CW now to gas defenseless men women and children. That thinkable event is sufficuent cause in a mind such that H.Action has now engaged, to draw upon the most mystifying farcical ends of all absurdity to argue that the Geneva Deal, the UNSC Resolution, and the OPCW working plan has not accomplished anything at all yet. That is nothing at all, Nothing. The Lavrov/Kerry deal H.Action is arguing has not accomplished anything yet. Nothing.
so Assad, someone with a military industrial complex at his disposal, can’t do what a religious cult could do in Japan.
Huh.
Says the guy who avoids direct questions like the plague, shifts goalposts constantly, and refuses to admit his mistakes.
More likely, Assad would just stash some chemical weapons if he were interested in keeping control of them (unlikely, as he benefits from the new status quo), but yes, it is certainly possible that the weapons could return to Syrian control.
When the weapons are physically removed from Syria, hopefully without the people transporting them being attacked, then something will have been accomplished. Is the removal and destruction of the weapons not the goal you’ve been trumpeting? Why the sudden change?
Once the massive extant stockpile is gone, that will be meaningful.
That assumes Assad can’t reproduce a chemical that’s been around for a long time.
Oh, I assume most any nation can produce at least some type of chemical weapon. But, the destruction of Syria’s existing stock, and its willing forfeiture of production equipment, would be a meaningful accomplishment.
It would not be a guarantee of future compliance.
It will be meaningful if he falls and control is lost. But the country selling him the weapons will substitute others of equal lethality to maintain the status quo as long as it’s cost effective to do so.
There is no change at all. My statement is that some of the overall goal has already been achieved. You argue that nothing has been achieved. Your argument based upon unlikely but thinkable possibilities that nothing has been achieved is absurd. That is moving the goal post from my ‘some’ to your ‘all or none’ approach. I did not write that all has been achieved. I wrote that two things that are meaningful have been achieved with the process of the completion to finality the entire goal stiil ongoing and very likely to be safely accomplished as is the international community’s intent and mission and plan.
When anyone here intends in the future to drive their car safely from point A to point B do you consider that planned trip to be very likely to be safely accomplished as planned or not?
And politically expedient, mind. The thing is, chemical weapons aren’t actually all that useful, and probably aren’t worth the heat to Russia or Syria. But yes, re-arming is always a possibility. And meanwhile, shells and machine guns get the job done just fine.
Here’s where we differ: the things you listed (“Geneva deal, no red-line, no OPCW initiative, no iternational unity, and process to take control of Assad’s CW”) are means, what I named (“When the weapons are physically removed from Syria, hopefully without the people transporting them being attacked, then something will have been accomplished”) is an end. My criteria for accomplishment is the desired end being achieved. The red line, the Geneva deal, OPCW inspection - all are only meaningful to the extent they serve this end, because taken on their own have no value, they do not fulfill the desired goal, they are only means, and not ends in themselves.
It’s not a shift of goal posts, because I didn’t alter my criteria from “some things have been accomplished” to “nothing’s been accomplished yet”, I was always of the latter opinion, as my posts clearly indicate. Sorry, but I’m not held to the standards for accomplishment that you believe in; I can’t shift your goal posts.
Speaking of, ready to explain how those who scoffed at the idea of the weapons being safely removed from a war zone have been shown to be wrong?
How much means is required to achieve an end?
My goal post stands where ‘two ends’ have already been accomplished. One is that it is not possible today for Assad to kill civilians unless he agregiously violates the UNSC Resolution that he signed. That is a major deterrent that protects human lives from death or severe injury from weapon that all but a few nations in the world refuse to manufacture stockpile and use.
Having a deterrent in place is an end.
You moved my goal post to a requirement that there is only one end that must be completed before calling it an accomplishment.
Have you never heard of accomplishing a milestone? There can be several target dates to set certain objectives which are ends in themselves to measure progress. One critical milestone objective was to locate, verify, and take possession of then CW weapons so the Syrians could not use them to kill civilians. The OPCW have hit that major milestone SAFELY and are continuing in the midst of a war zone to safely transport the CW to the port city safely.
One scoffer, gone now from this thread scoffed heartily at the idea of inspectors attempting to enter war zone suggesting scoffingly that they would be shot by snipers.
That scoffer is proven wrong and will only be proven correct if the entire OPCW operation is abandoned because there is no way to safely transport some of the CW to a port. However destruction in place is the normal way to dispose of CW but removing them was chosen in order to expedite the removal from a war zone. Destruction in place remains an option because where the chemicals are stored is secure.
And on those days you say you drive your car safely from point A to point B do you consider prior to setting out on that planned trip that it will be safely accomplished as planned and that you will be alive and unharmed when you arrive at point B?
Yes Tom “in the middle of an ongoing war’”.
Yes there was a one week delay but, “Syria begins removal of chemical arms material
The vessel has been accompanied by naval escorts provided by Denmark and Norway
Reuters January 7, 2014”
Now there’s a perfect example of scoffing gone bad.
Depends on the exact situation, there’s no one answer to this.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
My goal post stands where ‘two ends’ have already been accomplished. One is that it is not possible today for Assad to kill civilians unless he agregiously violates the UNSC Resolution that he signed. That is a major deterrent that protects human lives from death or severe injury from weapon that all but a few nations in the world refuse to manufacture stockpile and use.
[/quote]
It wasn’t possible for him to attack a civilian neighborhood without violating the Geneva Convention. Wasn’t much of a deterrent, evidently.
Why all this crowing about the deal to destroy the weapons then, if that’s not the end? You’re all over the road here.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
You moved my goal post to a requirement that there is only one end that must be completed before calling it an accomplishment.
[/quote]
Please read up on the moving the goalposts fallacy before accusing me of it. Again, I can’t commit the fallacy by moving goalposts you set for yourself.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Have you never heard of accomplishing a milestone? There can be several target dates to set certain objectives which are ends in themselves to measure progress. One critical milestone objective was to locate, verify, and take possession of then CW weapons so the Syrians could not use them to kill civilians.
[/quote]
Those are means, not ends.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
The OPCW have hit that major milestone SAFELY and are continuing in the midst of a war zone to safely transport the CW to the port city safely.
One scoffer, gone now from this thread scoffed heartily at the idea of inspectors attempting to enter war zone suggesting scoffingly that they would be shot by snipers.
That scoffer is proven wrong and will only be proven correct if the entire OPCW operation is abandoned because there is no way to safely transport some of the CW to a port. However destruction in place is the normal way to dispose of CW but removing them was chosen in order to expedite the removal from a war zone. Destruction in place remains an option because where the chemicals are stored is secure.
[/quote]
Seriously? So, if two dozen drivers are killed in ambushes, it still means the weapons were removed “safely” as long as the mission isn’t totally abandoned? I called it: you have your own definition of “safely” that bears no relationship to how anyone else uses the word.
Yes, because there’s no reasonable cause to assume I won’t arrive safely. Now, if I were driving through disputed territory in a particularly brutal civil war, the calculus changes dramatically. The safe or unsafe nature of the journey comes from the outcome, not the intent behind it.