Magiver wrote, "Assad is still busy slaughtering people and unless Syrians are mentally challenged he still has the capacity to make more chemical weapons. It’s not like there’s only one CW and it’s hard to make.
Assad’s capacity to make more CW has been SAFELY destroyed under OPCW supervision and yes in a war zone. Being wrong about common reported news adds weight to my long ago reached conclusion that you are wrong about most things most of the time
If they think they can why do the scoffers think they can’t?
“The Joint Mission encourages the Syrian Arab Republic to continue its efforts to complete the removal of chemical materials as soon as possible in a safe and timely manner.”
http://opcw.unmissions.org/Portals/opcw-un-syria/07.01.2014OPCW-UN%20PressStatementfinalEN.pdf
uh huh. you mean like the experts who did the software for Obama care. They literally had years to put that together. What could possibly go wrong in a war zone in another country with a convoy we can’t directly protect.
Again, unless Syrians are stupid the ability to make CW’s cannot be destroyed.
The ObamaCare website is working pretty good now. You need to move on. There is no reasonableness to making an argument that when a set of experts don’t perform well in one objective that means all experts cannot perform well at any other objective.
But the absolute fallacy of your argument that “we can’t directly protect” a convoy is that that there are reports out indicating that Syria has reported that the compound
where the CW to be transported was being stored was under attack by rebel or Islamist forces. So you are arguing that a sitting target is protectable but a temporarily moving target is not. On the contrary militarily and security-wise it would be best to heavily temporarily secure the transit route and then provide a heavily armed security bubble moving with the convoy for a few days rather than to leave the CW sitting like a duck on a pond for the terrorists to continually threaten.
But hey you want the CW to be a sitting duck for the entire duration of the war instead of being SAFELY removed / and you are the only qualified expert that should have a say on the matter? I see!
The main objective of the op is to successfully argue that a national security endeavor involving longstanding acceptance by the community of nations of the CW norms of international law, with minority internal public/political support and limited international support was accomplished in a masterful way by overcoming the political challenges that impeded the efforts to achieve an extraordinary international agreement that is producing a better than desired outcome than was originally sought.
This was accomplished by forcing Putin to yield to Obama’s underlying objective and endeaver to rid Syria of chemical weapons by 2014. All this was done with the threat of an unbelievably small use of force. A truly amazing act of leadership in using the threat of force in a masterful way to achieve a diplomatic outcome where the force need not be used. Masterful Indeed!
[/QUOTE]
That scoffing has been shown to be wrong.
Manifestly untrue.
That was your argument, at least as of post 606.
I don’t dispute any of that, except for treating those thing as ends, rather than means to the end of the removal and destruction of the weapons.
Yes, it was vague, and covered a lot of bases. Take it up with him.
It doesn’t make any more sense on re-reading.
Well, you said those who scoffed at the idea of removing the weapons from a war zone safely had been shown to be wrong, so yes, at first, you did. Then, after much prodding for an explanation, you switched to claiming that this just meant that risks would be assessed, and that bad things might happen. It’s just as sloppy and vague as you accuse Shodan of being.
That does not mean the “scoffers” have been shown to be wrong, especially as very few weapons have been moved to the port so far.
Those were the easy parts, since the weapons were already at Syrian military bases. Transporting them through contested territory to the coast is the dangerous part, and what your “scoffers” were worried about.
Of course they’ll take precautions. No one believes otherwise. Is that the position you think you’re arguing against? That the convoys will take no precautions, and that’s why it’d be unsafe to move the weapons?
You realize, of course, that if it proves too dangerous to remove the weapons to the ports and they are instead destroyed in place, that proves people who doubted they could be removed safely right, not wrong.
No, I said nothing had been accomplished yet. It likely will, of course, but hasn’t yet.
WTH? the websiteis not working fine now. People who thought they were signed up aren’t and the security issues haven’t been addressed yet. On top of that millions of people lost their insurance or had their premiums go up. This was a complete fuck up and the buck stops on Obama’s desk.
A secured base is easier to defend than a moving convoy. This is not disputable.
You clearly think Obama walks on water. To suggest Putin yielded to Obama is so fucking funny it’s bizarre. Putin got exactly what he wanted and that was an agreement from the UN to do nothing in regards to the Syrian civil war. The Americans got stuck with a bill because Obama stuck his foot in his mouth and needed to save face.
You have no concept of duration. That is what we are addressing. Extra precaution for a few days compared to precaution and full protective security for years. After the CW has been transferred to the port city the security requirement in the war zone is no longer necessary.
So what is easier today since the CW that’s been moved is no longer there. No more CW to protect is the easiest CW to protect.
Your argument is pathetic.
The threat of strikes by Obama was in response to CW used to kill civilians. It had nothing to do with a UN agreement that you cant tell us what that agreement actually is.
It happened in this sequence of time.
Obama told Putin the CW should be removed - Putin said no.
Assad killed civilians with CW.
Putin did not offer to get CW out of Iraq.
Obama threatened to bomb Syria.
After the threat of strikes Putin changed his position and took Kerry’s suggestion that destroying the CW was the way to avert strikes.
That reality.
The inferred threat of strikes was a toothless gesture by Obama. He has no support. He legally can’t wage war.
That is not my argument as I said. That is simply a fact that supports what I have been trying to clarify for you. Or are you ‘arguing’ that when you ‘safely’ travel from A to B your safety is absolutely assured?
If Assad fails to comply, Kerry said the United Nations Security Council would consider a resolution to impose punitive measures that could include sanctions. Russia remains opposed to any resolution that would allow armed intervention in Syria, however, so the U.N.'s ability to enforce the disarmament is uncertain and critics said Assad had little incentive to comply.
Even if Obama is stupid enough to go against political and public desires to stay out of it and launches a couple of pity missiles it won’t change anybody’s mind. This is per the Syrian government and rebels.
And you have no concept of vulnerability.
What is your argument, then? Explain why people who scoffed at the idea of the weapons being safely removed from a war zone have been shown to be wrong, without arguing that safety can never be assured, or that the drivers doing the removing will take precautions.
If it was toothless as you as a partisan so sloppily opine, why did Putin wait for a toothless gesture to be made before Putin finally agreed to convince Assad to give up his entire CW arsenal?
It was Obama who took the initiative on CW trying at least since June 2013 to get Putin to help rid the overall conflict of the CW danger. It was not until after the threat if US strikes that Putin got to seriously accepting that the CW must go.
That is Putin yielding to Obama no matter what the partisan hacks and isolationist zealots of the world have made it out to be.
That is a major failure of a counterpoint since it is not even close to being true. I have addressed ‘vulnerability’ and agree that vulnerability is higher for a three day duration for a convoy on the move. But, the point you have miserably failto grasp is that I have pointed out to you that because of the increase in vulnerability when moving it will be necessary to increase the security force that moves with the convoy for a few days. But then the security need is gone.
So that temporary necessary increase in security takes a few days and then there is zero requirement for any security at all after that. Your lack of appreciation for reducing the threat to zero compared to a need to protect CW for years and years and years is likely attributable to your highly partisan point of view on this issue.