Jokes aside. Taking your publically expressed understanding Ají de Gallina, that “Syria has no easy solutions, no obvious solutions” is it not an achievement to have stopped Assad from killing and harming more and more innocent civilians with chemical weapons since the days that Obama threatened to use of military strikes against the Assad regime for crossing that red line? And then after that threat was engaged Putin and Assad finally agreed diplomatically to get rid of the arsenal and act according to international law/norms the CW issue.
Is it not a great masterful achievement to reduce a threat to the region by using the threat of military force and then because "Syria has no easy solutions, no obvious solutions" regarding the civil war involving conventional weapons only, to achieve a diplomatic solution, that is currently underway, to the CW issue without firing a shot from our military?
Or is it your preference to scoff in the face of the reality that this CW arsenal is well into the process of being eliminated from the civil war by the middle of this year.
If it takes a month or two extension … because of security and safety issues… then it is no less an achievement to be done with the absolute concern about security and safety in mind.
And Mace’s concerns about UN WMD inspectors has certainly passed have they not?
It appears the UN/ OPCW has plenty of inspectors that have the courage to do a masterful job at ridding the Syrian Civil war of 1300 Tons of Chemical Weapons…
How many pounds of Sarin were needed to kill one hundred civilians?
How many civilians could be killed with 500 tons of Sarin and the ability to keep producing it had Obama not threatened the use of force against Assad for using that deadly weapon last year?
Feb 8, 2014 … It has various options to compel Syria to meet its disarmament … For example, having missed the ultimate destruction deadline of April 2012, Russia and the … mission to safely eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile in 2014. … In a wider sense, it will be an important contribution to the much needed …
Here’s an excerpt…
First of all. Dude, try a test thread on ATMB, you coding sucks to read.
On a grand scheme of things: no. I don’t think Assad intended to use CW as even a minor part of his genocidal urges. Fewer CWs are always good, but I think Obama gave assad the green light to kill as much as he wanted. Dead is dead, by bullet or CW. I think in the long run this will cause (has caused) more deaths.
If the only objective was to reduce the number of dead by CW and not the number of total dead: mission accomplished. Syria was never going to be Verdun 2.0.
Until an important volume of Assad’s actu CWs are actually destroyed, I don’t think your last sentence is true.
No, genocide is still happening and CWs were excahnged for a free hand. Obama engaged a tyrant and the tyrant is now stronger, albeit a CW-less one
My preference is fewer dead.
How many extensions are acceptable?
How many dead are acceptable.
Call me when they actually make a dent on Assad’s acutal arsenal and methods of production.
[/QUOTE]
It appears the UN/ OPCW has plenty of inspectors that have the courage to do a masterful job at ridding the Syrian Civil war of 1300 Tons of Chemical Weapons.
[/QUOTE]
Call me when they actually make a dent on Assad’s acutal arsenal and methods of production.
I have no idea.
Possible deads are zero dead.
Actual dead are now dead.
He’s killing enough people as it is. Your worried on the method by which they are killed.
I’m worried by the fact the are killed, even if by spitballs.
I have no idea how the US or anyone can put an end to killing without further deaths, instabaility, and playing nanny for the next 5000000 years.
The CW issue is wrong in two things:
It doesn’t decrease the number of dead people, and, more importantly
It’s given Assad the assurance that no one will interfere. The threat has been removed.
If I were Assad I would’ve signed and send Toblerones to Obama. I now have his guarantee that, unless I use CWs (of which I will still keep some) I can do whatever the fuck I want. Even if Assad does give up 100% of his CW and CW-making capacity, it’s a hell of a deal.
Since you ‘have no idea how the US or anyone can put an end to the killing’ perhaps you can accept why the CW threat had to removed and is a great achievement in progress.
(-TonySinclair 02-05-2014 04:13 PM) Assad retaining control of Syria is not a security threat to the US. CW’s in an unstable region with an AQ presence is most definitely a security threat to the US.
Half a loaf is better than none, and from a US security POV, this is better than half, with zero risk to US troops. I realize that if you guys were in charge, you’d hold out for complete peace and harmony throughout the entire Middle East, but Obama lives in the real world.
Are you saying that it is a great achievement because it doesn’t reduce the number of deaths, or in spite of the fact that it doesn’t reduce the number of deaths?
Oh we know how it could be done. It’s just that we know it’s not going to be done by Obama. Hence the lack of masterful achievement.
CW’s in the hands of Assad were not a security threat to the US in the first place. What does make it unstable is fueling a revolt against Assad and hoping the terrorists involved don’t win. Obama is increasing the likelihood terrorists will gain weapons.
half a loaf? Now you’re talking about half dead zombies. Either the masterful achievement did something, or it didn’t. If it didn’t stop deaths and instead created an agreement that gives free reign to it then I’d it would be the opposite of achievement.
Neither. The longstanding effort by the world’s community of nations to eliminate all CW from the face of the earth, has never had anything to do with an immediate reduction of the number of deaths by conventional weapons in the civil war in Syria. There were calls for Assad to get rid of his CW long before the civil war broke out. He would not admit that he had them. The civil war gives destroying the CW urgency because if Assad were to fall… no telling who would get control of them.
Why are so many nations spending millions of dollars and resources to destroy Assad’s 1300 Ton arsenal if it is not a big achievement? Contracts have been awarded last week in the amount of $55 million to destroy 500 Tons. Why spend the money if it is no threat or in safe-keeping with the murderous tyrant Bashar Assad?
Is Obama ‘not’ going to ‘take Assad out’ which, as the following twosome of experts advise, means genocide for the Alawites and Christians in Syria?
Is that what Obama is ‘not’ going to do?
Assad exchanged some/many/most/all CW for a free hand at genocide.
The original claim was that CW were going to be used by Assad
(from your own post #2),
it later changed to “maybe Al Qaida gets them”.
Obama’s red line wasn’t about AQ, it was about Assad.
The agreement, again, gave Assad permission for a genocide. Let that sink, the agreement guaranteed no foreign intervention.
Obama took a b ad situation, civil war, and changed it to a free-hand genocide. His intervention made it worse. Assad has no fear, he called Obama’s bluff.
If you don’t recognise the vslidity of these arguments, we’ve come at an impasse. There’d be nothing else to discuss.
Well, those of us “scoffers” who predicted that Syria would delay and stall sure have been proven wrong. And when we said they’d blame fighting with the insurgents? How wrong could we have been!
Meanwhile, as predicted, Assad is firmly ensconced in power, making a mockery of the Geneva talks to negotiate a settlement. Masterful, indeed. Score one more for team Putin/Assad.
so giving arms to rebels would be a reckless thing to do wouldn’t it?
There aren’t many nations involved so your first question isn’t relevant. As to why a politician like Obama whose opinion polls are tanking want to divert attention away from domestic problems do it? No idea.
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW Neither. The longstanding effort by the world’s community of nations to eliminate all CW from the face of the earth, has never had anything to do with an immediate reduction of the number of deaths by conventional weapons in the civil war in Syria. There were calls for Assad to get rid of his CW long before the civil war broke out. He would not admit that he had them. The civil war gives destroying the CW urgency because if Assad were to fall… no telling who would get control of them.
It would be reckless to give heavy weaponry to the rebels or do anything to precipitate a chaotic and sudden fall of the Assad regime unless all the chemical weapons aresenal has been removed and/or destroyed.
The original scoffers were laughing at the idea that the UN could actually get Assad to do anything substantial to give up control of his CW arsenal… Scoffing along these lines:
John Mace on 09-14-2013 at 04:39 PM scoffs: “Anyone here want to volunteer to be a WMD inspector for the UN? Where do you find people who would take that job!?”