There is no validity to your argument because I have never argued that Obama’s red line was about AQ.
Thanks for accepting that you changed from “taking CW from Assad so he won’t use them on his own people” to “Taking CW away so that AQ won’t get them.”
I have never argued that Obama’s red line was about AQ.
I have never changed or abandoned the reality and fact that ‘taking CW away from Assad will prevent him from using CW on his own people’. Why would anyone abandon that reality? Where/how have you determined that I did?
And it is also a reality and fact that taking CW out of Assad’s control will have the same effect of preventing AQ from ever getting their murderous hands on Assad’s CW arsenal. The two realities do not cancel each other out in any way.
Your thinking is very weak to have made the statement you just made. It makes no sense whatsoever. Not a lick of sense can be found in what you just wrote.
anything.
Lead
So there is not anything Obama or any US President could do to stop the killing with conventional wrspons.
So your second answer begs the question - Lead what? When he used the threat of punitive military strikes because Assad crossed the red line of killing civilians with CW I suspect that you opposed that leadership. Why would you support use of US military force to stop the killing that going on with conventional weapons? Again your reasoning and responses lack consistency and substance.
Scoffer’s should not do a victory dance four months before the actual deadline for removal is to be met.
And when most of the scoffers here were scoffing… they were scoffing that Syria would do nothing at all to taking a couple of years. Its now looking like May 1st deadliest CW will be out of Syria. There’s sixty days to deal with any more delays.
Obama, no. Most other Presidents yes. They’re smart enough to put together a coalition before making a threat. Obama made the threat and then had his ass handed to him when he asked for support after the fact.
asked and answered. Obama stuck his foot in his mouth before putting together any support.
predicting the obvious is not scoffing.
The obvious that was predicted has not happened. It was scoffing. The six month deadline was not itself known when the scoffing took place. If it is done in by July the sciffers will be wrong. The same goes for July 2015 if it should take that long.
How does a candidate running for office of President put together a coalition when addressing national security questions.
When he or she gets into office as president they can use the military for sixty days without any such coalition.
Romney said he would be a real man and send ground troops to deal with Syria’s CW with no coalition in sight. And you probably voted for that cornball fool - “please proceed Governor”
Magiver has not answered these questions:
When Obama used the threat of punitive military strikes because Assad crossed the red line of killing civilians with CW I suspect that you opposed that leadership. Why would you support use of US military force to stop the killing that going on with conventional weapons?
Did Magiver oppose that leadership?
Everyone else in the world except France opposed Obama’s “leadership”.
Regards,
Shodan
The foot dragging and excuses made by Assad have absolutely happened. As predicted.
What leadership? He has no support. He’s a coalition of one person.
That there was leadership to be opposed acknowledged there was in fact leadership. So unless you are very confused there was leadership on the CW threat and need for punitive strikes.
That’s not what I asked Magiver? What about you?
When Obama used the threat of punitive military strikes because Assad crossed the red line of killing civilians with CW I suspect that you opposed that leadership. Why would you support use of US military force to stop the killing that going on with conventional weapons?
If you are going to define “leadership” as “issuing idle threats that nobody takes seriously”, then yes, there was leadership. But that was never in doubt.
So did almost everyone. That’s how we all knew the threats were idle, and weren’t going to carried out, and why the disarmament deal has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Putin.
According to your admittedly shaky version of reality, it was the threat of military force that caused this wonderful deal on chemical arms to come about. All Obama had to do is utter the words “red line” and lose some votes in the UN, the British Parliament, and then commit himself not to go ahead with missiles until he got Congressional approval that he didn’t need and wasn’t going to get.
Then Putin comes along and, apparently frightened to death of something that isn’t going to happen, saves the Obama bacon with this deal that gives Assad and Putin everything they want, and which Assad is currently failing to abide by.
Why then doesn’t Obama do the same about the conventional killings? These are far more numerous than CW deaths, as hideous as those are. All Obama needs to do is say “I am going to launch some missiles, no kidding this time!” and the Syrians and Russians will run like rabbits. It doesn’t matter that everyone knows Obama isn’t really going to do it - they knew that just as well the last time, and it still worked out “masterfully”.
What possible reason could there be to oppose Obama if he shows “leadership” in that sense again? It worked out perfectly last time, didn’t it? So how can anyone, especially his Number One fan, possibly object?
Regards,
Shodan
That is one massive failure of logic. Leadership is the ability to lead.
Leadership is the courage to lead even when no one else dares to do it. It is leadership because it has led to positive results. The results are what the civilized nations of the world wanted done. That is the destruction of Syria’s chemical wespons and facilities and for Syria to sign the CW treaty. Obama’s leadership is getting that done diplomatically without the use of military force except to threaten to use it if necessary.
If none of what I wrote is true or not accurate tell me where it is not and why.
There is no disarmament deal without Obama’s threat to bomb Syria for using CW against Syrian civilians. Putin reacted after the threat not before. There was no reason Purin could not say yes to Obama’s request to Purin to help remove the CW from the war zone.
The chronolgy supports my argument not yours.
Putin reacted/agreed to help Obama get CW out of Syria “after” Obama made the threat to use force - not “before”.
Your argument rings hollow. Putin changed his position After Obama pushed ahead with the threat of strikes on Putin’s pariah baby killer.
There was no disarmament deal with Obama’s threat either. Everyone knew that the threat was empty, because nobody was going along with it, and Obama said he wouldn’t go ahead without Congressional approval, which was not forthcoming.
And you haven’t answered the question. Since all it takes is for Obama to threaten, and then Putin obediently arranges a disarmament deal, why do you not support Obama in making threats and forcing conventional arms disarmament as well?
As far as I can understand you (admittedly not very far) you are arguing that the CW disarmament came about because Obama threatened air strikes. And that nothing else caused it - Putin was merely arranging a deal because of his fear of these air strikes that nobody else felt. So all Obama needs to do is threaten, and problems go away. OK, fine, let’s pretend that this is really the case.
Do you support use of US military force to stop the killing that is going on with conventional weapons?
Regards,
Shodan
There is a disarmament deal underway and it came as a result of Putin wanting to avert the military strikes that Obama was proposing. That is just a simple plain fact.
Are you saying there was no deal at all? How do you deny the reality that there was a deal after Obama threatened to strike Syria. Putin has had years and years to force Syria to get rid of its CW arsenal. Two critical things happened. Assad used them to kill hundreds and Obama threatened to punish the regime by air strikes.
QUOTE=Shodan;17151082] … and Obama said he wouldn’t go ahead without Congressional approval, which was not forthcoming.
[/QUOTE]
That is not true therefore your argument is in shambles.
Putin is very conservative so perhaps he listens to Fox News:
Certainly you would believe Fox News
Obama didn’t have to bomb Syria because Putin blinked and said he’d get the CW out of there…
Its all reality Shodan, sorry.