Is resorting to the fiction of sarcasm intended to imply that the OPCW and UNSC are lying when the report nearly half the CW destroyed or removed by now? Does that qualify as a CT?
No, it qualifies as more incomprehensible drivel.
Regards,
Shodan
On 01-02-2014 at 11:08 AM Shodan wrote:
So in January ‘the process isn’t working at the first deadline’ therefore Obama ‘is looking like a complete buffoon’. But now that the process is working and can be completed prior to the June 30th deadline you must begin to prepare for accepting that Obama was not a Buffoon if the process works. Hence the meaningless slur that
my argument is ‘incomprehensible drivel’ that come with zero explanation as to why?
Because everything you write is incomprehensible drivel.
There is no way to determine what you are saying when you say whatever you are saying, because you contradict yourself repeatedly and blithely. When you are called on it, you make up something else and post that.
Obama has nothing to do with whether the process of disarmament completes on time or not. He did not create the deal, and your notion that his empty threats brought it about is horseshit.
That was pointed out to you a long time ago, and it never seems to have sunk in, and therefore this whole thread is simply a repetition of nonsense on your part.
Regards,
Shodan
You are wrong. How can Obama have nothing to do with the success of CW destruction when you said he looked like a buffoon when you thought the process of disarmament was failing at the start. You can’t have it both ways.
He looked like a buffoon both times. This is not Obama’s deal; it is Putin’s. Obama’s threats were empty and did not bring the deal about. Get that thru your head - Obama did not bring this deal about.
Regards,
Shodan
No that is false because of the terminology you used.
On 01-02-2014 at 11:08 AM you wrote:
With your use of “And now” you brought the perceived notion that the process was failing as your justification to slur Obama as a buffoon. But now the process is working and you appear seek to deny or suppress that current news.
And on the other thing it was in fact Obama that first proposed that Russia pressure Syria to rid the civil war of CW. Putin caved to Obama’s pressure when he changed his mind and agreed to actually do it.
No, it’s not. Unlike some, I use language consistently, and in a way that conveys meaning. This is not Obama’s deal. Whether it works or not has nothing to do with him.
No, he didn’t. This is a false statement, as has been pointed out to you over and over and over. Obama’s pressure was not working, since nobody but the French were going to go along with bombing. After Obama had failed, and was looking stupid and weak because of that failure, Putin came along and pulled his chestnuts out of the fire by proposing a deal under which Assad gets to buy lots of weapons from the Russians and kill lots of rebels, in return for which he will (allegedly) give up some or all of his chemical weapons.
This is the way it actually is. Not the way it appears in your mind, which is not real. The way it actually is.
Please stop by your Pit thread - I would like to explain a few things to you clearly.
Regards,
Shodan
.
I did not challenge your ability to convey meaning. In fact I am challenging the exact meaning of what you wrote.
And it is ridiculous to argue that Putin did not change his position on CW destruction because that is exactly what he did. Obama did not change his position - it was Putin. That is clear - that is a fact - that is reality. And Putin’s change of heart came ‘after’ Obama had requested it for over a year - and - ‘after’ Obama threatened a few days if punitive strikes which he said he would do with it without Congress or with or without any other country in the world because he could.
Then Putin caved.
The discussion would go better if you didn’t make things up.
Regards,
Shodan
No it’s sarcasm intended to imply anybody who believes Assad is a fool. There is virtually no way any monitoring group can verify the existence of anything in Syria as long as he’s in power.
That sounds exactly the same as the argument that justified invading Iraq in 2003 because of the possibility of CW being hidden there from UN inspectors. I have never been fooled by that argument and I’m not fooled by it now with respect to Syria.
Tell me what’s been made up.
it’s not an argument for anything beyond the obvious. it’s a fools errand.
Is that the same Putin who put troops in the streets of Crimea and declared it Russian territory after being masterfully warned by Obama?
Your attribution of the credit for the deal to Obama. Also, pretty much everything else you posted.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you saying that the OPCW inspectors are on a fool’s errand and that makes them all fools and you are not a fool? And we should believe you, why?
Reporting has shown that Obama pressed Putin directly in a meeting between the two leaders in Los Cabos, Mexico in June 2012 to assist in getting the CW arsenal removed from the war zone. I have never seen a report that Obama was opposed to ridding the war zone of CW. Putin did not agree to help until after Obama threatened to launch punitive strikes against Syria.
What is your version of what happened? And what do you have to back it up?
The inspectors did not, do not, and never will have unfettered access to Syria as long as Assad is in charge. Therefore your belief system is not in my opinion but in Assad’s.
All the mustard gas we are told has been transferred to the ship for destruction. Are you saying you have intelligence that lesves no doubt that Assad is hiding some mustard gas loaded weapons because they know that all evil dictators like Saddam Hussein love to punk CW authorities. And you know for a fact that the intlligence on CW in the hands of evil dictators is never wrong?