post 860.
That’s already been explained to you.
That’s the version, and it’s backed up by history and facts and other things not within your grasp.
So when you say that the deal came about because Obama threatened strikes against Syria, it is a stupid, wrong assertion.
So the deal is not at all “masterful” - Obama showed himself in these circumstances to be stupid and weak. It is even possible that his failure in this circumstance, as well as his sending funds to Egypt even after there was a military coup in that country, signaled to Putin that Putin would be able to get away with his annexation of the Crimea.
So what this means to his legacy is that he failed badly in this. This should be obvious even to - well, people like you.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, come on – Bush’s standing on the sidelines while Georgia was attacked was the authoritative message that the United States didn’t want to get into a war with Russia if it invaded its weak neighbors.
If a criminal successfully robs a bank, and then later robs another bank, it is because he wasn’t caught the first time. It isn’t because some other policeman failed to give him a jaywalking ticket nine months before the second robbery.
I will never be convinced that what David Ignatius asserts is wrong and stupid and what you asserts is right and intelligent. Putin changed his position ‘after’ the military strikes were proposed. You must assume that Putin changed his position on CW coincidently within an hour Kerry’s press conference where he said that the air strikes could be called off if Putin and Assad agreed to give up the CW arsenal in a very short period of time.
There is no connection in Shodan’s mind although Lavrov responded to Kerry’s statement almost instantly and Lavrov said he’d take that deal.
And its a damn good thing that Bush didnt escalate the Russian retaliatory raid into Georgia because Russia was reacting in compliance with international law because Georgia was found to have launched an attack that killed and wounded Russian troops stationed legally in South Ossetia. It’s called the inherent right to self defense that all nations possess. Russia invaded Georgia to retaliate for killing civilians and Russian soldiers and to destroy Georgia’s military assets so they wouldn’t try that shit cowardly move again. The West for the most part won’t recognize that reality.
No. No it wasn’t.
Since you seem so happy to talk about international law, surely you know that the right to self-defence has to be exercised with proportionality. In fact, that is one of the key principles of international law, which was established in the mid-19th century. Russia’s reaction was justified but not proportional, and therefore illegal.
I am not claiming to ‘know’ the future. But I do know that Magiver’s argument that OPCW **can’t eliminate **or destroy the CW arsenal in Syria is wrong. And this type of argument that UN or OPCW cannot disarm of regime of WMD/Chemical Weapons is the very same bogus argument that were heard from folks like Rumsfeld and Cheney in arguing for doing it in a very violent and destructive way instead.
Four months ago these same scoffers were writing that it would be impossible to get Syria to give up anything but a token smidgeon of its CW arsenal. Reality is that all of it has been inventoried by the OPCW and half of it has been destroyed or moved outside of Syrian borders to be destroyed. All production facilities have been dismantled.
The deadline for 1300 Tons of CW destruction is June 30th. It appears that that target is still on track to be met despite some early setbacks.
Magiver has just claimed that proof that he is right was post 860. I am citing facts and verifiable trends and timelines and the OPCW’s reports. Magiver cites cliché. Assad has a bridge he wants to sell you.
Why should I expect you to be credible on this issue when you deny what the EU Commiission Report stated:
and again:
and this:
"Open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008. Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack
It cannot be any clearer which side the EU Commissioned report found to have started it.
How about this:
That is opinion… not fact.
This is fact from the EU report:
Judging proportionality of the Russian response is subjective. I contend that had a similar attack been launched against any EU nation or against the US the ‘retaliatory’ phase of the response would have been swift and brutal and all military installations and equipment would have been destroyed as much as possible.
No. The principle of proportionality created by the Carolina affair is one of the few facts that exist in international law.
Not it isn’t. Russia responded to localised attacks with a full-scale invasion: not proportional. The EU report which you so love agrees with this.
That’s irrelevant. If that were to happen (in my opinion it did in 2001), it should be judged on its own. The fact that other countries do illegal stuff does not allow everyone to break the law.
That’s where you are fooledbyPutin; apparently, you are not aware of how masterful Obama really is! And, his Secretary of State!
No. That is false. The EU Report cites Georgia for responding to localized skirmishes from bohttp://www.opcw.org/special-sections/the-opcw-and-syria/th sides. Russia justifiably responded to Georgia’s massive mechanized assault and invasion into South Ossetia. Facts are facts. Georgia involved 8000 troops in the assault. That is not a localized attack.
Updated news from OPCW:
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t get it. I’m citing you. Your belief in Assad’s word. I also cite your belief in Putin.
Your argument that OPCW can’t eliminate or destroy the CW arsenal in Syria is a
highly flawed opinion. It is very close to the argument the US and UK used in 2003 to start a war. The truth back then had nothing to do with an evil dictator’s word. The truth was emerging from an established legal and peaceful inspection process.
Your cite that I believe Assad’s word is based on what?
Your demonstrated ability to believe anything, if it is silly enough.
Anyway, reading in context, we see that you are not really asking for a cite. What you want is for someone to repost two or three pages of various posts, fuck up the coding, and then contradict yourself and declare victory.
Regards,
Shodan
No. You are in error. Magiver claimed that I believe Assad’s word on giving up his CW arsenal. That is not true. I believe the OPCW will verify that the all the CW will be removed and destroyed or destroyed in place. And that is a good thing to accomplish.
Let’s all go over to the “Russia has annexed Crimea - what it means for masterful Russian President and Prime Minister’s legacy?” thread. Or maybe someone should start a “Russian peacekeepers repelled murderous Georgians a few years ago - what did this mean for masterful Russian President and Prime Minister’s legacy” thread.
On 04-12-2014 01:01 AM CarnalK wrote:
What kind of argument is that? Why don’t you state whether you think OPCW is capable or not capable to destroy Syria’s CW stockpiles and facilities to produce
them?
Magiver thinks destroying CW in Syria is a ‘fools errand’. Do you agree with that?
On 03-16-2014 at 02:59 AM I wrote:
After that on 03-17-2014 at 07:23 AM Magiver wrote:
So on 03-22-2014 at 10:34 AM **I asked **Magiver:
Then on 03-23-2014 at 11:25 PM Magiver explained:
On 03-23-2014 at 11:48 PM I wrote:
03-24-2014 08:15 AM **Magiver explains **that getting rid of CW is a ‘fools errand’:
Just to be sure on 04-02-2014 at 08:21 PM** I asked**:
On 04-03-2014 at 12:15 AM Magiver wrote:
On 04-03-2014 at 02:55 AM **I tried **to show Magiver the fact that the OPCW has had plenty of ‘unfettered access’ to be destroying 1300 Tons of CW and that more than half of them have been destroyed or transferred:
To which on 04-03-2014 at 10:22 AM **Magiver referred **me back to his fictional sarcastic post that Assad had a bridge for sale:
So there you have it, CarnalK. Do you agree with Magiver on any of that* ‘fools errand’ *stuff which is so similar to the argument used to justify the US and UK invasion of Iraq. There the UN inspectors were being fooled by Saddam. its the same now with some here on Syria. It has to be to them that Assad is lying ‘selling them a bridge’ or fooling the courageous men and women going into a war zone to verify and remove the threat of CW from being used again on the people of Syria or falling into the hands of terrorist groups that have infested the civil war.
The deal helps the president with a masterful legacy. Being one of the few US presidents that have managed to steer the US out of expensive and bloody foreign wars to the extreme detriment of the American people. And this despite numerous opportunities and massive pressure to send in the boys to the slaughter. He even managed to pull out of two existing wars he was saddled with.
All in all, one of the best US presidents in more than a generation.