herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
farglebargle: Spin, spin, spin..
kind of reminds me of someone that’s seeing a factual argument against his case, but refusing to accept it.
Do understand that simply saying “spin” doesn’t constitute refutation. I’m still waiting for you to present the facts to support your assumptions.
What I’ve presented was FACT. We moved out of Saudi Arabia because our assets there became obsolete with Saddam’s fall.
farglebargle: You just can't accept the reality of Bush's appeasement of Bin Laden.
You have to understand that until you could present a reasoned argument supporting that claim, all you have is an opinion that Bush “appeased” Bin Laden.
I stand by my statements as it’s simple military common sense.
Bin Laden’s complaint was that the Saudi’s invited the “infidels” to Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
He made calls for our withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula for the remainder of the 90s. We didn’t listen.
The reality is that we formed our assets there to sustain the mission we had against Saddam’s Iraq. Notice how he didn’t pull out of Saudi Arabia until after we invaded Iraq.
See a trend here? SADDAM’S IRAQ anyone?
The threat formed, we place our assets there. The threat disappeared, we pulled out. THAT’S the REALITY.
Simple military common sense.
farglebargle: Since you don't have the SAUDI TERRORISTS who have caused all the trouble on 9/11,
They died. But do remember that their co conspirators have been captured over the following years, or are in the process of being tracked down for eventual capture. Also, this is taking place internationally.
Contrary to your assumptions, we’re going after these terrorists.
Under asymmetrical warfare, the military sphere of warfare isn’t the only sphere of warfare. The police, judicial system, financial system, etc, also form spheres of warfare.
farglebargle: and since then in Iraq in custody,
This statement proves that you have no clue about the nature of the war that we’re engaged with.
Again, we’re involved with Asymmetrical warfare, with an entity that sees the ENTIRE Arab region as a NATION.
We’re not dealing with a single country, or a single terror group, or cell, but a fluid, interconnected entity that has both visible and invisible elements.
Using your argument, we could argue that we had no business invading Afghanistan, because most or all the hijackers were Saudi, vice Afghani or Taliban.
Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator to play cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.
Iraq under Saddam had as much connection to the greater asymmetrical threat as Al-Qaeda had.
Your refusal to see a connection, and your refusal to see why we have Iraq in custody when 19 hijackers were not from Iraq, shows that you don’t understand the nature of this war.
Precisely what our enemies need to accomplish their objectives.
Go back and read the link to Unrestricted Warfare. You’ll see the two authors describe people like you when they talk about a war method being “beyond the frequency bandwidth.”
farglebargle: you're hypothesis is simply bullshit.
Again, you’ve failed to provide a reasoned, factual, argument to support your opinion. I’ve done presented you with a reasoned, well thought out argument, backed by facts, which you’ve failed to counter.
The best you’ve done is simply say, “spin”, or “it’s bullshit”. That doesn’t constitute refutation.
In order to make that claim, you have to prove, WITH FACTS, that my statement isn’t true, or that it doesn’t reflect what really happened.
However, my statement about why we’re out of Saudi Arabia is factual. Anybody with some sort of understanding of how the real military works would see that.
farglebargle: It makes more sense to have assets in Iraq and Kuwait, than it does where the Terrorist are doing their planning, Saudi Arabia?
This is another example of how you demonstrate that you don’t understand asymmetrical warfare, which describes the war on terrorism.
Within each stable country’s boundaries, the POLICE, and other law enforcement agencies, are responsible for spearheading counter terrorism efforts. It’s the POLICE that go in and bust up terrorist cells.
Saudi Arabia is a stable country. And they are going after and busting terror cells.
Considering that you’re arguing against the Iraq War, you shouldn’t be hinting that we should be sending our troops into Saudi Arabia to do what their police is, or should be, doing.
The troops we had in Saudi Arabia were responsible for monitoring what was going on in Iraq, then do what was necessary to carry out Iraq sanction related duties.
They weren’t there to bust up and separate terrorist cells. That’s the police’s job.
Their mission was against Saddam’s Iraq. Without Saddam, and with a different Iraq, their mission was no longer needed.
However, given that we have a war going on in Iraq, it makes more sense to have our assets in both Iraq and Kuwait. Where our military is doing what it’s trained to do.
Again, anybody with some understanding of how the real military works would see that.
farglebargle: And co-incident with Bin Laden's demands?
Bin Laden’s demands were made several years, including the year, when we moved our assets out of Saudi Arabia.
Bin Laden made those demands since we first set up shop there. He subsequently authorized terror attacks against our interests, and finally with the 9/11 attacks.
We were there for over a decade, yet we didn’t listen to his demands. We pulled out when we no longer needed those facilities. Which happened post Iraq invasion
Claiming that our moving our assets out of Saudi Arabia resulted from Bin Laden’s demands, because they happened at the same time, is nothing but INDUCTIVE FALLACY.
Here’s an analogy to describe that inductive fallacy.
Say you don’t feel like eating. Your wife makes hourly demands that you eat something. But you refuse.
Finally, you get hungry. You get up and head to the kitchen. Right when you pass the room your wife is in, on your way to the kitchen, she tells you to grab something to eat.
In this case, did you eat because your wife told you to, or did you eat because you were hungry?
HINT: You refused to eat when you weren’t hungry, despite her constant demands.
Using your line of reasoning, you ate because your wife told you to do so in that scenario.
Using my line of reasoning, you ate because you were hungry in that scenario.
farglebargle: Wow, that's so.... Convenient?
With the war going on in Iraq, it makes more sense to position our assets in Kuwait and Iraq. Allot less transit with regards to logistics and troop movement. Allot more efficient.
Our Saudi Arabia assets weren’t designed to support sustained ground operations in Iraq. Again, once we invaded Iraq, our Saudi Arabia assets were no longer useful.
farglebargle: Give it up.
It doesn’t work that way. I have a great time countering your rebuttals with counter rebuttals. It’s FUN!
The way it works is that I’m going to continue to rebut you, and other people on your side of the argument, until there’s no rebuttal for me to counter rebut.
Funny how the same people that advocate that we pull out of Iraq because we’re “not” winning, turn around and refuse to practice what they preach in an argument where they fail to present a logical, or reasoned argument, in the face of their arguments getting lacerated with a logical argument.
farglebargle: No-one's here is buying your brand of Crazy.
Correction, you’re REFUSING to accept my explanation. However, I beg to differ about nobody agreeing with my analysis.
farglebargle: So, where are the Saudi Terrorists responsible, captured as part of this amazing policy you're dreaming of?
The terrorists that planned 9/11 are either dead, under custody, or in the process of being tracked down. This is an international effort, where police in different countries round terror cells up.
Those that engaged our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who subsequently got captured on the battle field, are either dead, or detained.
Asymmetrical warfare, read up on it. The President is on the right track with regards to engaging this war.
farglebargle: They're kicking your ass, like you got your ass kicked in the War on Drugs by dopers and Potheads.
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp
quote:
“Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.
And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead.”
We’re kicking the terrorists hind ends left and right. We’re handing them their own hind quarters.
Just talk to the troops that serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like clockwork, the terrorists get the bad end of the stick when they engage in us.
A bunch of terrorists are holed up in a building? Enter some of our armor, and infantry, then PRESTO, battle field strewed with dead and mangled terrorist corpses. The smell of death punching through the air.
This is a description from an Iraqi blogger.
What part of “You did nothing when thousands of Arab sons were slaughtered” don’t you understand?
That was Zarqawi’s statement after we yanked Fallujah from them. See above statement about our killing thousands of terrorists in that battle.
Our enemies recognize that they can’t match us militarily in the battle field. You seem to have problems recognizing that, you’re a bit too optimistic, even by the enemy’s standards.
farglebargle: You gonna kill 3 soldiers a day for the next 30 years indulging your fantasy.
Thousands of people killed on our soil in one day. 3 soldiers a day over there.
If we don’t accomplish our objectives over there, the terrorists are going to accomplish THEIR objectives over here.
And, after the Cole bombing, word had it that the terrorists were looking to slaughter more Americans in one setting.
What better way to do that on American soil?
Again, thousands of American dead on American soil in one day, or 3 a day in Iraq.
You do the math.
And get this.
The majority of the troops are proud of the opportunity to serve in Iraq. I highly doubt that they’d want you to use their deaths as part of your argument against this war.
farglebargle: Know what's wrong with Bush's Fuckup in Iraq?
One, there’s no “fuckup” in Iraq. That’s just your opinion.
Second, I don’t see what’s wrong with his decision, and his campaign objectives, with Iraq.
Neither you, nor the other people on your side of the argument, have provided a logical argument supporting that assumption.
farglebargle: It fails the "Lincoln Test", Lincoln's statement of the ONLY reason the Republic mobilizes for war. That's why it's doomed to failure.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
This isn’t the Civil War. Back then, we didn’t have to worry about an entity bent on destroying our civilization, not just invade it.
The worse case scenario for the Civil War was that we’d be split, and the South would economically outdo the North.
The worst case scenario for the current war, the terrorist war against the west, is that our country, the rest of the west, and the whole world ends up as a series of Islamic Caliphates.
When we’re forced into a life or death struggle, we’ve got no choice but to fight.
The only way it’d be doomed to failure is if we lose the will to fight. If people on your side of the argument have their way, that’s precisely what’ll happen.
However, as long as people on my side of the argument continue to have sway, we’ll prevail.
The Iraq war isn’t doomed to failure. Heck, even Democrats that go there admit that things are moving forward there.
farglebargle: Nah, the Bush Supporters don't have the balls to simply admit they were wrong.
One prerequisite for that to happen is that we’d actually have to be “wrong.”
Expecting us to admit that we’re “wrong” is like expecting us to admit that the sky is purple with yellow polka dots.
In both cases, there’s an expectation that we admit to something that isn’t the case.
Your side of the argument has to prove that we’re “wrong.” It has failed to do so. Our side has repeatedly proven your side of the argument wrong.
Expecting us to admit that we’re “wrong” is like the person that’s losing in the contest expecting the person that’s winning in the contest to admit that he’s “wrong.”
Until you could defend your position with a reasoned argument, you’ve got no legs to stand on when demanding that we admit to something that isn’t the case.
|
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 
) by other countries and pundits in our own country!
Profile
(The plants have been there for at LEAST 18 years, and they JUST NOW think of that application for them?) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread