RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 8:40:05 PM)

Ladies and gentlemen:

Look at SimplyMichael’s post, which I’m addressing, and you’ll see a perfect example of a person that has just seen his closely held belief of something come under serious logical challenge.

This is a common reaction that I see when I throw something at debate opponents, which forces them to question their own beliefs, and start doubting what they passionately hold to be true. As you could see, his ego kicks in and does everything it can in desperation to hold up what his intellectual side is starting to doubt.

Stress management people refer to that as setting stress shields up. The vitriolic and ad homonym comments he throws my way are an immediate indication of this.

An example of this stress shield is his act of throwing red herring comments at a question that’s meant to be answered in a clear cut way.

He didn’t even answer that question. He had no intentions to, he tried to use smoke screens to “diminish” those questions . . . but failed.

His response communicates one thing that he didn’t want to communicate. It shows someone’s written efforts to do the equivalent of a person’s putting their hands over their ears and saying, “No, no, no, that’s not true! Go Away, I hate you!” over and over again.

Just look at how he writes that post. In fact, try reading it out laud, or have someone read it to you laud. He attacks my writing’s quality with writing that has enough room for improvement to hold a convention.

Maybe one day, after he goes through the different denial stages, and parallels his conduct on this board with the age on his profile, he’ll see the wisdom of what I’m arguing.

This statement is nowhere NEAR what SimplyMichael says to people that he disagrees with . . . and constantly gets away with.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 8:45:24 PM)

SimplyMichael: Guys, you are taking this girl WAY to seriously.

Thanks for proving me right about you, it was only a matter of time:

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

SimplyMichael:  When I debate with someone who impresses me with their command of the subject at hand I show my respect for them.

I’ve watched you debate in the other threads, and this isn’t what I see.

Based on what you told a 20 year old on this message board, I’d say that you don’t show respect to anybody that disagrees with you. You erroneously mistake “command of the subject at hand” with like minded viewpoints.

To prove my point, I’m going to make note to your replies to me.


Read that part of my response, I’m pretty sure that you saw that. Because I could tell that your replies up to this point have been less vitriolic. But I guess trying to be something you’re not, your claims of being respectful to those with command of the subject, was too hard for you to act out.

However, do you see how hypocritical that statement makes you? If they’re “taking” me “too seriously”, than how do you describe your reply? You tell the others not to take me seriously, yet here you are doing precisely what you’re telling them not to do.

SimplyMichael: I think she is just making this shit up to fuck with all of us. I mean come on, nobody could actually believe this stuff! Look at how goofy this list is, someone is pulling our leg with a practical joke.

Now that you’ve given your opinion, let’s see how it holds up to factual scrutiny. Please copy and paste these questions and put an “X” in the appropriate box:

Did we fight a war with Iraq in 1991? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Did Iraq violate a cease fire agreement they had with us? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Did Saddam play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Did Iraq invade Iran, and later Kuwait? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Did Iraq gas its people? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Notice that the correct answers to those questions prove that I have command of the subject. Per your statement, you wouldn’t have responded with LESS than the minimum civility required.  

SimplyMichael: 18 years? Come on, why not include all the dipshit wars of Raygun? Again, this is so stupid it has to be a joke.

That’s a red herring statement.

Eighteen years has everything to do with this argument, as we’re debating the Iraq War, and the things that Saddam did in his past to contribute to the argument that he poses an asymmetrical threat.

Ronald Reagan’s wars have everything to do with the Cold War, something that we’re not debating. Totally different animal.

You think that this is “stupid” because, as part of the other questions I’ve asked, it destroys your side of the argument’s claim that you could “apply” my argument on Iraq to a list of random countries.

SimplyMichael: WTF? Seriously, who writes this poorly?

Have someone read what you wrote to you before judging how well or poor other people write.

The problem isn’t with the writing, but with your disagreement with what’s being said. This goes back to your modus operandi. That the person that you disagree with has to be “flawed”, or something they say has to be “flawed”.

It speaks volumes when the bulk of your rebuttal attacks my writing, and attacks me, instead of addressing what I said.

SimplyMichael: We had a cease fire with Iraq but GWI wasn't about WMD so that isn't it.

You see, this is an example of what I’m talking about with regards to your “stellar” (NOT) writing.

However, we didn’t have a cease fire with Iraq prior to the first Persian Gulf War. We had a cease fire after that war. The details about that war is a non discussion for this issue. The fact that Saddam launched that war is a major issue with regards to the threat he posed to the region, and the asymmetrical threat he posed to us.

SimplyMichael: No proof Saddam would ever have given WMD to anyone else, and besides,

And I’ve got no proof that you have have a drivers license, and that you get into a vehicle and drive places. Does that mean that you don’t have a driver’s license, and that you can’t drive?

If you actually don’t have those things, I could use that argument on someone else with a drivers license and car.

That statement reflects a lack of understanding of asymmetrical warfare, and seriously misses the point behind the ARAB saying, “An enemy of an enemy is a friend.” Think about that.

SimplyMichael: why would Saddam risk allowing a stateless group to use his weapons on the US so that they couldn't be targets but he would be?

Because we won’t necessarily trace expanded chemical or biological agents to him. However, Al-Qaeda, or the terrorist group that does use that WMD, would claim responsibility for both, creating that WMD and conducting the terrorist attacks.

Again, Al-Qaeda gets bragging rights, and Saddam gets plausible deniability.

You do realize that your question is a double edged sword, do you? Because after the 9/11 attacks, Saddam moved his assets out of their military bases.

Using your argument, we could “reasonably” argue that Saddam was “involved” with the 9/11 attacks.

What I’m seeing is refusing to entertain an asymmetrical reality. That’s precisely how our enemies want us to think so that they could win their war against us . . . and convert the world to their version of Islam.

SimplyMichael: Even Saddam wasn't that stupid although it seems Bush might be.

Then you didn’t know Saddam. Many of the Iraqis label him as the grandfather of terrorism. They don’t give him that title lightly. And this is the same guy that deployed terrorists worldwide to attack U.S. interests during the first Gulf War. Fortunately, all plots failed.

But considering that he saw himself at a state of war with us, and that he’s made death to America speeches at radical terrorist conventions he’s hosted, it’s a no brainer that he’d pull something like that if given the opportunity.

SimplyMichael: Who votes for she was trying to say "a country that had WMD they might give to terrorists violated a "cease fire agreement' involving us flying OVER their country?

Allot of reasonable people would agree with the assessment that we couldn’t let Saddam get away with continuing his WMD programs. Then turning around and selling that WMD to a terror organization that’s against the U.S.

Even David Kay made a statement to that effect.

The cease fire agreement was something that resulted from the first Persian Gulf War. Our flying over their country had SOMETHING to do with their violating UN Security Council Resolution 688:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch.htm

Excerpt:

1. Iraqi military bombing and strafing attacks against the Shi’ite Muslims in Southern Iraq during the remainder of the 1991 and during 1992 indicated Hussein chose not to comply with the U.N. Resolution.

SimplyMichael: Again, Republican's hate the UN and the concern here for the UN is just heartbreaking and exposes the real author as a bleeding heart liberal, I wonder who it is?

Your generalized statement about Republicans and the UN misses the mark.
This isn’t about caring about the UN, or whether the UN is given respect or not. It’s about Saddam’s intentions. We couldn’t sit by while Saddam played cat and mouse with the inspectors. Then continue to sit by when he reconstitutes his programs after sanctions got lifted. Then get the bad end of the deal as one of his WMD’S end up being used against the U.S.

In the mean time, the UN was proving to be ineffective in resolving this. We had to act to neutralize an asymmetrical threat. The other members on the U.N. Security Council either had the convenience of taking the “hope they eat us last” mentality, or the convenience of benefiting financially from the man they didn’t want removed.

We had a choice between their financial interests and our security interests. We rightfully took an action that placed our security interests above their financial interests.

SimplyMichael: Most of the liberals that post here write better

I disagree about your opinions about the writing quality of the liberals that post here. For instance, take the post that I’m replying to.

If you ever get a chance to have someone read your post to you, out laud, you won’t be proud of what you end up hearing.

SimplyMichael: so it is either someone playing a moron

Go back to the quote above, and review your statement against the questions that I asked you.

While you let your frustrations lose, you proved your claims wrong that your conduct is person specific vice their command of the subject. You also exposed your true nature . . . that you believe that anybody that disagrees with you is a “moron” or an “idiot”, just as my side of the argument has argued.

You may have thought that you were scoring points with this flame, but you actually destroyed yourself, proving yourself wrong about what you said you were, and proving my observations right about you.

SimplyMichael: or someone who doesn't post often?

Here you go again, judging writing quality on what’s being said vice on how it’s written. In your mind, anybody that doesn’t agree with you “can’t” write that well.

Judging by the number of posts you have on this message board, I’d say that you don’t lend justice to the comment that people that post more often are good writers.

I’ve been in perpetual debate for four years. Common sense dictates that I’d have to make allot of posts to carry those debates out.

SimplyMichael: See, more hints this isn't real. Above the standard is 18, now it is 20.

The only thing that isn’t real is your critical thinking abilities.

Again, I’m relating all of this to asymmetrical warfare, as it pertains to the Iraq War. The events over the past 20 years are events that I’m using to back my argument. The fact that your “brain” can’t figure that out as events over the past 20, or even 27 years speaks volumes.

Just you stubbornly trying to find fault in a red herring issue rather than confront the logic you’re being confronted with.

SimplyMichael: Even KY has more integrity than this which is why I don't believe these are real posts.

First, since you’ve failed to answer the questions in the post that you responded to, you’ve got no integrity at all to be judging who and who doesn’t have integrity.

If you had integrity, you’d do as you preach. If you feel that others are taking me “to seriously”, then you need to act that part. The fact that you spent allot of effort shooting all these blanks, which completely misses the point, speaks volumes that you’re taking me “too seriously”.

Second, what you’re seeing isn’t a “lack” of integrity, but my applying different events over the past 20 years to prove my point.

Even if you say, over the past 27 years with all those questions, the meaning doesn’t change.

SimplyMichael: The US has invaded all of its neighbors and most of the nearby countries at one point or another.

This is another red herring statement.

The part about our neighbors isn’t just another story. It’s something that happened in another century, with totally different stories and realities than what we’re facing today.

However, since we’re talking about the Iraq War, the greater war on terrorism, and any related topic, those other countries you talk about become a non issue, a non argument.

Saddam and his history has everything to do with that argument.

SimplyMichael:  Is she talking about Israel, no, they invaded more than that.

First, there’s no comparison between Israel and Saddam’s Iraq. Your “extensive” knowledge on history should’ve told you that it wasn’t the Israelis that initiated the wars that resulted in them gaining more territory.

Heck, their neighbors attacked them as soon as Israel the country stood up. But, I’m not holding my breath to wait for you to condemn those Arab nations for failing to obtain UN resolutions to authorize them to invade Israel.

Iraq, on the other hand, invaded Iran, then later Kuwait, when they thought they had an opportunity. Saddam wasn’t provoked.

SimplyMichael:  Besides, what's wrong with invading anyway, we just did two ME

Again, no comparison to Saddam’s Iraq. Invading both Afghanistan and Iraq was aimed at reducing the asymmetrical threats that we faced, given what happened in 9/11.

Not an opportunistic move like what Saddam’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait were.

SimplyMichael:  countries and are working on our third and some want to do four if you count Syria.

This shows that you don’t understand asymmetrical warfare. Our invasion of Iraq surrounded Syria with democracies in various stages. With all things being equal, we don’t need to invade Syria. Once all these democracies are full blown, Syria will change from within.

Developing these democracies is a part of asymmetrical warfare. And we’re waging different forms of asymmetrical warfare against Iran. Iran has enough of a critical mass of people, in its population to want a western style democracy, that this country is going to change from within as well.

SimplyMichael:  I think this is meant as brilliant satire and I wasn't bright enough to see through it earlier.

What I’m seeing here is that you’re hoping that this is a satire, so that you don’t have to deal these pesky “little” things, what critical thinkers call logic, that force you to cast doubts about your line of reasoning.

SimplyMichael:  More proof that this is sarcasm.

Certainly your “stellar knowledge” on history didn’t miss the fact that Saddam gassed his own people? It speaks volumes when you dismiss the facts as nothing but “sarcasm’.

SimplyMichael:  Pointing out how Bush Sr. betrayed the Kurds last time RED HERRING

Saddam’s military gassed the Kurds in the 80s. The event you’re talking about occurred in 91, when Bush Sr. Caved in to international pressure and didn’t follow up on what we said we’d do. He also knew to well that the American public didn’t have patience for protracted wars.

SimplyMichael:  and Bush jr. is about to screw them again? I can't be the only person who sees the deliberate irony here.

The only time that’ll happen is if your side of the argument gets its way, and we end up pulling out of Iraq.

As far as Irony? Tell me about it . . .

You’re talking about abandoned Kurds, then followed that up with the son’s about to “do” the same thing, is an attempt to detract from the real message I’m getting across. Yet, you forget this very pointer when you argue against the Iraq War.

It’s people like you that give Kurds, and other Iraqis, reason to fear that we might do in the near future what we did in 1991.

You just might be the only person that’s missing that irony.

SimplyMichael:  Besides considering how high the death toll of civilians has been and the indifference show by the Bush worshipers, this is again using irony to point out the hypocrisy over the hand-wringing over gassing Iraqis all while ignoring civilian deaths is quite brilliant.

This has nothing to do with the question challenging someone’s assumptions about what my posts meant with regards to asymmetrical warfare. The argument about Saddam gassing his own people has everything to do with the validity of philosophy’s points.

Your comments here don’t.

However, now that you brought that up, let’s look at another irony. You insinuate that those deaths should be on our shoulders. Never mind that our rules of engagement, and the way we’ve carried this out, ensures the minimum civilian casualties result.

If anybody is causing allot of civilian deaths, it’s the terrorists. Again, I’m not holding my breath to wait for you to condemn the terrorists for causing all these deaths. They could easily decide to get with the program and work with the majority of the Iraqis, but no. They choose to kill.

Your posts amount to a condemnation for the U.S., but not for the people causing the majority of the civilian deaths. You can’t just sweat the civilian’s deaths after the invasion while completely ignoring the non gassing deaths Saddam was responsible for.

You accuse our side of ignoring one aspect of what’s going on in the same statements where you ignore the same thing perpetrated by our enemies.

SimplyMichael:  This person should write for the Daily Show!

This coming from someone that could very well be writing for the National Enquirer.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 8:50:01 PM)

mnottertail: You have a problem somewhere in your reading comprehension,

WRONG. I’ve read the book twice, and I still stand by my arguments on this thread. Even after reading your cherry picked quotes.

If anybody has a problem with their reading comprehension, its you. I’ll demonstrate that in a moment, with the quotes that you pulled.

mnottertail: and I am just going to point out a few quotes from this book that directly contradicts your blatherings about it and some of the positions you have adamantly held

WRONG. None of those quotes that you brought up contradict anything that I said. In fact, I’m going to explain those so that even YOU could understand what they’re getting across. I’m going to take that quote by quote and demonstrate how they support what I’ve argued all along.

mnottertail: and also had no less gall than to put the retarded rush limbaugh ridicule on me and others for,

Don’t mistake my understanding of what the authors were getting across, which supports my arguments, as “retarded” Rush Limbaugh Redicule. I’ll even show you, with the quotes you pulled, how they apply to what I’m talking about.

And get this, I’m going to show the readers how you’ve deliberately left things out of those quotes that puts them in their proper context.

Just as your not reading that book represents intellectual dishonesty, your taking that book out of context, and withholding information from the book that change the meaning of those quotes also represents intellectual dishonesty.

What I’m seeing is that you went out of your way to force that book to say what you wanted it to say, and not what it was actually talking about.

mnottertail: while this will not be an entire compendium,

The only person that helps is you. I’m going to point things out, or put adjacent paragraphs back in, to show what those quotes actually talk about and, guess what?

SURPRISE SURPRISE! They support what I’ve argued in this thread, and on other message boards.

mnottertail: and will not cause you to take a different position,

Facts will cause me to take a different position. None of the quotes that you brought up amount to “proof” that I’m “wrong” or that I’m “not” reading them right.

Your reading comprehension failures, and your lack of logic, and your arguments, won’t cause me to take a different position.

NOTE: I don’t see you stumbling over yourself to take a different position. Unlike you, I have the integrity to admit that I have every intention to holding my position.

mnottertail: it will cause many of the people to laugh at anything you espouse.

I disagree.

After I add back what you left out, and point things out that jump out as supporting my position, from your own quotes, people are going to see how you shot yourself in the foot.

I highly doubt that you read the book in its entirety. Based on your misinterpretation of the quotes, I’d say that you quickly when through and searched specific excerpts that you thought supported your position.

Be prepared for a disappointment. I’m about to prove, with your own excerpts, that I’m right, and that my argument with regards to unrestricted warfare still holds.

mnottertail: Kinda like the PR guy for Saddams Regime.

For that to be applicable, what I say can’t be based on fact. However, what I’ve said about asymmetrical warfare, and what I’ve seen in that book, after reading it TWICE, back my arguments about asymmetrical warfare.

I’ve yet to see facts supporting any of the arguments you’ve presented on this thread. If anybody fits the bill for Baghdad Bob, it’s you.

mnottertail: But before I do; regarding technical space, I commented that when china took a good old everyday missile and knocked an american sattelite out of the sky, I said KU.........somebody out here said we aint guatemala.

First, on your grasp of the facts, the Chinese didn’t knock an America Satellite out of the sky:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Excerpt:

1.  According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming it.

If you’re wondering why someone like me won’t change his position after seeing what someone like you says, this is an example. And there are many examples.

Second, your use of “technical space” doesn’t make this event a part of asymmetrical warfare. Knocking satellites out of the sky is part of symmetrical warfare.

The U.S. Successfully did that to one of its own satellites in the 80s, it was only a matter of time before China and other countries would follow suite.

mnottertail: Yesterday a high ranking titular politician in china (that has nothing to do with monetary policy) said that they were going to invest deeply in other currencies than greenbacks, and dumped it pretty bad against the euro, I said KU.

This has been in the news for over a year, the possibility that the Chinese will eventually move away from the dollar. Do an internet search and you’ll see article after article in 2006, not from yesterday, that talks of them doing this.

But, the idea that other countries may eventually move away from the dollar isn’t new, that concept has been around for years.

Again, you didn’t say anything that amounted to you knowing something that other people didn’t know. You didn’t make any special predictions.

mnottertail:  Anyways the ideas in the book are nothing new, and in fact the greatest part of it is very very old. At the end of the book there are seven or so re caps of lessons learned that should be incorporated into any future warplans

Your missing the point in saying that the ideas in the book are nothing new. For example, terrorism ala radical Islam, has been around for decades. It’s use wasn’t seen as something dealing with warfare.

Until the last 17 years.

The idea that terrorist acts are now “military” acts as part of an overall war is what asymmetrical warfare talks about. If you read the book in its entirety, you would’ve caught that theme.

Financial warfare was seen as something different from what one would consider a traditional war. Under asymmetrical warfare, it’s as valid a “military” strategy as deploying an aircraft carrier.

And despite your attempt to appear like you read the book . . .

Anybody could quickly skim right through, and say the same things that you said, just to make it look like they’ve read the book in it’s entirety. But I could tell that you didn’t, I’ll demonstrate that with the quotes that you pulled.

mnottertail:   -- one of these was asymmetrical war (which is definitely not what we are figting in Iraq, because it is all about borders).

WRONG. And this is an example of what I’m talking about when I said that you missed the point.

Without borders doesn’t just talk about national boundaries.

It talks about the boundaries of the different spheres of warfare. It also talks about the blending of traditional and non traditional methods of war.

It also takes the different battle fields that were contained within these different spheres of war and combines those battlefields.

Consequently, a civilian sitting behind a computer screen, whether they’re hacking or arguing against continued participation in the Iraq war, is as much a “soldier” involved with asymmetrical warfare as a fully armed soldier in the military battle field.

I don’t describe these people as “useful idiots” for nothing.

The “borders” that define the military battle field are no longer confined to the battle field, but overlap other areas of asymmetrical warfare, such as financial, paramilitary, and other, whose “borders” are also overlapping into other “borders”.

This results in the battle field extending from the front lines to the opposite corner of the planet.

Had you gone through the book, and grasp the concepts they were getting across with each chapter, you’d notice that Iraq has everything to do with Asymmetrical warfare.
We don’t just have the military battling the terrorists, we also have political, financial, and information warfare going on.

You have a “military” act, an act of terror, taking place when the East coast comes around to waking up. The media picks up on it, and terrorist spokespeople start spreading their BS online and on the media.

The people back home hear the news, and they fight against the war. This affects our will to fight, as evidenced by the political wrangling by the Democrats.

In this example, if the Democrats succeed in getting us out of the war, that’s our enemies winning against us in the political warfare area.

You see, I’ve described multiple overlapping spheres of “warfare” in that one scenario. That describes what they’re trying to say with “boundary”.

But wait! There’s more!

Once Iraq and Afghanistan fully progress, that’s going to put pressure on other countries in that area. That’s an example of two more warfare areas in the Iraq war scenario. Cultural (westernizing the region at the expense of the environment that breads terrorism) and economic.

Both those tactics are now “warfare” tools that we use in asymmetrical war against our enemies.

Had you read the book with the intensions of understanding what was said, you’d understand that “without borders” entailed the different spheres of “warfare” no longer being stand alone, and clear cut, but asymmetrical warfare areas that overlap and combine to remove all of their borders.

mnottertail:  Nevertheless, you skipped the chapters dealing with the additive properties of war tactics. Here is just a blurb for you:

WRONG. I’ve read those chapters and saw what they were actually communicating, in the context of the entire book.

Judging by your continued lack of knowledge of asymmetrical warfare, I could tell that you skipped sections of the book.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 8:52:47 PM)

quote:


Up to this point, we have already found the reason, beginning from the appearance of "high tech" on stage, that this military revolution has slowly been unable to be completed. From the perspectives of human history and the history of warfare, there has never been one military revolution which was declared to have been completed merely after technology or organizational revolutions. Only after signifying the appearance of this revolution of military thought with the
highest achievement will the entire process of the military revolution be finalized. This time is no exception so that whether or not the new military revolution brought about by high technology can bring it to a final conclusion depends on whether it can travel far upon the road of the revolution of military thought. It is only this one time that it needs to jump outside of the ruts made by the war spirit that has persisted for several thousand years.To accomplish this, it is only necessary to be able to seek help from addition. However, prior to utilizing addition, it must go beyond all of the fetters of politics, history, culture, and ethics and carry out thorough thought. Without thorough thought, there can be no thorough revolution.


See the part bolded in red?

The first part of the paragraph talks about how the military evolved, from the technological aspect. The point that they made is that people rarely recognized when one warfare paradigm switched to the next warfare paradigm.

Here’s an example of what they’re talking about.

Someone creates a sword out of a metal that’s never been used on a sword before. Until then, the old metal was used. Nobody thinks much about it. But, after that sword shows success, others imitate that person, until most everybody has that kind of sword.

But that doesn’t completely end the use of the old type of sword. So, you’re going to have a period when the sword that uses the new metal goes from being in the minority to being in the majority. And there’s going to be a while before the old sword type gets phased out.

It’s not till long after the fact that someone says, “hey, they used to make swords out of metal ‘A’, now they’re making it out of metal ‘B’”.

What the last paragraph is saying is that we shouldn’t have to wait till all of this has happened to realize that the way we carried warfare out is about to see a major change.

Applying what they said in the end of the paragraph, they’re arguing that we should force ourselves to step out of the box and recognize when something comes up that’s going to change the paradigm.

Going back to the example, this would be like them saying that as soon as the first person uses the new metal to create the sword, and uses it, we should recognize that change is coming and capitalize on it immediately.

And this goes back to what I’ve been arguing about on this thread. The people that I’m arguing against are the one’s that don’t see that the old sword in the old example is no longer the best way to conduct business. They’re dismissing the new sword in the example as it doesn’t fit what they’re used to seeing, the old sword.

mnottertail:  Another little hint, Sun Zi and Sun Tzu are the same feller.

This has nothing to do with the discussion on what asymmetrical warfare is about. If you want to talk about this topic, start a new thread.

mnottertail:  Anyway, as Carl von Clauswitz (quoted in your pamphlet) has said: "War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means." RED HERRING

That’s a book, not a pamphlet. But, considering that you quickly skimmed through it, I could see why you’d see that as a “pamphlet”.

Also, on the mention of Clauswitz in the book:

1. Before this, even Sun Zi and Clauswitz locked themselves in the barrier of the military domain, and only Machiavelli approached the realm of this thought.

Doesn’t surprise me that you’d mention the name, but not how that name was used.

Now, read that sentence, and look at what it says. Those two are doing precisely what you, and others that I’ve argued against, are doing.

Only seeing warfare as something the military does, and only seeing the visible, and traditional, aspects of warfare.

The military represents the traditional means of warfare, as opposed to non traditional means, what I’m arguing. More on that as I go through each of your cherry picked excerpts.

mnottertail:  So here you go, from your intense study of this pamplet, here are a few excerpts which directly contradict your

Wrong. Those excerpts either support what I’m saying, or don’t prove what I say wrong. But again, I think you’re starting to see that with my layman’s term explanation of what your first excerpt you talked about.

mnottertail:  supposed research and reality,

Nothing “supposed” about my research, and how I applied the results to reality. I’ve done research, that’s a fact. I’ve also got the experience, that’s a fact. My military background makes this something that I’ve easily grasped, and built upon over the past five years now.

If you paid attention to what I said, you have to CONTINUE the study from the book with applying what they said to real world scenarios. I cued you in by saying, without my quoting myself again, that this book scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare.

I haven’t stopped researching asymmetrical warfare, and playing such in my mind, and seeing these in the real world since I first read the book.

So you’ll understand it when I go through and show you how your quotes actually support my case, and not what you thought they were saying.

mnottertail:  I will leave the matching up of your untruths to these quotes as an exercise to the reader....

And I’ll expose for them how you’re being dishonest with these quotes. Leaving key statements and paragraphs out, usually right next to the ones that you DID quote, will speak volumes about your intentions.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again. You have to prove me “wrong” before you could claim that I’m “wrong”. You’ve failed to do that.

These quotes don’t prove me “wrong” at all. And if my explanations for them tend to get long, please understand that this is one of my strength areas. Match that with my love to proving people wrong who don’t know what they’re talking about, and you’d see how I could get carried away.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 8:55:59 PM)

Red statements in the following quotes = what mnottertail left out to hoodwink the reader.

quote:

Page2:

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed.


In this quote, what you leave out is damming. I’ve included that back in to show the reader what you tried to hide in order to accuse me of speaking “non truths”, and in order to talk crap about quotes that “contradict” what I said.

Read that red statement. Read it again 10 times. Break out a pad and WRITE that statement 10 more times. Then, read it laud 10 times until you BURN that red statement into your mind.

That’s pretty straight forward and clear cut about what I said in this thread.

quote:

In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it.


The first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules.

If you look at the red statement, you’ll notice that he points a historical reality out. That the strong countries make the rules, while the weaker one’s try to exploit loopholes, or break the rules.

Then he made that comparison with the US versus the UN.

An example of us following our own rules is going in after Saddam. You zeroed in on the part about breaking rules, but look at the first statement I made. There are no rules. How could you break a rule when there are no rules to break? (Rhetorical question). I’ve even stated such earlier in this thread, where the UN didn’t have rules dealing with asymmetrical warfare, thus, conducting an asymmetrical warfare act didn’t break any rules, because none existed in the first place.

quote:

Page 22:
Viewed from the performance of the U.S. military in Somalia, where they were at a loss when they encountered Aidid's forces, the most modern military force does not have the ability to control public clamor, and cannot deal with an opponent who does things in an unconventional manner. On the battlefields of the future, the digitized forces may very possibly be like a great cook who is good at cooking lobsters sprinkled with butter, when faced with guerrillas who resolutely gnaw corncobs, they can only sigh in despair.


Do you see that bolded blue statement?

Unconventional, read, ASYMMETRICAL. AS that scenario, with standing army versus unconventional forces in Iraq, makes this comparable to Iraq. This dismisses your assertion that asymmetrical warfare “doesn’t” describe what’s happening in Iraq.

Holding onto that belief is to be intellectually dishonest in favor of presenting your biases on the Iraq War.

Starting to see what I meant that these quotes actually back my position? And not yours?

However, this was written in 1999. The Chinese were holding onto this view when we invaded Iraq, and were shocked when we toppled Saddam’s government in a short amount of time. Here’s another note, they were wrong about how we’d be able to handle guerrillas.

The fact is that we’re kicking @$$ and taking names against the insurgents. And the insurgents KNOW that.

quote:

Looking at the specific examples of battles that we have, it is difficult for high-tech troops to deal with unconventional warfare and low-tech warfare, and perhaps there is a rule here, or at least it is an interesting phenomenon which is worth studying.


Difficult in the sense that you’re not dealing with an organized army, but not impossible. Again, we’ve pulverized the insurgents whenever our forces engaged in a fight against them.

The author is talking about things like car bombs, people blowing themselves up in a cafeteria, people setting up and detonating roadside bombs, examples of things we’re dealing with in Iraq. This is proof, on a tactical level, that Iraq has everything to do with asymmetrical warfare.

What’s worth studying? What I mentioned in the preceding paragraph to name a few. Remember, the theme, what you deliberately left out, was methods for a weaker nation to defeat a stronger one. What the insurgents are doing in Iraq is covered by that preceding quote.

quote:

Page 24:

Therefore, new-concept weapons have emerged to fill the bill. However, what seems unfair to people is that it is again the Americans who are in the lead in this trend. As early as the Vietnam war, the silver iodide powder released over the “Ho Chi Minh trail” that resulted in torrential rains and the defoliants scattered over the subtropical forests put the “American devils” in the sole lead with regards to both the methods and ruthlessness of new-concept weapons. Thirty years later, with the dual advantages of money and technology, others are unable to hold a candle to them in this area.

However, the Americans are not necessarily in the sole lead in everything. The new concepts of weapons, which came after the weapons of new concepts and which cover a wider area, were a natural extension of this. However, the Americans have not been able to get their act together in this area. This is because proposing a new concept of weapons does not require relying on the springboard of new technology, it just demands lucid and incisive thinking. However, this is not a strong point of the Americans, who are slaves to technology in their thinking. The Americans invariably halt their thinking at the boundary where technology has not yet reached.


Do you see the contrast between the paragraph you left out, and the one that you included?

Their argument is that we’re relying solely on military technology. Our ideas of “new warfare” involved warfare made possible by introducing advanced weapons via advances in technology.

For us, that’s our “traditional means” as they explain it in this chapter.

The second paragraph talks about things that have nothing to do with technologically advanced weapons. In this example, technology forms the “traditional”, and new weapons that have nothing to do with advanced military technologies forms the “non traditional”.

Their use of boundary in this sense separates symmetrical, inside the technological sphere, and non traditional, outside the technological sphere.

People were advancing all sorts of advanced technology related military hardware, our traditional thought pattern when it comes to latest in military warfare.

But nobody was advancing commercial cellular phone activated bombs that people could put together without government help. Or remote activated roadside bombs. Or people simply walking up to a crowd of people and blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowd. Or tanking a country’s economy to harm surrounding countries.

Traditional versus non traditional means, I’ve argued that throughout this thread.

quote:

Page 32:
Navy Lieutenant Robert Guerli [as published 0657 1422 0448] proposed that "the seven areas of misunderstanding with regard to information warfare are: (1) the overuse of analogous methods; (2) exaggerating the threat; (3) overestimating one's own strength; (4) historical relevance and accuracy; (5) avoiding criticism of anomalous attempts; (6) totally unfounded assumptions; and (7) nonstandard definitions." (U.S., Events magazine, Sep 97 issue).


If you read the pages preceding that quote, you’d notice that the author made two points about information warfare.

They were criticizing our refusing to expand beyond the military technology realm, and our ERRONEOUS use of the information warfare label. They drew a history where our use of information warfare came from technologically related issues.

That quote is an example they pulled to show how we were dismissing things that didn’t fully fit into the military technology realm of warfare. This represented the military’s refusing to think outside the box, in this case, the technology box.

Military technology development = traditional thought.

The second point they were making was that we didn’t envision information warfare the way it should be envisioned . . . simply sharing information that helps out cause out.

Terrorists conducting their homicide bombs right when the East Coast starts its day? THAT’S information warfare that fits under asymmetrical warfare. No special military spook technology needed.

Terrorist propaganda on the news = information warfare = non traditional thought. Not exactly your spook gadget.

quote:

Page 34:
[13]U.S. defense specialists believe that Orgakov already saw that electronic technology would result in a revolution in conventional weapons, and that they would replace nuclear weapons with respect to their effects. However, Orgakov's foresight and wisdom with regard to the issue of a revolution in military affairs ran aground because of structural problems. "If, in keeping up with the extremely high costs of the revolution in military affairs, a country exceeds the limits that can be borne by its system and material conditions, but it keeps engaging in military power contests with its opponents, the only outcome can be that they will fall further behind with regard to the military forces that they can use. This was the fate of Russia during the czarist and Soviet eras: the Soviet Union undertook military burdens that were difficult to bear, while in turn the military was unwilling to accept the need for strategic retrenchment."


If you added the sentence that came before your quote, bolded red above, you’d notice that they were talking about the nuclear arms race.

Again, you see the theme repeat itself. Nuclear power being “traditional” in terms of destructive power and effect, as opposed to the “untraditional” conventional weapons reaching the same effects.

Despite that, the Russians pushed with the “traditional” in the nuclear bomb sense, and didn’t adjust itself to refocus on the conventional weapons for fear of losing its relative nuclear strength. That infrastructure became too cumbersome to maintain, but they pushed forward until their collapse.

This is their theory of how the Soveit Union fell apart. That part is partly true, but the concept they’re getting across supports what I’ve argued throughout this thread.

Seeing a means of warfare as something to adopt, but nobody would adopt it as they couldn’t envisioning using something other than what their current weapon could do.

quote:

Page 57:

ENDNOTES

1. For more on the close relationship between Iraq and the U.S., the reader may refer to Desert Warrior: A Personal View of the Gulf War by the Joint Forces Commander, Junshi Yiwen Publishing House, p. 212. "Iraq had established extremely close relations with the United States. Iraq had received weapons and valuable intelligence regarding Iranian movements from the U.S., as well as U.S. military support for attacks on Iran's navy."


First, what that endnote referenced:

1.  To assess why people fight is not so easy today, however. In former times, the idea of “exporting revolution” and the slogan of “checking the expansion of communism” were calls to action that elicited countless responses. But especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain running all along the divide between the two great camps suddenly collapsed, these calls have lost their effectiveness. The times of clearly drawn sides are over. Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? They used to be the paramount questions in regard to revolution and counterrevolution. Suddenly the answers have become complicated, confusing and hard to get hold of. A country that yesterday was an adversary is in the process of becoming a current partner today, while a country that once was an ally will perhaps be met on the battlefield at the next outbreak of war. Iraq, which one year was still fiercely attacking Iran on behalf of the U.S. in the Iran-Iraq War, itself became the target of a fierce attack by the U.S. military in the next year [1].

That bolded blue sentence explains another theme that I’ve been arguing. That you can’t see asymmetrical warfare the same way you see a symmetrical warfare one. The statement that follows shows the fluidity of what constitutes our friends and enemies.

This is one reason to why “coalitions of the willing” are the alliances that fight the war on terrorism using the military. The compositions of these alliances change, and the idea that we should rely on support from all of our COLD WAR allies is more of an encumbrance that doesn’t help us in this fight.

This example uses a symmetrical scenario to get their point across of us not knowing who are enemies truly are. This gets more fluid as you move into the asymmetrical realm.

Second, that endnote isn’t support for the dissolution that we “sold” WMD to Iraq. That endnote references a book that talks about selling arms and providing information to Iraq.

quote:

Page 59:
12. There was an article entitled "Financial Markets are the Biggest Threat to Peace" in the
August 23, 1998, issue of the Los Angeles Times. The article noted: "At present, financial
markets constitute the biggest threat to world peace, not terrorist training camps." (See Reference News, Beijing, September 7, 1998.)


First, look at the date this occurred. Prior to the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

Second, I never denied that financial war as a method of asymmetrical warfare, in fact, from earlier in this thread:

“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.” -herfacechair

quote:

Pages 183 – 184:

In this world of mutually penetrating political, economic, ideological, technical, and cultural influences, with networks, clones, Hollywood, hot girls [la mei 6584 1188 -- internet pornography], and the World Cup easily bypassing territorial boundary markers, it is very hard to realize hopes of assuring security and pursuing interests in a purely national sense. Only a fool like Saddam Hussein would seek to fulfill his own wild ambition by outright territorial occupation. Facts make it clear that acting in this way in the closing years of the 20th Century is clearly behind the times, and will certainly lead to defeat. Also pursuing its national security and national interests, as a mature great power the United States appeared much smarter than Iraq. Since the day they stepped onto the international stage, the Americans have been seizing things by force or by trickery, and the benefits they obtained from other countries were many times greater than anyone knows than what Iraq got from Kuwait. The reasons cannot be explained as merely "might makes right," and they are not just a problem of an evasion of international norms and vetoes. This is because, in all its foreign actions, the United States always tries to get as many followers as possible, in order to avoid becoming a leader with no support, out there all alone. Except for small countries like Grenada and Panama, against which it took direct and purely military action, in most situations the United States pursues and realizes its own interests by using supra-national means. In coping with the Iraq problem, the method the Americans used a very typical supra-national combination.


You see, your last quote communicates one thing when it’s by itself. But throw in the preceding and following statements and BAM! The meaning changes!

First, going back to one of the earlier quotes you referenced, the authors tied the US to doing what strong countries normally do. That’s a fact of life. If the US didn’t do that, some other country will do that. Nations have always been pursing their interests, using many of the methods that these authors describe.

This paragraph again compares and contrasts traditional from non traditional.

Outright territorial occupation describes what Iraq tried to do. More in line with what the Germans and Japanese tried to do. What we’re doing in Iraq isn’t comparable. We’re in the process of building the Iraqis up so that they could take more and more control of their own affairs and security.

Our forces will eventually be supporting the Iraqi forces, who’ll be doing what we’re doing there now.

If you think that what you quoted describes their assessment of what we’re doing in Iraq, you completely missed their point.

We didn’t try going in alone, we got others to go with us. We didn’t just use military, but we used financial and political means with dealing with Iraq. We’re using a combination of tactics to battle terrorism in Iraq. These tactics range from military confrontation to reconstruction.

Again, those red statements describe what we’ve done before the invasion and during the occupation. We’re using a combination of tactics, not just military.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 9:01:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Red Herring

(defined as anything she can't grasp or can't counter)

Just thought I would be a gentleman and post her response for her.


WRONG. When I label something as a red herring, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Take your response to my questions. Not only did you fail to answer my questions, you brought things up that weren’t related to them.

For example, responding to my question, about which country gassed its people, by talking about how “Bush abandoned the Kurds”. That kind of thing is a red herring.

As for something I “can’t” grasp or counter? ROTFLMFAO!

I’ve effectively countered your arguments, as well as that of others, on this thread. I’ve even addressed what I labeled as red herrings, so there goes your assertion that I use that because I “can’t” counter those statements.

A REAL gentleman wouldn’t get another gentleman’s gender wrong. A REAL gentleman doesn’t resort to vitriolic language when responding to someone they don’t personally know. A REAL gentleman wouldn’t tell one of the women on this board that his hind end is “brighter” than her brain.

And no, unless you’re on my side of the argument, I don’t need you to respond for me. In case you missed it, I’ve done a pretty good job at responding to others posts.



mnottertail -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 9:02:32 PM)

quote:

Did we fight a war with Iraq in 1991? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Iraq violate a cease fire agreement they had with us? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Saddam play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Iraq invade Iran, and later Kuwait? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Iraq gas its people? YES [ ] NO [ ]

no
no
no
no
no

These are true and faithful answers to your questions.

Ron



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 9:05:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

I don’t recognize my conclusions in your post. And that’s because of the fact that you don’t understand what I’m arguing.


...or possibly i do understand them and have rejected both your conclusions and most, if not all, of your premises.

You come across, consistently, as some sort of cold war warrior, desperate to find a new ideological enemy to have proxy wars with for a few decades. So, are you really one of the producers of James Bond trying out a few ideas to see who'll swallow them?


That first sentence is a lame excuse for your failing to grasp what I’m talking about.

The reality is that you either don’t understand the facts and assessments that I’m getting across to you, or you refuse to do so.

Your responses indicate that you don’t, or are seeing my replies what you want to see vice what I’m actually communicating.

Again, if you understood what I said, you WOULDN’T have pranced around saying that certain countries met my asymmetrical warfare conditions. Then turned around and argued that certain things “met” my “justifications” as if that’s what I “actually” believed.

I’m a veteran of the Cold War. I’m also a veteran of the War on Terrorism. You’re statements that I come across as one of those people that are still looking for an enemy to fight misses the point of what I’m arguing here.

Here, this isn’t the result of a cold war relic looking for a new fight:

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null

quote:

We have ruled the world before

And by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again

The day will come when we will rule America

The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world…


After Bin Laden told us that we should convert to Islam, and considering the above tying the Moorish Caliphates to the modern day “Islamic Nation”, I’d say that’s one heck of a “desperation” to “find” an ideological foe.

The terrorists declared war on us. They carried out a series of attacks against us. They killed thousands on our soil in one day. And they haven’t given up . . . and they’ll use methods we normally wouldn’t associate with war to accomplish their goals.

There’s no desperation to look for an enemy. A big gaping hole in New York, followed by more than one Bin Laden call for us to convert to Islam, is proof of that.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 9:09:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Guys, you are taking this girl WAY to seriously.


FYI...this poster is male. herfacechair is "HER FACE CHAIR"
Just wanted to clear that up.
Back to the discussion I am enjoying immensely!


This is one of those occasions I wish they had big worship icons! [:D]

Reading something that reflects common sense after reading the posts that I responded to is a breath of fresh air.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 9:14:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I was aware of that and thought that some of his problem could be as a result of oxygen starvation in the brain due to constant queening, but did not want to cast aspersions on his seating arrangements.

Duncan Hines


Nope, no oxygen starvation from the queening aspect. There are queening sessions where the sub is allowed to catch up on breathing, not all are into asphyxiation.

However, I did make the mistake of “holding” my breath waiting for the other side of the argument to realize that they don’t have one. Had to breath, couldn’t wait less I pass out. [8|]



mnottertail -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 9:23:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Guys, you are taking this girl WAY to seriously.


FYI...this poster is male. herfacechair is "HER FACE CHAIR"
Just wanted to clear that up.
Back to the discussion I am enjoying immensely!


This is one of those occasions I wish they had big worship icons! [:D]

Reading something that reflects common sense after reading the posts that I responded to is a breath of fresh air.


lol, you go pass out boy, the argument was way past you when you joined it.

Thanks for playing, give the boy a face towel.

Johnny?





SimplyMichael -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 10:28:03 PM)

Your grasp of history would do a ________ proud.  Israel attacked first in all of her wars except 1948 and '73.  You can argue about whether or not she was justified, but facts are facts, a concept you clearly have yet to grasp.

So your not a woman then my next guess would be Air Force right?

quote:

  For example, responding to my question, about which country gassed its people, by talking about how “Bush abandoned the Kurds”. That kind of thing is a red herring.

As for something I “can’t” grasp or counter? ROTFLMFAO!


Thanks for the delicious irony...the fact that you can't grasp the significance of Bush asking "Iraqis" (meaning of course ONLY the Sunni Baath party) to rise up and overthrow Saddamn and how Bush panicked when the Shia and Kurds rose up instead and how he made it clear that the US wanted no part of allowing the Shia to get anywhere near the reins of power and so stood by and did nothing while Saddam used gas to put down the rebellion.  So listening to dad's idiot progeny wringing his hands over the use of gas just wrings a bit hollow.

quote:

In case you missed it, I’ve done a pretty good job at responding to others posts.


Could you point that out to me?  I just remember the the superficial ramblings of someone who has a shallow grasp of these issues and who bobs their head up and down while watching Fox news thinking "boy are those guys smart"!  For ever concept you can't grasp, you think yelling "asymmetrical warfare" is somehow an answer.  You sound like some first lieutenant talking about how helicopters will "win" vietnam for us and how important body counts are to measuring victory and that success is just around the corner.

You have what is called "book learning" in other words you read something, you buy into it fully but never grasp the actual concepts themselves.  REAL asymmetrical warfare is about grasping the concepts and manipulating them.  You fail miserably at that.

Great generals win wars and battles by arranging the pieces so the the enemy has already lost before the war has begun.  Great generals win wars and battles by thinking many moves past the enemy.  Great generals win wars and battles by using their strengths against an enemies weakness.  Great generals cast doubt in the minds of the enemy and divide them from their friends and allies.

Bush has done none of these things and has in fact done the opposite.  Al Queda is a political/religious movement that has no state.  So, instead of using our political and economic might, at little cost to deny them refuge, we barge in and now Al Queda has large safe havens in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Instead of making diplomatic deals with countries to allow overflights by armed predator drone's (a massive advantage we alone have and attacking and destroying Al Queda training camps (a real weakness on their part), we piss off almost every country in the ME.  Bush has been reacting to, playing defense to Al Queda, he has yet to get out ahead of them, we are fighting the war they want us to.  Instead of wooing Iran away from Russia, something that would be an easy deal, we push Iran way, Syria away, doing both of which would help the situation in Iraq considerably.  "but Iran is so evil and if we do that they will benefit"  Back to my original point, Bush's daddy let Saddam massacre the fucking Shia because who the hell wan'ts them running Iraq, ESPECIALLY if you want to make Iran our enemy.

I realize the above actual thinking is going to make your head hurt, but take it slow, read it over a few times and if you are lucky, a light bulb might come on.  Probably won't but don't worry, either way you will feel brilliant and quite proud of yourself.



mnottertail -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 10:34:46 PM)

LOL, Mike-----------

Red Herring (just returning the favor)

this is probably our next president.

Ron



SimplyMichael -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 10:51:41 PM)

And our next Republican president would be a SOLDIER too!  While I think this poster is a ______, and barely literate, he is a far cry smarter than Bush and much braver because he is in combat 24 hours a day against the forces of darkness.  It would be nice to get an actual Republican combat SOLDIER in office, they seem to be so rare these days (at least the ones who don't have illigitimate black babies)....

quote:

  Consequently, a civilian sitting behind a computer screen, whether they’re hacking or arguing against continued participation in the Iraq war, is as much a “soldier” involved with asymmetrical warfare as a fully armed soldier in the military battle field


Now I understand why he is so proud.  He is as much a soldier as any Iraqi Vet, probably more than one who got his arms blown off because that poor sap can't even type!  



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/11/2007 5:01:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

Did we fight a war with Iraq in 1991? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Iraq violate a cease fire agreement they had with us? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Saddam play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Iraq invade Iran, and later Kuwait? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did Iraq gas its people? YES [ ] NO [ ]

no
no
no
no
no

These are true and faithful answers to your questions.

Ron



http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555/Persian_Gulf_War.html

“A second session was scheduled to take place in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, but Iraq invaded Kuwait the next day, leading some observers to suspect that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had planned the invasion all along.”

“in the early morning of January 17, 1991, coalition forces began a massive air attack on Iraqi targets.”

“On February 24 the coalition launched its long-anticipated land offensive.”

“On March 2 the UN Security Council issued a resolution laying down the conditions for the cease-fire, which were accepted by Iraq in a meeting of military commanders on March 3.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html

“Armed conflict that began when Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and ended in August 1988 after both sides accepted a cease-fire sponsored by the United Nations.”

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555/Gulf_War.html

“Subsequently, however, UN inspectors complained that the Baghdad government was frustrating their attempts to monitor Iraqi compliance, and UN sanctions against Iraq were kept in place . . .” (Violation of cease fire terms, playing cat and mouse).

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558349_2/Chemical_and_Biological_Warfare.html

“Although Iraq denied using chemical weapons, UN inspectors repeatedly found Iraqi forces were doing so. Iraq also used chemical weapons against its Kurdish citizens during the war. Experts estimate that 45,000 Iranians died as a result of Iraq’s attacks, while between 3,000 and 5,000 Kurds were killed.”

Read the last one. Iraq denies something that’s later proven wrong. If you look at the inspection timelines, you’ll also see a repeat of this during the inspections.

However, though you got the answers wrong, you did do something others on your side of the argument failed to do.

Even if you did that for humorous or sarcastic reasons, that post should serve as an example to SimplyMichael and others who chose to take me out of context instead of answering those questions.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/11/2007 5:04:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Guys, you are taking this girl WAY to seriously.


FYI...this poster is male. herfacechair is "HER FACE CHAIR"
Just wanted to clear that up.
Back to the discussion I am enjoying immensely!


This is one of those occasions I wish they had big worship icons! [:D]

Reading something that reflects common sense after reading the posts that I responded to is a breath of fresh air.


lol, you go pass out boy, the argument was way past you when you joined it.

Thanks for playing, give the boy a face towel.

Johnny?




“I commented that when china took a good old everyday missile and knocked an american sattelite out of the sky” - mnottertail

“According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth.” -herfacechair quoting news article in response

This is an example of why saying, “the argument was way past you when you joined it,” to me is like Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf saying, “I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad,” to the world during the invasion.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/11/2007 5:09:40 PM)

SimplyMichael: Your grasp of history would do a ________ proud.

Historian, and other history buffs, would perfectly fill the blank. Don’t assume that your “stellar” grasp of it represents what has to be the facts. I’m going to demonstrate that shortly.

Now, watch me prove that your grasp of history isn’t what you think it is.

SimplyMichael:  Israel attacked first in all of her wars except 1948 and '73. You can argue about whether or not she was justified, but facts are facts, a concept you clearly have yet to grasp.

WRONG. Israel was attacked first in all instances:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575008_10/Israel.html

Attack on new Israeli State:

“The United States and the USSR, along with many other states, quickly recognized the new government.

The Arab League declared war on the new state, and Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq announced that their armies would enter the area to restore order. The newly established Israel Defense Forces (IDF), formed from pre state defense organizations, successfully repelled Arab forces.”

Suez Crises, next conflict after 1948/49:

“Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip began raiding Israeli communities near the borders. Israel held Jordan and Egypt responsible for these attacks and launched retaliatory raids.”

“In February 1955 Israel launched a raid against an Egyptian army base in the Gaza Strip. In response Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egpyt organized further Palestinian Guerrilla Operations against Israel, and he intensified military buildup.”

The Six Day War:

“In 1964 the Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to promote Palestinian national activities and sought to coordinate Arab military efforts. In 1965 Palestinians began armed attacks against Israel; Israel responded with raids against Syria and Jordan.”

The War of 1973:

“Nasser died in 1970; soon after, newly elected Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat attempted to regain the Sinai Peninsula from Israel through diplomatic means. Negotiations to resolve the dispute failed, and on October 6, 1973, Egyptian and Syrian military forces launched a surprise attack on Israeli positions along the Suez Canal and in the Golan Heights.”

Invasion of Lebanon in 1982:

“The situation was further complicated by the presence since 1976 of Syrian forces, who had originally intervened on behalf of Christians but soon allied with the PLO and other Muslims. PLO raids from Lebanon into Israel and the presence of Syrian missiles in Lebanon since early 1981 prompted Israel to launch a major military action, called “Operation Peace for Galilee,” into southern Lebanon in June 1982.”

Conflict in Lebanon in 2006:

“On June 26, Palestinians tunneled under the international border between Israel and Gaza, attacked an Israeli patrol, killed two soldiers, and kidnapped a third one. Israel responded by attacking a series of terrorist and infrastructure targets in the Gaza Strip, but the kidnapped israeli soldier remained in captivity somewhere in Palestinian territory.”

“In July 2006 Hezbollah militia fighters crossed the internationally recognized border from Lebanon into Israel, attacked and killed eight Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped two others. Prime Minster Olmert called this an “act of war,” and Israeli forces launched an attack on targets in Lebanon. Israel bombed Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon, destroying the organization’s headquarters.”

As you can see, the surrounding countries either enabled or encouraged attacks against Israel. They used the PLO, and other proxy groups, to attack Israel. They had one aim, get rid of the state that none of them approved off.

Israel didn’t attack until it was attacked first.

Any attempt to explain this as Israel attacking another nation first misses the point behind how these surrounding countries were going about their long term gaols of getting rid of Israel.

The facts speak for themselves. If you truly believe that facts are facts, then certainly you’ll recognize that your statement, that Israel attacked first in all but two of those conflicts, is wrong.

SimplyMichael:  So your not a woman then my next guess would be Air Force right?

HINT. Nobody has guessed right about me on an online environment. They can’t even do that face to face. Thinking you could do that, where those who know me fail, is wishful thinking.

But even if I were in the Airforce, my command of the subject that we’re arguing about would still be allot better than what you have right now.

SimplyMichael:  Thanks for the delicious irony...the fact that you can't grasp the significance of Bush asking "Iraqis" (meaning of course ONLY the Sunni Baath party) to rise up and overthrow Saddamn and how Bush panicked when the Shia and Kurds rose up instead and how he made it clear that the US wanted no part of allowing the Shia to get anywhere near the reins of power and so stood by and did nothing while Saddam used gas to put down the rebellion. So listening to dad's idiot progeny wringing his hands over the use of gas just wrings a bit hollow.

Again, I asked about what country gassed its own people. Why you think Bush did, or didn’t, do certain things is beside the point. And doesn’t address the question.

The uprisings you talked about happened after the gassing event that I asked about.

The list of questions I asked, which included the gassing event that took place in the 80s, has everything to do with explaining the asymmetrical warfare arguments that I’m making here. Its designed to show people that what they think I meant isn’t what I meant. It also shows them that they miss the point behind asymmetrical warfare.

My question, and your answer, represent two different topics. You FAILED to answer my question. PERIOD.

That’s like trying to tell a cop, who’s busting you for speeding, that you saw a sheriff run the red light.

Second, your statement doesn’t match reality:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_2/Persian_Gulf_War.html

“At first, when Hussein was greatly weakened, Western powers believed a rebellion might succeed in overthrowing him. Meanwhile, potential rebels within Iraq believed they might receive international help if they rebelled. But when the Shia population of southern Iraq rebelled shortly after the cease-fire, they were greeted not with international help but with Iraqi military forces returning from the southern front. It quickly became clear that the rebels would receive no international help, although several governments gave them verbal support. Under the terms of the cease-fire, which established “no-fly zones” in the north and south,”

That paragraph proves your theory wrong. If Bush didn’t want anything to do with the Shi’ites and the Kurds, he wouldn’t have supported the idea of creating no fly zones to the north and to the south, areas dominated by the Kurds and the Shi’ites.

Also, Bush, along with other western leaders, didn’t care which groups rose up to overthrow the regime. They wanted the regime gone. That’s one of the reasons that Bush and others decided to stop short of invading. Their post war idea was to weaken Iraq economically with the sanctions. Then use a combination of other tactics to keep Saddam week, and destabilized, or even collapse his government, in order to facilitate successful uprisings.

Your statement about Saddam’s use of gas to put the uprising down is WRONG.

Saddam didn’t deploy chemical weapons during the first Gulf War, and he didn’t deploy them during the upraising that followed. Using gas to put the uprisings down would’ve defeated their efforts to not come clean with their WMD programs.

He DID deploy them in the 80s.

HENCE, my question asking which country gassed its people in the past has nothing to do with the first Bush’s actions in the early 90s.

Your “amazing grasp” of history, and your “understanding” of the “facts”, should’ve made that obvious.

SimplyMichael: Could you point that out to me?

I have a better idea. Tell Mr. Ego to shut up and sit down. Then take a deep breath, slowly count to ten, then go back and read my replies. You’ll see precisely what I’m talking about.

I’ve done a thorough job in debunking your side of the argument, including what you’ve said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that deep down inside, you see that I have an argument, and that you’re starting to question your argument’s validity.

Simply dismissing that by asking me to show you is an emotional example of refusing to see that you’re wrong.

SimplyMichael:  I just remember the the superficial ramblings of someone who has a shallow grasp of these issues

You claim that I have a “shallow” grasp of the issues, but you’ve consistently failed to prove anything that I’ve said as “wrong”.

Take a look at this post for instance. You claimed that Israel started all but two of its conflicts, but I showed you that you were wrong. Even had the facts to back that up.

If I have a “shallow” grasp of the issues, then that speaks volumes about you, as I know ALLOT MORE about the issues than you do. Based on my successfully proving you wrong over and over in this thread. I could say that with confidence.

SimplyMichael:  and who bobs their head up and down while watching Fox news thinking "boy are those guys smart"!

WRONG.

Again, I came up with my own conclusions, based on my military experiences, my research, my readings, and other sources of information I’ve had access to.

Your ignorance about me, and the people on my side of the argument, painfully shows when you claim that we’re “mindlessly” taking our talking points from a “neocon” news source.

The same thing could be said about your side of the argument, especially considering that you’ve yet to argue something that I haven’t argued against in the four years I’ve been debating with people online.

SimplyMichael:  For ever concept you can't grasp,

Anybody that’s not interested in either side of our argument, looking at the thread with an impartial mindset, would see that I’ve got a very good grasp of the concept that we’re arguing with.

What’s happening here is that you’re mistaking your OPINION as THE “truth”, the “concept”. You’re assuming that your opinion is a “no brainer” when it comes to things that we’re talking about.

By extension, those that don’t agree with your opinions, who don’t share the same views as you, “don’t” have a grasp of the concepts.

Considering that you’ve failed to prove my side of the argument “wrong”, you’ve got no legs to stand on when claiming that I “can’t” grasp a concept.

You need to be honest here, you’re frustrated that I’m holding to my position on this argument, have the facts to back my position, while constantly proving your argument wrong. Don’t mistake that as “not grasping” concepts.

SimplyMichael:  you think yelling "asymmetrical warfare" is somehow an answer.

NO, that’s not what I’m thinking.

But my argument holds that asymmetrical warfare has everything to do with what we’re arguing on this thread. Asymmetrical warfare has allot of concepts involved with it, and it’s applicable to any discussion about the Iraq War, as well as the greater war on terrorism.

SimplyMichael:  You sound like some first lieutenant talking about how helicopters will "win" vietnam for us and how important body counts are to measuring victory and that success is just around the corner.

Again, militarily, we won the Vietnam War. Even the North Vietnamese knew that. The common military consensus during the Vietnam War was that we were winning. In fact, the North Vietnamese General summed it up nicely:

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmb009.php

quote:

From the memoirs General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"


Read the last part of that quote and you’ll see why victory in the overall war didn’t come around the corner. Then, just like now, people on your side of the argument enabled the enemy to keep fighting when they otherwise would’ve surrendered.

Helicopters assisted us greatly during that war, as force multipliers. They overcame logistics obstacles the North Vietnamese had to face. And yes, the military casualties we inflicted on their side during the battle was one element of how we measured success. We killed more of them than they did of us.

As far as victory being around the corner, it came as soon as we fought a battle. We won every major battle in the Vietnam War.

SimplyMichael:  You have what is called "book learning" in other words you read something, you buy into it fully but never grasp the actual concepts themselves. REAL asymmetrical warfare is about grasping the concepts and manipulating them. You fail miserably at that.

I highly disagree with that. In fact, you’re wrong on all counts--as usual.

First, being book smart entails knowing what’s in the book, and being able to understand the concepts in the book. Only being book smart entails not being able to apply what’s learned in the book to the real world.

I’ve done both, understand what’s said in the book, and I’ve applied that to the real world geopolitical and geostrategic situation. I’ve repeatedly stated that the book “Unrestricted Warfare” scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare, what I said to YOU earlier in this thread:

“Second, asymmetrical warfare isn’t something they just came up with. A book written in 1999 scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare.” -herfacechair

What I said to mnottertail later on in the thread:

“Unrestricted Warfare scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare.” -herfacechair

What I said to philosophy sometime after that:

“It scratches the surface of what asymmetrical warfare entails, isn’t all inclusive, and doesn’t confirm to your black and white version of what constitutes a threat and what doesn’t.” -herfacechair

Anybody with at least half a brain would see these statements and understand that I’m NOT saying that the book is all and everything.

What I’m saying is that the book gives the basis, and that you have to use your head to apply those concepts to the real world. It’s me communicating that you got to train yourself to think asymmetrical warfare to the point to where you could recognize asymmetrical warfare activity that’s not mentioned in the book.

What I said to mnottertail later on:

“you have to CONTINUE the study from the book with applying what they said to real world scenarios. I cued you in by saying, without my quoting myself again, that this book scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare.” -herfacechair

MEANING, that after I read the book, I did the equivalent of “field” study and research. Looking at how things were playing out in the real world and applying the concepts in the book to what was happening.

What I’ve observed is that the concepts in that book ARE applicable to the real world, and it’s gotten to the point to where I could expand on the concepts the authors talked about, and point things out as asymmetrical warfare that the book doesn’t talk about.

Your statement about manipulating the concepts don’t fit in this discussion. Unless by “manipulation”, you’re talking about what I’ve described here. And NO, I didn’t “fail” to do that.

Two things helped me when I went through that book in the first place. I was already familiar with many of the concepts, because I thought about those things years before reading the book. Another advantage I had was my military experience.

Again, you need to be honest here. I’m not miserably failing to grasp anything. The only thing that I’m “miserably failing” to do is accept your bogus argument.

SimplyMichael:  Great generals win wars and battles by arranging the pieces so the the enemy has already lost before the war has begun.

And Bush already did that, here’s an example:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/12/africa/web.0112iraq.php

“The encounter ended angrily. A few days later, the insurgents said, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Islamic Army fought a bloody battle on the outskirts of town.”

Our invading Iraq, then starting on the reconstruction, arranged the pieces to the point that events like these happened:

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.”


Look at the last sentence. Our invasion into Iraq created a losing environment for our enemies. The insurgents have been getting their hind ends handed to them ever since they started fighting against us. And they’ve been constantly fracturing against each other.

Good call Mr. President.

SimplyMichael:  Great generals win wars and battles by thinking many moves past the enemy.

And the President did that.

The enemy is radical Islamic Terrorism. What moves do they plan on making? In order to answer that question, you have to look at Al-Qaeda’s ORIGINAL plan, before we frustrated that plan and caused them to adjust that plan and say that’s what they “meant” all along.

But they haven’t given up on this original plan.

Their plan was to take a series of steps that’ll eventually lead to the entire world being Islamic Caliphates. Their first step is to convert the Middle East into a series of caliphates and emirates from which to launch this campaign.

With Iraq and Afghanistan starting their way toward democracy, we’ve created a “checker board” patter of democracies in the Middle East. Or, should I say, completed a checker board pattern. Now, look at Syria, completely surrounded. Iran is flanked.

We convert the Middle East into an economically competitive area consisting of democracies, we’ll propel ourselves a long way toward cutting international Islamic terrorism in the knees.

Anybody understanding the enemies intentions would see that our taking the war to the Middle East frustrated the terrorists long term plans in the beginning. Kind of hard going on the offensive to carry your plans out when you’re put on the defensive in your own environment, and start getting your hind end handed to you where you have forward operating, or dormant, cells.

SimplyMichael:  Great generals win wars and battles by using their strengths against an enemies weakness.

And we’re doing that in Iraq as well as elsewhere in the War on Terrorism. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for example. What strength do we offer? Stability, democracy, economic growth, plus a kick @$$ military that beats the terrorists around like a bunch of rejects.

What’s the enemy’s weakness? More death, instability, terror, etc.

Result?

More and more Iraqis turning to our side against the insurgency.

The more obvious application of our strength against their weakness is us applying our military strength in the surge against the enemies’ battle field weakness.

Again, more and more Iraqis start seeing that we’re serious about winning. More and more Iraqis turn against the enemy and fight on our side.

SimplyMichael:  Great generals cast doubt in the minds of the enemy and divide them from their friends and allies.

Read the above links, our enemies have been fracturing and fighting each other. Our continued resolve despite their antiques to try to get your side of the argument to prevail here casts doubts in their minds about whether we’re going to pull out or not.

More and more Iraqis see this and increase the amount of cooperation they give us.

SimplyMichael:  Bush has done none of these things and has in fact done the opposite.

WRONG.

There are numerous examples where Bush has done precisely what you said great generals do. The problem is that you refuse to see it, and when someone presents you the facts that argue for that, you dismiss it, ignore it, or pull a “that’s just booksmarts” kind of comment.

SimplyMichael:  Al Queda is a political/religious movement that has no state.

Which is why Bush said this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

SimplyMichael:  So, instead of using our political and economic might, at little cost to deny them refuge, we barge in and now Al Queda has large safe havens in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

WRONG. We tried nothing but political and economic might in the 90s, and that didn’t work.

The War on Terrorism is being waged in more than just the military front. Just as we sent the troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, we went right to work waging financial, diplomatic, and economic war against the terrorists.

We’re working with other countries around the globe to fight terrorism. As a result, it’s not uncommon for more than one nation to share data about terrorists, then watch as a series of busts occur in one nation after another.

Expecting both Iraq and Afghanistan to be 100% free of the terrorists overnight, or even over a few years, isn’t being realistic. People holding that assumption simply don’t understand the real world that people operating in the Middle East see.

Al-Qaeda is losing ground in both countries, despite over hype from the anti Bush media. And Pakistan has engaged Al-Qaeda in their own country.

You make this sound like your ideas will work easy and simple, but the real world doesn’t work that way.

SimplyMichael:  Instead of making diplomatic deals with countries to allow overflights by armed predator drone's (a massive advantage we alone have and attacking and destroying Al Queda training camps (a real weakness on their part), we piss off almost every country in the ME.

Actually, this country has tried to make diplomatic deals with countries in that region. We tried to with Pakistan, and they won’t budge with regards to using nothing but Pakistani assets to engage Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

There’s only so much we could do on the diplomatic front in that country before we overdue it and create a situation where we end up with an anti western government--and zero cooperation.

Unlike an idea that pops up in your head, things rarely work as one wishes in the real diplomatic world.

We have troops in Afghanistan, that country wouldn’t oppose our use of unmanned drones in their country to take on the terrorists. Flying that drone into Pakistan is another matter, something the Pakistanis aren’t open to.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/04/predator.background/

“The drones have been used against al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan--including a February 4 strike that was believed to have killed a number of senior al Qaeda leaders in Zawar Kili.”

SimplyMichael:  Bush has been reacting to, playing defense to Al Queda, he has yet to get out ahead of them, we are fighting the war they want us to.

WRONG.

When Al-Qaeda attacked the twin towers, one of the things that was supposed to happen was a massive economic collapse. Bin Laden has studied global economy and has extensive knowledge of that topic, he know what he was doing when he envisioned what those attacks would do.

The plan was to collapse the U.S. economy, which would cause a collapse of the Western, and world, economies.

Such a crash, if it happened, would’ve made the Great Depression look like cakewalk.

Unable to handle the crises that results from our economic collapse, we’d eventually pull all our military assets out of the Middle East. By extension, we’d be unable to “prop up” the Middle Eastern governments he accused us of controlling.

Stage one for re-establishing what was once the Moorish Caliphates. The next step would’ve been to destabilize the Middle Eastern countries, and step up attacks against Israel.

9/11 was supposed to open up what was supposed to be a prolonged period of terrorist attacks on our soil, with another massive attack in the Midwest and West Coast the following year to facilitate our economic collapse if the first major attacks didn’t do it.

They DIDN’T want us to do what we’re doing right now. The above was their plan, and it was based on our reacting to terrorist attacks the way we reacted to them throughout the 1990s.

When our economy didn’t collapse, and we invaded Afghanistan, we severely frustrated their original plans.

Now, Al-Qaeda is going to claim that getting us militarily involved in the Middle East was their plan “after all.” That’s pure BS, they revised their original plan to avoid looking like massive failures in the start.

We’ve got Al-Qaeda on the defensive, decimated their leadership, and have them to the point to where they’re working as if they were a franchise. There are even questions about whether Bin Laden is in charge at all.

Bush isn’t playing into Al-Qaeda’s hands. He thought several moves ahead of them, then made a move that frustrated that plan, and forced them to adopt another one--involving constantly being on the defensive.

It speaks volumes when they’re reduced from 21st century communications to one they had in the Medieval Period.

Hiding in a “cave” in a “mountain” isn’t quite something someone on the offensive would do.

SimplyMichael:  Instead of wooing Iran away from Russia, something that would be an easy deal, we push Iran way, Syria away, doing both of which would help the situation in Iraq considerably. "but Iran is so evil and if we do that they will benefit"

Your sarcastic point in the end has more validity than everything else you said in your “reply” to me.

It would be an “easy” deal if we’d just “shut up” and let them complete their “peaceful purposes only” nuclear program, and if we’d just support them as they work to push Israel out of the Middle East and give that ENTIRE country to the Palestinians.

The fact that you’d entertain that speaks volumes about how you don’t understand how things work out there.

Are you willing to give Israel up in exchange for an agreement, witch will be violated even before the ink dries, on their part to help alleviate what’s going on in Iraq? That reminds me of this, it’s a satire that has a valid point applicable to the real world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w77sLtz754

We can’t, in good consciousness, get those countries along side as “friends” unless they meet certain conditions. One condition is that they renounce terrorism, and another is that they recognize Israel’s rights to exist, and to stop supporting groups attempting to remove Israel.

In order to do what you propose, we’d have to do the opposite, reduce our “support” for Israel by Iranian and Syrian terms, not ours. Meaning, we don’t stand in the way while they work to wipe Israel out of the map, and while Iran completes it’s “only for peaceful uses” nuclear program.

The differences in agreements that we have with those countries are very deep. Expecting them to renounce terrorism would require them to abandon what they hold near and dear to them.

We lose if we take your suggestions with regards to Iran and Syria without their first doing what we require them to do.

SimplyMichael:  Back to my original point, Bush's daddy let Saddam massacre the fucking Shia because who the hell wan'ts them running Iraq, ESPECIALLY if you want to make Iran our enemy. REPEAT POINT

WRONG.

If Bush didn’t want anything to do with the Shi’ites and the Kurds, he wouldn’t have supported the idea of creating no fly zones to the north and to the south, Areas dominated by the Kurds and the Shi’ites.

Also, Bush, along with other western leaders, didn’t care which groups rose up to overthrow the regime. They wanted the regime gone, but not with Western military assets. That’s one of the reasons that Bush and others decided to stop short of invading. Their post war idea was to weaken Iraq economically with the sanctions. Then use a combination of other tactics to keep Saddam week, and destabilized, or even collapse his government, in order to facilitate successful uprisings.

The aim was for us to apply enough non military pressure to topple the government, and weaken their military enough to where an upraising would overcome them.

This has nothing to do with the groups the people were part of. Had the Shi’te been successful, Bush would’ve been just as happy as he would’ve been if the Sunnis were the once that revolted.

And I find it very telling that you’d condemn Bush, but ignore the other Western Leaders who held the same position with him with regards to whether or not we’re going to aid any uprising that was to occur immediately after the cease fire.

SimplyMichael:  I realize the above actual thinking is going to make your head hurt, but take it slow, read it over a few times and if you are lucky, a light bulb might come on. Probably won't but don't worry, either way you will feel brilliant and quite proud of yourself.

If you want an idea of what I thought reading your post . . .

Imagine a time when someone told you something that you knew for a fact was pure BS. When someone told you that something happened a certain way, when you know for a fact that it didn’t happen that way.

You may have popped your head back and raised an eyebrow or two, then thought, “what the F!” Or, “This guy can’t be serious!” or, “OMG, I’m arguing with a complete _____!”

If you remember such a time, then you’ll have an idea of what I was thinking while reading your posts, especially this last one.

I don’t consider any of what you said as “actual thinking”, but as someone shooting their opinions out over something they’re confused about.

In fact, I’ve seen the themes behind your comments over and over again throughout the four years I’ve been debating online. It’s almost like you guys all go to a meeting somewhere, where someone hands you a manifesto with talking points. Then have you guys memorize those talking points then repeat those on the forums.

You’re arrogantly assuming that your opinions are the facts, the reality. And I say this because you constantly fail to prove your position with facts, but argue as if what you say is a “no brainer,” and that anybody that doesn’t subscribe to your point of view is a “moron”.

After claiming that Israel started all but two wars, and after seeing the above evidence that this isn’t the case, you’re probably feeling something other than brilliant. And, instead of feeling proud of yourself, you should have this huge conscience weighing down on yourself every time you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

I could tell that your last paragraph echoes what I said to you in a previous post. That was based on what you told someone with regards to their age, that only if he’d gain your experiences, he’d start seeing things the way you see things.

I’ve always wondered how you’d react to that treatment if someone were to pull the same stunt on you.

If someone were to take your response to receiving that comment, to the other guys response to your giving that statement to him, and put them side by side without crediting either one of you, one would easily think that your relative ages to each other would be opposite of what they actually are.

You’re not all that, I recommend stepping off the pedestal.

And based on your purely vitriolic responses to allot of posters here who disagree with your views, I could tell that you can’t handle disagreements that well. This is stress based, so I recommend that you attend some stress management classes.  



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/11/2007 5:14:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, Mike-----------

Red Herring (just returning the favor)

this is probably our next president.

Ron


He introduced red herrings into the debate. When I identify something as a red herring, it has nothing to do with the argument. His mentioning Bush Sr. when asked which country gassed its own people is a red herring, as it assumes that Bush, as President, turned the other way as Saddam “gassed” his people. The gassings took place in the 80s. 



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/11/2007 5:16:59 PM)

SimplyMichael: And our next Republican president would be a SOLDIER too!

The majority in the military support Bush, and were rooting for his reelection back in 2004. This is the same military that couldn’t hold its tongue with regards to Clinton’s “military” background. Funny how extreme liberals flip flip on this issue.

SimplyMichael: While I think this poster is a ______,

“Smart Guy” goes in there nicely. Or you could put “Not Fooled” in their as well. Understand that I’m not fooled by your spin about how things work in the geopolitical and geostrategic stage.

SimplyMichael: and barely literate,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literate

“Able to read and write”.

Considering that you consistently attack my writing and reading, let’s do this little exercise to see if you have a leg to stand on here:

“the indifference show by the Bush worshipers” -SimplyMichael

Is it my literacy level, or are you supposed to say, “The indifference SHOWN by the Bush worshippers?

HINT: If you’re going to attack someone’s writing, or literacy, you’d better have your ducks in a row.

SimplyMichael: he is a far cry smarter than Bush

Other than what the media has told you, and what you’ve cherry picked, you don’t know the facts behind Bush’s smarts.

But, judging by how you deal with people on this message board who disagree with you, it wouldn’t surprise me if you judged “smarts” by how they are relative to you in terms of what positions they have on the issues. You might perceive Bush as further right than I am, so in your eyes, that makes him “dumber” or me “smarter”.

I’d recommend that you find another criterion to use to determine someone’s smarts other than the degree they agree or disagree with you, or by what the mainstream media tells you.

SimplyMichael: and much braver

The man has flown aircraft before, and landed on a aircraft carrier out at sea. Things I’d be afraid to do.

SimplyMichael: because he is in combat 24 hours a day against the forces of darkness.

Combat 24 hours a day, no. Debate and debunking BS whenever the opportunity presents itself? Definitely.

SimplyMichael: It would be nice to get an actual Republican combat SOLDIER in office, they seem to be so rare these days (at least the ones who don't have illigitimate black babies)....

I wonder if you were wishing that we had a Democrat combat soldier in the White House from Jan 93 to Jan 01. Or is this only a concern when a Republican is in the White House?

Despite your implication, the majority in the military support President Bush, and were hoping big time that Kerry wouldn’t take the presidency. What I thought was priceless was people talking about putting in retirement and resignation papers in if Kerry got elected.

SimplyMichael: Now I understand why he is so proud.

No you don’t. But I do take pride in exposing your statements to blistering intellectual scrutiny.

I really take pride in exposing the logical fallacies of an arrogant post that disregards the facts but relies heavily on the poster’s emotions.

SimplyMichael:  He is as much a soldier as any Iraqi Vet, probably more than one who got his arms blown off because that poor sap can't even type! SPIN, OUT OF CONTEXT.

First:

“Guys, you are taking this girl WAY to seriously.” -SimplyMichael

“So your not a woman then my next guess would be Air Force right?” -SimplyMichael

“And our next Republican president would be a SOLDIER too!” -SimplyMichael in ref to me

At this point, you’ve made a few guesses as to what I am. First, a “girl”, then an airman, then a soldier, then a civilian, and even a “poor sap”.

At this point, you’re pulling things out of your rear end, driven by blind emotion rather than calm, cool, and collected reason.

You made that statement in reference to this statement on asymmetrical warfare:

“Consequently, a civilian sitting behind a computer screen, whether they’re hacking or arguing against continued participation in the Iraq war, is as much a “soldier” involved with asymmetrical warfare as a fully armed soldier in the military battle field” -herfacechair

Look at the quotation marks surrounding the world “soldier”. That’s a clear indication that I wasn’t making the type of comparison you’re implying that I’m making. Reading that statement, as well as surrounding statements, anybody with at least half a brain would know that I was talking about the expanded warfare dimensions in addition to the traditional blood and guts battle field.

Nowhere was I making a physical and experience comparison between the two.



mnottertail -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/11/2007 5:18:40 PM)

quote:

“I commented that when china took a good old everyday missile and knocked an american sattelite out of the sky” - mnottertail

“According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth.” -herfacechair quoting news article in response

This is an example of why saying, “the argument was way past you when you joined it,” to me is like Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf saying, “I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad,” to the world during the invasion.


Well, having read some of the same books you do, I think you should be able to understand what is wrong with this picture.





Page: <<   < prev  28 29 30 [31] 32   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125