|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/10/2010 5:48:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Throughout the life of ISG, there were two occasions where chemical weapons were found. The first was a single sarin mortar shell which had been reworked into a roadside improvised explosive device by insurgents. The second was a handful of 122-millimeter rocket warheads filled with inert mustard gas that was recovered near Babylon. Both were thought to be remainders from the Iran--Iraq War, when Iraq was in some sense a US ally, and were useless as offensive weapons. They were later destroyed by ISG personnel. In late 2004 the ISG and the MCTs (mobile collection teams) undertook some counterinsurgency operations, although many details remain classified. There were other missions and organizations operating within the ISG which are Top Secret and are unlikely to be declassified anytime soon.
The Iraqi Survey Group was sent to Iraq post invasion. There were WMD in Iraq. In fact, answer this question:
WHERE, in YOUR quote, does it say that WMD wasn't found in Iraq post invasion?
You won't find any statement there saying that there were no WMD in Iraq. Do you know why?
BECAUSE YOUR OWN SOURCE TALKS ABOUT CHEMICAL AGENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN IRAQ POST INVASION!
Those chemical agents are WMD.
It doesn't matter if something was offensive as an offensive weapon or not, or if they were supposedly from an earlier era. No matter how you try to SPIN this, it TALKS ABOUT WMD THAT WERE FOUND IN IRAQ POST INVASION!
Which proves that the media's big lie, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq, WRONG.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
REPEAT POINT
Additionally, you haven't answered any question, and you are prima facie wrong about Korea and Iran. End of joke. Harldy accurate in your assessment. Furthermore, when asked to provide specific examples of military operations conducted by the US in asynchronous warfare, you babble on eliding the subject.
REPEAT POINT
Part of what I said to you in response:
You want to know what asymmetrical warfare operations we're involved with. I told you to go back to the posts that I've made in the past involving asymmetrical warfare.
In one of those posts, I leave a link to an entire book that scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare. Reading my asymmetrical warfare posts, as well as that link, would give you the tools you'd need to recognize the basics of unrestricted warfare, and how it applies to what's going on in the world today. You'd be able to spot it when you watch the news.
What part of that underlined statement DON'T you understand?
I answered your fucking question dumbass! You simply need to pull your head out of your ass, get a refresher of what I talked about, then open your eyes.
Here's something else that I said:
"Go back to every thread on this message board containing my posts on asymmetrical warfare. The concepts I talked about then are still very applicable today. They're more than enough to answer your questions. What part of, "Still applicable today," don't you get?" -herfacechair.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
If you go back to my LAST series of replies, and the intellectual dishonesty that I'm replying to here (your post), you'll notice something. What I said in response to a poster here, you'll find it on POST 298, or the one next to it. No, better yet, since your lazy ass will refuse to go back:
I've been debating online with people holding your opinion for years. Since you guys tend to advance the same opinions, I've saved posts I've made in debates I've been involved with since 2006 (been debating years earlier than that, lost saved data from debates prior to that as I used another computer then).
Here's a copy and paste of my response in a debate I was involved with in the fall of 2006, which I've used in response to points similar to what you're making above:
robertson89: which for him, just like for Clarke (and for yours truly) has represented a HUGE diversion of the real war, which was that against terrorism and which had started really well, until our Pres' decided to severely refocus his time and energy on Irak.
Both of them are wrong if they assumed that the Iraq war was a huge diversion from the War on Terrorism.
1. The War on Terrorism is not confined to Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda.
2. If Osama Bin Laden leaves Afghanistan, there is nothing any amount of troops INSIDE of Afghanistan can do to
Let me run this to you again.
Our troops in Afghanistan are limited to that country's boundaries. So, it does not matter if we have 1 million boots on the ground in Afghanistan, or just 10. If Bin Laden is OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, there is nothing any amount of boots on the ground INSIDE Afghanistan would be able to do to secure his capture.
3. Iraq was not a huge division on the war on terrorism. Anybody that claims such fails to understand the true nature of the war we are involved with.
"Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwiths understood by the American military....This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means" Col. Qiao Lian and Col. Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare, 1999.
In the book Unrestricted Warfare, these two Colonels interchange the U.S. military with the United States and the West.
You've proven these two colonel's point - "to the letter".
Means other than tradition.
The fact that you would label Iraq as a "big diversion" proves that you failed to see "outside of tradition". Actual and potential alliances of hostile nations and organizations against the west.
So NO, Iraq was NOT a huge diversion. Under asymmetrical warfare, you do not need to use your own military to attack another nation. You do not even need to send a military over to be an imminent threat. Iraq under Saddam was an asymmetrical threat to the United States. Al-Qaeda had the manpower. They had the martyrdom brigades willing to send suicide bombers to the United States. What is missing is WMD. Something that Saddam HAD and was working on.
Connect the dots . . . I dare you to.
And later on in that same thread:
robertson89: In my view, the White House has achieved what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we should NOT be grateful to them for that achievement. We lost our focus big time when we shifted from terrorism to Irak even though as everybody now knows, there was absolutely no connection between the 2 in the first place.
And your view does not match reality.
Had we failed to go into Iraq, many of the problems that we are facing in Iraq would have reared their ugly heads in Afghanistan. Recent history gives us an indication of this. See the period of the Soviet invasion. This was even happening prior to our going into Iraq. Right when we thought that things were winding down, we engaged in one major operation after another. News reports were talking about how Afghanistan was becoming a quagmire.
Then, right after we invaded Iraq, the pressure shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. Which IMPROVED our odds. Now, instead of fighting these same foreign fighters in hostile terrain, we are fighting them in flatter terrain, terrain that improves the odds in our favor. While they channeled their foreign fighters into Iraq, Afghanistan went full steam ahead with its reconstruction.
Their military is now to the point to where they can be dangerous against the enemy in the battle field. Each year the terrorists are bogged down in Iraq, the Afghan army gets stronger.
We did not lose our focus. I call that a strategic stroke of genius. We are fighting the insurgents in an environment that accommodates our use of advanced weaponry as opposed to fighting them in terrain that hampers the use of many of our ground equipment. Just ask the Russians.
In response to another poster in the same thread:
Cherished1: I had many friends that were stationed over there. After we decided to go to Iraq they pulled out almost half of the troops from there.
That would have happened regardless of whether we went into Iraq or not. Bin Laden's trail got cold before 2002 - according to the special warfare unit that was chasing him. By the end of 2002, we were involved with low intensity warfare. The number of troops we had then was excessive.
Cherished1: I think that was a huge mistake.
Going into Iraq was NOT a huge mistake. Had we failed to invade Iraq, North Korea and Iran would still be doing what they are doing right now.
Going into Iraq
(1) Drew the terrorists from fighting us in hostile terrain (Afghanistan) into terrain more accommodating to our environment (Iraq) - sparing us the headache that the Russians suffered.
(2) Prevented a scenario where not only do we have Iran catching up to the North Koreans, but an Iraq catching up to the North Koreans in terms of nuclear technology.
(3) Applies two future pressure points against Iran - to assist internal changes favorable to the west.
Going into Iraq was NOT a mistake. It was as stroke of genius.
So no, I wasn't wrong on Iran and North Korea, and had you gotten off your ass and looked, instead of demanding to be spoon fed, you would've gotten this answer... either through going to my old posts, or even following this thread's progress.
What asymmetrical warfare operations are we doing today?
Since you're acting like a tard, let me spell it out for you, what I said:
Go back to every thread on this message board containing my posts on asymmetrical warfare. The concepts I talked about then are still very applicable today. -herfacechair
What did I talk about back then?
Asymmetrical warfare involving IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. We're STILL in those two countries.
HENCE! The fact that what I said to you before is still applicable today. So no fuckwit, I didn't dodge your question, I answered it. All you had to do was get off your ass and look. Reminding you of that fact doesn't constitute me "babbling" and "eliding" the question. Go back to my previous posts on that topic, read it, and realize that they're still applicable today. Had you done that, you would've read that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is still fact today. The concepts didn't change, except we're further along the path I projected in one of those posts.
My assessment was then DEAD ACCURATE, and it's still dead accurate today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Also, there has been a little research done, and The Army Time (a notoriously liberal out to destroy and defame the government rag) didn't bother to crow about the WMD found, further lending credence to the notion that it was our shit to begin with.
From the Iraq Survey Group Final Report:
"Saddam's centrality to the Regime's political structure meant that he was the hub of Iraqi WMD policy and intent. His personalized and intricate administrative methods meant that control of WMD development and its deployment was never far from his touch (see the "Excerpts from a Closed-Door Meeting" inset). His chain of command for WMD was optimized for his control rather than to ensure the participation of Iraq's normal political, administrative or military structures. Under this arrangement, the absence of information about WMD in routine structures and the Iraqi military's order of battle would not mean it did not exist. Even so, if WMD existed, its absence from Iraqi military formations and planning when war was imminent in 2003 would be hard to explain."
From Global Security Dot Org:
"To avoid defeat, Iraq sought out every possible weapon. This included developing a self-sustaining capability to produce militarily significant quantities of chemical warfare agents."
Based on the ISG Report, and Global Security, these WMD were IRAQ'S to begin with.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I know vets, am a vet, and have talked to vets, and not fucking once have you talked about buddies, or even slightly alluded to them.
Not one personal story, happy or sad....
Like the gangly fucker from tennesee who got it in the stomach via a claymore (forgot his name now).......Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh, pick me up, Ooooooohhhhhh, lay me down, give me a drink of water.......Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh, pick me up, Ooooooohhhhhh, lay me down, give me a drink of water.......
So, anyone knowin what I am talking about, knows what I am saying.
Why will I talk about them here? What makes you think that the fucknuts here, questioning my legitimate claims of being in the military, would believe my accounts of my buddies, good or bad? Had I given the above account that you gave, they would've dismissed it as something that I've seen and heard in a movie.
When I told you to ACT LIKE A VET, I was trying to tell you to exercise INITIATIVE. That is, to go back to where you found my posts, where you got your quotes from, and to read what I said there. Then have the ANALYTICAL ability to review and understand what I said, read the link that I provided, and have the COMMON SENSE to determine that what I said then is applicable today.
THAT'S what I was talking about when I told you to ACT like you're a VET.
Thanks for playing, and don't forget your parting gifts.
|
|
|
|
