Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:36:45 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		SohCahToa: Perhaps you've seen you've won but this is irrelevant because the rest of us haven't and so our ignorance counts as your loss.

Your ignorance doesn't negate the fact that we won. That's almost like saying the football team that won didn't really win, because millions of people didn't even know they played their game, or the fact that they won.

You only speak for the people on your side of the argument, you don't speak for the rest of the American population. Funny that the people on the left are the ones claiming that we "lost" in Iraq, or that we "lost" in the public area. But talk to people on my side of the argument, or on middle ground, who've researched information related to this discussion, or have access to plenty of real information, and you'd see that they see us as having won.

Even the politicians on your side of the argument, congressmen and senators, who argue against the Iraq War, claimed that we "lost," quickly change their minds the moment they spend time in Iraq.

Having a first-hand perspective of how things are ACTUALLY going on in Iraq does tend to make people see the same thing that I see, those on the other side of the argument tend to abandon their argument when they see what's really going on there.

SohCahToa: The world, no matter the actual reality, will always look back on Iraq as a loss. A lot of time and resources spent there, a lot of civilians dying there due to the opposition and no clear indication that what we have now is going to last beyond when you leave.

Not true. I've read an article written in 1946, titled, "America Losing the Victory in Europe." When you go through the article, you'd see a list of doom and gloom, present and future. We spent allot of time and resources in Europe, and Japan, allot of manpower. Back then, there were people that believed that we were committed to a lost cause.

Our generation, even yours, not having been around, or too young to understand what's going on back then, would not see the hardship, and growing pains, those countries went through. We just see the finished product, and run with that. What you've seen in Iraq over the past few years was just a repeat of what we've seen over and over again throughout our history.

Based on what I saw, Iraq is well on its way to progressing towards full blown stability and democracy. If you take the Iraq we traveled through when we first got there, and the Iraq that we saw prior to me going on leave, you'd see a HUGE difference... one for the better.

The news focuses on the civilians that get killed. I see the thousands upon thousands who aren't dead. I'm safer, here in Iraq, than I am in some US cities. Heck, we lose more Americans on our highways every two years than we lost the entire Vietnam War.

If you look at history, what usually happens is that people forget the hardship countries go through when they're recovering from war. Every country/territory that we've invaded and occupied in the past had a reconstruction phase that wasn't pretty. As years go by, we could only remember the successes.

Iraq will go down as an American success, just as Japan and Germany did.

SohCahToa: There was this saying floating about 'You've got to win the propaganda war to win the war.' This war you lost before even the actual war started.

Not really. What you really need is the will to fight. If the will to fight is stronger than the propaganda war, then you'll still win. If the propaganda war is stronger than the will to fight, that's when you lose the war.

It's people like you that wage the propaganda war against the Iraq War. This puts you guys in the same footing as those that are trying to work against us there, and elsewhere. It makes you guys, "useful idiots," as your side is fighting for the same end game that our enemies are fighting for. You do it without the risk to life our enemies take when they try to achieve the outcome your side of the argument wants... troops redeploying to the U.S. before the US secures victory.

SohCahToa: War is perception because after all the death, one side says it has won and we have no real idea how losing would have changed the world because it didn't happen. So did we even win, did it need to actually happen,? If the world wasn't going to be drastically different without such a war fought. Modern wars don't seem to be as clear cut as the purpose of historical wars.

If you go to Iraq and see what I've seen, our victory would be glaringly obvious.

Let me mention some history tidbits to demonstrate how erroneous your statement is.

I've lost count of how many times I've mentioned past war facts, information that forced people to question the way they learned history in school. In those wars, as well as the ones that we're fighting in, who won and who lost is easily identifiable. For instance, who won the American Revolutionary War? Let's see, Spain, France, The Netherlands, the patriots, etc (through direct combat against the UK), Scandinavia and Russia through the cloak of neutrality. Then we could factor in the Irish, the French Canadians and the people of India, who revolted against the UK when we did... hence the UK spreading its military to meet these military commitments.

There's a very good chance that after I said this, the Revolutionary War isn't as clear cut as you thought it was. This is an example of what happens when you get access to more facts than what your contemporaries had access to.

What I've just pointed out here is that people like you are going to focus on one aspect of a war, to the exclusion of the rest. The reality is that more is going on, and when someone that's aware of all these other things says that we won, they're saying it based on having access to more information than those who'll claim that there's a question as to who really won the war or who didn't.

We won the Iraq War, there's no question about that. Those that relieve us are going to feel like this was a peace keeping mission, and not a war. No amount of denial speech will change the facts that's blatantly obvious to those of us deployed to Iraq... that the United States and its allies won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory.

(in reply to SohCahToa)
Profile   Post #: 701
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:39:18 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I think I may have mentioned that I was never in the army and had no desire to ever be a soldier.
I have been out of the military for more than 40 years.
When I was in the military "my kind" thought that "your kind" were amatures and consequently we did not associate.
What the rank structure is in your amature organization makes less than no difference to me.


That's nothing but smoking mirrors, no amount of back peddling on your part will change the fact that you outed yourself. You wouldn't have assumed that I had a gunnery sergeant, but would have used platoon sergeant. Your statement goes out of the way to try to differentiate between branches, yet you failed to do that when describing an event you thought happened between the "gunny" and me. Your assumptions are one that someone who've never served, but has watched Full Metal Jacket, would make. If you're implying that you were a "Marine," your posts don't do you any justice. More on that later.

thompsonx: sonny boy I was long gone from the service before you were shitting yellow. You have no clue as to what things were before you were born.

I've had the opportunity to talk to my Dad's Vietnam Veteran friends, as well as my dad. He would've been 73 years old had he survived his cancer. There are things that didn't change, despite the numerous other physical and technological changes that took place.

You didn't come anywhere near them when it comes to relaying stories that happened during that time. There's allot of things that happened then, military wise, that still happen now. That includes how one references people in other services. In both time periods, you would've mentioned the platoon sgt, and not the "gunny," given the branch I told you I was in. The "gunny" was a Marine specific rank then as it is now.

The comments that one person made on this thread, that served in Vietnam, that came very close to how my dad's friends sounded, was Racer Jim. The only shit that I see here is what I'm reading from your posts, as well as those from your side of the argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You come across as the type of person that my dad knocked to the ground when he was serving in Vietnam.

Oh my aren't you the proxy bad ass.
If your father would have been that foolish, after the corpsman got done with him he would be facing an article 128.


No proxy about this, you come across as the person that got his ass knocked to the ground a lot.

Apparently, you've never had the opportunity to see Navy SEALS do combatives, or fight period. Let's put it this way. There would've been two hits, my dad hitting you, and you hitting the ground. You wouldn't have realized that until you regained consciousness. Your chain of command would've laughed at your attempts to bring him to an Article 15/Captains Mast/NJP. They probably saw you as someone that needed an attitude adjustment. So, after the corpsman got done with you, you would've suffered humiliation as you attempted to write him up.

This is another thing that causes me to question your claims. Ass beatings were a common form of correcting training during your "time in." According to an E8, now retired, there weren't as many instances of NJP back then as there were later on. Most issues got resolved via wall to wall counseling. This was the case into the 90s.

Here's the best case scenario for you. If you did serve, you come across as someone that either didn't deploy outside the United States, or someone who did a routine deployment to Korea or Germany. If you were a Marine or Sailor, you probably just did routine WESTPACS (non combat related) or MED Cruises... you don't sound like you served in Vietnam.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 702
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:45:21 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

REPEAT POINT

1. What was the imminent threat posed by Iraq that justified our preemptive assault?

2. In what way did the removal of Saddam justify the lives lost by 4500 + young American/UK men and women?

Please try to answer without bullshitting me. Thank you.

What you enjoy leaving out, which answers both questions:

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.

REPEAT POINT

I DID answer your questions without bullshitting you. They address both questions through the asymmetrical warfare aspect. You need to THINK about what I'm saying, and apply it to what's going on today.


You dance in circles in your tub of bullshit and bob and weave to avoid facing the reality of the human tragedy you have inflicted. Pathetic. I, for one, am not grateful for your enthusiasm for the savaging of Iraq. May you reap nightmares when you realize the nightmare you are defending.

"Oh, the humanity, the humanity!"

~~ Apocalypse Now


Your lack of understanding of the nature of this war painfully shows in this post.

Don't mistake an understanding of asymmetrical warfare, to include the threat we're operating against, as my "dancing around" in circles, and don't mistake them as "bullshit." Definitely don't mistake my firsthand accounts of what's going on in Iraq as BS either. You're precisely what the two Chinese colonels were talking about when they said this; (HINT, you also conveniently chop this out when you quote me):

"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.

Throughout the book, "American Military" is interchanged with the US, the West, and traditional countries.

You don't understand asymmetrical warfare, as this type of warfare falls outside your paradigm. You throw a couple of questions at me about a war that you don't understand. This isn't like World War II where we could just sit and wait for another country to send its army to your borders. That's the kind of thinking that'll guarantee that we lose against the extremists.

You asked a question, one in your confused, heavily biased mind, could only possibly have one or two answers. When you're given a response that, not only is on target, but is applicable to threat you have no clue about, you dismiss it as bullshit. It's not bullshit, either this concept is over your head, or you're deliberately closing your mind like a steel trap to protect its flawed reasoning from reality, or both.

And here's another area where you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Human suffering? It's unfortunate that you can't go to Iraq to see how wrong you are. Perhaps you could tell that to the Iraqis that recount the horrors they had to live under with Saddam, who then turn around and show appreciation for the relatively peaceful and awesome life they're living right now. What I've seen and witnessed here contradicts your claims. We've played a large role in repairing a country that has gone through decades of infrastructure decay. There's lots of construction going on, and businesses are popping up all over the place.

Savaging Iraq? Not even close.

Maybe you could walk to the schoolhouse full of Iraqi kids, and tell them about their "human suffering." Maybe you could walk up to the woman that I saw who ran a business, maybe you could tell her that she's currently under human suffering. Maybe you could talk to the Iraqis that wave at us, maybe you could talk to them about the human suffering that they're currently feeling.

Go up and down their highways, walk though their cities and towns, and you're going to see people going about their lives, and living the way they wished they were living when they were under Saddam's iron fist. What's really ironic is that I don't see you feign indignity and compassion for the hundreds and thousands that died under Saddam's hands. Those mass graves don't lie. But instead of going from those numbers, you'd rather go from fictional numbers... of what the West allegedly did during the war... and bitch about that.

If you've recently been to Iraq, like I have, then you'd know what I'm talking about here. You'd know that you're wrong about their suffering. Because your lack of understanding of what's REALLY going on in Iraq painfully shows in your post.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 703
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:47:42 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Unlike World War II, which was symmetrical, or black and white, the War on Terrorism is grey, it's asymmetrical in nature.


yeh we already know its fraud but thanks for admitting it.


I'm not admitting to your conspiracy moonbat ideas of what's fraud and what isn't.

I'm pointing to the fact that this type of warfare isn't your grandfather's warfare. Unlike World War II, where you knew where the front lines are, what constituted a combatant, and where, exactly, the threats are, Asymmetrical warfare is fluid. There are no real front lines, the threat is both visible and invisible. The tactics used are both conventional and unconventional. You can't always see the threat to you. The combat zone no longer has a monopoly on the war, it takes place all around us via different realms. More importantly, what you don't consider as "war" or "acts of war," are now both "war" and "acts of war."

These are the concepts that I was admitting to; I was admitting to reality.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 704
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:50:15 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I bet she's making meatloaf and a nice apple pie for dessert.


Put the bong down guy, my mother's been dead for 29 years. If you honest to God could claim that, then whatever it is you're smoking must be some good shit.


It has to be some good shit for me to have listened to 30+ pages of your relentless fabrications.


What you dismiss as "fabrications" are my firsthand accounts, and analysis/research based assessments. Your actions are as ridiculous as dismissing someone's description of the moon, as they see it, as a "fabrication." I've got news for you guy, you don't fabricate when you're describing what you've seen. They're "fabrications" to you, as they destroy your misguided notions about this topic. They're "relentless," as it seems to bother you that I continue to stay in the fight against you, and against your allies on this thread.

The fact that you don't see the posts that I'm arguing against, which are factually challenged, as fabrications, is a dead giveaway of where you stand. You're not speaking from the center, or as someone from the outside looking in. You're speaking as a liberal frustrated that your misguided notions are getting destroyed by "inconvenient" things like the facts.

30+ pages are nothing compared to other threads I've debated on before.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 705
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:54:30 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Also, in the Army, warrants are either called "sir" or "chief." I've done both, and haven't gotten into trouble for it. Your research needs more working.

quote:

From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.

Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [X ] NO [ ]


You're quick to accuse me of quoting part of your posts, when it was your ally in this fight that did this. Yet here you are, up to your normal games of cutting parts of posts off so that it communicates something different. Yup, cut the rest out, and you have a stand alone question without the event it addresses. This allows you to come up with any story about what that question is related to.

You don't have to expose yourself as a fool by just answering that question. That was deliberate. I know you're capable of doing full quotes.

But, as you can see, I've included the statement that the question came with. The games you play prove that you know that you're wrong in this fight. If you had confidence in your side of the argument, you'd have no problems answering that question without deleting the event that it came with.

So I don't count this as you answering the question, as you did it deceptively.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Warrant officers
Grade of rank: Chief Warrant Officer, Five
Pay grade: W-5
Title of address: Mister (Mrs./Miss/Ms.)
Abbreviation: CW5
Grade of rank: Chief Warrant Officer, Three
Pay grade: W-3
Title of address: Mister (Mrs./Miss/Ms.)
Abbreviation: CW3
Grade of rank: Chief Warrant Officer, Four
Pay grade: W-4
Title of address: Mister (Mrs./Miss/Ms.)
Abbreviation: CW4
Grade of rank: Chief Warrant Officer, Two
Pay grade: W-2
Title of address: Mister (Mrs./Miss/Ms.)
Abbreviation: CW2
Grade of rank: Warrant Officer, One
Pay grade: W-1
Title of address: Mister (Mrs./Miss/Ms.)
Abbreviation: WO1

AR600-20 (current) and yes, agreed Chief is ok, its like calling Top Top, or Sarge Sarge.......so, same as gunny or psg......but it ain't something you do to someone you dont know well.


This quote doesn't build onto your argument.

It's either "sergeant" or "SARNT," not "sarge." I wouldn't go to my PSG, and call him gunny, so you're missing the point. Knucklehead used gunny when he should've used platoon sergeant, this caused me to question his service. We don't call a SFC a "gunny," that term is reserved for Marine E7s. Again, had I given a scenario to someone in another service, I would've used terms they were familiar with. Both you guys referenced things that you would've easily found on the internet, or learned from watching movies. What you quoted here doesn't prove that we call our E7s "gunny."

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

since you want to mince words and think it conveys correctness
REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT
you are completely wrong AGAIN!!!!!!
REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT
and using your same inference illogic, not in the military, a dipshit, an unamerican commie bastard, and a drooling imbicile.
REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT REPEAT POINT


The only people mincing words here are the people that I'm debating with, including you. You're stretching things to try to defend your battle buddy's mistakes. I'm not mincing words; I'm simply factoring reality in. You guys are fabricating your experiences; the information you brought up can be researched on the Internet... what I talked about is how we actually do things... something not captured in either you or your buddy's posts.

As I've told you numerous times, you have to "prove" me "wrong" to declare me "wrong." The opposing side of the argument has miserably failed to do that.

As to your issues about my "not in the military" comment. Well, you guys have yet to prove, through your thought process and how you communicate things, that you're veterans. Even with thompsonx's latest posts, he still shoves his foot in his mouth in his attempts to come across as having been in the military.

The best case scenario for both of you is that you guys served, but didn't combat deploy.

There's something else that your complaints, about the name calling, communicate. You're complaining about what my side of the argument calls you, or people on your side of the argument. The "commie" description is tagged onto people that are so far left that they fall to the left of Vladimir Lenin. Thanks for verifying what I've said about people here that are opposing me.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 706
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:56:33 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

insurgents do not equal terrorists, you are no more than an everyday garden variety simpleton.

go back to pounding your pud.


And you accuse me of mincing words. The Anti Iraqi Force use terrorism, hence are terrorists. Or, have you forgotten about Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terror groups in Iraq? These are the people that your side of the argument labels as the "insurgency." I'd recommend that you stop commenting on this topic, as you're hurting yourself with your lack of knowledge on the nature of war that we're fighting.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 707
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 4:57:35 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Unlike World War II, which was symmetrical, or black and white, the War on Terrorism is grey, it's asymmetrical in nature.


yeh we already know its fraud but thanks for admitting it.


I'm not admitting to your conspiracy moonbat ideas of what's fraud and what isn't.

I'm pointing to the fact that this type of warfare isn't your grandfather's warfare. Unlike World War II, where you knew where the front lines are, what constituted a combatant, and where, exactly, the threats are, Asymmetrical warfare is fluid. There are no real front lines, the threat is both visible and invisible. The tactics used are both conventional and unconventional. You can't always see the threat to you. The combat zone no longer has a monopoly on the war, it takes place all around us via different realms. More importantly, what you don't consider as "war" or "acts of war," are now both "war" and "acts of war."

These are the concepts that I was admitting to; I was admitting to reality.


RO is not around.  He is off the board for a while.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 708
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:00:01 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy aka belladevine aka angelsmile

REPEAT POINT

look at the length of you responses directed to people that don't give a shit whether you live or die. What a worm.

Go outside, kiss a girl, give your mom a sponge bath. Do something with someone who cares.

REPEAT POINT


The people that you talk about constantly prove you wrong. If they didn't give a shit about me, they wouldn't reply to me. They would've abandoned this thread the moment it became evident that I debate ad infinitum. Do realize that my post length depends on the length of the posts that I'm replying to. I don't see you complaining to those posters about the length of their posts.

Also, you'd have to be really stupid, or arrogant, to assume what someone on here does during their day because of the length, or number, of posts they give here. You don't know the method I use to put words on the screen, or the daily list of activities that I do. I've done a lot more than just generate posts here.

If you didn't care, as you implied, you'd ignore me like what the smart people on the other side of the argument do right off the bat, and do something else. I love how you prove yourself wrong through your own actions. How about doing as you preach? Considering the wealth that you have in ignorance, stepping outside would do wonders to your education.

(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 709
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:00:23 PM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Even the politicians on your side of the argument, congressmen and senators, who argue against the Iraq War, claimed that we "lost," quickly change their minds the moment they spend time in Iraq.

Well how can you judge if you've seen what exists now and not what existed before, ask an Iraqi who won. In fact ask one of those 27 that died in multiple car bombings just the other week perhaps.

Anyone that thinks the situation is better now (for the average citizen) has their head in the sand.

< Message edited by SL4V3M4YB3 -- 6/22/2010 5:02:36 PM >

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 710
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:02:36 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy aka belladevine aka angelsmile

Col. asschair, what exactly is a "short time" You have already been out here nine days....When you going back?

lol.


I didn't tell you when my R&R started, yet here you are pulling shit out of thin air about how long I've been "out here." My original statement still stands, I was in the US for a short time... compared to my deployment. But based on people's actions, it seems that I have to be here for a lot longer than anticipated.

(in reply to domiguy)
Profile   Post #: 711
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:03:06 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline 		Oh good.

Look who's back. 

Again, and again, and again.








(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 712
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:07:08 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

there was no imminent threat, that was BS - there are all sorts of postulations on that, my favourite is that Bush promised the US Bin Laden, couldnt deliver so kicked saddams ass as a show of strength. its as good as any.

but in the end, getting rid of saddam was worth doing and i get a bit ticked off when people start questioning the people who died as soldiers, it belittles what they did and why they did it. for them they died in active service, doing the job they were trained to do. to say they died for nothing is an insult to their integrity as service men and women.

saddam hussein butchered millions, committed genocide, all but wiped out the Marsh People, made the kurdistans existance intolerable. Bush elder was asked why he didnt remove hussein when he had the chance, his response was that a strong policy would need to be in place before such an action occurred. a strong policy was not put in place and bedlam occurred.

but Iraq is a success story, victory for the Iraquis came as peace was eventually achieved between the warring factions. those men and women who died in active service gave their lives to achieve that peace and they should not have that taken away from them postumasely.


First, a strong policy WAS in place, it started with the cease fire in 1991. NOTE: A cease fire is NOT peace, but WAR PUT ON HOLD. We carried out the strongest policy would could against Saddam, short of invading Iraq, during the 90s, and during the years leading up to the invasion.

Second, what mayhem? Spend time in Iraq, and you'd notice that this country looks like what a peace time country would look like.

Third, this is asymmetrical warfare, NOT symmetrical warfare. Saddam was an imminent asymmetrical threat to the United States and the rest of the West, with his refusal to cooperate with any of the inspection teams. He had plenty of opportunity to cooperate during the 90s, and again prior to the invasion. He failed to do that.

The only people that'll claim that the imminent threat was "bullshit," are full of it themselves, and need to educate themselves about the real nature of this war before commenting on it.

Our going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with our not capturing Bin Laden. Even if we had captured Bin Laden, we still would've invaded Iraq. Here's a key point about this war that people miss: this war was NEVER just about 9/11, Bin Laden, Taliban, and Afghanistan... these were the catalysts that got us to respond to a war that was already being waged against us. Had we killed or captured Bin Laden, someone else would've filled his spot. We kill that person, someone else would've filled that position... meanwhile, Saddam had every intention of exacting revenge on the United States. Al Qaeda served as a perfect platform for him to exact that revenge, over and over and over again.

This is asymmetrical warfare. Your line of thinking puts us in a position to where we're begging to lose.

"to say they died for nothing is an insult to their integrity as service men and women."

And to come on here and argue against a conclusion shared by most the service members serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, then to credit the victory to the warring factions coming to peace with each other, is an insult to their integrity as service men and women.

Those warring factions came to peace with each other for 3 main reasons. One, we were pulverizing their asses on the battle field, they valued their lives too much. Two, they saw that we were working to improve their lots in life. Both of these combined lead to them realizing that they'd have better results if they got into politics. Three, they realized that the Anti Iraqi Force didn't care about them, and were working towards the AFI's causes, not those of the warring factions.

(in reply to lally2)
Profile   Post #: 713
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:09:44 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I scanned this thread... and here are the questions i have

Do you think that all of us object to the invasion on the grounds it wouldn't be successful?

I could give a rat's ass if we were successful, I object to invading and occupying Iraq because it was WRONG.


Your first mistake here is to scan the thread, and not read it in its entirety. Had you done that, your questions would've been answered many times over.

Don't give me this canard that you guys objected to it on the grounds that it was "wrong." You people opposed the vast majority of what the Bush Administration pushed for. You opposed what he did to make it more efficient to defend this country, and you opposed his strategic initiatives to further our national security. THAT'S why you people opposed the Iraq War.

To advance your objection, your side of the argument listed some excuses.

One major objection that your side of the argument had was that you guys assumed that we'd "LOSE" this war, that we'd "FAIL." I've been debating with your side of the argument, ever since I came back from the initial Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that's one key point you guys brought up. Your side argued that as one of your main objections every year since we invaded Iraq.

The Iraq War was the RIGHT war at the RIGHT place at the RIGHT time for reasons I've argued on this thread, other threads on this message board, and on threads on other message boards.

I've been on the ground in Iraq and I'm having a hell of a time trying to see how you could be "right" about your assumption that the Iraq War was/is "wrong."

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I am not interested in spreading democracy (meaning neoliberalism) to all parts of the globe, it is not my job, it is not YOUR job, and basically I do not know where you get off thinking it is your job to do so.


If you bothered to thoroughly read this thread, as well as the other one you and I debated on, you'd see where I'm coming from, and why I believe in what I'm doing.

The real world is a harsh place. This is the world that you think you know, but DON'T. So what if you're not interested in spreading democracy to all parts of the globe. Guess what? The TERRORISTS ARE interested in spreading Islamic Holy Law throughout the globe. Taking it from the mouths of the radicals, "The world will all be Islam, whether we like it or not." This isn't unique, this isn't isolated. This is a common trend you'd find in their speeches, letters, and plans if you bothered to take the time to listen to them.

We're locked in a "fight to the death," with a group of people, working together, who want nothing more but our subjugation to their mentality or our death. That's where I "get off" as seeing that what I'm doing here, to include furthering the spread of westernization, is MY JOB.

There's no "third or other" option in this mortal struggle that our civilization is involved with. Only ONE outcome is going to result from this struggle, either we westernize that region, or their radical elements turn the rest of the world into a series of Islamic caliphates and emirates.

I vote for westernization, and I highly doubt that you'd enjoy living in a world that our enemies have planned for you. Do realize that you could kiss women's rights goodbye if our enemies win.

I serve a cause beyond YOUR and the others on your side of the argument's understanding. I don't know where YOU get off telling me, from your vantage point, what constitutes my job and what doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Iraq was never a threat to us.


Wrong on all counts. Iraq, under Saddam, was an asymmetrical threat to us. For that, he had to be removed from power. Iraqis don't call him "the grandfather/father of all terrorists" for no reason. One of those reasons is that he held radical terrorist conventions, where he made death to America speeches. Al Qaeda would've given him the means to carry out his revenge. Anybody that claims that he wouldn't work with Bin Laden forgets that the following phrase is an Arab one: "An enemy of my enemy is my friend."

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

We have killed 100s of 1000s of Iraqis, that is not success


This isn't even close to reality. Less than 100,000 Iraqis died since the Coalition invaded Iraq, and the vast majority of them died in the hands of the terrorists.

It's like one Iraqi told me.

"Iraqis know that if an American soldier shot you, it was because you were shooting at him. If the terrorist shot you, he intended to shoot you, and he didn't care if you were a man, woman or child."

The majority of the Iraqis don't buy your line of reasoning.

Those numbers are based on a survey that used extremely questionable survey and sampling techniques. The methodology used was obviously flowed. I've taken statistics while working on my undergraduate degree, and took population survey methods and techniques while working on my graduate degree. I could tell you right now, those people's methodology would've caused them to get laughed out of our class... and caused us to wonder how they were allowed to graduate college.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Same in Vietnam, we had no business in Vietnam... we murdered millions of Vietnamese... we were not freeing anyone in that country, we were intervening in a civil war


First, this was no civil war. We had two quasi nations that were to work on becoming one nation. Saying that they were involved in a "civil war" would be like saying that North and South Korea are still in a "civil war." Ridiculous. The government of South Vietnam asked for our help to REPEL the invaders.

This is coming from a woman that I was stationed with, she's Vietnamese American, she was there when the Vietnam War was going on. Gotta love them first hand accounts.

Second, we had to go to Vietnam. The U.S. government had no business trying to run it, they should've let the military run it. But we had to intervene. The Soviets had every intention of spreading communism throughout the world. Our intervention in Vietnam helped stabilize Asia... which was a powder keg waiting to explode into another world war.

Also, we didn't murder millions of Vietnamese... again you could thank our enemies for that. We killed a hell of a lot more of our enemies than they did us, that's for sure. But it was the communists that ended up killing millions of Vietnamese and Laotians.

juliaoceania: I do not want to pay taxes to support empire. I do not want our troops all over the world working for corporate interests.

Hate to break this out to you, but every country in the world is pursuing its economic, political, and strategic interests. If we "pulled back" and "minded our own business," we'd end up as another country's "bitch." You enjoy the standard of living that you have right now, because we're pursuing the above 3 interests around the world. We're doing it in conjunction with the other western countries.

What we're doing in the Middle East, the Philippines, etc, are more for security than they are for economic interest. But we have to remain engaged with the world.

juliaoceania: If we were attacked tomorrow, you could not defend me because you would be in Iraq, so what the fuck good is it having a military if they are defending everyone else but me and mine?

You do realize that every branch of the military cycles people through deployment, do you? The unit that we relieved this past summer? Well, guess what? They're in the United States! The unit that's relieving/relieved my unit... what the... well what do you know! That's at least TWO units in our cycle alone that's in the United States!

This isn't a hard concept to grasp, but not everybody is deployed overseas. Just go to the nearest military post and you'll see that we still have service members in the United States.

Here's another thing that you're not factoring in. We're surrounded by two friendly nations and two oceans. Any country that tries to invade the United States, via symmetrical warfare, would be committing national suicide. The United States is a maritime power. We'd blow any foreign navy out of the water if they tried to invade us from the Sea. I don't recall seeing any Navy ships in Iraq. Our Air Force would blow their Air Force out of the skies if they attempted to invade us via air.

If they tried to send an Army, well, they'd have a logistical nightmare trying to support those troops. And we'd be more than happy to destroy their logistic trains, then send them to their graves... in mass. The U.S. military has a hell of a lot more combat experience than the Russians or the Chinese, whose main focus is defense... heck, the Russians can't even militarily tackle an enemy on their own soil, or border. If they tried invading the United States, their mistake would be more fatal than the ones made by the French and Germans, when they attempted to take Russia.

The list goes on, but no, we'll still be able to defend the United States with the forces that we have there.

And I haven't even talked about what a full mobilization would do for us...

juliaoceania: Why exactly are my tax dollars being spent this way?

"For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy--because everything is at stake" - Mathias Döpfner

juliaoceania: Now you can go back to Iraq.... I know you are just a soldier, you get orders, and that is what you do... but I pay you and your bosses, and I do not approve of the job your bosses do, they suck...They are derelict in their duty to their country, otherwise they would bring you all home and defend what is here... instead of parking your asses everywhere else BUT here.

And how dare you, a person that bases her opinion of what's going on around the world on 10 to 20 second news sound bites, insult the American soldier with your thoughts about why we're doing this?

Your statement assumes, erroneously, that your opinion is "universally right," that if given a choice, we'd refuse to deploy to Iraq.

I do what I do for the reasons I've debated here and elsewhere. My bosses didn't tell me what to think. I came to my conclusions on my own... and so have the vast majority of the troops that have deployed to Iraq, and they came to this conclusion on their own... Go screw yourself if you honest to God think that this is why we're (military) overseas, "because I'm a soldier, I follow orders, that's what I do." Your comment is equivalent to someone taking a shit on a soldier's grave, or spitting on their faces as they arrive back to the states, because you know what?

Those soldiers that died, did so because they believed in the cause that they fought for. Not because their bosses "told them" what to think, not because they were just "following orders." Far from it. If you could only see and feel the excitement in the air as soldiers are about to deploy to the combat zone... ready to do what they were trained to do... you guessed it... to send the bad guy to hell... you'd have a hard time holding onto your assumption as to why we willingly go to do these things.

And you got it wrong about where our troops should be at.

The Chinese tried doing something like that. Instead, they ceded the lead to the rising European nations, they gave up their lead by pulling back to China... when they were ahead. They pulled back and "closed their doors," so to speak. They paid for that mistake with their pride and territory.

Assuming a "defense only" posture puts you in position to LOSE. The only two options you leave yourself with in your scenario is to hold onto what you have, or lose it. A problem you don't have to worry about with our maintaining a forward presence.

< Message edited by herfacechair -- 6/22/2010 5:12:46 PM >

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 714
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:15:18 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tigreetsa

I'm sorry but the OP lost all credibility when he mentioned the reporter who 'wasn't minding their own business' and being stupid being shot.

Not wishing to belittle the OP's service to his country in any way but just because you're a soldier there in the action doesn't make you an expert and belittling the work of the journalists - who do go into those areas unarmed, equipped with cameras and quite specifically not to mind their own business - is quite frankly disgusting and distasteful.

Consider that if it wasn't for these journalists not minding their business and going into these areas then there wouldn't be sources to back up intelligence and you and your buddies in the military uniforms would be in even greater danger than you are now.

Just spare a thought for those people who aren't in the military who've also gone to great risks and given their lives and consider how their actions have contributed not just to your safety but also your success.


You diminished my service to my country the moment you came on here making statements that I lost credibility with you. You diminished my service when you generate a post that fails to understand what kind of environment we work in, and why we react the way we react out there.

No amount of back peddling, or justification, on your part could change that fact.

Yes, my experiences in Iraq makes me an expert when commenting on the stupidity of those journalists. I have every right to criticize the stupidity that those journalists displayed. If you go into the combat zone, you incur risks. What's stopping them, for instance, from going with a coalition unit? Considering that these units are the strongest units in the combat zone, and win every major conflict with the Anti Iraqi Force, it makes perfect sense, survivability wise, to go with the coalition forces, and do you reporting from there.

But these guys didn't.

My being there makes me an expert when it comes to judging their actions. There are way too many people out there that play two sides. They'd play the respectful profession by day, then become Anti Iraqi Force by night. That's the reality that these pilots worked in. Those camera men wouldn't be any different.


If you watch the tape, you'll see a clear indication of hostile intent. I'm sorry, but if the people with the weapons didn't mean any harm, they wouldn't be visually tracking the helicopter. If they were "friendly" or "neutral," they wouldn't have anything to fear from a U.S. helicopter. But they did what these guys normally do prior to engaging friendly forces.

That pilot, operating in these kinds of environments, reacted accordingly.

There was a curfew in place, and there was a major ground assault going on in that area. As with every instance of sector clearing, you always have people, that are up to no good, wondering around in those areas. The pilots, conducting surveillance around the areas where the clearing operations are taking place, see these people bipity bopping about. One of them scans the helicopter, the one that happened to have a launcher in his hands.

That's not the actions that someone, solely protecting a reporter, would do. Puling security in the corner, with a launcher in your hands, looking at the helicopter, then standing up like he did and still looking at the helicopter, doesn't describe someone minding their own business.

Especially when they're up and about, during a curfew, and acting the way they acted. I side with those pilots.

Bottom line, those reporters should've been nominated for the Darwin Awards. They made a stupid mistake. They were either common sense deprived, or they were up to no good. I can't show sympathy to people that don't use their heads, I saw plenty of that among the civilians in that video.

We have our own intel, which looks for more specific things than what these journalists look for. We don't need them to back what we found. We've done pretty good just going with our organic sources of information.

If anything, the majority of these journalists engaged in journalistic fraud by not giving an accurate report on the Iraq War. The enemy saw that, capitalized on that, and were encouraged to fight on. Something they wouldn't have done had the reporters did their job... instead of hoodwinking the public into thinking what they think now about the Iraq War.

No, these reporters didn't save us from more risks, many reporters put the military at a graver risk via journalistic miscarriage.

Your lack of knowledge on what really goes on in Iraq painfully showed with that post. If anybody has no credibility, it's you. Next time, be responsible enough not to insinuate that someone, with firsthand experience, has "no" credibility, or is "no" expert, because what they say conflicts with your views, which are based on 10 to 20 second news sound bites from biased sources.

Your main issue with me is that I'm using firsthand experience to prove your assumptions about the Iraq War wrong.

I've already spared a thought for those who aren't in uniform who incur a lot of risk in the combat zone. I know who they are... they're the people that do advanced maintenance and repair work so that we could continue to be mission capable. They're the people that actually go out there and do security, and other functions, so that the military could do more combat related work. These are the people that keep our major FOBs secure, that man the different logistics and personal comfort areas of the base, etc. I know who these people are, and have interacted with them. Those reporters don't qualify.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to tigreetsa)
Profile   Post #: 715
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:17:36 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

1. He is a writer.
2. he is funded by the govt.

so he is a govt writer.

Alex Jones said that there would be co-intel pro.

I did not think they had this much contempt tho.

Bob Chapman pretty much confirms what the CM board here as a group thinks.

This is why I do not go ga ga over guys are brag about serving.

The fact is there have been about of reporters die over the globe in the past year.

I could never be as smart as the OP. Most here need a lawyer to post here as anything you say is wrong.

"gotcha" tactics are what the US anymore.

the white house plans on sending 1000s onto the Internet- to effect the conversations.

Which leads me to follow the money. In the time he has served- whom got paid?

Wall Street. The mil serves Wall Street- not the peon here on Collar me.



You're using inductive fallacy, that's like saying that an increase in the number of churches leads to an increase in the number of bars in a city. I don't write for the government, as that would be a conflict of interest. What I do here, I do voluntarily for the reason I started this thread. You don't seem to go "ga ga" over anything that doesn't fall outside the moonbat conspiracy theories that you embrace, nor do you go "gag a" for posting with some coherent thought.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 716
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:26:38 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		So how many have you convinced here?


Has anyone been convinced?

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 717
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:28:02 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair


Wrong. Even the 9/11 report acknowledged that there were at least two terror groups in Iraq that were a part of Al Qaeda. Then we had Salman Pak, terror training camp in Iraq, that trained terrorists to do things, like hijact aircraft. The last Iraqi commander in charge of that post admitted to training Al Qaeda. So there were terrorists in Iraq. The Iraqis call Saddam, "the grandfather of terrorism." The terrorists are in Iraq today, albeit with a lesser presence than before thanks to our efforts.


The following are accounts from the 9-11 Commission's Report regarding the question of Iraq. The first regards Richard Clarke, the National Security Advisor:


No, the above was a cherry picked, small part, of the 9/11 Commission Report, not the report in its entirety. From this small part, you emphasized sentences you thought "supported" your web of deception as to what the report was trying to communicate. Richard Clarke is a bad example to use if you want to present an argument to people with critical thinking abilities. The man is a charlatan who'll shift his views to cater to what he thinks is the majority opinion... in order to "make a buck."

Clarke has written books. Going against a person, that the media disagrees with, gives Clarke something that writers covet... free large scale publicity via the mainstream media... which translates into new prospects, new clients/customers, which leads to increased sales... at minimal marketing costs.

RE: Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way."60 While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq.61

We have a case of he said/she said here. On one hand Clarke claims that Bush asked to entertain possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11. If this were true, it'd be a reasonable request, considering that we've been in a state of war with Iraq since operation Desert Storm. A cease fire isn't peace declared, but war put on hold. Saddam attempted to carry terror attacks against our interests around the time of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

The wording is also deceptive.

"Believed" is designed to weaken the confidence that one thing happened. This, in the face of a statement of what Clarke wrote... something evidenced by what he wrote... Compare these two and the author's intentions become obvious, that Clarke has "more credibility and believability," than Bush did. Which isn't the case to a critical thinker.

What really happened is that Clarke said one thing, and Bush said another thing, about the encounter. Since Bush has been consistent, and Clarke has been whishy washy, logic dictates that Clarke's account has a dash of shodiness to it.

The author should've stated that Clarke believed that Bush tried to raise the possibility, while Bush believed that some, or all of, Clarke's account was wrong, and that they both agreed that they met each other.

quote:



Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak,


The degree of confidence, by a bunch of desk jockeys, on the links is subjective... it's what they decide it should be. Their opinion doesn't change the facts though.

I've dealt with gathering tactical intelligence before, the concepts that we use are the same as above, where we report information with low to high confidence. When we reported something "with low confidence," we weren't saying that what it was we were reporting is wrong, or isn't the case. I've had one experience where I reported information that everybody else dismissed because they had low confidence in what I was looking at, and what I concluded from it. They dismissed my report, and raw data... just to have that action bite them in the arse later on... talking about being vindicated.

What they dismiss as "anecdotal" information is what you'd describe from firsthand experience. For instance, let's say you witness a fight on the yard across from your home. What your friends saw and described, as well as what you saw and described of the fight, is anecdotal evidence. It's what you saw, and you describe it in a way that shows the listener what you saw. Labeling it as anecdotal evidence doesn't make, what you observe, something other than the fact.

The part of your source that I emphasized, the Czech and Polish reports, are based on someone's firsthand account of what happened. The only reason to why this get's the "weak evidence" case is that the number of reports doesn't match their arbitrarily picked minimum number of reports required to make this a "strong" report.

This is as ridiculous as someone saying that the evidence that there were a couple of dead snakes within 75 meters of each other, on the same side of my running path, back in Virginia, is very weak, as I was the only one that saw and reported them.

The report doesn't support what you're insinuating, but it does add to my argument about the nature of asymmetrical warfare.

RE: the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Again, we have desk jockeys trying to come up with an authoritative assessment on people they didn't bother trying to understand. Their conclusions ignore both, Arab thought process and human nature. It ignores Arab thought process, as the following is an Arab saying: "An enemy of my enemy is my friend!" It also ignores human nature... two disagreeing parties closing ranks to fight what they see is a common enemy... one more threatening to them than they are to each other.

It's the same human nature that caused the United States and Soviet Union to fight on the same side, with support going from one to the other... something they wouldn't have done under a different situation given the animosity they had toward each other.

Even one of the leaders of the post Iraq invasion WMD inspection teams touched on the asymmetrical danger that we faced:

"...And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country." -- David Kay

RE: Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.62

This is a deceptive statement; it implies physical contact, or near physical contact, between Osama and Saddam, something that's not needed in a joint Iraqi-Al-Qaeda operation. For instance, the American and Iraqi forces are carrying out the mission in Iraq, neither Obama nor the Iraqi PM are physically together, in Iraq, making things happen.

Saying the above statement is like saying that the United States and Iraq didn't work together during our deployment, because the US President and the Iraqi PM weren't on the ground here, side by side, making things happen on a daily basis. They weren't "working together" on Iraqi streets to make things happen.

Completely asinine, and defies logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The second report regards Secretary of State Colin Powell:

quote:

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz-not Rumsfeld-argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.66 Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with," Powell told us. "And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem." Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight." 67 Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.68


This part destroys one of the rubbish that your side of the argument likes to throw around, the rubbish that Bush "believed" that Iraq was behind 9/11, as in directly responsible, without co-conspirators. The Administration didn't argue from that angle, but from an asymmetrical warfare angle.

George Bush dismissed the idea that Iraq was solely, or mainly, responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He identified the country that we had to go to first in the War on Terrorism... Afghanistan. He saw Afghanistan as the primary target. Meanwhile, while this was happening, we had the issue of Saddam not coming clean with WMD.

Under Asymmetrical Warfare, Saddam could give WMD to Al-Qaeda, who could deliver it to the United States, then use it. Saddam gets plausible deniability, while Al Qaeda gets bragging rights. Both accomplish their goals of inflicting damage on the United States. This is the asymmetrical warfare aspect that the administration argued.

vincentML: Perhaps you could show us your source in the 9-11 Report for the claim that "Even the 9/11 report acknowledged that there were at least two terror groups in Iraq that were a part of Al Qaeda."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad confederation. In Sudan, he established an "Islamic Army Shura" that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Al Qaeda also established cooperative but less formal relationships with other extremist groups from these same countries; from the African states of Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Uganda; and from the Southeast Asian states of Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Bin Ladin maintained connections in the Bosnian conflict as well.37 The groundwork for a true global terrorist network was being laid."

NOTE: It's this confederation that people have in mind when they say, "Al Qaeda." The authors try to separate the two, given the fact that it indicates that Bin Laden enlisted groups from countries that included Iraq. When you enlist, you join. Bin Laden's actions and statements tie him and Iraq under Saddam as a "team." More from the same source.

"He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel."

"Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you."14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers."

NOTE: When Bin Laden says "our," he's talking about the confederation that he built, he's talking for them, as their leader.

"Meanwhile, al Qaeda finance officers and top operatives used their positions in Bin Ladin's businesses to acquire weapons, explosives, and technical equipment for terrorist purposes. One founding member, Abu Hajer al Iraqi, used his position as head of a Bin Ladin investment company to carry out procurement trips from western Europe to the Far East."

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.5"

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connection"

NOTE: Not true, Salman Pak was a terror training camp in Iraq. Their commander admitted, to the Marines that captured the terror training camp, that they had trained Al Qaeda. There was a real airplane on this site, which was used as a training aid for hijacking aircraft. This is something that didn't exist in Afghanistan.

"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December."

NOTE: "An enemy of an enemy is a friend." --Arab saying

vincentML: I think you might be perpetuating a propagandist fabrication; but maybe not. I invite you to set the record straight and give us the quote from the 9-11 Commision Report.

In order to claim that I'm perpetrating propaganda, you have to prove me "wrong," which you've consistently failed to do. Propaganda is doing things like cherry picking someone's post, cutting their answers off, then claiming that they "didn't" answer your question. Propaganda is doing what you did with the 9/11 Commission Report, cherry picking what you thought supported your argument, while ignoring what I had to pull out for you... mentions of the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda prior to the invasion.

This is a feeble attempt on your part to come across as "someone in the middle," but your attitude and posts here give you away as someone that's on the far left, someone opposing me for ideological reasons.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 718
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:30:42 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Facechair, do you guys ever play tricks on the enemy? Like rigging up a dummy that looks like Bush or Obama in an empty building that you know they frequent, rigging it with explosives and having it drop down from the ceiling when theyt activate a tripwire, something like that?
If you're going to be in a war zone you might as well have some fun with the fuckers, right?
"Say the secret word for $50!"
"KA-BOOOM!"
Man if I were there I'd be doing all kinds of shit to them!
Do you guys still use "foo-gas?"


At this point, the Iraqi Army and police are fighting the Anti Iraqi Force. They go "Arab" on the AIF.

When we did ground operations, the majority of the hadjis would already be gone... In urban warfare, where you're clearing rooms, you don't have time to set booby traps. Doing so would give the whole operation away. You go in, clear the room, then clear the next room, then the next building, and so on until all the buildings within the cordoned area are cleared.

However, the Anti Iraqi Force likes to produce propaganda films. They'd do things like wait for an IED to take out one of the coalition vehicles. They'd wait for the coalition forces to leave the scene, then they'd film themselves shooting. When they're done, they'd splice the film, and make it look like they "won" a shooting battle with the coalition, with the burning vehicle highlighting their "victory."

So, after one of these IED instances took place, the SEALS took up positions covering the abandoned burning vehicle. Sure enough, the hadjis showed up to manufacture another false victory. They didn't get far... the SEALS took them and their camera man out. That's one film I'd love to see.

But as far as setting booby traps, no, we haven't done that. Our attacks have to be targeted, and within the rules of engagement. We don't want to kill the wrong people. The hadjis have attempted to set booby traps up though.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 719
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 6/22/2010 5:32:42 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Popeye, facechair says he is here to answer questions.... but only those which are not inconvenient for his propaganda bias. Don't confuse him.


What I say is applicable, and I've gone above and beyond in doing what I said I'll do. I'm here to answer questions, and I'm answering them based on knowledge gained from firsthand experience as well as extensive research. I've answered everybody's questions. Unfortunately, people blinded by ideology; ignorant about the nature of the war we're involved with; absolutely clueless about what's going on in Iraq; are going to accuse me of "dodging" their answers. In their uneducated minds, there's "only one" answer, the one they think is the answer. When someone dares to give an answer that contradicts with what they assume is the answer, that person is accused of "refusing" to answer questions, of "dodging" the answer, etc.

The only people that have perpetrated propaganda on my thread are you and everybody else that I'm debating against. Look at my responses to your posts, as well as those of your battle buddies. You people need to research the meaning of integrity... and quit pulling straws.

Do realize that your experiences, occupying the area within the 5 foot perimeter surrounding your home computer, doesn't match my experiences of actually combat deploying to Iraq. Comparing what I've seen in Iraq, and your comments here, I'll say that your cluelessness about what's going on in Iraq painfully shows.


_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 720
Page:   <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.156