|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/7/2010 7:00:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
I'm here on R and R from Iraq. Ben deployed there with 1 ID. Figured I'd start a thread to answer questions you guys may have about what's going on there. [:D]
Oooo... me, me, please, me!
How can you justify our invasion of a sovereign nation in violation of United Nations Article 51? REPEAT POINT
The United Nations was created to address symmetrical warfare, NOT asymmetrical warfare. The United Nations had no laws that addressed asymmetrical warfare. Our removing Saddam Hussein was an act of asymmetrical warfare. Since the United Nations didn't have any rules covering asymmetrical warfare, there were no rules for us to break; HENCE, we didn't commit an outlaw act.
The ONLY authority we need when it comes to waging war is THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Nowhere in our constitution does it state that we need to ask another country/countries' permission before waging war. We went to the UN Security Council as an act of courtesy, an act that wasn't really needed, as the United Nations was a symmetrical dinosaur in an asymmetrical world.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
REPEAT POINT
What was the imminent threat that justified our invasion?
REPEAT POINT
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.
vincentML: Where are the WMD's? REPEAT POINT
"In terms of Iraq and WMD, WMD were in Iraq. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, and on other threads on this and other boards, sarin and mustard agents are WMD. Their existence, and use, in Iraq post invasion proves wrong the fallacy that Iraq had "no" WMD. This isn't just logic, it's common sense." --herfacechair
vincentML: Where in the 9-11 Commission Report are we to find your claim that Al Quaida operatives were training in Iraq before the war? (Oh I have asked that twice and you continue to evade the question) REPEAT POINT
What you asked:
"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." --vincentML
What I replied with:
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."
First things first, you can't even get straight what YOU'VE asked me. How could you expect a critical thingker to believe anything else that you say?
Second, my first reply to you, post number 718:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3193322/mpage_36/key_/tm.htm#3272581
That's proof that I replied to you the first time. I hadn't delivered my next batch replies before you accused me of "avoiding" your question.
Are you fucking serious? Again, for the reading impaired:
Since this hasn't clicked with you after 40+ pages, I'm going to spell this out for you. For every post countering my posts, I provide a counter rebuttal. I'm anal about replying to people in an argument. Guaranteed, if you reply to me, I'm going to reply to you. One more time for the reading impaired:
"So even if I don't get back to you as a result of my going back to Iraq, I'll get back to you, and everybody else on this thread, when I get back... Which will be weeks after I get back there. So can it with your hopes that I leave this thread alone, not happening." --herfacechair
Not replying to the opposition represents FAILURE... and I DON'T FAIL! If what I just explained above is too complex to grasp, here's a simple way to put it...
I'm a reply freak.
Only a LIAR will accuse me of avoiding their responses.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
We've accomplished what we came here to do... set up a government that can govern, and a military/police force that could provide security for the people... and enforce its laws.
Where was that ever announced as our mission in 2003?
If the mission was accomplished, why are we still there?
What George Bush actually said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." -- President George Bush
NOWHERE in there did he say that MINOR COMBAT OPERATIONS were over! And get this! If you read that article, you'll see why we're still there:
"And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." --George Bush
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave -- and we will leave behind a free Iraq." --George Bush
WHERE, in that article, does it say that the mission was "accomplished"? WHERE? Please go through the text of Bush's speech, and quote where you insinuate where he said that the mission was "accomplished!" Thank you. You're invited to actually read the article to find out what ACTUALLY happened instead of pulling things out of your arse about what allegedly happened.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
What was our strategic national interest that made it a righteous war?
Do you know what a righteous war is?
First things first, WHERE, in my posts, do I argue about righteous wars? QUOTE me where I specifically state that we're fighting a "righteous" war. Thank you.
Second, strategic national interests. AGAIN:
You claim that 9/11 was from Afghanistan, and implied that attacking Iraq was something "outside" of 9/11. Guess what? Non of the 19 hijackers were members of the Taliban, non were Afghani. They were from Saudi Arabia and one other country... yet we attacked the Taliban, we invaded Afghanistan. Under conventional warfare thinking, attacking either wouldn't make sense.
But, this war was never just about, 9/11, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, etc. These were the catalyst that got us into a war that was already being waged against the west.
A war that should be called, "The terrorist war to exterminate western civilization and to establish Islamic holy law throughout the world," rather than just, "The war on terrorism." Iraq is/was very much a part of this war, the asymmetrical threat that faced/face us.
Saddam had to be done away with under asymmetrical warfare context. This fact was seen by Bush' predecessor, Clinton, who concluded that regime change had to take place in Iraq. Saddam's removal was a bipartisan conclusion, a conclusion to what both presidents saw as an ultimate threat to the US's security.
Iraq, under Saddam, didn't have a good infrastructure. If you see most the buildings, and infrastructure, in that country, you'd notice allot of decay, decades of decay. There's no way that those buildings got in that shape as a result of the war... they got that way for decades. Buildings that got destroyed as a result of the war are obvious... they have evidence on them, or a part of them, that they were destroyed by war. The majority of the buildings are simply dilapidated, and in different stages of ruin, due to decades of maintenance neglect.
Saddam was no moderate, or liberal, compared to the Arab leaders in the region. He hosted radical terrorist conventions, made death to America threats, filled mass graves, and had torture that involved shoving people down plastic shredders feet first.
This war was never about oil. If we were about invading countries with plenty of oil supplies, we would've invaded Venezuela. Again, we get the majority of our oil supplies from the western hemisphere, with Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela being our biggest oil suppliers.
Third, you've got no legs to stand on when asking people if they know what a war, of any kind, is. Your posts painfully show that you have no clue about what war is, or about the nature of the current war that we're involved with.
|
|
|
|
