|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/12/2010 4:39:09 PM)
|
vincentML: fact, the UN was very active vis a vis Iraq before our invasion. It had approved the no fly zones and the economic sanctions. It had approved our rebuff of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. So your assertion that the UN was not set up to deal with this situation is nonsense.
WRONG example. I was talking about Asymmetrical Warfare, I wasn't talking about symmetrical warfare, which is what you describe in this statement. The UN was designed to deal with the realities that existed during World War II, the symmetrical warfare realities. Chocking a country economically was a tactic that was used throughout history prior to World War II.
Those UN actions were taken in a symmetrical, NOT asymmetrical, context.
The Gulf War was more of a symmetrical war, with elements that lead to things changing into the asymmetrical warfare realm. However, at the time it happened, the conditions were those you found under symmetrical warfare, which is what the UN is designed to deal with. The mere fact that the UN "froze" and couldn't react to this threat for what it really was/is, speaks volumes about how removed the UN was from dealing with asymmetrical warfare. They weren't designed for that.
Try to READ what I say with the intentions of understanding what I'm saying before you pull crap out of your arse about what I've said, or asserted. KNOW what asymmetrical warfare is, and the difference between it and traditional warfare, before you comment on the topic.
vincentML: The only things asymmetric about our invasion of Iraq were the lies told to drive the nation into a frenzy for war. REPEAT POINT
WRONG on all accounts. The administration didn't lie about Iraq, they were spot on. Neither you, nor the people that I've debated with since coming back from OIF in the first place have "proven" that he "lied." Second; the basics that I previously explained. With Al Qaeda looking for ways to slaughter thousands of Americans on American soil, and with Saddam playing cat and mouse games with his WMD programs/WMD, against the UN, we couldn't stand by and let him play the games he played; stunts he pulled for over a decade. Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing him to do this is equivalent to allowing someone to play with matches in a flammable liquid room full of exposed flammable liquids, with conditions for them to catch fire. We HAD to take him out and neutralize the asymmetrical threat that he posed.
Again, KNOW what asymmetrical warfare is before you comment on it. You need to do more than just going through the mechanical motion of reading a wiki type article on it. I doubt that you'd ever truly understand what asymmetrical warfare is, for doing so would require you to discard your current opinions.
voincentML: Article 51 very clearly establishes the law for war between sovereign nations. REPEAT POINT
It clearly states what it states in SYMETRICAL warfare terms, NOT asymmetrical warfare terms. Those rules are outdated, and don't address the current threats and realities. Our acting on asymmetrical grounds didn't violate any UN rule, as none of their symmetrical warfare oriented rules applied to our asymmetrical warfare actions that the opposition is crying about.
vincentML: Yours is a newly created definition of the UN and it is in your mind only.
WRONG. It's reality, it's a "no brainer" to the majority of us who have combat deployed to the Middle East. It's plainly obvious to those who've bothered to understand how the enemy thinks and operates. For starters, read "Unrestricted Warfare," it scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare.
I'm NOT creating a new definition for the UN, I'm spelling out the NEW REALITY that an outdated UN is operating under.
vincentML: If it were true that the UN had no rules for this misadventure why did Colin Powell argue the case for war before the Security Council?
First things first, it's NOT a misadventure. It was the right war, at the right time, at the right place, for the right reasons. And it was successful.
Second, it was mere formality. We didn't have to do it, the United States Constitution didn't require us to go to the United Nations Security Council. It was something we did as a courtesy. Under asymmetrical warfare, all we need is a coalition of the willing to go in.
vincentML: Obviously, we conceded the UN had jurisdiction
Negative, that wasn't us "conceding" that the UN had jurisdiction, but giving them a chance to hop onboard an asymmetrical plan we had every intention of carrying out. It was us "just going through the formalities," partly to say that we tried that route and it didn't work. We were going in regardless of what the UN Security Council voted.
Our government didn't expect that UN to clear our invasion, many of the key nations on the Security Council, who refused back us, were benefiting financially from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
vincentML: but then went around them to construct a fictional "coalition of the willing."
This statement is an example of how your lack of understanding of the current war painfully shows in your posts.
First things first, the Coalition of the Willing was already formed by the time we went to the UN Security Council. Again, we had every intention of going in, regardless of what the Council voted.
Second, the coalition of the willing isn't fictional, but an asymmetrical reality. Since asymmetrical warfare is fluid, the alliances formed to engage in asymmetrical warfare must also be fluid. The UN, and the concepts for its military actions, were designed to deal with a symmetrical, World War II type environment. NATO is a rigid, Cold War type alliance designed to deal with the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. If Cold War era alliances don't adjust to asymmetrical warfare realities, then they'd be nothing but dinosaurs in our way. The Coalition of the Willing is the perfect type of alliance to deal with an asymmetrical war.
vincentML: Hence, we were Outlaw.
No, we weren't the outlaw, we'd have to break laws as one of the things to be considered one. There weren't any rules to break, as our actions were governed by our need to react to and neutralize an asymmetrical threat. The UN, as of 2003, had no articles addressing the asymmetrical warfare necessity of our actions.
vincentML: Our removal of Saddam was an unprovoked interference into the affairs of a sovereign nation.
Wrong on several accounts.
First things first, the Gulf War never really ended. Hostilities ended with a CEASE FIRE. A cease fire isn't a declaration of peace, but war put on hold. What could stop this war from remaining "on hold"? A violation of the cease fire from one or more parties. As part of their cease fire agreement, Saddam agreed to come clean and to dismantle/destroy his WMD programs. He failed to do that, almost immediately. Right then and there, we had every right to invade Iraq.
But we didn't. We decided to give diplomacy a chance, via continued inspection team efforts and sanctions. We tried this route for over a decade, with the inspections discontinuing before restarting, and sanctions lasting through the invasion. Then we had the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by an enemy looking to possess WMD. Again, under asymmetrical warfare, we had every right to react.
Your explanation, which is symmetrical in nature, is the wrong explanation to a discussion dealing with a part of asymmetrical warfare.
vincentML: "Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly."
OK, we've established that you can quote wiki, but you still demonstrate how you continue to fail to understand what you're reading, and by extension, you continue to fail to understand what asymmetrical warfare is about. That definition flew right over your head.
First things first:
1. whose relative military power differs significantly,
US Military versus the terrorists in real combat? The US Military wins, even the terrorists know that they can't take us on militarily. So how do you try to negate that advantage? See point number "2."
2. or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly
Since the terrorists can't take us on militarily, or deploy a military force, what options do they have? Well, let's see, Al Qaeda purchases WMD from Saddam. They take that WMD to Central America, then sneak it across the border into the United States. Then, with the terrorist saying, "Alah al Akbar!" Biological or chemical agents are released, and Americans are killed on American soil.
No cruise missile capability? Nineteen hijackers proved that there was a cheaper way to use a "cruise" missile. HENCE; different tactics.
Different strategy, different tactics. One strategy they use? To stoke the opposition to the war, and to zap our will to fight. I'll get back to this later in the post.
Let's repeat this.
DIFFERENT STRATEGY!
Do you even have an inkling of what a STRATEGY is? Apparently, from your response, you don't when it comes to asymmetrical warfare.
I've been arguing some of these "different strategies" over the years on both this, and other message boards.
vincentML: If the Outlaw Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie REPEAT POINT
They weren't outlaws, they didn't break any laws.
vincentML: anticipated (wrongly it turns out) that Iraq possessed and was prepared to use nuclear, chemical. and biological weapons against our troops this war hardly qualifies as asymmetric. REPEAT POINT
WRONG.
First, both sarin and mustard gas are both used against our troops post invasion. Both are chemical agents. WMD consists of 3 main components; nuclear agents, chemical agents, and biological agents. Hence, WMD was in Iraq, and they WERE used against our troops.
They anticipated correctly that there were WMD in Iraq. I've explained, in this thread, part of the reason to why the Iraq War is part of an asymmetrical war. Since you seriously lack any real knowledge of asymmetrical warfare, since you can't even understand what you're reading when you read about asymmetrical warfare, and since you obviously didn't combat deploy to Iraq, since you've either ignored or filtered the facts, you hardly qualify as someone that could talk about whether Iraq qualifies as asymmetric or not.
vincentML: In our Democracy it is the citizens of the nation who make choices of War and its value, not the soldiers who fight it. The Chain of Command begins at the ballot box and carries on through Public Opinion. Public opinion does not support our misadventure in Iraq.
Are you serious? Great, your lack of knowledge on common law, your lack of knowledge on the United States Constitution, and on how our founding fathers thought, painfully shows.
First things first, the United States is a REPUBLIC, one that operates on democratic principles. As such, we have a representative form of government. We vote for representatives, who hopefully turn around and vote on issues important to us.
The United States Constitution puts the president in charge of security, and makes his branch of the government the one in charge of enforcing the laws of the land. As part of those duties, the president is put in charge of the military. So what does this entail?
That it's the PRESIDENT, and those under him to include the military, that make the choices on war, and decide on its value, not the arm chair generals who are far removed from the military combat zone. There's a REASON to why our founding fathers fashioned things like that. As much as they argued in favor of democracy, our founding fathers didn't always trust public judgment and "wisdom."
The chain of command starts at the PRESIDENT, then works its way down.
As far as public opinion... one tactic the enemy uses, which is the main one, is to wear the people's will to fight down. Cause the American Electorate to lose the will to fight, and you'll win any war against the United States. The opposition, and those that oppose the Iraq War, are proof that the terrorists could indirectly manipulate the American mindset by directly manipulating our media.
The opposition are the people our enemies hope will win the war for them.
However, I'm going to go off what people on my travels, and via email, have told me. Doesn't matter where I've traveled, and I've traveled from the east coast to Arizona, all but one of the people that I met favored the Iraq War and what we were doing there. I'm not going to accept poll results from biased news organizations that use methodologies that bias people toward one kind of response or another.
vincentML: Your first hand observations merely blind you to seeing the forest for the trees. As a soldier you are subject to the will of the American people and the Iraq war does not have our supporrt. Your in country observations count for nothing except pumping up your own ego.
This comment demonstrates where the ego action is taking place. Do you see the arrogance you're demonstrating here?
We're arguing about the Iraq War. One of us has recently been there, the other hasn't. Meaning, I have first-hand observation experience, and you don't. I'm countering your arguments, based on regurgitated information, left and right using first hand experience. My first-hand experience doesn't blind me to the forest as a result of the trees... it causes me to see the forest when the rest of you are purposely seeing a few selected tree roots.
If you weren't arrogant in this argument, you'd have the integrity to use common sense... Arrogance causes you to continue debating about the Iraq War with someone who's combat deployed to Iraq... as opposed to you not having been there recently. Integrity would cause you to stop arguing against someone that knows better because of first-hand experience, and would force you to re-evaluate your opinions on the account that it doesn't jive with reality.
What misguided people want, with regards to this war, mean nothing. My hands on experiences, as well as the silent majority in this country who support what we're doing, weigh allot in this argument. Again, our enemies are banking on those Americans, who oppose the war, to win the war for them. I'm not saying that these people are "traitors," because they're not. They're simply useful idiots for our enemies.
vincentML: I am still awaiting your response to my posting of passages from the 9-11 Commission Report... that Iraq had connections to Al Quiada REPEAT POINT
WRONG! DUMBASS! Or should I call you a liar? You wrote that reply after I'd left, and I replied to you when I got back. I saw your erroneous assumption, and provided a counter rebuttal that included a quote from the 9-11 report that showed the fact that terrorist groups from countries, including Iraq, answering Bin Laden's call. It was more damming against your argument than the statement that I made.
Since you're either too lazy, or too stupid, to see my reply, here's a link to it, post number 718:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3193322/mpage_36/key_/tm.htm#3272581
vincentML: which debunk your assertion
Neither the report, nor your post, "debunked" my statements. The report didn't even support your arguments. Go ahead, nobody is looking, click on the link that I provided, AGAIN, and see how the report actually supported my argument.
vincentML: that these training facilities were identified in the Report, and that we had justification of any sort to go to war.
What you asked, which I answered 3 times already:
"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
NOWHERE, in that comment, do you ask me to find anything else from the report other than the groups that joined Al Qaeda from Iraq. Your attempts to throw the other stuff in there, then claim that I "failed" to answer your question, is your attempt at using red herring arguments... on top of your pulling straw-man arguments.
Stick with the topic guy.
I got the information for Salman Pak, terror training camp, from another other sources, including books. Those pictures, of Salman Pak, don't lie, and I'll put more credibility on what the Marines capturing that camp heard, over what anybody opposing the Salman Pak information would say.
I explained our justification for going to war, you need to read it without your ego pulling the strings.
vincentML: As Powell testified, Wolfie was hard pressed to justify the invasion. REPEAT POINT
And if you bothered to read the quote that you made, you notice that Wolf had a problem justifying an invasion of Iraq, in 2001 on the heels of the 9/11 attacks. The Administration properly put Afghanistan as the first country to be invaded.
vincentML: If you answered me please point me to it.
I did answer it, back in June, again before you said this, and again in reply to your last screed insinuating that I "didn't" reply to you. I did point it out to you.
I'm going to save you a lot of time by saying this... I'm going to give you the same, or similar, reply every time you ask me the same question. You could save both of us time by quitting your games.
vincentML: Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie committed a criminal act REPEAT POINT
No they didn't. Again, the UN had no rules that were applicable to asymmetrical warfare, as was applicable when dealing with Iraq back in 2003. There were no UN articles that applied to responding to an asymmetrical threat. Hence, any asymmetrical action they took, which obviously wasn't covered by the UN, doesn't constitute committing a criminal act when there was no asymmetrical law to break in the first place.
vincentML: that caused the lives of coalition soldiers, REPEAT POINT
Let's get something straight. You DON'T speak for the families of those service members killed, and you definitely DON'T speak for those soldiers that died.
Those soldiers died knowing that they were fighting for a good cause, mostly outlined in my arguments on this thread and on other threads/message boards. The majority died doing what they wanted to do. Their family members understood what their service members were doing, understood the risks their service members were going through, and have already received solace after their loved one's death. The vast majority of those service members, who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families, wouldn't want turds like you using their loved one's death as an argument point against the very cause the fallen service-members believed in.
vincentML: an even greater number of lives of innocent Iraqui civilians,
First, Saddam Hussein, and his government, killed far more Iraqis than what were killed post invasion. Our going into Iraq prevented this trend, and freed the Iraqi people from living in fear most their waking moments. Second, most of the Iraqis that died post invasion died in the hands of the insurgents. Those insurgents could easily have decided not to kill innocent civilians, but they didn't take that route, they decided to kill innocent people, levy the blame on the terrorists, and not on the coalition, who utilized precision fires and the rules of engagement.
vincentML: and the dislocation of millions of Iraquis into Jordan and Syria.
Many of whom returned to Iraq.
Also, their ability to freely leave Iraq was an option they didn't have when they were living in fear under Saddam. Either way you look at it, we gave the Iraqi people a better option, or opened more doors for them to improve their lots. However, the dislocation reversed and the Iraqis are still coming into Iraq to pick up where they left off at.
vincentML: Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States. Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. REPEAT POINT
WRONG. With Al Qaeda looking for WMD and a means to killing more Americans than before, and with Saddam playing cat and mouse with the UN with regards to its WMD programs, Saddam's Iraq posed an imminent asymmetrical threat to the United States. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to deploy an army to be an imminent threat, all you need is the POTENTIAL to be a threat to be an imminent threat in an asymmetrical warfare environment.
vincentML: Your attempt to rewrite that history and cover up the tragic misadventure is disgusting.
Again, we're both arguing about the Iraq War.
Me: Recent combat deployment to Iraq; ben there, done that, etc.
You: Obviously have never been to Iraq
You hold fast to an opinion of Iraq based on what reporters wanted you to know about Iraq, and I consistently prove you wrong with facts I observed on the ground in Iraq, or facts from extensive research that I've done.
What's happening here is that I'm reporting the facts, what's really happening in Iraq. What you're mistaking as my "trying to change history," and "trying to cover things up," is you reacting to my throwing facts against Iraq opinions that you have... facts that are causing you to doubt your politically biased opinion about the Iraq War.
What's really happening is that YOU'RE the one trying to change history. I say that because what you say happened doesn't match with what I KNOW happened. The fact that you don't see how powerful your arrogance, and biases, are and how they're blinding you to reality, is disgusting.
|
|
|
|
