|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/14/2010 4:50:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
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.
The fact that you feel the need to call me names and use crude language clearly shows your lack of decency and integrity in this debate. But I will be pleased to look past your sophomoric needs.
Oh really? Need I remind you what your response to me was after my first reply to you? Let's take a trip down memory lane:
"Excuse me. I have read your rant and I do not see where you answered my questions." -- vincentML
Not only was that an outright lie, it was an ATTACK. You fired the first shot, you've continued to do so, and I've been retaliating since then.
and it doesn't stop there. You continue to deny the fact that I answered your questions, going as far as excluding, in your quotes of me, the parts of my post that specifically answer your questions.
And get this.
I've previously stated that I'll get back with any post that counters my post. You made your post, then I answered that post. You jumped in and claimed that I didn't reply to you, and insinuated that I failed to. When I came back and provided you the link proving that insinuation wrong, you turned around and demanded that I provide you the answer. Once again, you denied that I answer you.
You may not have used name calling in this example, but by your doing the above, you essentially called me a liar. That gave me the right to turn around and continue to fire back at you. You repeatedly accusing me of not answering you, when I did, is worse than sophomoric, it's childish.
Now, let's speak about integrity.
Attacking you as a result of you attacking me has nothing to do with integrity as I've used it on this thread; in this case, integrity is doing the right thing when you're tempted to do the wrong thing. Seeing that I answered your question, and addressed your post, then your turning around and denying that I didn't provide you the answer/response, reeks of lack of integrity.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Look at the error you make above. The cease fire was between Iraq and the United Nations coalition... not between Iraq and the United States. The United States had no legal right to invade regardless of what Saddam did or did not do. The contract was between Saddam and the UN Coalition.
WRONG! I didn't make an error. The United States was part of the United Nations effort to remove Saddam from Kuwait. The United States lead the effort behind the drive to get Saddam out of Kuwait. We were a PARTY to that war, our effort forced Saddam to agree to the cease fire. Per common law, the moment he violated the cease fire, we, as a party involved with getting that cease fire, had every right to go in. It doesn't matter WHO signed the contract or not, the United States was a party that brought about the events that made possible for the UN and Saddam to come up with a cease fire agreement. Also, your argument doesn't dismiss the fact that a cease fire isn't peace declared, but war put on hold.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
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.
All hypothetical. You have been reading too many comic books.
Hence what the two Chinese Colonels said:
"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.
Means contrary to tradition, or operation other than military means... one rule of thumb, if it's a tactic, or reality, that someone would dismiss as "hypothetical," then it's a valid tactic under asymmetrical warfare.
Let's put your philosophy into action on something that actually happened.
In the mid 1990s, one of Presdent Clinton's daily classified briefings talked about the Bojinka Plan. It was a plan that including using airliners as cruise missiles in the hands of suicide bombers. Vice President Gore was commissioned to come up with solutions to counter that from ever happening. The commission came up with solutions.
Did the President push on having these happen? Did anybody? Well, history provides us the answers.
Who'd ever try flying aircraft into buildings! The attacks of 9/11 were unimaginable to the major public prior to 9/11 2001. Most the public would've seen that as HYPOTHETICAL, as something that'd only happen in the movies, but not in real life. But it happened, the world's initial reaction was pure shock... even our Cold War enemies strongly condemned the attacks.
It's your thought process that needs to prevail if the enemy is to win. Your thought process is the key ingredient that they need to win over us. Even under symmetrical warfare, there are two examples I could give where something dismissed as "not likely" ended up being fatal.
Nothing hypothetical about this, it's an example of how our enemies think... Remember, Osama Bin Laden was looking to gain possession of WMD. Who was his target number 1? You guessed it, it was the United States. Hmmm, if he got his hands on WMD, who would he use it on first? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
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 Constitution gives the War making power to Congress. In the case of Iraq the Congress did not issue a War Declaration but were cowed by the national hysteria (still visible in your rant btw) to pass a resolution permitting the President to "use all available methods," which was cowardly on the part of Congress and had in it the seeds of Dictatorship.
Congress, carrying out those responsibilities, turned around and created the War Powers Act, which authorized the President to do what they've been doing since Grenada. Congress recognized that there are going to be situations where combat forces would have to be committed before congress could come around to declaring war. The president can deploy forces, with consent from congress, without congress declaring war.
For your opinion about Congress "being cowed by national hysteria" to be true, they would have to act in the opposite direction as well. For instance, if you insinuate that the majority of the Americans oppose the Iraq War, and given their reaction in the 2008 Elections, Congress could've been "cowed" by public sentiment and demanded that the troops get pulled out of Iraq.
They didn't. Heck, Obama has been in office for approximately a year and a half. The Democrats held the majority since 2007. For your theory to apply, they should've ordered us out of Iraq a long time ago, given your statements about public opinion and the war.
The reality is that congress acted in the country's best interest when they authorized the President to take his actions against Saddam.
What you dismiss as "hysteria 'visible' in my 'rant,'" is actually reality that subjects your misconceptions to blistering scrutiny. Some of what I'm basing this "hysteria" on is on what the hostiles have said. You need to study everything that's involved with our geopolitical, and geostrategic, situation before you ramble on what's "hysteria" and what isn't.
For instance, the fact that the United States Constitution doesn't require us to ask the UN's permission before we go to war doesn't constitute "hysteria." It's just me providing the facts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Use whatever definition of asymmetric you may wish, invent any imaginary WMD that you might, History will never view our attack upon Iraq as righteous, but as shameful and a needless waste of young lives.
There's nothing imaginary, or made up, about WMDs or asymmetrical warfare. A study of our enemies will indicate heavy use of asymmetrical warfare to try to counter Western Civilization's technological, military, economic, political, etc. advantage. Perhaps you could tell those soldiers, both US and Iraqi, that the chemical warfare agents used against them was "imaginary." Heck, I'd love to watch you attempt to explain to them that the symptoms, and physical, side effects resulting from their chem agent related attacks were "imaginary."
History is going to look back at our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in similar ways they view Lincoln's move against the South, and our moves against Germany and Japan. Heck, the majority of the population either didn't care for or opposed the American Revolution. People had their misgivings about our move to "go at it on our own" without the United Kingdom over us. But, throughout history, we proved those nay sayers wrong. Heck, I remember when they lambasted Ronald Reagan for his policies against the Soviet Union... that he was going to get us all killed, cause thermo nuclear war, that he was going to simply screw things over. Today? There are books written talking about how his policies contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union... I remember a time when the threat of nuclear warfare was foremost in our minds... not much in the forefront as it used to be.
I guarantee you, your assessment of how the world is going to see the liberation of the Iraqi people isn't going to be anywhere near what you say it'll be.
|
|
|
|
