|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/20/2010 4:52:24 PM)
|
thompsonx: That is clearly your opinion but could you please show us just where in the u.n. charter it speaks of "symetrical warfare"? Red Herring + Strawman Argument
Their charter addresses symmetrical warfare, NOT asymmetrical warfare. Everything that was contained in your quote was symmetrical warfare in nature, with the intentions of addressing symmetrical, not asymmetrical warfare. Expecting the people that wrote the charter to know terms that's commonly used in the 21st Century, to describe a 21st Century War, is completely asinine. That charter was written in the middle of the 20th Century with the assumption that warfare would remain "frozen" in the World War II, (symmetrical warfare) sense. Wars, and what constitutes the acts of war, and what's needed to address war, or the potential for one, have changed. Bottom line, the United Nations Charter didn't address asymmetrical warfare.
thompsonx: Just because you choose to see a difference you expect everyone else to agree with you.
You're precisely what these two Chinese Colonels had in mind when they wrote this:
"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.
The use of "US Military" in this sense is also interchangeable with the US population, Western Population, as well as the traditional nation.
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 "exists only in your mind" 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.
Bottom line, I'm seeing the reality that the people I'm debating with refuse to see.
thompsonx: They are your opinions not anyone's facts Your "facts" are simply your opinion.
Don't dismiss facts as "opinions." Books have been written on asymmetrical warfare, doctrine has been written to address it. It's reality, it's fact.
thompsonx: I have addressed your contention that it is ok for enlisted men to punch out officers as long as they actually follow the officers orders.
Wrong, I never said that it was OK for enlisted to punch officers as long as their orders were followed. I talked about a scenario where officers issued stupid orders, they were presented with better options, they chose the stupid option, the enlisted carry the orders out, people get injured/killed, officer subsequently gets knocked on his azz.
Nowhere in there do I even insinuate that it's OK to punch officers out. I'm just explaining what actually happens in certain circumstances.
All you did here is present a strawman argument; you took me out of context, addressed what you think I said instead of what I actually said, then turn around and claim that I contended something that wasn't even anywhere near what I was getting across. So you never really addressed this point, and you definitely failed to prove me "wrong."
thompsonx: I have addressed your contention that your squid daddy spent six years in country as bullshit.
All you did was give your opinion that my dad "didn't" serve in Vietnam. I countered you with the facts, that he did 6 combat tours in Vietnam... I saw his old award orders for one of the combat tours that he did. Unlike you, my dad served. You could sit there, having never served, and fart the opinion that my dad "didn't" serve all you want, that doesn't change the fact that unlike you, he served in Vietnam.
This wasn't a contention, but fact.
thompsonx: I have addressed your contention that there were weapons of mass destruction based on your contention that two ieds which did not work had some degraded bio-agent.
No, what you tried to do was dismiss the fact that sarin and mustard agents used against our troops in Iraq "were not" WMD. Then you changed that to "agents that didn't work," which amounted to intellectual dishonesty on your part. Tell that to the service members that got treated at a clinic for exposure to a chemical agent. Tell the Iraqis that got treated for mustard agent exposure that the "burn marks" they got all over their abdomens were caused by WMD that didn't work.
Fact of the matter is that mustard, sarin, and blister agents are chemical agents, HENCE are Weapons of Mass destruction. Since they were used in Iraq post invasion, Iraq HAD WMD.
Again, this is FACT, not contention.
thompsonx: I have addressed your contention that the anglo-amerikan bombing actually caused damage to the iraqi infrastructure and that it was not falling down from lack of maintainence.
I never argued that our bombing of Iraq caused damage to the Iraqi infrastructure. I argued, based on fact, that the vast majority of the destruction of Iraqi Infrastructure resulted from DECAY due to lack of maintenance and upkeep. REMEMBER, unlike you, I was there. I saw their infrastructure, and there was no way in hell that all that decay, wear and tear resulted from our invasion of Iraq. Your opinion, that we "destroyed," the "majority or all" of their infrastructure simply defies common sense.
Again, what I say here is fact based on personally seeing their infrastructure, not contention.
In every one of those instances, you FAILED to prove your point. All you did was fart the opinion that you claim that you addressed above. I came back and proved you wrong with a reasoned argument backed by one or both, my experiences in Iraq, and my extensive research on the topics I've debated on this thread.
|
|
|
|
