herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
Lack of knowledge on asymmetrical warfare painfully shows in the post I’m replying to.
mnottertail: Yah, again.........your opinion is your opinion,
Don’t mistake a reasoned argument backed by facts and logic as just an opinion.
An opinion is something that anybody could say that reflects what they think of something. But as soon as you present a reasoned argument to back what you say, and you could back that with facts, history, and other events, it’s no longer an just opinion. It’s a reasoned assessment at worse, a fact at best.
Not in the same category as what the other side of the argument does here, opinions that amount to things being pulled out of thin air.
mnottertail: does not answer the question posed,
NEGATIVE. I’ve done more than enough to answer your question.
You asked if Iraq posed an asymmetrical threat to us, and I gave you more than just an answer. I gave you the answer backed by a reasoned argument based partly on what I’ve heard the enemy say, and based on what I’ve studied, learned, and took part in with regards to asymmetrical warfare.
Again, you’ve failed to go to the link to the book Unrestricted Warfare so that you could study up on the very basics of asymmetrical warfare.
You don’t know jack about unrestricted warfare, so you don’t know the right answer enough to say that you weren’t answered.
Again, this is asymmetrical warfare. You CAN’T judge this as if it were a symmetrical war, like World War II was.
I answered the question posed, you need to get off your keister and LEARN what asymmetrical warfare is before you dismiss any question that properly ties Iraq under Saddam to the asymmetrical threat they posed to us as an “opinion” or as my “not” answering your question.
mnottertail: and in the twelve year lull in which Saddam pulled back from Kuwait (after we told him we didn't much give a fuck if he invaded it, and went bugshit because he took the whole country)
What lull? We traded fire with Saddam’s Iraq throughout those 12 years. In case you’ve forgotten, we enforced no fly zones. From your own link:
“Iraq had been an enemy of the United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations.”
During that 12 year “lull”, Saddam disregarded his part of cease fire agreement. THAT alone gave us the right to go in and invade Iraq. You see, a cease fire isn’t peace, but war put on hold. As soon as one side violates that cease fire, the other side has every right to drop their end of the bargain and resume combat operations.
We didn’t, we gave diplomacy a chance for the remainder of the time.
And don’t tell me that you don’t see the contradiction in your own statements.
No, we didn’t tell him that we didn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. If we didn’t care, we wouldn’t have gone in to liberate them in the first place. Our government wouldn’t be dismissive of something like that, or give another country hints that we didn’t care if they took that entire country . . . one that we have some interest in.
mnottertail: the gasoline was just flooding all over and matchmakers working overtime. you could smell it........
We get most our “gasoline” from the western hemisphere. That was the case then, that’s been the case now. We get more from the Americas than we get from the Middle East.
So, they’re not even our primary suppliers. And, out of the Middle East, we don’t get anywhere near from Iraq what we get from the other countries.
For your assumption to work, we’d have to play these games in Venezuela, in 2003, where it’s obvious they’re under the control of someone that doesn’t like us.
mnottertail: I don't think so, don't buy the assumptions and don't buy the deal, never did, and never will.
What I’m seeing here is that you’re refusing to see the facts and realities that contradict what I see is a conspiracy theory.
Hate to break this to you, but your posts and explanations are on par with the numerous, easily proven wrong, conspiracy theories I’ve heard.
Again, study up on unrestricted warfare, link provided earlier, and LISTEN to what our enemies are saying. It’s revealing.
The information is available to prove my point.
mnottertail: His WMD games (we knew what he actually had in inventory, we sold it to him for the war with Iran, and knew what he expended) were for the benefit of his posturing with Iran......and as it turns out, it is apparent that Iran takes a keen interest in Iraq........
NO, we didn’t provide him with his WMDs. The only thing that we provided Iraq during the Iraq Iran war was intelligence data. We provided them with satellite and other data on what the Iranians were doing.
We didn’t provide them with hard inventory. We didn’t provide him with WMD either.
You see, the technology needed to develop chemical agent WMD has been around since before World War I. Iraq, as of the 70s, was either on par or more advanced than the nations that developed WMD before World War I.
To turn around and say that we “supplied” him that inventory is to demonstrate arrogance, ignorance, and a serious lack of knowledge of both early and late 20th century history.
As far as Iran taking an interest in Iraq during this time, did you forget a little bit of detail? That Iraq invaded Iran perhaps? Iran’s current interest stems more from the regime’s long term survival than anything else.
Also, it took Saddam’s Iraq way to long to declare what it had and what it didn’t have. First, they should have inventory records from the past. It’s a simple matter of doing a wall to wal inventory, then reconciling that inventory at the local level before consolidating the inventory at higher levels.
Then it’s a matter of making this transparent to the U.N.
mnottertail: that shouldn't be news to even the profoundly imbecilic.
It shouldn’t be news, because it ISN’T news. The facts don’t support your comment.
mnottertail: So, the WMD savior theory is lame,
The only things that I see is lame here is your reading comprehension failure (nobody is arguing WMD savior), your conspiracy theories as to what’s happening, as well as your refusing to study up on something that has everything to do with what we’re arguing about.
However, it’s a fact that Al-Qaeda was seeking WMD to be inflicting more harm on the US. It’s a fact that the saying, “An enemy of my enemy is my friend” is an Arab saying, and it’s a fact that Saddam wanted to inflict harm on the U.S.
Let’s not forget the “Death to America” speeches he has made against the United States.
Even David Kay recognized the significance of what I’m saying here.
mnottertail: as is the 1441 shit,
No it isn’t. It basically told Iraq to do something, or else. Saddam failed to do that something, and we held him to it.
That something was tied to our long term security.
Again, his violation of his part of the cease fire agreement was more than enough reason for us to go in and invade. But we didn’t. We gave diplomacy a chance. He constantly violated his side of the deal.
Given the asymmetrical threat that we faced with his intentions to reconstitute his programs, and Al-Qaeda’s wanting WMD, we couldn’t sit by and let things go on as they’ve gone for the past 12 years.
We actually put teeth in that resolution. Without witch, it wouldn’t have been worth the piece of paper it was printed on.
mnottertail: because there are many countries in violation of UN security resolutions (most notably Israel) but we dont waltz in there defending the UN.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
First, Israel was doing things that it had the right to do to maintain its survival. Second, Israel’s refusal to let the UN violate its sovereignty isn’t something that poses an asymmetrical threat to the U.S.
Having said that, for your statement to apply, those other nations would have to meet ALL the following conditions:
1. Violate a cease fire agreement that “halted” a war they had with us.
2. Invaded two nations within the span of 10 to 12 years as of the last 20 years of the 20th century.
3. Repeatedly used chemical WMD against its own people.
4. Played cat and mouse games with the UN with regards to its WMD programs.
5. Pose an asymmetrical threat to us by doing the above 4.
Unless those other nations you talk about meet ALL those conditions, your statement is nothing but an apples and oranges comparison at best, a red herring at worst.
mnottertail: This pretty much Now interestingly enough since the UN has 'siezed the resolution in committee' the US is in violation of the resolution by going in, thing is as permanant members, there will never be resolutions against the UK, US, China, France or Russia.
The U.S. didn’t violate any of the U.N. resolutions by going into Iraq.
Understand that the U.N. was set up after a symmetrical war, and was designed to address symmetrical threats and issues.
We’re involved with an asymmetrical war, of which Iraq under Saddam, and Iraq against the insurgency, are very much a part of.
The UN had NO rules, resolutions, or anything governing asymmetrical warfare, and acts needed to carry asymmetrical warfare out.
Our action was asymmetrical in nature.
quote:
Iraq had nothing to do with terrrorism against the United States or 9/11.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm
First, did you bother reading the report? Or are you just going off what the news told you?
Reading that report, a person would find that the link between the 9/11 terror attacks between Saddam and 9/11 were weak. That’s not saying that there was none. It’s saying that they didn’t have enough data to decide, for a fact, whether there was or were no connection.
Second, here’s what the President said, per your link:
“When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem.”
Third, you’re missing the point if you’re just narrowing this to the 9/11 attacks. Again, this is asymmetrical warfare, DON’T view this as you would a symmetrical war, like World War II.
The terror attacks of 9/11 demonstrated how a fluid entity could strike us without armed forces, and without intercontinental ballistic missiles.
It opened many people’s eyes to the asymmetrical realities that someone with WMD would give some to the terrorists, so that they could strike within our soil. The terrorists could claim responsibility and bragging rights, while the nation that provided them the WMD could maintain plausible deniability.
That’s asymmetrical warfare at work.
Fourth, Saddam’s actions, per your own link, were suspect when 9/11 approached. According to the author of “Losing Bin Laden”, Saddam redeployed his forces and assets OUT of his military bases that day. Lets not forget two paintings that invading troops uncovered:
1. A large painting of Saddam smoking a cigar right next to the twin towards, his cigar pointing in the direction of where the airplanes hit.
2. A school mural showing an airliner crashing into a building.
Then, we have the Salman Pak terror training camps, where terrorists were trained to take over airliners with boxcutters among other things. They didn’t have those in Afghanistan.
When a dictator pays family members of homicide bombers in the occupied territories, makes death to America threats during radical terrorist conventions, comments on how he’d send the nuclear bomb to Washington if he had a nuclear weapon, only a fool would dismiss his connections to the asymmetrical threat Iraq posed against us.
quote:
This, according to your government.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush:_Quotes
From that link:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- State of the Union 2003 Address (1/28/2003).
Again, sarin was found post invasion.
mnottertail: There are many more,
Since your side of the argument keeps missing the point, I’m going to repeat it here.
I’ve debated against your argument, as well as that of other people I’ve debated here, for four years. You’re not the first person to mention this to me, and you certainly won’t be the last person to argue your points.
And yes, they’ve tried to use the sources that you’re talking about. Just to have me turn around and use those sources AGAINST them.
In most instances, this results from them buying what the media tells them, hook, line, and sinker. I guess that’s easier than going through the same raw data themselves, reading what those documents actually say, and coming to their own conclusions . . . instead of allowing the media to lead them to a conclusion.
This is one of those instances when shortcuts aren’t always the best route.
It’s a good thing that you didn’t provide that “many more” here, as that would’ve given me many more of your sources to use against you. And I’d still have the same argument I had before seeing those sources.
mnottertail: and since the press quotes the deceptions and lies,
If they’re quoting the administration in their entirety, they’re not quoting deceptions and lies. They’re quoting those people’s assessments of the situation, based on their information sources.
If they’re quoting bits and pieces, and parts of what they’re saying, and taking them out of context, then it’s the media that’s spreading deception and lies.
Understand that the people you accuse of giving deception and lies are giving good assessments that they could back with a reasoned argument, and the sources of information they use.
I give them something I don’t give your arguments . . . credibility.
mnottertail: and the military is in the business of warring, and public support is necessary to continue, there is no wonder why these examples should demonstrate why our military loves the press. Which I believe is the discussion here.
You missed the point behind the title.
Take all my posts on this thread arguing my position, and you’ll get the gist of the sarcasm behind the title of this thread.
Why the military “loves” the press? We don’t. One of the reasons to why we don’t quite “love” the press is that the majority of them fail to put things into proper perspective. Take Iraq for instance. One common troop complaint is that the Iraq as reported in the news is tremendously different from the Iraq that they’ve just spent a year in.
Far different.
They see lots of progress, where the media makes it look like things are going to hell in a hand basket there. That encourages the enemy to hang on and fight, thus cause more casualties when we otherwise wouldn’t have those casualties.
And it speaks volumes when members of the press refuse to film or report on things that represent the majority of what’s going on there . . . what’ll actually reflect the totality of what’s going on.
“the military is in the business of warring”
Remember THAT before you dismiss an answer I give you, based partially on my military experience, as just my “opinion” or my “not” answering your questions.
< Message edited by herfacechair -- 11/7/2007 1:55:57 PM >
|
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 
Profile
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 
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