herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
SimplyMichael: The problem with responding to your posts is figuring out which is the most asine parts.
Strip the ego aside, and we’ll find the real problem you have responding to my posts . . . your inability to respond to a fact backed argument. The trend that I’ve noticed is that you’ll find what you think is my “weakest” argument, where you think I’ll have the hardest time fighting back, and you’ll respond to that.
And when you pick a comment to address, you take me out of context, or misunderstand what I’m getting across.
This makes hammering your statements that much easier.
SimplyMichael: Oh, and for the future, youtube and encyclopedias are not suitable for citing,
This coming from the guy that said this:
“If she were she would know that Republicans are allergic to proof, evidence, and in most cases, the blatantly obvious.” -SimplyMichael
You can’t rebut the facts, or valid points, that they contain, so you resort to attacking the sources.
Whether you like it or not, the links I provided are backed by other information sources that I’ve read, including books on the topic. The You Tube video did a wonderful job mocking the idiocy of the idea that we could work anything out with Iran to our mutual benefit.
Unlike you, that video’s author recognizes the realities in that region.
What you’re really saying is that I shouldn’t site valid sources that prove you wrong.
SimplyMichael: nor are white house press releases unless I can quote Clinton’s…
I doubt that you’d accept Clinton’s quotes if they go against your argument.
This fits your modus operandi. Sources and people that say things that you don’t agree with are “morons, not credible, bad sources,” etc. But the sources that you agree with are “credible,” even if they’re some lefty’s biased opinion piece.
But now that you said something about Clinton, thought I’d help you take a trip down memory lane:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
quote:
President Clinton Statement, December 16, 1998
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
I see the same thing with this comment about the White House press releases. You fail to address the facts they contain, just mock the sources. I could see if you were saying that about a wikipidea article that’s supported only by opinion pieces. But I brought things up that are supported by fact.
SimplyMichael: I agree with you here, I just don’t think you have the slightest concept of how that applies.
What you think, and what I know to be fact, strongly contradict each other.
I’ve got a very good grasp of what asymmetrical warfare entails, you don’t. I live in a military metropolitan area. I’ve yet to talk to anyone, who understood asymmetrical warfare, that disagreed with my assessment. I’ve yet to meet someone, that understood the concept of how it applies, who said the same things you said.
This applies to the online community. Every person that has understood asymmetrical warfare agreed with my assessments. It’s those that have no real grasp of the concepts that constantly disagree with me.
SimplyMichael: Take the following for example, two statements about two different wars,
Your side of the argument keeps insisting that Iraq is like Vietnam, that we’re “losing”, that it’s a “mess”, that it’s a “quagmire”, a “disaster”, that our military is “losing,” etc.
My response points out that we won militarily in Vietnam, are winning militarily in Iraq. In both cases, the enemy held on hoping for the war dissenters back home to get their way. It worked in Vietnam, where we lost the political will to continue the fight.
It’s not working with the case in Iraq, where the enemy is more on the run now than they were before.
THAT’S what my quote, what you’re trying to take out of context here, is talking about.
SimplyMichael: saying “but we were WINNING the conventional warfare DAMMIT”
What I actually said:
“Under asymmetrical warfare, the military sphere of warfare isn’t the only sphere of warfare. The police, judicial system, financial system, etc, also form spheres of warfare” -herfacechair
“we’re involved with rebuilding that country, that’s part of asymmetrical warfare. We have to help them build an infrastructure to support their government, their military, and their other functions. If we don’t do our reconstruction there, we’ll give them another Taliban Afghanistan” -herfacechair
I’ve said more than that to prove your assumption wrong. Nowhere did I suggest that we’re only winning the military front. Nowhere did I even say something along the lines of “but we’re winning the conventional war,” as if I were trying to “ignore” the “failures”.
Here’s what I said with regards to the conventional war:
“Asymmetrical warfare combines both conventional and unconventional, traditional and untraditional, black and white as well as grey, etc into a bigger comprehensive strategy. You could use one or both tactics. “ -herfacechair
The fact that you made that remark speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of what asymmetrical warfare really is.
SimplyMichael: by a keyboard commando thumping his chest about “asymmetrical warfare”!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Except, in this case, I’m not a “kettle”.
You’re talking smack about what Asymmetrical Warfare is, acting like you know what you’re talking about, in the same sentence where you get the concepts wrong.
First, I’ve got a good grasp of what Asymmetrical Warfare is, and what I’ve stated on this thread is applicable to what’s going on in the Middle East. I’ve even made a projection about Iraq partly using my knowledge on Asymmetrical Warfare, and that projection is STILL holding three years later.
Something I wouldn’t be able to do if I were a “keyboard commando” just talking about asymmetrical warfare.
Put ego aside, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Second, your keyboard commando comments prove wrong the following statement:
“When I debate with someone who impresses me with their command of the subject at hand I show my respect for them.” -SimplyMichael
Here’s you drawing a line and stepping back from that comment:
“You have what is called ‘book learning’” -SimplyMichael
Even if that assumption were true, that still represents command of the subject. You drew the line and commented I “couldn’t” apply those concepts. I turn around and proved that assumption wrong, again.
Anybody not letting ego get in the way of reasoning would see that I have also applied those concepts, and found examples not even described in the book.
What you’re trying to do is talk as if you were impartial, reasonable, respectful, etc. The reality is that you’re anything but those. You’ve got to be honest here, you can’t handle disagreement, and you can’t stand the idea that your side of the argument is indefensible.
The responses I see from you look like they’re intended to validate what someone’s intellectual side is starting to see is indefensible. Like rationalizing an illogical concept.
SimplyMichael: It would be funny if Bush had been executed for treason already but since he hasn’t been,
What I consider disturbing is a bunch of people accusing a sitting President with treason--without proof that he’s committed such. Yet, with no facts, logic, or reasoned argument behind them, call for him to be held to account for such “treason”.
Heaven forbid that someone acts in this country’s best interest in the face of a multidimensional threat, against a fluid entity waging jihad against our existence.
Attitudes like this lead to misguided vigilante justice and kangaroo courts--in those cases were people are accused, tried, judged, and convicted purely on emotion and not facts.
SimplyMichael: it just means more young kids die
You don’t have legs to stand on when talking about those guys.
The vast majority of those young kids are proud of what they were doing. They’re proud to serve their country, and would’ve been glad to go back to Iraq to serve again.
Heck, many of the disabled soldiers would be glad to serve in Iraq again if they could.
Death is a risk they knew they took when they enlisted, and when they enthusiastically served in Iraq.
And, I GUARANTEE YOU, these guys DON’T want YOU to use THEIR deaths in an argument against something THEY BELIEVED in.
SimplyMichael: for same fucked up reasons.
You see, this is why I strongly stand by my statement that you don’t understand asymmetrical warfare.
First, your side constantly fails to provide a reasoned argument to support your assumption that we went there for “some fucked up reasons”. Second, we invaded Iraq for legitimate reasons. Iraq represented an asymmetrical threat against us, I’ve explained some of the reasons on this thread.
SimplyMichael: Asymetrical warfare, by DEFINTION is about how to emerge victorious over an enemy that win's all the "battle field" victories.
Not necessarily, that’s just one aspect of it, but it’s NOT the DEFINITION.
This is more proof that you don’t understand asymmetrical warfare. You’ve given an oversimplified interpretation of it that completely misses the point behind what asymmetrical warfare is.
One of the things that it makes possible is for the weaker to defeat the stronger. And it’s not necessarily one that win’s all the military battles. The strength of the stronger side could be economic, political, financial, etc.
It’s also something the stronger nation uses.
Under Asymmetrical warfare, as in symmetrical warfare, the victor is the one that most effectively uses combinations to achieve their objectives. This is usually the one that effectively utilizes the most combinations.
And many of these combinations are from the non traditional dimensions in addition to the traditional dimensions of warfare.
SimplyMichael: Speaking of victories...
You either didn’t understand what I was saying, or you deliberately avoided the point I made with that comment.
Again, you can’t expect overall victory to happen overnight. Judging whether we’re winning or not by the enemy still fighting us there is unrealistic. This would be like someone, during World War II, saying that we were “loosing” each time we got reports that we were still fighting the Germans or Japanese.
SimplyMichael: Let’s forget for a moment Iraq had no Al Queda movement prior to our ocupation
WRONG.
Al-Qaeda had a presence in Northern Iraq, even a post Iraq invasion hearing on 9/11 substantiated that. Iraq also took Zarqawi in after he fled from Afghanistan.
Let’s not forget the fact that Salman Pak’s last commander told our troops that Al-Qaeda had been through for training at that site. Salman Pak was a terror training facility in Iraq that was complex enough to train people how to do things like hijack airplanes with box cutters.
Also, by narrowing this down to just Al-Qaeda, you’re missing the point behind asymmetrical warfare.
Saddam hosted conventions for radical terrorists, and made death to America threats. He compensated family members of suicide bombers. Iraqis saw him as the grandfather of terrorists.
Under asymmetrical warfare, one of these terrorists could take one of his WMD’s and use them against us on our soil. A key point behind that type of warfare that you miss. Using strategies that people wouldn’t see as legitimate, or do-able, “military” tactics.
SimplyMichael: and focus on that last sentence about some people having no clue about the Middle East…
I stand by what I said, both what I said here, and elsewhere on this thread. The fact that you didn’t know what I just mentioned speaks volumes about what I meant about your side of the argument . . . that people holding your assumptions simply don’t understand the real world that the people in the Middle East see.
SimplyMichael: Not sure what comic book you got the above from
Don’t mistake facts, and supporting sources, as comic books. You even recognized one of the sources I used earlier to back one of my points. Quite a big difference between a “comic book” and an “encyclopedia.”
SimplyMichael: but google Bush and Shia uprising and get a little education.
I copy and pasted that to Google, and here’s what I got:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2153527,00.html
Excerpts:
1. The then US president, George Bush senior, had called on Iraqis to oust the dictator but explained later that he did not want the Iraqi state to break up and feared the collapse of the coalition he had assembled, which included Arab states.
What I said still stands, Bush, along with other western leaders, didn’t care which groups rose up to overthrow the regime.
Read that whole sentence with the intentions of understanding what’s being said.
That’s not him calling on ONLY the Sunni to raise up and revolt, as you’ve argued.
He needed to keep the coalition assembled so that he could proceed into Kuwait with Western, Arab, and other forces. So that’s not Bush calling on them to rise against the Iraqi Government after the invasion. That’s him asking them to do that in CONJUNCTION with our attacks.
If they didn’t do that, then it’ll take time for us to destabilize his country enough for them to do that action later.
2. Majid, who got his nickname (and existing death sentence) from ordering gas attacks on Kurdish towns during the Anfal campaign in the late 1980s, reportedly sat subdued for most of the session, standing once to question the first witness.
Look at the article’s title: “Chemical Ali on trail for brutal crushing of Shea uprising”.
That’s NOT saying that he GASSED the Shea back in 1991. That second excerpt tells how he got that nickname, from the gas attacks of the late 1980s, which is what I’ve told you all along. The gassing occurred in the 1980s, not after the Persian Gulf War as you insinuated.
Hence, you’re throwing red herrings in by claiming that the first President Bush turned the other way when Iraq “gassed” the Shea. That didn’t happen.
SimplyMichael: Strike that, go get a lot of education!
The problem isn’t with my education, but with your reading comprehension, as well as with your inability to separate opinion pieces from facts.
Going through the search results I got from googling your search words, I found allot of articles from left leaning sites that present OPINION or EDITORIAL pieces on what Bush Senior “failed” to do. Yet, you have the audacity to tell me not to use “encyclopedias” as reference sources.
Don’t mistake indoctrination in emotional, ideological based articles as someone’s “getting lots of education”. That’s just someone getting lots of BS.
Start reading things with the intentions of understanding what they say, see what the article is ACTUALLY talking about, and recognize a “fact based document” from an “opinion piece.” Do that, and you’ll se that I’m not the one that “needs” to get allot of “education” on this topic.
< Message edited by herfacechair -- 11/12/2007 7:42:59 PM >
_____________________________
As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.
http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair
Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
|
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 
Profile
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