Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

[The_Waco_Kid]

http://nypost.com/2015/10/10/oops-tu...reaks-the-law/

looks like this deal contradicts previous law, a law that Obama the lawyer (well he claims he's a lawyer) didn't see or care about. the latter sounds more likely. he wanted this "deal" bad enough to sign the deal knowing that it violated law.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

http://nypost.com/2015/10/10/oops-tu...reaks-the-law/

looks like this deal contradicts previous law, a law that Obama the lawyer (well he claims he's a lawyer) didn't see or care about. the latter sounds more likely. he wanted this "deal" bad enough to sign the deal knowing that it violated law.

It figures that odummer, Lurch Kerry and the rest of the administrations JV team would screw things up ! Too bad none of the Senate Republican "leadership" has the balls to go after odummer on it. Guess their still afraid of being called racists.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

As frequent as you misinterpret what I say, you should remove the "marksman" from your username. Again, if your marksmanship was anything like your assumptions here, I would hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target in front of you.

First, I have not conceded anything in this argument, or in this thread. Nothing, in my statement that you quoted, indicates any such concession. In fact, nothing in your reply captures what I was communicating in the post that you quoted.

No, your assumptions about the so-called "neocons" is wrong. George Bush, and the Republican side of the argument, advanced the truth in the beginning of the war. They consistently argued the truth throughout the progress of the Iraq war. This truth is partially captured in the posts that I put here. Go back through this thread and educate yourself about this truth.

Again, the truth is that we are engaged in asymmetrical warfare against an entity with visible and invisible parts. We cannot engage this threat thinking in terms of a symmetrical, or conventional war mindset. Iraq, under Saddam, posed an asymmetrical warfare threat against the United States and the West. Going into Iraq was an asymmetrical act designed to have an asymmetrical impact. One was to eliminate a threat, another was to act as a catalyst for change in the Middle East. A change that Pres. Obama failed to nurture when the Arab spring went into motion.

What I've argued repeatedly on this thread is the truth behind why we went into Iraq.

WHERE, in any of the post that I made here, do I argue that the loss of military lives in Iraq was "not" worth one piece of the puzzle? SHOW me where I "said" that, word for word.

What I actually said:

"This is asymmetrical warfare. WMD was just one piece of the puzzle. There were others. After the Iraq invasion, the US military and coalition went after the appropriate targets. WMD was not the main target." -- herfacechair

Now listen up, Stupid. Follow along with me and pay attention.

This is the fact as I understood it the first time I deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This deployment was made to START Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If you think that President Bush, and my side of the argument, argued about this being 100% about WMD, you did not pay attention to the arguments made during the months leading up to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The arguments, that I made on this thread, have been consistent in the theme since I advanced them at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Also, you have no leg to stand on accusing me of being a "disgrace" to the uniform that I "have" worn based on your strawman argument.

YOU'RE a disgrace to the United States Military, and to the service members, for arguing against an argument that the vast majority of them hold. If you want to know what that is, go back and read my arguments on this thread. You're a disgrace not just to the US military, but to the United States in general, for taking my words out of context and for advancing a strawman argument, instead of having the integrity to know that you've been destroyed in this argument.

Again, my arguments against you are similar arguments to what the majority of those in uniform, and those who have worn the uniform, who have combat deployed, hold. Instead of recognizing my obvious first-hand experience in this argument relative to your lack of it, you disgrace the military and the United States by insisting that the argument is what it isn't.

Again, I've combat deployed there. You haven't. If anything, I would have a vested interest in knowing why I would have to risk my life doing something like that. You can't even respect that, going as far as accusing me of being a "disgrace" based on your strawman argument. This makes you a disgrace, not me.

Also, I still wear the uniform, and I'm still liable to make combat deployments.

By the way, when I order an egg white mcmuffin, make sure that it comes with egg whites. The yellow that you see in the picture behind the register is the cheese, not the egg.

Even though you quoted my questions in my quote, you failed to answer them. Here they are again:

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

Your refusal to answer the question, truthfully and factually, per the parameters that I set, speaks volumes about your lack of confidence in your own argument.

Your harangue still wouldn't scare me away from what I believe all along that Sada's allegation had to be vigorously investigated. We owe it to those 4,400 fine U.S. servicemen and women who laid down their lives in Iraq; we also owe it to those millions upon millions of patriotic Americans who sincerely believed the reason to go to war was to rid Saddam of his WMD programs, thus made us safer. So please shove your intellectual theory of "asymmetrical warfare" aside and help digging out the truth those patriotic Americans deserved. If you are willing to do so, I'll be man enough to admit my remarks towards you were uncalled for and offer my sincere apology. But unless and until you agree that Sada's allegation merits scrutiny, I'll keep standing fast by my statement till the day I die.

As a professional military man, you ought to conduct yourself much better than Rundstedt and Keitel did.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show-16

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

No, and neither are those two pilots whom Sada's talking about.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

WRONG as usual.

First, let's address your hypocrisy. You're trying to advance the BS that Stanislave Lunev "should not" be taken seriously on the account of your erroneous assumption that he had "never set foot inside Iraq." Using your own line of reasoning, I've set foot inside Iraq, as an infantryman, during Operation Iraqi Freedom. You haven't set foot inside Iraq. Who should people take seriously in an argument about the Iraq war? You, who have never set foot inside Iraq, or me, who has combat deployed there? You can have it both ways.

If you want people to take the traitor seriously, because of your assumptions that Lunev "did not" set foot in Iraq, what makes you think that you should be taken seriously in our argument about the Iraq War when it's plainly obvious that you have not set foot there but I have?

If you "have" set foot there, don't even admit it. You'd make yourself look even worse.

Second, Stanislav Lunev HAS set foot inside Iraq. He was one of the people that was assigned to train the Iraqis how to cover and conceal WMD agents. It was part of his job to communicate with the Russian spies in the weapons inspection teams. He was in Iraq working for the Russian government in their move to undermine the weapons inspection teams in the 1990s.

Yes, he set foot there. In his book, he mentioned how he trained the Iraqis to build things like fake bricks to hide WMDs. This is no different, in concept, to the terrorists using Coke bottles or MRD wrappers as IED casings. His account in his book, written in 1998, of how the Iraqis were able to undermine weapons inspectors was very consistent to Collin Powell's description of how they were undermining weapon inspectors during the time he made a speech to the UN.

Snowden? I'm sorry, the traitor did the equivalent of a massive violation of OPSEC. The vast majority of the information that he released was information that needed to remain classified and out of public view.

The fact that you would praise him speaks volumes about your lack of integrity and against your character, as if your actions on this thread didn't do that already. Snowden should suffer a trader's fate.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

1990s?! So you want to argue that the U.S. government had been assisting Saddam to cheat after Lunev's defection in '92? And all of a sudden, you are a believer of conspiracy theories?

http://www.gizmag.com/suitcase-nukes...fiction/18506/

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

WRONG, as usual. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time? What you're dismissing as nothing but my argument is a fact based, logical, reasoned argument put together mainly through extensive research and from first-hand experience.

I've presented the facts to prove your propaganda articles wrong. For example, one of your propaganda articles attempted to argue against Sada's account of WMD movement. The author did so by demonstrating his lack of understanding of what constituted WMD. I know for fact that WMD could be moved from point A to point B in a small plane. The guy in your article; however, tried to argue about tubes, missiles, launchers, and other items that didn't fit the any WMD category.

When you try to twist things around like that, it's PROPAGANDA. My current MOS, in the Army, is 37F. That's Psychological Operations/Military Information Support Operations. While downrange, counter propaganda would be one of our main tasks. In order to conduct counter propaganda, one has to recognize what propaganda is.

If Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other enemy were to do the exact same thing, or something similar, to what your propaganda articles did, we would rightfully describe it as propaganda. Whether you like it or not, the articles that you used constitute propaganda. The fact that you are clueless about what constitutes the facts about this argument speaks volumes about why you would fall for the arguments advanced in those propaganda articles.

Nobody here is telling you to drop your arguments in favor of something else. As I stated earlier in this thread, changing the opposition's mind is not my objective. I continue to destroy you people's arguments because it's fun. I have no intentions of stopping that.

You have advanced the assumption, the opinion, the Bush's argument to go to war was "concocted" with "criminal intent", quotation marks used strongly. Yet, you have consistently failed to prove that. Instead, you've hidden behind propaganda articles that I have easily dismantled and disproven.

What I say still stands. The arguments made, to invade Iraq, were legal. They were not illegal. George Bush's arguments, for going into Iraq, were legal and based on reality. This is an asymmetrical war. The UN was not designed to address asymmetrical war. Nothing in their bylines adequately addressed asymmetrical warfare. Our Constitution does not require us to ask permission from a body, like the United Nations, to act in our best defense. Neither does common law.

The facts, as I have argued them, have remained consistent. The extensive research that I do, surrounding the topics of this debate, continue during and between these arguments. History will prove me right and you guys wrong, just like I expected it to do when I made my arguments in favor foreign-policy back in the 1980s. I will argue the arguments that I made on this thread until I'm too old to even be cognizant of any of these arguments.

Yes, I have absolutely no intention of stopping my consistently destroying the arguments that your side of the argument keep advancing.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

The facts, as I have argued them, have remained consistent as well.

http://www.salon.com/2005/05/19/lies_4/

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

The U.S. military wanted to keep thousands of troops in the Green Zone beyond December 31, 2011. Out of the numbers they were considering, up to 20,000 + troops was looked at. We needed to leave a presence, in Iraq, to continue building on strengthening the Iraqi military. In order to do that, the Pentagon wanted a SOFA similar to the one that was about to expire in December 31, 2011. The Iraqis were willing to abandon some of their initial demands in favor of essentially creating a follow-on SOFA to the one that was about to expire.

George Bush's administration were willing to work with the Iraqis, at their pace, to make this possible. Obama tried to force their hand instead, ensuring that we didn't get one.

When I combat deployed to Iraq, the Iraqi military proved itself competent. They were handing the terrorists their asses. However, they needed to work on their power projection capability, as well as on their logistical ability. They also needed to work on their leadership. They had a basic one in operation, they needed to build on it and strengthen it. These, and other issues, were issues that the residual US military force would have helped the Iraqis strengthen.

Had the US military been able to do that, the Iraqis would have defeated ISIS at the Syrian-Iraqi border. Without that SOFA, the US military had no other choice but to abandon those plans. This made absolutely no sense. Despite when the Spanish-American War, World War II, and the Korean War ended. We maintained troops in the Philippines, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, to continue building and working with those countries militaries.

Our remaining in Iraq, with a smaller presence, made perfect sense. Obama was not willing to work toward that.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

You still couldn't come up with "a tentative agreement that allowed the US to get what it wanted," so I have to assert that no such agreement ever existed.

By the way, care to explain what "initial demands" the Iraqis "were willing to abandon" in order to essentially create "a follow-on SOFA to the one that was about to expire?"

And Bush was "willing to work with the Iraqis, at their pace, to make this possible." Should we recall him back to the negotiation table?

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2...op-withdrawal/

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

First, he tried to force Iraq's hand before our allies in Iraq were able to get enough people, in the Iraqi government and elsewhere, to support the SOFA. Forcing them to make a stand would result in failure for the agreement. Obama knew that this would result on the SOFA being "dead on arrival".

Second, he rejected the Pentagon's proposal on how many troops were to be left behind, and on what they would do.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

"Pentagon's proposal?" Anything else? What about the Iraqis' proposals? And the Iraqis would have to "make a stand" anyway, correct?

The end result, maybe, just maybe, might not be so undesirable to a neocon after all.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/...aliki-removed/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

The facts, as I have argued them, have remained consistent as well.

http://www.salon.com/2005/05/19/lies_4/

Your argument remains entirely specious because it is based on 20/20 hindsight, Andy the Little Nazi Boy. Oh, and btw, Salon's Juan Cole is a known, partisan hack, Andy the Little Nazi Boy: just like you.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your argument remains entirely specious because it is based on 20/20 hindsight,

What? "20-20 hindsight" is "specious"? Speaking of "hindsight".....

... I didn't hear Hillarious's take on the Iranian "Deal" ... in the debates.

Did anyone else?

Or were they even asked about it?

[IIFFOFRDB]

[FONT="Arial THE NUCLEAR DEAL’S TRUE PURPOSE
Obama selects his fall guys.
October 15, 2015 Caroline Glick"][/FONT]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2604...caroline-glick

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

It works out that US President Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement, his nuclear deal with Iran, has nothing to do with preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or even with placing restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Just weeks after Obama led the international community in concluding the nuclear pact with Iran, the Iranian regime filed a complaint with the UN Security Council accusing the US of committing a material breach of the agreement.

The US action that precipitated the complaint was a statement by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claiming that if Iran violates the deal, “the military option would remain on the table.”

In making the statement, Earnest was responding to a hypothetical question regarding what the US would do if the Iranians breached the deal.

Earnest explained that not only would the US then consider attacking Iran’s nuclear installations militarily, but that its “military option would be enhanced because we’d been spending the intervening number of years gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear program.”

“So when it comes to the targeting decisions,” he continued, “our capabilities [would be] improved, based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.”

The Iranians argued that Earnest’s statement was a material breach of the nuclear agreement because under Iran’s interpretation of the deal, UN inspectors are barred from sharing sensitive information they collect during the course of their site visits.

As Tower Magazine pointed out at the time, Earnest’s remarks gave the Iranians a justification for refusing to allow UN nuclear inspectors from entering their nuclear sites. Indeed, Earnest’s remarks gave Iran a rationale for vacating its signature on the agreement.

Like the US and the other parties to the agreement, the Iranians can vacate their signature if they feel their claims against other parties’ perceived breaches of their commitments are not properly addressed by the relevant UN agencies. According to Obama, if Iran walks away from the deal, it will take the mullocracy up to a year to develop nuclear weapons.

Whereas Iran can use the deal to advance its nuclear program and then walk away, the US cannot use the deal to prevent Iran either from advancing its nuclear program or from walking away from the deal.

Sunday Iran test-fired a new ballistic missile. According to Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, unlike the Shihab intermediate-range surface-to-surface missiles that Iran already fields, the new Emad missile is precision guided. The Wall Street Journal reported that experts assess its range at 1,300 km.

The missile test is not a violation of the agreement. Last month US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio that the deal does not restrict Iran’s ballistic missile program. Rather, Kerry claimed, Iran’s ballistic missile program is restricted by the Security Council resolution passed July 20 which calls on Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” for eight years.

In response to Iran’s missile test Sunday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the US would take “appropriate actions” at the UN if the tests violated the resolution.

Unfortunately, Iran probably didn’t violate the resolution. Because whether the missile test was a violation or not is open to interpretation. Iran’s position is that the test is permitted because, it claims, it has nothing to do with its nuclear program. And because of the way Obama negotiated the nuclear deal and the Security Council resolution, Iran’s word is just as good as America’s on this score.

Moreover, even under the unlikely scenario that the administration determines that Iran’s missile test violated the Security Council resolution, such a conclusion will make no difference.

As Amir Taheri explained in The New York Post, America’s negotiating partners from the P5+1 view the nuclear deal as little more than a trade deal with Iran. Since they signed on in July, the Germans have expanded their trade with Iran 33 percent, making Germany Iran’s third largest trading partner.

Britain has lifted its restrictions on Iranian banks.

France has sent a 100-man delegation of salivating businessmen to Tehran.

China has penned an agreement to build Iran five nuclear reactors.

Russia has not only agreed to sell Iran the advanced S-300 air defense system and begun negotiating the sale of Sukhoi fighter jets, Russia has gone to war in coalition with Iran in Syria.

Other states, including India, Turkey, Austria and the UAE are all clamoring for deals in Iran. The question of whether or not Iran actually abides by the deal’s nuclear limitations is the furthest thing from anyone’s mind.

Given the circumstances, the idea that Obama’s much touted “snapback” sanctions will actually be implemented if and when Iran is caught cheating on the nuclear deal or the restrictions on its ballistic missile program is a joke.

Kerry admitted to Congress that the US has given assurances to the Russians and Chinese that in the event sanctions are re-imposed they will not jeopardize those nations’ trade with Iran.

So sanctions, which Obama himself insisted failed in the past to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear program, cannot be reimposed, even if they are passed in the Security Council.

And they won’t be passed in the Security Council because no one on the Security Council is paying attention to whether or not Iran keeps its side of the agreement. And even if they did pay attention, and decide that Iran has breached the accord, Iran will simply walk away from the deal with little to no international response.

In his much cited article published last week about Obama’s ill-treatment of Israel during the course of his nuclear talks with Iran, ambassador Dennis Ross wrote that Obama’s commitment to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons was never straightforward.

The issue of whether the administration would take all measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons or would merely seek to contain a nuclear Iran was never settled.

In a speech at a Washington synagogue last May, Obama insisted that he has a “personal stake” in ensuring the deal prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons because “this deal will have my name on it.”

But as the deal’s substance and the behavior of the US’s negotiating partners makes clear, the purpose of the nuclear accord isn’t to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It is to get Obama off the hook and place the deal’s opponents in the dock.

By giving Iran the right to walk away whenever it claims the US has breached the deal, Obama has ensured that Iran will walk away, and has given himself the means to blame the Republicans for the deal’s failure.

Just as the Iranians used Earnest’s statement as a reason for leaving the deal, so they should be expected to use any limitation the US places on implementing the deal as a means to vacate their signature and walk away.

Last week we learned that aspects of the US ’s commitments to Iran under the deal are illegal under US law. If the Republican Congress tries to force Obama to obey the law (that he himself signed), Obama will blame the Republicans when the Iranians respond by abandoning the deal. If the Republicans try to impose new sanctions on Iran because Iran breaches its commitments, then Iran can leave the deal.

And Obama will blame the Republicans.

What this means for Republicans is clear enough.

They must recognize the deal for what it really is – a political tool to weaken them, not Iran. Once they understand what is going on, they must refuse to fall into the trap Obama set for them. Republican mustn’t worry about whether or not Iran vacates its signature. It is the deal, not any action they may take, that ensures Iran will walk away.

Moreover, Republicans – and the deal’s Democratic opponents – must refuse to shoulder the blame when Iran acts as expected and walks away.

Obama negotiated a deal that guarantees Iran will become a nuclear power and prevents the US from taking steps, in the framework of the deal, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Obama didn’t do this because he is a bad negotiator. He did this because his goal was never to prevent Iran from developing atomic bombs and delivery mechanisms. His goal was always to blame Republicans (and Israel) for what he had to power to prevent, but had no interest in preventing.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your argument remains entirely specious because it is based on 20/20 hindsight, Andy the Little Nazi Boy. Oh, and btw, Salon's Juan Cole is a known, partisan hack, Andy the Little Nazi Boy: just like you.

You're a known dumbass, you fucktard.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're a known dumbass, you fucktard.

You're a known cock-sucker that's blinded by men's balls bouncing off your closed eyelids, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're a known dumbass, you fucktard.

Is that a substantive response?

Looks like there is no deal with Iran now. The heat is off the next President.

[herfacechair]

andymarksman: Your harangue

What you're dismissing as a "harangue," quotation marks used strongly, is a fact-based, reason, analysis proving you wrong. Neither you, nor the people that I've debated with for over a decade, have done anything to prove otherwise. Post something other than garbage and trash before you dismiss anything I say as something other than fact-based arguments.

andymarksman: still wouldn't scare me away

I'm not trying to scare you away, or to change your mind, when I take your arguments apart. That is not the objective. Likewise, the arguments I'm using against you are very similar to the arguments that I have used for over a decade against other people that advanced similar rubbish and drivel to what you are advancing on this thread.

andymarksman: from what I believe all along that Sada's allegation had to be vigorously investigated.

Military experience argues otherwise.

I've combat deployed to Iraq, and have been there long enough to know that you would have to dig up every square inch of soil in Iraq and in Afghanistan in order to do what you are suggesting. If you were to go out there, and see for yourself what the terrain is like, you know that given the resources that we have, there's no way in hell that we are to be able to do dig up every square edge of soil in both countries.

Besides, the argument has been between those who argue that there were WMD in Iraq, and those who argue that there weren't. During the Iraq war, coalition and Iraqi forces have consistently been attacked with WMD laced IED's. The Major fact that this happened proved wrong the argument that there were "no" WMD in Iraq. Whether they were made recently, or before the Gulf War, is irrelevant. That was not the argument. The argument was whether they had it or they didn't. These attacks prove that they had WMD.

Your attempts to make this about Georges Sada is irrelevant.

You, attempting to zero in on what Sada talked about, are doing nothing but pulling straws and attempting to move the goal posts so you can continue to hold on to the assumption, the myth, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq. By extension, you can continue to hold the myth that you are arguing on this thread.

andymarksman: We owe it to those 4,400 fine U.S. servicemen and women who laid down their lives in Iraq;

If you refuse to factor in the fact that their brothers and sisters were injured by WMD laced IED's, or the fact that the military uncovered buried WMDs, you have no leg to stand on speaking for my comrades at arms who had made the ultimate sacrifice. You denigrate their service by insisting on arguing against the facts that one of their brothers is presenting to you on this thread. If you truly wanted to honor those service members who made the ultimate sacrifice, you would have the integrity and honor to accept the fact that your argument, opinion, screen, etc. is erroneous, fact deficient, based on opinion against an argument that they would have used against you like I'm doing here had they still been alive.

I'm presenting an argument here as to why they did not die in vain. This argument is based on facts. Again, you denigrate them by dismissing the facts as something other than what they are, simply because they harm your opinion in this argument. Your entire line of argument denigrates their service and what they believed in.

andymarksman: we also owe it to those millions upon millions of patriotic Americans who sincerely believed the reason to go to war was to rid Saddam of his WMD programs, thus made us safer.

I owe it to those millions upon millions of patriotic Americans, who supported our efforts with regards to Iraq, to continue to dismantle your unqualified, ignorant, opinions about WMD and the Iraq War, as well as other ignorant comments against the Iraq war and anything related to it. Also, you have ignored the fact that there are also millions upon millions of patriotic Americans who have successfully connected the dots and have seen this beyond Saddam and his WMD programs. Again, if you follow the speeches of President Bush, you'd notice that he advanced more than just the WMD argument. He also argued in favor of why we had to change the conditions in that area, to include setting up conditions that facilitated freedom. Hence, the name Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You, arguing against a philosophy that the majority of the military holds, who had deployed to Iraq, do nothing in favor of addressing what is "owed" to those patriotic Americans. After all, they are the ones that had sons, daughters, family members, friends, etc., who combat deploy to that area.

andymarksman: So please shove your

The only person that should be doing the shoving is you. How about you shove your rubbish and drivel, that you have spewed in response to me on this thread, up your azz... After you pull your head out of it and remove your horse blinders.

andymarksman: intellectual theory of "asymmetrical warfare" aside and help digging out the truth those patriotic Americans deserved.

It's not a theory, but fact. Again, I base my assessment, and analysis, on the facts. These are facts gained by firsthand experience and extensive research. This extensive research includes statements made by those who are sworn enemies of the West. These are people that have deployed fighters against the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, on the experience. I could tell, by your argument, that you have not deployed to Iraq, like I have. Before you dismiss anything that I say as "theoretical," when it comes to the Iraq war, and anything related to it, you need to recognize the fact that I have first-hand experience with regards to the Iraq war. Yes, WMD laced IED's were used against coalition and Iraqi forces in my brigade's AO when I was there.

When the radical Islamists specifically state what they're going to do, and how they're going to do it, and it so happens that their statement is consistent with what they have done as a group for centuries, you cannot just dismiss that. It's a fact. It's also historical fact that tactics related to warfare have changed over the centuries. The new form of warfare, compared to the traditional form of warfare, is considered asymmetrical warfare.

For example, the Japanese deploying air balloons, via the newly discovered jet stream, to drop bombs on North America, is an example of asymmetrical warfare. The first use of firearms, relative to the crossbow, in the battlefield represented asymmetrical warfare. It changed the face of warfare, and changed the playing field. Those kingdoms and nations that failed to capitalize on that suffered on the battlefield when faced against these new concepts. ISIS using condoms to launch explosives into the sky is an example of asymmetrical warfare.

When the face of warfare changes, those who failed to adjust accordingly suffered accordingly. This is historical fact. This is current fact. It's not theory.

Asymmetrical warfare is a fact that describes the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and any other conflict involving radical Islamists against the West's, and the West's reaction to it. The face of warfare changed, the United Nations was not ready to deal with it, they didn't have the rules in place to address it either.

If you read the speeches that President Bush made from 2001 through 2003, and after, you will find a consistency. You would find the themes of asymmetrical warfare as applied to the Global war and terror, and as applied to the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and elsewhere.

THAT's the truth based on the facts. You should be thanking me for giving you a clue instead of dismissing it as nothing but a theory, simply because what I present here, based on my experiences and research relative to your lack of it, harms your opinion of the topic.

andymarksman: If you are willing to do so, I'll be man enough to admit my remarks towards you were uncalled for and offer my sincere apology.

First, until you have answered all my questions, per the parameters that I set, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I do anything, say anything, or answer any question.

Second, I'm going to tell you the same thing that told others that I've debated with. I do not accommodate people that argue with me. I have absolutely no intention of changing the way I argue on these threads. What you see me doing on this thread, I will continue to do for as long as you argue with me. I will continue to do this for as long as I debate on these threads, and elsewhere in the Internet.

So, you could take your proposal and shove it up your azz.

andymarksman: But unless and until you agree that Sada's allegation merits scrutiny,

I'm sorry, but you have to present the facts for me to even consider that. You failed to present me the facts, just opinion articles and your questions as responses to me. You're demanding that I disagree with a position that I have, simply because it's convenient to you. I highly disagree with the statement that his "allegation," quotation marks used strongly, "merits scrutiny." It doesn't. Again, from my military expense alone, and looking at his statements, there is a lot of validity to what he said with regards to military related movement. We have such procedures in place should the United States get invaded. We have procedures to move WMD's in this country to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. This is true in the United States, and elsewhere we do our operations. Other countries have this policy.

You have consistently failed, via your own statements on this thread, and through links that you provided, to prove otherwise. What does merit scrutiny are your statements, and the links that you provided. As you can see, that's precisely what I'm doing.

andymarksman: I'll keep standing fast by my statement till the day I die.

What part of, "I'm not trying to change your position or mind," did you not understand? Again, I'm not here trying to change your mind, nor that of the opposition. You are free to continue to believe in an erroneous myth until the day you die. However, recognize the fact that I'm free to continue to dismantle you until the day I die, or until you stop replying. I will do the same to the argument advanced by others I argue with in this topic.

I'm just here for the debate. I take sadistic pleasure in taking people's arguments apart and watching your reactions.

andymarksman: As a professional military man, you ought to conduct yourself much better.

Apparently, dickface NAZI boy, you have not had that much experience interacting with military men, nor with veterans, in a forum like this. The cold hard reality is that those of us, who hail from the old military and from the combat arms areas, tend to be abrasive towards those who have absolutely no idea about what they're talking about. That describes you. We use cuss words as terms of endearment for each other. What makes you think that I will be nice to you when your actions here dictate otherwise?

Go over to "This Aint Hell," at the comments section, and see how military and veteran posters treat people that argue like you over there. They make me look nice in comparison.

I'm only interested in taking your arguments apart, every time you present them here. I'm not interested in a touchy-feely feel good discussion with you on this topic. I will continue to take the Saxon style of engagement against your arguments. Remove your diapers and get used to it.

andymarksman: than Rundstedt and Keitel did

Absolutely no comparison between my actions, nor that of my comrade at arms as a group, to either one of those people. I've lost count of how many times the combat element I was a part of received friendly honks from Iraqi drivers. I've lost count of how many times many Iraqis came up to us to shake our hands in gratitude. Throughout my Iraq deployment, the Iraqis showed their gratitude and support for our actions. Not exactly a comparison to what either of those characters did.

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.[/QUOTE]