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

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Also, nothing in the United States Constitution requires the United States to seek the permission of the United Nations, or any of its institutions, to act in our best defense interests.

Nothing in any of the UN resolutions, or international law, prohibits the United States from acting in its best defense in an asymmetrical warfare setting.

Again, Bush had every right to do what he did.

Where have I ever argued against the U.S.'s natural right of self defense? Save your phony patriotic harangue to W. Like I've stated before, you and W are merely spineless, gutless coward.

I'm sure you'll delete this link when you reply because you couldn't lie your ass out of the facts.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...th-south-korea

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Your video failed to answer that question. Our specific argument involves the Iraq war. Your video involves a World War II/post World War II event. Not only did you failed to answer the question, you provided a video involving another topic from another time.

Again, In order for your assumptions to be true, then every single one of us will combat deployed to Iraq would have to be subject to court marshals.

Where have I ever "assumed" that every single U.S. servicemen or women "combat deployed to Iraq would have to be subject to court marshals?" My comment on that video is crystal clear: all war criminals ought to be brought to justice, no matter where they came from. Are you "assuming" every single U.S. servicemen and women combat deployed to Iraq are rapists?

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Service members who did commit war crimes did so without the authority of the military. They did so on their own, and have since been held accountable for their crimes. Those are facts, the military has held people accountable for committing war crimes. Hint: I'm talking about the Iraq war, not Vietnam, not Korea, not any other war, I'm talking about the Iraq war. Stay on topic.

Pray explain why one is a war criminal but the other is not only because he has Stars and Stripes sewed onto his uniform?

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Your link talks about an alleged incident of war crimes during the Korean War.

"Alleged???!!!" You lying piece of shit! You keep lying, I'll keep sticking the facts up your mummified ass, Pharaoh.


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/25858

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Your link referenced a couple of idiots talking about the Vietnam War.

If you pay attention to what you're reading, you'd realize that I'm talking about the Iraq war, and Iraq war veterans.

You really are making a living by wearing the U.S. military uniform? Fucking hilarious! I'm talking about the Iraq war here if you aren't too stupid to even observe a continuous pattern here.


http://democracynow.org/2003/10/29/t...eport_uncovers

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Again, I know for fact the military has put service members on trial after a valid investigation verified that they were involved in war crimes. Gen. Franks would not have been exempt." - herfacechair

Franks will not be exempt when his criminal CIC is brought to justice for ordering illegal transfer of funding in blatant violation of the Constitution.


http://americanprogress.org/issues/s...-700m-for-iraq

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

"Where is the international move to carry out a repeat of the Nuremburg trials, this time putting Gen. Franks and everybody in the military who participated in the Iraq war on trial?" -- herfacechair

"Neither the military, nor the international community, agree with your assumption. If they did, those trials would've happened." -- herfacechair

There is the international criminal Court, which has yet to bring all of us to trial for these "war crimes", quotation marks used strongly.

The fact that no move has been made, on a large scale, internationally via multiple nations, proves that your assumptions, as ignorant as they have been proven here, are wrong.

The wheels of justice grind slowly but grind fine, not your POS idol had done in a cowardly manner.


http://warisacrime.org/content/tortu...criminal-court

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

As usual, you colossally failed to answer my question. You claimed that there was a "commando order" given to Gen. Franks. I told you that he received no such order.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that George Bush gave an order that constitutes crimes against humanity like killing people without a trial.

Where have I ever claimed a "commando order" was issued to Franks? My point is that a "commando order" is as horrific as an order to commit wars of aggression. But the truth is that Bush did order Rumsfeld, one of his leading henchmen, to plot an invasion of Iraq just 15 days after 9-11. Rumsfeld himself admitted so. That's a premeditated war crime beyond the shadow of a doubt.


http://sott.net/article/223295-Rumsf...ays-after-9-11

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

The argument about immunity is pure nonsense.

This doesn't change the fact that Pres. Obama forced Iraq's hand knowing full well that such an agreement would never be finalized as a result.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

He could care less about immunity for the troops.

Bullshit! All you can rant about is that if Obama had tried harder...blah, blah, blah.... You take immunity for granted because you didn't need it back then. And you don't even have a fucking conscience to reflect on how all those years of indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians ended up biting the asses of our fine servicemen and women.

Go ahead and remove this link, I'll keep shoving this link up your ass whenever I get the chance, no matter how mummified your ass looks like.


http://theguardian.com/world/2011/se...ssacre-inquiry

[IIFFOFRDB]

Andynaziboy, you better get some sleep, you are going to need it for the wrath you are about to receive!

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

This is fun. I'm a Soldier, quitting is never an option.

So?

[IIFFOFRDB]

I bet littlenaziboy is having sweet dreams of lamp shades made from human skin...

[herfacechair]

andymarksman: Those fuckers had to concoct an "updated"[/b] war plan because the old one required upward of half million U.S. men and women to conquer Iraq

Wrong. Did you even pay attention to the post that you replied to? Had you paid attention to what I said, without emotion, you would've understood WHY they had to come up with an updated war plan. But, like the coward that you are, you left this part of my explanation out:

"During the Gulf War, the intent was to push Iraq out of Kuwait. The strategy, to deal with that, involved destroying the command and control, and a military infrastructure that existed, that would have resisted our efforts to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Now, when you're talking about a full-scale invasion, the requirements are different.

"Yes, you would have to decapitate the government, and destroy more of the military infrastructure. Because, unlike the retribution nature of our attack inside Iraq during the Gulf War, we are dealing with a full-scale invasion involving regime change. Again, this is nothing new, it all boils down to the fact that they had a war plan in place for Iraq, that came with multiple courses of actions." -- herfacechair

It wouldn't have mattered if we had the actual number of service members there, or even twice as much, if the will of the Iraqi people wasn't there to maintain the gains in place by the time we left. The plan that we carried out was the most realistic plan. Of course, nothing is perfect as even training plans don't pan out as planned, can't expect operational plans to be a better.

Was your statement, that they had to come up with a brand new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.

andymarksman: and still bogged down in that quagmire for years to come.

First, the Iraq war was no different from other wars that United States was involved with in the past. It didn't matter if it was after the Spanish-American war, World War II, or most other wars we were involved with, we had to deal with resistance from the opposition.

Second, throughout our entire time in Iraq, we defeated the enemy thoroughly, destroyed them consistently in the battlefield whenever they engaged the US and coalition militaries, and we won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory.

That was no quagmire. If none of our plans, generated during the lead up to our training missions rarely go as planned during peacetime, what makes you think that this would be different during wartime?

You, having no military experience, having no military wartime experience, have no leg to stand on identifying Iraq as a quagmire. It wasn't.

andymarksman: The Bush administration was so desperate to devise a palatable war plan to the "joe public,"

Wrong, there was no desperation, on the Bush Administration's part, to try to sell this war to the American public. Unlike now, the majority of the American public understood the seriousness of the radical Islamic terrorist war to exterminate Western civilization and to establish global radical Islamic caliphate's. Many of us, in the military, understood the asymmetrical warfare aspect of this.

If you paid attention to actual, first tiered, information sources, you'd notice that George Bush presented a case, that indicated such an invasion required, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in September 2001. He clearly stated that this was not going to be something restricted to one area, and that there was going to be multiple elements and dimensions to this plan. He laid out the basics of asymmetrical warfare.

No desperation, calling the facts as he, and those of us with critical thought, saw it.

andymarksman: they were willing to expose the lives of our servicemen and women to undue risks by drastically reducing the number of troops needed to accomplish the mission.

First, you do not speak for those of us that combat deployed there for the initial phases, and the later phases, of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I received the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal as a result of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom I. I also received the Iraq Campaign Medal for my second Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment.

I am one of those people that you talk about here, you don't speak for me or for anybody else in the military who are also Iraq Veterans. You, having no military experience, not having combat deployed to Iraq, have no leg to stand on while making that statement. I, as one of those service members who deployed to the region in the beginning phases of operation Iraqi freedom, was willing to take that risk.

Second, troop morale was high leading into the Iraq War, knowing full well that troops were going to participate in the Iraq War. It doesn't stop there. Many of us have more than one Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment. Yes, I even had my name on a volunteer list to keep going back to Iraq. We had service members who, instead of accepting medical retirement, returned to Iraq with prosthetic limbs.

What should that tell you? It should tell you that you do not speak for us.

Third, no, President Bush wasn't willing to throw troops lives away. He would not have sent the invasion force in if the costs outweighed the benefits, and the risks outweighed the justifications. One thing for sure, military members that went there, the vast majority of them, were ITCHING to invade, and later longed to return.

Veteran community to andymarksman: quit speaking for us you retard.

andymarksman: What a fucking disgrace to the avatar you just put up by defending Rumsfeld's criminal plot!

First, you failed to prove that this was a "criminal" plot. It wasn't. As I argued before, we have war plans, on a specific region, for specific countries, that are continuously being updated. Nothing "criminal" in updating one of those war plans to further our long-term national security area.

Unlike you, I combat deployed under the banner of the United States. You didn't. I have every right to display the avatar that I have right now, because what I am arguing on this thread is symbolized in that avatar.

You, who glorifies NAZIs, the very people that formed a counter argument to what our flag represents, are the only one that is being a disgrace to the avatar that I am displaying.

Also, I had a different avatar back when I made that post. The fact that you would tie this current avatar, to my previous comment, speaks volumes to your desperation.

andymarksman: You are as useful to dubya as Julius Streicher.

The only useful idiot, in this equation, is you. I stand by the arguments that I made on this thread, and elsewhere on the Internet, regarding why we had to invade Iraq. You, on the other hand, are arguing on the same side of the argument as the radical terrorists that we are fighting against over there. They, including ISIS, have used some of your very words when it comes to criticizing our actions in the Middle East. This, my retarded punching bag, makes you a useful idiot for ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others like them who want nothing more than the destruction of the United States and the rest of Western Civilization.

andymarksman: Go ahead and delete my links,

If you paid attention to what you were replying to, if you are capable of reading with the intention of understanding what I'm saying, you would realize that the reason to why I didn't include your links in my reply is because I addressed your misinterpretation of those links in separate posts.

They aren't being ignored. Before, as now, your references fail to support your argument, and they fail to counter mine.

RE, your OPLAN link: OPLAN 1003--98 was the United States military's pre-2002 contingency plan in event of a war with Iraq. It originally called for 500,000 troops for the invasion and control of Iraq.

Since you appear to not have any military background, let me break this down for you. OPLAN-1003, or Operations Plan 1003, is the base plan for how to deal with Iraq. Why the 98? I'm glad you asked, 98 represents 1998, when it was last updated prior to the Iraq invasion. That operations plan was based on information that was available as of 1998. Guess what? The dynamics changed since then. It turned out that we did not need that many troops, even with the surge.

By listing it as "pre-2002" plan, the intended for people with small brains, like you, to interpret that as meaning that they took a plan that was "updated" as of 2002. It wasn't.

Also, Wikipedia is an invalid source to use. But, the fact that you would use it speaks volumes to the fact that you are easily susceptible to propaganda.

andymarksman: coward.

Says the guy that ran from this thread, like a coward, without answering the question, then coming back to resurrected again after months of being dormant after I hammered him, all while he ignored my question.

Why didn't you answer my question? Because you are a coward maybe? Here it is again. I was willing to not ask you this question on other threads, or even here, as you abandoned this thread. However, now that you are paying attention to this thread, I'm going to ask you these questions again every time you reply:

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.

[herfacechair]

Now, to address the second link that you put up.

The National Security Archive: Washington D.C., November 4, 2006 - In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. The documents posted here today covered the initial pre-war game planning phase from April-May 1999 through the detailed after-action reporting of June and July 1999.

Apparently, you've never been to the Battle Staff NCO course. What this statement states is that a series of wargames took place. No, we're not talking about people actually going out into the field to do major exercises. This is a "Command Post Exercise", where people have access to intelligence estimates, maps, and other equipment needed to plan for an operation. This was conducted in a building, in a large room.

Now, what usually happens here?

People are going to pour through a butt load of information, this includes implied and specified commands from the one ordering the war gaming. Cultural estimates, current events, intelligence, and other information is going to be reviewed. Unfortunately, not all the information is going to thoroughly be reviewed. Consequently, people are going to be disagreeing with each other while doing these. Also, the ultimate product is not going to cover every contingency, or even exactly cover what happens.

During the war gaming, multiple scenarios are going to come up, and people are going to working their own assumptions. Included in this are estimates of what the enemy would do. Throughout this entire process, nobody's going to come up with a "silver bullet" that's going to match what actually happens in the real world.

We've found this to be applicable on the tactical levels, this is also applicable on the operational and strategic levels.

The National Security Archive: The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq.

Did you get that? It was a visibility study, incorporating worse plan and most likely, but not necessarily a reflection of what actually was needed. This plan called for more troops than what was used in Iraq. Guess what? We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory with far less the number of troops in what was called for in this study.

The National Security Archive: The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.

Did you get that? If this was a "clear-cut" plan, why the recommendation for further planning? One reason is what I pointed out above. Different people are going to have different ideas of how this would be carried out. People had to debate and compromise to come up with a "viable" plan. But, the people that planned this all understood that there are too many variables involved and that what they actually came up with was not a concrete plan at all.

Going through the rest of this screed, you'd find that what they did, regarding this feasibility study, was use historic precedence. For example, the fragmentation, and effort to fill in the power vacuum? Umm, you do realize that this happened, not too long before this visibility study, with regards to former Yugoslavia region, do you? When the communist regime fell, and the Soviets stopped supplying them with money and resources, the government wasn't able to hold together, there was fragmentation, and eventually war.

So no, Zinni, who was butthurt over the fact that his legacy for the region was going to fall under the shadow of a better legacy, was naturally going to be dismissive of the plans to invade Iraq.

Guess what?

The United States Military proved him, and your sources, WRONG.

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 [ ]

Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.

[herfacechair]

andymarksman: Stop the fucking lies, (REPEAT POINT)

Don't dismiss the facts, and reasoned argument based on extensive research and first-hand experience as "lying", quotation marks used strongly. The only liar between the two of us is you. I've repeatedly demonstrated that throughout this thread, and I will demonstrate that with these series of replies.

andymarksman: you weren't in the military during the '80s.

Where, in any of my posts, do I state that I was in the military during the 1980s?

You, either through being a coward and refusing to address statements that I made, that would have prevented you from lying about the time frames of my being in the military, or through pure emotion at getting your ass destroyed in debate, deleted the comments that I made supporting the comment that you actually left in the quote.

What I said, in context, where you pulled my quote from:

"Second, if you read the transcript of the speech, you would realize that he was referencing a war plan that we already had against Saddam. That is the war plan that I was talking about, one that was in place even before President Bush became president. In fact, this war plan, against Iraq, was in existence since the 1980s. As usual, nothing you said contradicted my argument." - herfacechair

Reading comprehension would've told you that I was saying that based on this:

"Don't dismiss the facts, and reasoned argument based on extensive research and first-hand experience as 'lying', quotation marks used strongly. The only liar between the two of us is you. I've repeatedly demonstrated that throughout this thread, and I will demonstrate that with these series of replies" -- herfacechair

Do I need to explain the meaning of "research" to you? Researched experience is what gave me the information that these war plans have been in place for a long time, since the 1980s related to Iraq. First-hand experience involving carrying out exercises involving war plans after the fact during my own military experience.

In fact, I just participated in a three-week Army exercise that involved repelling and invading country back into its borders and freeing up "Eastern" territories taken. The elements of this exercise involved what is going on in Eastern Europe with Russia.

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 [ ]

Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.