Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
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.
No, and neither are those two pilots whom Sada's talking about.
Answer per the parameters that I set in the question! You're supposed to copy and paste that question, along with it's options, to your reply. THEN, you're supposed to put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Don't try to separate the question, it's parameters, and your reply.
Also, you're supposed to go back and answer the other questions that I've asked you on this thread. This is nothing but a half azzed attempt to answer while still giving yourself the ability to distance yourself from that.
Yup, just like every single liberal that I've posed questions like that to, in an argument about WMD, the question is either ignored consistently, or do people try to answer while addressing a part of the question leaving the rest out. Your reply is consistent with that tactic. You know the answer to that, don't you? The answer to that question, a simple, straightforward answer, harms your argument. You cannot honestly hold onto your argument on this thread without putting the correct, common sense, response in the appropriate box in the reply.
Again, using military experience as a reference, there's an excellent chance that those pilots existed, and were his friends as he described. We share information like that in the military community. I have friends in other units, I learn about what happens in their areas, whether they are in the United States or elsewhere, because they are willing to share information to other service-members/veterans. It happens in the US military, and it happens elsewhere.
Now, how about answering my questions per the parameters that I set, as well as the other questions that I've asked you? The major fact that you refuse to, or won't, do so per the parameters that I set speaks volumes that you have no confidence in your own arguments.
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?
Removed: [Link by idiot with no security clearance, thus clueless about what the government has.]
Go back and read the post that you responded to, dummy. Nowhere, in that post, did I argue, or insinuate, that we were assisting Saddam in any way shape or form. You do realize that the inspections began in 1991, do you? Also, earlier this thread, I provided a link to a man that got arrested for "splitting the atom" on his kitchen stove. The U.S. military has tactical nuclear weapons, weapons that our artillerymen train to fire from equipment assigned to them. In fact, when Elvis Presley was in the Army, he was one of the people that specialized in this. They nicknamed their nuclear weapons, "hand granukes." I saw a photo, on VFW magazine, of what he was supposed to launch. This, taken with the guy that "split the atom" on his kitchen stove, argues against the suitcase nuclear weapon being a conspiracy. Nuclear technology has gone a long way since Elvis Presley was in the Army.
Also, nothing in my posts is sufficient for anybody to infer that I'm into conspiracy theories. You need to quit hiding behind conspiracy theories, the links that you've provided, before accusing others of being into conspiracy theories.
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]
The facts, as I have argued them, have remained consistent as well.
Wrong, you have not advanced any relevant facts in this argument, just strawman "facts", or red herring "facts". All you've done was advance the same, or similar, talking points that the opposition has advanced for over a decade. I've advanced the facts, which have been consistent in this thread, and throughout the time I have debated these facts since I experienced or researched them. You've done nothing but advance opinions, and hid behind conspiracy propaganda pieces.
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.
Removed: [Link leading to Juan Cole's conspiracy propaganda in Salon. Andy loves those conspiracy propagandas! ]
These aren't facts, stupid, but OPINION! O-P-I-N-I-O-N! Nothing but drivel by another dummy that's obviously biased against George Bush and conservatives.
Juan Cole, Salon: because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations
Wrong, these are not "false allegations," quotation marks used strongly. These are facts as proven repeatedly throughout the Iraq War. Again, Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents are chemical agents; HENCE, they're WMD. These agents have been used repeatedly, in Iraq, via blister agent attacks. And then we had that link, to the New York Times article, talking about WMDs that were in Iraq. The fact the matter is that WMD were found there. The mere fact that they were found there prove wrong any myth or lie that they were not there. Based on the statement, Juan Cole has absolutely no credibility about what he is talking about with regards to WMD.
Juan Cole, Salon: that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.
It's blatantly obvious that Juan Cole had not set foot in Iraq as of the time he wrote this article. Having combat deployed to Iraq, I know for fact that he is wrong. The cold hard reality, as I saw it when I was in Iraq, is that the United States military, and its allies, won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The terrorists that the US military was fighting refused to fight face-to-face in a sustained force on force fight. Oh, yeah, the US military proved to be masters at urban warfare, a fact that terrorists were well aware of. Instead, the terrorists chose to use standoff methods of fighting, like resorting to mortar attacks and IEDs. They chose standoff, because they knew that the US military would destroy them.
Also, he is wrong about the economic "no man's land." When I was there, economic recovery was in full force. New construction was popping up all over the place. New middle-class neighborhoods were also being constructed. Despite the terrorist bombings, Iraq moved ahead with economic development.
These are the facts as I've witnessed them on the ground in Iraq when I was there. I know for fact that Juan Cole is wrong. Yet, you choose to believe him instead of someone that was actually in Iraq. This speaks volumes against you wanting to embrace the facts. Your actions indicate that you will support opinion that matches your opinion, even when the facts indicate that your argument is erroneous. Do not mistake opinion as fact.
Juan Cole, Salon: And we now know, thanks to a leaked British memo concerning the head of British intelligence, that the Bush administration -- contrary to its explicit denials -- had already made up its mind to attack Iraq and "fixed" those bogus allegations to support its decision. In short, Bush and his top officials lied about Iraq.
Anybody reading that memorandum, that Juan Cole is referring to, in context, would not come to the same conclusions. The memo that he is referencing is a case study of the efforts made to contain Iraq. It includes a history of Western government actions against Iraq. It goes from there to listing courses of actions of how to handle Saddam. "Fixed" is used in the memorandum, but not in the sense that Juan is arguing. It's used in the sense of redeploying intelligence information to support the move to invade Iraq. It' not talking about "inventing" things.
Juan Cole, Salon: Yet every single piece of evidence we now have confirms that George W. Bush, who was obsessed with unseating Saddam Hussein even before 9/11, recklessly used the opportunity presented by the terror attacks to march the country to war, fixing the intelligence to justify his decision, and lying to the American people about the reasons for the war. In other times, this might have been an impeachable offense.
Wrong. The vast majority of evidence, surrounding the argument, supports the argument that I've advanced on this thread. This is the same argument that I advanced since coming back from my deployment in support of OIF I. I argued this position before Juan Cole farted his opinion out on that article.
First, George Bush rejected the immediate invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. He chose, instead, to go into Afghanistan. However, in the series of speeches he made since the terrorist attacks, and throughout his presidency, he accurately touched on asymmetrical warfare. Iraq, under Saddam, was a logical next step in the war and terror with regards to military campaign. The results of that invasion created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different states of democracy. The Arab Spring was bound to happen. This was the intent as laid out in George Bush's original speeches after the terrorist attacks of 2001.
No, he didn't "fix" the intelligence. The information he used was information shared by other intelligence agencies around the world. That would be one heck of a global conspiracy for him to do that. As it turned out, there were indeed WMD in Iraq as Bush argued. Again, Juan has no credibility in the topic of the article he wrote about, as he indicates "no" WMD in Iraq in his article.
Juan Carlos, Salon: the memo shows, since they knew that the case against Iraq was tissue-thin in international law and that there were several more egregious sinners in the weapons area than Iraq.
Wrong. The memorandum showed that George Bush will not get support from the international community for his planned invasion of Iraq. Also, Juan is erroneous when he assumes that the case against Iraq was "tissue thin" international law. Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement with his treatment of the inspection teams. It was at that point that any agreement, surrounding it, became null and void. Saddam, by refusing to come clean with his WMDs and WMD programs violated the terms of the cease-fire. Remember, a cease-fire is not the end of war. It just puts war on hold. When one side is in breach of that cease-fire agreement, the other side has every right to commence combat operations against that country.
Iraq, under Saddam, was an asymmetrical threat. Again, the United Nations had no laws dealing with asymmetrical warfare threats. The actions that we took, to invade Iraq, our reactions within asymmetrical warfare. Since the United Nations was not geared, at that time, to deal with asymmetrical warfare, and our actions in Iraq are asymmetrical in nature, no international law was broken.
Also, nothing in the United States Constitution requires us to ask for permission from the United Nations to carry out matters regarding our security.
Juan Carlos, Salon: It is hard to see how this absurdly vague methodology could actually refute the memo's charges or, indeed, to know what exactly McClellan was driving at.
Said by someone who obviously did not read the text of the memorandum. Again, the memorandum read a case study of what had been done relative to Iraq up to that point. The memorandum continues on to talk about courses of action to remove Saddam from power. This ranged from supporting insurgents against Saddam, to a full-scale military invasion. Nothing, in that memo, supports the misinterpretation that Juan is attributing to that memorandum. If Juan read the memorandum, and he generated that article about it afterwards, it's glaringly obvious that he's engaging in propaganda. This is yet another example of propaganda and conspiracy that Andy believes in.
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?
Until you've answered my YES/NO question/s, and the other questions I've asked you on this thread, you don't have a leg to stand on asking me any questions. Until you do, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. Go back and answer all of my questions, as well as answer the YES/NO question per the parameters that I set, before you demand that I answer your questions... or do anything else for that matter.
First, the burden is on you, since you disagree with my argument, to find that tentative agreement, to find what the Iraqis were willing to abandon with regards to their demands, or any other question. Demanding that I come up with them, especially in an argument where you reject every single fact that I send your way, is not advancing an argument.
That tentative agreement existed. You need to do the research to prove that it did didn't exist. Don't demand that I show you that tentative agreement, especially since that it was verbal and made in an attempt to move people toward a written agreement. My allegedly not answering a question is not sufficient for you to dismiss that fact.
Your "standards of proof and evidence" argue strongly against your having a university level education.
Second, I answered your questions, listed in the above quote, thoroughly. Your attempts to dismiss what I argued is just you setting up stress shields to defend an opinion that you cannot even prove with facts. The only thing that you have shown, to support your argument, are conspiracy propaganda/opinion pieces by other like-minded low information people.
Again, I will not explain something, that actually happened, until you answer my yes/no question, as well as any other question that I've asked you on this thread. Yes, the Iraqis were willing to abandon some of their initial demands. That in fact happened. Telling me to show that to you, without your attempting to prove that "wrong", is not what you call refutation. It's you pulling a similar stunt that a losing boxer does when he hugs the winning boxer to prevent himself from falling into the floor.
You need to advance an argument, against the tentative agreement, and what the Iraqis were willing to abandon, instead of just asking me to show you a verbal attempt to move toward an agreement.
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.
Removed: [Anti War.com's conspiracy propaganda piece not grounded on fact]
First, The fact that you're going to quote "antiwar" speaks volumes about your bias in this argument against the facts that destroy your argument. That website has absolutely no credibility with critical thinking people.
Second, there was no deception going on with regards to Malaki working with the Iranians. Although Malaki looked forward to the US pulling out, he was adamantly against the Iranians taking over for the US with regards to influence in Iraq. He wanted to consolidate power, after we left, to himself and his allies. This would not happen with the Iranians calling the shots.
Third, this wasn't a case of President Bush signing under surprise. The Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq was signed leaving the option open to create a follow-on agreement with this agreement ran out. I operated under this Status of Forces Agreement. Any wrongdoing committed by any member of the US military was to be tried in a US military court, not in an Iraqi court. The "irritant" was "still there". We operated under the conditions that the Bush administration wanted, long after the end of the Bush Administration. Also, when we were there, we had a good relationship with the Iraqi army. Again, the US ambassador, backed by the US military, gave advice that Malaki took seriously. This included the requirement to work with other groups in Iraq, not just Shiite. This was a real contention that Malaki had against US presence. Notice, that after ISIS overran large sections of rack, Malaki is no longer in power and the US military is back there working under an agreement favorable to the US military.
Fourth, the United States military kicked terrorist azz throughout the Iraq war, including Sadr's militants. The facts are that Sadr's militants were not consistently loyal to him or to each other. His militants, as well as terrorists all over Iraq, consistently fractured and turned against each other. Sadr realized that he could not defeat us in the battlefield, so he turned to politics to gain legitimacy. He ordered his militants to seize fighting the US and Iraqi militaries. Not all of them listened, those that continued fighting on no longer saw legitimacy in Sadr. He was not this invincible being, leading on "invincible" militia, against the US. They consistently got there azzes handed to them by the US military. The United States military had no real limitations against going after Sadr's militia. The US military "matured" the Iraqi army by sending them against Sadr's militia, while remaining in close support positions. The ultimate goal was at the Iraqi military take care of security throughout Iraq. Something we accomplished before 2011. This was not the result of any "outmaneuvering" that the clueless conspiracy propaganda article that you referenced talks about.
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.
Link to more of Andy's conspiracy propaganda, but the page is no longer there for some reason. Sigh, I was looking forward to dismantle that article as well, perhaps he could find another link to the same article so that I could debunk it when I dismantle his replies the next time I come around -- which is a guaranteed thing provided he provides me with posts to dismantle.
Yes, Pentagon's proposal, which was verbally worked in conjunction with their Iraqi counterparts. Pay attention to what I have posted on this thread, as I have gone into detail. The US and Iraqi militaries worked together in Iraq to determine how many US military members were to remain behind. The US military came back and pushed the proposal up the chain of command. The Iraqis' proposal was worked into the US one, as the latter was dependent on the former.
As far as the Iraqis making a stand, they were doing that against the terrorists. With regards to the Status of Forces Agreement, there's a long drawn out process to get them to that point. The Iraqis, needed to support such an agreement, needed time to present their arguments and gather allies. Obama rushed him through that process.
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]
I look forward to coming back to dismantle your next series of replies. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. Likewise, I will hold my exact same position in this argument even after you quit replying to me. The fun is constantly coming back to destroy your arguments ad infinitum. Oh yeah, give me more argument to dismantle, instead of resorting to asking questions as your reply. That's lame, and that's not refutation.
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.
Little NAZI boy's arguments aren't even based on hindsight, just on conspiracy propaganda by other leftwing low information drones. Not only is Juan Cole a partisan hack, he had absolutely no clue about what he was talking about... Or, he could've read the memorandum, cherry picked it, then spread conspiracy propaganda to a readership he knew would lap up the turds that he fed them. What's even a bigger tragedy is that people believe him.
Any new updates on the deal? It didn't come up during the Democratic "debate".
Last I saw Iran was testing ICBMs, the USA objected and then Iran claimed that our objections invalidated the deal. So much for the "snap back" sanctions.
I also saw where Iran's parliament approved the deal but there was an issue with if they really approved the official deal. Also, there was a small issue that the deal violated federal law. I say small because the law doesn't matter to this President and his lackey press and subservient Congress.
Any new updates on the deal? It didn't come up during the Democratic "debate".
Last I saw Iran was testing ICBMs, the USA objected and then Iran claimed that our objections invalidated the deal. So much for the "snap back" sanctions.
I also saw where Iran's parliament approved the deal but there was an issue with if they really approved the official deal. Also, there was a small issue that the deal violated federal law. I say small because the law doesn't matter to this President and his lackey press and subservient Congress.
If Iran's Parliament, the Ayatollah and the UN approve it who gives a fuck what you think?
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.
Another frantic harangue! Noticed you have removed my link yet again, but this time you didn't have the balls to even announce your sleazy move. Why? It's a serious question, so if you answer it, do it in like manner.
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.
"Absolutely no comparison?!" Because you state so? There is no doubt that Gen. Franks conspired with Rumsfeld to plot a war against another sovereign nation, which constitutes a crime against peace under the provisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN Charters. Furthermore, the fore-mentioned act also constitutes a grave violation of the law of warfare cited by the US Army Field manual 27-10, Chapter 8, Sec. II, para. 500.
500. Conspiracy, Incitement, Attempts, and Complicity
Conspiracy, direct incitement, and attempts to commit, as well as complicity in
the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes are punishable.
Thus, Gen. Franks violated the UCMJ, Subchapter X, Article 81, Section 881.
If he wasn't a US general, he would have been liable to the same justice meted out to Anton Dostler. But at least Dostler could and did claim that he had merely carried out the secret "Commando Order" issued by Hitler. Where's the "Commando Order" the Gen. Franks "had to" obey? Oh! I almost forgot, you won't answer any of my questions from now on, right? Then get your buddies from "This Ain't Hell" to join this board and spam this post with their tirades. Let's see what they are made of.
Until you've answered my YES/NO question/s, and the other questions I've asked you on this thread, you don't have a leg to stand on asking me any questions. Until you do, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. Go back and answer all of my questions, as well as answer the YES/NO question per the parameters that I set, before you demand that I answer your questions... or do anything else for that matter.
First, the burden is on you, since you disagree with my argument, to find that tentative agreement, to find what the Iraqis were willing to abandon with regards to their demands, or any other question. Demanding that I come up with them, especially in an argument where you reject every single fact that I send your way, is not advancing an argument.
That tentative agreement existed. You need to do the research to prove that it did didn't exist. Don't demand that I show you that tentative agreement, especially since that it was verbal and made in an attempt to move people toward a written agreement. My allegedly not answering a question is not sufficient for you to dismiss that fact.
Your "standards of proof and evidence" argue strongly against your having a university level education.
"It was verbal and made in an attempt to move people toward a written agreement."
Do you really want to know my thought on this statement? I won't even bother to comment on this BS. Maliki's words don't worth a damn, and apparently yours too. But at least Bush did give a damn.
First, The fact that you're going to quote "antiwar" speaks volumes about your bias in this argument against the facts that destroy your argument. That website has absolutely no credibility with critical thinking people.
Is that all you got? Is this website anti-Bush or anti-Republican?
]
