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

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

The cease-fire was concluded between Iraq and the U.N. Security Council, only the U.N. Security Council has the ultimate authority to determine if a war is justified against Saddam, not the Bush administration; because the U.S. were in no position to usurp that authority.

WRONG, as usual.

Nothing in UN Security Council Resolution 687 delineates how a cease-fire would end with hostilities resuming. Absent that delineation, the rules of land warfare prevails. Absent specification in the rules of land warfare, contract law as applied to warfare applies.

Let's put this in simple terms. The resolution required Iraq to carry out certain acts. Almost immediately, Saddam violated some of those terms. He consistently did that throughout the 1990s. Under contractual law, this constitutes a breach of contract. A contract, continuously breached, becomes null and void. That so-called "permanent cease-fire" becomes null and void, and the conditions prior to that cease-fire prevail. We bombarded Iraq throughout the 1990s partly because of Saddam's violation of that resolution. If one side violates a cease-fire, any of the other participants can resume hostilities.

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. The United Nations had no authority to prevent our sovereign acts. Likewise, their attempt to stop us amounts to them trying to dictate to us how we should do things. The United Nations went beyond what it was created to do. Under the Constitution of the United States, given his powers as commander-in-chief, as well as law passed by Congress authorizing his actions in Iraq, President Bush was in the right, and followed law in his actions to order Iraq invasion.

The Bush Administration, with the backing of the United States Constitution and a congressional resolution, had every right to make the decision. NOT the United Nations, which was not designed to deal with asymmetrical warfare variables. Nothing in its resolutions, bylaws, charter, etc., provided guidelines on how to react to asymmetrical warfare issues as of March 2003. The invasion of Iraq was a part of asymmetrical warfare. Therefore, you cannot violate international law that does not exist. Only a fool would argue for an archaic institution to hamstring a country in a fight involving threats beyond the bandwidth of that archaic institution.

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. The United Nations had no say in the matter. One more time for emphasis, nowhere in our Constitution are we required to seek the permission of the United Nations, or a political body outside to control the United States, to go to war.

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]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You aren't serious are you?

On another note, Andy, what in the article you posted confirms FACTUALLY a "conspiracy" with Tommy Franks regarding an invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Yup, that was the first thing that jumped at me when looking at his reference. Nothing in his reference talked about a conspiracy, he miserably failed to provide proof of a conspiracy.

His psychological makeup, as indicated by his post here, shows that he is serious about these responses. His arrogance has been driving his participation on this thread ever since I proved him wrong the first time I replied to him. He has yet to answer my straightforward questions, no matter how many times I showed them to him. At this point, he doesn't care if he's right or wrong, what matters to him now is that he has something to say in response. He's saying anything, and pulling anything out of azz, in order to have a response and to achieve what he is not going to achieve here.

I looked at his other performances on the other threads. He seems to have a fetish for getting his azz repeatedly shoved down his throat.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Ah Ha! this one's in writing, after all the nuances were ironed out verbally....

I watched the video that you linked to, and listened for any explanation that would've answered the following question regarding your assumptions about Gen. Franks violating the UCMJ, Article 81, Section 881.:

"Again, proof? Where are the written correspondences between the two that allegedly supports your assumptions here?" - herfacechair

I didn't find anything in writing, and in the video, nor any narrative explanation, answering the question regarding Gen. Franks. You claimed that it was in writing, but I didn't find anything in the video showing anything written constituting the reply to the question. How about answering the question?

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Is that a question or a statement? If a question, my answer is that I would have gone after those bastards if I were in a position to do so. Wouldn't you?

I looked at both my statement and the video that you posted. On my comment. Either you're blind and unable to read, or you had too much liquor as of the time you posted.

If you go back and look at the comment that you quoted, you would notice that there are sentences that end in a "period". Those sentences are followed by a question. Therefore, the question that you asked need not be asked.

On the video. I watched the video from beginning to the end, and did not find any answer to question that I asked you. You accused Gen. Franks of violating the UCMJ. I followed that up with a statement that if what you said were true, not only would he be up on charges, but so would the rest of us. I followed that with the question involving the world's taking action on those alleged "war crimes".

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 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? There is none, because the international community sees your line of reasoning is nothing but BS.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

I am curious, too. "Where is the international move to carry out a repeat of the Nuremburg trials," since an order to commit war crimes had been issued by the U.S. military?

You claimed that Gen. Franks and others committed a war crime. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he did such. So far, you've consistently failed to prove those assumptions "correct". You've done nothing but present your misunderstanding of how the military does things, your misunderstanding of what constitutes a violation of law, as well as your videos that have nothing to do with what we are arguing about.

I asked you some questions. You need to provide the evidence. Not turn around and repeat the question that I asked you.

No order was given to commit war crimes. 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.

So, instead of farting your opinions out about these "alleged" war crimes and "conspiracies", how about providing credible sources of information to back your nonsense? You have consistently failed to do so, and I anticipate that you will continue to fail to provide this evidence. Videos about what happened and other wars are not refutation.

Your link talks about an alleged incident of war crimes during the Korean War. Let me remind you about which war we are arguing about:

"As usual, you are wrong. Gen. Franks did not violate the UCMJ. I know for fact that the military will come down hard on people who violate the UCMJ on matters as serious as you are charging. In order for your assumptions to be true, then every single one of us would have to be subject to court marshals. 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

Hint: Gen. Franks, Iraq War. THAT is the thrust of my question, THAT is what you should be addressing. Your bringing up alleged examples involving other wars amounts to you utilizing strawman arguments. You may think that you are providing a response, but in reality I see it for what it is. You cannot back your opinions with anything credible relevant to this debate.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Really? The facts are that he would have been "exempt" if he was with "them" back then.

Caught you butt naked again, Pharaoh.

Wrong again. Everybody in the United States military, from private to general and their equivalents, are subject to the UCMJ. Nobody would be exempt from the provisions within the UCMJ. It was established by law when United States Congress and the president at the time that it was implemented into law. Nothing in the UCMJ exempts anybody in the military, are subject to the UCMJ in one of the special categories, from being held accountable for violating any terms in the UCMJ.

Your link referenced a couple of idiots talking about the Vietnam War. Again, what war are we arguing about here? Let me recap. You accused Gen. Franks of violating the UCMJ. I followed that up by telling you that you're full of it, because you are, and highlighted it with what would happen to the rest of us involved with the Iraq war.

Stay with me now, pay attention, this is what I said:

"So, in order for your ignorant assumptions to apply, every single one of us that participated in the Iraq War are also "guilty" of "war crimes". 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

Do you see my quote, specifically what I have bolded? Where, in that quote, do I talk about the Korean War or the Vietnam War or any other war for that matter? If you pay attention to what you're reading, you'd realize that I'm talking about the Iraq war, and Iraq war veterans.

How about addressing that instead of pulling up strawman? No, you didn't catch me with "my pants down", or in another "lie," or coughing up anything other than the facts or a fact-based reasoned argument. All you're doing is equivalent of what Saddam's miss information minister did. You remind me of him with most of the statements that you make.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace is punishable by death under the provisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, thus I stand by my claim that Gen. Franks is liable to the same justice meted out to Anton Dostler.

Again:

"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

First, the assumption that Gen. Franks should be subject to the same fate as Anton Dostler is nothing but an uneducated assumption made via an apples and oranges comparison. There is absolutely no resemblance between what Anton Dostler did, when compared to Gen. Franks performing his duties. His planning for the invasion of Iraq was both legal and him performing his duties. Anton Dostler committed crimes against humanity. Gen. Franks did not. It's that simple.

Second, I brought up a valid point that you consistently refuse to address. If what you said was "fact", ROTFLMFAO, then it will go without saying that there would be a massive move to subject people to court-martial or to a modern-day version of the Nuremberg Trials. 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. Following orders to address, and to eliminate, an asymmetrical threat does not constitute "crimes against peace". It simply constitutes somebody doing their military duties to address a legitimate threat. Your statement is as idiotic as accusing someone, defending themselves in the street, as "disturbing the peace".

So, instead of bringing up strawman arguments and statements, how about coming up with a legitimate argument? You have yet to bring one up, and I anticipate that you won't bring one up in your future replies. Your preferred method of arguing is hiding behind others.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Here they are, even though they were not so "secret" as the "Commando Order."

"They" both claimed they wanted a "diplomatic solution," sound familiar?

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. Instead of answering my question about such an order, you link to an article that talks about how President Bush did what a commander in chief would normally do in cases involving situations like Iraq.

I've given orders to my soldiers, numerous orders, that the public at large is not aware of. Your comment, that President Bush signed in order and trying to match that to a "commando order" is as idiotic as claiming that I had issued my soldiers "commando orders" simply because the public was not aware of the orders I give my soldiers. Let us take a trip down memory lane and remind you what you said:

"But at least Dostler could and did claim that he had merely carried out the secret "Commando Order" issued by Hitler." - andymarksman

You, of all people, should know that the Commando Order involved killing all allied Special Forces personnel without the benefit of a trial, even if they follow the protocols that required them to be treated as noncombatants. That is the implication that you are making with regards to the German that you are comparing to Gen. Franks. In response, I held your feet to the fire with a question asking you to provide that commando order, the official document, that you claim was issued by Bush.

None of the links that you provided, nor any of your posts, answered that question. The reason that you cannot answer this question, nor any other questions I've asked you, is that you know that you are full of crap and that you are lying your azz off in this argument.

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.

Also, on your comment about "both" wanting a diplomatic solution. When you're dealing with things on a political level, yes your going to talk about wanting a diplomatic solution first. That is common when dealing with multiple countries. For instance, the East Asian countries are at each other's throats regarding contested possessions in the South China Sea. Despite these tensions, all those countries are calling for a diplomatic solution. Attempting to bring up this angle amounts to nothing but academic dishonesty.

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]

andymarksman: So you now want to argue that "amended" means "renewed." How creative!

Wrong, what I actually said:

"'This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries.'

"This loophole is so large you could sail a super tanker through it. This is not an elimination of the possibility of keeping US forces in Iraq after 2011. It opens the door to extending this agreement, to coming up with a new agreement, or both. Pres. Obama had that opportunity, based on this provision alone, to extend our presence. He had plenty of room to maneuver." -- herfacechair

In no way, shape, or form am I restricting this to "renewed". However, my statement still stands. In which ways can the agreement be amended?

* Amended to extend the agreement for a specific time...
* Amended to extend the agreement indefinitely as an established permanent SOFA...
* Amended to allow for additional time to negotiate a renewal...

This proved wrong your statement:

"...the final agreement eliminated that possibility altogether." -- andymarksman

How could this be a complete elimination of the possibility of extending the troops stay when there is a provision that allows that agreement to be amended? Even you would have to see that your assumption was wrong. How you're dealing with your being proved wrong here will speaks volumes about you as a person.

andymarksman: Try to translate your interpretation to Arabic;

It doesn't matter which way you translate this document with regards to destination language. The fact of the matter is that a multiple step process is used to translate things like this that two countries, speaking two different languages, would utilize.

First, the agreement was drafted in English. Second, it was translated into Arabic and other main language spoken in Iraq. Third, that interpretation was translated back into English. Differences in and results were reconciled to match the original document, in this case the document written in English.

No matter how you try to slice and dice this, your assumption was proven wrong like the rest of your arguments.

andymarksman: because Maliki wasn't buying your BS:

How could Maliki agree or disagree with the statement that I made on this board in 2015 regarding the treaty that he was talking about years before? Apparently, you have not spent an extensive amount of time in that area. Maliki knew for a fact that the provision that I mentioned was in the treaty. His dismissing that amounted to deception to get certain segments in Baghdad to continue supporting him. It was politically expedient, he was doing political grandstanding. However, that does not change the fact that the treaty stated the part that I quoted on this thread. By extension, your statement was proven wrong.

andymarksman: "This agreement is not subject to extention, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

Again, what you said:

"...the final agreement eliminated that possibility altogether." -- andymarksman

The actual words in the treaty:

"This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."

What anybody else says about the treaty, that contradicts what is said in the treaty, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you talked about the treaty. You claimed, erroneously and without knowing what was in the treaty because you were satisfied with secondhand sources, that it eliminated any chances of an extension. I proved you wrong with the actual statement from the treaty.

THAT's what you need to focus on. The fact that you are wrong. So, here is another question that I will keep asking you:

Were you wrong when you claimed that the treaty "eliminated" the possibility of US troops remaining in Iraq beyond 2011? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste this question, along with the YES/NO option to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply without attempting to add any further BS to this reply. Then, go back and do the same with the other YES/NO questions that I've asked you.

andymarksman: But you would argue that Maliki said "the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate-with the approval of Iraq's Parliament-a new status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008." Do you understand what it means? We are at their mercies, since they could have done it at their leisure, not obligated by the provisions of the 2008 SOFA.

Wrong, what I've consistently argued, on this thread and elsewhere, is that the opportunity was there for both sides to negotiate an extension of the current treaty, or to come up with a new one. The statement that I keep smacking you with is proof of this legal possibility. The opportunity was there for President Obama to leverage this to negotiate an extension of our presence in Iraq so that we could continue working with shoring up the weaknesses we knew for a fact they continued to have.

Getting one of these, with cooperation from the Iraqis, required time. It required time for our political allies in the Iraqi government to gain the momentum needed to get the Iraqi government to agree to an extension, or renewal, of our stay in the country. President Obama didn't show any sign, or effort, of wanting to get that extension... even forcing the Iraqi side's hand in a way that would've gotten the proposal into a "dead on arrival" situation.

Of course one side is going to rely on the other side to meet them halfway in order to get an extension of the treaty. President Obama ensured that we wouldn't get the Iraqis onboard by forcing their hand in a way that would kill any chances that this would get extended. But, events occurring since last year proved that the Iraqis were at our mercy. How many US service members are in Iraq as of this posting again?

No, this isn't a case where we'd be at their "mercies". Heck, we have US military BACK in Iraq doing what? Operating under a new SOFA in Iraq. What happened to the, "This is sealed, final, they are out" nonsense that you quoted Maliki as saying? President Obama couldn't screw us out of this one if he wanted to, as even he realized that reality dictated what he should do next. Which brings us back to the fact that he should've facilitated an extension or renewal in the first place to avoid the catastrophe that we ultimately had to endure with Iraq.

Don't ask me if I understand what something means. Unlike you, I understand what I'm reading enough to know that if someone were to ask me something regarding the Iraq War, I wouldn't reply with a video talking about the Korean or Vietnam War without also addressing the specific question.

andymarksman: Please don't do it in public with your dress uniform on, you are looking so obscene....

You're so desperate in this argument that you're making things up. The only person that looks idiotic in this specific exchange is you. You must not have a conscience given that you keep making an idiot out of yourself, and an idiot out of the education system that pushed you through the system that graduated you, when you pull crap out of your azz and post it as your post. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your credibility with your help.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

No wonder Maliki wanted to screw us so badly, because he has observed the apparent violations by the U.S. military under the terms of the 2008 SOFA.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...684397604.html

The alleged problem? From your link:

"Mr Maliki said the raid, in southern Iraq, violated the US-Iraqi security agreement and he called for the US military to 'hand over those responsible for this crime to the courts'." -- Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah, April 28, 2009

What was the "violation"? From your link:

"Under the security pact, US forces are barred from conducting unilateral operations and cannot detain Iraqis for long periods." -- Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah, April 28, 2009

Reality? From your link:

"...the Iraqi Defence Ministry announced it had detained two top Iraqi military officials in Wasit province for authorising the American raid without obtaining approval from their commanders." - -- Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah, April 28, 2009

Their approval of this made this a bilateral operation, thus consistent with the agreement. But, what could be the motivation for this accusation? From your link:

"American officials, speaking anonymously, said Mr Maliki's move could be politically motivated. National elections will be held late this year." -- Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah, April 28, 2009

Andy, do you even bother reading the references that you use in your argument? The specific link that you used actually harmed you, and doesn't support the assumption that you made on the post that I'm rebutting with this post. Nowhere in this article does it state that Maliki is "trying to screw us out of an agreement" because of alleged atrocities. This article even proves that no such atrocities, or treaty violations, occurred with the raid.

As indicated in the article, this charge was politically motivated, even Maliki knew that. He was being more of a politician, and catered to specific groups of people with that comment, than he was thinking strategy.

I enjoy hammering you with your own references.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

So you want to argue that Obama should have called Maliki daily begging him to grant the immunity to the U.S. troops in Iraq? No wonder you are such a suppliant miser of Maliki.

[INDUCTIVE FALLACY/STRAWMAN]

Wrong, nothing in the statement that you quoted supports any of your assumptions. A point that I was making, what you are deliberately missing, is the fact that Pres. Obama did not truly want an extension or a renewal of the SOFA. A high profile treaty like this required the interaction of the heads of state. As a commander in chief, he would have taken the lead on this himself. Having a vice president do it only shows someone that is half azzing something he does not care about. Nowhere in my comment that I demand that the president call every day. Nowhere in my comment did I state that anybody should be begged for anything.

As for the link that you linked to, Maliki took a similar hard-line in the last decade prior to the previous SOFA. Unlike Bush, Pres. Obama decided to force the hand of the Iraqi side so that no agreement will come up. The argument about immunity is pure nonsense. As with other SOFA's, service members that commit crimes while executing their duties for the government would remain under the jurisdiction of the US justice system. On the other hand, those operating outside of their duties, and outside of what would normally be covered by the US justice system, would be subject to local laws. Again, as was usually the case with Maliki, his statements regarding a renewed agreement were nothing but political grandstanding.

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.

I realize this is hard for you to do, but you need to address what I actually said and not what you think I said because the latter would be easier for you to address. This ploy, together with the other ploys that you've pulled in the series of replies, show me that you are desperate in this debate.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Name a single civilian in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates ever gunned down by the U.S. soldiers, just one.

First, until you answer all the questions I've asked you, including the yes/no questions per the parameters that I set, you do not have a leg to stand on asking me any questions.

Second, that is a strawman question that has nothing to do with the argument that was being made. One argument being addressed is about the issue of sovereignty when it comes to which justice system a US service member would be subjected to. In this case, the sovereignty issue being a point of disagreement when it comes to these international agreements.

Third, in every country that we have a SOFA agreement with, issues of sovereignty have popped up. I know that for fact, because I've had people that I've deployed with get turned over to the justice system for trial. Israel and Spain are two places that I could think of where this happened. There have also been instances where the US service member remained under the custody of the US military despite the crime being an issue that the local national government could've handled. This also would've been applicable in a follow-on SOFA with Iraq, had one been drawn up.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

I don't give a fuck on "what the Iraqis were willing to abandon," just like you don't give a fuck on what Obama was not willing to abandon.

You don't give a fuck about what the Iraqis were willing to abandon in order to come up with a SOFA agreement, because the very fact destroys one of the main arguments that you are advancing on this thread. Look at where we are at today, despite all this bellicose chest thumping done by a previous politician in power, about there being no US forces in Iraq post 2011. We have US forces deployed to Iraq as of this post. They are operating under a SOFA, one that the Iraqis were more than willing to make concessions on in order to achieve.

Don't dismiss my argument, proving that Obama had absolutely no intention of making a follow-on SOFA reality, as my not giving a fuck about what Obama was not willing to abandon. The cold hard reality was he didn't care about our remaining completely under US jurisdiction. He was using that as a vehicle, in reality, he does not care about the troops. Don't tell me that "I don't give a fuck" about something when I know for fact that "something" is just a front. The cold hard reality is that we could have gotten a SOFA that was consistent with the previous one. Obama didn't want it to happen, and set things up for it to not to happen. He could care less about immunity for the troops.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

I have never complained the way you post, have I? Don't like the way I post? You don't have to reply, do you?

Don't mistake my giving you constructive criticism, regarding your debate tactics, as my "complaining" about your post, or about the way you post. The patterns that you had before, as well with this recent series of replies, is of you hiding behind other people, other articles, and strawmen statements/questions, instead of coming up with your own arguments. I have a smile on my face, while generating this post, that's bigger than what it was generating the previous replies.

Someone has a thin skin, and can't handle constructive criticism. BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA!

I don't care about how you post. However, I'm going to point to you how you're losing this argument by criticizing the fact that you are hiding behind other arguments instead of advancing your own arguments. That is not me complaining about your post, nor is it me expressing "dislike" for the way you reply.

As for your statement about my "not having to" reply to you. Again, I have every intention of replying to you. You're no different from many of the people that I argued with over the past 12 years. How about you sit down, and write down all the thoughts that come to your head regarding this argument and your intentions with it. Look at the list. There is an excellent chance that the countless of others that I've debated with over the past 12 years have thought many of the same things.

I assure you that this is not going to end up the way you hope it will. History involving my participation in these kind of debates proves that. Again, there is a purpose behind everything that I say, word for word, sentence for sentence, paragraph or paragraph, post for post, etc.

Now how about growing some balls and presenting your own arguments instead of hiding behind the arguments made by others? Oh yeah, have the integrity to admit that you don't have any military experience compared to my having over two decades of it, when it comes to credibility in an argument involving the military and the Iraq war. Trying to showcase another service member, in an argument against me, is akin to Valor Coat Riding. It's a cousin to valor theft.

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]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

How "current" is this arms deal between Moscow and Tehran, two days ago, maybe?

And you want to argue Obama hasn't done enough to counter this threat to IAF?

the age of the arms is beside the point. Thanks to the lowering of sanctions against Iran, the Russians can contribute to Iran's bolstering their anti-air defenses. This reduces our options when it comes to curtailing Iran's illegal activities.

Also, the Israeli Air Force is NOT a threat to the modern US military, or to the United States in general. I've been to Israel several times courtesy of routine deployments. We've done exercises with the Israelis. We have a great relationship with the Israeli military, all branches. I trust the Israelis as military allies.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34767012