Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
What amuses me in these discussions is the implication that "terrorists" (that word is almost meaningless these days) are somehow not fighting fair by not lining up and fighting the US armed forces.

If you're on the wrong end of a power dynamic to the extent that they are, but you still believe your cause is just, you'll probably end up using whatever tactics will work. They will never win in a "fair fight", because this is not a "fair fight"- it's the world's uncontested military hyperpower vs. some guys with a shoestring budget.
.

I have no qualms about someone hiding behind whatever and shooting or blending in by day to fight by night since it worked for us in the Revolution. What ,to me, qualifies someone as a terrorist is when they deliberatly walk, drive, whatever into an area of non combatants with the full intention of causing as much death and mayhem as possible among these non combatants. Cutting someone's head off or leaving corpses of those who speak against them as examples to others are also qualifiers for the term.
I do not look at the men who deliberately planned and executed this school massacre as having any shred of honor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58381-2004Sep3.html

Neither would I call the people who carried out this raid as anything more than terrorist. They didn't go to fight soldiers but to massacre civilians and plunder:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/boko-haram-massacre-nigeria-gamboru-ngala

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

That's cute... please tell me more why the US military is so reprehensible.

Well, I think what we did there was reprehensible. But I separate "decisions made by administrations" from "soldiers doing what they have to do."

I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible. And even though I think Iraq was a mistake I don't ever want to treat the OIF vets that way.

 d-usa wrote:


I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible.

This is honestly something of a myth produced by Nam vets themselves. No evidence has ever been found that the treatment of vets returning from Vietnam was that different from those who returned from Iraq or the World Wars. I had an interesting conversation with an oral historian at AHEC a few years ago about the subject. He runs a project to collect oral histories from soldiers, and he hates having to deal with Nam vets (he's a vet himself) because in his words "talking to them is like collecting a bucket of tears and then having no idea if they need a hug or a slap of reality."

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible.

This is honestly something of a myth produced by Nam vets themselves. No evidence has ever been found that the treatment of vets returning from Vietnam was that different from those who returned from Iraq or the World Wars. I had an interesting conversation with an oral historian at AHEC a few years ago about the subject. He runs a project to collect oral histories from soldiers, and he hates having to deal with Nam vets (he's a vet himself) because in his words "talking to them is like collecting a bucket of tears and then having no idea if they need a hug or a slap of reality."

Interesting.

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still waiting for examples of US Military Operations destroying the general population in GWOT. Unless we're now discussing conflicts that are beyond our times.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

That's cute... please tell me more why the US military is so reprehensible.

I will dignify your post with a response only if you treat the comment seriously.

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

Enlighten me. Who did you "interview" that gave you hard proof that we, as in the US and other Coalition forces there, invaded in under false pretense? The "Bush lied" bit not good enough being damn near all the Senate voted to go to war looking at the same info Bush did. What did not happen for the US to stay beyond the withdraw date? Same that is about to happen in Afghanistan.

 Jihadin wrote:

The fact that the U.S military invaded a nation under false pretenses and plunged the country into violent anarchy by dismantling the existing stability with no semblance of strategy or vision as to how this nation would keep itself together is enough for me to say that the U.S military is grossly responsible for the calamity that the civilian population has suffered..

Enlighten me. Who did you "interview" that gave you hard proof that we, as in the US and other Coalition forces there, invaded in under false pretense? The "Bush lied" bit not good enough being damn near all the Senate voted to go to war looking at the same info Bush did. What did not happen for the US to stay beyond the withdraw date? Same that is about to happen in Afghanistan.

The false pretense was that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Pretty simple even a grunt should know.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that the near whole senate voted for war shows the dunning-kruger effect at play.

Goes to show how stupid your senate was, doesn't it?.

That no one in the U.S could comprehend the potential problems of invading (under false pretenses).

No need to debate history, both campaigns are strategic failures.

Even the puppet installation failed

You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

There were multiple reasons cited for the war in every resolution on it I've ever seen, and the absence of nukes doesn't mean an absence of WMDs. It's a pleasingly broad definition.

But yeah. Some people just aren't ready for democracy, I guess.

Very true Seaward.

Clue for Ronin. SOFA Agreement as to not why we stayed beyond the withdraw date. Same that's about to happen in Afghanistan

 Jihadin wrote:
You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

Mustard gas..... hardly a WMD. You list thiodiglycol, which is simply a chemical used in mustard gas.

So..yeah 180km range missiles and some mustard gas....

 d-usa wrote:

I think that treating our Vietnam guys like gak when they came back was terrible. And even though I think Iraq was a mistake I don't ever want to treat the OIF vets that way.

In Australia, the treatment by government was very similar to the treatment of WW1 vets. I only found this out recently and was quite surprised. I think in general the treatment of vets in any country isn't particularly good.

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

There was never a claim they were a world threat because they could attack the world. There was a claim that Iraq posed a threat to the stability of the region, which was a world threat. Another war between Iran and Iraq would be a global disaster simply due to the damage to global oil prices.

At least debate the points actually cited if you're going to argue against something. We've heard all the made up talking points before, but they're still made up.

Here you go Ronin.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

 LordofHats wrote:

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

There was never a claim they were a world threat because they could attack the world. There was a claim that Iraq posed a threat to the stability of the region, which was a world threat.

So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

GENIUS.

Another war between Iran and Iraq would be a global disaster simply due to the damage to global oil prices.

Iraq did not have the ability to wage war,. in all purposes they were depleted

At least debate the points actually cited if you're going to argue against something. We've heard all the made up talking points before, but they're still made up.

The point is, the U.S did all of destabilsation. The "moral war" it is not.

USA Apologists can come up will 1001 excuses and rationalisations. The prextexts at the time were clear, don't try to change them.

 44Ronin wrote:


So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

I'm actually going to have to side with 44Ronin on this point. Invasions never aid stability.

 Jihadin wrote:
Here you go Ronin.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Mustard gas %2-3 fatality rate, hard to effectively deploy. Limited delivery system.

Doesn't really destroy stuff.

Bullockist wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

I'm actually going to have to side with 44Ronin on this point. Invasions never aid stability.

Only if you look at things short term.

If you see the choice between Iraq causing a massive war in the region, leading to massive instability, and the US occupying Iraq for a few years and only causing some relatively minor instability you can see how it actually did add stability in the long run.

Frankly, the local disturbances from Iraq were relatively minor. You didn't have masses of refugees that any war Iraq would have launched would have caused. And an unstable dictator was removed from the picture.

Mustard gas was dispersed as an aerosol in a mixture with other chemicals, giving it a yellow-brown color and a distinctive odor. Mustard gas has also been dispersed in such munitions as aerial bombs, land mines, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and rockets.[1] Exposure to mustard gas was lethal in about one percent of cases. Its effectiveness was as an incapacitating agent. The early countermeasures against mustard gas were relatively ineffective, since a soldier wearing a gas mask was not protected against absorbing it through his skin and being blistered.

Its an irritant chemical. Chemical burns and what not. Get it into your lungs then your dead

WMD due to

Mustard agents are regulated under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Three classes of chemicals are monitored under this Convention, with sulfur and nitrogen mustard grouped in Schedule 1, as substances with no use other than in chemical warfare. Mustard agents could be deployed on the battlefield by means of artillery shells, aerial bombs, rockets, or by spraying from warplanes.

Chemical Weapons Convention is this:

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The full name of the treaty is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction and it is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental organization based in The Hague, Netherlands. The treaty entered into force in 1997.

As an interviewer like you stated a bit back. Do a little research

 Grey Templar wrote:
and the US occupying Iraq for a few years and only causing some relatively minor instability you can see how it actually did add stability in the long run.

The fact that you call the instability in Iraq 'minor' is just plain ignorant.

800 civillians killed in one month (may)...minor to an American
U-RAH SEMPER FI

 44Ronin wrote:
So America invaded destabilising the region, therefore creating the problem it intended to prevent.

I never said it was a good claim. Just that it's the claim that was made. Further, there are degrees of instability. Internal instability in Iraq is better than regional instability, and after the war, most of Iraq was stable save certain areas.

GENIUS.

Iraq did not have the ability to wage war,. in all purposes they were depleted

They had the 4th largest army in the world. We could steam roll them sure (and we did) but Iran and Iraq had already fought a very bloody and prolonged war once. No one was really eager to see it happen again and Saddam liked to do a lot more than just rattle sabers.

The prextexts at the time were clear, don't try to change them.

They are clear. You simply refuse to accept them because you prefer a fictional narrative. I'm hardly an apologist for US foreign policy. I just prefer that people be up and arms over reality rather than fantasy.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
and the US occupying Iraq for a few years and only causing some relatively minor instability you can see how it actually did add stability in the long run.

The fact that you call the instability in Iraq 'minor' is just plain ignorant.

800 civillians killed in one month (may)...minor to an American
U-RAH SEMPER FI

Better than tens of thousands killed in a regional war(and hundreds of thousands displaced)

Let's not forget Hassan 10K to the families of those that wear the Almighty Bomb vest

The presence of WMDs or not is a moot point, the UN did not give the order to invade, therefore both Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law.

Didn't know the UN was in charge of all the countries.

 dæl wrote:
The presence of WMDs or not is a moot point, the UN did not give the order to invade, therefore both Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under international law.

The UN doesn't really get to stand around and do nothing when dictators and tribal leaders are committing genocide and then throw up the stop sigh when the US decides to play super hero of the world. I.E. The UN's opinion in these matters are about as meaningful to me as Hitler's opinion of racial equality (and Godwin)



The UN as a body has so many biased opinions, I've mostly chosen to completely ignore all their opinions. It's proven worthwhile 99% of the time.

The US ratified the UN Charter, so its one of the few international laws that does apply to you guys.

As for the UN standing around doing nothing, that is the fault of the veto system, which the US is by far and away the worst for using. And if we are Godwinning then perhaps I should draw your attention to what happened when nobody listened to the League of Nations...

 dæl wrote:
The US ratified the UN Charter, so its one of the few international laws that does apply to you guys.

And like most international treaties, there's no real punishment for ignoring it, which is the UN's problem. Lots of chatter. No teeth. It's a hippie on soap box. And of course, the US is on the security council with a permanent chair. It's like letting athletes referee themselves.