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

Were you confined to the military base 24/7, or you were on duty 24/7? Caught you lying yet again. Now people will begin to see that your arguments are mere horseshits. Originally Posted by andymarksman

I was an infantryman, Stupid, we conducted missions beyond the combat outposts. We crossed the wire numerous occasions. Yes, we were on duty 24/7 either out on patrol, doing perimeter defense, or being quick reaction force. Also, there's a difference between a military base, what you'd see in the U.S., aka garrison mode, and a combat outpost, which is what we operated from while in Iraq, aka combat or expeditionary mode. We had patrol bases, contingency operating bases, and forward operating bases. They were different, in many aspects, from a military base. We were not there long enough to have military bases as they're known in the U.S.

Now, people won't see my arguments as "mere horseshits", quotation marks used strongly, because my arguments are based on facts, to include first hand experiences and extensive research related to the topic that we are arguing. However, they'll see your arguments as pure utter rubbish and drivel as you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and you're referencing opinionated articles that have not been subjected to a real fact check review.

Both of us know that you're the only liar in this argument.

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 to some more of Andy's conspiracy whack job articles. However, it will be refuted in this post:

Myth: These documents are hard evidence and proof of intentional genocide against the entire Iraqi civilian population. These war crimes we committed by destroying the water systems with precision bombing.

Nothing in the document, that your linked article references, supports the assumption that "Information Clearing House" is making. Anybody reading that message, with the intention of understanding what that message is saying, would know that they were talking about decaying infrastructure. Go ahead, nobody is looking, go to the original document and read it yourself. There's not enough information in that article to infer that we deliberately attacked their water infrastructure. However; there's plenty information in that document to infer that the Iraqis were dealing with a decaying water infrastructure, and that they were cannibalizing that infrastructure to support the most important parts of it. This is more of a logistics issue than it is a military issue.

Attacking nonmilitary targets is prohibited per our rules of engagements. The water system in a country is an example of a nonmilitary target. Our airstrikes in Saddam's Iraq focused on military targets, starting with those that were the most threatening to the U.S. military, and working their way down to the least threatening military target.

You see, Andy, even the information that you link to provides information that would lead others to see that you're full of crap, and you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Not even if that article is available for you to review.

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.

WHERE, in this linked-to document, does it say that we bombed their water system? WHERE?

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...11rept_91.html

Here is another link to the same "conspiracy propaganda" you claim that is no longer there, herfacechair. Dismantle it! Look, I'm not taunting you. You, in your own words, guaranteed you will dismantle that article. So show me what you have left in you, I'll be waiting.

[Removed, yet another propaganda piece that Andy posted without fact checking it first. To his credit, I asked him to post a working link so that I could dismantle the article that it lead to.] Originally Posted by andymarksman

First, go back to the original link, in your original post, and click it. See where it leads you to. When I clicked it, with the intention to dismantle it like I did your other links, I got a page saying that the article that I was looking for was no longer there. That's a fact, my statement about hoping that you'd post it from another source was legitimate. That dead end robbed me of an opportunity to dismantle it during my last series of replies.

Second, what I have left? I haven't even shown you a fraction of what I have. In fact, look back at this current batch of posts in reply to you. Does that look like "what I have left"? I have far more ammunition, in this argument, than you do. You're showing, with these latest batches of your replies, that you've ran out of argument a long time ago.

The fact that you're hiding behind opinion pieces written by other people, as your main argument tactic, speaks volumes to the fact that you ran out of argument a long time ago. I'm far from being in that position.

Third, a look at that article indicates that it's yet another one of your conspiracy whack job articles.

Now, to address your articles' screed.

No, the Obama administration did not, in any way shape or form, demand a removal or change of administration in Iraq because he was not getting a "status of forces agreement". If anything, his lack of action was threatening another kind of change of administration in Iraq... to Iraq's enemies. No, Pres. Obama did not make a decision to have him removed. The Iraqis did that themselves. The voice support, that the Obama administration provided to the new Iraqi government, had nothing to do with any alleged actions that the Obama administration may have taken. It had everything to do with the Obama administration being political.

Also, why have the vice president call the Prime Minister? If Obama was serious, he would've done it himself, not have his vice president do it. That does not sound to me like the present that had just influenced changed in the Iraqi government. That didn't happen, Obama didn't care, and he did not administer any kind of repercussions against the Iraqis for not accepting an agreement that Obama was not willing to accept either. Again, the congratulatory message is no different from similar messages given to political leaders win elections in their countries.

On the argument about the "bilateral strategic framework". Did you notice the date on this article? Here, I will give you a hint as you do not appear to read your own sources of information with the intention of understanding what they're saying. This article was written in August 15, 2014. What else was happening during that time period? ISIS taking over large areas in Iraq maybe? Now, think about this. Why would the administration all of a sudden want to come up with such an agreement? The answer simple, he screwed up by frustrating an attempt to get a continuation on the last one. Obama saw how much of a negative impact this would have on his legacy. So much for his plans to "pull out" and have everybody like us. That didn't happen.

No, Pres. Obama did not allow ISIS to take over parts of Iraq so that he could get the agreement. That happened because Pres. Obama did what he normally does, be indecisive until the last minute. He tends to sit on his duff and wait or hope for the problem to resolve itself. It didn't this time. The problem spilled over until Iraq was seeing territory turned over to a terrorist group again. Then, typical of how he had been throughout his presidency, he acted in the last minute when events forced his hands.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is wrong in her assessment with regards to getting back into Iraq. Yes, we have a long-standing interest in maintaining a presence in the Persian Gulf area; that has been the case since the late 1940s. Even though we had to leave Iraq at the end of 2011, we still have boot in the ground presence in Kuwait, Bahrain, and other locations in the region. We also have a naval presence in the Persian Gulf, where sovereignty issues are not hindrances to our operations.

This is not an elaborate plan by the Obama administration to get us back into Iraq. His intention was to keep us out of Iraq and remain consistent with his campaign promises. Again, the invasion of Iraq by ISIS forced Obama's hand. Even then, the actual troop numbers we presently have there now is not sufficient to resolve the problem over there. Like he did with the "surge" in Afghanistan, he's half azzing this effort against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Also, the idea that we are fighting for oil there is erroneous. North America gets the vast majority of its oil via pipelines in North America and in the Caribbean. That's right, the vast majority of our oil come from the Western Hemisphere. If this was about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela. Not Iraq. No, we were not there because of oil, but because of the asymmetrical warfare justification that I provided on this thread. Pres. Obama did not change his tune because of oil. He changed his tune because he knew that how posterity would look at him after his presidency was affected by what happened in the Middle East. He would have to realize that pointing out, via forcing the Iraqis hand, was a mistake.

The author of the article erroneously claimed that Obama's pledge to pull forces out, and his keeping to that promise, was just a ploy. Wrong. What was a false show of action was his administration's moves to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis to follow the one that the Bush administration worked on before. The Obama administration never intended to have one of those as a follow on. Hence, he forced their hands knowing that this would result in a "dead on arrival" proposal.

Again, the fact that members of the Obama administration will praise the new Iraqi administration does not support the author's argument. They are doing what politicians should do, congratulate the victors of an election. It has nothing to do with them actively, or indirectly, working to remove the previous administration.

On the author's summary of what Obama did relative to Maliki. That was a result of Obama's hands being forced by events in the Middle East.

I can continue on, but you have the picture. "What I have left" is not an accurate statement. The only time when I would be in condition to be where I would demonstrate "what I have left" when it comes to these arguments is when I breathe my last breath.

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.

Now you sound just like COG. Am I getting under your skin, Pharaoh? Originally Posted by andymarksman

First, to answer your stupid question, no, you are not getting under my skin. Not even by a long shot. Understand that there is a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, post, etc., that I generate. If your assumptions lead you to conclude that you are getting an advantage against me, you are embracing the wrong assumptions. You aren't getting under my skin, but your reactions are making me laugh my azz off.

I've debated people like you for 12 years. I have you people analyzed and categorized where it comes to psychological and temperamental makeup. Nothing that you are doing comes remotely close to anything involving getting under my skin. If anything, your statement here demonstrates your arrogance and desperation. You're too arrogant to see that you been destroyed in this debate, that you ran out of argument, and that you are hiding behind other people statements as your main argument effort. It also demonstrates your desperation that you are willing to look at my statement and assume that you are getting under my skin. You aren't.

Second, I take sadistic pleasure in taking you guys apart the way I'm taking you apart here. I laugh at your reactions to my posts. That's a big reason to why I'm doing this, and to why I'd take a break from my doctoral work to smack retards like you around on these threads. It's a joy and pleasure I have in utilizing what I know about your psychological makeup to craft the right message to get you to react the way I want you to react. Remember, I'm utilizing a personal version of PSYOP on you, and it is working. By allowing yourself to be my punching bag, you allow me to practice my craft in a private setting so that I could be more effective the next time I deploy. It's a fun way for me to do it as well.

Remember, you contribute to the War on Terror effort over there by allowing yourself to be my punching bag here.

Third, COG and I debated against each other on this thread. COG has shifted to the point to where he and I are mostly in disagreement. Your acknowledgment that I "sound like him" should speak volumes about you. If two people, who disagree with each other, start saying the same things to you about you, that should be enough for you to realize that your opinion, as well as that of the people that you reference, is an error. COG and I are at least an agreement in that area.

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.

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

Let's revisit this statement. When I replied to you, I reminded you that I did not intend to change your mind. That has been the case with those that I've argued with during the past 12 years who argued from your point of view.

On the other side the coin, I've never changed my position/argument based on anything said by the opposition. The facts get me to do that, your side of the argument has never done that in the past 12 years I have been arguing against you people. I don't anticipate your side of ever doing that in the future if you guys persist on embracing propaganda over the facts. You people persistently showcase pure opinion/nonsense as 'fact" while dismissing the facts, or a fact based argument, as something other than a fact based argument. When I base my arguments on the facts, I stand by them, with no intention of abandoning them and, like you, will stand fast to my position "till the day I die."

Don't mistake the sadistic pleasure that I take in destroying your arguments as an attempt to change your mind, or an effort to change my position. It isn't. It's just another source of enjoyment that I have. There is no shelf life to these arguments as far as I'm concerned, because that would be putting a shelf life on one form of entertainment.

Now, about something that you keep ignoring:

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.

Too little too late.

Tough titties for you, dipshit!

Too little too late.

Tough titties for you, dipshit! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Since you didn't address anybody else, I'm going to address this as if your retarded ass replied to me.

Wrong, Fuckface the AssUp GayRidden, common law allows for any amount of time, and space, for a reply or a series of replies to be posted on message boards like this. Short attention spanned retards like you don't dictate the rules, regulations, requirements, etc., involving a debate. It doesn't matter if I reply the following month, year, decade, etc., my replies are on time, the right fit for their intended purposes, and hit their marks. Now go and be a retard somewhere else, Stupid.

[Removed: link to liberal hack Rachel Maddow's website, to an article by another liberal hack that obviously does not understand the documentations that he/she talks about in his/her article]

Will Femia, a Rachel Maddow Propagandist: Among the new revelations in tonight's documentary

My primary Military Occupational Specialty is Psychological Operations. A Part of My MOS is recognizing and countering enemy propaganda. One of the things that we are trained, to recognize with regards to enemy propaganda, is visible in the "documentary". This is a biased documentary, perpetrated by liberal hacks, to use cherry picked information to build a strawman to confuse and mislead the viewer. This has not been reviewed by credible, unbiased, experts, but by other liberal hacks interested in perpetrating propaganda. This is extremely similar to many of the tactics utilized by enemy propagandists, except they talk about different topics.

Will Femia, a Rachel Maddow Propagandist: about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war

Instead of advancing a biased, one-sided, docmentary by liberal hacks, how about referencing actual statements made by then President Bush? The fact that you would embrace an opinion, simply because you agree with it, instead of reading the raw data yourself in order to come to your own conclusions, speaks volumes. You stated, in one of your previous replies, that your "facts" still "stood". If you don't see here, how you don't' even come close to advancing the facts, then you're as blind to your bias as I suspect.

As I stated in my previous replies, the Bush Administration advanced several themes for our going into Iraq, other than WMD. The arguments they made, in favor of going into Iraq, where consistent with statements that President Bush made with regards to the War on Terror.

Will Femia, a Rachel Maddow Propagandist: in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Andy, do you even bother reading the information that your own biased information references? A reading of the PDF associated with the above propaganda article shows an obvious effort to refine a long-standing military strategy. Even prior to the first Gulf War, the Pentagon had war plans for how they would invade Iraq. Iraq was not the only country that was subject to these kinds of plans.

The Pentagon has more plans for every hotspot that could involve the United States in the world. I know that for fact. I was on units that trained for possible combat scenarios in selected regions of the world. We have trained for possible combat scenarios against Iran, or a hostile Third World country in the area we were deployed to. Those plans didn't just come about when we were there. They were long-standing plans drawn up as soon as hotspots showed a potential of involving US military forces.

The PDF documents, linked to in that site, is just an example of the leadership refining a plan that had been in existence long before President Bush got elected to president.

The PDF document first talks about focusing on WMD. You do realize that this is talking about a potential invasion, do you? Saddam had a reputation of utilizing chemical weapons against his enemies. The US military was prepared for that eventuality by entering the theater with chemical personal protective equipment. This was the case again during the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This was not a move to "invent" an argument about WMD. As the facts indicate, from various news articles, that WMD were in fact in Iraq post invasion.

The next point, about building momentum for regime change. You do realize that President Clinton argued regime change during his administration, do you?

"Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he will conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost as well. You will surmise that he has free reign to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and some day -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past." -- President Clinton, December 16, 1998

"The best way to and that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Really change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently." -- President Clinton, December 16, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Now, if you notice with the PDF in your link, you would see a bulletized list of targeting, ordered by the degree of threat to potential invasion forces. Yes, WMD sites were cited as the most threatening to ground operations. Next involved missile silos, and the backbone of the Iraqi military, the Republican Guards.

A lot of that was based on lesson learned from Desert Storm.

The next point, on how to start. Notice the question mark utilized in this section. In the military world, we consider these considerations as "trigger events". He is not making a case that we should invent an excuse. These are "if then" scenarios. They are not trying to invent an excuse, but show potential causes for an invasion that they could provide to the public that does not understand asymmetrical warfare.

The first point, about moving against the Kurds, was not an attempt to invent a story about them moving against the Kurds. However, they were talking about if a move against the Kurds were made. The second sentence was not something that they were pushing. It was another "if/then" scenario. If Saddam was discovered to be behind the 9/11 attacks, or the anthrax attacks, then we could use that as justification. Another scenario was if the disputed WMD inspections. But, notice how another sub sentence is added under that, which amounts to on "adjust fire" should they dispute WMD inspections. They're implementing diplomatic strategies even while brushing up on a military plan.

Keep in mind that the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War was not a declaration of peace but a suspension of war. Saddam's violation of that cease-fire agreement was all the reason we needed to invade Iraq.

It continues on to refine a military campaign plan that had been in place before President Bush was elected president. Yes, surprise, speed, and shock are tactical, operational, and strategic considerations in the combat theater. "Decapitation" of the enemy government is a tactic that had been utilized throughout history buy a majority of nations that engaged in war.

Again, this is working on one of the many war plans that the Pentagon has in place regarding hotspots around the world. They essentially took that one off the shelf and refined it. The rest of the attached PDF follows that theme. Nothing in there indicates that they were trying to make things up, or that they had their mind set on invading Iraq.

Video: It's so obvious now that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The attached PDF does not support that propagandist's opinion. The "Saddam to 9/11" consideration and PDF was a "What if" scenario, not a foregone conclusion. A review, of President Bush's speeches do not show a move to connect the two. They do show a trend of the need to remove Saddam, address the WMD issue, and address democracy.

Video: Afghanistan and Iraq are just two different wars two different issues and we forget that...

WRONG! The terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, bin Laden, Iraq under Saddam, etc., are symptoms of the real war being waged against the West.

They are not individually the reasons for going to war, but are symptom of the bigger reasons for going to war. This is asymmetrical warfare. I'm not making this up, this is based on hearing and reading statements from the very people that swore to destroy us. This is also based on an extensive study of history in that region related to terrorism. We have to see this through the eyes of our enemies, not through our Western perspectives.

The radical Islamists that we are struggling against do not recognize national boundaries. In their eyes, every country that is predominantly Muslim is part of the Muslim Nation. Iraq under Saddam, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Al Qaeda under bin Laden, are not separate and different entities. They are part of a bigger entity that is hell-bent on spreading radical Islam throughout the world. They are/were one, part of a unified front against the West. The terrorist attacks that they have perpetrated against the West, in addition to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, and elsewhere around the world are all part of a united front. They aren't separate or isolated incidents.

The idiot that is trying to make them two separate things has absolutely no clue about what he's talking about.

Video: he looked at the photo and said, "This is not Mohammed Atta".

The Czechoslovakian Ambassador, at that time, was adamant about that being a meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. This was not a close-up photo, but one taken from a distance, one where someone can't simply look at a picture, and decide within seconds whether it is someone or not. Especially when all you have of the person is selected close-up photos. The people that were trying to say it wasn't him were opposed to the war and were willing to lie about the information.

Video: The manipulations here are far worse...

Wrong. Nothing in the transcripts of the speeches made by the Bush administration, nor in the documentation's data been released surrounding this argument, supports the assumption that this was a manipulation. Collectively, the Bush administration arguments were spot on with regarding the asymmetrical threat that we faced from Iraq under Saddam.

Video: That nobody wants to talk about ... That the war should not of happened.

Knowing what I know now, I strongly believe, based on my extensive research regarding asymmetrical warfare in general, Iraq in particular, and on my first-hand experiences in Iraq, that the invasion of 2003 was the correct course of action. I know that for fact. In fact, if were President Bush back then, knowing what I know now, I would still order the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In fact, it is litmus test that I'm using against anybody that runs for president. If the Republican nominee happens to be someone that thinks otherwise, I will not vote for him/her.

Video: Secret intelligence can be manipulated

Yet, the attached PDF in the article link does not indicate manipulation. It's nothing more than a refinement of a war plan that had been in existence long before the Bush Administration came into being. However, his making that assumption, then extrapolating that to apply to the attached PDF amounts to academic dishonesty. It also amounts to outright propaganda.

If you can't see that I am rebutting the link that I didn't include, but that you included in your post, you're either blind or incapable of critical thought.

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. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Stop lying! That memo, crafted by neocons Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, is not "an obvious effort to refine a long-standing military strategy." It's essentially a brand new "attack plan" to invade Iraq by the use of the U.S. ground forces. They even spelled out the specific maneuvering tactics to execute that plan:

Deploy ground forces in western desert or south of Baghdad
*Threaten Baghdad
*Force Republican Guards to move and present targets
Seize or destroy Republican Guards

Furthermore, that memo is not "just an example of the leadership refining a plan that had been in existence long before President Bush got elected to president." Bill Clinton never ordered such "attack plans" by the use of the U.S. ground forces on Iraq. Thus this memo, declassifed by the Pentagon, not your so-called "liberal hacks," is the undisputed proof that the Bush administration officials conspired to plot a war on Iraq even before Rumsfeld met Gen. Franks on Nov. 27th, 2001.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/

Current events ...

What Obaminable has done with his procrastination is allow the Russians to set up an air defense system to protect Iran from an Israeli attack.

Keep in mind that the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War was not a declaration of peace but a suspension of war. Saddam's violation of that cease-fire agreement was all the reason we needed to invade Iraq. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Did you read the "question marks" in that memo? Even Wolfowitz and Feith didn't know what terms of the cease-fire, if any, Saddam had violated.

andymarksman: There is no doubt that Gen. Franks conspired with Rumsfeld to plot a war against another sovereign nation,

No doubt? Proof of correspondence between Gen. Franks and Rumsfeld indicating a conspiracy? Or, is this a case where you want me to believe that simply because you say so? Cough up that proof, or admit that you're pulling crap out of your ass. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Don't cough up blood, Doc, since you are not a four star general like Tommy, who "talked almost daily with" Rumsfeld.

http://theguardian.com/theguardian/2...uardianweekly1

Again, there was no conspiracy to specifically plot or target a sovereign country without justification. Again, the cease-fire agreement that put a hold to the Persian Gulf War was not an agreement to initiate peace. It was an agreement to suspend war pending the signatories abiding by the agreements of the cease-fire. A violation of that cease-fire itself was grounds for an invasion, again, the cease-fire only put the war on hold, we remained technically at war with Iraq, thus we had every right to invade when they were in breach of that agreement.

That cease fire indicated that the United States was still technically at war with Iraq.



First, under asymmetrical warfare, we had every right to invade Iraq under Saddam. The United Nations had no laws or regulations addressing asymmetrical warfare acts. No laws were broken. Therefore, the above is not applicable to any aspect of the Iraq War. Second, the United States was technically still at war with Iraq. Again, we signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq. A cease-fire does not establish permanent peace, nor does it end hostilities. It only puts a temporary hold on the war pending compliance for both sides:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-cease-fi...e-fire-1640288

The United Nations considers a cease-fire to be a type of agreement that is "more limited in scope" than an actual peace treaty or armistice. However, neither a cease-fire nor an armistice necessarily constitutes the end of the war. Depending on how long an armistice has been declared, the Hague Land War Regulations state that war may be resumed, if notice is given.

Did you read that? Saddam was given plenty of notification, as well as what he needed to do to avert an invasion. He failed to do it, thus continuing to be in violation of the cease-fire agreement. Hence, we had every right to invade based on that fact alone. Originally Posted by herfacechair

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/ny...ease-fire.html

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.[/URL] Originally Posted by andymarksman

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?

andymarksman: Thus, Gen. Franks violated the UCMJ, Subchapter X, Article 81, Section 881.

Again, proof? Where are the written correspondences between the two that allegedly supports your assumptions here? Originally Posted by herfacechair

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

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? Originally Posted by herfacechair

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?