andymarksman: So if several would-be robbers conspire to rob a bank, what "proof of correspondence" is deemed valid under any state and/or federal penal code to find them guilty of conspiracy? (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN)
This is a strawman on the account that you are accusing people of committing conspiracy in an act that has already been carried out. You, having failed to prove your arguments that what occurred with the Bush Administration, and with people within the administration, was "illegal", pulled crap out of your butt about a conspiracy. Since the action has taken place, the burden is on you to come up with proof that this conspiracy to place. You failed to provide that proof.
In your scenario, all you have are a bunch of "would be" robbers. There is a difference between "would be" and "actual". Here, let me explain to you what a strawman argument is.
Person A advances argument "X".
Person B advances argument "Y".
Person B continues to advance the concept that "Y" is erroneous.
By this action, person B insinuates that "X" is erroneous, without even attempting to argue against "X".
There is no difference between your "would be" scenario and your attempt to describe something that actually happened as "criminal".
You see, since what you identify as "illegal" actually took place, there would be a paper trail. Your responsibility was to come up with a paper trail to prove that this was indeed a conspiracy. In your scenario, where "would be" is the key word, there is no comparison. However, if you made this parallel to completed robberies, all you have to do is look at the numerous court cases, across the country, to see evidence of a conspiracy to commit robbery when multiple criminals were involved.
So, again:
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.
Until you answer my yes/no questions, truthfully and factually, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I answer your questions. Answer my questions first per the parameters that I set before you ask the questions.
andymarksman: Cite me any single statue or legal precedent to support your asinine argument that "proof of correspondence" is required to establish the act of conspiracy. (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN)
Again, this is a strawman argument. We are not arguing over the legal requirement for proof of correspondence, or evidence that the conspiracy to place. You advanced a falsehood that he conspiracy to place. The onus is on you to prove that the conspiracy took place, which you failed to do. You, attempting to argue legal status, are doing nothing but advancing a strawman argument, and even advancing a red herring. This has nothing to do with the fact that you have the prove that conspiracy to place. You failed to do that.
andymarksman: Now admit you are full of shit. (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: TRANSFERENCE)
It's obvious, going through our back and forth on this thread, that you're the one that is full of shit. I legitimately challenged you to provide correspondence to prove a conspiracy to something that actually happened. In response, you talk about "would be" robbers, in a scenario that has nothing to do with the elements of an actual event that we are arguing.
You are the one that is refusing to answer simple, straightforward, yes/no questions, choosing to delete them, as well as the rest of my argument, when you quote my post, demonstrating what a coward you are. Now go back and answer these questions:
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:39 PM
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:42 PM
andymarksman: What a dumbass! A UN resolution is not a contract at all.
What I said in the post that you replied to, including what you deleted in order for you to take me out of context:
"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." -- herfacechair
From UN Security Council Resolution 687:
"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);"
HENCE, my statement of this being a "contractual agreement under the rules of land warfare".
Any side, that violates a cease-fire agreement, is in breach of that agreement, a.k.a. a contract. That's what the contract is, both sides coming up to terms of agreement, and agreeing to those terms. If any signatory fails to comply by any of the terms of that agreement, or contract, they are in breach.
In other words, your entire argument, and this one post that I am destroying, is invalid.
andymarksman: It's a collective will expressed by the UN Security Council to command one or several member states under the mandate of the UN charters. (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN)
This as nothing to do with the fact that Saddam failed to abide by the terms of the cease-fire agreement, something that he and his representatives agreed to, in the battlefield, which started a series of events that would lead to the creation of the UN Security Council resolution that we are arguing about here. Again, we are dealing with a cease-fire agreement. Not with a UN Security Council resolution in general, but a CEASE FIRE, pay attention to what you are reading, Stupid.
Again, any side that violates the terms of a cease-fire agreement null and void's that cease-fire agreement and gives the option, to the other side, to resume combat operations against the side that violated the cease-fire. It's obvious that you do not have any military experience, as you have problems understanding this concept.
andymarksman: So if Saddam failed to abide by the command of the UN Security Council, the Council collectively have the legal authority to mete out appropriate punishments, not by the U.S. unilaterally.
FALSE on two accounts.
First, this is asymmetrical warfare. The laws and procedures of the United Nations were created in the 20th century, well before the asymmetrical warfare reality that we face in the 21st century. The decisions, and variables leading to the decision, that we used to invade Iraq had everything to do with asymmetrical warfare, things that the United Nations did not address. You cannot violate a rule that didn't exist, as the United Nations was not specifically set up to address asymmetrical warfare threats as of the time the United States invaded Iraq.
Second, this was a cease-fire. No, those entities who are not involved with combat operations, leading up to that cease-fire, have no say so with regards to whether the violator of the cease-fire gets punished or not, unless they are consistent with the combatants. Whether action, punishment, is taken or not is up to the combatants. And no, not all combatants are required. Just one combatant is required to take action. In other words, given that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, the moment Saddam violated the cease-fire is the moment we had every right to go in and invade.
andymarksman: Your personal rants don't mean shit at all.
In order to dismiss any of my arguments as "personal rants", quotation marks used strongly, you have to actually advance a reasoned, fact-based logical argument. You've failed to do that. Instead, you have increasingly taken me out of context, deleted large sections of my post before quoting it, in order for you to address something I was not arguing.
The reason you are doing this is that you know that you do not have an argument. I could tell, by your latest series of replies, that narcissism based emotion, combined with anger and control problems, is driving your actions. Just because I have not hammered you over the past few months doesn't mean that I had not formulated a psychological profile on you.
I would not be surprised if you are seen as that "weird person" at your work location. If you are working, it's more than likely a dead-end job in a dead and career. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a hard time arguing for raises, or promotions. In both this thread, and in other threads, I see piss poor judgment. In addition to exercising piss poor judgment by continuing to argue on this thread, you are demonstrating shadiness in your replies.
You call me a coward, but, like a coward, failed to include my question to you in my quote. So, here are a couple of questions that you need to answer in your next series of replies:
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
What I said in the post that you replied to, including what you deleted in order for you to take me out of context:
"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." -- herfacechair
From UN Security Council Resolution 687:
"33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);"
HENCE, my statement of this being a "contractual agreement under the rules of land warfare".
Any side, that violates a cease-fire agreement, is in breach of that agreement, a.k.a. a contract. That's what the contract is, both sides coming up to terms of agreement, and agreeing to those terms. If any signatory fails to comply by any of the terms of that agreement, or contract, they are in breach.
In other words, your entire argument, and this one post that I am destroying, is invalid.
andymarksman: It's a collective will expressed by the UN Security Council to command one or several member states under the mandate of the UN charters. (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN)
This as nothing to do with the fact that Saddam failed to abide by the terms of the cease-fire agreement, something that he and his representatives agreed to, in the battlefield, which started a series of events that would lead to the creation of the UN Security Council resolution that we are arguing about here. Again, we are dealing with a cease-fire agreement. Not with a UN Security Council resolution in general, but a CEASE FIRE, pay attention to what you are reading, Stupid.
Again, any side that violates the terms of a cease-fire agreement null and void's that cease-fire agreement and gives the option, to the other side, to resume combat operations against the side that violated the cease-fire. It's obvious that you do not have any military experience, as you have problems understanding this concept.
andymarksman: So if Saddam failed to abide by the command of the UN Security Council, the Council collectively have the legal authority to mete out appropriate punishments, not by the U.S. unilaterally.
FALSE on two accounts.
First, this is asymmetrical warfare. The laws and procedures of the United Nations were created in the 20th century, well before the asymmetrical warfare reality that we face in the 21st century. The decisions, and variables leading to the decision, that we used to invade Iraq had everything to do with asymmetrical warfare, things that the United Nations did not address. You cannot violate a rule that didn't exist, as the United Nations was not specifically set up to address asymmetrical warfare threats as of the time the United States invaded Iraq.
Second, this was a cease-fire. No, those entities who are not involved with combat operations, leading up to that cease-fire, have no say so with regards to whether the violator of the cease-fire gets punished or not, unless they are consistent with the combatants. Whether action, punishment, is taken or not is up to the combatants. And no, not all combatants are required. Just one combatant is required to take action. In other words, given that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire, the moment Saddam violated the cease-fire is the moment we had every right to go in and invade.
andymarksman: Your personal rants don't mean shit at all.
In order to dismiss any of my arguments as "personal rants", quotation marks used strongly, you have to actually advance a reasoned, fact-based logical argument. You've failed to do that. Instead, you have increasingly taken me out of context, deleted large sections of my post before quoting it, in order for you to address something I was not arguing.
The reason you are doing this is that you know that you do not have an argument. I could tell, by your latest series of replies, that narcissism based emotion, combined with anger and control problems, is driving your actions. Just because I have not hammered you over the past few months doesn't mean that I had not formulated a psychological profile on you.
I would not be surprised if you are seen as that "weird person" at your work location. If you are working, it's more than likely a dead-end job in a dead and career. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a hard time arguing for raises, or promotions. In both this thread, and in other threads, I see piss poor judgment. In addition to exercising piss poor judgment by continuing to argue on this thread, you are demonstrating shadiness in your replies.
You call me a coward, but, like a coward, failed to include my question to you in my quote. So, here are a couple of questions that you need to answer in your next series of replies:
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:46 PM
andymarksman: Where have I ever argued against the U.S.'s natural right of self defense?
If you look at the post that you quoted, you would see that I was replying to one of your arguments where you said this:
"...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." -- andymarksman
Saddam's failure, to come clean with his program, the way other countries have, presented an asymmetrical threat to United States. By asymmetrical, the fact that Saddam hosted terrorist conventions where he consistently repeated the phrase, "Death to America." When you have a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda looking to commit terrorist attacks that are more bloodied than ever on US soil, and given the fact that Saddam, being a friend of the United States, failing to come clean with his WMD programs, you have an asymmetrical warfare situation that is comparable to being in a room full of easily flammable liquids, with a man playing with matches.
Saddam, under asymmetrical warfare, presented a clear threat to the United States and had to be neutralized. Hence, our natural right of self-defense. We should never rely on the United Nations for permission to exercise that, nor shall we prohibit any rules from the United Nations to prevent us from taking actions necessary for our defense.
andymarksman: Save your phony patriotic harangue to W.
Again, in order to dismiss any of my arguments as "phony rhetoric", or "phony patriotic harangue", you have to present a valid, logical, reasoned fact-based argument proving that point. You have consistently failed to do that. The only person that is providing baseless rhetoric, in this exchange, is you.
I have destroyed you, in this debate, two point that you have been reduced to taking me out of context and pulling shit out of your ass, to make up for the fact that you know that you've been destroyed in debate and that you do not have a valid argument.
andymarksman: Like I've stated before, you and W are merely spineless, gutless coward.
I'm an Iraq War Veteran. What about you? I've been in the military for a cumulative of a quarter of a century. On numerous occasions during that time, I've been to locations where I drew hostile fire pay. I've lost count of how many times, when I was in Iraq, when I've had to go to a bunker, in response to indirect fire.
I don't recall seeing you there. Judging by your arguments, I highly doubt that you have any military experience, let alone military experience in a war zone.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you call me a "coward"? Let's put this in another perspective. A non-war veteran, you, is calling a war veteran, me, a "coward". This is the same guy, you, who, like the coward he is, consistently refuses to answer my yes/no questions per the parameters that are set.
andymarksman: I'm sure you'll delete this link when you reply because
If you had any integrity, and courage, you'd realize that the reason that I do not include your link, in my replies, is because I generated a post addressing the argument presented in that link. You even attempted to respond, albeit using the strawman fallacy, two my response to your links
andymarksman: you couldn't lie your ass out of the facts.
Andy presenting the facts? BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA! OMFG, this is comedy gold!
Correction, none of your links prove wrong any of the arguments that I presented. Likewise, none of the links that you presented supported your own argument. The only thing that you proved, representing these links, is your inability to understand what you are reading, in addition to your failure to understand the post that you are arguing against.
In both the post that I present, and a link to the article that you are using to support your argument, you're demonstrating an emotional drive to see what you want to see, and not what is being communicated. I will demonstrate that in my next reply. In the meantime, how about answering these questions?
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
If you look at the post that you quoted, you would see that I was replying to one of your arguments where you said this:
"...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." -- andymarksman
Saddam's failure, to come clean with his program, the way other countries have, presented an asymmetrical threat to United States. By asymmetrical, the fact that Saddam hosted terrorist conventions where he consistently repeated the phrase, "Death to America." When you have a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda looking to commit terrorist attacks that are more bloodied than ever on US soil, and given the fact that Saddam, being a friend of the United States, failing to come clean with his WMD programs, you have an asymmetrical warfare situation that is comparable to being in a room full of easily flammable liquids, with a man playing with matches.
Saddam, under asymmetrical warfare, presented a clear threat to the United States and had to be neutralized. Hence, our natural right of self-defense. We should never rely on the United Nations for permission to exercise that, nor shall we prohibit any rules from the United Nations to prevent us from taking actions necessary for our defense.
andymarksman: Save your phony patriotic harangue to W.
Again, in order to dismiss any of my arguments as "phony rhetoric", or "phony patriotic harangue", you have to present a valid, logical, reasoned fact-based argument proving that point. You have consistently failed to do that. The only person that is providing baseless rhetoric, in this exchange, is you.
I have destroyed you, in this debate, two point that you have been reduced to taking me out of context and pulling shit out of your ass, to make up for the fact that you know that you've been destroyed in debate and that you do not have a valid argument.
andymarksman: Like I've stated before, you and W are merely spineless, gutless coward.
I'm an Iraq War Veteran. What about you? I've been in the military for a cumulative of a quarter of a century. On numerous occasions during that time, I've been to locations where I drew hostile fire pay. I've lost count of how many times, when I was in Iraq, when I've had to go to a bunker, in response to indirect fire.
I don't recall seeing you there. Judging by your arguments, I highly doubt that you have any military experience, let alone military experience in a war zone.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you call me a "coward"? Let's put this in another perspective. A non-war veteran, you, is calling a war veteran, me, a "coward". This is the same guy, you, who, like the coward he is, consistently refuses to answer my yes/no questions per the parameters that are set.
andymarksman: I'm sure you'll delete this link when you reply because
If you had any integrity, and courage, you'd realize that the reason that I do not include your link, in my replies, is because I generated a post addressing the argument presented in that link. You even attempted to respond, albeit using the strawman fallacy, two my response to your links
andymarksman: you couldn't lie your ass out of the facts.
Andy presenting the facts? BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA! OMFG, this is comedy gold!
Correction, none of your links prove wrong any of the arguments that I presented. Likewise, none of the links that you presented supported your own argument. The only thing that you proved, representing these links, is your inability to understand what you are reading, in addition to your failure to understand the post that you are arguing against.
In both the post that I present, and a link to the article that you are using to support your argument, you're demonstrating an emotional drive to see what you want to see, and not what is being communicated. I will demonstrate that in my next reply. In the meantime, how about answering these questions?
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:47 PM
First, you do realize that this is a double-edged sword for you, do you? Here you are, insisting that President Bush "lied" about Iraq, presenting imagery and reports of similar events happening in Iraq regarding WMD. If you can't insist that a "double standard" exists regarding the treatment of Iraq and North Korea without accepting the fact that President Bush was in fact telling the truth about Iraq's WMD program and WMD.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...th-south-korea
American spy satellites over North Korea have detected what appear to be trucks moving some of the country's 8,000 nuclear fuel rods out of storage, prompting fears within the Bush administration that the regime is preparing to produce about six nuclear weapons, U.S. officials said Thursday.
...
The White House's lack of public expressions of alarm contrasts sharply with its approach to Iraq, which the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, noted Thursday is years behind North Korea in nuclear capability.
Second, I don't recall North Korea invading its neighbors at least twice. Iraq deployed troops into Iran, and later into Kuwait. On top of that, they launched scuds deep into both Iranian territory (1980s) and into Kuwait territory (1991/2003). On top of that, they have proven capable of using WMD within their own borders. What countries did North Korea invade the past 3.5 decades?
But wait! There's more!
Saddam Hussein, in solidarity with the terrorists in the region, had "God Is Great" added to the Iraqi Flag. Saddam Hussein aided and abetted terrorism. He hosted terrorist conventions. Again, in a situation to where we have a major terrorist organization wanting to penetrate deep into United States for purposes of causing mass casualties, in the same region as a country where it's leader is refusing to come clean with its WMD program.
In the Arabic world, the saying "an enemy of an enemy is a friend" is not just a catchphrase. Saddam and Osama may not have been on each other's Christmas card list, but both were Muslims that saw the United States, and the rest of Western civilization, as infidels. Osama, meet Saddam. Saddam, meet Osama. Are you connecting the dots yet?
So what will it be? For you to use this reference, you have to actually acknowledge that President Bush wasn't lying, and that Saddam did in fact have WMD. Now, how about answering these questions:
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:50 PM
Where have I ever "assumed" that every single U.S. servicemen or women "combat deployed to Iraq would have to be subject to court marshals?" My comment on that video is crystal clear: all war criminals ought to be brought to justice, no matter where they came from. Are you "assuming" every single U.S. servicemen and women combat deployed to Iraq are rapists? Originally Posted by andymarksmanYou keep referencing World War II. You insisted that a couple of individuals were "war criminals" for "conspiring" to plot a war. Then, you follow that up by insisting that they be brought to trial. Guess what? You mentioned Nuremberg Tribunal in your reply. One of the items, that was brought up during those trials, was the fact that anybody in the military, the commits a war crime, cannot simply use the "I was following orders" line to escape liability. So, if a "war crime" was committed by a "conspiracy" by individuals to plot it, someone had to carry it out.
That "someone" involves the US military. If this was "illegal", then the US military carried out an "illegal" action, for which they would have to be held accountable for. Do you see where am getting at, "brain"? By accusing the leadership for plotting an "illegal" war, you are essentially accusing every single service member, that combat deployed to Iraq, as "war criminals".
As a point, you brought up a video that had nothing to do with the Iraq War. However, the concepts in your video involved holding people accountable for whatever war crime is committed. You are attempting to claim that a war crime was committed by planning a war, by extension, those who carried it out would also have "committed" war crimes simply by carrying out that war.
That's the assumption that you are making, one that you are unable to prove.
Your video was irrelevant, and it was nothing more than a strawman. There was nothing illegal about either planning the Iraq War or carrying it out. You assumed that war crimes are committed, when as a whole, the United States military did not commit war crimes in Iraq. Those that did were held accountable.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:53 PM
First, what I said regarding United States military, which you quoted:
First photo from Russian webpage talking about the great victory:
Last photo, U.S. service member neutralizing someone attempting to get back into the fight, who failed to follow instructions:
Pray explain why one is a war criminal but the other is not only because he has Stars and Stripes sewed onto his uniform? Originally Posted by andymarksman
"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." - herfacechair
The series of exchanges, proceeding the specific quote, indicates that I'm talking about the United States military. Hence, my telling you to stay on topic. The first photo, that you show above, has nothing to do with United States military. It's traceable to a Russian website talking about the "great victory". Apparently, they are not talking about the United States military.
Again, stay on topic.
With regards to the second photo. It's obvious that you have never combat deployed. The hostile, on the floor failed to follow instructions. Despite being wounded, he was reaching for his weapon. This is hostile intent, the Service Member's action, in the photo, was fully justified. Had the terrorist followed instructions, and showed no intention of getting back into the fight, he would have survived that moment captured in the photo. Whether he would've survived from his injuries or not would have been another story.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:56 PM
"Alleged???!!!" You lying piece of shit! You keep lying, I'll keep sticking the facts up your mummified ass, Pharaoh.From your link:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/25858 Originally Posted by andymarksman
"The Pentagon concluded that the No Gun Ri shootings, which lasted three days, were "an unfortunate tragedy" -- "not a deliberate killing." It suggested panicky soldiers, acting without orders, opened fire because they feared that an approaching line of families, baggage and farm animals concealed enemy troops." - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/articl....6CjTnhtx.dpuf
Further down, you'll see the justification:
"Muccio noted in his 1950 letter that U.S. commanders feared disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating American lines via refugee columns.
"As a result, those meeting on the night of July 25, 1950 -- top staff officers of the U.S. 8th Army, Muccio's representative Harold J. Noble and South Korean officials -- decided on a policy of air-dropping leaflets telling South Korean civilians not to head south toward U.S. defense lines, and of shooting them if they did approach U.S. lines despite warning shots, the ambassador wrote to Rusk." - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/articl....6CjTnhtx.dpuf
Here is a balanced look at the situation:
http://www.salon.com/2002/06/03/nogunri_2/
Reading both, the link that you provided, and the thorough link that I provided, whether it war crime was committed or not is inconclusive. The fact of the matter is that the enemy had a bad reputation of using civilians as human shields, and had a bad reputation of moving while within crowds of refugees. The link that I provide raises serious questions about the book published on the event.
Reading both the link that you provided, and the link that I provided, there is no indication of willful disregard for human life. What they could argue is that civilians were killed. What neither side could effectively argue is the circumstances surrounding their death. If, at the second link indicated, that movement of refugees resulted in the last call for fire now being erroneous, while rounds were in flight, then mistakes like that happen on the battlefield. Not something that you could put people on trial for given that the intention of the mortar fire, explained in the second link, no longer became the case.
So no, unless concrete evidence comes up, I would not label this as a "war crime".
So far, on this thread, you have consistently failed to provide the facts when it comes to your argument against me. The only liar, in this exchange, is you. If you bothered reading the links that you provide me, with the intentions of understanding what you are reading, you would not walk away insisting that those links support your argument, or derail mine. They don't.
Claiming that they do support your argument amounts to nothing but an emotion-based lie. Speaking of which, how about answering these questions:
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 04:59 PM
andymarksman: You really are making a living by wearing the U.S. military uniform? Fucking hilarious!
Your school system allowed you to graduate high school? BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA! Now THAT's fucking hilarious! ROTFLMFAO! How about you go back to the school system that pushed you to graduation, and sue them for dereliction of duty? Your performance, in this debate, is an embarrassment on your school system, your community, and your family.
But yes, I'm in the military, about to be retired after 25 cumulative years in. It's blatantly obvious that you have no military experience; the logical reasoning, critical thinking, required for such service is absent from your replies.
In fact, I highly doubt that you've managed to engage in a career; it's likely that you have a string of failed job and business attempts in your wake.
andymarksman: I'm talking about the Iraq war here if you aren't too stupid to even observe a continuous pattern here.
What you said that lead to the quote to my post, taken out of context, included in your post:
"The facts are that he would have been "exempt" if he was with "them" back then." -- andymarksman
What, exactly, were you talking about when you said "them back then"? Why, none other than something that occurred during the Vietnam War:
"Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss talked about their book, Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War, published by Little, Brown and Company. They described an investigation into a reconnaissance platoon, created in 1965 to report air strikes and to kill the enemy in Vietnam." - https://www.c-span.org/video/?192712...-story-men-war
HENCE, my statement:
"Your link referenced a couple of idiots talking about the Vietnam War." - herfacechair
If anybody is unable to recognize the continuous pattern of this debate, and argument, it's you. You're too stupid to even recognize your own argument. Rebutting you, with your own words and argument, is like beating up a man with his own prosthetic limb.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
Your school system allowed you to graduate high school? BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA!
Now THAT's fucking hilarious! ROTFLMFAO! How about you go back to the school system that pushed you to graduation, and sue them for dereliction of duty? Your performance, in this debate, is an embarrassment on your school system, your community, and your family.But yes, I'm in the military, about to be retired after 25 cumulative years in. It's blatantly obvious that you have no military experience; the logical reasoning, critical thinking, required for such service is absent from your replies.
In fact, I highly doubt that you've managed to engage in a career; it's likely that you have a string of failed job and business attempts in your wake.
andymarksman: I'm talking about the Iraq war here if you aren't too stupid to even observe a continuous pattern here.
What you said that lead to the quote to my post, taken out of context, included in your post:
"The facts are that he would have been "exempt" if he was with "them" back then." -- andymarksman
What, exactly, were you talking about when you said "them back then"? Why, none other than something that occurred during the Vietnam War:
"Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss talked about their book, Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War, published by Little, Brown and Company. They described an investigation into a reconnaissance platoon, created in 1965 to report air strikes and to kill the enemy in Vietnam." - https://www.c-span.org/video/?192712...-story-men-war
HENCE, my statement:
"Your link referenced a couple of idiots talking about the Vietnam War." - herfacechair
If anybody is unable to recognize the continuous pattern of this debate, and argument, it's you. You're too stupid to even recognize your own argument. Rebutting you, with your own words and argument, is like beating up a man with his own prosthetic limb.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 05:01 PM
Franks will not be exempt when his criminal CIC is brought to justice for ordering illegal transfer of funding in blatant violation of the Constitution.I'm sorry, but you do not bolster your argument with links to regressive websites, they've consistently proven to be nothing but propaganda. However, no, what he did was not illegal. If you want to bring the Constitution in here, the Constitution indicates that Congress can disburse money, given that they have the power of the purse. Also, if you understood anything about money being allocated from Congress, this money is allocated in "pots". Each department gets a pot of money. The Department of Defense is one of them.
http://americanprogress.org/issues/s...-700m-for-iraq Originally Posted by andymarksman
In this situation, the Department of Defense, like the other departments, can decide what to do with money allocated within specific pots assigned to them. What Franks did was move money from one area to another knowing full well that the money was going to be allocated from where he took the money from. He was well within his rights to do that. This is explained in this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10...nd-debate.html
"FRANKS: You know, I heard it tonight, and I also heard about it from Senator Graham's book. And a comment I've made is unfortunately, that the senator heard something the general didn't say. Because the fact of the matter is, that I was responsible for both Afghanistan and Iraq, the numbers speak for themselves, as a matter of fact. On the day we started operations in Iraq, we had about 9,500 Americans operating in Afghanistan. That number in fact inclined. It increased during operations in Iraq, and continues to increase today, that number never came down. And so I was a bit surprised at the mention of something which I know to be factually incorrect."
I spent two years, of my military career, as a disbursing officer. I know exactly what he is talking about. There is a lot that goes on, regarding disbursements, that your source, and its source, do not see or understand. It speaks volumes when he has yet to be brought up on the charges that you claim exist, but don't. We had a perfect opportunity to do that when we had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The fact that they did not pursue this speaks volumes to the fact that the charges, brought up in your argument, are dubious at best, outright distortions are worse.
But, given the fact that you consistently lie and distort, I'm not surprised that you fall hook, line, and sinker, for propaganda, distortions, and lies, when it comes to addressing people and argument you do not like.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 05:04 PM
The wheels of justice grind slowly but grind fine, not your POS idol had done in a cowardly manner.What I said, included in the quote within your post:
http://warisacrime.org/content/tortu...criminal-court Originally Posted by andymarksman
"Where is the international move to carry out a repeat of the Nuremburg trials, this time putting Gen. Franks and everybody in the military who participated in the Iraq war on trial?" -- herfacechair
"Neither the military, nor the international community, agree with your assumption. If they did, those trials would've happened." -- herfacechair
There is the international criminal Court, which has yet to bring all of us to trial for these "war crimes", quotation marks used strongly.
"The fact that no move has been made, on a large scale,internationally via multiple nations, proves that your assumptions, as ignorant as they have been proven here, are wrong." -- herfacechair
From your reference:
"US armed forces and the CIA may have committed war crimes by torturing detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor says in a recent report, raising the possibility that US citizens could be indicted." - Propaganda Rag
If you bothered to read my statements, quoted within your post, you would understand that I was asking you about CURRENT efforts, on a large scale, to repeat the Nuremberg trials regarding the United States military. In response, you brought up an article talking about the "possibility" that charges "could be brought up".
You do realize that there is a big difference between current activity versus potential activity, do you?
Now, here's proof that you are susceptible to propaganda. I went straight to the report that your article talked about and two things jumped out.
First, you and I are arguing about the Iraq War. Going through the report, you would notice that actions of the British military is considered regarding "possible" torture in Iraq. Move over to the Afghanistan part of the report. From the report itself:
"219. Complementarity: US civilian and military courts can exercise their jurisdiction
over conduct that would constitute a crime within ICC subject-matter jurisdiction (i.e. war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide), when committed abroad by US nationals.
"220. In its most recent response to the Committee Against Torture (November 2015), the US indicated that "more than 70 investigations concerning allegations of detainee abuse by military personnel in Afghanistan conducted by the Department [of Defence] resulted in trial by courts-martial, close to 200 investigations of detainee abuse resulted in either non-judicial punishment or adverse administrative action, and many more were investigated and resulted in action at a lower level." Specific public information on the incidents and persons forming the subject of those proceedings is, however, limited. According to the information available, the Prosecution was unable to identify any individual in the armed services prosecuted by courts martial for the ill-treatment of detainees within the Court's temporal and territorial jurisdiction. The vast majority of investigations and prosecutions relating to detainee ill-treatment were for conduct in Iraq. A small number of court martial proceedings (7) were for illtreatment in Afghanistan that took place in 2002.
"221. The Department of Justice conducted a two-year preliminary review (from August 2009 to June 2011) of allegations related to the abuse of detainees in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), which reviewed allegations regarding the ill-treatment of 101 detainees. According to the information available, the scope of this review appears to have been limited to investigating whether any unauthorised interrogation techniques were used by CIA interrogators, and if so, whether such conduct could constitute violations of any applicable criminal statutes. In his public statements about those proceedings, the US Attorney General further emphasized that "the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees." As a result of the review, the Attorney-General conducted full criminal investigations only into the cases of two detainees who had died in CIA custody. Both investigations were completed in August 2012 and did not result in any indictments or prosecutions because, according to the Attorney-General, "the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."
"222. While proceedings appear to have been limited to the conduct of interrogators and to incidents where interrogation methods were not authorised at the time, the Office is seeking to obtain further clarifications on the scope of relevant preliminary reviews and investigations before finalising its determination on the admissibility of the related potential cases" - Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda
Your statement, regarding the "wheels of justice" is nothing but a red herring. If you bothered reading the actual source, with the intention of understanding what you were reading, you would realize that your argument is baseless. You insist that certain people have committed war crimes, and would be brought up on charges. You have consistently failed to prove your position. Reading your reference, as well as the source itself, does not support your assumption that war crimes were committed. In fact, it supports the argument that I made that those who did commit war crimes, within the US military while engaging in the war in Iraq, were held accountable.
But, before you could hold people accountable, a thorough investigation has to be done. Contrary to popular belief, our rights do not end when we make the oath of office/enlistment. Due process of the law still exists within the military justice system. As with the civilian system, charges have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 05:06 PM
andymarksman:Where have I ever claimed a "commando order" was issued to Franks?
"Where's the 'Commando Order' the Gen. Franks 'had to' obey?" -- andymarksman, November 1, 2015
Smile, you just had your own statement showed up your ass, proving your statement wrong.
When I challenged you to prove that such an order was given, you failed to provide the evidence. You are consistently advancing a strawman argument, trying to tie the actions of two different groups of people together when there was no relationship between the two. You were attempting to tell me that an apple was an orange and vice versa.
andymarksman: My point is that a "commando order" is as horrific as an order to commit wars of aggression. (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: RED HERRING)
The commando order was irrelevant to this argument. Again, you are attempting to tie the actions of one government, in the last century, with our government in the 21st century. Without proving your argument, you are attempting to draw parallels between the commando order with a request to review our plans. There was no comparison with the example that you brought up.
andymarksman: But the truth is that Bush did order Rumsfeld, one of his leading henchmen, to plot an invasion of Iraq just 15 days after 9-11. Rumsfeld himself admitted so. That's a premeditated war crime beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Would it bother you to read your sources of information with the intention of understanding what is actually being stated, instead of looking at it through emotional reaction? From your own link:
"In his autobiography scheduled to be released on February 8, Rumsfeld writes that 15 days after 9/11, when Pentagon's focus was on Afghan war, Bush called him to his office and ordered a review plans for Iraq war." -- Propaganda Rag (scott.net)
There's a big difference between "plotting an attack" and "reviewing current war plans". Meaning, as I argued earlier, war plans already existed. Not only do you fail to completely read your references with the need to understand what you are reading, you actually provided a reference that destroyed one of the earlier arguments you made in this newest series of replies of yours.
In other words, you proved an earlier post that you made, recently, wrong.
There is no criminal action in reviewing war plans that are already in existence. You accuse Rumsfeld of being a "henchman" and of "committing crimes", yet your reference does not support that. Also, you erroneously, without proving it, in fact having failed to prove it, insist that a war crime was committed when no war crime was committed. One of the links that you provided, in an earlier post, allowed me to go to a link of the actual source of information relating to investigation of war crimes. The actual source does not support your argument That Bush, Rumsfeld, or Franks "committed" a "war crime".
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
"Where's the 'Commando Order' the Gen. Franks 'had to' obey?" -- andymarksman, November 1, 2015
Smile, you just had your own statement showed up your ass, proving your statement wrong.
When I challenged you to prove that such an order was given, you failed to provide the evidence. You are consistently advancing a strawman argument, trying to tie the actions of two different groups of people together when there was no relationship between the two. You were attempting to tell me that an apple was an orange and vice versa.
andymarksman: My point is that a "commando order" is as horrific as an order to commit wars of aggression. (INDUCTIVE FALLACY: RED HERRING)
The commando order was irrelevant to this argument. Again, you are attempting to tie the actions of one government, in the last century, with our government in the 21st century. Without proving your argument, you are attempting to draw parallels between the commando order with a request to review our plans. There was no comparison with the example that you brought up.
andymarksman: But the truth is that Bush did order Rumsfeld, one of his leading henchmen, to plot an invasion of Iraq just 15 days after 9-11. Rumsfeld himself admitted so. That's a premeditated war crime beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Would it bother you to read your sources of information with the intention of understanding what is actually being stated, instead of looking at it through emotional reaction? From your own link:
"In his autobiography scheduled to be released on February 8, Rumsfeld writes that 15 days after 9/11, when Pentagon's focus was on Afghan war, Bush called him to his office and ordered a review plans for Iraq war." -- Propaganda Rag (scott.net)
There's a big difference between "plotting an attack" and "reviewing current war plans". Meaning, as I argued earlier, war plans already existed. Not only do you fail to completely read your references with the need to understand what you are reading, you actually provided a reference that destroyed one of the earlier arguments you made in this newest series of replies of yours.
In other words, you proved an earlier post that you made, recently, wrong.
There is no criminal action in reviewing war plans that are already in existence. You accuse Rumsfeld of being a "henchman" and of "committing crimes", yet your reference does not support that. Also, you erroneously, without proving it, in fact having failed to prove it, insist that a war crime was committed when no war crime was committed. One of the links that you provided, in an earlier post, allowed me to go to a link of the actual source of information relating to investigation of war crimes. The actual source does not support your argument That Bush, Rumsfeld, or Franks "committed" a "war crime".
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 05:09 PM
andymarksman: Bullshit!
The only bullshit, that I'm seeing, are the series of replies that you are presenting. That's driven by the fact that you have absolutely no clue about what you are arguing. You're driven solely by emotion, and ignorance, as well as a healthy dose of narcissism. Your latest series of replies indicate that you are desperate in this argument.
andymarksman: All you can rant about is that if Obama had tried harder...blah, blah, blah....
All the last president had to do was to follow the example of the previous administration, his better. The elements were there to get another agreement to replace the one that was about to expire. The will for him, to do what was needed to get another agreement, wasn't there. He was focused on his campaign promises, as well as on his philosophy that put America last, not first.
andymarksman: You take immunity for granted because you didn't need it back then.
Where, in the post that you replied to, do I indicate that I took immunity for granted? Would it hurt you to read what I post, with the intention of understanding what I'm actually saying, instead of what you thought I said? Again, you're arguing against something that I wasn't arguing.
What I actually said, in context:
"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." -- herfacechair
You're too much of a coward to include everything that I said in my post, as that'd deny you the opportunity to take me out of context and advance a strawman argument.
andymarksman: And you don't even have a fucking conscience to reflect on how all those years of indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians ended up biting the asses
Why would my conscience beat me up over something that isn't the case? You, not having combat deployed to Iraq, are implying a false charge, that U.S. service members are engaging in indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians. I know for a fact, having combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman, that your statement is false. No, indiscriminate killing of civilians wasn't an authorized policy.
That reflected in our rules of engagement, that reflected in our training leading up to deployment. Even the civilians understood that the US military would not shoot them for no reason at all. That, if the US military were shooting at you, it was because you were shooting at them.
andymarksman: of our fine servicemen and women.
You have no leg to stand on, attempting to speak on behalf of members of the military, given your attitude towards me on this thread. Understand that given your attitude towards me here, you disrespect ALL military members and ALL veterans. Until you could actually be intelligent with both this argument, and with your interaction with me, you have no leg to stand up feigning outrage regarding a negative impact something may have on members of the military.
andymarksman: Go ahead and remove this link,
First, quit taking me out of context, and quit removing statements I made, that puts what you do choose to include in your quote, into context. Until you do that you don't have a leg to stand on demanding, or hinting, that I should do something in my replies to you.
Second, if you approached my replies with a cool, calm, and collected mind, you'd take the time to read everything that I post, with the intention of understanding what I'm saying. Doing that would do something else amazing... It'd show you that I actually address the articles that you link to. I don't ignore them.
Whenever I dismantle opinions like yours, I go into the links provided and show the idiots, like you, that not only don't they know what they're talking about, their links either don't know what they're talking about, or actually harms the debaters' arguments.
andymarksman: I'll keep shoving this link up your ass whenever I get the chance, no matter how mummified your ass looks like.
If you weren't emotional and narcissistic, you'd realize, as a matter of fact, that neither you, nor the others that I've argued against here, have come close to "touching" me with regards to the "rough up" department... when it comes to describing a metaphorical graphic of how we'd come across if we were involved in a fist fight representing our actual performance in these debates.
The only thing that has happened, in this debate, is that your face consistently assaults my fists, and your head consistently gets shoved up your ass, which is followed by your body assaulting the ground.
Yes, do keep replying to me with a link that I've shown to either be weak in argument, or unsupportive of your position. I'll just cut your ass of and shove it down your throat... Again. You appear to be enjoying the taste of your ass as you keep begging for seconds, thirds, etc.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
The only bullshit, that I'm seeing, are the series of replies that you are presenting. That's driven by the fact that you have absolutely no clue about what you are arguing. You're driven solely by emotion, and ignorance, as well as a healthy dose of narcissism. Your latest series of replies indicate that you are desperate in this argument.
andymarksman: All you can rant about is that if Obama had tried harder...blah, blah, blah....
All the last president had to do was to follow the example of the previous administration, his better. The elements were there to get another agreement to replace the one that was about to expire. The will for him, to do what was needed to get another agreement, wasn't there. He was focused on his campaign promises, as well as on his philosophy that put America last, not first.
andymarksman: You take immunity for granted because you didn't need it back then.
Where, in the post that you replied to, do I indicate that I took immunity for granted? Would it hurt you to read what I post, with the intention of understanding what I'm actually saying, instead of what you thought I said? Again, you're arguing against something that I wasn't arguing.
What I actually said, in context:
"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." -- herfacechair
You're too much of a coward to include everything that I said in my post, as that'd deny you the opportunity to take me out of context and advance a strawman argument.
andymarksman: And you don't even have a fucking conscience to reflect on how all those years of indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians ended up biting the asses
Why would my conscience beat me up over something that isn't the case? You, not having combat deployed to Iraq, are implying a false charge, that U.S. service members are engaging in indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians. I know for a fact, having combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman, that your statement is false. No, indiscriminate killing of civilians wasn't an authorized policy.
That reflected in our rules of engagement, that reflected in our training leading up to deployment. Even the civilians understood that the US military would not shoot them for no reason at all. That, if the US military were shooting at you, it was because you were shooting at them.
andymarksman: of our fine servicemen and women.
You have no leg to stand on, attempting to speak on behalf of members of the military, given your attitude towards me on this thread. Understand that given your attitude towards me here, you disrespect ALL military members and ALL veterans. Until you could actually be intelligent with both this argument, and with your interaction with me, you have no leg to stand up feigning outrage regarding a negative impact something may have on members of the military.
andymarksman: Go ahead and remove this link,
First, quit taking me out of context, and quit removing statements I made, that puts what you do choose to include in your quote, into context. Until you do that you don't have a leg to stand on demanding, or hinting, that I should do something in my replies to you.
Second, if you approached my replies with a cool, calm, and collected mind, you'd take the time to read everything that I post, with the intention of understanding what I'm saying. Doing that would do something else amazing... It'd show you that I actually address the articles that you link to. I don't ignore them.
Whenever I dismantle opinions like yours, I go into the links provided and show the idiots, like you, that not only don't they know what they're talking about, their links either don't know what they're talking about, or actually harms the debaters' arguments.
andymarksman: I'll keep shoving this link up your ass whenever I get the chance, no matter how mummified your ass looks like.
If you weren't emotional and narcissistic, you'd realize, as a matter of fact, that neither you, nor the others that I've argued against here, have come close to "touching" me with regards to the "rough up" department... when it comes to describing a metaphorical graphic of how we'd come across if we were involved in a fist fight representing our actual performance in these debates.
The only thing that has happened, in this debate, is that your face consistently assaults my fists, and your head consistently gets shoved up your ass, which is followed by your body assaulting the ground.
Yes, do keep replying to me with a link that I've shown to either be weak in argument, or unsupportive of your position. I'll just cut your ass of and shove it down your throat... Again. You appear to be enjoying the taste of your ass as you keep begging for seconds, thirds, etc.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 05:12 PM
So? Originally Posted by andymarksmanI'm letting you know that I won't get tired of shoving your head up your ass, or forcing your ass down your throat, for as long as you continue to demonstrate masochism on this thread.
Yes, I have fun doing this, I take sadistic pleasure in destroying arguments like yours, then watching your emotional, narcissistic, and desperate reactions to my posts. I've been doing this for 13 years, my argument with you here is nothing but a drop in the bucket for me.
Let me spell this out for you. What I just did now, what I have been doing to you on this thread, expect the same thing to continue to occur if you keep doing the same thing. I'm going to hammer you indefinitely here.
Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was your statement, that they had to come up with a band new attack plan false based on your acknowledgement that this was updated? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question, the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply.
- MT Pockets
- 06-05-2017, 05:12 PM
Andynaziboy, you better get some sleep, you are going to need it for the wrath you are about to receive!
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
So? Originally Posted by andymarksmanThe face sitter has two talents.
!. Holding his breath for long periods of time
2. Breaking every word you say down and writing an epic novel about it.
That being said you will see that he does not have enough sense to realize there are a certain group of members here that goad him on. He is like a yapping Chihuahua. Harmless yet irritating.
- herfacechair
- 06-05-2017, 05:15 PM
Andynaziboy, you better get some sleep, you are going to need it for the wrath you are about to receive!The psychological profile, that I have on Andy, shows an individual that exercises piss poor judgement, driven by emotion, anger problems, and control problems. I've seen his actions on the other threads here, to include comments busting him for posting inappropriate videos on one of the Luke Wyatt threads.
I wouldn't be surprised if he had problems maintaining a job, a career, or a business, and that his resume is littered with numerous short time employment attempts. His attitude here, on this thread and on others, shows someone that doesn't have much friends on the outside. He's probably seen as "weird" by the others, more than likely has problems relating to people, something that would impact his ability to request pay raises, successfully secure promotions, or successfully obtain lateral transfers to coveted job positions.
His piss poor judgement, demonstrated on this thread, is related to these other things that I see in him.
If he wanted anybody to take him seriously, or to even meet him halfway, he wouldn't take a confrontational, zero-sum, approach to people here. The reactions that he draws, towards him here, would be similar to reactions he'd draw toward him in the real world.
The fact that he, after thoroughly getting destroyed on this thread, would resurrect it to make the same mistakes he made that got him destroyed in the first place, just for him to get destroyed again, indicates that he has problems letting things go.
I wouldn't be surprised that in addition to not having that many friends, that he has little sympathy in his family, and thus have little to no friends within his family.
We are pretty much what he has, he doesn't care about what kind of attention he gets. Perfect debate target.
