Why do I do this to myself.
Recently I have been on two different conversations that have me banging my head against the wall.
The first one was a re-post on Facebook article by a guy by the name Scott Bonn. The standard claims, the UN did not approve, violated international law, we needed the UN’s approval for it to be legal, and accusations of war crimes.
So I posted on the person’s post and she said that she was friends with the guy and that I would get a reply from him. I was thinking that I might get a decent reply: mistake one. He responded when I posted about the UN’s resolutions that supported us being in Iraq all the way until 2008. Which he replied.
The resolution was to “inspect” not to bomb and kill tens of thousands of its citizens! An invasion requires a UN authorization which the Bush crowd sought but, when denied, they conveniently said they didn’t need it. The invasion also violated the Nuremberg Charter as an aggressive act of war and the occupation, torture and killing violated the Geneva conventions. Ask any other expert on the international laws of war and they will tell you the same. Thank you.
So my douche bag dectector is going off big time, but I wanted to reply to this “expert” to see what his sources would be if I listed the UN resolutions regarding Iraq. I even gave him direct links to the UN resolutions right off the UN’s website. Also reminded him about the cease fire and that Afghanistan was a UN approved operation. So I was thinking maybe that just maybe I might get a response to these Resolutions. Mistake 2.
Doesn’t justify an invasion. Plain and simple under international law.
Yea, that counters everything, just reply back with a comment that all but says: “I am right because I say so”.
I message the person to say that I am hardly impressed with her new “friend” and she was less then impressed as well about the exchange.
Then there was another one were I was directed to this link after I used Iraq as a example of a working counter-insurgency place. The person that I replied to was making a comment that only a operation like the one in Sri Lanka.
The article starts off with the again standard claim that there is a Civil War raging in Iraq
Bombings took the lives of 62 Shiite pilgrims, mostly in the holy city of Karbala, but also in Diyala province. Sunni Arab guerrillas are still attempting to destabilize the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by provoking Shiite-Sunni feuds and spreading a feeling of instability that interferes with investment and reconstruction. .
The second I saw Diyala providence got my attention right away. For those that do not know I was stationed in Iraq from 2008-2009. So considering that I went on over 165 missions in this area, I wanted to know what he was trying to paint that place as.
All these years after George W. Bush’s insane war of choice against Iraq, that country remains mired in civil war, as social scientists define it:
Ugh, no it was not really as bad as he claims it is. You can read my thoughts on this on that link.
Also his confidence in US and the Iraqi populations is less then stunning.
The bad news is that there is no early prospect of this civil war ending, and security improvements have leveled off in recent months.
All this is not to say that the 47,000 US troops still in the country should remain (at all!) If Arabic-speaking, Iraqi Shiite troops and police could not stop a truck bombing in Karbala, US troops wouldn’t have a prayer of doing so. This level of violence cannot in fact bring down the Iraqi government. But it can keep Iraq from attracting foreign investment and keep the population nervous, and so is an element of destabilization.
Bush and the Neoconservatives’ shining beacon on a hill has in fact become a nearly 8 year long civil war, with no end in sight.
But then again this is the same guy that said this.
There are rumors that the Israeli government may declare a unilateral cease fire Saturday. They had better. Because if they ruin the Obama inauguration by splashing the bloody bodies of dead Palestinian children all over the press during the next few days, no Americans, even the most pro-Israeli, are going to forgive them.
Why do I do this to myself thinking that I get a real conversation.
ADDED:
I just got this a reply.
Of course there’s a civil war: that’s what the neocons wanted and that’s why there was no post-war planning. The Israel Lobby neocons pretend to be about spreading democracy whereas they actually are about destabilization. Michael A. Ledeen wrote in his 2002 book The War Against the Terror Masters: “First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the big three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria.” “Stability is an unworthy American mission…. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia…The real issue is not whether, but how best to destabilize.” Of course, fomenting civil wars and destabilizing the Muslim enemies of Israeli expansionism has been a longtime Israeli strategy. This policy was enunciated in February 1982 by Israeli strategist Oded Yinon writing in the World Zionist Organization magazine Kivunim. The idea was to dissolve Israel’s enemies into powerless mini-states. Yinon relished the Iraq-Iran War which he hoped would lead to civil war and fragmentation of Iraq, Israel’s most feared enemy. It did not. However, the Zionist neocons then lied us into the unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003 which did foment a civil war. Similarly, the current US/Israel-pushed Hariri tribunal is aimed at destabilizing Lebanon. That’s what the neocons want.
**FACE PALM**
Category: Antiwar crowd, General Whackos, Terror War
Eh, Spork..You do it because you are one hell of an individual. Don’t you ever forget that lil bro. *Kapeesh*?
Yea I know. There is one thing that I am tempted to write about is the new system as far as doing military online courses.
There are some big changes and a lot of active soldiers will be affected.
Sporkmaster, my friend:
Are you on drugs? What makes you think that you would find logical reasoning from them? You hit it right square, center of mass, when you said: “I am right because I say so”. That is how they rationalize. And, if you persist, they act like pre-teens and run to their room and lock the door.
Drink another cup of coffee, and just forget trying to have a reasonable discussion with them. Better yet, and much easier; engage your dog in a two way discussion. The dog is more rational, and easier to understand.
Eh, Sporkster, it’s difficult to near impossible to bring facts and logic to the emotionally enriched. They have their preconceived notions about how everything in the universe works and nothing you say will ever convince them otherwise. They call it Utopian thinking. I call it braindead.
Spork, it’s not like you hadn’t been prepared by TAH. Or, haven’t you paid any attention to the ravings of Joey, our own little “emotionally enriched” libtard? And thanks for that description, OT.
Well the first one conversation that I toke part in allowed me to show the FB user what kind of “expert” he was so that was one of the main reason I took the time to reply to him.
The second one was the the person that gave me the link was someone who I could debate and be civil regardless of how much we disagreed. Then when they were talking about how “bad”the Diyala provenience was/is that I crossed posted my replies to him to that website.
Anytime I ask a question and one of the first sentences includes neocon, my bullshit detector/cliche meter kicks into the redzone. I immediately ask the person to define neocon, paleocon and conservative and if they can’t tell me the difference in policy positions I have little interest in hearing anything else they have to say as it will most likely be the standard, leftest talking point crap.
Here’s what I read:
Blah blah blah Bush blah blah blah neocons blah blah blah neocons blah blah blah Jews blah blah blah Cheney blah blah blah neocons blah blah blah Jews blah blah blah neocons blah blah blah Jews.
That’s pretty much it.
Spork…
I am like you. I keep trying to believe that liberals will listen if you provide the info…I think there is a permanent palm print on my forehead.
Rule #1 when dealing with a lib is to remember they have a disease. Then, if you must reinforce your own thoughts with the facts, feel free. 🙂
The hard part of debate is that you need both sides to be sane and not frothing at the mouth. Liberals Know the Truth. They know the Lies that are told and nothing you can say will contradict the Truth. (the capitol letters are not a typo). Conservatives are often world weary, and even soldiers with liberal leanings tend not to froth at the mouth when they know events are against their point of view.
And really when has the “international community” done didly squat? Nice Job UN introducing CHOLERA to Hati, and killing over 100,000 fucking people. or how about the swift response to Darfur? Or what about Rwanda? And hey, Iran is about to nuke the shit out of SOMEBODY. Not sure who yet, but, when you see that mushroom cloud, you’ll know who did it. And if you talk about International Law, well there is no body (not even the UN that enforces it because there is no universal international law or jurisdiction. Its A-OK to marry a woman before she even menstruated (According the the Ayatollah Kumaini), but here we call that rape.
The fact that the UN has lasted so long is more a testament to our good will then to their own abilities. Should the US pull support it will fade like the League of Nations, and the Congress of Vienna before it.
Sporkmaster:
Just quick add. The over 100,000 thousand were the number affected and not the number that have died from it. As of this month the number of deaths is just short of 4,000.
Just out of curiousity, hasn’t most of the Middle East been at war with the rest of it for the last, say…..thousands of years? And won’t they still hate each other and be fighting for dominance until the end of time? Or the oil runs out, whichever comes first….