Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
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?
Neither the military, nor the international community, agree with your assumption. If they did, those trials would've happened.
I am curious, too. "Where is the international move to carry out a repeat of the Nuremburg trials," since an order to commit war crimes had been issued by the U.S. military?
Also remember that the rank-and-file German soldier couldn't use "because I received an order" as a defense against their crimes. So, in order for your ignorant assumptions to apply, every single one of us that participated in the Iraq War are also "guilty" of "war crimes". Again, I know for fact the military has put service members on trial after a valid investigation verified that they were involved in war crimes. Gen. Franks would not have been exempt.
"I know for fact the military has put service members on trial after a valid investigation verified that they were involved in war crimes. Gen. Franks would not have been exempt." Really? The facts are that he would have been "exempt" if he was with "them" back then.
You, having no evidence to support your assumption, automatically assume that he should've been administered the same justice as Anton Dostler. Do an Internet search of what a strawman argument is. You would recognize your tactics on this thread in the explanation of a strawman argument.
Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace is punishable by death under the provisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, thus I stand by my claim that Gen. Franks is liable to the same justice meted out to Anton Dostler.
andymarksman: Where's the "Commando Order" the Gen. Franks "had to" obey?
Gen. Franks received no such order. Your question is equivalent to the question on where, in the United States, are all the flying horses and unicorns being held at. That order only exists in your head.
Here they are, even though they were not so "secret" as the "Commando Order."
"They" both claimed they wanted a "diplomatic solution," sound familiar?
andymarksman: Unlike previous drafts which did specify ways to keep US military presence in Iraq after 2011, the final agreement eliminated that possibility altogether. That error made by Bush left Obama virtually no room to maneuver.
Wrong, from the actual agreement:
"This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."
This loophole is so large you could sail a super tanker through it. This is not an elimination of the possibility of keeping US forces in Iraq after 2011. It opens the door to extending this agreement, to coming up with a new agreement, or both. Pres. Obama had that opportunity, based on this provision alone, to extend our presence. He had plenty of room to maneuver.
So you now want to argue that "amended" means "renewed." How creative! Try to translate your interpretation to Arabic; because Maliki wasn't buying your BS:
"This agreement is not subject to extention, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."
But you would argue that Maliki said "the only way for any of the remaining 50,000 or so American soldiers to stay beyond 2011 would be for the two nations to negotiate-with the approval of Iraq's Parliament-a new status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, similar to the one concluded in 2008." Do you understand what it means? We are at their mercies, since they could have done it at their leisure, not obligated by the provisions of the 2008 SOFA.
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.
No wonder Maliki wanted to screw us so badly, because he has observed the apparent violations by the U.S. military under the terms of the 2008 SOFA.
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.
So you want to argue that Obama should have called Maliki daily begging him to grant the immunity to the U.S. troops in Iraq? No wonder you are such a suppliant miser of Maliki.
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.
Name a single civilian in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates ever gunned down by the U.S. soldiers, just one.
You need to advance an argument, against the tentative agreement, and what the Iraqis were willing to abandon, instead of just asking me to show you a verbal attempt to move toward an agreement.
I don't give a fuck on "what the Iraqis were willing to abandon," just like you don't give a fuck on what Obama was not willing to abandon.
How about you actually procure a spine and a gut and present your own arguments instead of hiding behind questions, one-liners, and other people's opinions? Quit being a coward and actually stand up and "put up your dukes".
I have never complained the way you post, have I? Don't like the way I post? You don't have to reply, do you?
Don't dismiss the facts, and reasoned argument based on extensive research and first-hand experience as "lying", quotation marks used strongly. The only liar between the two of us is you. I've repeatedly demonstrated that throughout this thread, and I will demonstrate that with these series of replies.
andymarksman: 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.
Wrong, Stupid. The memorandum IS an effort to refine a long-standing military strategy. I know that for fact, because I have been part of military exercises that entailed combat operations against Iraq, Iran, countries in the Caribbean, and other locations around the world. No, we have not gone to war with many of the countries that we had "trained against". However, the fact remains delete that we have courses of action selected for every hotspot around the world. We also train for them.
Also, from the reference that you brought up to "support" your assumption:
"Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq," -- Andy's reference
What part of UPDATED did you not understand? If nothing existed before it, as you are arguing, there will be nothing to be "updated".
Given that Apple this from you reference, and given that you had to have reviewed your own reference, you're coming on here and claiming that this is a "brand-new attack plan" amounts to you being a big fat liar. To take your own reference, and to say something other than what you reference a saying, proves you to be a liar.
Again, leave it to the liberals and conspiracy whack jobs, to take those documents and to make them say something not supported but what's inside those documents.
andymarksman: They even spelled out the specific maneuvering tactics to execute that plan:
Something that they didn't create in the vacuum. The fact of the matter is that each of these were plans that talk about coming up with different "Courses of Action", or COA. Had you spent any length of time in the military, and gone up the ranks, you would know what different COA entails. More on that later, but the points that you bring up right after this are not something that they originally came up with, but something that was based on a previous course of action that was rejected.
andymarksman: Deploy ground forces in western desert or south of Baghdad
A COA that had previously been suggested but not considered for action until 2003. US forces trained to do just that between the "cease-fire" and invasion of Iraq. Other COA's include deploying them from the north, or via combat jumps in strategic locations in that country. These, and other COAs, have been consistent considerations throughout the time we've had the war plan specifically aimed against Iraq. The fact that the majority of these COAs were not implemented until recently does not mean that they previously didn't exist. Had you had any military experience, at the senior levels, this would've been a no-brainer to you. Your lack of military experience painfully shows regarding this debate having to do with military operations.
andymarksman: *Threaten Baghdad
This is one of the COA's that was actually carried out not just during the Gulf War, but during the interim years. During operation Desert Fox, targets in Baghdad were bombed. You do not have to have any military experience to know that is a fact, as CNN displayed on TV when President Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq. This is not new, as you are implying.
andymarksman: *Force Republican Guards to move and present targets... Seize or destroy Republican Guards
Another strategy that is not new, but has been consistent on the war plan that was "updated" per your own reference. Although the cease-fire was implemented, the Iraq war was consistently war gamed during the 1990s. In the infantry world, we call that fixing and destroying the target. Part of the strategy involves using coordinated fires to force the enemy to take a specific course of action in order to make them easier targets. You're a fool if you think that this has not been practiced between the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion.
Yes, we will initiate deceptive operations, through hard kill and soft kill methods, to get an enemy unit to take a specific course of action. This is a cousin to utilizing Humvees playing loudspeaker noises of Blackhawk helicopters while driving around at night to scare enemy mortar men from their positions. Also, attacking specific positions, to force an enemy to move in a specific direction, falls under "canalizing" where the enemy is "canalized" into moving into a specific direction where they could be destroyed.
This is not new, is you are implying. Combat arms communities practice that and other types of tactics to maximizing enemy kills.
andymarksman: 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." [REPEAT POINT]
Once again, you're wrong. Again, I have participated in training exercises that involved combat operations against a country that we were not at war with. This included Iraq, Iran, the former Soviet Union, Haiti, and other hotspots. In many cases, we "disguised" the enemy nation via "creating" a fictional country that resembled the shape and landscape of the enemy country.
Again, I know for fact that the Pentagon has a war plan for every hotspot country in the world that we could get involved with. That is simply good leadership in action. These are the source documents that dictate what kind of training that we end up doing at a tactical level. These plans are continuously updated based on new information that comes up regarding the specific countries.
What I stated still stands, in fact here is a statement from your own reference proving you wrong:
"Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq," -- Andy's reference
What part of UPDATED did you not understand? If nothing existed before it, as you are arguing, there will be nothing to be "updated".
Given that this is the reference that pull that from, and given that you had to have reviewed your own reference, you come in on here and claiming that this is a "brand-new attack plan" amounts to you being a big fat liar. To take your own reference, and to say something other than what you reference a saying, proves you to be a liar.
So yes, this is an example of the leadership refining a plan that had been in existence long before President Bush got elected to president
andymarksman: Bill Clinton never ordered such "attack plans" by the use of the U.S. ground forces on Iraq.
First:
"The best way to end 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. Bringing 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
Based on historical precedent, and on my own military experiences and research, the way to implement what is bolded in red is via the deployment of a special forces element to link up with those opposition groups, then to train them, and to form as a core for their resistance. If you don't believe me, ask President Obama why he deployed Special Forces to Syria recently.
Second, if you read the transcript of the speech, you would realize that he was referencing a war plan that we already had against Saddam. That is the war plan that I was talking about, one that was in place even before President Bush became president. In fact, this war plan, against Iraq, was in existence since the 1980s. As usual, nothing you said contradicted my argument.
andymarksman: Thus this memo, declassifed by the Pentagon, not your so-called "liberal hacks,"
Anybody reading that memorandum, with military experience, with an understanding of current events as well as history, would not see in it what you see in it. In fact, those with extensive military experience will see in it what I see in it. No matter how many times I go through it, I see it from a military perspective, that this is communication delete attempting to update a war plan.
If you had any understanding of how the military works, you'd realize that planning has a lot of moving parts. Plenty of communication, verbal and tangible, is generated. Part of the planning involves coming up with different COAs. The planning process is not smooth, anytime a COA is pushed up for consideration, it comes back with markings and questions. It comes back with recommendations or mandated COAs that were not considered. So yes, what you see in the memorandum is consistent with what happens when it comes to military planning.
In the military, we call this MDMP, or Military Decision-Making Process, which happens intensely at the operational and strategic levels. The memorandum that you're showcasing is nothing but an example of this. It is not them conspiring or plotting to commit a crime. Only conspiracy whack job idiots, with no real military experience and in MDMP, would make the claim that you are making.
andymarksman: 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.
Wrong. If it was "undisputed", Bush et al., would have been brought up on war crimes charges. If it was "undisputed", the Republicans would've been leading the charge to make this happen. However, keep in mind that I'm looking at the same memorandum that you are, and don't see your line of reasoning anywhere in those memorandums or comments. The cold hard fact is that the memorandum does not support your assumption that Bush ministration officials conspired to plot a war, or even that Rumsfeld and Franks committed war crimes.
The only thing that memorandum proves is that you lack military experience, and your lack of knowledge on matters relating to the military, and military operations, painfully shows with replies.
Again, what you are seeing is a result of MDMP. If you don't think that similar memorandums and questions are not generated at all levels in the Pentagon and White House, you are a clueless fool. All that memorandum proves is that a COA was presented, and one of the approving officials placed questions on that memorandum related to that COA. Nothing, in the reading of the memorandum or your linked reference, "supports" your erroneous assumption that there was a conspiracy to plot a war or to commit war crimes. As with your replies on this thread, you've consistently failed to prove your position with credible and valid information sources or sites.
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.
GWU archives: U.S. Sets "Decapitation of Government" As Early Goal of Combat
This entails a different strategic mission. During the Gulf War, the intent was to push Iraq out of Kuwait. The strategy, to deal with that, involved destroying the command and control, and a military infrastructure that existed, that would have resisted our efforts to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Now, when you're talking about a full-scale invasion, the requirements are different.
Yes, you would have to decapitate the government, and destroy more of the military infrastructure. Because, unlike the retribution nature of our attack inside Iraq during the Gulf War, we are dealing with a full-scale invasion involving regime change. Again, this is nothing new, it all boils down to the fact that they had a war plan in place for Iraq, that came with multiple courses of actions.
GWU archives: Declassified Documents Show Bush Administration Diverting Attention and Resources to Iraq Less than Two Months after Launch of Afghanistan War
A reading of those declassified documents does not support that assertion. The document, linked to that site, is nothing but a COA that was considered, reviewed, and submitted back to the person that sent that COA up. No resources were being considered as being diverted away from Afghanistan. In fact, even if we had the entire US military, after a full mobilization call up, in Afghanistan, we would not have found Osama Bin Laden. The troops that we had over there were sufficient.
In fact, when we invaded Iraq, the intensity of the insurgency that we were about to deal with in Afghanistan diverted to Iraq. This goes back to the arguments that I presented earlier in this thread. Having that insurgency divert to Iraq, where we could utilize our entire war machine, away from an environment that negated a lot of our war machine, was a mark of strategic brilliance. It showed an understanding of the history in that area, and showcased a solution not considered by previous powers that tried to invade Afghanistan.
GWU archives: Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq
"It's essentially a brand new 'attack plan'" -- andymarksman contradicting his own reference
Why would he instruct his team to create an updated war plan if this allegedly was a "brand new" attack plan? HINT: if you, and your lack of military experience, disagree with something said by somebody with over two decades of military experience under his belt, there is a 100% chance that you are wrong. If you are smart, you would not try to argue this. Instead, you would spend that time figuring out why you are wrong in the first place. In fact, if you are smart, you would not try to debate a military or war topic against someone with experience in both compared to your lack of experience in both.
When I use your own references to prove you wrong, even you would have to see that you're getting destroyed in this argument.
A reading of the very statement proves correct the argument that I advanced earlier that the Department of Defense has war plans drafted for every potential hotspot that the military could be involved with. Instead of trying to make an idiot of yourself by arguing against someone with over two decades of military experience, you should be thanking me for giving you a clue about how the military works.
GWU archives: Talking points for the Rumsfeld-Franks meeting on November 27, 2001, released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), confirm that policy makers were already looking for ways to justify invading Iraq -- as indicated by Rumsfeld's first point, "Focus on WMD."
WRONG. I went through that memorandum again, there is nothing in the memorandum to support the assumption that they were looking for ways to justify an invasion of Iraq. There would be no point of pulling up a war plan, and requesting an update, if they cannot provide a justification before hand. The justification has to come first before the demand to update a war plan arrives. That's how we do things in the military.
What happened was the Pentagon received orders to update a war plan, as I argued earlier in this thread. The Pentagon considered several courses of action based on what was requested by the Bush ministration. They submitted one course of action for consideration. As with almost every time a COA is submitted up a military chain of command, commentary, corrections, questions, etc. are placed on the hard copy of the COA. It is then sent back to the sender for consideration and further revision. Naturally, if something within the COA is something that could impact the news, additional questions regarding justification will come up.
THAT's what I see with that memorandum. Not the assumptions being made by the propagandists that you are referencing.
GWU archives: The preliminary strategy Rumsfeld imparted to Franks while directing him to develop a new war plan for Iraq
Any revision to an existing war plan would result in a NEW war plan. Not the stupid "brand-new" assumption that you try to fart here. You need to read your own references, this one would've helped you get a clue and would've hopefully spared you from proving to the world that your lack of knowledge of how we do things in the military, and of the Iraq war, painfully shows in your replies on this thread.
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.
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.
Yes, I read them the last time I replied to you, and I read them again. I still got the same picture that I got the last time. Again, this is part of the COA selection and consideration process. This happens at all levels where a lower echelon submits a COA to a higher echelon. We do this at a tactical level, it happens at the operational level. What you are seeing is a result of what happens at strategic level.
The Pentagon was tasked with providing a plan. The Pentagon considered several COAs, then submitted one up for consideration. As I said in my previous reply, the reviewer reviewed it and came up with questions based on the specific recommendation of the COA.
A search of your reference does not show where Wolfowitz or Feith "did not know" if any of the terms of the cease-fire were violated. Commentary entered on a memorandum, listing what should be done in Iraq, asking for the specific item in the cease-fire that was violated does not constitute "not knowing". What it does, in a Military Decision-Making Process sense, is to direct the person sending the memorandum up to include those arguments in the next revision sent up.
That is a clue to the person that submitted the memorandum to include the specific items in the cease-fire that were violated. The cold hard reality is that both of them knew that he did. The mere fact that Saddam kicked the inspection team out proves that he violated his terms of the agreement.
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.
Don't cough up blood, Doc, since you are not a four star general like Tommy, who "talked almost daily with" Rumsfeld.
That's NOT proof, dummy!
I'm not coughing up blood, I'm coughing up facts proving your argument wrong. Also, until you respect the fact that I have military experience, that I combat deployed to Iraq, when compared to your lack of either, you do not have a leg to stand on insinuating that I should do the same for other military figures when it comes to supporting your argument.
Second, none of your references, including the one that you referenced in this post, supports your assumption about what they said relative to what I'm explaining. Nothing in the link that you provided "proves" that a "conspiracy" was committed. Your article indicates that President Bush ordered an update to a war plan dealing with Iraq. General Franks, stationed in Florida given that he was assigned to CENTCOM, would've been the logical choice to come up with that plan.
A conspiracy implies a plot to commit crimes. I'm sorry, none of the links that you provided, nor any of the arguments that you provided on this thread, "proves" that a conspiracy was committed. Therefore, I'm going to have you to question 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.
Showing me links to articles showing them to be committing lawful acts does not constitute a conspiracy to commit crimes.
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.
