• Monday, January 20, 2020

Members Interview: Jhungary

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by WAJsal, Apr 21, 2017.

  1. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    No.

    North Korea is a god send for USA, granted, they are making nuke, but China don't want NK to have Nuke as much as US, that's because if they are to use nuke against anyone, US will retaliate and drop nuke on NK, and even if the Nuke was not targeting China, resulting fall out and explosion near the nuclear site (all of which close to China) and that would mean it will most definitely bring China into a thermal nuclear war.

    And for the American, as long as NK is there, that is a very good reason to mike SK, be it buy US weapon or allow US to do all sort of crazy stuff in SK, THAAD is one of those occasion. The existence of NK give US leeway into the game in the region, all the while earn some bucks.

    On the other hand, if NK is removed, Korea united under the South, then there are no need for the American in Korea anymore. Worse, since all these troop have to go somewhere, they will be redirected to Japan, which is Korean arch rival, which mean it would probably push Korea into Chinese or Russian camp. Which is not ideal
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  2. HannibalBarca

    HannibalBarca SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,921
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2017
    Ratings:
    +3 / 8,135 / -0
    Country:
    Tunisia
    Location:
    France
    Well if the zone became a nuclear battlefield... I pretty think SK will not exist as we know it today... Therefore to side to take, whatever it's with US or /CN/RU...
     
  3. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    Well, I was saying that to point out China don't want nuclearized NK as much as the US.

    Yes, if there is a nuclear war, then whichever side SK take will be a moot point.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. Drongo

    Drongo FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -0
    Country:
    Australia
    Location:
    Australia
    That's not what I'm saying at all though. All of my points were readily apparent (except for the intel being dodgy) before the invasion even happened, which is why there was so much international opposition to the war and why everybody who took part took a massive credibility hit.

    A country wasn't cooperating so you get the right to invade? That isn't how it works. See my previous point about war only being justified as a legitimate last resort, and unnecessarily starting a war as being unconscionable.
     
  5. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    Again, you are judging the case by what happened afterward.

    The invasion was blame because of the outcome of the operation. Because
    1.)Iraq is worse off than before
    2.)US failed to find any live WMD

    The problem is, as I said, you look at the situation as of 2002/2003, the decision is 50/50 at worse, 70/30 in favour of invasion due to the Iraqi non-complying of the UN observer.


    In this case, they do, as per UN resolution 1441.

    Resolution 1441 is basically the ultimatum UN given to Iraq in 2002 for their last chance to allow UN observer to access site without hindrance, impediment and restriction. The resolution was passed in 2002 unanimously. Which is referring to the resolution 687 signed into effect in 1990. (Meaning if Iraq fail to comply with 1441, it would have breached the ceasefire condition as given by resolution 687. I.e., nullify the ceasefire agreement.)

    What people generally argue is that Whether or not violation of 687 would mean an automatic void of ceasefire agreement, and if so, 687 did not outline the situation what will happen after 687 was nullified, in usual custom, another security resolution should be raise and passed in order to authorise the use of force (Which arguing on the fact that nullifying an agreement does not mean the automatically use of force was authorised).

    On the other hand, the absent of word regarding how UN should act in the event of Iraq nullifying the ceasefire agreement set forth by resolution 687 would mean it does not means military action is prohibited (as it did not said so, and you cannot have it both way) Also Paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 stated

    While this is commonly interpreted as Security Council Decided to remain seized to the matter and would use WHATEVER MEAN to secure peace and security to enforce the implementation of this resolution.

    There are no argue that the use of force is one of the option reserved, however, one will argue by Security Council, it mean all the security council member, but at the same time, it did not explicitly refer to the council as a whole, or explicitly require another Security Council Resolution, again, this can swing both way.

    Hence the US and UK decision to invade Iraq is neither legal, nor illegal if the resolution were followed thru up to each letter. Simply because it did not restrict nor limited the role of the security council and individual country, as it did not say that clearly.

    What we know so far is this, By passing 1441 and by ignoring 1441, Iraq broke resolution 687 (this part is for sure) but whether or not 687 allow or disallow military action without another council meeting is not clear, it did not say, and since it did not explicitly mentioned, it's neither legal, nor illegal. In practices, it followed the resolutions given by the US and UK, it give the right, but not the how.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  6. ayesha.a

    ayesha.a FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Ratings:
    +7 / 3,154 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    Oh but you (the Bush administration) did, repeatedly. The entire administration, including the president repeatedly hammered it everyday, and an unquestioning media failed to ask hard questions, and the public swallowed that lie. That is documented in innumerable speeches and press conferences of the president and senior white house officials. It was laughable, because Saddam was AQ's sworn enemy, because of his anti-Islamist and secular credentials.

    Bush's speech in 2002:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/


    Cheney in 2003:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/default.htm

    Cheney, alleging that one of the hijackers, Mohammad Atta, met Iraqi intel officers before the attack:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/cheneytext_120901.html



    TL/DR: The US govt repeatedly alleged that Saddam and Al Qaeda had connections, and that the Saddam regime had contact with the hijackers of 9/11 and so on. That was one of the reasons for the public support of the war at the time. Without those allegations, support for the war would have been far less forthcoming from the general American public.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    You did not get my point.

    I am not talking about Should US president turn the blame on Iraq and try to link them to 9/11, They do talk about it.

    What I am saying is that, if someone in that position have to lies to try to fabricate a clause to start a war with Iraq, why not fabricate some document or some "intel" to give hard evidence to some clause that already have the lead and have been fanning, instead they have to do it with a whole new issue about WMD? WMD was not really talked about in international community up to the point when Blix release the report saying the Iraqi government refuse their inspection, and most people wake up to the fact when US actually invade Iraq, before than, it was a forgotten news.

    it's like you said, US public will go nuts on anything remotely related to 9/11, we even invaded Philippine for it, if Bush is really trying to find a reason to go to war, why not do what he HAD ALREADY been doing? Try to make up something and point it to Iraq and invade Iraq that way? Wouldn't it be a lot easier and without a lot of repercussion?
     
  8. ayesha.a

    ayesha.a FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Ratings:
    +7 / 3,154 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    The US govt supplied multiple lies to justify invading Iraq. Do you want to go into the why for each lie? We could do that, but before that I wanted to make it clear that the US did, in fact, convince the American people about Saddam-Al Qaeda connections (laughable though that is, given their history.)

    The WMD lie was because there needed to be a sense of imminence for the invasion. Officials even said that Saddam could deploy a WMD in "as little as 45 minutes". Such claims from senior officials can and did create a sense of panic and urgency in the minds of the public, and the US congress. It provided an imminent threat to justify an invasion.

    The 9/11 lie? Well that's easy to figure out the "why" for - Americans were understandably still deeply scarred by that wound, and that was an easily exploitable one. US forces were already waging war in Afg for that, and telling people that this invasion was part of that war, part of the retribution, was an easy way to gain support.


    The "why" for each lie can be figured out easily, but the important point here is that we should not forget the lies in the first place. I had to comment, because you made it sound like Bush and co did not offer lies about Saddam and 9/11, and only about WMDs. Just one lie could be passed off as an honest mistake - but that was not the case. There was a whole bunch of lies.
     
  9. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    You do not get my point at all.

    A just war is not about morality, in just war theory (Which someone have already quoted in this thread) The morality issue was not included, that is because it was for a very good reason, if war can be justify or in-justify by moral value, then war, itself is immoral, will not happens, as Carl Von Clausewitz said, if we all hold to high regard on moral value, war will never, and should never happens.

    So what if POTUS lies to the public (given if you can proof it, under court, without reasonable doubt) it would make the war immoral, but will it make the war unjust? That's an separate issue.

    For me, my reason for the war in Iraq is a just war, the point of view was already there, the point to the matter is that the Iraqi refusal to allow UN inspector to freely inspect their WMD program is a direct violation of resolution 1441, hence resulting the violation of resolution 687 in response to the Iraqi Government and UN with the cease fire agreement.

    That is the casus belli for the war, you and I can argue with this, if you want, but if you want to argue whether or not lying would mean the war is unjust? That would be a moot point.

    Another thing is, from conspiracy theorist (like yourself), the main casus belli is because Iraq alleged process WMD and refusing the UN inspector to inspect the site, the question I raise in response to this is if this is a not true, (not a lies, not a deception, but simply false) why would the US go for it, instead of going after the 9/11 angle.

    You can call many stuff a lies, that's your opinion, unless you can proof it in court without reasonable doubt that such thing never existed. All that you hear, or you think is hearsay. If you want to think the WMD Angle is a lies, or 9/11 Angle is a lies, then you can try to prove or disprove it without reasonable doubt. But either way, that does not justify or unjustified a war.
     
  10. ayesha.a

    ayesha.a FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Ratings:
    +7 / 3,154 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    Wow. I think you might be confusing my posts with another member's, and have lost track of who posted what. Otherwise, I have no explanation for you calling me terms like "conspiracy theorist". Pray tell me, what conspiracy did I spin? That 9/11 was an inside job? That Jews did it?

    I did not - repeat - did not get into the morality or legality of the war. I was picking one specific claim you made, and pointing out that that was untrue. You claimed that the US govt could have alleged spurious links between Iraq and 9/11 instead of Iraq having WMDs. I was pointing out that your govt did, in fact claim that as well.

    All the talk about justifications for war etc, and principles of a just war, was between you and another member. My only point was to point out that the govt did in fact allege Saddam-9/11 connections, when you asked why they didn't, if they could have.

    I didn't put forward any conspiracy theories, and I didn't talk about the justifications for war.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  11. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    Then you also misunderstood what I said.

    I have NEVER said US have not try to connect AQI with 9/11 or AQ to Laden. In fact, when I said this.

    Why not I fabricate some connection between AQ and Iraq and say Iraq was also responsible for 9/11 attacks? It would be a lot easier to fabricate something that can be associated with real incident, rather make things up in thin air.

    I do mean the relationship between the two is absurd.

    What I say is, if I were to fabricate intel to make the war legit, why not fabricate something that's a lot easier and can push people to war in a lopsided advantage, like pointing Iraq to 9/11. It's quite easy to fabricate connection, HUMINT report and other source of Funding related intel. Why not build up an actual case via Hard Evidence to push the point into a Casus Belli

    Did I said the US government NEVER alleged the Iraqi government have some sort of connection to AQ prior to Iraq war? No, but that all limited to speculation and conjecture, at the same time, it does not reflex or support the theory for Iraqi Involvement in 9/11, hence, is this the reason for Iraq war? No.

    I don't know if you have read too deep into my word, or you simply do not understand what I said.
     
  12. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,693
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +141 / 22,415 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    You are talking as if somehow what we did was unique in the history of foreign affairs. Absurd.

    When you have multiple enemies and/or potential adversaries, it have always been prudent to consider the possibility that two or more of them WILL collude to do you harm. Not merely can -- but WILL. Whether you are correct in that estimation or not -- is not the point. Are there no bookstores wherever you live ?
     
  13. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    lol......people just don't understand the basic idea of "Association"

    When something happens, it's quite common to associate all of the different group in order to get a better picture, in an investigative standpoint. every lead need to be turn in order to proof or disproof a theory. There are no "Automatic" renouncing an action just because of on the face value, the math does not match.

    The question is, whether or not these turn out to be true is another problem, but speculation and association is normal during the first part of investigation.
     
  14. ayesha.a

    ayesha.a FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Ratings:
    +7 / 3,154 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    Nope. Never said or implied that it's unique in history. Care to point out where I made such a claim, implied or explicit?

    Again:

    jhungary made the claim that the US govt did not allege Saddam-al Qaeda connections. I pointed out that they did.

    Do you dispute that?

    Anything else about me being a conspiracy theorist or not having access to bookstores is unnecessary verbiage that distracts from my clear, short and straightforward point. I'll put it down in bold underneath, since there may be no reading glasses where you live. (Yea, just taking a leaf from your rhetorical book; not really my style.) If you want to dispute the bolded sentence, be my guest.

    The US govt did, as a matter of fact, allege Saddam-Qaeda links.
     
  15. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +324 / 10,463 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    umm.......I NEVER actually said that.