Members Interview: Jhungary

[jhungary]

@jhungary

In your opinion, do you think the USA will attack North Korea?

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

 

[HannibalBarca]

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

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...

 

[jhungary]

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...

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.

 

[Drongo]

The problem is, you are again justifying the war with the negative outcome, unless at that point in 2002/2003, that outcome is possibly clear by all means, you cannot go back and say "Since we did not find any live WMD, the whole war in Iraq was not just."

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.

in 2003, none of us know anything, because Iraqi government was holding back information and access, and that alone would be enough for US to send force to invade Iraq.

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.

 

[jhungary]

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.

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.

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.

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

Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

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.

 

[ayesha.a]

Did US fabricate the intel to fight a war in Iraq? As a former intelligence officer myself, I have my share of Iraqi intelligence, while I cannot tell you what they are or what they said, I can tell you that most, if not all, intel is vetted by multiple source. Granted, they can still be fabricated, but you also need to know one thing, if I were to invade Iraq while fabricating the Iraqi Government having WMD? 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.

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:

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction.

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


Cheney in 2003:

We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

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

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

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months 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.

 

[jhungary]

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.

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?

 

[ayesha.a]

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?

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.

 

[jhungary]

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.

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.

 

[ayesha.a]

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.

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.

 

[jhungary]

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.

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.

 

[gambit]

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.

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 ?

 

[jhungary]

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 ?

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.

 

[ayesha.a]

You are talking as if somehow what we did was unique in the history of foreign affairs. Absurd.

Nope. Never said or implied that it's unique in history. Care to point out where I made such a claim, implied or explicit?

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 ?

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.

 

[jhungary]

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

umm.......I NEVER actually said that.