War on ISIS

Blackflag: Did you just argue in favor of the UN Peacekeeping Forces by giving a vague example of an unrelated Dutch Military failure? Well done.
There is a difference between the forces the UN raises for a conflict and its peacekeeping security forces. You cannot use them interchangeably.

How so? Tell me Stag, when someone is pontificating in ignorance, do you think people who know about the UN and have worked within its confines both on military and peacekeeping operations might be able to tell that you are just making shit up? Because you are. The inability to concede a point or acknowledge that you don;t have god like powers or knowledge about something you have never worked with or in is not a good thing - we religious people call it excessive pride.

You DID claim we had to fight WW2, and it was a difficult war. Am I REALLY jumping to conclusions?

Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything I have written in this thread? Or how it rebuts what I just clearly stated and you just ignored yet again?

Not only are you jumping to conclusions, you are telling me what I think and ignoring what I say too boot.

Are you just trolling?

Okay, so you now feel it is okay to get into a difficult war if there is an equitable solution. Is there nothing equitable about saving millions of lives, and how many examples do you think I could give where the US military or UN has avoided doing so?

What does this question have to do with anything I stated? What point are you trying to make?

Perhaps you'd like to ask me about light sabers? Luke Skywalker? The color blue?

That is also not what I said. Do you have a problem accurately quoting people Stag?

Are you just trolling?

Nothing. Am I allowed to ask questions without arguing?

When people give thoughtful answers, they generally want thoughtful replies - not inane questions leading no where, deliberate misquotes, no points ever made, and astounding ignorance claimed as fact.

I would you react to someone claiming that the Orthodox Branches of Christianity don't use Bibles? I'd bet you'd pretty upset with someone dumping that into a conversation and then trying to pretend that it was accurate anyway? While asking questions about Luke Skywalker? Yeah, most people find that behavior quite annoying Stag. Now, please don;t partially quote me on this and claim I am trying to say that Orthodox Christians don't use the Bible - what I am saying is that you have no idea how the UN works - none, and the more you keep trying to tell someone who has worked on both sides of peacekeeping fence 'how it works' - the more prideful you come across as.

Its no sin to not know how the UN works when you have never been involved with it, but it's certainly ... disconcerting to watch someone opine about the UN in ways that are manifestly wrong while stubbornly resisting correction of basic facts for the sake of what? Pride?

Again Stag, if you have nothing to say on the subject worthwhile, please don't.

ell me Stag, when someone is pontificating in ignorance, do you think people who know about the UN and have worked within its confines both on military and peacekeeping operations might be able to tell that you are just making shit up?
They would probably agree with the truth. The UN has two military functions. One is to raise armies in the event of a large scale conflict. For example, Somalia and Former Yugoslavia. The second arm is their independent peacekeeping force. You know, the blue berets? These guys are service volunteers who are often deployed behind friendly lines to keep the peace and reconstruct war torn areas.


Anyways, you referenced the Congo and having peacekeepers control major cities. I was criticizing the UN Peacekeeping Force's ability to sustain itself in a war environment. You were confused and used two different things interchangeably. Do you understand your mistake now?

Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything I have written in this thread?
Certainly, I would love to explain. You argued against admins father by claiming that the US should not get into a war in the Congo because it would be too difficult. In another thread you stated we should have gotten into World War II. I was asking why you believed we should have got involved in WWII, a very difficult war, and not some other difficult war like the Congolese Wars.

You justified WWII by claiming the military was saving lives. If that is the case, then why do you oppose saving lives in the Congo?

What does this question have to do with anything I stated? What point are you trying to make?
It has to do with the earlier claims you made on when nations should get involved in wars. I'm trying to see your logic. I am not trying to make a point.

Blackflag: They would probably agree with the truth. The UN has two military functions. One is to raise armies in the event of a large scale conflict. For example, Somalia and Former Yugoslavia. The second arm is their independent peacekeeping force. You know, the blue berets? These guys are service volunteers who are often deployed behind friendly lines to keep the peace and reconstruct war torn areas.

Oh the color of a beret! That's thing, eh ... did you fail to notice the uniforms? The guns? The military rank? The radios ... indicating that they just might be talking to someone ... like command and control?

So, instead of admitting you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, you found a picture of a blue beret. Which indicates, just as I said, that the lead COORDINATING AGENCY is the UN, and that the CONTRIBUTING FORCES, come from assigned Nations military forces. Or are you telling me that the guys in the picture are not Soldiers?

Stag - Pride, get it under control.

Anyways, you referenced the Congo and having peacekeepers control major cities. I was criticizing the UN Peacekeeping Force's ability to sustain itself in a war environment. You were confused and used two different things interchangeably. Do you understand your mistake now?

The responsibility for SUSTAINING the forces assigned to UN missions is the contributing Nation's responsibility. That is why you have a COORDINATING AGENCY with ASSIGNED COMMANDER's, under a joint/coalition task force to manage the influx of logistics and ... COORDINATE ... things like shipping and onward delivery of ... supplies.

DO you understand that I know you are just making up more shit? Do you understand that lying on top of lying is really dishonest?

You argued against admins father by claiming that the US should not get into a war in the Congo because it would be too difficult.

That is again, at best a PARTIAL quote - again with the honesty thing - let try ACTUALLY QUOTING PEOPLE for a change Stag.

#1 - The Congo Wars. Putting aside the fact that the Congo wars happened right after the US intervention in Somalia, where the US found itself embroiled in a blood feud between tribes, who cared little about the people who were starving to death and that the US and UN were there to help. That factors into the decisions regarding the rest of Africa. Another notable difference is geography (the bane of any military intervention.) Somalia is accessible through many ports, which means you can seize them with ground forces, and then have huge container ships (where 97% of material trade moves) show up with aid. Congo is different. The interior is not accessible by port, or, as often as not, by road. It can take weeks to get to the interior of the country where the violence was most acute, where you then find a tangle of inter-tribal rivalries made worse by one of the most corrupt systems on earth - syphoning off money to enrich an elite who are themselves protected by brutal 'security forces'. So who exactly was the bad guys? Who exactly are we supposed to kill with an invasion? Which side do we empower? Which side accepts rule of law and will transcend tribal politics?

So, NOT ONLY is it REALLY hard to GET THERE - there is no easily identifiable 'bad guy', its treacherous and corrupt where force means you can get swept into things you don;t want too (ala Somalia) ... and there is not compelling interest to get us to engender that much effort for little effect ... when you have OTHER and better options available.

But I am glad you dumbed that down to just difficulty.

You justified WWII by claiming the military was saving lives. If that is the case, then why do you oppose saving lives in the Congo?

I justified WWII by a lot more tan saving lives Stag. Again with the partial quotes - and its very hard to take a man seriously in a 'discussion' when they insist on deliberately misquoting you.

Are you trolling?

It has to do with the earlier claims you made on when nations should get involved in wars. I'm trying to see your logic. I am not trying to make a point.

I think we all understand that you are not attempting to make a point - nor indeed are you attempting to see 'logic'. You are trying to induce a trip up so you can say, 'gotcha', but are doing such a horrendous job of it that you are literally compromising your own sense of integrity and honor.

Nothing you have stated about 'what I said' is even remotely accurate Stag. Ergo - seriously - are you just trolling?

Stag - Pride, get it under control.
You might disagree, but playing the psychologist is a very unproductive debating tactic. It is really fallacious in a debate and shows frustration. Not a position of collected confidence.

Oh the color of a beret! That's thing, eh ... did you fail to notice the uniforms? The guns? The military rank? The radios ... indicating that they just might be talking to someone ... like command and control?

So, instead of admitting you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, you found a picture of a blue beret. Which indicates, just as I said, that the lead COORDINATING AGENCY is the UN, and that the CONTRIBUTING FORCES, come from assigned Nations military forces. Or are you telling me that the guys in the picture are not Soldiers?

That is exactly what I am trying to point out. When the UN mandated force in Iraq, the contributing forces were the national millitaries alone who alligned themselves in a coalition, That should not be confused with the blue berets, IE, peacekeeping forces like you were doing.

So, NOT ONLY is it REALLY hard to GET THERE - there is no easily identifiable 'bad guy', its treacherous and corrupt where force means you can get swept into things you don;t want too (ala Somalia) ... and there is not compelling interest to get us to engender that much effort for little effect ... when you have OTHER and better options available.

Okay, now tell my how WWII was different?

I justified WWII by a lot more tan saving lives Stag. Again with the partial quotes - and its very hard to take a man seriously in a 'discussion' when they insist on deliberately misquoting you.

Would you mind saying those reasons again?

Blackflag: You might disagree, but playing the psychologist is a very unproductive debating tactic. It is really fallacious in a debate and shows frustration. Not a position of collected confidence.

Pride is not a psychiatric condition, its an emotional state like anger or happiness. Again, that you are openly making false claims about the UN, and then digging the hole deeper is evident, as is the normal emotive state of people who insist on never admitting they are wrong.

That is exactly what I am trying to point out. When the UN mandated force in Iraq, the contributing forces were the national millitaries alone who alligned themselves in a coalition, That should not be confused with the blue berets, IE, peacekeeping forces like you were doing.

There is no UN mandated force in Iraq. That was an American CJTF and very much an American operation. The UN was there for aid and was the coordinating agency for relief organizations. It operated OUTSIDE THE MILITARY command structure entirely.

In OTHER places, like Haiti Relief Mission, the 18th Airborne Corps was assigned as the CJTF UNDER UN authority, and the forces wore blue berets. They were still paratroopers. The mission was humanitarian vs. combat (the UN did not wear blue berets in Korea either!). The blue beret is the COORDINATING identification for the DISPARATE forces assigned. British troops wear there uniform with ... a blue beret, and so would the Chinese, Russians, etc. That is it.

That you have read entire functionality and management, made no delineation for the spectrum of conflict and aid, and ascribed mythical status to a beret in ignorance ... well, its tat pride again. Again stag, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

That is exactly what I am trying to point out. When the UN mandated force in Iraq, the contributing forces were the national millitaries alone who alligned themselves in a coalition, That should not be confused with the blue berets, IE, peacekeeping forces like you were doing.

Well, we NOW know that you are not color blind. Again stag, I've been on BOTH SIDES (please don;t tell me what I have and have not done). UN Peacekeepers are assigned to maintain the peace after a conflict or prevent one from erupting - that includes, if necessary, using MILITARY FORCE to confront is dissuade a force seeking to violate that peace. That can range from mere observation, to full on military operations, and its why SOLDIERS are assigned those forces. Its why the AIR COMPONENT of even a peacekeeping force has assigned air forces in the event of a contingency. In short, peacekeepers are expected to fight. The level of danger they are expected to face determine how much force they get, and the ones going into the Congo? Had a LOT. including attack and lift helicopters that they used quite regularly to disrupt insurgent forces when they threatened those protected critical nodes.

Again, you have no idea Stag. Just stop.

Okay, now tell my how WWII was different?

Feel free to go back and quote me on it. I see little point in answering the same question over and over and over again. Its why we have a quote function and why, as I demonstrated, its best to quote people.

If YOU think there is some point to make there, then make it. Otherwise ...

Would you mind saying those reasons again?

Yes, actually I would. I would much rather you go back and quote it, so that we can AT LEAST have you accurately stating something about what someone else is saying. If you cannot take the time to get what people say correct, when they answer the questions you ask, then there is little point in answering your questions.

Again, if you think there is point there, just make it.

If not, perhaps you can answer my question about Luke Skywalker and the UN?

@gree0232 I'll have to respond to this tomorrow. It can be....... difficult, say the least, to argue with people who are more passionate about something than you are. Perhaps that is why you are getting angry, perhaps it isn't, but I would like to continue this conversation without anger being an underlying factor.

Blackflag: @gree0232 I'll have to respond to this tomorrow. It can be....... difficult, say the least, to argue with people who are more passionate about something than you are. Perhaps that is why you are getting angry, perhaps it isn't, but I would like to continue this conversation without anger being an underlying factor.

Please don't. Being called on lying when you are clearly lying id not about my anger, its about your deliberate inaccuracy. Funny, after the rant about US servicemen in another thread, I find that you are reporting me for ... harassing you? It's personal?

Is that what you call it when you dump inaccurate information out and get called on it? When YOU start asking for personal information? It's never your fault.

Please, again stag, unless you have something relevant to say, just stay away from me. There are many solid cases up there where you have had ample opportunity to reply with something relevant, and instead we are supposed to be talking about why I am angry? If I am angry, and I am not, it might have something to do with your utter inability to stay on topic and avoid making the other person the subject - while generally not contributing in a meaningful way.

People do not come to debate sites to be attacked Stag.

Nevermind, the forum has a block function. Problem solved.

admin: just nuke them problem solved

Nathaniel Elliott: ISIS has about 20,000 combatants mixed in with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. How exactly would nuking them 'solve the problem'? Especially as the territory in question is legally part of Syria, and we are not at war with Syria now are we?

Don't feed the troll gree