Members Interview: Jhungary

[Levina]

Have no idea what that [Kargil Diaries] is, and if you want to talk about it in private, you know my e-mail address.

Yes I still have your email ID.
Infact I stumbled upon one of your emails just yesterday when I was searching for an old email. Lol
The Kargil diary is reserved for the email then.

 

[jhungary]

Fair enough, there's not really that much to do here in Canberra. I'm doing undergrad, looking at security/conflict resolution/state building/languages etc. It's a nice change from army life.

Canberra is boring, I would rather not spend my time in ACT, no offence

However, ANU suit the purpose because there aren't any distraction for their student.

I did my undergrad in Colorado, its kind of like doing a course in ACT...hehe

Hey @jhungary did you ever get to fire a ma deuce at some baddies. Few things sort things out like a repeated stream of .50 BMG

An excellent read as usual btw. It was fun sharing our HK memories in the other thread too.

BTW regarding your spoken Chinese, is it Mandarin or Cantonese?

Fired the 50 cal, but never toward a person. I was an officer, I sit at the front so I have no access to the turret in battle. If you get into the receiving end of a .50 BMG, well, most likely you will put up your arms and surrender.

Yeah, I don't quite remember much about Hong Kong, a friend of mind went to Hong Kong at the beginning of this month for RUgby 7 and she talked about a lot of stuff about Hong Kong where I have absolutely no idea

By the way, I speak perfect Cantonese, but only limited Mandarin.

Yes I still have your email ID.
Infact I stumbled upon one of your emails just yesterday when I was searching for an old email. Lol
The Kargil diary is reserved for the email then.

okay, shoot me an e-mail if you want, whenever you want

 

[Blue Marlin]

good read @jhungary kudos

 

[Deidara]

Once you said that you chat about war with your wife but I think that's a mistake because she is an officer and you are not. Officers look at the most general principles which soldiers dont. I mean you are not playing to your strengths when you do that. I know her grip on the subject cause i talked with her about it when she was here. Which was of a typical european officer. i.e complete understanding.
I mean women are constantly evaluating men no matter how close the relationship. And i dont want no good man like yourself having some points deducted.

 

[jhungary]

good read @jhungary kudos

Thank You

You are one of the most intelligent member I had a chance to converse with. Please keep up the good work

Once you said that you chat about war with your wife but I think that's a mistake because she is an officer and you are not. Officers look at the most general principles which soldiers dont. I mean you are not playing to your strengths when you do that. I know her grip on the subject cause i talked with her about it when she was here. Which was of a typical european officer. i.e complete understanding.
I mean women are constantly evaluating men no matter how close the relationship. And i dont want no good man like yourself having some points deducted.

lol....She is bossy, right?

Anyway, I am an officer too, but I am a Captain (O-3) which is a company grade officer (which is a class of junior officer) and she is a Major (O-4) which is a field grade officer, while I am the most senior of the junior officer, she is the most junior of senior officer (like the word play here), she was also a professional officer while I am a ground officer, which means most of the time she spend in a desk, while I spend most of my time commanding troop on the field, while she lack field experience, she have professional knowledge to administrate and manage a larger unit, and something which I don't have, but I do have extensive field experience.

Arguing with my wife in military matter is, one word, crazy, maybe it's like you said, it's an European Officer trait, many of the issue when I see no importance, she see the need to discuss to the end in that issue. Hence, it usually ended up I sleep on the crouch after an argument (Beside, she is a lawyer....)

Well, I am not going to say which side is of a better argument, I do understand at her position, every little thing count as these are the little thing that make up the whole picture, but for a ground hog like me, you need to measure what you do with the time you need to do it, and you usually cannot have a complete analysis before you do something. I think that is the different between us.

But yeah, in the end, I think I am always right and she think she is always right.

and thanks for your thought

 

[Nilgiri]

By the way, I speak perfect Cantonese, but only limited Mandarin.

Only the Cantonese swear words (and few slangs) have stuck with me lol. They are some of the most creative I have seen in the world .

But I really do appreciate the sound of Cantonese, a beautiful language with those musical tones....easier on the ear than mandarin for me.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Thank You

You are one of the most intelligent member I had a chance to converse with. Please keep up the good work

 

[jhungary]

Only the Cantonese swear words (and few slangs) have stuck with me lol. They are some of the most creative I have seen in the world .

But I really do appreciate the sound of Cantonese, a beautiful language with those musical tones....easier on the ear than mandarin for me.

Well, I do know the whole range........(from normal word to swearing) but I don't think that's a beautiful language, probably when you have to be punished by dictation (a very common way to punish a student) and wrote the same thing over and over again for 50 times, you don't find it fun.

And to be honest, Cantonese is rude, it does not have the "elegance" of the mandarin, when you are talking in Cantonese, it always ended up like the two of you are arguing.

I did not learn Mandarin because it was not compulsory when I was in Hong Kong, I have classes maybe for 2 years when I was studying in Shenzhen? My mandarin is probably at the same level as your Cantonese.

lol

 

[Nilgiri]

Well, I do know the whole range........(from normal word to swearing) but I don't think that's a beautiful language, probably when you have to be punished by dictation (a very common way to punish a student) and wrote the same thing over and over again for 50 times, you don't find it fun.

And to be honest, Cantonese is rude, it does not have the "elegance" of the mandarin, when you are talking in Cantonese, it always ended up like the two of you are arguing.

I did not learn Mandarin because it was not compulsory when I was in Hong Kong, I have classes maybe for 2 years when I was studying in Shenzhen? My mandarin is probably at the same level as your Cantonese.



lol

Lol i dunno, cantonese drawn out endings and tones always sounded nice to me (all the aaaa's and euuhhh's etc.)...especially after all the guttural ends in the middle of the sentence (ik's um's at's etc) but its probably because I never had to learn it properly like you said (just what i picked up from friends at school etc). Mandarin to me sounds just like typical mix of eee's and urrr's in the middle with much less music in the sentence ending hehe.

 

[jhungary]

I meant you,not @WAJsal .
Why do you think the Iraqi war was just?

Why do I think the Iraq war was just?

To answer this question, can you give me a reason why War should started in the first place?

To fight in a war, is not to ask whether or not the war was right or wrong, this is not for a soldier to determined, to support a war, you need to understand the process is not something that within reason.

Hence go back to the original question, why Iraq was just? Then the answer is, why not just?

People killing people everyday, you heard about it in Africa, you heard about it in Middle East, you heard about it in Europe, for a person, irrespective of your political believe, you can either be a part of it, or think it's none of your business, but in the end, whatever you do, those killing will not stop. But whether or not you opt to do something about it, or you stay behind as if it's none of your business. It does not mean the war is justified, or unjustified in that sense. What that question entail is that, how you see a war.

If war cannot be justified without a reason, then war should not have happen in the first place, knowing this, you need to realise, yes, the US may fight for Oil, the US may fight for Human Right, the US may have done this or may have done that to its own interest and right, but either way, standing down or be a part of it. You gotta choose, and when we are sitting at home doing nothing, that is the world I don't want to live in.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

You may not agree on why I fight, but that does not mean a war is unjust, it just mean you and I see things differently.

Lol i dunno, cantonese drawn out endings and tones always sounded nice to me (all the aaaa's and euuhhh's etc.)...especially after all the guttural ends in the middle of the sentence (ik's um's at's etc) but its probably because I never had to learn it properly like you said (just what i picked up from friends at school etc). Mandarin to me sounds just like typical mix of eee's and urrr's in the middle with much less music in the sentence ending hehe.

I don't remember how I learn Cantonese in Hong Kong, when you go to school in Hong Kong, you sort of immerse yourself in that culture, and you pick up the word as you converse with your friends, and perhaps my friend is not as "elegant" or "musical" as they should be but in the end, when you understand enough Cantonese. You will know that the wording is quite colloquial

I don't speak Cantonese much these day, and even I don't remember a lot of Cantonese as we don't use it, when you stop writing it, you probably will completely forgot about it and that's a problem.

 

[Drongo]

People killing people everyday, you heard about it in Africa, you heard about it in Middle East, you heard about it in Europe, for a person, irrespective of your political believe, you can either be a part of it, or think it's none of your business, but in the end, whatever you do, those killing will not stop. But whether or not you opt to do something about it, or you stay behind as if it's none of your business. It does not mean the war is justified, or unjustified in that sense. What that question entail is that, how you see a war.

If war cannot be justified without a reason, then war should not have happen in the first place, knowing this, you need to realise, yes, the US may fight for Oil, the US may fight for Human Right, the US may have done this or may have done that to its own interest and right, but either way, standing down or be a part of it. You gotta choose, and when we are sitting at home doing nothing, that is the world I don't want to live in.

There's a whole "just war" theoretical framework that the Iraq war fails at pretty much every step. You can disagree with the theory and that's fine, but there was very little violence in Iraq in 2002. I'm not a pacifist (having fought in a war myself), but I think it's almost universally accepted with the benefit of hindsight that the invasion was an enormous error in judgement if not outright criminal.

 

[jhungary]

There's a whole "just war" theoretical framework that the Iraq war fails at pretty much every step. You can disagree with the theory and that's fine, but there was very little violence in Iraq in 2002. I'm not a pacifist (having fought in a war myself), but I think it's almost universally accepted with the benefit of hindsight that the invasion was an enormous error in judgement if not outright criminal.

Again, what justified a war?

Money? If so, how much money should it be for a war to justify? 10 millions? 100 millions? 1 billions?
Violence? If so, how much violence should it be for a war to justify? 1 people killed? 10? 100?

The problem for you, and many people included is that you try to look at a war and justify it "WITH HIND SIGHT" in realty, it does not have anything to do with "THE HIND SIGHT" You justify a decision, and then you go do them AT THAT MOMENT. If you think back on every decision you made or somebody make, you always ended up finding a reason, way or excuse to say "Oh, we shouldn't do that". I am surprise for you to claim you fought in war yourself, you do not seems to think using the end result to try to judge something in hindsight is basically useless.

Most people said the war is illegal because there are no WMD, or that Iraq was worse off than it was before the invasion in Iraq.

For the first part, how do you exactly know there would not be WMD in Iraq back in 2002/2003? The only way you can know for sure there does not exist WMD in Iraq is for people to go inside unhindered and try to see if there is active WMD in Iraq, the problem is, Iraqi government wasn't doing that, so it beg a question, how do people know Iraq does not have WMD if Iraqi government itself are dodgy on the topic? You went it, you didn't find WMD does not make the decision to go in wrong in the first place, after all, if the American did not went in, How exactly anyone know Iraq does not process any WMD? Beside, Iraq did have expired Nerve Agent and the US found them in 2008.

The second thing about violence, the reason why Iraq was like its state today is because the bad management form the initial invasion, the problem is, they should have had a framework to try and secure a stable government in Iraq once they ousted Saddam, they didn't, in the end, Iraq ended up in a power vacuum, and civil war broke out and insurgency brooding.

The problem is, again, does it mean the invasion was wrong? You can argue they handle the situation badly, but that does not mean the war is wrong in this aspect. What if the US and Allies went in, supporting the local sunni government and use them to rebuild Iraq with the majority of military and police still loyal to the Sunni government? The insurgency would not happen, and we may have a different say by then. The problem is, how the allies handle the war does not justify or unjustified the war to begin with. They could have good intention to start a war, but handle it badly (which is what I think it is the case) but at the end of the day, whether or not a war should start does not equate to how they deal with it afterward. They may handle it badly or perfectly, that's beside the point.

The question then you need to ask, is not why the war in Iraq is justified, but rather, why the war in Iraq is unjust? That way, you will get a better perspective on the issue.

 

[Drongo]

Again, what justified a war?

"Jus ad bellum" is a decent theoretical framework for what justifies starting a war. They are:

• Proper authority and public declaration - If you care about international norms, the invasion certainly fails this one as it went against the UN security council.
• Just cause / right intention - arguably it passes this one if they actually put the welfare of the Iraqi people first, but few people would believe that was the reason behind it. It was of course meant to further US interests.
• Probability of success - again this is arguable. At the time people probably thought it could be done looking at Japan as an example of how an occupying force can rebuild a country, but the arrogance of thinking the West can magically create thriving democracies in the Middle East is perplexing.
• Proportionality - I wasn't there so I won't talk about it.
• Last resort - it definitely fails this one, as there was absolutely no reason to expect imminent aggression from Iraq.

It's widely accepted that intelligence indicating there was a danger from WMDs was misconstrued and interpreted to fit a predetermined agenda, a mistake which unfortunately seems to keep being repeated. In essence it was a war of aggression designed to enhance US influence in the region. As somebody who has seen war, I absolutely hate it. I think people who start wars unnecessarily are just about the worst people on earth.

Anyway I'll leave it at that if I'm derailing the thread.

 

[jhungary]

"Jus ad bellum" is a decent theoretical framework for what justifies starting a war. They are:

• Proper authority and public declaration - If you care about international norms, the invasion certainly fails this one as it went against the UN security council.
• Just cause / right intention - arguably it passes this one if they actually put the welfare of the Iraqi people first, but few people would believe that was the reason behind it. It was of course meant to further US interests.
• Probability of success - again this is arguable. At the time people probably thought it could be done looking at Japan as an example of how an occupying force can rebuild a country, but the arrogance of thinking the West can magically create thriving democracies in the Middle East is perplexing.
• Proportionality - I wasn't there so I won't talk about it.
• Last resort - it definitely fails this one, as there was absolutely no reason to expect imminent aggression from Iraq.

It's widely accepted that intelligence indicating there was a danger from WMDs was misconstrued and interpreted to fit a predetermined agenda, a mistake which unfortunately seems to keep being repeated. In essence it was a war of aggression designed to enhance US influence in the region. As somebody who has seen war, I absolutely hate it. I think people who start wars unnecessarily are just about the worst people on earth.

Anyway I'll leave it at that if I'm derailing the thread.

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."

What I did not find in that war does not equal to those WMD had not been there to begin with. Your whole argument of war is unjust based on this sentence

It's widely accepted that intelligence indicating there was a danger from WMDs was misconstrued and interpreted to fit a predetermined agenda

The problem is, it is not possible for anyone to know the intel is misconstrued. At that point in time, nobody actually know that, because Saddam Hussein refuse any inspector to carry out the inspection.

In January 2003, Hans Blix, the lead investigator on behalf of UN stated that Iraq is not cooperate with UN inspector in regard of allowing UN Inspector on the ground and not allowing surveillance plane to fly thru certain area.

The question on whether or not the intel is accurate is not the issue here, the problem is that there are no way to verify whether or not the intelligence was indeed correct, or wrong, because Iraq have blocked that avenue for personnel on the ground to verify that piece of information.

On the other hand, not been able to find WMD does not mean WMD does not exist. US was in Iraq for 8 years (2003-2011) 8 years may seems a long time for you, but most of these time were spend to stabilise the country, the actual operation to look for WMD may well be within just 2 or 3 years, (Around 2004 to 2006 and around 2008-2010), the problem is, when the insurgency started, those time the WMD inspector could be spinning on their tail because no way you can tell if the insurgent actually hide the WMD, even today, there still chances to find WMD in Iraq

Couple with the fact that expired Chemical Weapon did exist in Iraq in 2008, that would mean the intel is at least partially correct, that go back to the original question.

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.

And the rest of the question is how you see the operation ended up and trying to say the war is unjust, but 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.

 

[padamchen]

@jhungary

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