First, I've not made so much as a mention towards any "party." So the chronic denunciations lamenting "party loyalty" are spurious and given that they're clearly designed to appeal to what you feel is a popularly held opinion around here, they're also wholly fallacious. (Meaning they're the baseless nonsense typically advanced by a weak, undisciplined mind... AKA: A typical leftist)

Secondly, we also supported Stalin... which begs the question: SO WHAT? Just because we support someone, that hardly gives them the right to promote our destruction and to murder (by proxy or by default through their promotion of those who attack us) thousands of our innocent citizens.

All of which renders your would-be point, moot. The US does not warrant that any support that a nation may enjoy from us should be considered a carte blanche guarantee that we will support them whilst they plot or promote those who're actively engaging in attacks designed to realize our destruction.

Got that sis?


LOL... That's so sad...

So you responded without a fair understanding of what the concept: 'International' represents...

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! Now that truly is just precious...

Here's a clue... the world is comprised of various nations, now when activity transpires between those nations, that activity is called "International."

For instance, when people of say, Saudi Arabia, for instance, join an organization which is operating out of say... Afghanistan and they attack another nation, lets say... Oh I dunno... The United States... We call this activity "INTERNATIONAL." Why? Because the players are all from different NATIONS... Did you see that? Yes.. NATION... and did you see the prefix: "inter-" This is a rhetorical instrument; an affix, if you will attached to the beginning of a word, base, or phrase which serves to produce a derivative word; in this case: inter-national. The derivative now meaning activity which is shared by, involving, or derived from two or more nations.

Does that help, Skippy? Let's hope so. May I suggest that in the future, you use the big book of words with this picture on the front: DICTIONARY, when you're not sure.

LOL... Okay?

OK...

Yes, that was a given... No one expected you could. Thus the belittling sarcasm which evoked that little challenge... It was a means by which to berate your kind for the voracious ignorance in which you seem to stake such pride.


ROFLMNAO... Now THAT'S a TROLL!

Well, well... another mentally unstable idealogue finds his way to AWE after being banned from every other site... SHOCKER!

troll 3 internet
Noun
a person who posts deliberately inflammatory messages on an internet discussion board
Verb
to post such a message


By this definition, and judging by the over the top condescension, sarcasm and name calling you employ... fits you to a tee. But then, the all too well known neo-con tactic of label your opponent with your deficits first has been stamped onto your brain, hasn't it? What you fail to realize is... folks are hip to that tact. It's nothing more than a preemptive "I know you are but what am I?" ploy. Sad and childish.

ROFLMNAO...

OK Sport, lets use your definition...


So we see here that your unsourced definition decrees absent a valid basis, that a troll, in the context of a noun, is someone that posts deliberately inflammatory messages...

OK...

Now we should probably set such in example... just to be fair, right?

Here's one that I think really works well here:


Hmm... it's got a baseless projection of mental instability and the fallacious ad populum projection speaking to the oppositions debate history.

Now I gotta say that post seems to truly bespeak the essence of inflammatory and it has all the earmarks that usually point towards 'deliberate...' So I'd say that what we're looking at is an irrefutable example of a 'trolling'...

Now all we need to determine here is who the author was to discover the source of the trolling... thus THE TROLL:

HEY! Looky there... it turns out that BACK ACTCHA is a TROLL... and THIS determined on the weight of her own definition.

ROFLMNAO... Now how freakin' COOL IS THAT?


LOL... Leftists...

Now friends, let's never forget that leftists are typicall found to be precisely that which they denounce. This person came in slinging names and sarcasm, even as she denounced name calling and sarcasm.

BUT! Let's be fair here (you know how they love to misuse that concept) She only did all that to avoid the argument. This she did due to a distinct and complete lack of options. To address the argument would require one possess the means to reason and if they had THAT, they wouldn't be LEFTISTS...

See? This isn't complicated stuff, its just vastly more complex than leftists can negotiate.

Party and ideology are two wholly distinct issues, which serve two wholly distinct functions... I don't give a darn what party affiliation one joins. It's meaningless. Indeed, the Democrat party is the party which has recently been hijacked by radical Marxists, but it has historically been a party where millions of proud liberal Americans exercised their political voice. And just as surely the GOP used to be where Conservative Americans did the same. Today of course, the GOP is infected with socialists and the dismal performance of the GOP over the last 8 years is testimony enough of that.

So I do not debate in terms of party, preferring to speak directly the problem, which is leftism and the independent, moderate, centrist, secular progressives that enable them.

The simple fact is sis, that there are no Leftist Americans. The leftist ideology is analogous to a societal viral infection or more accurately perhaps a cultural cancer, which divides and multiplies until the host body fails as a result of the erroneous policy of the cancer.

Thus my focus on leftists and my zero tolerance of them, their policy and the insipid 'feelings' of fairness and anything else.

ROFLMNAO... That's just adorable... You begin with an emphatic assertion that WE DID NOT SUPPORT STALIN! Only to qualify it shortly thereafter by noting that we did in fact support Stalin, as we supported all our allies... just before noting that the support ended. What you didn't care to discuss was why it ended and frankly, who can blame ya for that? I mean that it ended because Stalin became an adversary AFTER HAVING BEEN A SUPPORTED ALLIE OF THE US... would not be something that would likely help your failing point.

ROFL... Would you? LOL... Yes I suppose you would. And that is why leftists are so dangerous; they simply lack the means to reason.

Carte blanche is defined as 'full discretionary power.' Meaning that one possesses the power to do whatever one wants... Using terrorist proxies is indicative of one that does NOT enjoy the power which would otherwise be necessary to openly attack. Had Iraq openly attacked the US, he would have realized an even shorter fate than the one he earned using terrorist proxies. Thus discretion was used by Hussein as a result of an ABSENCE of power, not due to his unchallenged authority.

Your claim that the US 'supported Iraq' is itself misleading. The US provided aid to Iraq in their border war with Iran, in that Iran was posturing itself against the west and the US in particular; having held US hostages for 444 days in the late 70s and early 80s; making Iran by far the greater enemy of the US. After the US aid which helped Iraq avoid defeat in that war, Hussein began to develop his alliances with Islamic terrorists, as they began to exert their influence around the region. Providing international terrorism with safe harbor within Iraq, funding, intelligence, and direct and indirect diplomatic assistance.

Now in the early 90s Hussein erroneously determined that he possessed the power to defeat the US on his own and as a result was defeated in what was at the time the most decisive military victory in human history. His army eviscerated in 100 hours at which time he begged for peace and signed a treaty leaving him responsible for a myriad of requirements which he failed over the next decade to live up to. Given that failure and his chronic belligerence; add to that his tendency towards the use of terrorist proxies and his overt promotion of international Islamic terrorism, post 9-11 the US had no choice but to invade Iraq and dispatch his tyrannical socialist regime.

ROFL... Ahh so you 'misspoke?' Actually that is a weak rationalization to set aside the failure of an emphatic assertion. What you did was to claim that the 9-11 attack was not a result of international terrorism... An emphatic assertion which was factually incorrect and one which now lays mortally defeated.


LOL... Oh God that's precious. So you just set aside Iraq's complicity by declaring his promotion of international terrorism to be meager. When in fact, Iraq had provided substantial support to international Islamic terrorism; giving many of the same groups which contributed to the 9-11 attack safe harbor, funding, intelligence and diplomatic assistance.

Beyond that, there is no evidence that the governments of neither Pakistan NOR Saudi Arabia gave any support to any of the groups. You're intentionally trying to equate the assistance of individuals within the respective governments which gave assistance, through their respective positions; Individuals which are ideologically and or religiously allied to those groups. Hardly comparable to the state sponsorship such as that of that of the State of Iraq having cut checks, providing diplomatic passports and agents or meeting with their intelligence operatives and assets.

Furthermore, Iraq remained openly belligerent to the United States after 9-11 and refused to openly reject Islamic terrorism and comply with its treaty obligations to the United States.

You mean the two countries which have bent over backwards in assisting the US in its war in international Islamic Terrorism? Cooperation designed to avoid being touched? This behavior was the antithesis of the approach Iraq took... which I think we both can agree was a BIG mistake on the part of Hussein and his tyrannical Socialist regime.


That fact assertion is not actually a fact at all. Would you care to post in example the specific evidence you have which supports that assertion?

I would advance the Czech Republic, which to this day stands by its evidence that Mohammad Atta, lead hijacker of 9-11 met with Iraqi intelligence in the months prior to 9-11 in the Iraqi embassy in Prague. The Mossad would beg to differ with your assertion, with the evidence they have, such as the checks, Signed by Hussein himself which funded international Islamic terrorism... I don't know of any intelligence service which has declared that Iraq was in no way complicit in 9-11.

But I will reserve judgment until you bring evidence where every intelligence service in the world has stated that they know Iraq to be wholly innocent of any support of any elements of international terrorism that attacked the US on 9-11.

Again you misuse the concept "FACT." Fascism is purely a function of the ideological left and has no potential relevance to any position of mine. Just as the mythical notion of 'Neo-con.' I’m a US Constitutional conservative of the classic variety; a classical liberal, an advocate of individual liberty and the adversary of any branch 'ism' of the ideological left which stands firmly opposed to all of the above.

Again you advance unbridled conjecture as fact... Again.. reference the "Big Book O'Words with this picture on the front: DICTIONARY, where you have doubts or more importantly where you've been told you should have doubts.


All I need to know is your ideology to know your ideas... (Again.. LOOK IT UP!)

That you think of yourself as a proud moderate, independent, centrist, perhaps even a libertarian... (a new concept that leftists are now trying to hijack, having discredited all of the others...) which rises above the extremism of the ideological poles is stitched throughout your words... You'll be entitled to mock me the instant you actually win one...


Which is CLEARLY not going to be TODAY!

LOL... Leftists...

It's looking like your compass is as broken as Jack Sparrow's. Points only to what you want the most, eh Jack?

Just as you point to "two wholly distinct issues" regarding party affiliation and ideology, I would point out that being allied against a common enemy and supporting that ally are "two wholly distinct issues". I'm sorry that you have trouble distinguishing between the two, perhaps you should buy a new compass. Or maybe open that big book with the pretty picture "HISTORY" on the front. With the exception of sharing mostly questionable intel between them, the Russians were on their own. Further evidence of the animosity between the two countries throughout the war is the rush to be the first to Berlin. The Americans fearing the Russians would take the city and annex it for their own... Oh wait... to a degree, THAT HAPPENED!

Having trouble following the context? According to you (without anything cited to back up your assertions) Saddam supported terrorism for 30 years while being given WMD, intel and financial aid by the USA. If this is the case, he had carte blanche to do just that... support the terrorists. Get it? I know it's tough to wrench yourself out of your rabid anti-leftist mindset, but try.

And you don't see any similarities to the WWII argument that you thought you so expertly put to rest. What is misleading is your assertion that the USA gave ANY support to Russia during WWII beyond fighting the same enemy. So let me get this straight... First you say that giving aid and weapons to Iraq against a common enemy isn't support, just aid but that allying with Russia but not giving any aid IS support... So, WMD technology, arms, money.... that's not support, just aid? Grasping at straws here?

Hold on here... You might want to get out your history book... The USA was the enemy of Iran, (an important distinction) first having sponsored the Islamic overthrow of the republic (which is arguably US sponsored terrorism), then "giving aid" to Saddam to attack the very Iranian Gov't that the US helped usher into power, during the chaotic days following the revolution. Clearly an attempt to destabilize the region on the part of the US. The war went on until 1988, fully ten years into your 30 year time frame.

Fact is, Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran's Islamic revolution. Saddam was a bit of a paranoid totalitarian who feared above all else, threats to his regime. There is not way that he would have allowed any group to exist in his country that was not under his direct control fearing a threat to his rule. Unless you can provide something substantial to back up your claims, we'll just write that one off as you being misinformed, shall we?

I'm just curious, does your history book have pop up pictures in it? It might help you understand...

Saddam's goal was NOT to take on the USA. He meant to take on Kuwait for allegedly stealing Iraqi oil by slant drilling and attempting to take back lands he viewed as rightfully his, taken from his tribe during the first world war by the British. He saw Kuwait as an improperly annexed part of Iraq. He was convinced because of the support he was STILL receiving from the US that we would look the other way when he made his intentions clear. As for the rest of your claims of supporting international terrorism prior to 9-11, care to provide anything that supports this that hasn't already been thoroughly dismissed in the years hence?

These are the games of international politics among adversaries. They are complicated games of chess, fraught with deceptions, gambits and any other ploy a sovereign nation can employ to keep itself safe. The USA wasn't Saddam's only security concern. As such, he had to walk a fine line in an attempt to remain in power and appear strong enough to repel any neighboring aggressors. Further more, of the conditions he did meet, the US/UN would repeatedly raise the bar, change the rules or criteria. This is well known most places outside the USA. I'm not saying he met all of them, but went as far as conditions in the region allowed without seeming completely vulnerable to his neighbors... which he had pissed off quite completely.

[quote]That fact assertion is not actually a fact at all. Would you care to post in example the specific evidence you have which supports that assertion?

Absolutely, I would love to, if for no other reason than to show you how it's done. Again you have an annoying habit of demanding proof from others while insisting that you are taken solely at your word through intellectual bullying and insults.

I would advance the Czech Republic, which to this day stands by its evidence that Mohammad Atta, lead hijacker of 9-11 met with Iraqi intelligence in the months prior to 9-11 in the Iraqi embassy in Prague. The Mossad would beg to differ with your assertion, with the evidence they have, such as the checks, Signed by Hussein himself which funded international Islamic terrorism... I don't know of any intelligence service which has declared that Iraq was in no way complicit in 9-11.

Don't get out much do you?

A REGION INFLAMED: INQUIRY; Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before Attacks on the U.S. - New York Times

I have posted actual documents on other threads if you care to look for them, but I don't have the time or patience with you to waste trying to track them down again. Point is, All of your allegations (of which you have provided no proof of your own) have been debunked YEARS ago. The prewar intel is slowly becoming declassified and more documents are available all the time. The fact that you still cling to these assertions doesn't do much to bolster your claim of not being a bit mental.

But I will reserve judgment until you bring evidence where every intelligence service in the world has stated that they know Iraq to be wholly innocent of any support of any elements of international terrorism that attacked the US on 9-11.[/quote]

Well, I'm sure you will employ your usual tactics in scoffing at the evidence, but the fact remains, it's more evidence than you have put forth... by a long shot.

I rarely misuse my words. I consider them very carefully most of the time. Especially when writing as it is of more permanent record. Anyway... Fascism...

You must understand that Political philosophy did not die out with the age of enlightenment. While Locke and his contemporaries did indeed launch the political sciences, the concepts remain relatively fluid. Just as Republic, and democracy have undergone transformations, adaptations and have branched into sub groups, so has Fascism. Modern Fascism as employed by the Strausian-Trotsky Neo-conservatives maintains the tenents of the State/Corporate relationship while dispensing with the socialist left ideals.

PNAC was founded on these principles and one of it's strongest proponents, Micheal Ledeen, is an admitted admirer of Fascism. This was Rove's one and only advisor during the first term.

Ledeen wrote his doctoral dissertation entitled Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928-1936, published in 1972 and now out of print. In it, this Republican conservative admires the works of Mussollini, but indicates that the Italian model fell short of it's goals and proposed fixes that could be implemented.

So, no... Fascism is not the sole domain of the left... Universal Fascism was and is the realm of the radical right.

IN closing I would like to say that you seem fairly intelligent as evidenced by your use of "big words", but it seems rather forced and meant to overcompensate for your deficits. It's rather tragic that an intellect such as yours has been bestowed on someone so ill equiped to use it.

I can tell you this, if you manage to be right on occasion, you will find few admirers here do to your attempts at intellectual bullying and brow beating. But then, you're one of those that just get off from the mental masturbation, aren't you? You're not really concerned wit the facts or backing up your statements. Just the rush of feeling superior (falsely I might add) to others. It won't take long for others to see you for what you are.

Well our opponent seems unable to find the intellectual means necessary to master the quote system and as such, her argument here is nearly indecipherable.

As best I can tell she's a leftist that exhibits all of the signs of being a troll, which she wants to project as some sort of crime and in doing so refuses to accept that she is precisely that which she demands her opposition to be... utterly bereft of the means to recognize the hypocrisy of such a foolish position.

(I know, it's all very confusing; debating liberals... And those that try to apply reason to these screeds, as one would debate a mature adult, will be driven quite mad. But the thing to do is to simply un-focus your eyes as you stare at it and gradually refocus; with a little patients the point will often pop right out at you.

In this one, while it took a few minutes, I finally recognized that this tirade is actually a black whole of ignorance trying to get out itself. The image is a cross-eyed blind-folded moron flailing at an oracle trying to beat the knowledge out of it...

I particularly like where it determines that "Fallacious ad Populum" is redundant... Much like "Chevrolet Z28" would then also be found redundant...

But what stands out most is that this thing is actually one of the soft headed leftists which has tasted the wrath of unwavering American advocacy in one of any number of sites which I dominated. They're often scarred like this... which is kinda cool.

But it doesn't matter. Debating leftists is very much like killing flies... It’s easy as their numbers seem inexhaustible; and while a common fly rarely offers a challenge, it’s a necessary function; as killing such pests slows the transmission rate of the diseases they carry. Leftists as you probably already know carry intellectual deficiency disease. It is spread through intellectual contact and the least mentally agile among us are most susceptible; predominately affecting the young and the old.

While people have been known to recover, it's rare; as the disease forces the inflicted into a dark denial; a delusion that lives outside of reason, where all that is necessary to soothe want, is the infamous leftist rage at the very idea that another possesses that which they feel they need. At such times you'll find them flocking in what is known as 'The Progressive Echo-Chamber;' where they cry amongst themselves, each responding to the next in monotonous chirps of reassurance, designed to impart the feeling that 'everyone' agrees with them... This is why nearly every leftist position is framed to resemble that most coveted of all leftist ideals, 'the popular majority.'

You see friends, the leftist believes that validity is found exclusively in an opinion held by a majority. That the position is unsound, logically invalid and wholly incorrect on a factual plain has absolutely no relevance to the issue as far as the leftists knows; it is sufficient to them that they believe that 'most people believe it;' this aside from any evidence that most people actually do believe it OR that the position is founded upon a sound, logically valid basis in reasoning. This is why you'll so often here them retort: "Everyone can't be wrong" or "Everyone knows..." and why this member keeps crying the alarm that projecting the idea that Publius Infinitum has been banned from other sites... It is a desperate attempt to prove that 'most sites have agreed with her and all those sites can't be wrong.'

They're helpless in the face of reason and in that friends, is a fact in which I find nearly incomprehensible comfort...

Before the Iranian revolution we supported Iran while the USSR supported Iraq, and these two were traditional enemies. When the Shah fell, the Soviet Union moved to support Iran (in great part because a warm water port on the Indian Ocean had been the dream of Russia since the 1700's). Iraq felt left out, we needed to offset Iran, and thus a partnership was born.