I suspect you are a well intention citizen of this country who has signed on perhaps unknowingly to a Trotskyesque project, I am pleased to inform you that your suspicions are baseless. I have "signed on to" no project whatsoever, Troskyite or otherwise. I have supported one (1) war at this particular time, the war against Iraq. Earlier, I also supported the war against Afghanistan. In each case I did so for specific reasons having to do with the particularities of the situation at hand. The fact that you suspect that the war against Iraq is part of a nefarious "Trotskyesque project" does not interest me.
and since I know the aims of Trotyskism I consider that set of beliefs a threat to my homeland.
Were I really a Trotskyite, I would understand your fears. As I am not, we can both heave a sigh of relief.
Perhaps it won't hit you until years from now what a disaster permanent debt financed war is to a our fair Republic, and I have feeling you will wash your hands of any blame, but the real Right will know where y'all stood.
Time will tell, of course. Feel free to point out the "disaster" you anticipate if/when it arrives.
I am sure Fox News will be there to sooth your guilt and offer up what dirty stink anti-American lefties have to say and how noble and smart the elected elite Republicans are, as Murdoch cashes another check from his softporn newspapers.
Zing! What a well-written, clever sentence.
By the way I don't have cable television.
I don't suspect any problems between the two camps, and I'll keep paying my extortion fees to the DC tax regime every April 15, but come for my first born to fight in your endless debt financed wars and we will have problems.
????? You lost me. What camps? Who's coming for your firstborn?
This first article speaks to the ambiguity I mentioned in regards to exactly what kind of relationship this White House believes there is a connection between AQ and Saddam's government, but also note that the Adminstration has taken the leap of equating A a-I with AQ, using the terms interchangeably.
By my reading, that article does not even mention Ansar al-Islam.
In fact, neither do your links 2, 3, or 4.
What's going on? We were talking about Saddam's support for Ansar al-Islam remember? You were arguing against it ('there were links but those links were meaningless'). Are you just tossing random articles at me?
Ronald Reagan supported democracy in Poland, Phillipines, and Nicaruagua ... In different ways, including military ones. Was he a Trotskyite???
Dr Frank, understand that some in the isolationist-crackpot worldview have to declaim the 'pro-democracy' concept as "trotskyite" because they have to demonize the idea. This is demonizing a concept through bad association. Now, the association makes no sense and is illogical. If Trotsky rode bicycles, that doesnt mean all bicycle riders are Communist radicals. If Trotsky believed in the end of history as a global common ideology (global communism) that doesnt mean others who see the 'end of history' (viz. Francis Fukiyama) as one ideology globally triumphant are also Communists.
On the contrary, the end of history could be a global consensus of liberal (ie "free nations") states based on democracy, freedom and human rights. This is the OPPOSITE of Communism's end game. Some of firm realists see that as the real flow of history; a realist can perceive that since cultural and economic trends have worked to expand democratic rule, freedoms, etc. in the last several centuries, and countries like the US 'work' better than primitive dictatorial regimes.
Even though this support for "democracy-building" is simply the expression of freedom-loving ideas, this idea is so 'utopian' since it involves the change of cultures and political entities it REALLY FREAKS OUT isoloationists. So they have to call it some evil name.
Newt Gingrich, George W Bush, Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan, (heck even Jesse Helms) and most Americans wouldnt mind at all if the whole world was a bunch of free and democratic states living in peace, and all of us think America has a positive role in making that historical possibility reality.
JohnGalt says: "Perhaps it won't hit you until years from now what a disaster permanent debt financed war is to a our fair Republic,"
So if we paid for this in cash it would be okay???
Was WWII a disaster for USA??? I guessed I missed that historical lesson.
"Are you just tossing random articles at me?"
Probably. His manner of debate is definitely post-modern. Who needs logic when 'well-crafted' Dowd-esque ireelevencies sound so much more biting!