Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[lugsoul]

Peach - to avoid any miscommunications - to which posters do you refer?

[JohnGalt]

Would like to talk Trotsky, Dr. Frank fan?

Shall we talk about how Trotsky differed from Lenin? Who are some famous Trotskyites? What would you like to talk about?

LOL, could you link me to the Congressional Declaration of War for this Iraq adventure? No, sorry, not your UN inspired resolution for violence but the Declaration of War.

Thanks.

"You're (incredibly) now implying that war should be opposed unless the cost is specified in advance. "

Give me a break, its but one reason of many why this is not a war conservatives can support at any level.

You're against debt financing? Can you name any wars that weren't debt financed? Or do you believe in debt financing only for wars? Don't you think if the war is actually, you know real, the gubmint should steal enough from its citizens to pay for it in cash?

I realize a folks like yourself stick to dogmatic and simple black or white scenarios, but one can support the defense of his nation from actual invaders, without supporting wars against bogeymen designed to scare soccer moms and effeminate men who were too girlish for football or hockey.

[JohnGalt]

Are you really that confused as to not see a difference between a native population rebelling against its occupiers, be it Hungarians against Soviets or Iraqis against the US, and separately, a foreign power invading another nation to impose a new government on the conquered power?

LOL, government school?

Your inability to understand basic political concepts can only be the result of too much TV. Now that Kerry has gotten to the Right of Bush and favors a larger commitment of troops in Iraq, I suspect you have barely an inkling of an understanding how the two party rigged system works in this country. Meanwhile, folks like Ahmed Chalabi, a man who belongs in prison, receives scant attention from you even has he more or less calls his American hawk's useful idiots.

[WOSG]

"A classical liberal who favors debt financed wars as you favor abstract rights? "

More gibbering from you.

President Jefferson, our nation's foremost classical liberal, sent the Marines in to dispatch the Barbary pirates. Jefferson made an act of war and went to foreign soil to dispose of a threat to American liberty. Was he right?

I say yes. Freedom isnt free. It's not 'abstract' but has a concrete reality, and sometimes requires concrete actions to defend. I'd have done the same.

So Jefferson is in the dock of engaging in 'debt-financed wars'. As did Washington, our first President. As did Republican Presidents like Lincoln, McKinley, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

"You clearly have no understanding of Western concepts of liberty if you think like the French Jacobins."

Well I dont think like Jacobins, I think like a realist American Conservative who loves freedom. Your attempts at ad hominem are weak and feeble. Dont you have *anything* in your bag o' debating tricks besides irrelevent gibberish, character attacks, and mantra-chanting?

sure you could make a nuanced argument that wartime footings create big Government and hence impinge on our small Government ideals. But you dont.

I'd think after 9/11 you'd be aware of the connection to our very real safety, security and freedom, and the external threats in the world to our ideals and beliefs.
being locked in a mindset that pretends falsely that the only threat to American freedom is from Govt war bonds is quaintly 'Pre-9/11'.

As G W Bush said: "They hate us for our freedom"

[WOSG]

Once again you dont answer the question, but repeat ad hominems.

Now you add comparing American troops to soviet troops in the ad hominem bin.... fascinating.

[JohnGalt]

You realize that the intellectual and political supporters of Jefferson's anti-federalism considered him a sell-out and a traitor to the cause as a President? Well, lets face it, you had no idea.

The American Revolution was both a very real defense of invaders but it was also liberal in its political aims. The upheaval of the war and the methods the individual sovereign states used to finance the war varied, but it did set in place the procedures for the Republic. Floating the currency to the Chinese, was not one of the methods of finance.

"They hate us for our freedom?" "Freedom isn't free?" Shouldn't you be in school at this hour?

Open borders, a corrupt central government and a disarmed citizenry coupled with meddling in foreign nations led to 9/11. As Ronald Reagan said so clearly,"the problem is government."

[JohnGalt]

It was your ill placed analogy. Do understand the difference between sovereign nations and foreign interventions?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Would like to talk Trotsky, Dr. Frank fan? Shall we talk about how Trotsky differed from Lenin? Who are some famous Trotskyites? What would you like to talk about?

You tell me, you're the one who's fascinated with tossing the term around mindlessly as a pejorative like a second-grader who just heard his first four-letter word.

LOL, could you link me to the Congressional Declaration of War for this Iraq adventure?

They granted Bush war powers under the terms of the War Powers Act, as you know. I suppose you have your problems with the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and that's your God-given right as an American. Meanwhile it's my God-given right not to give a rat's ass about your expert opinion on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

[cost not specified in advance] Give me a break, its but one reason of many why this is not a war conservatives can support at any level.

Fair enough. The cost isn't specified in advance, and (you're saying) that's one reason conservatives shouldn't support this war.

But the cost of the Revolutionary War wasn't specified in advance either. Why isn't that one reason conservatives shouldn't support that war either?

You're still faced with the unpleasant dilemma of either denouncing the American Revolution or contradicting yourself.

You're against debt financing? Can you name any wars that weren't debt financed?

I doubt we have much solid evidence that the Pelopenesian War was debt financed.

All I'm saying is that I agree that all other things being equal debt financing is undesirable. I disagree that that's a reason in and of itself to oppose a war. That's a stupid reason in and of itself to oppose a war IMHO. (All other things being equal I'm against killing and I can't name any wars that didn't involve killing, but I don't think "it will involve killing" is a particularly compelling reason to oppose any given war either.)

You're free to sit here and claim, of course, that I can't support a war which involves debt financing, and claim to be a conservative. Meanwhile I'm free to say like hell I can't, and spit on your claim to be the self-appointed arbiter of who is conservative and who isn't.

Or do you believe in debt financing only for wars?

I don't "believe in debt financing" other than as a necessary evil.

I don't "believe in carrying a credit card balance" or "believe in borrowing money from the bank to buy a house" either but I acknowledge that there are times when it can be appropriate. That's because I'm a grown-up and I recognize that this is the real world.

Don't you think if the war is actually, you know real, the gubmint should steal enough from its citizens to pay for it in cash?

I don't see what one thing's got to do with the other. Debt financing just means they're "stealing" from future citizens a bit to spread the cost. Again, I don't "like" this, but to cite it as a reason to oppose the war is just asinine. You're really saying you'd find the Iraq war hunky-dory if the budget balanced? I'd rather evaluate a given war based on, you know, national security strategy and stuff.

one can support the defense of his nation from actual invaders, without supporting wars against [Iraq]

Yes, of course one can support wars defending against invasion without supporting the war against Iraq. You are exhibit A. In my case, I happen to support both: wars defending against invasion in general, and the current war against Iraq in particular. If you've got a problem with that, I'll be happy to tell you where you can stick it.

[JohnGalt]

To an outsider who was looking to see if really maybe possibly, you were a conservative who actually supported the war, your posts have taken a strange turn for the worse.

On multiple posts you have created this false dichotomy based on a scenario you invented, not I, regarding debt financing of wars. On several posts I corrected you but since you are out of ideas you still go back to it.

If you really think Saddam is (was) a greater threat than say a China, great, but I will think you are limited in your understanding of foreign policy--which is neither a conservative or liberal position on the face of it since we are just talking about ranking threats.

Debt financing leads to upheavals and foreign intrigue/national security issues.

Debt financing of the Revolution led to problems like Shay's Rebellion and the power of the central government whom Hamilton contrived with Jefferson to inherit state debt which at least so far has insured the supremacy of DC over the sovereign states which was starkly against the ideals of the founding of the country and the natural conservative instincts of the people to favor home rule.

That you think conservatives apply your cute little Y/N scenario is a testament to how little you understand your historical nation.

[Dr. Frank fan]

On multiple posts you have created this false dichotomy based on a scenario you invented, not I, regarding debt financing of wars.

I didn't bring up "debt financing", you did. I'm happy to drop the subject.

If you really think Saddam is (was) a greater threat than say a China,

Never said that, so rest of your sentence is spurious.

Debt financing leads to upheavals and foreign intrigue/national security issues.

Ok. Not arguing.

Debt financing of the Revolution led to problems like Shay's Rebellion and the power of the central government whom Hamilton contrived with Jefferson to inherit state debt which at least so far has insured the supremacy of DC over the sovereign states which was starkly against the ideals of the founding of the country and the natural conservative instincts of the people to favor home rule.

So if I may summarize and put 2 and 2 together, you think the American Revolution - as it was waged (i.e. not in theory) - was a bad idea that should have been opposed by any 18th-century-conservative-equivalent folks, correct?

That you think conservatives apply your cute little Y/N scenario

??? I don't "think conservatives apply my little Y/N scenario", that doesn't even make sense. I was drawing a natural inference from the content of your posts. You're here to say, mostly, that the war in Iraq should be opposed by conservatives "because it's debt-financed". I applied that to a certain other war and drew the only logical conclusion. What "conservatives apply" has got nothing to do with anything.

I happen to think yours is a dumb reason to oppose this or any other war. You're welcome to your opinions of course (you can have them because I sure as heck don't want them). I'm happy just to say that your arrogant pretense to be the sole arbiter of what is conservative and what isn't, is a delusion, and leave it at that. If that delusion comforts you then by all means continue to wallow in it, be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of us to bow down before your self-appointed claim to authority.

[JohnGalt]

You're here to say, mostly, that the war in Iraq should be opposed by conservatives "because it's debt-financed".

How on Earth do you draw this conclusion?

It's but one reason American conservatives do not support it. Conservative Christians can't support aggressive, elective wars and that is certainly a better reason for opposition than Earthly money. Conservative Westerners do not believe violations of UN resolutions is cause interventions in sovereign nations, in the spirit of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

Your failure in logic is tying any national security consequences to your debt financing to support the nation building project in Iraq, that is all I can figure.

The welfare at home, the Amnesty for 9 million actual invaders, and the increased centralization of the national security apparatus even after its most spectacular failure are all anti-conservative developments tied with the current Wilsonian liberal war.

__________
Militant Book Describes Meeting Bin Laden

During an extended visit after he fled to Norway, Krekar founded Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq in December 2001 to foment revolution against Saddam. Now the group is suspected of links to al-Qaida and in suicide bombings targeting U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq.

Hmmm, 12/2001 and Ansar al-Islam sets up shop in the US controlled No Fly Zone to organize a force to take down Saddam? Something is rotten in Denmark.

[Dr. Frank fan]

["debt financing"] It's but one reason American conservatives do not support it.

Yes, we've established that, it's "but one" reason. In other words, it's one of the reasons in your mind not to support the war against Iraq.

Again, it logically follows that the same would be true of the American Revolution. That it was "debt financed" is one of the reasons not to support it. Right?

Conservative Christians can't support aggressive, elective wars

Evidently, they can.

Conservative Westerners do not believe violations of UN resolutions is cause interventions in sovereign nations, in the spirit of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

Evidently, some of them do.

Your failure in logic is tying any national security consequences to your debt financing

I granted you debt financing = bad. How many times do you want me to say it.

The welfare at home, the Amnesty for 9 million actual invaders, and the increased centralization of the national security apparatus even after its most spectacular failure are all anti-conservative developments

Even if true, not relevant to what's under discussion.

Hmmm, 12/2001 and Ansar al-Islam sets up shop in the US controlled No Fly Zone to organize a force to take down Saddam? Something is rotten in Denmark.

That would explain the protection money....

[JohnGalt]

Which conservatives are you referring to?

"Conservatives" like yourself? LOL

That is such a strange way of looking at history, or perhaps its just a child's way, dunno for sure which.

Apologizing for the welfare/warfare marriage, does not make it go away at least for American conservatives.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Which conservatives are you referring to?

With regard to what? Sometimes you're difficult to converse with.

That is such a strange way of looking at history, or perhaps its just a child's way, dunno for sure which.

What is "a strange way of looking at history" exactly? And why? Can't even tell what the heck you're referring to anymore. Do you even know?

Apologizing for the welfare/warfare marriage, does not make it go away at least for American conservatives.

Ok.

Any other pointless non sequitur comments to make, or are you about done?

[WOSG]

YOU: American Conservatives don't support "global democratic revolutions"

ME: So you were rooting for the Soviet army in the Hungarian 1956 attempted revolution?

YOU: Why would I have done that, Red? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

ME: More gibbering obfuscation from you. Either you do or you do not support democratic revolutions in other countries. If you dont, you cant mind Soviet tanks crushing Hungarian democratic fighters. If you do, you should get off the back of those of us who support freedom fighters in other contexts. Of course, stating Conservatives dont do that support at all is simply contrary to historical fact. We Conservatives have supported plenty of pro-freedom and anti-communist revolutionary movements over the years, and have supported US involvement of same.

YOU: Are you really that confused as to not see a difference between a native population rebelling against its occupiers, be it Hungarians against Soviets or Iraqis against the US, and separately, a foreign power invading another nation to impose a new government on the conquered power?

ME: You said that American Conservatives dont support 'global democratic revolutions'. Your original comment required clarification. But you only obfuscate. I note that *I* have clearly explained that I would support the Hungarian freedom fighters. I never conflated being a freedom fighter with American support for freedom fighters, but I have shown examples where US military support is required for the success of freedom against tyranny.

You havent explained coherently what your position IS ON THIS AT ALL. You just hurl invective. You have refused to answer any questions with a straight answer and are only full of venom and ad hominem, not logic.

Did you support Reagan's support of Contras? Yes or no?
Do you support Reagan's support of Afghan mujahadeen? Yes/no?
Do you support Reagan's intervention in El Salvador? yes/no?
Do you support Reagan's support of Solidarity in Poland? yes/no?
Do you support the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956? or the soviet tanks? yes/no?
Would you have supported US military support of Hungarian freedom fighters to free that country from communism?
Did you support Gulf War I, to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's invasion?
Do you think US occupation of Germany and Japan was justified post WWII? yes/no?

I dare you to answer the questions Yes/No. Surely you are capable of that.

ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION WERE SUPPORTED BY AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES. Your original point, that American conservatives 'dont support 'global democratic revolution'' etc. is not correct. American Conservatives support the use of American power to advance freedom and democracy, expecially because and when it aligns with our security interests. Our values and our interests can and do align. The liberation of Iraq from Saddam is just the latest example of that.

"Your inability to understand basic political concepts can only be the result of too much TV."

More projection and insults on your part, you who Bizarrely thinks the anti-Communist interventionist Reagan Docrine was Trotskyite!!! LOL. You cant handle decent debate. I have a PhD, so your insults about going to school are just laughable.

[WOSG]

"Any other pointless non sequitur comments to make, or are you about done?"

I am sure he has plenty more non sequitor statements up his sleeve. They come so easy to him.

You ever here of the Eliza program back from the 1960s AI heyday? Are you sure we are not debating against some paleo-cons AI program that spouts off some randomly appropriately cynical isolationist comments?

BTW, love the riff on the 'debt-financed war'. The discussion is getting so bogged his pointless lack of consistency its Seinfeld-funny.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Are you sure we are not debating against some paleo-cons AI program that spouts off some randomly appropriately cynical isolationist comments?

Now that you mention it....

Shorter John Galt:

I define myself to be a real conservative, and my opinions on all things to be the only true conservative opinions on those things. Therefore anyone who disagrees with me on something is not a real conservative. (And that's not circular/fallacious reasoning or anything.) P.S. Trotsky!

Really wouldn't take all that long for someone to program up variations on this one-note theme, in Perl or whatever. ;-)

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

I don't read comics. Some of us actually read all the news we can find and sort out the parts that make no sense. You sir, read the least you can find, do not think it through, do not know what is going on in the world for the most part, then have the audacity to mock others when you are wrong.

Here is a link for you about Salman Pak being shut down. http://www.defendamerica.mil/terrorism/waronterror.html

By the way. It is from the US Defense Department, and here is some of what it has to say: Operation Iraqi Freedom

Ended a regime that possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored and supported terrorists, suppressed human rights and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world
Stopped Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate, from operating in northeastern Iraq
Eliminated from Iraq the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi network, which had established a poison and explosives training camp in northeastern Iraq
Shut down the Salman Pak training camp where members of al-Qaida had trained.


Go to the Defense Department website and do a search on Salman Pak. There are 92 responses. This was the second one listed and the only one I clicked on.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

If you liked my reply to 376 check out my reply to John Galt in reply 418.

By the way, thanks for the article. It was a good one.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"No different than a leftie, both talk only of the lofty goal of your favorite welfare program, and never the cost."

Cost. How about the 6 trillion dollars that the US economy lost after 1 1/2 hours of attacks on this nation? How about the cost of 3000 lives?