1) What sidestep - I called you out for your logical fallacy directly. You are the one trying to sidestep. 2) There was no risk to the US homeland - the "Commie" stuff was propaganda spin. You seem to have no concept of - or just don't care - about international law. You are also holding a wildly hypocritical position. You argue that it is OK for the US to support and engage in terrorism - but then turn around and wail loudly about Iran's support for terrorism. 3) Al Qaeda is not a terrorist group ? What then is your definition of terrorist group. 4) Obama was intervening - long before chemical weapons. You are welcome to your opinions - but they are hypocritical and uninformed.
You wrote "he West backed friendly dictators then restored them to democracy"... and it's fake! The people restored their own countries from American installed terrorism with their backing of fascist dictatorships. Most of Latin America voted in left wing governments when they feel like it. None of them are considered to be communistic like China. That proves the "intervention" of the past was wrong. Americans got blood on their hands. You claimed "Mossadegh had already allied himself with the communist Tudeh party"... and it's fake! The Tudeh party won no seats to be allied with in the government. And there was no tyranny under Mossadegh. You claimed "People got killed wanted to bring in the Ayatollah."... and it's fake! I sourced the American installed terrorist massacred politicians. nonsense. It was for the UK/US having Iran as their colony ones again, as it was before. My source still says it was GWB. Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 I sourced the problem is massively bigger in the US. Hence there are hardly are any UK vets to be found on the streets, while they are all over the place in the US. That makes US soldiers a bunch of idiots willing to spill their lives over pointless forever wars.
True, sort of. As usual, the devil is in the detail. Again, America did not support chemical weapons - but like most presidents Reagan and Bush had to detail with multiple issues, only the Activist has the luxury of the Single Issue. In this case it was Russia and Iran, mostly. And this "Daddy Bush", you like "Daddy Obama" ??
It did. They helped Saddam Hussein with everything, including tactical information to use WMDs. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/2...rove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
Unlike Obama - we have two recent past Presidents by the name of Bush - the above is an easy way to distinguish one from the other - and be a bit snark at the same time We supported a regime that was using them - while they were using them - allies in the war in which they were using them. You can't seriously be trying to absolve the admin of all guilt - especially in light of - Reagan's veto of the Prevention of Genocide act. We were providing Saddam with Military Intel and so on in a conflict in which the dude was committing genocide. We are getting into borderline denial of the obvious - land here. Multiple issues indeed - that's Presidents do - deal with issues - and hopefully avoid being complicit in war crimes. I do not claim here that we were complicit in war crimes - although arguments could be made that direction - The point here is "Do as we say - not as we Do" - We say "We are going after not only the terrorist but the supporters of terrorism" How does the above not meet that bar ? But this is certainly not the best example of Reagan being complicit in war crimes - Suharto in East Timor and our Terrorist Training efforts - at the "School of the Americas" for Death Squad Dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala are better examples. but since you brought up Obama - his violations are worse - leading a global effort to arm - supply - and support an Radical Islamist proxy army in Syria. The history books will record that we were guilty of war crimes , crimes against humanity in Syria. For our efforts in Yemen -again on the same side as Al Qaeda as in Syria - we are currently being investigated for war crimes/crimes against humanity. The hypocrisy is too much. We bomb Syria - claiming "Assad used Chemical Weapons" and in at least a few cases - it wasn't Assad that used these weapons .. and the body that did the investigation was corrupt (proven so by leaked emails). But regardless - even if Assad did these attacks - how many were killed ? Less than 100 in the worst one if memory serves - a small number in any case. Saddam killed thousands in a single strike Halabja - 3200-5000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_genocide so why didn't we bomb Saddam ? Do as we say - not as we do ! We used to be able to get away with it - but these are different times. We are no longer the only economic game in town - and we are suffering economic economic consequences - as well as making the world a far less safe place for US citizens. This recent targeted assassination is another example "do as we say - not as we do". There is a reason for the long standing - millennium old custom of not killing diplomats from other nations - and if one can't figure out at least a few of these reasons - there is little hope.
So America gives "tactical information" and Sadaam gases people. I presume this was satellite information on Iranian positions? This isn't the same as America gassing Iraq's enemies. Nor, for that matter, is an American president necessarily speaking for America (just look at Trump.)
You claimed "Again, America did not support chemical weapons".... and I proved if fully cooperated with it! And so now you're pushing the goal post to ... but it wasn't the US who did it, only supported it. lol The US supports using WMD's. It threw atomic bombs on cities! The majority of the US population still supports they used WMD's against civilians like that.
American nuclear weapons is not the issue - you didn't mention Russian nuclear weapons, or Chinese, or English or French?. America and Russia got rid of their own chemical stockpiles. The issue was Iraq having and using chemical or biological weapons.
1. Nope, you're trying to weasel out of it, put up or shut up 2. Of course there was, the USSR was trying to conquer the globe one country at a time. 3. Yes of course AQ is a terrorist group, uses violence in a free and democratic society for political ends. 4, Obama chickened out, he never struck Syria, Trump did. You are welcome to your opinions but they are baseless and paradoxical.
1. No, America saved Latin America from communism and once the Cold War was over restored democracy, better a friendly dictator whom they could force to step aside once the conflict was over (except for Noriega) than an endless communist tyranny. 2. Not yet, it was well on its' way. 3. No you didn't, when the Shah fell the West hoped there would be a democratic regime in Iran, instead they got the greatest ever just justification for supporting him in the first place. 4. Oh no, the days of colonialism were long gone, it was keeping it out of communist hands. 5. Your source is The Guardian which is a left wing rag which contacted Americans in vital voting areas and urged them to vote against GW (thus ensuring his re-election), the Taliban were never going to hand over AQ and he was right to topple them.
Weasel out of what - what is it that I am weaseling out of ? you are the one that can't put up. You are projecting - your issues on to me. You keep repeating your premise - over and over - as if repetition of claim is proof of claim. In response to commentary on your claims - you repeat your claim - in a most unreasonable fashion - like a parrot .. Just like Hillary's 2016 campaign strategy "Bad Trump, Bad Trump, Bad Trump" .. no path forward .. no message - nothing to vote for.. Bad Trump Bad Trump. So then .. - an argument consists of 2 things 1) Statement of Claim 2) Proof, Evidence, rational - that shows claim true You have mastered 1 , but it is like you have never heard of 2.
And once again you're trying to flim flam your way out of it, just admit you were wrong, everyone will respect you more if you do.
Weasle out of what ? -- You have projection issues. You are the one who cant make an argument - and so you do nothing but repeat your claim - and make nonsense accusations - but will not even state what you are talking about.
You claimed "America did not support chemical weapons".... and the US did support that all the way in the case of Saddam Hussein unleashing his WMD war against Iran. You're just pushing the goalpost all the way to China now. lol
The people there restored their own democracies and installed the left wing governments that the US uprooted for their right wing fascist colonial control. You're making it up. Mosaddegha was only 2 years in office when the US had him replaced their fascist puppet. yes I did. The link clearly shows the US installed fascist tortured and executed political prisoners in the 1000's a year. The US supported that terror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran The US installed it's terroristic fascist all over the globe for geopolitical and economical reasons. That's pure neocolonialism. https://www.britannica.com/topic/neocolonialism I do not care about your personal opinion.
The basic idea of the war on terror is to hit the terrorist overseas before they can hit us here at home. Successful? We've had no more 9-11's, so perhaps it has been. But that probably depends on one's point of view of it. What bothers me than anything else is entering these wars with no intention to win them. Or to play by gentleman's rules. I say no more wars unless the U.S. has every intention of doing whatever it takes to win them. If not, stay out of them. We had ever intention of winning WWII and won. Korea we played for a stalemate, in Vietnam, to basically keep the status quo. Neither was entered in my perspective as to win them. Desert Storm was the only war since Vietnam we entered with the idea of winning it and winning it quickly as to prevent the long drawn out war which ultimately leads to far more deaths and casualties than a quick dirty give it all you got war. Just one more quickie, please no more nation building. Go in, win, come home.
What proof do you have that America supported chemical weapons? Supporting a nation that used chemical weapons is not the same thing. America supports Ukraine - it doesn't support the corruption, loss of democracy, antimerism etc of Ukraine. My country Australia is an ally of America - we are in the British Commonwealth - doesn't mean that the USA supports the monarchy.
I already sourced that to you in post 454.... to you Yeah sure. And that's why Donald was asking for favors when he withheld aid.
1. Because the US stopped backing the dictatorships, put pressure on Pinochet etc to yield power and toppled Noriega themselves. 2. As I said, well on his way. 3. Yes and yet he was still progressive and still better than the alternative. 4. No, the US fought the Cold War, thank god they won. 5. That's like saying you wouldn't believe me if I told you the sky was blue.
How would I know - It is you that claimed I was weaseling out of something and I asked what you were referring to. You obviously have nothing .. and so you deflect ... but , if you wish to substantiate something Susbstantiate your claim that Iran is the "Biggest sponsor of terror in the world" You gave links - but all those links did was show that Iran is a sponsor of terror - We all know that Iran supports Hezbollah - that is not some secret - but that does not make them the "Biggest" To show that you have to compare Iran to other State Sponsors of Terror - such as Saudi Arabia and the USA. and you have not done this. I did this comparison for you - at which point you went into an avoidance and denial tizzy - repeating your premise over and over as if this was proof of claim. Substantiate your premise - show that your claim is true.
You go source the US stopped supporting Pinochet and so the democracy happened. As far as I know, the Pope made it all happen in Chile. I showed you just made it up. Mosaddegha was only 2 years in office and the communists had no voice since they had no seats. To claim they were about to get a lot of seats is pure fiction. He was a fascist dictator executing political prisoners by the 1000's a year. I proved there was no communistic link with the communist party. I sourced that what you said that the US did, is pure neocolonialism. Thanks for playing. I do not care about your personal opinion. You proved nothing.
I already did as you've admitted, I'm asking you to give me some terrorist groups (those who practice violence for political ends in a free and democratic society) that the US and Saudi governments back? Take some dance lessons pal, you need to work on your sidestep.
