It's about time it was said

[maineman]

Saddam controlled the reporting before OIF, there for you do not KNOW the levels of the killing going on
they found the graves after so you are once again WRONG

and you are an idiot if you still think the later

So ...according to you, Saddam rules Iraq with an iron fist, but he somehow allowed shiites and kurds to commit wholesale slaughter of sunnis?

sure.

got a link for that?

and I asume, by the ad hominem nature of your post, that you have NOTHING that would prove that Saddam allowed islamic extremists to have safe haven in Iraq.

I understand.

why don't you just quit this silly discussion while you stll have your testicles attached?

ah, so because Shia wasnt doing wholesale slaughter of Sunni, everything was hunky dory


you remain a fucking moron

I said Saddam had prevented shia from slaughtering sunni. that is absolutely correct. The fact that Saddam himself had run roughshod over both shia and kurd is irrelevant to his ability to keep the various ethnic groups from attacking one another.

I said that Saddam had prevented Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a safe haven for their terrorist operations. that is absolutely correct.

I saide that Saddam had served as an effective foil for Iranian regional hegemony. That is absolutely correct.

what else you got, asshole?

 

[DiveCon]

So ...according to you, Saddam rules Iraq with an iron fist, but he somehow allowed shiites and kurds to commit wholesale slaughter of sunnis?

sure.

got a link for that?

and I asume, by the ad hominem nature of your post, that you have NOTHING that would prove that Saddam allowed islamic extremists to have safe haven in Iraq.

I understand.

why don't you just quit this silly discussion while you stll have your testicles attached?

ah, so because Shia wasnt doing wholesale slaughter of Sunni, everything was hunky dory


you remain a fucking moron

I said Saddam had prevented shia from slaughtering sunni. that is absolutely correct. The fact that Saddam himself had run roughshod over both shia and kurd is irrelevant to his ability to keep the various ethnic groups from attacking one another.

I said that Saddam had prevented Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a safe haven for their terrorist operations. that is absolutely correct.

I saide that Saddam had served as an effective foil for Iranian regional hegemony. That is absolutely correct.

what else you got, asshole?

no, you said he stopped the slaughter of all factions

and now you are changing it
this proves now i was right and you are a fucking moron

 

[DiveCon]

i'm right here, divecon, waiting for your reply:

speaking in relative terms, there is great truth to those three points; without characterizing my statements as an enthusiastic endorsement of saddam hussein, can you paint a picture whereby things have improved on those points since the invasion?

anything close will do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/131087-its-about-time-it-was-said-41.html#post2701989

look above dipshit

 

[DiveCon]

Do you realize that while he was committing atrocities, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations? Do you know how much financial support Reagan and 41 gave Hussein? Do you know how essential Reagan was to Saddam's consolidation of power? My fear is that you're getting 100% of your information from Right Wing information sources.

Reagan's relationship to Iraq and Hussein is on the record. It's not hidden.

he never STOPPED
thats the point you libs keep missing

Nobody on the right denies we gave aid and support to Saddam. It is you on the left who seems to wish to IGNORE why we did it.

We decided Iran was a bigger problem and used Saddam to make war on them. In the real world you are often left with less than great people to align with to face a mutual Enemy.

You do recall how we supplied and supported the Soviet union against Hitler right.

i think yoiu quoted the wrong person there

 

[maineman]

ah, so because Shia wasnt doing wholesale slaughter of Sunni, everything was hunky dory


you remain a fucking moron

I said Saddam had prevented shia from slaughtering sunni. that is absolutely correct. The fact that Saddam himself had run roughshod over both shia and kurd is irrelevant to his ability to keep the various ethnic groups from attacking one another.

I said that Saddam had prevented Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a safe haven for their terrorist operations. that is absolutely correct.

I saide that Saddam had served as an effective foil for Iranian regional hegemony. That is absolutely correct.

what else you got, asshole?

no, you said he stopped the slaughter of all factions

and now you are changing it
this proves now i was right and you are a fucking moron

wrong. my statement from the very beginning was the Saddam stopped sunnis and shiites from SLAUGHTERING ONE ANOTHER. THat is a completely factual statement.

And, I said that he kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a base of operations. That is ALSO a completely factual statement.

What statement did I make that you actually think is inaccurate?

 

[DiveCon]

I said Saddam had prevented shia from slaughtering sunni. that is absolutely correct. The fact that Saddam himself had run roughshod over both shia and kurd is irrelevant to his ability to keep the various ethnic groups from attacking one another.

I said that Saddam had prevented Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a safe haven for their terrorist operations. that is absolutely correct.

I saide that Saddam had served as an effective foil for Iranian regional hegemony. That is absolutely correct.

what else you got, asshole?

no, you said he stopped the slaughter of all factions

and now you are changing it
this proves now i was right and you are a fucking moron

wrong. my statement from the very beginning was the Saddam stopped sunnis and shiites from SLAUGHTERING ONE ANOTHER. THat is a completely factual statement.

And, I said that he kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a base of operations. That is ALSO a completely factual statement.

What statement did I make that you actually think is inaccurate?

and that is FALSE
Saddam, (sunni) allowed the Sunni to slaughter Shia and Kurd
hell, he was doing it HIMSELF
you just continue to dig that hole

 

[antagon]

i'm right here, divecon, waiting for your reply:

speaking in relative terms, there is great truth to those three points; without characterizing my statements as an enthusiastic endorsement of saddam hussein, can you paint a picture whereby things have improved on those points since the invasion?

anything close will do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/131087-its-about-time-it-was-said-41.html#post2701989

look above dipshit

what, at my ceiling, dummy?

you've not replied to nor addressed the post in the link, whatsoever. like a pussy with an indefensible argument, you've sent me a bitchmade neg rep, for what that's worth. that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and can only defend your position by mischaracterizing what has been said and launching inane personal attacks like your little neg rep and kiddie name calling.

since you cant substantiate your bullshit claims, why dont you just say so. you couldn't possibly be such a dolt that you champion the empirically inaccurate view on every subject you discuss. better luck next time. i could be wrong, maybe you take simpleton to new heights of achievement, but at least your balls have dropped enough to admit where you are wrong.

haven't they?

 

[maineman]

no, you said he stopped the slaughter of all factions

and now you are changing it
this proves now i was right and you are a fucking moron

wrong. my statement from the very beginning was the Saddam stopped sunnis and shiites from SLAUGHTERING ONE ANOTHER. THat is a completely factual statement.

And, I said that he kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a base of operations. That is ALSO a completely factual statement.

What statement did I make that you actually think is inaccurate?

and that is FALSE
Saddam, (sunni) allowed the Sunni to slaughter Shia and Kurd
hell, he was doing it HIMSELF
you just continue to dig that hole

and you contiunue to be unable to show how shia or kurd slaughtered any other factions.

my statement stands correct. Saddam prevented sunni and shiite from slaughtering one another.

The Iraqi government, under Saddam, did, in fact, act ruthlessly towards both shiite and kurd, but they prevented the wholesale slaughter of one another by the general populace which was my point all along.

try again, you fucking loser.

I am smarter than you on my most stupid day. just admit it and move on to attack some less intelligent liberal... but if you stay and try to attack MY statements, I will have you for lunch like I always do.

 

[antagon]

and that is FALSE
Saddam, (sunni) allowed the Sunni to slaughter Shia and Kurd
hell, he was doing it HIMSELF
you just continue to dig that hole

this is the shit you're clinging to? saddam is a sunni so he is sectarian violence? what a dummy. why bother discussing anything which is beyond your intellect or your wherewithal to debate?

 

[DiveCon]

you are both too fucking stupid
fuck off the both of you

 

[antagon]

yeah, admitting being wrong is probably too much to ask. perhaps the best thing to do is to take a personal jab or two and escape back to the shadows of ignorance where you came from, diver.

 

[DiveCon]

yeah, admitting being wrong is probably too much to ask. perhaps the best thing to do is to take a personal jab or two and escape back to the shadows of ignorance where you came from, diver.

because i'm NOT wrong dipshit
you are

 

[antagon]

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting an sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

 

[DiveCon]

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting an sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

dipshit, i already HAVE, i'm not about to do it again so the same dipshits can keep denying it

 

[antagon]

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting an sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

dipshit, i already HAVE, i'm not about to do it again so the same dipshits can keep denying it

what your saddam's a sunni argument? yeah, you'd better not repeat that one.

do you recognize the difference between saddam's secular security force and the religious and political sectarian violence referred to here:

"He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another."

do you expect to be taken seriously by arguing that saddam can be substituted for sunnis in this statement?

its my perspective that such an argument in the context of the iraq before and after the invasion can only be laid by a desperate ignoramus clinging to rhetoric long abandoned by the campaign that aimed to pump up mandate for the invasion in the first place... or a well paid pundit who's sold his self-respect.

i'm doubting you do this for a living.

 

[DiveCon]

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting an sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

dipshit, i already HAVE, i'm not about to do it again so the same dipshits can keep denying it

what your saddam's a sunni argument? yeah, you'd better not repeat that one.

do you recognize the difference between saddam's secular security force and the religious and political sectarian violence referred to here:

"He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another."

do you expect to be taken seriously by arguing that saddam can be substituted for sunnis in this statement?

its my perspective that such an argument in the context of the iraq before and after the invasion can only be laid by a desperate ignoramus clinging to rhetoric long abandoned by the campaign that aimed to pump up mandate for the invasion in the first place... or a well paid pundit who's sold his self-respect.

i'm doubting you do this for a living.

holy shit you are stupid
you totally missed the point SADDAM WAS KILLING SHIA AND KURD
SADDAM WAS a , so he wasnt killing them unless they opposed him
the Shia and Kurd DID openly oppose saddam

 

[antagon]

holy shit you are stupid, you wholly missed the point that iraq was not in chaos, whereas now and ever since the invasion, it is. saddam was running the country notwithstanding the considerably fewer deaths entailed in his authoritarian methodology. now, the country is in relative bedlam with a decade or so needed to cool off. the death toll particularly when extended to cover ancillary suffering from ruined infrastructure and organization does not compare for folks who, to use your speak, aren't delirious, moronic dipshits.

 

[DiveCon]

holy shit you are stupid, you wholly missed the point that iraq was not in chaos, whereas now and ever since the invasion, it is. saddam was running the country notwithstanding the considerably fewer deaths entailed in his authoritarian methodology. now, the country is in relative bedlam with a decade or so needed to cool off. the death toll particularly when extended to cover ancillary suffering from ruined infrastructure and organization does not compare for folks who, to use your speak, aren't delirious, moronic dipshits.

no, its you that is the proven stupid one
now piss off

 

[antagon]

forgive me for recycling this one, diveshit:

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting a sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

 

[DiveCon]

forgive me for recycling this one, diveshit:

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting a sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

see my previous post