It's about time it was said

[Dr.House]

you are blind to the facts
i wont waste my time looking for them

wow.... now why am I not surprised by THAT cowardly dodge???

If you could show me any links where shiites routinely slaughtered sunnis during Saddam's reign, you would do so.

If you could show me any links that showed where Saddam provided safe haven to wahhabist extremists, you would do so.

If you could show men any links that showed how Iraq had failed in its efforts to foild Iranian regional hegemony during the rreign of Saddam, you would do so.

YOU AIN'T GOT SHIT, and you know it.

run away little man. you bore me.

you are a ******* moron, **** off

'bout sums it up....

 

[jillian]

wow.... now why am I not surprised by THAT cowardly dodge???

If you could show me any links where shiites routinely slaughtered sunnis during Saddam's reign, you would do so.

If you could show me any links that showed where Saddam provided safe haven to wahhabist extremists, you would do so.

If you could show men any links that showed how Iraq had failed in its efforts to foild Iranian regional hegemony during the rreign of Saddam, you would do so.

YOU AIN'T GOT SHIT, and you know it.

run away little man. you bore me.

you are a ******* moron, **** off

'bout sums it up....

i suppose that's one way to respond to his points. and yet, while i like both you and DC, truth is, he's correct in what he said. go figure.

 

[DiveCon]

you are a ******* moron, **** off

'bout sums it up....

i suppose that's one way to respond to his points. and yet, while i like both you and DC, truth is, he's correct in what he said. go figure.

no, he is wrong on the first two and that has been shown

 

[jillian]

'bout sums it up....

i suppose that's one way to respond to his points. and yet, while i like both you and DC, truth is, he's correct in what he said. go figure.

no, he is wrong on the first two and that has been shown

i'll respectfully disagree.

 

[DiveCon]

i suppose that's one way to respond to his points. and yet, while i like both you and DC, truth is, he's correct in what he said. go figure.

no, he is wrong on the first two and that has been shown

i'll respectfully disagree.

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

 

[Londoner]

EVERYBODY should be concerned about the deficit, dearie... I know I have for many years...

You can't stand there and whine about the war while giving Zero your Hero a pass on the continued drunken sailor spending...

Thank God the Right has finally woken up.

Sad part is, though, it might be too late.

Where was your party when Reagan spent twice as much as Carter, and Bush twice as much as Clinton? We've been waiting for fiscally responsible Republicans for over 30 years.

“If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. (Bold mine) Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99[5].

Now to squash the notion that a Republican Congress combined with a Democratic president is the best balance:

“While the debt did go up every year during Johnson’s time in office (1963-69), he was the last president before Clinton to submit a balanced budget, and Johnson did this during a time of a very hot Cold War. Johnson’s average was a debt increase of 3% for the six years he served. He had a Democratic Congress to work with all his years in office.“

Finally, the Reagan myth must be debunked:

“As President Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself[7]. Many on the right reflexively blame the Democratically controlled Congress for the “big spending” during his administration, even though Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period.

The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined.

This concludes my lesson in truth. (I was sad to learn this about Reagan because I thought of him as a grandfather figure and a wonderful leader when I was in my teens.)"

U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Londoner]

no, he is wrong on the first two and that has been shown

i'll respectfully disagree.

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

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.

 

[DiveCon]

i'll respectfully disagree.

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

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

 

[Dr.House]

i suppose that's one way to respond to his points. and yet, while i like both you and DC, truth is, he's correct in what he said. go figure.

no, he is wrong on the first two and that has been shown

i'll respectfully disagree.

As I respectfully disagree with you....

 

[antagon]

the only one that isnt an out right lie is #3

relative to the status quo in iraq today, all three points are accurate.

no, they are not
how could you give Saddam credit for not killing Shia and Kurds when he was
and the fact that saddam did support radical terrorists in Iraq

i can say these points are accurate because the country has swollen with terrorist activity significantly since the invasion. since we invaded, and rarely if ever before that, there have been regular bombings in public places and places of worship. the country has been dramatically destabilized. the murder and mortality rate has significantly increased and it's peace-keeping infrastructure has been compromised from the level that it was at before the invasion. terrorist and paramilitary groups which were not in iraq prior to our invasion, and certainly not prior to our entry into afghanistan, operate in iraq now. unemployment and economic depression feeds criminal activity not around before the war. contractors working in the oil trade -- the basis of the iraqi economy -- are in danger which they weren't before the invasion. the oil and industrial complex is under siege from half-assed sectarians which had no place in iraq before our troops moved in.

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.

 

[maineman]

no, he is wrong on the first two and that has been shown

i'll respectfully disagree.

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

first. Your english language skills are suspect. My first claim was that he had kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. So... if you can find instances where shiites were slaughtering sunnis, that would disprove my point. You can't.

second... there is a difference TO US - and to Saddam - between arab nationist radical terrorists and islamic wahhabist extremists. Saddam may have supported the former, but he was quite successful in keeping the latter from using his country as a base of operations.

 

[DiveCon]

i'll respectfully disagree.

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

first. Your english language skills are suspect. My first claim was that he had kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. So... if you can find instances where shiites were slaughtering sunnis, that would disprove my point. You can't.

second... there is a difference TO US - and to Saddam - between arab nationist radical terrorists and islamic wahhabist extremists. Saddam may have supported the former, but he was quite successful in keeping the latter from using his country as a base of operations.

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

 

[maineman]

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

first. Your english language skills are suspect. My first claim was that he had kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. So... if you can find instances where shiites were slaughtering sunnis, that would disprove my point. You can't.

second... there is a difference TO US - and to Saddam - between arab nationist radical terrorists and islamic wahhabist extremists. Saddam may have supported the former, but he was quite successful in keeping the latter from using his country as a base of operations.

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?

 

[DiveCon]

first. Your english language skills are suspect. My first claim was that he had kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. So... if you can find instances where shiites were slaughtering sunnis, that would disprove my point. You can't.

second... there is a difference TO US - and to Saddam - between arab nationist radical terrorists and islamic wahhabist extremists. Saddam may have supported the former, but he was quite successful in keeping the latter from using his country as a base of operations.

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 ******* moron

 

[antagon]

nobody has said honky dory, just made three accurate appraisals of the status quo before the invasion. you win some you lose some, but you dont win any by exaggerating or mischaracterizing the original argument.

its just a matter of credibility, i guess.

 

[DiveCon]

nobody has said honky dory, just made three accurate appraisals of the status quo before the invasion. you win some you lose some, but you dont win any by exaggerating or mischaracterizing the original argument.

its just a matter of credibility, i guess.

the first two are wrong and only the delusional think they aren't

 

[antagon]

nobody has said honky dory, just made three accurate appraisals of the status quo before the invasion. you win some you lose some, but you dont win any by exaggerating or mischaracterizing the original argument.

its just a matter of credibility, i guess.

the first two are wrong and only the delusional think they aren't

i guess delusion is relative, dive. for me, it would take a better argument than casting hyperbole or ad hominem out to preclude oneself from that characterization. have you presented such an argument?

 

[DiveCon]

nobody has said honky dory, just made three accurate appraisals of the status quo before the invasion. you win some you lose some, but you dont win any by exaggerating or mischaracterizing the original argument.

its just a matter of credibility, i guess.

the first two are wrong and only the delusional think they aren't

i guess delusion is relative, dive. for me, it would take a better argument than casting hyperbole or ad hominem out to preclude oneself from that characterization. have you presented such an argument?

i've presented the facts and the delusional deny them
where do you side?

 

[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

 

[Charles_Main]

as i have said to him several times

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, he was constantly killing Shia and Kurds

he was also supporting terrorist radicals both INSIDE and outside of Iraq
the first two things he claims are patently FALSE

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.