Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

National Debt: Enough Already

January 16, 2014

Both liberals in Congress and President Barack Obama insist they will not tolerate conservative initiatives to get government spending under contro....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(98)

DavidVA

Jan-30-14 9:06 PM

This one additional comment will make it 250 on this thread. I'm not a true regular here. Is this a record?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-27-14 9:16 AM

just so everybody is clear the nuclear weapons are wmds. gas & other chemical agents are not. thanks davey.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-27-14 9:14 AM

i merely asked you to cite a source. no need to be a d.bag. i asked too much of you & for that i apologize.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-27-14 8:46 AM

@Seadog - I found no evidence of 159,000 Kurds killed or injured. I did find a similar number of Iranian casualties from Saddam's gas attacks on them.

But neither is the reason we went to war ... which is the point.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-27-14 8:39 AM

@formerlyphil - Reading comprehension is important. 'Nuf said.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-27-14 8:35 AM

@Seadog, loneriderrr1, et al -

Ever heard of a strawman? You seem to think that the presense of poison gas is adequate justificatin for invading other countries ... except that no one has ever made that case. We invaded Iraq because they supposedly had a nuclear program. They didn't. The rest is just post-hoc justification for an illegal action.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-27-14 8:29 AM

I htought this was a dead topic, but ...

@EaglesWings - No, deaths are always tragic, but not all deaths are a good reason to go to war. If that was the case, we would be fighting all over the world, all the time.

Saddam was a garden variety tyrant. We went after this guy, because he was sitting on a pool of oil. Not so in the Sudan, which was worse by far. Now it's Syria. Should we invade there too?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-26-14 7:55 PM

the general consensus is that around 90% of saddam's wmds were either used on his own people or rendered inert over time by '03. but (as pointed out earlier) this wasn't a partisan issues. many democrats supported the iraqi invasion.

as far as where the materials to make the wmds came from the general consensus is they came from the intelligence agencies of the u.s. & britain.

phil the fact checker rates all this garbage as half true, half false.

either way we're lost on a tangent again. s.o.p. for our forum lol.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesWings

Jan-26-14 7:56 AM

Twist a word, remove a word, insert a word. That's the way to do it gravelboy! Who accused you of hating the USA? You were simply asked a question, and I kept it simple for you to understand:

Do you really hate the USA that much?

Do you see the question mark?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-25-14 6:16 PM

i searched for quite some time & the reports of casualties was vague at best.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-25-14 3:05 PM

yeah riderrr 13 people died on the tokyo subway attack. my assumption is that 'ole davey is asserting that when saddam gassed his own kurdish people they weren't considered civilians.

it's laughable & unfathomable but i guess we'll just have to wait for clarification.

as far as the numbers go for the attacks on ethiopians by the italians they're quite murky. not many historical records exist & there seems to be an underlying attitude of ignoring the events. please cite some references dave as to where you got the 150k civilians gassed by italy in the 2nd italo-ethiopian war. thanks.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-25-14 1:15 PM

also, i should note, that i'm not at all asserting that evidence was construed as well as few & far between leading up to the second invasion.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-25-14 1:11 PM

Jan-24-14 12:31 PM

only partly true. the iaea was not the only watchdog group looking for weapons in iraq.

strangely absent dave is any references to unscom. maybe you've never heard of them. it's an acronym for the united nations special commission on iraq. they were looking for everything except nukes.

they were there throughout the 90s & into 2003.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-25-14 12:47 PM

Jan-24-14 12:53 PM

@formerlyphil - The largest gas attack by and against civilans was the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo.

dave how did you arrive at this conclusion?

are you asserting the kurds that saddam gassed were not civilians?

c'mon lol i mean really...

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesWings

Jan-24-14 10:30 PM

To blame Reagan for gassing the Kurds is about as un-American as one could get. Do you really hate the USA that much?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesWings

Jan-24-14 10:22 PM

gravel found a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

But he didn't go an "apology tour" like somebody else we know, right gravel?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

StoneJarl

Jan-24-14 6:45 PM

Aluminum tubes, Nigerian yellow cake, Joe WIlson, Valerie Plame. Nuclear threat was the center piece of selling the war.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FedUpL8ly

Jan-24-14 6:26 PM

48 gravelspit comments out of 195 total isn't necessarily bad. What's lamentable is the fact that after removing the repetitions, all that was said could have been said in 3 comments. From a content perspective, DavidVA said much more in his 32 comments.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesWings

Jan-24-14 4:13 PM

"...what is the significance of Saddam's gas attacks...?"

I hope you don't mean that on a personal level, David. Maybe you just thought it was a misplaced question to fill a vacuum?

Innocent men, women, and children that died are the significance.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-24-14 4:04 PM

BTW, what is the significance of Saddam's gas attacks in any case? We were worried about nukes, or why invade?

Is this another attempt to change the subject?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-24-14 4:00 PM

@Seadog - The largest attack on Kurds was in the town of Halabja. Estimates for casualties: 5,000. Wikipedia lists all the uses by the Iraqis under Saddam, and they don't add to 180,000 ... unless you choose to speculate based on WAGs from opponents. The 150,000 killed by the Fscists are pretty thoroughly documented.

Of course, you choose the sources that make your point.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-24-14 1:07 PM

@loneriderrr1 - Blaming someone requires something blame-worthy. If I burn down your house, and, five years later, you are still tying to get your life together - I'm guilty. I harmed you directly.

On the other hand, if all I do is mention that your house is pile of crap and should be bulldozed, I'm only guilty of verbal excess - whether your house burns down or not ... unless I had a hand in the arson.

GWB actively pursued two unfunded wars, created Medicare Part D with no cost control, hobbled regulators of all types, and even hired a horse trainer to run FEMA.

He watched as a major city was innundated, and did nothing. He watched as the banks went wild and crashed the economy, and did nothing.

If you're a Catholic, you might consider those last two as sins of ommission. I'm not that kind.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-24-14 12:53 PM

@formerlyphil - The largest gas attack by and against civilans was the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo.

The largest involving a government was in 1935 by the Italian Facists against Ethiopians, with 150,000 casualties.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-24-14 12:45 PM

@Seadog -

Of course I criticized the Dems. When you get a bit introspective, and look at the lunacy in your own party, I may take you seriously. FWIW, I'm not now and never have been a Dem. I'm w-a-y too liberal for that.

Oh, and on the mental-midget comment, if I'm so far down, how far up are you? Just interested if you know and, more importantly, will tell.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Jan-24-14 12:39 PM

@loneriderrr1, again -

What does a statement from Bill Clinton in 1998 have to do with George Bush starting a war in 2003?

If Saddam was a threat in 1998, and Bill wouldn't go in there after him, then GWB should have asked for war powers on January 21st, 2001. Instead, he waited unitl war fever was at full pitch, then argued WMDs and colaboratin on 9/11 - neither of which contained one iota of truh.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 98 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web