“Actually, there were dozens of statements in that PowerPoint presentation that were not supported.”

Okay. Feel free to refute any of them (with a link or two, please.)

“I did a 20 page comparison…”

Okay. Post it online so we can check it out.

“An actual full length film that I have seen several times…”

Does this film have a name? I’d like to see it.

“I’m not about to go rummaging around in Google – land to find every other tin foil hat wearer who swears…”

How about rummaging around to find one source that refutes any of the claims in the flash movie.

“can’t you muster some of that skepticism for a lengthy slide show…”

Sure. Show me some evidence that the slideshow makes false claims and I’ll gladly re-evaluate my opinion of it. I’ll even give you an example. The slideshow claims that Hussein was angry with Kuwait for lowering the price of oil, and that was the main reason for the Gulf War. According to Wikipedia, though, “Leading up to the invasion, Iraq complained to the United States Department of State about Kuwaiti slant drilling.”

Slant drilling. Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. Does this detail matter? Does it change the overall validity of the movie? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that if you want to call something bullshit, you should back it up. (Note the formula: mention fact in question, provide link to refute it.)

“Or is your non – scientific faith reserved only for les causes leftistes?”

Whoo! Stinging attack to cap it off. Of course, I could point out that your blind irrational faith in absurd tales seems to be reserved for Jesus and GW Bush. I mean, if you were half as skeptical about Christianity as you are about this slideshow…

You’re too kind.

I’ve been playing with computers since 1967. And you?

You’re too kind.

I’ve been playing with computers since 1967. And you?

You’re too kind.

I’ve been playing with computers since 1967. And you?

Mike, my analysis was how they became post – colonial independent powers. Sorry if you misunderstood.

I never said Reagan’s CIA discouraged Hussein from killing anyone. I said the powerpoint presentation is misleading because it it pretends that 800 and something enemies Hussein killed were the same as the names given him by the US. Don’t tell me you didn’t understand what I meant.

The Juan Cole story itself which presents evidence described by you as “beyond dispute” contains qualifying usages like, “plausible”, and “alleged”. Sure, you can believe them if you want, but I don’t have to, on your say so.

As for Hussein being a tool of the Reagan administration and the CIA, I would question your and Cole’s interpretation of the word “tool,” especially given your use of the word “regime” to describe an American administration. Your bias is showing. Juan Cole’s bias has been speaking for itself for a long time.

… I did a 20 page comparison of how Iran and Iraq came to power… fd10801

In the first place, Iraq and Iran are nation states that do not “come to power.” There were created in the 20’s after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
As for Saddam being a tool of the Regan Regime and the CIA, that is beyond dispute, just as it is beyond dispute that the Regan regime didn’t care one whit about Saddam “killing his own people.”

UPI

Reuters

The New York Times

Chemical weapons trail

I’m sure that, despite being constructed almost entirely out of material sourced from major newspapers, Senate reports, and so on, the main retort to this list will be to attack the websites and not the content. It’s the dreaded “lefty effect” where something is true until reprinted on a left leaning website.

“The facts I uncovered then (pre – Internet, pre – Google, and pre – WikiPedia) showed Sadddam Hussein to be quite the vicious fellow…”

Frank “uncovered” the fact that Hussein was a brutal tyrant! (FYI, the Internet is way older than you apparently think, so I’ll assume you meant Mozilla, or some graphically friendly front end to the Internet).

Sometimes comedy just writes itself.

I do know that I did a 20 page comparison of how Iran and Iraq came to power — during Gulf War I. The facts I uncovered then (pre – Internet, pre – Google, and pre – WikiPedia) showed Sadddam Hussein to be quite the vicious fellow with little or no help from the United States. The powerpoint presentation implies the the US chose who Hussein should assassinate when he took over, for example (go watch it again, if you don’t believe me). An actual full length film that I have seen several times shows an assembly of his erstwhile supporters being taken out of a room, and shots ringing out. As more and more men left the room, more and more shots rang out. Since none of the men returned, the remaining victims were, understandably, less and less anxious to leave. Never have I seen such fear on film. And he was just beginning.

I’m not about to go rummaging around in Google – land to find every other tin foil hat wearer who swears that we put Hussein in a Cairo apartment to assassinate an Egyptian leader; and put him in power in Iraq, and recognized him immediately, and all this other crap.

In view of your skepticism of religion, of which you were so proud the other day, can’t you muster some of that skepticism for a lengthy slide show that materializes within a day or so after his execution?

Or is your non – scientific faith reserved only for les causes leftistes?

Thanks.

Bravo, Bill!

Bwa-ha-ha! Good one, JWG!

You brought us one step closer

Funny…I thought the Iraqi court system executed Saddam. My bad.

I hate it when you people, who clearly know NOTHING about international politics declare this a good thing. Do you know what this will result in? The killing of a popular Sunni leader (and he was popular among sunni’s, make no mistake) on a day holy to sunni’s and not to shiites? You brought us one step closer to a regional war between the shiites and the sunni’s and their respective allies. We don’t exactly have a lot of steps left to go either.

Can you afford 8 dollars a gallon for gasoline? The Saudi’s and the Iranians would both be involved. On opposite sides, each disrupting the others oil supply. Do you know that India is an ally of the suuni’s right? And that Pakistan is a traditional ally of the Shiites? No? You do know that those two countries have been hostile towards each other ever since the partition of India. You know they have nuclear weapons right? They could destroy half the subcontinent. Do you think China could sit it out if they went Nuclear? If china got involved, could we stay out and risk a chineese-dominated middle-east?

Christ, You people just aren’t knowledgeable enough to really understand what it is you’re cheering here. Do you care? I doubt it. You’re the kind of people that knew exactly what circumstances were required for the giants to enter the play-offs but can’t be bothered to spend 10 minutes researching the actual politics of this. So please, for the love of your country if you really have any beyond how big it makes you think your dick is, go back to watching football and leave these sorts of things to people who actually know what they’re talking about.