Comments by "tblbaby" (@tblbaby) on "Conservatives, Libertarians, and the Iraq War (Pt. 1) | Larry Elder | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

+silvafox07 Well it's a matter of perspective. If you really understand what went on with the Iraq war the view would probably be a little different, supposing that your mind isn't already set in paradigms. Democrats like Hillary and Kerry were actually much louder and harsher about going to war against Saddam. Saddam had broken 13 UN resolutions in a row and was starving his people. Using the oil for food money for arms, having bribed many officials in the UN and Countries like France, Russia, China with the promise of oil once he got free of sanctions and attacked oil rich countries around like Saudi, Iraq, and others. China gave material help in defenses. Russia gave arms and actually had advisers and probably troops on the ground. Several Russians were killed in Iraq helping Saddam. Documents detailing plans with Russia and China were found in Iraq in bombed facilities.
24
+Great Helm You have confuzzled Saddam with Qaddafi. Larry didn't agree with invading Libya (Qaddafi).
6
silvafox07 Well I don't see compromise as agreeing to something that isn't true. Compromising on actual facts of history isn't rational. Something happened, talking about what actually did happen is good dialog. He made his case, and I've extended that on this page if you care to look. The middle ground is TRUTH when it comes to information, don't you agree? Give and take should be about preferences and what we'd agree to if others who don't agree to allow our preferences in how things are done. I have areas that I think Bush screwed up. Pretty sure Larry has some. Not protecting a figure for political reason is a genuine honest approach. I don't think Larry was supporting Bush for political reasons. He's being honest and really having an honest dialog. Say Dave talked about Hillary being fired from the Watergate hearings for gross fraud and lying? Her attacking Bill's sexual misconduct, and I mean Bill Clinton, not Cosby. There is a record, she was fired by a solid democrat. She actually attacked Bill's victims and made some of their lives hell. Now she said all victims should be heard? Really? Now that would be good dialog. Or say Larry doesn't agree with Bush on some policy or how he handled the post war. I'm pretty sure he's got areas of disagreement with Bush.
5
Great Helm Your truth is bullshit. Almost everything Larry said is backed up by facts. You not liking those facts and coming up with some silly lame ass psycho analysis isn't substantive. I've given my analysis above which adds to it. Because you learned something doesn't mean what you learned is right. Think for yourself before you argue, or don't argue because you're going on faith, not reason.
5
+Great Helm Syria, as the general of the Air Forces in Iraq disclosed, but was ignored. BUT we've lately discovered a bunch of inexplicable WMD type weapons in Syria ... wow. How could that be?
5
+ImmaterialDigression Saddam thought his ass was covered. He'd bribed members of the UN and Russia, China, and France. They didn't think Saddam would be so fucking crazy and to push the UN resolution that called for War if he didn't comply. He didn't comply. He had an informant on the inspection team and kept taking measures to listen in and find out what they'd do. He moved a lot of stuff around before inspections. Satellite photos proved this. The intelligence agencies of every country on the UN Security council said he was doubtlessly hiding WMD.
3
+Diana, the Inorganic Vegan Larry Elder is an idiot? lol. Your analysis of that point is laughable. He made excellent points of fact. Repeat after Dave ... people aren't idiots just because they don't agree with you. Try that a few times, learn it, live it, LOVE IT.
3
+Diana, the Inorganic Vegan Funny, it seems you didn't really watch what he said. I also expanded on his points if you care to read them, but since you didn't care enough to listen to the man I'm going to doubt you'd take the time to read a few more lines of historical fact that I wrote.
3
ImmaterialDigression Larry Elder, yes, he does make sense. Perfect sense. He's a very smart man, and you're probably just racist heheheh, (to take a typical line from the regressive idiots you've probably been fed by, on the subject). Larry probably doesn't jive with what you've been taught. The one to blame, was Saddam. You're saying Bush was insane? lol ... going on bible passages? When every country in the UN security council had independent intelligence saying Saddam was hiding WMD? Bush had brilliant people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. I know in your world they are probably maligned as idiots, but in the real world they and others Bush put on his cabinet were the best to be found and media said as much at the time. That they were less than brilliant, was rank propaganda. What about the declaration there was "no wmd in Iraq"? Then the fact they found a whole squadron of military jet aircraft AFTER that was declared? Intelligence agencies don't put out shit like that. If there is a negative they can't prove they say they have not found evidence of WMD. That statement was political, not intelligence related stuff.
2
Beppe Nope, the subject and point was who the people support. Democrats went after Bush for a bipartisan action for which he got Congressional support. Obama went way beyond that. Did some extremely stupid things if his goal was making countries better, and the media and Democrats didn't get all over Obama for it. A few did, not a significant noise made over it.
2
Libya, Soros was heavily involved in Libya before the "revolution" was manufactured. Soros was heavily involved in toppling Mubarak and getting the Muslim Brotherhood in. Soros is heavily involved in moving Muslim "refugees" into countries in mass without vetting. "refugees" who it turns out don't see themselves as refugees, but that they were brought in to make the societies better. They've actually said Angela Merkle invited them in and some threatened to leave if they didn't get better food, as if they were doing the countries they invaded a favor. Countries all over the world have been influencing police to not report accurately and media to hide problems, about the same in every country. Something stinks there. This isn't something countries decided to do organically, it's been designs and countries subscribed to the plan, including cover ups. Obama influenced our intelligence agencies to not look into Muslims as would be wise, especially considering Obama policy directly affected or more accuracy cause the missing of the San Bernardino mass murder jihadis. The Obama administration not only told agencies to stop looking at data, he killed a surveillance of mosques, one of which was the mosque which radicalized the killer in San Bernardino and his accomplice and probably put him in touch with his wife, the other shooter who should have been caught. Soros is huge in the open borders bullshit all over the world. Pushing the EU and they are pushing refugees and it's not consistent with other situations in the world. Now though, it's some kind of huge humanitarian emergency. Things are smelling really rotten in Denmark, and the rest of the EU and US. Areas of heavy Soros influence. Of course Soros isn't in this alone. He doesn't have near the resources to pull of the many things similar he's done. Things "just don't make sense!" umm, yeah, they do. If you take certain things which are taboo in the media and among politicos into account.
2
+TheRealXartaX He does segments, probably because most people won't watch longer shows through. He then does the whole show in one video. It's a smart way to do it. More people get to watch, unless they just go off without thinking it over and get all pissy n shit ;)
2
YoungDespereaux You understand, so you will really appreciate politicalislam.com. The whole helping get out of the dark ages thing isn't even founded, and he explains that in detail. I was taught that and believed it, but Muslims were never about learning, the Koran was all they wanted around and history and books were always to be destroyed. My theory on some intelligent influences were converts forced into conversion that didn't really align with the teachings of the Koran, because those are nothing but oppressive. That's what Islam is, war, conquest, oppression and basic parasitical behavior. When they have it all, they implode and fall. They live from stealing and slavery.
2
Paulie Walnuts Yeah, Saddam put a lot of murder and crazy meanness into his reputation. People were scared shitless of the man. He really needed that reputation. It goes a long way and gets things done without even having to back it up, which he did not fear to do either.
1
Something was political about the Intelligence Statement of No WMD in Iraq. Intelligence agencies don't make declarative statements to affirm a negative. After that we found an entire squadron of Iraqi jet aircraft ... hello? Also the Iraqi Air Force General said they moved a bunch of WMD materials to Syria, he was ignored. They also had ingredients for Serin Gas in the same proximity and all they had to do was take a couple hours to combine them. Residuals from Mustard agent was found in the Tigress river. Something was deeply political on this shit. Something that influenced intelligence to do a report as they'd never do it unless heavily unduly influenced.
1
TELEthruVOXx The US lead the way in Germany and Japan, and they turned out pretty damned well. We are not the same country today, but Europe is a mess, a worse mess.
1
mikeissjr How was Saddam a threat to us? He made direct threats to do the US serious harm. He was known to have nuclear material, dirty bomb anyone? Do you know what those accomplish? Massive death toll and a long term destruction of use of a large area, like say all the Burroughs in New York City maybe? Also turns out he was working with the Russians, Chinese and French. Chinese and Russia actually helped him prepare for war, and Russian Troops were in Iraq. Many killed in the initial attack. Saddam planed to invade Saudi, Iran, and other oil rich areas, with military help and support in the UN of officials he'd bribed and countries in the Security Council he'd bought off with this scheme.
1
mikeissjr Ask Saudi why they were scared shitless Saddam would attack them. He'd already been attacking Iran.I can't find reference to Russians killed, but it was news at the time. There had been Russian's involved in Iraq, and in a convoy which was bombed as the war started a bunch of Russians were found dead. This helps understand Russia had a long term presence in Iraq. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Russia_relations The UN authorized force if Saddam didn't comply with resolution 13. He's bought off much of the UN and I guess he didn't think he had to comply as nothing significant had been on the last 12 resolutions in a row he'd broken. Bush went along with the UN, Democrats were louder in their cry for war than Bush, notably Hillary Clinton and John Fucking Kerry, later Bill Clinton said he'd have taken the same action as GWB. It turns out (huge revelation) that the UN had been bribed and several countries in the UN security council as well. I guess they never figured that crazy bastard would break another resolution. He probably thought they'd shield him. The UN authorized force if Saddam didn't comply. He's been making threats against the US and other countries. He broke the resolution and every intelligence agency from security council countries said Saddam was hiding his WMD, as he spied on the inspectors movements, and moved things in a hurry in some places he found they would inspect. He broke it, force was authorized. Then the UN reneged as the US was on the way. As we were about to invade, the last possible days because of weather the democrats backed out, knowing if Bush stopped he would be a goat, and if he went forward they could use it against him. He pretty much had to go. There was credible threat and Saddam had been defying the UN from the very start and was starving huge segments of his population. Trying to completely wipe out the Kurds and other small groups and also creating extreme misery in Shiite populations which was most of Iraq. Bush did care about the UN, but they were extremely corrupted by Saddam. They've been extremely corrupt since conception and really should be disbanded, at least kicked out of the US. Bush shouldn't have given a fuck about the UN in it's state, but he did. He also shouldn't have listened to duplicitous assholes in the aftermath of the war, but he did. He had the best and brightest like Rumsfeld and others he should have just let take care of it, but he allowed idiots to impose their bullshit and the aftermath went stupid. Iran was influencing through their allies in Iraq, who we should have just wiped out, like Al Sadder. We should have hit Iran hard for their actions in Iraq, but we didn't. We should have used Iraqi oil to pay for the campaign they forced on US, but people were yammering about it, so Bush didn't, and then they bitched about how plans to pay for it didn't pan out. The same scum bags. I'm afraid your information on all that has been very skewed. More propaganda than reality.
1
mikeissjr Hell Fucking Low? I didn't say Russia being in Iraq was reason to attack. I backed up my true statement that some Russians were aiding Iraq. BUT the planning that was going on was MORE than reason to attack. Saddam taking Saudi and Iran with Chinese and Russian help? Yeah, that's reason to put a stop to that shit. You're kind of an idiot. I don't need your advice at all. You were influenced by propaganda. You shouldn't take that personally. The idiot thing? yeah, you should take that personally because you're being an asshole and you're responding in an obtuse way which has little to do with what I said. I've studied this shit backwards and forwards. I was around at the time it was going on and paying intense attention. I don't care what you think I should study. It didn't do you much fucking good.
1
silvafox07 Dude hit my unfunny bone I guess lol
1
mikeissjr Come now yourself. If you can't address what was actually said or add actual information to a discussion or even address by handle you have no place in the comment section of a man who prides himself on intelligent discussion. You walked in Daves nice home slobbering and shit all over yourself and it ran down your leg and soiled the floor.
1
mikeissjr You're disconnected from what actually occurred. Saudi did fear Saddam. Saddam did have allies in Russia and China, and France as far as the NSC went. Russia was helping Saddam, Russians were killed. China did bury cable for Saddam. The French were bought. The UN leadership was bribed and turned a blind eye to Saddam using the oil for food money and starving his own people. You blaugh blaugh past facts and slobber on about academic philosophy as if it trumps real circumstances. There were humanitarian concerns, you blaugh blaugh blaugh past that as if it didn't exist. Well it did. Saddam did break 13 UN resolutions in a row. Those giving him chance after chance adding to the treaty he agreed to, to keep him from being invaded at the time. A treaty that he broke. Mean while he was building arms up. Mass murdering people in Iraq he didn't want around. Buying dangerous allies. Bribing the UN. Threatening to make a terrible attack against the US. He's already attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. No, there were not multiple countries intel saying There were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion. Every country in the security council had their intelligence agencies saying he probably was hiding WMD because of how he was acting. Bill Clinton himself said he would have done what Bush did. Hillary and John Kerry were loud and then pulled out as we were past the point of no return. Bill Clinton said what he said after assessing the situation. You don't like the facts, that's fine. Just don't slobber all over them with mealy bullshit obfuscating real information to suit your ideological preferences. Don't skip over points of fact and talk about some academic shit that you think might somehow change those facts? That's just fucking stupid. You're wasting my time. You're not having an honest discussion, and I don't play around in a sophist sandbox. I don't care what you want facts to be. I care about what happened.
1
silvafox07 Sorry I missed that last comment. I have to disagree from a logical standpoint. Larry made his case using information. It's not something he just came up with. The information didn't change. Compromise isn't worth much if it's not honest, is it? The first step in such compromise would be finding ground to agree on. Not changing your position if you don't see different facts or different perspective on those facts. The subject isn't something about hurt feelings. It's about what actually happened. giving grounds on a personal disagreement isn't the same as a logical discussion on facts. It's all about facts, and the discussion may uncover certain facts for one or both they had not considered. Then it would be honest to change position on factual basis. Another position would be I want to smoke weed without being in danger of arrest. You want to have all the guns you want without being subject to harassment. We agree that both are legal and stop pushing to step on each others choices. Win Win, compromise. To say something happened that never did isn't compromise. Well I guess it would be compromising ones integrity. I know that sounded condescending, but I didn't mean it to be. Just getting down to the basics. In the spirit of compromise, I will concede Larry was a bit of a bulldozer and could have given Dave more chance to get his points out. Dave was extremely tolerant. Many would have become frustrated and pissed off. Not me though O_O nooo not me. lol
1
mikeissjr More than that, I don't believe you are honest in a deep way about trying to have an honest discussion or about my not attempting to have an honest discussion. Not honest in a sense that you've actually honestly assessed it using facts over biases. If we could actually concentrate on material facts, it would go someplace. I see you as avoiding those, which I honestly don't see as fully conscious, but I do feel you understand you're blowing a bit of smoke to avoid some facts. Better luck to you as well. Oh, you said both.
1
Owlz Eyez Yeah, that can be true, but a bit absolutist. Republicans can be much the same way. The difference in ideology is usually a product of environment born into, and later other important influences. I do find the left a lot more intolerant and less receptive to facts, but there are factions of republicans that are as bad or worse in that way. Republicans follow something a little less corrupt and something a little less dependent on propaganda. They follow the Constitution more, though some are more than willing to step on it to get their own ideology enforced on the people. The issue sure isn't black and white. I think Republican politicians would fall into many of the same traps as democrats (well they do, but not as prevalently) if their constituents didn't hold them to tighter account. People from Blue areas are most of the metro area in the country. Metro areas are far more corrupt. Democrats do about 90% of the murder in the country. That isn't imaginary. It's statistical.
1
Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor That's pretty ironic, and I'll tell you why. Evaluation of what Larry says and the situations he speaks of shows the Iraq war was bipartisan and approved by congress and most people in the country. Libya, Egypt, and what was tried in Syria, quite the opposite. The dim bulbs trying to make direct comparison are missing important stuff, which is specific information. Mindlessly equalizing dissimilar situations, and drawing a simple conclusion that Larry's position isn't intelligent because of a idiotic comparison? THAT is a hallmark of Partisan Ideologues. WTF is wrong with you people? Did someone steal your thinkers and do something terrible with them?
1
Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor Ironic again lol, that would make such erroneous statements and then call me a Moron (>.<) That's very rich, and pretty entertaining. There were several countries involved. Every country in the UN security council concluded Saddam was hiding WMD. Democrats in congress who were LOUD about it had access to the same intelligence. You war was manufactured isn't only a conspiracy theory, which isn't bad on it's own, there are conspiracies and always have been, but there are not facts to back this up. You probably got this info from someone who is a very bad source and very obviously biased. If you give a fuck about reality, I'd be skeptical of this source. The facts remain. Congressionally approved on the intelligence of several different countries, not just the CIA, for what the US did while Bush was Commander in Chief. The facts now? Idiotic actions in Egypt which got the Muslim Brotherhood into power. Or they were deliberate? Idiotic action against Libya (or deliberate?) which ISIS is taking over and may well use as it's base. Unfounded action against Syria, who was fighting what we now know as ISIS. Assad was going after crazies who were killing Christians, Other religions, Kurds, and Muslims they thought were to secular, as in not murdering people of different faiths. Then there is IRAN. Huge legitimate uprising AGAINST the crazies who kill gay people and stone raped women for Adultery in public. Uprising because they cheated the election. They were murdering their own people in the streets. In the whole spirit that got us to fuck up things in Egypt, Lybia, and try to fuck up Syria ... why not help the good people in Iran? Who were not the crazies? Well, what do you think? So, you are not only ignorant of facts and very lose with stupid accusations you can't back up ... your thoughts on this (maybe thoughts is a bad way to put it?) are disconnected with many realities you should be able to pick up on if you pay any kind of attention to what's going on. If you do any study of history involving the subject, that would be even more helpful. YOU, call ME, a Moron? HAHAHAHA! That's great. You say Larry Elder with all of his information and cogent analysis ... an ideologue? wow. Clue, if you want to see ideologues, look at the source of your painfully misinformed views. Views a little bit of actual thought should bring doubt to.
1
Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor Oh sweet, you've also been taught that being a curt dick is clever. Shake it off man, Shake it off. Brevity is great for something mutually understood. Unraveling bullshit perceived as truth can be complicated. Things must be explained and contrasted. Plus, it's true. I'm no journalistic master. I've found truths to be the most valuable. Though truth viewed through a prism of flawed syntax is less clear and harder to see. So, I don't discount the value. The whole thing seems kind of personal to you, lol. I've got great advice that can help maybe? Don't make politics into religion. That will leave you stupid, and bitter, because life is hard. Harder when you're stupid ... I just had to toss that John Wayne in as the fit came up.
1
Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor I don't care much for republicans. Any party too into heavy central government is corruptive and things will keep sliding ... hey, maybe a constitutional party candidate will take it and we'll flush the shit out. Bear Grills looks right on you. Loud, low substance wannabe :))
1
Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor The clown better not come try to eat my pets!
1
The Paul's capitalize on the young idiot vote. War is bad, without really factoring in that some war reduces war in the long run. I know that goes 180 from some stupid conventional wisdom, but considering conventional wisdom's abysmal record of being way off from reality, I'm totally cool wid dat. (I know, I've lost all credibility cause I said "wid dat" and cause I said "cause" O_O
1
TheRealXartaX Just sayin, he comes out with the long versions after, so you know. And he's got a good reason for how he does it. Smart guy. I was thinking it wouldn't make sense to be tweaked and tantrumy about it, since he does do a long show, which is what you want.
1
+YoungDespereaux Usama's problem with the US was that we, and others, were in his 'Holy Land" at all, the bigoted asshole. Saddam attacked Kuwait and took it, killed a lot of people and took many slaves and stole their oil and their stuff, and their country. Most of the ME wanted us to help out on the first thing in Kuwait. Especially Saudi and Iran who Saddam had set sights on. Radical Muslims have a problem with non Muslims being on the earth. It's a matter of time before they go to invade and others are in the way, because it's the whole damned world. read up politicalislam.com
1
YoungDespereaux The conventional wisdom on that one is all wet. Islam has a problem with non Islam, and even a problem with different schools of thought and heritage within Islam. It's kind of like it was with the Nazis. Making nice with Hitler didn't help a damned thing. It won't with Islam either.
1
YoungDespereaux The death of civilians was brought on by actions that required pushing back. The propaganda that's tied to the situation is something that's always done. It's not honest. Nothing we could have done about it but just let shit burn at the time. Allow Saddam to over run the Middle East, and he would have had Russian and Chinese allies in it as we found later. Sounds a little like WWII don't it? Appeasing Hitler seemed like a good idea, to idiots, at the time. Churchill was called a war mongering idiot. Churchill was unfortunately vindicated and it cost around 60 million lives and extreme amounts of human suffering.
1
YoungDespereaux NPR? lol. They've become pretty much national propaganda radio. Selective on facts and slanted presentation. The Chinese laid underground cable for Saddam to help stop communications from being cut if they were to be attacked by the US. Russian troops were actually killed in Iraq when it started. Documents were found as to plans and implicated Russia, China, France having been bribed and to help in future plans. Media isn't big on having those facts around, but I remember from when those documents were found in a bombed building. I didn't know Kim Jung Un jilted Xi, sounds like a suicidal move since they're his backup. I wouldn't trust appearances with those 2.
1
YoungDespereaux The Chinese laid underground cable for Saddam and the Russians were actually there. They had a good number killed in the war when it started. They were in a convoy. I wouldn't under estimate what the Chinese would do for ownership of oil, which was offered them in exchange for help, as well as Russia and France. It affected the security council vote. Saddam taking Iran and Saudi as well as Kuwait again and some other oil producing nations would be a huge problem, Russia and China backing them up. That was the plan, the help being given and the presence are real history. That would not have been good. We were at a breaking point similar to where Churchill started warning about the Nazi's and people didn't listen. We won't ever know what would have happened ... but that may well be a good thing. It would have been concerning the Nazis, though if we never saw the events unfold it would have been second guessed. Probably much like the invasion of Iraq was. That invasion was vital for a number of reasons. Thwarting 13 UN resolutions that called for Saddam's ouster is one good one. To let Saddam go like that and then never enforce the treaty? It would be a message to any crazy out there they could do what they wanted without consequence. Saddam was killing off his own people, genocidal intentions with a few groups. It was horrible. The conventional wisdom on this subject is anything but wise.
1
YoungDespereaux I see the whole Republicans thing with Iran as bullshit. They were in Iranian waters and they didn't kill the guys or anything. Taking them is was harsh, but understandable, much as I really hate the Iranian regime. The nuke power deal though is supremely fucking stupid, those fuckers are really nuts. Our not helping the revolting forces in Iran who were justified is unforgivable given what we did in Egypt, Libya, and tried to do in Syria against leaders who were keeping the crazy fucks from murdering wholesale and purging all who were not Muslims the way they thought Muslims should be Muslim. The Iranians are the crazy fucks we should be fighting against. Most of their people the sane folks we should fight for, but NOOOOOOOOO ... MOTHING FUCKING NOOOOOOOO ... kinda pisses me off! just a lil. The problem with Islam isn't people invading. They are the largest and most inhumane invaders in the history of the world. That is saying something, because in history inhumanity has been the rule, rather than exception. Read up and watch the Vids. This guy is good on the subject. politicalislam.com he approaches from a scientific perspective and analysis the Koran, and Islam throughout history. ISIS is ISLAM as it's laid out in the Koran. They are doing it according to their doctrine. No question. Their "sensibilities" are one sided, discounting the rest of humanity, and the most bigoted fucking thing on planet earth. My take on it? FUCK ISLAM, Fuck followers of the Koran. It's a genocidal cult. We should be helping people get away from the cult, giving them safe haven, but we're bringing in the worst of them. Making those who's escaped Islam shit their pants in fear which is very well justified.
1