Log In Forums Help
Comic Collector Live
Home :: CCL Messageboard
Find Comics for Sale
Items For Sale
All Comics For Sale
New Releases
CGC Comics
Bundled Lots
Store Locator
Search Library
Search By Title
Publisher
Story Arc
Character
Credits
Release Date
Change Request Manager
News & Reviews
Reviews
News
Our Products and Services
Get the Software
Buying Comics And Stuff
Selling Your Comics
Opening A Store
Community
Forum
Store Locator
Member Locator
Welcome Guest Active Topics
War with Syria Options
comicuniversity
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:53:16 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
pottersan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
lol. I would advise readin those articles before using them as evidence.

I mean, even a cursory glance showed that your last article directly contradicts the others.

I mean, the last one says they finally found the FIRST WMD.....in an article dated 2010. And, the other articles are before 2010. So.....draw your own conclusions, I guess.

I mean, potter, you know your my guy.

But the other reports, that are directly contradicted by your last one talk about stores of chemicals that had been sitting, unused for over a decade...not the WMDS that W. sold us on....and you know that.


We hear a lot about these reports of a store of degraded chemicals that aren't weaponizeable(?)...however, in enough doses they could be lethal. First, we all know that aint what W. was talking about.

Second, in enough doses dish soap can be lethal.
My point is read the UN resolutions and see what they actually said. They were very specific on what he could and could not have and the actions that were allowable in the event of any breach... I think they were 677 678 686 and 687...I'll post them later this week...


I get that, to the letter of the law he shouldn't have ahd them...and i also get that, to the letter of the definition they are considered EVIDENCE of WMD.I will concede that point.....but....

Do you believe that George W. Bush purposely sent our nation to war to get rid of almost 10-20 year old canisters of non-useable(that word "non-useable" comes from your sources) chemicals?

Further, do you, as an American citizen, believe we should be going to war over 10-20 year old canisters of non-useable chemicals?


Those are the only questions necessary to answer. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a hog (lol).


comicuniversity
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:55:05 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
pottersan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
...I mean, even a cursory glance showed that your last article directly contradicts the others.

I mean, the last one says they finally found the FIRST WMD.....in an article dated 2010. And, the other articles are before 2010. So.....draw your own conclusions, I guess....

The article was from the Daily Mail in the UK, so I'm sure they did not do their homework too well to know about the previous discoveries...Probably too busy waiting to see what Victoria was wearing to her hubbies soccer match!



LMAO!

But...you used it as a source! Is it a creditable source, or not.

I can tell yu one thing that isn't opinion.....
comicuniversity
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:55:32 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Your store here on CCL is awesome! and I am making another purchase soon.
pottersan
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:02:23 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
pottersan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
lol. I would advise readin those articles before using them as evidence.

I mean, even a cursory glance showed that your last article directly contradicts the others.

I mean, the last one says they finally found the FIRST WMD.....in an article dated 2010. And, the other articles are before 2010. So.....draw your own conclusions, I guess.

I mean, potter, you know your my guy.

But the other reports, that are directly contradicted by your last one talk about stores of chemicals that had been sitting, unused for over a decade...not the WMDS that W. sold us on....and you know that.


We hear a lot about these reports of a store of degraded chemicals that aren't weaponizeable(?)...however, in enough doses they could be lethal. First, we all know that aint what W. was talking about.

Second, in enough doses dish soap can be lethal.
My point is read the UN resolutions and see what they actually said. They were very specific on what he could and could not have and the actions that were allowable in the event of any breach... I think they were 677 678 686 and 687...I'll post them later this week...


I get that, to the letter of the law he shouldn't have ahd them...and i also get that, to the letter of the definition they are considered EVIDENCE of WMD. I will concede that point.....but....

Do you believe that George W. Bush purposely sent our nation to war to get rid of almost 10-20 year old canisters of non-useable chemicals?

Further, do you, as an American citizen, believe we should be going to war over 10-20 year old canisters of non-useable chemicals?


Those are the on.ly questions necessary to answer. Anything else is just putting lipstick on a hog (lol).


Judging by Saddam's previous actions;
Inhumane brutality against his opponents (get a copy of Uncle Saddam on DVD)
Stating that anyone whose ideas come in conflict with his regime would be subject to execution.
Attempted ethnic cleansing of the Kurds.
Religious persecution.
The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983
Attempting to assassinate a US President.
The Dujail Massacre of 1982:
Invasion of Kuwait.

The list goes on....
We rid Europe of Hitler and it's glamorized.
We rid the Middle East of Saddam and it's reviled.

Anyway, I'm tired too....I'll be back tomorrow.

Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
pottersan
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:03:26 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
Your store here on CCL is awesome! and I am making another purchase soon.
Cool, $35.00 on your tab....

Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
lbej
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:02:27 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
pottersan wrote:

Judging by Saddam's previous actions;
Inhumane brutality against his opponents (get a copy of Uncle Saddam on DVD)
Stating that anyone whose ideas come in conflict with his regime would be subject to execution.
Attempted ethnic cleansing of the Kurds.
Religious persecution.
The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983
Attempting to assassinate a US President.
The Dujail Massacre of 1982:
Invasion of Kuwait.

The list goes on....
We rid Europe of Hitler and it's glamorized.
We rid the Middle East of Saddam and it's reviled.

Anyway, I'm tired too....I'll be back tomorrow.


I have three huge objections to the Saddam=Hitler analogy.

First, we didn't invade Nazi-occupied Europe in 1944 because Hitler was a bad man. We knew that Hitler was jailing and murdering his opponents when we attended the Berlin Olympics in 1936. We knew (or should have known) that Hitler was murdering millions of innocent civilians for years before D-Day, and the U.S. is criticized to this day for failing to bomb the rails that carried Holocaust victims to the death camps or to do anything else to cripple the murder machine before liberating the camps one by one. We were fighting a war. Nazi Germany declared war on the US and we were determined to win that war.

Second, a better analogy is Saddam=Stalin. Why did the US consider it necessary to conquer Germany and destroy the Nazi regime entirely? Because Hitler had proven he would stop at nothing to extend Germany's borders, and not even the likelihood of military defeat would stop him. Saddam, like Stalin, would make calculated moves to test the resolve of the West, but when he met with resistance, he would retreat. Both were ruthless opportunists, but both understood 'the logic of force' (as George Kennan said of the USSR). George HW Bush understood that Saddam could be contained, much as the USSR had been, and the regime would collapse, though it might take a long time. Hitler could not be contained because he believed it was Germany's destiny to rule the world and he was an instrument of that destiny--like a rabid dog, he would not stop unless destroyed.

So if Saddam is like Stalin, we had no business treating him like Hitler...unless that's what the American people wanted. This is a democracy, and we should get what we want (and reap the rewards/suffer the consequences). If the Bush Administration had sold the Iraq invasion strictly on the basis of Saddam's evil nature, that would be different. He presented Saddam as a clear and present national security threat, however, and that was not the case. Saddam had been contained successfully since the Gulf War--the strategy was working.

Third and lastly, if the justification for removing Saddam was his evil behavior, does that obligate the U.S. to land millions of troops in Africa and clear out all the warlords plaguing that continent? Do we have to march into Russia and China and impose our human rights standards on those regimes? We would become crusaders, imposing our morality on the world by force. Again, if that's what the American people want, so be it. But to invade on the basis of a supposed clear and present national security threat and retcon the justification after the fact to ridding the world of evil isn't a legitimate way for elected leaders to behave.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
BruceReville
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:52:41 AM

Rank: Watcher
Groups: Member

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 968
Points: 2,904
pottersan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Your store here on CCL is awesome! and I am making another purchase soon.
Cool, $35.00 on your tab....


I am making a purchase at your store to and it is the Bomb-Diggaty!!!!! Big Grin

Did It Work? Pray

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Collect Again --- VARIANTS STRIKE!



freakdylan
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 7:45:34 AM

Rank: Watcher
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/4/2012
Posts: 891
Points: 6,157
lbej wrote:

Third and lastly, if the justification for removing Saddam was his evil behavior, does that obligate the U.S. to land millions of troops in Africa and clear out all the warlords plaguing that continent?


Africa doesnt have anything of worth with easy access that isnt already US owned or operated. (Or other world power owned) Iraq had tons and tons of oil, and conveniently Dick Cheneys old company Halliburton took home 40 Billion worth of contracts after the Iraq war. (5 times more then any other company)


lbej wrote:
Do we have to march into Russia and China and impose our human rights standards on those regimes?


lol, but they have nukes. Think of the USA more like bullies we only pick on the weak.


Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

ComicCastle
TreeHouse
Hall Of Heroes
Thundercron's Longbox
DrumCzar


Now for the sellers helping me finish my TMNT collection:

Hall Of Heroes
Green Bay Comics



lbej
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:15:25 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
comicuniversity wrote:
As an aside, i am going to post this here.

I am verrrryyy passionate about the hate filled political divide our country now finds itself in. Our government (and by extension too many American citizens) seem to have lost the ability to compromise, and have, instead found the ability to blindly fight the other side vainly.


This is a critical point and I agree 100%, especially because this absurd divide is what is underlying and undermining our ability to change our conclusions when the facts change. It is not 'flip-flopping' to reverse course when new information disproves your assumptions and therefore invalidates your argument--if you can't change your mind when the facts change, it's not because you're 'principled,' it's because you're egotistic and/or afraid. You would rather be wrong going forward than admit you have been wrong in the past, and that is a terrible moral flaw. I'm not accusing anyone here of that, because I don't know enough about anyone here to do so. But in my opinion, more politicians are guilty of that than aren't. Every person makes mistakes, and our leaders are no different, no matter which letter you see in parentheses after their names.

We can't have policy discussions now without those discussions becoming politicized, and we can't have political discussions without those discussions becoming polarized. That is terrible for this country. The media drives the polarization (a polarized audience is a loyal audience), but we citizens are responsible for our unwillingness or inability to reject that way of thinking. We behave as though we're arguing about sports (Steelers rule! Ravens stink!) instead of policy. The Iraq War was great because Bush rules! Syria is a mess because Obama stinks! Policy debates are little more than sporting events with political buzzwords. Obama stinks because liberal media! Bush stinks because big oil!

I'll never root for the Ravens, because I'm a Steelers fan and I hate the Ravens. I don't have to explain that or justify it, because it's just a game. Public policy-making isn't a game and we can't treat it that way. I agree with some Republican platform positions and disagree with others, and the same is true of Democratic platform positions. The parties themselves change over time. The South used to be a stronghold for the Democrats, then Kennedy and Johnson changed the party's agenda in the 1960s, and now the South is as red as it was blue. Did the South change? No sir, we did not--the political parties did.

Will I root for the Ravens if I like their players? No. Will I root for them if my son plays for them one day? Maybe...unless they play the Steelers.

I haven't decided who I'll vote for in 2016--how can I, when I don't know who's running or what policy positions he or she will take? And that puts me solidly in the minority.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
lbej
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:30:46 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
freakdylan wrote:
lbej wrote:

Third and lastly, if the justification for removing Saddam was his evil behavior, does that obligate the U.S. to land millions of troops in Africa and clear out all the warlords plaguing that continent?


Africa doesnt have anything of worth with easy access that isnt already US owned or operated. (Or other world power owned) Iraq had tons and tons of oil, and conveniently Dick Cheneys old company Halliburton took home 40 Billion worth of contracts after the Iraq war. (5 times more then any other company)


lbej wrote:
Do we have to march into Russia and China and impose our human rights standards on those regimes?


lol, but they have nukes. Think of the USA more like bullies we only pick on the weak.


I don't agree that we're bullies picking on the weak--don't lump me in with Dick Cheney. I believe we try to do the right thing so far as we know what that is, and the effect 9/11 had on the way we looked at the world--the Arab world especially--can't be overstated in explaining public support for the Iraq War.

We don't pick fights we can't win because it would be disastrous for our safety and prosperity as a nation--I don't think that's immoral at all. For an elected leader, pragmatism is a moral imperative, because his duty is to serve the interests of the nation. If an elected leader puts his personal interests (moral or material) above the interests of the people he's sworn to serve, that is immoral in and of itself. We can't turn Africa, Russia, or China into Western-style democracies by force, and it would be arrogant to think otherwise and irresponsible to try. We tried in Iraq and Afghanistan and the best we can say is that the jury's still out. We won't try in Syria.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
pottersan
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:40:39 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
Nice, I have alot of comments to respond to when I get off work!

In the mean time, give this a read. I have the book (Saddam's Secrets) but haven't read it yet.

In the light of the chemical attacks in Syria, here's a 1st hand account on where those "WMDs" came from. This came out back in 2006;

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL, Staff Reporter of the Sun | January 26, 2006

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Print Send Comment Share

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.

The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.

Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr. Sada's claim independently will face difficulty. His book contains a foreword by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, David Eberly, who was a prisoner of war in Iraq during the first Gulf War and who vouches for Mr. Sada, who once held him captive, as "an honest and honorable man."

In his visit to the Sun yesterday, Mr. Sada was accompanied by Terry Law, the president of a Tulsa, Oklahoma based Christian humanitarian organization called World Compassion. Mr. Law said he has known Mr. Sada since 2002, lived in his house in Iraq and had Mr. Sada as a guest in his home in America. "Do I believe this man? Yes," Mr. Law said. "It's been solid down the line and everything checked out."

Said Mr. Law, "This is not a publicity hound. This is a man who wants peace putting his family on the line."

Mr. Sada acknowledged that the disclosures about transfers of weapons of mass destruction are "a very delicate issue." He said he was afraid for his family. "I am sure the terrorists will not like it. The Saddamists will not like it," he said.

He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We have been freed."

He said he had not shared his story until now with any American officials. "I kept everything secret in my heart," he said. But he is scheduled to meet next week in Washington with Senators Sessions and Inhofe, Republicans of, respectively, Alabama and Oklahoma. Both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on Israel.

When, during an interview with the Sun in April 2004, Vice President Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had seen such reports.

An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as "completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.

Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or use chemical weapons. Syria's chemical warfare program, apart from any weapons that may have been received from Iraq, has long been the source of concern to America, Israel, and Lebanon. In March 2004, the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying, "Damascus has an active CW development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group acknowledged in its September 30, 2004, "Comprehensive Report," "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not yet been able to investigate this possibility thoroughly."

Mr. Sada is an unusual figure for an Iraqi general as he is a Christian and was not a member of the Baath Party. He now directs the Iraq operations of the Christian humanitarian organization, World Compassion.




Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
BruceReville
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:08:13 PM

Rank: Watcher
Groups: Member

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 968
Points: 2,904
Parliament Says No!

House of Commons Vote

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Collect Again --- VARIANTS STRIKE!



comicuniversity
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:34:39 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Potter...I am not saying that what is in that article is definitely wrong.

But, I will say that "The Sun", which is the source, is well known to be one of the least reputable and reliable journalistic entities in the free world.

The Sun is routinely found to have falsified data, reports and even completely made up interviews and sources.

besides being owned (at the time of that article) by Rupert Murdoch, who is well regarded as one of the great yellow journalists of our time---who is an admitted conservative shill.

It's a Tabloid. Literally.


So, again, the report may be true, but I'd have to see it reported by a more reliable source before I believed it. Know what I mean?
pottersan
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:58:40 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
Potter...I am not saying that what is in that article is definitely wrong.

But, I will say that "The Sun", which is the source, is well known to be one of the least reputable and reliable journalistic entities in the free world.

The Sun is routinely found to have falsified data, reports and even completely made up interviews and sources.

besides being owned (at the time of that article) by Rupert Murdoch, who is well regarded as one of the great yellow journalists of our time---who is an admitted conservative shill.

It's a Tabloid. Literally.


So, again, the report may be true, but I'd have to see it reported by a more reliable source before I believed it. Know what I mean?
Like maybe....this guy? The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force.....See above article.

Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
pottersan
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:01:15 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 9/28/2007
Posts: 4,489
Points: 44,329
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington
comicuniversity wrote:
Potter...I am not saying that what is in that article is definitely wrong.

But, I will say that "The Sun", which is the source, is well known to be one of the least reputable and reliable journalistic entities in the free world.

The Sun is routinely found to have falsified data, reports and even completely made up interviews and sources.

besides being owned (at the time of that article) by Rupert Murdoch, who is well regarded as one of the great yellow journalists of our time---who is an admitted conservative shill.

It's a Tabloid. Literally.

So, again, the report may be true, but I'd have to see it reported by a more reliable source before I believed it. Know what I mean?
Don't forget, a tabloid broke the John Edwards admitted having an extramarital affair story....It's the blind squirrel finding a nut theory!

Join me on Marvel War of Heroes! Alphacomics, use referral code eng572582 and get bonus items!!



Visit My Facebook Page!

Alpha Comics has LOOSE Action Figures & T Shirts!

Other great CCL Stores;
BlueMoon Comics, The Comic Book Stop, Comics Castle, ComicVortex, TREEHOUSE , The Android's Dungeon, Nerdgasm_Comics
lbej
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:49:24 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
And then the rest of the media picked up the Edwards story. If a story of this magnitude never gained ANY traction outside of a Murdoch tabloid--including in other Murdoch media outlets--it's because it didn't have credibility. One of Saddam's cronies (a renowned bunch of truth-tellers) has a book to sell, and he makes some outlandish claims; a tabloid picks them up; the story dies there. No journalist at a credible paper wants to pick this up and win a Pulitzer? Fox News doesn't run this on the ticker 24/7? Come on.

Drawing the Baath Party connection is a stretch. Syria is an Iranian ally--as the Iranians are making clear this week--and Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies. Saddam transfers weapons to a Syrian regime that could well be expected to hand them over to the only country he despises as much or more than the U.S.? Come on.

Each of us can and will believe what he wants about what Saddam did or didn't have, but pointing out that the Edwards story started in a tabloid simply makes it more conspicuous that the Sun's 'scoop'--even with the News Corp resources available--was DOA.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
lbej
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:04:24 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
And even if Saddam did have an active weapons program on the scale the Administration suggested he had prior to the invasion, there was no reason to abandon the successful containment strategy in place since 1991. Absent evidence that Saddam was transferring nuclear technology to other rogue states or terrorist groups, he was less of an immediate threat in 2003 than in 1991 due to the effect of sanctions, surveillance, and the northern and southern no-fly zones. To abandon an effective containment strategy when we hadn't completed the mission in Afghanistan was irresponsible. The biggest threat in the region wasn't Iraq or Afghanistan--it's Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons; Pakistan transferred nuclear technology to another rogue state (North Korea); and Pakistan harbored bin Laden and who knows how many other al-Qaeda members. Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. No one misses Saddam, but his fate would have been the same as that of the Soviet Union if the Bush Administration hadn't abandoned containment.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
lbej
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:08:36 AM

Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Moderator, Subscriber

Joined: 6/7/2009
Posts: 316
Points: 948
Location: North Carolina
Separately, I think it's impressive how civil and respectful people in this forum are (in general) despite how contentious these issues can be. The rest of the country could learn a thing or two from comic book fans.

Please make sure you read and understand the forum rules here
comicuniversity
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:00:40 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
pottersan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Potter...I am not saying that what is in that article is definitely wrong.

But, I will say that "The Sun", which is the source, is well known to be one of the least reputable and reliable journalistic entities in the free world.

The Sun is routinely found to have falsified data, reports and even completely made up interviews and sources.

besides being owned (at the time of that article) by Rupert Murdoch, who is well regarded as one of the great yellow journalists of our time---who is an admitted conservative shill.

It's a Tabloid. Literally.

So, again, the report may be true, but I'd have to see it reported by a more reliable source before I believed it. Know what I mean?
Don't forget, a tabloid broke the John Edwards admitted having an extramarital affair story....It's the blind squirrel finding a nut theory!



But don't you think, as an interested party, you have to be responsible enough to know when a source is not creditable and to double check those facts?

I mean, you know that nothing in the Sun (except the page 3 girl) can be believed at face value. Nothing. not saying nothing they report is true. Just saying nothing can be considered true at face value. With a paper as disreputable as the Sun, you have to check and see if the story is being backed up by other news organizations...or other sources of any kind.

This story was not. I actually checked. This story was not reported anywhere else I could find. (Granted I didnt spend hours doing an exhaustive search...but with a story as big as this one I shouldn't have to).
hence....we can't believe it.


I mean, if that Michael moore guy said something bad about Bush in a documentary, you wouldn't believe it at face value, would you?
freakdylan
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:33:29 AM

Rank: Watcher
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/4/2012
Posts: 891
Points: 6,157
comicuniversity wrote:
I mean, you know that nothing in the Sun (except the page 3 girl) can be believed at face value.


Hell even part of those page 3 girls are usually fake, lol


Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

ComicCastle
TreeHouse
Hall Of Heroes
Thundercron's Longbox
DrumCzar


Now for the sellers helping me finish my TMNT collection:

Hall Of Heroes
Green Bay Comics



Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

This page was generated in 0.785 seconds.

ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All images on comic collector live copyright of their respective publishers. © Copyright 2008, MidTen Media Inc. GOLO241