4 ms·

If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

by afshin 16y ago

If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_...

anamax 16y ago
> If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear. The evidence for what "is pretty clear"? Your reference says that some support was provided. It doesn't tell us how significant that support was given Hussein's other resources. (No "billions" isn't necessarily significant.) As far as "nitpicking" goes, you wrote "entirely" to score political points. Why do you think that it's unreasonable to point out that you overstated that case and knew about it? Feel free to assert that you'd give someone with whom you disagreed a pass if they'd done as you have.
- afshin 16y ago
  Here's my comment below with direct quotations from that article. If you're going to argue that I'm being nebulous, then you should perhaps have read the article a little more carefully. As for "scoring political points", I'm pointing out what I understood to be a matter of public record and common knowledge. Having had to look into it more to satisfy commenters here today has not revealed much evidence to the contrary. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424
  - anamax 16y ago
    > As for "scoring political points", I'm pointing out what I understood to be a matter of public record and common knowledge. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you "understood" Hussein to be "entirely funded". I'm even willing to believe that it is "common knowledge". Heck - I'm certain that one can even find "records" supporting that position. The problem is that it appears to be false. > Having had to look into it more to satisfy commenters here today has not revealed much evidence to the contrary. Are you serious? You're going back to "entirely funded"? Wowsers.

by afshin 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear. The evidence for what "is pretty clear"? Your reference says that some support was provided. It doesn't tell us how significant that support was given Hussein's other resources. (No "billions" isn't necessarily significant.) As far as "nitpicking" goes, you wrote "entirely" to score political points. Why do you think that it's unreasonable to point out that you overstated that case and knew about it? Feel free to assert that you'd give someone with whom you disagreed a pass if they'd done as you have.

afshin 16y ago
Here's my comment below with direct quotations from that article. If you're going to argue that I'm being nebulous, then you should perhaps have read the article a little more carefully. As for "scoring political points", I'm pointing out what I understood to be a matter of public record and common knowledge. Having had to look into it more to satisfy commenters here today has not revealed much evidence to the contrary. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424
- anamax 16y ago
  > As for "scoring political points", I'm pointing out what I understood to be a matter of public record and common knowledge. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you "understood" Hussein to be "entirely funded". I'm even willing to believe that it is "common knowledge". Heck - I'm certain that one can even find "records" supporting that position. The problem is that it appears to be false. > Having had to look into it more to satisfy commenters here today has not revealed much evidence to the contrary. Are you serious? You're going back to "entirely funded"? Wowsers.