monty16

Yeah, that's the solution for sure. The only trouble is, nobody asked Iraqis.

If your knowledge of the issue goes no deeper than your not understanding that Osama was not working on behalf of the Saudi monarchy then there's no purpose of me even trying to discuss it with you. At least some facts have been established since 9/11 because Osama never did keep it a secret. However, I recognize the fact that some could never come to terms with admitting Osama's agenda was not in cooperating with his family's alignment with evil. In fact, I think you do understand but have now gotten yourself so immersed in the negativity you're feeling that you aren't going to be rational for a while. I'll know when you come back so you don't have to let us know.

I don't really consider that you are adequately prepared for that sort of discussion and so I'm not going there. So even if Saddam did invade Iran then it still wouldn't have anything whatsoever with the claims I've been making. Why? Why is that so? If you can answer that simple question then you will have demonstrated that you have at least started to do your homework assignments. Persian Gulf? You could maybe mean the Arabian Peninsula? For what that's worth?

That's ridiculous. The reason why the US hasn't attacked the Saudis is because the 911 freedom fighters weren't working on behalf of their country. They were actually working against their evil monarchy that was being propped up by the US. Again, a point that both of us are fully aware of. Why would you try to turn it into something else? However, if you don't understand that the Saudi monarchy are the good guys then we'll start at the beginning. Be attentive, there will be a test! Dawwwwwgggg, you'd think that Saudi still celebrates Osama's birthday!

Stop spamming the forum with your ridiculous ideas. Canada doesn't have the best in the world. Other countries that practice universal health care have the best. Exclusively, the best.

It wasn't an argument about legality. All wars are illegal if you think it's a legal question. But I'll take that until you can come up with something better. I doubt it because you're obviously starting to complain about this thread being too much about Saddam now. Doohhhhhhhh! But I can be honest and objective even if you choose not to be. Saddam ran a tight ship and when other factions that couldn't live within his rules acted up, he didn't dick around slapping their wrists. He offed a lot of them on the pretence that they were traitors. In retrospect, he was right. Notwithstanding that he had succeeded in maintaining control of the various factions of course. Some would even try to say he killed Christians and didn't let them practice their faith but we both know that's not true. So the only difference between what Saddam did to traitors and what the US does to military combatants of the other side is that the US gives them a trial sometimes. And sometimes they just torture them for years and kill them. another fact we are both aware of right? And in fact, the only real difference I can think of is that Saddam had succeeded and the US obviously never will. You can change the subject away from Iraq now if you wish, unless you have some gem of information you're keeping from us?

Well there ya go, it only needed to be explained on who you were on about. Thos fighting against Assad are my US supported terrorists and probably you would like to call them your freedom fighters. But you don't want to go either way yet and so I'll be watching for your comments on those ones. In fact, I may even go back and find where you have described them as one or the other. Ya think?

Who are you talking about? Freedom fighters or terrorists? Which ones? Answer that then maybe you have answered the question I posed with this thread. Suggestion: Those fighting against Assad are fighting for what? Love your style Shady!

Do they Brian? I'm not really aware of any honest disagreements but am anxious of hearing that to which you are referring. Good item for discussion as long as we can keep it on track! Initially, I'll just say that I don't consider the CPC as being honest in the least with regard to our health care system. There's little doubt though that it needs to walk very cautiously on how it handles their problem. Canadians are going to require a lot of conditioning before they will give up even the smallest bit of what Tommy Douglas gave us. It's just not in the cards. Any suggestions?

None at the moment, but if you make erroneous charges against me and then fail to back them up or address them specifically, I will suggest that your purpose is to deliberately 'spam' the forum.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=21494 Make no mistake, read the last paragraph for their solution. These people don't pretend and neither should the Harper government.

All Canadians get health care in a timely manner. Waiting times can serve a useful purpose as long as they are applied in a discriminating manner. In fact the funding for health care has not been expanded by the Conservatives in a 'net' effect way. In any case, the Fraser Institute is opposed to universal health care and that's not debatable. If you think it is then try to debate it. And neither is it debatable that the Conservatives are fully supportive of the Fraser Institute. And why would any conservative not want to accept those facts? (conservative small c) Is it not abundantly clear that the right in both Canada and the US are adamantly opposed to universal health care? Do conservatives want to try to divorce themselves from their own declared agenda?

I'm going to charge you with being dishonest and discriminatory for posting those pictures. The reason why I do that is because they are no more descriptive of Saddam or Saddam's Iraq than are pictures of the US's hundreds of thousands of victims in Vietnam. It differs only in the extent of the crimes against humanity. And fwiw, you could do better by showing some of the mass graves credited to Iraq. Say thanks for that. You're running from the discussion and so I'll just end it here with you. If you want to continue at any time by picking up on the challenge in a meaningful way then i'll be here. I will caution you strongly at this point to stay within the rules of good behaviour that this forum insists upon.

You've been outgunned and outclassed lad. In any case, this doesn't have to be a waste of my time. Helllloooo 'On Guard for Thee'??

I'm going to stay with Saddam's Iraq for now. You have been challenged to refute the information provided by Wikipedia. This is referring directly to the claims I have made in any past posts. Don't be in a hurry to answer, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a sensible discussion on the real issues. You've shown that you are interested and now you need to show that you understand the issue.

You didn't answer whether you were O.k. with Iraq. I'm going to assume that you are and I've presented that Wikipedia piece to address it. Would you like to challenge any of that? Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not the final word but I am asking for a specific rebuttal of what I've presented there. It relates most positively and directly to the claims I've made and the claims to which you are yet to be in agreement with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein No, I didn't write that but there's little I would change with it!

On guard for Thee: That's not helpful in the least. It lacks any specificity and it's also lacking in any real quality as being said by a person who claims to have knowledge of that region of the world. I can just as easily make the claim that all unrest in the ME is due to the US. I won't bother. Join with us and talk about Iraq. That's the real issue isn't it? What do you know about Saddam's Iraq before the Gulf war? What do you know about Saddam's brutality against the Kurds. Have I mentioned Stephen Pelletiere, CIA department head, who has a contradictory story to tell about Saddam's use of gas/chem warfare?

It seems that your link references the Middle East, when in fact the claims I was making were for Saddam's success in Iraq. However, I'll work on both if you are sincere in investigating the issue. Which ME country would you like to discuss? Choose one which 'I' will have an interest in discussing or defending. Iraq would be more to the point than any other. If you can agree on Iraq then make your submission to which I can respond. My position to begin with is that Saddam had managed to bring relative peace and stability to his country, beginning after the end of the Iran/Iraq war and up to the US led war against Iraq on the false claim of it being on behalf of Kuwait. Your rebuttal? I can also make a strong argument for Iran.

The Canadian health care system can be improved upon and will likely but not under a Conservative government. Regardless of the image the Conservatives want to portray, they are not in favour of continuing with universal health care for all Canadians. The Fraser Institute doesn't pretend and speaks loudly for the Conservatives. As for the US health care system, there's little need for any of us to criticize it. It's known throughout the world, as well as in the US as a failure. And it's certainly not just the Democrat side that knows that.

It appears that my form of delivery is serving my purpose here. Why try to water down the truth. Why try to water down the truth of the holocaust with myths? That only serves to discredit holocaust survivors. Or why accept US propagandists' versions of anything when it's so easy to prove they're lying in many cases for propaganda purposes? Let's make sure that we never accept the stigmatizing of these charges against the US in the same way we are forced to accept the stigmatising of the false holocaust claims. If you are aware of what I'm talking about then I ask you, is that happening? Is it the goal of those who attack my methods to cause that to happen? Shouldn't we all be aware that if the US can succeed with it's propaganda then it can succeed in the same way that Israel has succeeded in being able to continue it's agenda of discrimination and apartheid against the Palestinian people? I stand behind my method of delivery and I accept the reputation it brings me. No specific charges of lying or exaggerating have been brought against me on this forum and I suspect that none will be. I haven't heard anyone yet that has the knowledge of the situation or the background to do so. But I'll continue to offer up the challenge. How about you? Surprise me! You may in fact be an 'expert' on the subject being discussed here. In the meantime, I'll just continue to serve the purpose here on this forum that I feel I am aboliged to serve if I want to claim to be a decent person.

Which Muslim country? The issue here is that it's totally justified and warranted to criticize any country that has been found guilty in the eyes of the world of going to war for oil. Or oil dollars or any other way you want to spin it. The intention of this thread is partly to encourage members to debate the issue and debate the charges I make against the US. Or indeed, the charges others make against the US. When she continually appeals to the forum admin that I am making unfair or untrue charges, she just continues to fail to get the satisfaction she craves. Why? And why would anybody want to side with her, and especially you, a Canadian? If you can't make any specific charges against what I've said then you had best keep whining about it. There's no way I can help you either.

No, it's not o.k. for Canada to slaughter men for oil, and especially when it's done in support of the US wars for oil. I've told you many times that a criticism of Canada is in no way a defence of the US, nor is it an argument to say that the US is not guilty of the same crimes. If you're an American then that could be the explanation of why you don't understand that. Are you accusing me of being a banned member of this forum, under a new name? Make the accusation and I'll report you. Otherwise stop your bad behaviour now. Thanks!

All the whining aside from the US apologists, there's little doubt that the US will choose to label freedom fighters/terrorists to suit their own agenda. So any fighter who opposes the US should understand that he will be branded a terrorist. The rules for the war on terror are made by the US. The downside of that is that the rules apply for both sides. Chop, chop!

It appears that nobody on this site had the intelligence to even question RT news. Screaming is not, is not, is only going to keep the US propaganda effort alive. And look at what that has brought us, especially in Iraq. The US has proven that they are the scourge of the world in the 21st. century. The only argument that can even be attempted to disprove that now is trying to make it out as all in the name of humanitarian efforts.