monty16

What's your point? What I do is always justified and warranted. If you find an example of where it's not then mention it specifically. And that's exactly what I said in not so many words. Now I'll ask you, what are you questioning in what I said that isn't true? Let me try to clear this confusion up for you: My goal is to expose the fact that the US needs to be exposed and my goal is to inflame and incite hatred against the US when it is justified and warranted to do so. So for the third time, what is it specifically to which you are taking offense?

It wasn't I that painted everyone with the same brush, it was your new friend. He continually made reference to 'painting all Americans' with the same brush and I corrected him several times for doing it. If you want to make accusations, make sure they are valid ones. p.s. How many times have you heard the incitement of hatred for Iraq, Iran, N.Korea, Palestine or Palestinians, and others by people on this forum? How many times have you questioned that kind of behaviour? When I make accusations against the US which appear to you to be inciting hatred or is unfair or inaccurate, then stand up and question them specifically.

Well, maybe they're not as environmentally conscious as I credited them for being. Maybe one aboriginal has sold out in the past? Do you have any particular case in mind? Or was I right all along?

Not really. I just don't have the patience to fix it. And the points have been made anyway. Which is revealing in that you couldn't disagree with any of them without trapping yourself because of what you have said previously on this forum. I sneaked a few peeks! Your problem is that I hurt your feelings and now you have to pick up on trivial shit like that instead of acknowledging the facts. Let's deal with your problem, maybe we can fix it for you? I may have been too harsh with you and should have recognized it as your process of growing up instead of twofaced lying.

Can you not control yourself and stop trying to say that I'm referring to 'all' Americans? Noted again your comparison of the US to Islamic fundamentalism! Americans murder doctors for killing a fetus while wholeheartedly killing children in foreign lands with their bombs. What can I say? How about, most of the states have tried or even have succeeded in making an abortion impossible, while at the same time allowing abortions under the law. (note **) Say it ain't so. It was my attempt to cause you to once again compare the US to third world countries. Would you like to do that now or just concede the point? challenge the rationality of my words but watch out for the comparisons to third world countries. My goal is to expose the fact that the US needs to be exposed and my goal is to inflame and incite hatred against the US when it is justified and warranted to do so. I make no unfair or untrue charges. I do cause you to lower the US image to the point at which you need to prop it up by telling us that third world countries are guilty of the same crimes against humanity. Mission accomplished! Next?

America is one of a very few first world nation that continues to practice capital punishment. That's my point. And mission accomplished when I persuade you to compare the US to third world countries Perfect! Again you make the comparison to third world countries. How could I wish for more stupidity than that? What I can't stop from crossing my mind is that the US still doesn't have universal health care. So maybe a few do believe in it? And there's no doubt at all that the rabid right in the US don't want people to have affordable health care. How stooooopid does it get with you? Yup, there goes the US comparison to third world countries again. And I didn't say all Americans, I would suggest 'most' because 'most' are continuing to pretend that the Iraq war was legitimate while the rest of the world has moved on and has blamed the US for lying to justify war. In your rush to compare the US to third world countries you have accused me of saying that a machete is humane. Good one! Have you ever watched a person die that didn't get killed outright by a US bomb? nuff said on that. But I will add that the weapons that kill the most people in the shortest period of time are the most brutal weapons of killing. First place again goes to the US. continued-

You lose credibility when you try to compare Fox News with RT news. Same goes for MSNBC and their comedy routine. that's a problem because it shows you have still not broken away from being propagandized by the US. As for you watching RT for a couple of years? You thought they were television instead of understanding that I gave you links to an internet site. Why the shift to US apologist in the last few days? Did I hurt your feelings?

And why would I argue with somebody who is shown a link for a website and then calls it Russian t.v? Fox is not news, it's entertainment meant for the rabid right. RT can at least be called news. As can CBC. You shouldn't try to kid yourself because I'm not. While it's slanted toward Russia, it's still the best source of news we have on the topic we're trying to learn about and discuss. Don't be a kneejerk as soon as you see a reference to Russia. Haven't you learned anything from the US lies it has told for war. Oh wait, you have learned a bit. You just don't remember.

The country that shouldn't have nuclear weapons is the country that is threatening to use them on another country. Guess who? And I've just proven in post #71 that there's a great threat of that country using them. The greatest threat in the world at this particular moment in time. The US and it's intended victim could be Iran. And that is why Iran needs to get it's own nuclear weapons soon, in order to save it's people from the US.

Not to suggest that the Us would hide any of the truth about ISIS from you people but just in case. http://rt.com/news/166836-isis-isil-al-qaeda-iraq/ Trust RT news, the US has shown it no longer can be.

We can rely on our aboriginal first nations people to save the day. Those great stewards of the environment would never, ever, ever sell out to profit themselves.

In actual fact Obama has done exactly what is expected of him and what is within his authority. He's invited the US congress to authorize another war with Iraq but those twofaced bastards don't want to either give their support either for or against any further action in Iraq. It's quite likely though that Obama will be cowed into getting the killing started again in earnest. He'll be criticized if he does. Which is about what should happen because it's the US that is guilty of the crimes against humanity in Iraq, not Bush2 or Obama. To try to blame it on either is just removing the blame from the guilty party. The US!

And then maybe in some people's opinion it could be one of the best! I would say about average considering how many responses it has so far. If people like you who don't appreciate good things would just ignore it, it might even do better! An explanation of why I started it: I've noticed that it's quite common to hear Americans criticizing other countries which either have been their victims or will be their victims. They like to tell us that those countries place little or no value on human life. The danger of letting that go unnoticed is that it just makes it easier for Americans to reconcile in their heads, the slaughter of innocent human beings in those countries. I believe it could be a very conscious effort of the US propagandists to do so and condition their people for the coming crimes against humanity the US will eventually embark upon again. Everybody should be fully aware by now of this happening. To bring it to the attention of this forum and perhaps others who come here to read, (if any) I think it makes the propagandists' job harder and if this saves just one life from being wasted by US aggression then I would be proud of being a part of it. Why would any decent person object to it's intent? Better, Americans can attempt to deny the facts and that will further serve my purpose. Or, if you don't want to be a part of the cause then go away and be a part of the problem. It's you who will have to live with yourself! Did I read you wrong? Do you want to be a part of the cause?

275 and now another 300. http://rt.com/usa/167136-obama-iraq-military-advisors/ Is that too many or not enough? ISIS is coming. Chop, chop!

Let the Americans figure out who to blame. Who cares? The rest of the world just blame the US and don't bother with the finer details.

If it's Iraqis and for revenge, it's not just as likely to be Canada. Maybe just as likely if it's Al Qaida for what Canada has done to the people of Afghanistan. That's why Canada needs to separate itself from US slaughtering in the ME. In any case, acknowledging the threat makes you your own worst enemy. We can always get the desired result out of you to prove an argument! I would suspect that there's nothing between nuclear detonation in a US seaport but time and a US intelligence failure. Don't any Americans lose any sleep over that!

Sure it can be traced, but if it's not a particular country then the US will use it to their best advantage. It attempted to do that with the WTC attack and would have undoubtedly struck back at Saudi if it was in their interest to do so. All we can be certain of is that the perps won't give a damn who the US attacks in revenge. But then on the other hand, there's a possibility that a successful nuclear attack on the US would bring them to their senses. It would surely cause them to stop and consider that one successful attack would make it very likely that another one would soon follow. In any case, after the smoke has cleared, we would most likely be looking forward to a new more peaceful world. I know it's not a comfortable thought but if say Los Angeles was hit, would the US not think it best to pull in it's horns and prevent a follow up on maybe New York? Make no mistake, the only reason why terrorists would want to attack a large US city with a nuke is for revenge. There is no other explainable reason and certainly not because they are jealous of our big screen t.v. sets. Or our lifestyle, etc., etc.

Take your pick: Israel could use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran israelmatzav.blogspot.com/.../israel-could-use-tactical-nuclear.html 2010-03-28 · The Washington Post reports that a Washington think tank suggests that Israel could use tactical nuclear weapons in a strike against Iran. Despite the 65 ... . Congressman Says U.S. Should Use Nuclear Weapons If It ... thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/04/3018431/duncan-hunter-iran-nukes 2013-12-04 · ... use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran if ... the U.S. should detonate a nuclear weapon in ... use of nuclear weapons against Iran ... . Why the US Shouldn’t Nuke Iran | The Diplomat thediplomat.com/2013/12/why-the-us-shouldnt-nuke-iran Congressman Duncan Hunter wants to use nuclear weapons against Iran. That’s irresponsible and should be repudiated. . Rep. Hunter: US Should Use Tactical Nukes on Iran if ... www.defensenews.com/article/20131204/DEFREG02/312040017/Rep-Hunter... 2014-06-04 · The US should consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if ... “The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would ... Not a U.S . Government ... . Rep. Duncan Hunter Wants Nukes Used If U.S. Bombs Iran www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17108-rep-duncan... ... to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, U.S ... use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran is ... use of nuclear weapons against Iran would ... . US Plan to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Devised Under ... globalresearch.ca/obama-prepares-protracted-afghanistan-occupation/... 2012-10-20 · ... the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran ... strike use” of nuclear weapons against Russia ... to tactical nuclear weapons, ... . Rep. Hunter Is Wrong About Using Nuclear Weapons Against ... www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/12/06/rep-hunter-is... 2013-12-06 · ... could risk the scale of death and destruction seen in U.S. nuclear attacks ... States should be willing to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. . Will The U.S. Nuke Iran? - INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12569.htm ... tactical nuclear weapons regardless of whether Iran is any way involved in such an attack against the U.S ... use nuclear weapons against non ... . US Plan to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Devised Under ... www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/21/us-plan-to-attack-iran-with... 2012-10-21 · U.S. plans to attack Iran with a mix of ... the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran ... with regard to tactical nuclear weapons, ... . Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran: thinktank | Reuters www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/26/us-nuclear-iran-israel-nukes... 2010-03-26 · ... tactical nuclear weapons are designed to ... would authorize the use of such nuclear weapons, ... weapons against Iran would come ... If you're going to be too ignorant to even try to understand then I'm not going to waste my time playing toy soldiers with you. Time to 'take out' another pizza?

Iran has inserted the wedge without even trying. Does this increase the likelihood of a Zionist strike on Iran without US permission or help? Hopefully Obama will slap their peepees again and settle them down a bit. He must understand that peace is again threatened and will continue to be until Iran gets 'one'!

The only way either of you are not going to understand is if you pre-condition yourselves to believe that all the people of the ME Arab countries place no value on human lives. If you can manage that then you can promote your scenarios of a first strike nuclear attack by Iran. So go ahead and immerse yourselves in that self-serving rhetoric if you wish. You see, that's the sort of US propaganda that promotes the idea. It's the propaganda that is trying to convince you that Iran would strike first with nuclear weapons. It's the only real argument there could be for hitting Iran with either nuclear or conventional weapons 'before' they obtain their nuclear deterrent. So in fact, you both have to come to the realization that US propaganda is causing you to promote nuclear war against Iran. Congratulations! The threat of a US/Israel nuclear strike on Iran ENDS when Iran gets it's nuclear capability. Get used to the idea, it's not hard to do. It's what has happened in the case of N.Korea.

http://rt.com/usa/167100-us-wants-oust-maliki-iraq/ Whatttt? The entire Iraqi armed forces can't fight and defeat a few thousand ISIS fighters? What could be missing other than the will? Could it be that the will is missing because the people of Iraq want to see the US defeated and chased from Iraq with their tails between their legs? A stretch? What other reason could there be?

MAD applies to all nations that possess nuclear weapons. So first of all, what numbnuts doesn't understand is that no nuclear armed nation is going to strike an upstart such as North Korea after the fact. North Korea is 'home free' so to speak. No, neither Iran or N.Korea pose any threat to the US. To suggest otherwise is just an imaginary hurdle we must step over. And vice versa for the case of North Korea being a non-threat to the US. That's all cheap and transparent propaganda for who knows what purpose other than demonizing. But so far, the US/Israel poses a great threat to Iran. There lies the greatest threat to the world of nuclear war. A US/Israel nuclear strike on Iran. If anyone cares to disagree with that then they need name a greater threat. But the threat ends after Iran procures it's nuclear deterrent to US/Israel nuclear war. It will also end the threat of US/Israel conventional war with the purpose of destroying Iran's nuclear capability before the fact. Only fools don't understand that! Or perhaps, they understand but are too wrapped up in the gung-ho war rhetoric to admit it. My mission for the near future is to make them wish they didn't get so wrapped up in it.

Heads will roll again until the stability that Saddam had achieved for his country is restored. Do you still understand that now that you have switched sides and are trying to parrot the US propaganda line that it was something other than oil that was the reason for war on Iraq? Or are you going to straddle the fence and provide more entertainment for us? Are you still working on that 'other' reason for war? Ask your friend for help!

Terrorists and freedom fighters don't have their own Weapons of Mass Destruction and so use methods within their means. They usually understand that they will suffer huge casualties in order to accomplish the common good for their country. It's always been that way in warfare. But the hard truth you are sluffing off is that it's not going to be that way forever. 9/11 with jet planes was an introductory primer for the US. But in the future, MAD no longer applies. The word 'Mutually' requires two identifiable players in the game.

Spare everybody the gung-ho war bravado! In truth both Israel and Iran have everything to lose, no question after Iran gets it's nuclear deterrant to US/Israel's war. Haven't you ever heard the word 'obscene' used for that sort of talk? It's obscene for two reasons. One, it shouldn't even be contemplated by decent people. And two, Iran would never use nuclear weapons on Israel. And vice versa after Iran has it's own to strike back. Go Iran! There in lies the greatest hope for the 21st. century! And not discounting the very minimal risk that either side would want to commit suicide on behalf of their country.