monty16

Hahahahaha! Too funny! That is by far the best explanation and the best comment on the situation I've heard in a long time. And you managed to add a little humour too!

Come on Shady, I know you're not that stupid. And I'm going to set the record straight and tell you that I'm not either. In fact, it's a bit of an insult to me that you would say it. But I'll be brief and start at the beginning just in case? For beginners. Sesame Street style. The world's oil goes into one big bucket and that's what sets world prices. Full bucket, lower prices. Nuff said. And now the key question. If it's not all about oil then what is it about? Be brave! Here's a few suggestions: WMD's terrorism cabbage crop weapons testing any of the above and oil

It's about oil. Period! If anyone wants to get into a detailed discussion on that then I'm more than willing to help them understand. So if you think I want to make it easy and blame it on oil then you're either going to have to put up or shut up. You say it's a much more complex issue but you didn't explain in the least what is so complex about it? So first of all, it's about oil. That's undeniable of course because it's not about Iraq's cabbage crop. Now give us just a little bit of the complexity you are so obviously capable of giving. Or, as I said, why not just shut up and pretend that you've won the debate again?

Shady, you're not getting in step with current events. As Canadians we need to try to rise about the internal US blaming of one side against the other. From a Canadian POV, nothing else is really important any more than just understanding that the US DID IT! So in that spirit of cooperation and friendliness with my fellow Canadians, I'm with you. And fwiw, I'll even say that Obama is to blame for Iraq, both currently and historically if you like. All I want you to acknowledge is that Obama is just another American. Now let's talk about Iraq! Neighbour! Fellow Canadian! Dare I say, Friend? (snicker)

And why don't you like Russia very much? Give us a little short story at least, if you can't give us the long version. It has to be just too good to miss! If you stay current with the situation by checking out RT news then you will see that the violence hasn't died down in the least. The Kiev government is actively involved in the killing of pro-Russians. The US media has no interest in what's going on at the moment, other than to be standing behind the scenes and encouraging violence. It's likely that Russia won't be able to come to the rescue of Ukrainians in the Eastern and Southern region but we should also wonder just how much US promoted violence Putin will put up with. Simply put, if anyone doesn't want to be left in the dark over what's really happening, they're going to have to get their news from RT. However, I for one would sure like to hear another interpretation of it all. Please don't take offence Hellrider. I know that it's sometimes necessary to put in the disclaimer when talking about Russia. It does little harm as it's not taken all that seriously anyway.

The US war planners have expressed a lot of doubt on whether or not drone attacks or bombing can accomplish anything in Iraq now. The obvious problem is that there needs to be 'on the ground' intelligence in order to determine who to kill. That is no longer present in Iraq according to Richard Cohen and obviously some other experts. And so, to start bombing without that intelligence there would obviously be a lot of 'their own' killed by mistake. Would Cohen lie? Has the US actually maintained a US intelligence presence in Iraq just in case things started to go bad? There's very little enthusiasm coming out of the US at the moment for renewing the occupation and it's at least believable that the 275 are being put in Iraq to defend the US's embassy. However, if intelligence personnel are being planted in Iraq as we speak, it would surely escape notice of the media. I for one doubt it's happening. And it's pretty certain that the decision to bomb Iraq's people hasn't been made yet. There's some hope with Obama that it won't happen. The most optimistic approach at the moment is to say that ISIS won't be able to take Baghdad because of their small numbers. I'm going to suggest that they will come up with the numbers necessary when the time comes. In the meantime it's quite likely that the car bombings will be restarted in earnest. How in hell is the US going to bomb that? But the real hope for the US is that Iran is going to come to their rescue. The US is saying that they won't become Iran's air force but there doesn't appear to be any other solution? Ideas? Discussion?

Last night I watched Rachel Maddow put her spin on this mess. she literally was bouncing in her chair and her adam's apple was bouncing up and down in tune. She really was enjoying herself as she always does when she gets to talk 'boy's' talk of war and related things. Correctly, she told us in screeches how it was Bush and his neocons fault that all this slaughter and brutality took place to begin with. Which most surely must have given all her listeners a warm feeling of innocence, even in the face of all the slaughter. But then I thought, there's something wrong with this picture? What is she doing? Is what she is doing being done in a deliberate attempt to get a false message across. Is she that smart? Or is it that she is only doing what has been so well learned by US media announcers on both sides of the aisle? Is Rachel giving us the real true message? Finally, I came to a conclusion that I believe is correct. It wasn't Bush2's fault and it wasn't the neocons' fault at all. THE UNITED STATES DID IT! Forget the left/right spin and counterspin, it's all a diversion, conscious or otherwise, to keep us from cutting to the chase. Conscious or otherwise? I'm leaning more and more toward the former. p.s. On Guard for Thee. Where's the humour I'm missing in your suggestion that we don't know why Bush2 did it? How long are we supposed to keep pretending that the UNITED STATES didn't do it for oil?

Pretty damn obvious isn't it. The only possibility would be a nuclear attack on a nation that has recently obtained it's nuclear deterrant to outside aggression. But that phase passes very quickly and even North Korea is now immune to US attack. Bullies are nearly always cowards but bullies also know that a revenge strike on their soil with a nuclear weapon is just out of the question. It's interesting though to try to understand why Army Guy would want to argue that? I think it might be a reluctance to give up the notion of the US losing it's image of being invulnerable. His example of Israel was a rather dishonest way of attempting to prove this point because he can't bring himself to concede the point. Small countries with little in the way of effective conventional weapons and no nuclear weapons will obviously continue to strike out against the nuclear powers. They too understand the dynamics of it and know that being a small player gains them immunity from a revenge nuclear strike by a major nuclear power. That is obviously because of the badge of dishonour that comes with any nuclear armed country resorting to nuclear weapons. In a way, it's been the saving grace for Iran because the US understands it would be opening Pandora's box. It doesn't want to be seen as the great satan that initiated a nuclear war. And especially so Israel, because if no nation thinks it can get away with nuking the Zionist scourge, both Israel and others completely understand that if Israel resorts to a nuclear strike, it's toast. And so, the great equalizer. Nuclear weapons have become our saviour in many ways and so many times over the years since the US resorted to nukes. The US understands very well that no matter how powerful it becomes, it can never fulfill it's goal of world domination by resorting to it's only real and meaningful "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's exactly the opposite for the US now. A nuclear strike against it is certain and in my opinion, dead certain within perhaps 30 years or less. And then, the real downside for the US is going to be deciding which of it's many victims struck back in revenge and who they will choose to destroy to get even.

Well ya never know do you! Here we are thinking it was for the oil and then you go and suggest something as dumbass as it was maybe for Iraq's cabbage crop. No, you have to be joking. I've never heard you display that level of ignorance and crassness in the past on this forum. Yup, gotta be a joke. hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and counting. Some fukin joke!

http://rt.com/news/166364-special-forces-us-iraq/ 275 US troops going to Iraq. Check it out, it could be the last picture of them with their heads about them, figuratively speaking of course!

If Americans have poor health care and it effects them negatively, then it's god's will. god has a plan for America. There can be no other explanation. god has a reason for seeing little American children die in so high numbers as infants. god has a good reason for Americans dieing at a younger age than all other first world countries' people. god has a reason to deny good and affordable health care to 50 million Americans. Obama is working his evil against god!

About the same reason why the people of the US wouldn't go for having the US divided. They still think that country has something worth saving. But those who consider the people of the ME worthy of being treated like human beings and don't consider them insects will understand. Those who express their disdain and hate for all people who are not white Americuns, and who think of others as insects won't understand.

That would be good advice for yourself. If you can't behave then you should just ignore me. Try to not keep trying to make this about me please. Thanks!

What it means is that ISIS is busy killing Iraqis who betrayed their country and had joined the military on behalf of the occupiers. Traitors. Chop, chop. Get it? Think the same situation in Vietnam where the winners either chop, chopped or re-educated the traitors.

1700 dead traitors. http://rt.com/news/166092-iraq-militants-mass-executions/ The US won't bring in the helicopters until it's white people who are being threatened.

That's fine that you don't know about stability. Few in the West do know much about what was going on in those countries after the UK colonialism died down and before the US started meddling. So pick a country, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Egypt, Palestine, the story is always the same. Some would have us believe the US interfered for humanitarian reasons though. Iraq taught us that it wasn't and never was!

Here's a tough question for any of the self professed ME experts. Which ME Arab country wasn't torn apart by US meddling? That is, of those that have suffered from it. Qatar and UAE have not, for two examples. When the US leaves the ME then it will once again find the relative stability it knew before the Gulf war. And it won't be because Russia is back to keep the peace. not to suggest that Russia didn't play it's part in Afghanistan either.

Most of what you say is true but the fact still remains that those countries had succeeded in many cases in finding stability. So regardless of UK colonialism, countries were successfully held together. Iraq did, Saudi does, Iran has, Syria had. Fighting and unrest since the fall of the S.U. has been instigated by the US. Wesley Clarke told us what would happen. This is worth pursuing further because the facts can be found to show how many of those countries have succeeded. Relatively speaking of course. If you can call Saudi or Kuwait a success story even though they are brutal dictatorships being propped up by the US, you people should be able to understand how any ME Arab country can succeed. It either needs to be propped up by the US or if not then left to decide it's own fate.

You know I didn't say a nuclear detonation wouldn't effect other countries. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this with you. I think I've adequately made my point that any country with nuclear weapons is going to eventually be immune from an attack from another. And you agree with that anyway. You understand fully that once Iran obtains the nuclear deterrent from US aggression, all bets are off. Both the US and Israel understands completely. And of course Iran will understand that it must never use it's nuclear weapons on Israel or the US.

I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you. But if you read the applicable posts and make a try on your own to understand then I will perhaps get involved. Please try at least. You can be a worthwhile part of any of these discussions if you apply yourself.

It was entirely predictable that Putin had to go into the Crimea and grab it for Russia. He's just fortunate that he can spin it all in his favour because of the alliance of the Crimea to Russia. That's the facts and I would suggest they're not arguable now. What is still undetermined is whether or not Russia can come out of this a winner. Or will the West's sanctions against Russia be effective enough to make Russia turn around on the Crimea. Or likely failing to force Russia into doing that, at least hurt Russia economically. Or politically in the eyes of the world. You could make a meaningful discussion out of those questions if you wanted to. I would find it worth picking up on with you.

Yes, of course we all know that. But regardless of some US apologists coming out and stating that it's about oil, (do you drive a car or heat your house) the US official line can never be that direct. It has to remain the façade of terrorism. In reality it's terrorism that the Us has fostered. And my point is that more bombing in the ME is just going to make it more likely that the US will see another 9/11. To use the US's own words, 'in the form of a nuclear cloud'!

Dog! Aren't you trying to be a piece of work! Now you have turned around and started acknowledging the obvious concern for Iran obtaining nuclear weapons! Read this and understand: When Iran gets it's nuclear weapons the US party in the ME is over. If you don't understand then I'll explain.

You're just trying to be contrary now and there's no real reason for that. Israel was able to hold off Arab revenge attacks with it's conventional weapons and the support of the US. There was no need to use it's nukes. And in fact, had it used them the world would have branded Israel the evil aggressor for sure, not just strongly suggested. As for the US searching out and destroying Iran's future nuclear weapons, you've only engaging in wishful thinking. The fact is, the US would acknowledge the threat of Iran's nuclear revenge attack and would cease all aggression against Iran. Good grief man, do you really not understand why Israel has it's piss in a knot on Iran obtaining nukes? I'm sure you do understand the urgency and if you didn't then you would be calling yourself Army Guy only because you have toy soldiers and toy weapons. You really need to stop it. You're making a fool of yourself and it's only to save face now. Or don't and I'll gladly continue to tear your fantasies down!

Army Guy, why is it that when I make a substantially true statement, you try to turn it into something else by quoting the harm nuclear detonations have caused throughout the world? Is it because you want to be seen as the authority on all such matters? So I'll once again repeat the obvious truth I stated and ask you to debate that which I said and not get all carried away with telling us the obvious dangers of any nuclear detonation or the obvious dangers of nuclear power plants gone awry: I said: Now try to stick to what I said and show how that is wrong. For example, a nuclear weapon detonated in any country is not going to poison the world as you contend. In fact, none ever did, irregardless of the harm some of them did.