monty16

The New York times is just as full of it as any other US news source. If you people would search out an old encyclopedia from before the US gulf war on Iraq you would learn just how modern and prosperous Iraq really was under Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately your propagandists have probably burned them all. And unfortunately fully propagandized lemmings are totally immune from hearing and accepting the truth. Reasonable people would just admit that their country has been had on it's Iraq war deception.

What difference does it make now. The US has manipulated itself into a lose/lose position. Without sending 100,000 troops back into Iraq the Iraqi people will win in the end. And the new alliances will be formed between Iraq and Iran. I would suspect that a powerful Arab alliance will come out of it and it's going to have their own nuclear weapons sooner tather than later. That's when the US and Israel are going to start behaving like good citizens on the world stage. Push comes to diplomacy rather than to shove! Best to hope that Muslims can forgive and forget.

It's going to be learning a lot quicker in the near future and it's going to stop the bluster and bravado when it again finds it has another nuclear armed country to prevent it from running roughshod over the world. Russia has stepped back up and that's why it's so important that Putin doesn't back down in the Ukraine or Crimea. The US warhawks are not stupid, if anything can be said for them. They won't dick around with Russia and provoke a hot war. Nobody wins. Everybody loses.

Your only problem is that you sound like a broken record. ruthless dictator..ruthless dictator....ruthless dictator... Completely propagandized into the Saddam hate that you people need to justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on false pretences. The really ugly thing about it is that Saddam would have never succeeded killing that many people in 100 lifetimes of keeping the Muslim factions under control. Wear your badge with pride American. (hoping you're not a Canadian because that would make it really sick)

That's what the link is for. You should have clicked on it.

Thank dog for the nuclear deterrent to war! http://rt.com/news/165464-russia-baltic-drills-nato/ It's the nuclear deterrent that makes it unnecessary to show the most strength, only 'enough' strength. It says, don't dick around with me or you will have your own glass parking lot. I'll leave it up to the forum members to decide which side is which. I'll only say, the US/Nato wants the Ukraine in it's pockets and it's not giving up yet.

Tommy Douglas was a communist? You see, that's the problem with their thinking in a nutshell, even though this one couldn't be considered to be representative of any rationality when it comes to politics. There's an infestation in that country and it's growing at an alarming rate. Soon the norm could be the irrational hate that is being demonstrated by the teabagger movement. It endangers the world even though it endangers themselves first. It really could become a shooting war amongst themselves!

I don't think that's true of even all Americans. Some are worthwhile human beings regardless of what we are supposed to think! Gotta love when you come out with your real thoughts though!

It's an attitude problem when a country is referred to as a shit hole. It's as much as saying that the people of that country are of the same quality. And it's a US manufactured attitude that has no place coming out of Canadians. Just keep trying and we'll give them the reasons they need to regard Canada as the same as their US victim of revenge. Go ahead and show them how tough we can at least pretend to be but don't bother crying over the spilt milk on our very own 9/11.

Dog, ya gotta love that one! I'm willing to bet right now that the US 'will' have to send in something. And it will have to be on the pretence that it's the continuing "fight against terrorism". In fact, what's happening is: GO HOME AMERICANS, YOU LOST THE WAR!

And furthermore Army Guy, you're full of baloney when you say that a nuclear detonation would poison the world or distant countries. It's not at all certain and can be proven to not certain by just considering the number of above ground nuclear test detonations there were by the US and Russia in the 40's and 50's. Don't try to exaggerate in order to make your point. It lessens the credibility which I have begun affording you and it stands you at risk of losing it all.

No disagreement whatsoever on the US not needing to use it's nuclear weapons. I didn't ever suggest otherwise. What I have suggested is that any nation that has nuclear weapons is making themselves immune from US attack. Perhaps not yet with N.Korea which may not have the capability of a counter-strike but certainly in the near future. That is most obviously their goal and most certainly not a first strike. You seem to understand that very well by your words. And of course, Iran would be nothing but glass, if it's even necessary to use such extreme rhetoric. But again, the point is that the US will not strike Iran when nuclear weapons would eventually give them the capability of putting one in the middle of New York or Los Angeles. Again, certainly not a first strike. This simple fact that the time is most likely coming when Iran will have it's immunity would be in my opinion, a good and valid reason for the US to not have any cause to ever want to go to war with Iran. Diplomacy ahead of that is obviously the only solution. And once again, I have no disagreement with what you say. There are a lot of good reasons to not use nuclear weapons. But that's not even close to addressing what 'I' have said. The simple fact is that the US or Russia or China or any other nuclear armed nation is not going to mount any attack on another nuclear armed nation, be it a conventional weapon attack or a nuclear attack. Read this: IRAQ WOULD HAVE NOT FALLEN VICTIM TO A US ATTACK HAD SADDAM BEEN NUCLEAR ARMED! And that is the issue I am asking you to consider and that which I believe you are consciously attempting to not consider. There's where we can disagree and there's where you don't try to avoid my point. First of all, Iran does fully understand that it couldn't defeat Israel in a conventional war or a nuclear war and so wouldn't attempt one. Proclaiming Iran's leaders as 'insane' is just a non-starter and has no place in a rational discussion of the sort I wish to have with you. Therefore, the only present possibility of war between the two is a pre-emptive strike on Iran from Israel. As we are both aware has been threatened. And we're also aware of the fact that that strike must come before Iran is nuclear armed. And in fact, to further make my point, Israel stands immune to Arab aggression, due to it's conventional weaponry as well as it's nuclear threat. There can be no doubt! The US will not strike Iran if Iran has nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering them to US soil. There's no point in you continuing to disagree with that fact. It's a sure as the fact that the US or Russia or China will not attack each other. More diplomatic means of gaining the advantage or the upper hand must be empmloyed, if in fact that is the goal of any of the three. MAD is exactly my point. But my point was also in saying that if one of either the US or Russia 'didn't have nuclear weapons then one or the other would have most likely been attacked with nukes and would have quickly capitulated. You can speculate on which side that would have been. And in fact, you've now made my point for me. None of which ever needed to be said because I'm sure that both of us fully understands the implications. The only reason I needed to say it is because you didn't want to accept the real implications of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran. I don't understand why you wouldn't unless it's due to aome sort of arrogance you choose to stand upon?

I'm totally aware of the fact that Russia supports the Assad regime but the nature of support and the degree of support needs to be discussed too. I am definitely not in agreement with the notion that the Assad regime gets the 'get out of jail free' card. That notion can be likened to Saddam and Iraq where in fact Saddam was managing to keep his country under control in spite of the divides between the Muslim factions. IN retrospect Saddam was completely vindicated in my opinion. Or at least, the harm the US brought to Iraq was eclipsed a hundred fold in comparison to Saddam. You can argue what I've said on Iraq if you wish. But the important fact is that Assad and Syria are being set up in the exact same way. And so I ask you, what is the US interest in Syria or even the entire ME? Is it supposed to be humanitarian concerns? Can that notion even continue to sound the least credible now after we have been subjected to the Iraq slaughter? I'll also comment on Russia's role. Is Russia playing an active part and was Russia playing an active part in Syria before the fighting began? I would suggest that the people had little concern in being opposed to Russia but had a great concern about the US, due to it's track record of aggression throughout the ME in the time since the fall of the S.U.

No problem at all, in fact it could be quite worthwhile to point out some of the differences. I've often heard it said that the US came out of revolution while Canada didn't. I'm not so sure though that makes a difference or even 'what' difference it's supposed to make. I think that most US politics is much too absorbed in racial differences and the reaction to that by the two main parties. In fact, I can't think of a moment in US politics where it isn't a factor. Americans certainly don't want to pay to bring up others and they believe that the system gives them upward mobililty and others should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That's not nearly as evident in Canada. I think that in the US the reason for that attitude is that it's mostly blacks who need to pull themselves up and they don't receive the positive sentiments from those who already have. To talk to a white American from the deep south and build his/her confidence, will lead to admissions of feelings of discrimination against blacks. It doesn't always happen but it does happen more often than not. Perhaps the confidence building that makes them spill their guts can't happen on a forum such as this. In any case, it's fairly well hidden. Canada doesn't have that problem but it might be because we don't have many black people. The few we have don't seem to be coming off as a threat. Canada's aboriginal people don't come off as any negligible threat to white people but that could be because of their lesser numbers. Is there any differences between the US and Canada that this point can't explain? Personally, I don't see the differences in form of government as being much of a distinction. There may be a reluctance on the part of a president to use his power but we've all seen instances where he 'has' used his power and it's caused a huge wave of protests. In Canada it's atken for granted that the P.M. 'will' use his power!

I really have no idea what you are intending as your point there. Mississippi? New Orleans? What goes on in your head is not evident to others my friend. You need to read what you say from the perspective of your audience. I think the accomplishment's of Obama/Biden have not been all that great but I also understand that the party of 'NO' has caused it to be that way. They obviously view Obama's efforts as an affront to their own agenda and see it as socialism. I think they have been right to so vigorously oppose Obama because if his changes had been brought about, the people would have never let them go. Hence, the great fear over the ACA because once it's reality it's never going to be abandoned. Improved on perhaps, but never to be abandoned for the mess that the health care system was. And fwiw, it hasn't even been close to socialism on the part of Obama/Biden. It hasn't even succeeded yet as socially responsible change in government. That's what is lacking in your country and it's in stark contrast to other successful capitalist countries of the world. As much as you won't like to hear the Scandinavian countries referred to as capitalist.

Like as if the US apologists don't understand why the US gets a bad rap? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tea+partiers+with+their+guns+pictures&qpvt=tea+partiers+with+their+guns+pictures&FORM=IGRE#a Haters and racist freaks who just happen to be gaining some support in the Republican party of the south. As if they aren't hot for a chance to use their guns on some of their fellow Americans?

There's no reason why Kennedy's words, Ask not what ....... etc. couldn't have been spoken in Canada as well. I suspect that the words wouldn't have been as noticed because of they being quite unremarkable. Only americans would make a big issue out of such mediocre drivel. And generally, an assassinated president gets a lot more fame thrown on him than a live one. It doesn't even approach the importance or brilliance of Churchill's speeches or memorable lines. Some chicken, some neck! Tommy Douglas's story in parliament about the white cats and the black cats was a lot more important and certainly funnier. The Americans only wish that some of their presidents could be remembered as great. The only one that approached great was and still is hated by half the country. (Roosevelt)

It's meant to mock the reality that is the US. Have you never heard them talk about the coming revolution? Have you never heard them talk about the government taking all their guns? Have you never heard them saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from their own government? And it's the teabaggers fringe that are doing the talking! I certainly do bash the US government because I'm now certain that it's led that country into being the evil aggressor nation of the world. We can't ignore the facts. And I don't bash the people of the US unless they perform ignorant, stupid, evil, or otherwise unjust deeds that should be condemned. I even condemn the American people when they talk about performing those evil deeds. If your military mindset causes you to sympathize with their evil then make your point. If you can't do that without insulting me again then you had best not even try.

That picture sends a powerful message. What kind of parent would want to turn their child into something like that at that young age? I have to ask myself, what are those two children thinking? Certainly not thoughts that a happy and well adjusted child should be thinking. In the case of the boy we feel pity for the plight of the children who are instructed to kill. In the case of the girl it's something not far off but slightly different. Maybe that if she is involved with weapons that are strictly meant to kill people at her young age, there's not much doubt that she will get the opportunity before she's an old lady.

Well, after all that at least everyone should know that Harper is trying to destroy our health care system by cutting federal funding. He's in bed with the Fraser institute and that should tell us all we need to know about him. At least everyone except Argus will have got it by now.

Latest news, the Iraqi defence forces are packing up and leaving. The US propaganda says that they are afrid of getting killed by the freedom fighters but we don't have to buy that. They're most likely siding with the forces who are intent in taking their country back from the occupiers.

I was sort of hoping that this was the beginning of the revolution myself. You need to go get your gun or dig it up from your potato garden because the government or something is going to come and take your guns away. One thing you can be sure of is that the black people are arming themselves in order to protect themselves and Barack.

Well said! Maybe it will reach the lemmings who still believe that 'terrorist' is a term used for those you oppose and 'freedom fighter' is a term used for those fighting on your side. It's never been anything else!

The US is still occupying Iraq. It will increase it's occupation numbers dependent on need. Or, it will maintain the façade of non-occupation by using drones or by bombing from 30,000'.

You don't understand the difference between socialism and socially responsible capitalism. Or maybe you really do and are pretending to confuse the two? None of this makes a lot of sense because the US has at times been more socialist leaning than Canada is at present. Wht the hell is Seymour talking about when he suggests that the US never accepted socialism? Once again, politically flawed rhetoric. That's always rang so untrue in that people who attain the age of 60 usually begin to understand social responsibility for the first time in their lives. It's actually quite difficult to find an 80 year old who still follows something like the teabaggers who are so socially confused and irresponsible. This could in part be because they are able to find a social conscience due to not having the necessity of seeing people as a possible profit anymore. And as for most 20 year olds, they are just beginning to form their opinions and are not to be listened to with any sincerity no matter what side they have chosen since they left their teens.