monty16 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 Here again we can look to RT news for the right explanation of what is happening. http://rt.com/usa/165960-us-carrier-deploy-iraq/ There's little doubt that all the US can bring itself to considering at the moment is trying to prevent Americans in Iraq from getting the heads hacked off. But let's wait and see if our resident expert bcsapper, knows what the US should do now! Flip a coin, it's only Iraqi lives at stake. The winner gets to choose which side gets bombed! I say let Maliki get his head cut off and then start from the beginning. Too bad they had to kill Saddam! Quote
monty16 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 Don't you think the Iraqi people are being slaughtered anyway? At least with US cruise missiles and drones, the ones who are slaughtered are generally the ones who should be slaughtered. Notwithstanding the occasional mistake, of course. You don't understand and my last proof puts it to you to show you do. You can't. Make up your mind and stop wasting my time and maybe let the real forum experts tell us who the US should be bombing. And they are??????? LOL p.s. hahahaha, it's relatively bloodless as the Iraqi army runs away and has no intent of upholding US interests. Quote
monty16 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 RT News "The United States has to change its tactics, as do other Western nations, in militarily supporting the Maliki government and deepening the war situation as opposed to trying to move all parties towards a process of national reconciliation," anti-war analyst Eugene Puryear of the ANSWER Coalition told RT. And you have nothing to lose because you've now proven that you never had it. Quote
Guest Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 National reconciliation? I wish you and Eugene well. Quote
monty16 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 National reconciliation? I wish you and Eugene well. And you have a better idea? No, of course you don't because you don't have the least idea of what you are talking about. All you do is listen to US propaganda and play with your model airplanes and toy boats and think how 'neat' they are when you pretend to fly them around your house and drop pretend bombs on your wife's cat. You have been challenged to either put up or shut up. I would suggest that you stop making a fool of yourself and act like a Canadian. Albeit, an alberta one. Take the time to read the RT link I gave you and you may be able to start to understand the problem. Or if you don't like RT then find us a credible link where the US suggests to you who they should start bombing? Where's Saddam when we need him to save the people? Doesn't he have a surviving wife or even a second cousin? Quote
Guest Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 Look, just be careful Eugene doesn't try to walk away with whole Nobel Peace Prize. I understand he's a bit dodgy that way. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) I don't exactly agree. Violence, and ultimately murder is what comes naturally. War is something more advanced, and built upon a more evolved model of human organization. Not true. Warfare between tribes/clans and other primitive societies has existed throughout essentially all of recorded history. War was already occurring between aboriginal societies in North America, South America, Africa, and Asia long before colonial Europeans showed up in these places. Edited June 14, 2014 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
monty16 Posted June 14, 2014 Report Posted June 14, 2014 Look, just be careful Eugene doesn't try to walk away with whole Nobel Peace Prize. I understand he's a bit dodgy that way. Is that your attempt to change the subject when you don't know 'what' Iraqi people the US needs to start killing? let me help you again. The US needs to watch and see which Iraqis cut off the heads of Americans and then try bombing them. It could be any of them because they all hate American and want the occupiers out of their country. You know, the US occupiers that aren't there? LOL Quote
Guest Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Is that your attempt to change the subject when you don't know 'what' Iraqi people the US needs to start killing? let me help you again. The US needs to watch and see which Iraqis cut off the heads of Americans and then try bombing them. It could be any of them because they all hate American and want the occupiers out of their country. You know, the US occupiers that aren't there? LOL No, it was an attempt to show ridiculous a comment like "national reconciliation" is, in reference to the situation in Iraq, without getting thrown in the cooler for a month. Edited June 15, 2014 by bcsapper Quote
monty16 Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 No, it was an attempt to show ridiculous a comment like "national reconciliation" is, in reference to the situation in Iraq, without getting thrown in the cooler for a month. So who is the US going to bomb then? What? you don't know? LOL Just pay attention to what RT news tells you and you'll eventually learn that there's more to the issue than just getting an erection from hearing that the US is sending some ships to the region. Or in other words, who do you bomb when your wife's cat goes and hides from you? Don't worry, we'll let you know when some American heads get lopped off. Then you can tell them who to bomb! And the cat will get some peace! Quote
Guest Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) So who is the US going to bomb then? What? you don't know? LOL Just pay attention to what RT news tells you and you'll eventually learn that there's more to the issue than just getting an erection from hearing that the US is sending some ships to the region. Or in other words, who do you bomb when your wife's cat goes and hides from you? Don't worry, we'll let you know when some American heads get lopped off. Then you can tell them who to bomb! And the cat will get some peace! Monty dear, you're a troll. You're trying to get me to say the Earth is not flat. No chance. Edited June 15, 2014 by bcsapper Quote
monty16 Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 Monty dear, you're a troll. You're trying to get me to say the Earth is not flat. No chance. I'm not a troll and this is not about me. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 Not true. Warfare between tribes/clans and other primitive societies has existed throughout essentially all of recorded history. War was already occurring between aboriginal societies in North America, South America, Africa, and Asia long before colonial Europeans showed up in these places. That doesn't contradict my post, though. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Moonlight Graham Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 jbg, as for your opening post, I don't know whether to agree or disagree. In the end, I don't know what use it would be to bring these kinds of groups to a negotiating table. Virtually all of their demands would not be accepted by the governments of countries they inhabit or governments of foreign countries they're fighting against (hence these groups resorting to violence). Giving in to their demands, not to mention bringing them to the negotiating table in the first place, would be to legitimize these groups and give them even more power and respect than they deserve. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Topaz Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 As far as the Middle-East, would NATO be involved in the region if it wasn't for OIL?? Iran has said it will be there for Iraq and the US saying they will join Iran. Bitter enemies now friends? Also read an articles were Australia sent there Air force towards the US because Russian jets were just outside of US air space, which North Korea or China has been spotted in the past year. If countries keep pushing, we will have a WW3. Quote
monty16 Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 As far as the Middle-East, would NATO be involved in the region if it wasn't for OIL?? Iran has said it will be there for Iraq and the US saying they will join Iran. Bitter enemies now friends? Also read an articles were Australia sent there Air force towards the US because Russian jets were just outside of US air space, which North Korea or China has been spotted in the past year. If countries keep pushing, we will have a WW3. I hope you're not just now finally figuring out that it was about oil. Read carefully: Oil in respect to the US intending to free up Iraq's huge oil resources and get it on the world market in order to keep the price of oil affordable for the US. And now, because of US brutality and the hate the Iraqi people have for the US, it's a fight to rid their country of the US occupation. That is, the US occupation that they need to maintain control. And if the Iraqi military doesn't stand up for the US then the US will be obliged to increase the occupation. That's not necessarily boots on the ground but could be US air force bombing on Maliki's behalf. If it's left up to Obama, he won't do it and Iraq will get rid of the hated occupation. If Obama is cowed by the rightwing hawks then he will and that will be because it will become too big of a joke for the US to lose all control over Iraq. It amounts to losing complete control over the entire ME soon. Quote
jbg Posted June 15, 2014 Author Report Posted June 15, 2014 As far as the Middle-East, would NATO be involved in the region if it wasn't for OIL?? I hope you're not just now finally figuring out that it was about oil. Read carefully: Oil in respect to the US intending to free up Iraq's huge oil resources and get it on the world market in order to keep the price of oil affordable for the US. Do either or both of you drive or heat your homes? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
monty16 Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 Do either or both of you drive or heat your homes? I take that as an admission of US guilt. But your comments are so cryptic that it could mean something else too. Who knows? Who really cares? Explain if you think anybody does. Hopefully you do understand that you can't have it both ways, a fight against terrorism and oil too. Or maybe 'you' can? Quote
The_Squid Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 Do either or both of you drive or heat your homes? Technically, Canada has more than enough oil to supply itself. So, in theory, we don't need any middle eastern oil. Quote
jbg Posted June 16, 2014 Author Report Posted June 16, 2014 Technically, Canada has more than enough oil to supply itself. So, in theory, we don't need any middle eastern oil. Practically Canada's price would float to the world price. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.