monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) It's been said that Americans don't value human life the way many other third world countries are known to do. A couple of examples quoted here: Americans kill their own people with lethal injections. Americans use lethal injections to kill that don't even work sometimes. Americans don't believe in their people having universal health care. Americans applaud their government for killing people in foreign lands for oil. Americans have given up more humanitarian methods of killing people such as machetes, in favour of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (the biggest and best in the world!) Americans kill their own people with their own guns in numbers that far eclipse other *countries. *countries which should be compared. (debateble) In fairness to Americans, they don't believe in killing a fetus and they don't believe in 'spilling the seed' because god is watching and considers it as self-abuse. Notwithstanding that they allow their infant mortality rate to remain the highest in the **world. **countries that should be compared. (debatable) So let's debate! Edited June 18, 2014 by monty16 Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Oh great, another America bashing thread. Like we don't have enough of it already. Btw, most of your assertions in your post are wrong. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Perfect timing....thank you for proving my point in another thread by starting this one. Bravo ! Edited June 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 Oh great, another America bashing thread. Like we don't have enough of it already. Btw, most of your assertions in your post are wrong. That's not fair, I defended the US in some situations and I certainly didn't lie about anything. Debate now. Does the US not have a record of killing their own people with their own guns? More so than in any other country of the *world? * countries with which we could make a fair comparasion. (debatable) My point is going to be to state that no other **country in the world puts less value on human lives than does the US. **countries with which we should try to compare. Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 The good that can come out of this thread is that some evil swine will stop trying to tell us that it's o.k. to slaughter other people in foreign lands because they don't value human life. The point for which one poster on this forum was sincerely congratulated for making! Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 Perfect timing....thank you for proving my point in another thread by starting this one. Bravo ! I don't think anybody knows what you're talking about. I don't and I' the one that should I suppose? Please explain and help make something good come out of this thread! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 I don't think anybody knows what you're talking about. I don't and I' the one that should I suppose? Please explain and help make something good come out of this thread! No further explanation is required.....it is so perfect and pure that coincidence is an unworthy description. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 That's not fair, I defended the US in some situations and I certainly didn't lie about anything. Debate now. Does the US not have a record of killing their own people with their own guns? More so than in any other country of the *world? * countries with which we could make a fair comparasion. (debatable) My point is going to be to state that no other **country in the world puts less value on human lives than does the US. **countries with which we should try to compare. Every country in the world has people killing it's own people. From guns, knives, bombs, bats and fists. Regardless, many countries put less value on human life. Take the Middle East, where they strap kids with suicide vests, and then praise them after they blow themselves up. Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 Every country in the world has people killing it's own people. From guns, knives, bombs, bats and fists. Regardless, many countries put less value on human life. Take the Middle East, where they strap kids with suicide vests, and then praise them after they blow themselves up. Fair to compare the US to the ME because they are comparable countries. Canada wouldn't be a useful comparison because Canada can't be compared to the US in any way when it comes to killing of it's own people. But how does strapping explosives to a few (??), if any children compare to the US deliberately dropping huge bombs on hundreds of thousands of children in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Japan, and other countries? Was it all done for a good cause and if not then which ones weren't? Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Fair to compare the US to the ME because they are comparable countries. Canada wouldn't be a useful comparison because Canada can't be compared to the US in any way when it comes to killing of it's own people. But how does strapping explosives to a few (??), if any children compare to the US deliberately dropping huge bombs on hundreds of thousands of children in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Japan, and other countries? Was it all done for a good cause and if not then which ones weren't? I think the only country that would apply to the dropping of huge bombs would be Japan. And yes, it was for a good cause, to stop a war that wasn't started by Americans. Quote
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Posted June 18, 2014 these 'huge' bombs don't count. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=huge+bombs+dropped+on+Iraq&qpvt=huge+bombs+dropped+on+Iraq&FORM=VDRE Quote
Shady Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 these 'huge' bombs don't count. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=huge+bombs+dropped+on+Iraq&qpvt=huge+bombs+dropped+on+Iraq&FORM=VDRE They certainly weren't being targeted on children or the general population. However, Japan was a different story. Same with Dresden in Germany. Quote
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) They certainly weren't being targeted on children or the general population. However, Japan was a different story. Same with Dresden in Germany. the U.S. has deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians with both bombs and guns. That the didn't get caught in the act more than just a few times is small consolation to their apologists. But some of their most brutal slaughters of civilians were caught on camera. The My Lai massacre where a Vietnamese grandmother is shown screaming at a US soldier. Beside her stands a teenage Iraqi girl who is seen buttoning up her blouse and in tears. She's in tears because the US soldiers just raped her. Another woman, apparently the mother of the rape victim is seen holding a baby of perhaps a year of age in her arms. Mere seconds later the entire family was machine gunned down and lay dead on the ground. Iraq didn't furnish us those horrible first hand accounts because they learned to 'embed' the media and keep them from blowing the cover. But only a heartless animal would even attempt to apologize for what they got away with. With apologies to animals. And so why Iraq? For oil! That's why the US military was so easily programmed into hating their enemy. Those that have not been able to live with their demons have taken their lives. It's the only peace a person with a shred of decency would ever find. Have you US apologists found peace with your convictions yet? Could you live with yourselves if you ever acknowledged the truth? edit: One of the shots in the Haberle sequence with the family. Not the best one though because they must have found it just too horrible for the public to see even years later. Calley got time off for good behaviour or something like that after serving about a year in jail. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=my+lai+massacre+photos&qpvt=my+lai+massacre+photos&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=E58ECF4446128B451556765C068B335703AD42D2&selectedIndex=202 Choose your side! Edited June 19, 2014 by monty16 Quote
Topaz Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 A couple years back, when Oprah was on, she did a show about how the rest of the world thought of the USA. Well, it wasn't pretty, or nice to say the least . I've also heard Americans say that their country was founded on violence, so it should be a big surprised of the violence within the country with guns. America is what it is, a new generations of people not like the morals of their grandparents, but then again, most people who leave their own country do go to the US to live. Its the military and the politicians one has to watch. Quote
Shady Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 the U.S. has deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians with both bombs and guns. No, there just isn't anything to gain from such actions. However, terrorists certainly don't discriminate between military and civilian targets. They actually use schools to house arms! Quote
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Posted June 19, 2014 No, there just isn't anything to gain from such actions. However, terrorists certainly don't discriminate between military and civilian targets. They actually use schools to house arms! 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. Quote
Shady Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 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. Yep, and targeting women and children is their number one method. Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 It's been said that Americans don't value human life the way many other third world countries are known to do. A couple of examples quoted here: Americans kill their own people with lethal injections. Americans use lethal injections to kill that don't even work sometimes. oh my!... the 3rd person executed in the U.S. in 24 hours... . Quote
Moonbox Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) 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. A nuclear attack on the USA by suspected terrorists would result in American hysteria (rightfully so). Believe it or not, you can trace a nuclear weapon back to where the uranium was refined, which greatly narrows down the possible perpetrators. This invites likely retaliation. An Islamic nuclear attack, for example, would likely result in much of the Middle East (Iran in particular) being turned to glass or, failing that, a brutal subjugation of the subcontinent. Once something like that happens, all bets are off. Edited June 19, 2014 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Posted June 19, 2014 A nuclear attack on the USA by suspected terrorists would result in American hysteria (rightfully so). Believe it or not, you can trace a nuclear weapon back to where the uranium was refined, which greatly narrows down the possible perpetrators. This invites likely retaliation. An Islamic nuclear attack, for example, would likely result in much of the Middle East (Iran in particular) being turned to glass or, failing that, a brutal subjugation of the subcontinent. Once something like that happens, all bets are off. 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. Quote
guyser Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Why is anyone engaging in this discussion? First 2 posts nailed it. Edited June 19, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 No....as this is all just (silly) conjecture. U.S. public safety and defense protocols already expect that low order, high order, and radiological bombs/devices will be deployed against American cities by domestic and foreign terrorists. It could just as well be Toronto or Vancouver. Nothing special about Canada in this kind of game. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 oh my!... the 3rd person executed in the U.S. in 24 hours... . Was he a murderer or rapist? Or both? Quote
monty16 Posted June 20, 2014 Author Report Posted June 20, 2014 No....as this is all just (silly) conjecture. U.S. public safety and defense protocols already expect that low order, high order, and radiological bombs/devices will be deployed against American cities by domestic and foreign terrorists. It could just as well be Toronto or Vancouver. Nothing special about Canada in this kind of game. 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! Quote
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.