Comparisons of America to the Rest of the World.

Big Guy · June 21, 2014

There is a line between the passionate posting of a legitimate point of view and a hate motivated denouncement of a whole society. That line has been crossed.

I will no longer comment on this thread.

monty16 · June 21, 2014

There is a line between the passionate posting of a legitimate point of view and a hate motivated denouncement of a whole society. That line has been crossed.

I will no longer comment on this thread.

You might be able to get some sympathy from the forum admin with that one? Of course my position is that hate of evil is legitimate and should be expressed in no few words. You, on the other hand are completely tonguetied for an answer and so need to go on the personal attack.

I understand that you can't help it because you have been conditioned to support US military evil. Now run away, run away!

monty16 · June 21, 2014

What is truly horrific, is that we allow Monty to stay alive with this bs thread and to further inflame this hatred

Is being opposed to the US slaughter of women and children truly horrific?

Challenge any of the truths I've stated if you can but don't start babbling like a frustrated little girl who's found her hypocrisy exposed.

Or whatever you think will work for you. What is definitely working is the US apologists are having nightmares over being exposed here. Ain't it awwwwwfullll!

Big Guy · June 21, 2014

What is truly horrific, is that we allow Monty to stay alive with this bs thread and to further inflame this hatred

Perhaps the following may help;

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0032564/quotes

monty16 · June 21, 2014

Perhaps the following may help;

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0032564/quotes

Your personal attacks have descended to the level of an uneducated teenager now. You're good company for your new friend, the frustrated housewife.

But don't worry, I've appealed to Charles Anthony to put an end to what's going on. At worst he's watching you, at best it'll be you that gets the peepee slap for your bad behaviour.

And don't worry, I'm more than willing to take the slap too if it helps to shut your girlfriend's cakehole as well as ours.

WestCoastRunner · June 22, 2014

You're good company for your new friend, the frustrated housewife.

What a sexist comment and it speaks volumes for this forum in general. I am no such thing as a frustrated housewife. You probably wish I were! However, I am a fulltime female worker in the IT industry, university educated. Watch out!!!! hehe

WestCoastRunner · June 22, 2014

Have you reported it yet ? We've had far worse over the years...they usually self destruct after a spell.

I did report it. I was told this thread is perfectly fine. There you go! Setting standards for this site.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

Perhaps the following may help;

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0032564/quotes

And!

There is a line between the passionate posting of a legitimate point of view and a hate motivated denouncement of a whole society. That line has been crossed.
I will no longer comment on this thread.

Well, you were good for your word for at least part of a day!

Edited June 22, 2014 by monty16

bush_cheney2004 · June 22, 2014

I did report it. I was told this thread is perfectly fine. There you go! Setting standards for this site.

The standard for free speech is well known....that means ideas that some may dislike or find objectionable are often tolerated here. The cure for such speech is not censorship, but rather more speech.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

I did report it. I was told this thread is perfectly fine. There you go! Setting standards for this site.

Hey, why didn't you tell me you reported this thread? LOL

So let me make it clear to you again. Hate for US foreign policy in the ME where the US is slaughtering women and children for oil, is totally justified and warranted. What isn't justified is "your" hate for hearing it exposed. Why are you being such a hater?

Do you have a weight problem?

Edited June 22, 2014 by monty16

bush_cheney2004 · June 22, 2014

...So let me make it clear to you again. Hate for US foreign policy in the ME where the US is slaughtering women and children for oil, is totally justified and warranted.

So it's OK to "slaughter" men for oil ? Like Canada in Libya ? Got it....

On Guard for Thee · June 22, 2014

Hey, why didn't you tell me you reported this thread? LOL

So let me make it clear to you again. Hate for US foreign policy in the ME where the US is slaughtering women and children for oil, is totally justified and warranted. What isn't justified is "your" hate for hearing it exposed. Why are you being such a hater?

Do you have a weight problem?

I definitely see a weight problem, but not hers. I suspect a lot of fat between the brain cells. Once again I ask, have you ever been in a Muslim country?

Derek 2.0 · June 22, 2014

The standard for free speech is well known....that means ideas that some may dislike or find objectionable are often tolerated here. The cure for such speech is not censorship, but rather more speech.

In some cases, in others cases (as I think with this one), continuing on only lends some sort of legitimacy to this type of speech…By all means, let him have his say within forum rules…....With that said, would you attempt a conversation with the crazy person begging for change with a sandwich board and tin-foil hat, living on the streets?

bush_cheney2004 · June 22, 2014

In some cases, in others cases (as I think with this one), continuing on only lends some sort of legitimacy to this type of speech…By all means, let him have his say within forum rules…....With that said, would you attempt a conversation with the crazy person begging for change with a sandwich board and tin-foil hat, living on the streets?

Yes...and I have done so, mostly to determine which beggars are mentally ill. I give less to the very sane con artists.

This one is so over the top that it begins to read like our favorite Iraq Information Minister (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf). IMHO, this is a previously banned member returning to continue the battle against the Great Satan.

It also has the unintended consequence of casting alleged "trolls" in a much more reasonable light.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

So it's OK to "slaughter" men for oil ? Like Canada in Libya ? Got it....

No, it's not o.k. for Canada to slaughter men for oil, and especially when it's done in support of the US wars for oil.

I've told you many times that a criticism of Canada is in no way a defence of the US, nor is it an argument to say that the US is not guilty of the same crimes. If you're an American then that could be the explanation of why you don't understand that.

Are you accusing me of being a banned member of this forum, under a new name? Make the accusation and I'll report you. Otherwise stop your bad behaviour now. Thanks!

monty16 · June 22, 2014

I definitely see a weight problem, but not hers. I suspect a lot of fat between the brain cells. Once again I ask, have you ever been in a Muslim country?

Which Muslim country?

The issue here is that it's totally justified and warranted to criticize any country that has been found guilty in the eyes of the world of going to war for oil. Or oil dollars or any other way you want to spin it. The intention of this thread is partly to encourage members to debate the issue and debate the charges I make against the US. Or indeed, the charges others make against the US.

When she continually appeals to the forum admin that I am making unfair or untrue charges, she just continues to fail to get the satisfaction she craves.

Why? And why would anybody want to side with her, and especially you, a Canadian? If you can't make any specific charges against what I've said then you had best keep whining about it. There's no way I can help you either.

Derek 2.0 · June 22, 2014

This one is so over the top that it begins to read like our favorite Iraq Information Minister (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf). IMHO, this is a previously banned member returning to continue the battle against the Great Satan.

It also has the unintended consequence of casting alleged "trolls" in a much more reasonable light.

Perhaps this one is a former member, none the less , I’m sure there are numerous people of the shared point of view…..who’s to know.

As to a reasonable light, again perhaps, but I’d hazard a guess then many share his views to varying levels, but have a more polished form of delivery.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

Perhaps this one is a former member, none the less , I’m sure there are numerous people of the shared point of view…..who’s to know.

As to a reasonable light, again perhaps, but I’d hazard a guess then many share his views to varying levels, but have a more polished form of delivery.

It appears that my form of delivery is serving my purpose here. Why try to water down the truth. Why try to water down the truth of the holocaust with myths? That only serves to discredit holocaust survivors. Or why accept US propagandists' versions of anything when it's so easy to prove they're lying in many cases for propaganda purposes? Let's make sure that we never accept the stigmatizing of these charges against the US in the same way we are forced to accept the stigmatising of the false holocaust claims. If you are aware of what I'm talking about then I ask you, is that happening? Is it the goal of those who attack my methods to cause that to happen? Shouldn't we all be aware that if the US can succeed with it's propaganda then it can succeed in the same way that Israel has succeeded in being able to continue it's agenda of discrimination and apartheid against the Palestinian people?

I stand behind my method of delivery and I accept the reputation it brings me. No specific charges of lying or exaggerating have been brought against me on this forum and I suspect that none will be. I haven't heard anyone yet that has the knowledge of the situation or the background to do so.

But I'll continue to offer up the challenge. How about you? Surprise me! You may in fact be an 'expert' on the subject being discussed here. In the meantime, I'll just continue to serve the purpose here on this forum that I feel I am aboliged to serve if I want to claim to be a decent person.

Edited June 22, 2014 by monty16

Derek 2.0 · June 22, 2014

But I'll continue to offer up the challenge. How about you? Surprise me! You may in fact be an 'expert' on the subject being discussed here. In the meantime, I'll just continue to serve the purpose here on this forum that I feel I am aboliged to serve if I want to claim to be a decent person.

I still await your reply in one of the other threads (one of the Iraq ones) in relation to your claim of Middle East stability prior to American involvement in the region……Frankly, until such question is addressed, I don't see much of challenge being offered.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Derek 2.0

On Guard for Thee · June 22, 2014

Which Muslim country?

The issue here is that it's totally justified and warranted to criticize any country that has been found guilty in the eyes of the world of going to war for oil. Or oil dollars or any other way you want to spin it. The intention of this thread is partly to encourage members to debate the issue and debate the charges I make against the US. Or indeed, the charges others make against the US.

When she continually appeals to the forum admin that I am making unfair or untrue charges, she just continues to fail to get the satisfaction she craves.

Why? And why would anybody want to side with her, and especially you, a Canadian? If you can't make any specific charges against what I've said then you had best keep whining about it. There's no way I can help you either.

I don't hesitate to critisize a country's policies when I think they are wrong. I have done so with my own and with America, and others. You seem to have it that every bit of grief that is felt in a Muslim country must be brought on by American troops marching in support of oil production. Well maybe take a trip to Dubai sometime. You won't see a lot of American troops but you will see a lot of oil production and guess what. People have jobs, they have cars, they go to school, they drink beer. Then get in a plane for 90 minutes and you're in Afghanistan. Lot's of troops for sure, not many oil wells though, and guess what. About 80% of the people are illiterate, where there is a school girls can't attend any longer than enough to learn to read the Koran, and you can get stoned for getting stoned, and your head cut off for getting laid. Maybe that oil stuff has it's benefits after all.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

I still await your reply in one of the other threads (one of the Iraq ones) in relation to your claim of Middle East stability prior to American involvement in the region……Frankly, until such question is addressed, I don't see much of challenge being offered.

It seems that your link references the Middle East, when in fact the claims I was making were for Saddam's success in Iraq. However, I'll work on both if you are sincere in investigating the issue. Which ME country would you like to discuss? Choose one which 'I' will have an interest in discussing or defending. Iraq would be more to the point than any other.

If you can agree on Iraq then make your submission to which I can respond.

My position to begin with is that Saddam had managed to bring relative peace and stability to his country, beginning after the end of the Iran/Iraq war and up to the US led war against Iraq on the false claim of it being on behalf of Kuwait.

Your rebuttal?

I can also make a strong argument for Iran.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

On guard for Thee:

You seem to have it that every bit of grief that is felt in a Muslim country must be brought on by American troops marching in support of oil production.

That's not helpful in the least. It lacks any specificity and it's also lacking in any real quality as being said by a person who claims to have knowledge of that region of the world. I can just as easily make the claim that all unrest in the ME is due to the US. I won't bother.

Join with us and talk about Iraq. That's the real issue isn't it? What do you know about Saddam's Iraq before the Gulf war? What do you know about Saddam's brutality against the Kurds. Have I mentioned Stephen Pelletiere, CIA department head, who has a contradictory story to tell about Saddam's use of gas/chem warfare?

Derek 2.0 · June 22, 2014

If you can agree on Iraq then make your submission to which I can respond.

I already did in the linked quote......In essence you stated the Middle East was stable prior to American “meddling”……I asked you to define stability in your view.

monty16 · June 22, 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Political program

Promoting women's literacy and education in the 1970s

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally the al-Bakr's second-in-command, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.[29] At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.

After the Ba'athists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant.[30] The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.[30]

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

Saddam seen talking to Michel Aflaq, the founder of ba'athist thought, in 1988.

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[31][32]

With the help of increasing oil revenues, Saddam diversified the largely oil-based Iraqi economy. Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign helped Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas. Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside and roughly two-thirds were peasants. This number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as global oil prices helped revenues to rise from less than a half billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars and the country invested into industrial expansion.

No, I didn't write that but there's little I would change with it!

Edited June 22, 2014 by monty16

Derek 2.0 · June 22, 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

You stated:

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.

What other countries do you speak of? Surely the Iranians didn’t find Saddam’s meddling stabilizing…..but of course, the Americans were involved in the Middle East long before Saddam was born……try again, but put more effort into it, you’re boring me.

At what point, in your view, was the Middle East stable?