Comparisons of America to the Rest of the World.

[monty16]

You didn't answer whether you were O.k. with Iraq. I'm going to assume that you are and I've presented that Wikipedia piece to address it. Would you like to challenge any of that? Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not the final word but I am asking for a specific rebuttal of what I've presented there. It relates most positively and directly to the claims I've made and the claims to which you are yet to be in agreement with.

[Derek 2.0]

You didn't answer whether you were O.k. with Iraq. I'm going to assume that you are and I've presented that Wikipedia piece to address it. Would you like to challenge any of that? Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not the final word but I am asking for a specific rebuttal of what I've presented there. It relates most positively and directly to the claims I've made and the claims to which you are yet to be in agreement with.

My opinion of Iraq and the Middle East in general have no barring on what time period you subscribe the region to being stable.

[monty16]

I'm going to stay with Saddam's Iraq for now. You have been challenged to refute the information provided by Wikipedia. This is referring directly to the claims I have made in any past posts.

Don't be in a hurry to answer, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a sensible discussion on the real issues. You've shown that you are interested and now you need to show that you understand the issue.

[monty16]

My opinion of Iraq and the Middle East in general have no barring on what time period you subscribe the region to being stable.

You've been outgunned and outclassed lad. In any case, this doesn't have to be a waste of my time. Helllloooo 'On Guard for Thee'??

[Derek 2.0]

I'm going to stay with Saddam's Iraq for now. You have been challenged to refute the information provided by Wikipedia. This is referring directly to the claims I have made in any past posts.

Don't be in a hurry to answer, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a sensible discussion on the real issues. You've shown that you are interested and now you need to show that you understand the issue.

So you're ascribing to Saddam’s reign as the pinnacle of Middle Eastern stability?

I wonder if these folks agree:

[monty16]

So you're ascribing to Saddam’s reign as the pinnacle of Middle Eastern stability?

I wonder if these folks agree:

I'm going to charge you with being dishonest and discriminatory for posting those pictures. The reason why I do that is because they are no more descriptive of Saddam or Saddam's Iraq than are pictures of the US's hundreds of thousands of victims in Vietnam. It differs only in the extent of the crimes against humanity. And fwiw, you could do better by showing some of the mass graves credited to Iraq. Say thanks for that.

You're running from the discussion and so I'll just end it here with you. If you want to continue at any time by picking up on the challenge in a meaningful way then i'll be here.

I will caution you strongly at this point to stay within the rules of good behaviour that this forum insists upon.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm going to charge you with being dishonest and discriminatory for posting those pictures.

Do you claim Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against his Kurdish population and Iranian soldiers, in a war he started, as a stabilizing factor?

You're running from the discussion and so I'll just end it here with you. If you want to continue at any time by picking up on the challenge in a meaningful way then i'll be here.

You suggest I’m running well you provide closing remarks…..

I will caution you strongly at this point to stay within the rules of good behaviour that this forum insists upon.

What rules are you implying I'm breaking?

[monty16]

None at the moment, but if you make erroneous charges against me and then fail to back them up or address them specifically, I will suggest that your purpose is to deliberately 'spam' the forum.

[On Guard for Thee]

I thought this thread had something to do with "the rest of the world" It seems to be just about America and Iraq at this point. If you just want to talk about the invasion of '03, then yes it was illegal. If you want to talk about Iraq just prior to the invasion, then yes it was reasonably stable, but that was because if you said anything untoward about Sadam he'd throw you through a leaf chipper. If you want to change the thread again and make it about America and the Muslim world, if you enjoy your human rights, I'd stay in the former.

[monty16]

I thought this thread had something to do with "the rest of the world" It seems to be just about America and Iraq at this point. If you just want to talk about the invasion of '03, then yes it was illegal. If you want to talk about Iraq just prior to the invasion, then yes it was reasonably stable, but that was because if you said anything untoward about Sadam he'd throw you through a leaf chipper. If you want to change the thread again and make it about America and the Muslim world, if you enjoy your human rights, I'd stay in the former.

It wasn't an argument about legality. All wars are illegal if you think it's a legal question. But I'll take that until you can come up with something better. I doubt it because you're obviously starting to complain about this thread being too much about Saddam now. Doohhhhhhhh!

But I can be honest and objective even if you choose not to be. Saddam ran a tight ship and when other factions that couldn't live within his rules acted up, he didn't dick around slapping their wrists. He offed a lot of them on the pretence that they were traitors. In retrospect, he was right. Notwithstanding that he had succeeded in maintaining control of the various factions of course. Some would even try to say he killed Christians and didn't let them practice their faith but we both know that's not true.

So the only difference between what Saddam did to traitors and what the US does to military combatants of the other side is that the US gives them a trial sometimes. And sometimes they just torture them for years and kill them. another fact we are both aware of right?

And in fact, the only real difference I can think of is that Saddam had succeeded and the US obviously never will.

You can change the subject away from Iraq now if you wish, unless you have some gem of information you're keeping from us?

[Derek 2.0]

None at the moment, but if you make erroneous charges against me and then fail to back them up or address them specifically, I will suggest that your purpose is to deliberately 'spam' the forum.

Why would you assume that I would do such?

None the less:

Do you claim Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against his Kurdish population and Iranian soldiers, in a war he started, as a stabilizing factor?

[Derek 2.0]

It wasn't an argument about legality. All wars are illegal if you think it's a legal question. But I'll take that until you can come up with something better. I doubt it because you're obviously starting to complain about this thread being too much about Saddam now. Doohhhhhhhh!

So I trust you view Saddam’s invasion of Iran as illegal? And as a follow-up, would Saddam invading Iran, in your mind, foster stabilization within the Persian Gulf?

Edited June 22, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[monty16]

So I trust you view Saddam’s invasion of Iran as illegal? And as a follow-up, would Saddam invading Iran, in your mind, foster stabilization within the Persian Gulf?

I don't really consider that you are adequately prepared for that sort of discussion and so I'm not going there. So even if Saddam did invade Iran then it still wouldn't have anything whatsoever with the claims I've been making.

Why? Why is that so? If you can answer that simple question then you will have demonstrated that you have at least started to do your homework assignments.

Persian Gulf? You could maybe mean the Arabian Peninsula? For what that's worth?

Edited June 22, 2014 by monty16

[Derek 2.0]

I don't really consider that you are adequately prepared for that sort of discussion and so I'm not going there. So even if Saddam did invade Iran then it still wouldn't have anything whatsoever with the claims I've been making.

Why? Why is that so? If you can answer that simple question then you will have demonstrated that you have at least started to do your homework assignments.

Are you suggesting Saddam didn’t start the Iraq-Iran war?

I need not do further homework, I’m just trying to understand your opinion……You’ve stated the Middle East was stable prior to American meddling, because of Saddam, yet fail to confirm your opinion on the use of chemical weapons by Saddam, on his own populace and that of Iran…is that a stabilizing factor? Is starting a war with your neighbour a stabilizing factor?

By all means, rearrange your goal posts, fore I find your stance to be on shaky ground.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And in fact, the only real difference I can think of is that Saddam had succeeded and the US obviously never will.

No, Saddam did not succeed at all, screwing up so bad that "even" Canadians were bombing Iraq in 1991. He did not succeed for Kurds or Shia in the south. He did not succeed with Iran. He was so successful, that his own people hanged him.

[Derek 2.0]

No, Saddam did not succeed at all, screwing up so bad that "even" Canadians were bombing Iraq in 1991. He did not succeed for Kurds or Shia in the south. He did not succeed with Iran. He was so successful, that his own people hanged him.

pleh thgim ti ,rorrim a hguorht cigol siht fo esnes gnikam yrt.......hctaM.teS.tnioP

[On Guard for Thee]

 

It wasn't an argument about legality. All wars are illegal if you think it's a legal question. But I'll take that until you can come up with something better. I doubt it because you're obviously starting to complain about this thread being too much about Saddam now. Doohhhhhhhh!

But I can be honest and objective even if you choose not to be. Saddam ran a tight ship and when other factions that couldn't live within his rules acted up, he didn't dick around slapping their wrists. He offed a lot of them on the pretence that they were traitors. In retrospect, he was right. Notwithstanding that he had succeeded in maintaining control of the various factions of course. Some would even try to say he killed Christians and didn't let them practice their faith but we both know that's not true.

So the only difference between what Saddam did to traitors and what the US does to military combatants of the other side is that the US gives them a trial sometimes. And sometimes they just torture them for years and kill them. another fact we are both aware of right?

And in fact, the only real difference I can think of is that Saddam had succeeded and the US obviously never will.

You can change the subject away from Iraq now if you wish, unless you have some gem of information you're keeping from us?

 

What makes you think all wars are illegal? That's as far as I bothered to read in your post as I'm sure the rest is as ill informed.

[Argus]

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?

Wasn't this the point I was making to you in another thread?

[GostHacked]

This thread should just be removed.

[Derek 2.0]

Wasn't this the point I was making to you in another thread?

No, you suggested banning trolls.

[monty16]

This thread should just be removed.

No, that would never do. If it's removed then it has to be for politically biased purposes because there's really no other reason to not want to discuss the issue.

To serve your agenda, at best it can be censored to exclude the off-topic nonsense that goes on. That would be a place for you to start and it would serve everybody's interests.

Those whose interest is to suppress the truth will never be happy.

[Rue]

Having had my share of censoring from the moderators I actually can understand why they have not censored Monty. I think his comments are hateful and designed to incite hatred but I can see why they do not cross the line. Me personally I can live with his comments. It is a forum. I do though think some of you are right, trying to debate the comments is pointless. It just adds to the absurdity. I have responded on one other thread trying to stick to one point but I doubt that was helpful. I do find it amazing he has found it possible to unite many different people on this forum in their unanimity with finding his posts hateful and pointless. That in itself is an accomplishment.

I just want to assure Mr. Bush Chaney that if he wants to come to Canada and spend his money here we can put up with him supporting the Texas Rangers at the Skydome if he is in fact a fan of anything Texas. I like San Antonio.

[GostHacked]

No, that would never do. If it's removed then it has to be for politically biased purposes because there's really no other reason to not want to discuss the issue.

To serve your agenda, at best it can be censored to exclude the off-topic nonsense that goes on. That would be a place for you to start and it would serve everybody's interests.

Those whose interest is to suppress the truth will never be happy.

It's not censorship. It's redundancy. We already have had several threads like this. No good has come from any one of them. You are not discussing anything new that we have not already discussed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Having had my share of censoring from the moderators I actually can understand why they have not censored Monty. I think his comments are hateful and designed to incite hatred but I can see why they do not cross the line. Me personally I can live with his comments. It is a forum.

Agreed...if one really believes in freedom of expression, then one must tolerate speech of all kinds subject to the rules of this forum, lest our own ideas be trampled upon by the righteous mob.

I just want to assure Mr. Bush Chaney that if he wants to come to Canada and spend his money here we can put up with him supporting the Texas Rangers at the Skydome if he is in fact a fan of anything Texas. I like San Antonio.

The Skydome has already provided the priceless memory of Minnesota scoring 6 runs on eight walks and three wild pitches in one inning, and it was free on TV.

[monty16]

Having had my share of censoring from the moderators I actually can understand why they have not censored Monty. I think his comments are hateful and designed to incite hatred but I can see why they do not cross the line. Me personally I can live with his comments. It is a forum. I do though think some of you are right, trying to debate the comments is pointless. It just adds to the absurdity. I have responded on one other thread trying to stick to one point but I doubt that was helpful. I do find it amazing he has found it possible to unite many different people on this forum in their unanimity with finding his posts hateful and pointless. That in itself is an accomplishment.

I just want to assure Mr. Bush Chaney that if he wants to come to Canada and spend his money here we can put up with him supporting the Texas Rangers at the Skydome if he is in fact a fan of anything Texas. I like San Antonio.

If I was criticizing the Nazis in the 40's then you would most likely be onside with me and helping out. If I was criticizing the US for slaughtering millions of innocent people in Vietnam and Cambodia then some Americans would even be helpful with that effort. Just because I'm criticizing the US for their wilful deceit of going to war with Iraq twice and slaughtering millions of innocent people, doesn't mean that my comments are hateful or incite hatred. It means that they are getting to Americans. And some Canadians too because some of my fellow Canadians still don't understand the truth!

Ease you pain and come to terms with the truth. Help me in my efforts and you could be a part of preventing that country from getting away with it again!

If there are any others who don't understand this then just ask for help. This isn't rocket science folks!