Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/27/03 03:05 PM, UNpossible wrote: Dear god, now I know where all those weird packages of *Magic* were going by my house, and all the shootouts in front of my house, two in the morning. By the way, where's Commander-K25?

Ummm, right here. Any particular reason?

"...when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is..."

SUVs don't have to meet emissions standards?

Then why do they have to be inspected and tested like every other vehicle on the road?

Homelessness is a problem that can only be helped by a change in society, not in government. Welfare checks only worsen the problems by addicting poor people to government aid. In doing this, they perpetuate the cycle of poverty, rather than solve it.

Society is what must change. People and communities must begin to care again, to want to help people. Too often today people look at problem and say "Somebody should do something", and then they look to government and demand that they "solve it". When people look at a problem such as this, they need to realize that they are somebody and that through charities and their communities, they can solve anything far better than government bureaucracy can.

Government's place is not to make sure there are no poor people. That's an impossible goal and government's involvement will only worsen the situation.

What we need is for society to care once again, rather than look to government to care for us.

That, perhaps, more than anything else is the prime tenet of conservatism.

Them being dead might improve the situation. Uday and Quesay were the heads of the Republican Guard and the diehard Fedayeen militia. Without their leaders to coordinate anything, many of these resistance groups may destabilize.

At 7/22/03 12:36 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: So the rest of the country makes no guns? None whatsoever? The rest of the world never will makes guns at all, even if there was a demand?

Correction: 'So the rest of the world makes no guns?'

At 7/22/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: No, criminals can't import their guns through the black market because America is the country that is used to export guns to other criminal organizations and terrorists.

So the rest of the country makes no guns? None whatsoever? The rest of the world never will makes guns at all, even if there was a demand?

Also, maybe the police will do something? You never know.

Were the police have been able to stop booze smuggling or have they been able to stop drug trafficking?

I agree with BWS. Criminals will get guns no matter what.

ThiConsider these historical examples:

We tried to ban alcohol in prohibition. Did it work? No, people made their own or smuggled it. It even made the situation worse by creating the Mafia.

We've tried to ban and keep out drugs. Has that worked? No, drugs are smuggled en masse into this country daily. It's even created dangerous criminal organizations centered around drug trafficking, drug-fueled street gangs/dealers and powerful international cartels.

If we ban guns, we can judge the results from history. Illegal guns will continue to flow into the hands of criminals via smuggling operations and it is likely that a new class of organized crime and widespread crime problems will develop around gunrunning just as it did around bootlegging and drugs.

United States Combat deaths in 20th Century Wars

WWI: 53,513
WWII: 292,131
Korean War: 33,651
Vietnam War: 47,369
Gulf War I: 148

-------------------------------------------------------

This conflict hardly compares to Vietnam.

At 7/21/03 09:41 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Native Americans never came here on some bullshit land bridge. Thank you and good day.

But they came from somewhere and eventually trace back to Africa like all homo sapiens do.

Ninja, you're not a member.

Someone may have told you that you were accepted, but there was a big debacle at the time over quorums and voting rules, so the matter was taken up by the PSCM where your acceptance was voted down.

LURD = Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy

The LURD rebels in Liberia have launched another assault on the capital, today. They're pushing ever fruther into the northern suburbs and have crossed key bridgeheads making a strike at downtown imminent. Mortar fire is pounding many areas and residents are fleeing from the frontline of the battle.

President Taylor has promised to leave for asylum in Nigeria once peacekeepers arrive and citizens are still demanding U.S. intervention.

"I don't understand why up to this time the peacekeepers haven't come," said city resident Molley Paasewe, "Get us out of this Hell."

More info in the AP article Battle for Liberia's Capital Rages.

I think they're pretty much intended to kill.

What else would they be? Paperweights, perhaps?

At 7/18/03 01:00 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: What did I exclude or twist here? On the 2nd paragraph you refer to dying children and then you talk about infrastructures and thing that get damaged and destroyed. How could you neglect to mention the deaths of people along with the material damage of war? You were talking about dead babies just a few lines ago.

I was arguing her conclusion that we intentionally damaged infrastructure and thus caused the deaths of children. To do this, I argued that infrastructure loss is unavoidable in war and thus is hardly intentional.

The focus was on the cause of deaths and the intention behind it, not on the deaths themselves.

At 7/18/03 12:19 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: About half of this thread is a rant about not liking ice cream while sprinkling the remainder with tasty chocolate nuggets of wisdom. I, for one, liked Ninja's quote on Terrorism and Heroism.

Because you agree with it, not because a good argument was made.

At 7/18/03 02:51 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Ninja? Thoughts?

I was SURE she was a member.
Isn't she?

Ted and Judge, this was brought up earlier, remember? Check page two of the PSCM forum, about halfway down the page, if you can't remember.

Here's a thought:

Eliminate our excessive and harmful social welfare programs and downsize the government bureacracy.

At 7/18/03 12:36 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: A lot? No. No they haven't.

Rebuilding Europe after World War II?

Leading the democratic nations in the Cold War and resisting dictatorial communism?

Giving massive amounts of foreign aid and then forgiving many of the debts?

Being one of the top countries in the world for technology and innovation, giving us much of our modern technology?

Wait a moment before you respond, though. I know that you’ll find some way to explain away all these things, but that’s exactly my point: Your belief that America is always wrong leads you to see only one side of the picture.

America helped Europe rebuild? — Must have been some kind of plot.
America gives lots of foreign aid? — Must be a hidden agenda.

You have a preconceived idea that America has always been and always will be wrong and thus, your cynicism will twist or change anything to support that idea.

When thinking about America remember: "There are two sides to everything, so what is more likely, that America always wrong and destructive, or that I’m only choosing to see one side of the picture."

At 7/17/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: AMERICA HAS OVER 7 000 NUCLEAR WMDS! HOORAY! LET'S GO LIBERATE THE EVIL NORTH KOREANS THAT MAY HAVE AT LEAST ONE! YAY!

Russia has over 18,000, but you don't seem to want to satirize or complain about them.

At 7/18/03 12:40 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: *shrugs* you could've proven her theory/claim/post wrong in one way or another.

You can't argue with a statement based solely on bias.

For example, a person says "I hate ice cream". How should you disprove that? By arguing that this person somehow likes ice cream?

At 7/18/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Your screen name is Commander-K25. What is the purpose of commanders?

To command. In what context is never stated.

This is pretty pathetic. Should I assume that you support genetic manipulation and breeding experiments because your username is crossbreed?

"things get destroyed" "Infrastructure is often damaged" Unless people = things, you forgot a pretty important part of war: people.

That was not a blanket statement of war in general. That was talking about war's effect on infrastructure. "Things get destroyed" - a reminder that war is destructive in nature. "Infrastructure is often damaged" - a further specification about a certain type of things that is often damaged.

You were not refering to the infrastructure, sir. -_-

I was referring to infrastructure as part of the larger argument. You chose to focus on exactly one portion of it.

All they ever show is things getting destroyed and the infrastructure being damaged, never the bloodied corpses of civilians or even soldiers. You said that "things get destroyed" and the "Infrastructure is often damaged". You see my point.

That statement was not about the entire spectrum of war's effects. It was about one particular thing.

Through some abomination of logic and twisted rationality, you're trying to expand a specific into a generality and then blame me for not being specific. Who's fault is this? Me, or you, who's trying to twist it into entirely different contexts and then blame me for your own logical twists?

The short of this is, I made a statement with a specific meaning in mind. You're modifying it with what you want to hear and twisting it to try and make it so. Any miscommunication or misinterpretation is entirely yours.

At 7/16/03 01:34 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Couldn't counter her argument, huh?.

What argument?

She made a simple statement without support, so I gave another one along the same lines of thinking. Do you not agree with it? It seems to describe many arguments on this forum quite well.

At 7/16/03 01:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Sheesh, romanticize murder for morale.

I'm not romanticizing it. You're pretending that I am so you can yell at me for it.

PEOPLE DIE!

Yes, they do. I never said they didn't.

There's more to war than just guns and flags, there are innocent civilians that die and soldiers that are put there against their will. Fox News only showed buildings getting blown up, never people.

Yes, war is a messy business, but stop ranting about it to me because I never claimed it wasn't. The topic was infrastructure so I made a comment concerning infrastructure. That little snippet was in relation to infrastructure and not war in general. If this were a discussion on war in general, of course there'd be mention of casualties.

And why are you trying to drag Fox News into this? I know you hate them, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

At 7/14/03 07:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
.........He's so "accepting" that he okayed a group of Black men to be put to death simply because they were Black?

What are you referring to, because nobody was executed simply because they were black. Furthermore, what does Bush have to do with executions? Yes, he was governor, but not judge, jury, prosecutor and appeals courts.

At 7/14/03 01:58 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Oh, yeah. I forgot about the big conspiracy theory that's just come out from all the pro-Bushies. Sorry, I'll add that in here.

I don't know of any "conspiracy theory". Could you try not to invent fictions, no matter how much you want to believe in them.

Ah. That's a good point. Firstly, I'd like to say once again the Iraq first got ALL it's weapons building technology from the US (again, including WMD and biological and chemical warfare). After Iraq helped "beat up" Iran for us, we then forced Iraq to destroy the weapons or even went over there to destroy them ourselves or make sure they were destroyed.

In fact, Bush semi-admitted this by saying that the US had a hand in making sure that Suddam "dismantled his weapons" after the Iranian Conflict and such, but then he said that "they weren't sure if he had done so completely."

This doesn't answer the question. You're sidelining simply so you can attack Bush with questionable statements.

However, we didn't get all of the weapons or machinary, so we just forbid that Iraq should continue using the materials and weapons we gave them. When the UN investigators covered Iraq, they DID find these old weapons and machinery. This was one of the only interesting issues that Fox ever covered, also. lol. ^_-

However, they were all too old and delapidated from age to use. Know what this means? That Iraq actually listened to us, believe it or not, and didn't use the stuff we gave them after Iran was put into shambles.

Sources? You claim you always have them.

Yes, some of the WMDs had a somewhat short shelf-life, but he had WMD programs. He could very well have made more.

Some of the WMDs, however, did not have that short shelf-life and thus might very well still be around.

Saddam must have had WMDs, because he never publicly destroyed them to the satisfaction of the UN. That’s why they continued to pass so many resolutions on Iraq. Why didn’t he destroy them to rid himself of the sanctions, if he wasn’t keeping them?

Um. Firstly, a nuclear weapon is a WMD.

I never said they weren’t.

So, why didn't we try containment and political pressure on Iraq before we bombed them?

Because the politics of the Middle East is not the same as the political situation of the Far East. Iraq had sanctions and political pressure for over a decade and they did no good. Korea is much more likely to be persuaded by political pressure.

Perhaps could it be that he knew they didn't?.....and that he lied?

Or you just like to repeat the phrase "he lied", even when you don't know if he did.

So, your ideas about Bush's ever so famous morals is the only thing that is debatable on that subject (both for and against).

I never mentioned Bush's "morals". Stop reading your own bias and ideas into what I say.

So.......you do think he's perfect?

No, I don't. I don't think he's perfect, but I don't think he's the cause of every problem or the greedy, stupid, warmongering idiot that you seem to think of him. In your eyes, it seems, not being as extreme as you makes me a blindly dedicated supporter.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What an answer!

At 7/15/03 07:29 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: When a foreign country attacks the US with no good reason: Terrorism

When the US attacks a foreign country with no good reason: Heroism

I'm done here.

When some supports America: Idiocy

When someone hates America: Genius

I think I get it now.

At 7/14/03 11:45 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Wow. The pole up your butt must have a pole up it's butt. Calm down man. lol. Do you feel better about yourself now that you've flamed me?

Show me a man who resorts to simple insults and denial, and I'll show you a man with nothing better to say.

That's hardly a flame. Don't act so "innocent". Don't think everyone's against you or after you simply because they disagree. Nobody is always correct, and that includes you and me.

As for your sources, it's primarily an editorial. I checked his sources and found various declassified documents stating that there has been an increase of waterborn disease in Iraq because water treatment systems in major areas were damaged in the war.

I say, so what? What does this prove? That America has led a deliberate campaign of genocide and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children? No, in fact it doesn't even mention those sort of numbers.

It's war; things get destroyed. Infrastructure is often damaged, but guess what, we're busy fixing it.

At 7/15/03 02:50 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Now the question is, will Tony Blair end up having to take a bullet overseas for riding on the war train based on this intelligence? After all, Mr. Blair did make this claim out to be one of the major reasons for war, unlike Bush making it simply a footnote.

Blair's still maintaining that it's true, which makes me wonder exactly who's telling the truth. Do they know something we don't?

At 7/13/03 08:47 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: All in all, Bush lied about WMD.

Bush mentioned a report that turned out to be untrue. Did he lie or was he deceived? You don't really know so don't jump to conclusions.

And even worse, he went to war with a country without finding out if there was really need to to begin with.

Check your history. It was confirmed during and after the Gulf War that Iraq had WMDs. Where did they go if Saddam didn't destroy them?

In addition to that, Mr. "anti-terrorism/WMD" and Mr. "Pro-UN resolutions" completely dropped those same concerns for a more dangerous country who we already KNOW is making WMD against US resolutions.

Korea is not the same situation in any way. It is exactly because they have nuclear weapons that we're avoiding war with them. Iraq called for preventative disarmament; North Korea calls for containment and political pressure.

Korea (note that Korea suspiciously has no oil, while Iraq has the second largest in the world).

And that's exactly what that argument is, mere suspicion.

You should at least be able to say that he "was wrong." It shouldn't hurt you. lol. After all, if you can't do that, then you would have to deem his actions "perfect," and they were far from that.

What if some doesn't happen to agree with you? *gasp* The shock! The horror!

Actually, at this point, I'd be pleased if some of these obsessive "Bushies" would just admit that Bush isn't perfect himself (no one is),

Bushies? Where are all these blind Bush supporters?