Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/13/03 07:14 AM, Slizor wrote: Ted_Easton : I do believe the statistics are more acute than the examples.


The solution, of course, is to eliminate poverty.

Americans don't think that way. They don't want to see the elimination of poverty. They want more bars, walls, and police. I mean America's homicide rate is 5 times what Canada's is.

At 4/13/03 01:57 AM, implodinggoat wrote: This post is to discuss the future of the Republican party.

Something like this:

Why waste your time on the Nazi fucks? It's not worth it.

Nationalism is inherently wrong. It only serves to strengthen the barriers that keep humanity from achieving peace. It proliferates hatread, racism, and conformity.

In short,"Fuck nationalism, it sucks - Harshly."

That is all.

At 4/9/03 06:00 PM, kospas wrote: Communists suck because they want a nev Russia or North-Korea in every freakin' country. And they never learn. Communism is a dictatorship and many people don't seem to realize that.

You are quite possibly the most retarded person on this forum.

At 4/13/03 02:47 AM, evilkate wrote:
Because they died with the INTENTION of preserving the US. And it matters because them BEING DEAD, they can't really defend themselves. And I agree with the goat person that it's extremely low to associate your anti-war sentiments with NOBLE soldiers. They died respecting their country and they deserve respect.

The intention? What a load of bollocks that is. Invading Iraq won't make America any safer.

And since when is killing professionaly considered noble? It's a job, nothing more.

They don't deserve respect, for what being killed? 222 times as many people die daily, no one gives a shit about them. I certainly don't care about 9 american soldiers who were killed in a war that was not necessary for the defnece of their nation.

At 4/13/03 02:36 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:30 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: I don't care, they knew what they were doing when the signed up.

Way to show respect to the people that died with the intentions of preserving the country that has babied you your entire life, ingrate.

One) I'm Canadian

Two) they died for nothing. Not to preserving American, it's instituion, it's way of life, or it's freedom at anyrate. Perhaps america's cost to fill up at the gas staton.

At 4/13/03 02:34 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:30 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: I don't care, they knew what they were doing when the signed up.

This is true, although its still rather disturbing that you can show such apathy for the loss of human life merely because they were fighting a war that you disagreed with.

I don't care if you hate Bush but extending that hatred to dead soldiers is pretty fucking low.

No you see if it were hatred I'd be glad to see them dead. This right here is what we call apathy. In other words I am completly indifferent to their deaths.

It's war, what did you expect? They're not exactly handing out lolly pops out there

I don't care, they knew what they were doing when the signed up.

At 4/6/03 04:56 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: shes right. it adds nothing to the conversation and dont make posts like that or people will get vey tired of you very quickly

But to be banned over it? Thats fucking ridiculous.

Man, I mean come on.

I've been banned from the NG bbs twice now. However, I think freakapotimus has some sort of vendetta against me.

I mean ok, so I was banned for telling someone to "go hang yourself." I can understand that, but isn't this a little ridiculous:

-Banned

" Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
a" adds nothing to the conversation. Please don't make posts like this. [freakapotimus]

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Leon Trotsky
Tim Buck

I was banned for suggesting someone should hang themselves. This was not a threat, nor a racial slur. I did not suggest I was going to kill/hang them.

Why would the moderators ban anyone for that? Does Newgrounds support censorship? If you arn't being nice enough should you be banned? Do you enjoy posting in a athoritarian, monitored, controled, and policed enviorement?

Even if you do, in a forum where the free exchange of ideas is necessary(like this one). Should the moderators step in at all?(Excluding threats/racial slurs)

At 3/30/03 12:47 PM, implodinggoat wrote:
How about you pick up a history book. Lets look at Lenin's wonderful communist state. It got rid of civil liberties such as freedom of speech, press and religion all in the name of defending the state.

Oh yah, the russians had un-limited freedom under tzarist rule, dumbass. The Russians gained more rights as a result of the revolution.

As for breaking down "boarders" I can't see how they did much of that unless you consider the front door's of dissident's homes borders.

Stalin supported communism in one country, Lenin supported world revolution. Read a history book you dumb fuck.

I can think of a few they put up though, like a big one running through the middle of Berlin.

Stalinism

At 3/30/03 01:05 AM, implodinggoat wrote:
Hahahahahahaha!! and what does fucking communism do? Huh dumbass? That is the central fucking tennant of communism! You don't even understand the political system you support and you have the chutzpah to call me ignorant?

Communism doesn't support the idea of blind nationalism. The idea of communism it to break down boarders. Hence the the term "world revolution." That is somthing Lenin supported. Now go pick a history book before you run your mouth about Lenin you dumb fuck. Kthnx.

Yes I have the "chutzpah" to call you ignorant, in fact you only seem to help me with that.

I wouldn't call drug trafficing or pirating unenthical.

Everyone chooses what they put in their own bodies. Dealers are just there to offer drugs to those who choose to use a controled substance.

As for pirating, who cares.

Why should the UN clean up America's mess?

Anyway, Canada has already pledged 100 million dollars in aid, and of course will probably be part of any peace keeping force(As we have been in Afganistan).

com'on you lazy fucks, read the article!

There are also consequences for the rest of the world, consequences the Bush administration - to our profound regret - cares little for; the last Gulf War saw a doubling of oil prices in many nations, and tottering economies like Jamaica's can little afford the damage it will do to industries like tourism.

The cost of occupation, which may run five years, will be staggering. Fifty of the 80 billion dollars spent on the last war came from countries who allied themselves with the US, but little will be forthcoming this time. Claims the US will rebuild Iraq must be compared to its recent record. Similar promises were made in the case of Afghanistan, but in the most recent budget, the Bush White House failed to include any aid for that country. When the omission was pointed out, embarrassed Bush aides scrambled to tack on several hundred millions.

The war will be a catastrophe for humanity. But the contradictions between the Bush administration's aims and those of other countries, between those aims and the aims of the world's people, also present real opportunities for progressives, opportunities they must be quick to seize. The war has already altered the world's geopolitical framework.

It has revived a peace movement dormant since the Reagan era, bringing nine to 12 million to the streets in protest on February 15, and hundreds of thousands more since. The revived movement is likely to breath new fire into anti-globalisation forces that had become such a powerful global force before September 11 side-tracked their efforts. In this respect, the protracted period in which the drama in the UN Security Council has played out has cost Bush dearly.

The Italian, Spanish, and English Prime Ministers have been weakened, perhaps permanently, before a bomb was dropped; Tony Blair is discredited among the Labour Party faithful in Great Britain, and Berlusconi has been forced to declare Italian troops will not participate. France, on the other hand (whose stance belies no little hypocrisy) has raised its stature among Third World nations. The long-term significance of this, especially in Africa, may be powerful.

The Middle East and Asia, meanwhile, may be riding the waves of war for years to come. And the leaders of many Third World countries may be emboldened to begin questioning - as we think they must - a system that has many countries paying half and more of their national budgets to bankers in the United States and Europe, under the terms of usurious loans from the IMF and World Bank. The enormous power the US has gained over small country economies through this process, sometimes called the "Washington consensus", which former president Bill Clinton worked so hard to build, could be the biggest casualty of Bush's War. The Bush people - whom Washington insiders increasingly accuse of losing track of the big picture in their lust for war - may be a while in realising how badly they have stumbled in this regard.

Rumsfeld, who receives plaudits from the right-wing in the US but has hurt the Bush administration badly with his aggressive remarks, may count on the fealty of the former Iron Curtain countries (the "new Europe") in the short run; but their destiny lies with Europe, a Europe that looms as a serious threat to US power in the near term. In this sense it is not simply NATO's unity that is undermined by Bush's stand, but the process that NATO was an artefact of - the trans-Atlantic alliance. After Iraq, the Atlantic will look much wider; Europe will be far more detached from the United States, a turning that, in fact, has been long coming, and that the unilateral US war will only confirm.

WHAT NEXT?

Given these facts, it's hard to believe that the American public can support a war with Iraq at this time. But one can't discount the role of the media in underreporting (or not reporting) such information. Basic appeals to patriotism and nationalism - which the current administration has used with great success - have gained momentum even as international resistance grows. And once the blood of U.S. soldiers is spilt, we fear the Bush administration will use the tragedy to reinforce such appeals. The irony may be lost on the majority of people that those deaths were orchestrated by Bush in the first place.

Part of the very important work of intellectuals and progressives in America and the world will be to document what happens in the aftermath of a U.S. invasion, to provide objective and accurate information as events unfold. The American press must fulfil its responsibility by reporting such information. Only then will Americans be able to exercise their freedoms and exorcise the spirit of corporate greed that now directs White House policy.

And there will be many violent flare-ups, perhaps new wars to follow. The refugee camps for those 200,000 displaced Iraqis will become, as such camps have in the past, training grounds for terrorists; tired, hungry, desperate people make ideal recruits for such organisations. Experts fear, meanwhile, that weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists and former members of Hussein's army, who may attempt to sell them - or worse - use them.

It is also conceivable that war will erupt between the Turks and the Kurds. The US has, regrettably, betrayed the Kurds several times, and may be doing so again. The US was so desperate to bribe Turkey into its "coalition" (for a reported US$25 billion dollars in aid) that it agreed to allow Turkish troops into Iraq's Kurdish areas. The Turks, having largely suppressed Kurdish resistance within their own borders (where Kurds say the Turks have been far more cruel than Hussein), plan to expand their efforts and "disarm" Iraq's Kurds to block their control of oil fields.

Israel is another potential wild card. The US has apparently secured a promise from Ariel Sharon that he will keep his troops in barracks for the conflict's duration. But Iraq still has 20 to 30 Scud missiles. If one reaches Israel, Sharon has declared he will retaliate. With such a pretext, it's foreseeable the Israelis and their powerful tank divisions could quickly enter Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Under a scenario elaborated by one Israeli leader last summer, the Israelis, using the US doctrine of "preventive attack", would use an Iraqi attack to oust the Palestinians from the West Bank, removing them to Lebanon (half of whose population are already Palestinian refugees).

Beyond the Middle East, there's nothing to prevent countries like India and North Korea from taking advantage of the war's turmoil, especially if al Qaida strikes around the globe, as Bush administration officials, self-servingly, report will happen. A few bombs in Delhi, exploded by any number of interested parties, could signal an attack by India on Pakistan. And it may be a lot to suppose that North Korea - which has done everything from starting up its nuclear reactors to firing test missiles in the run - up to the Iraqi conflict - will suddenly stop while the US stages its war.

For most Americans, however, the perception of a US "success" or "failure" will be dictated by the Pentagon's ability to control news coming out of Iraq. From Vietnam onward, the Pentagon has worked to keep tight reins on what the media sees and reports in any US military engagement. In this way, however, the long delays and decay in world opinion have imperilled US odds for an unalloyed propaganda success.

International reporters will be intent on getting around Pentagon controls and discovering the truth. And US reporters will be far less intent than they were even a month ago on glorifying US military successes. There is a real danger that the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq may ruin the US economy; air industry officials recently warned that at least two airlines are likely to go bankrupt. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to hold Iraq at a time when the US can least afford it.

Found an interesting article in the jamaica gleaner, thought I'd post it.

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030327/news/news1.html

Bush's war: the hidden agenda
published: Thursday | March 27, 2003

By Candace Ward and Matthew Kopka, Contributors

AN ARTICLE by former National Security Council staffer Roger Morris in the New York Times recently described how Hussein came to power: in the aftermath of a CIA-engineered coup orchestrated exactly 40 years ago by then - president Kennedy, which brought Hussein's anti-communist Baath Party to power. Later, according to Urquhart, the US backed Hussein when he attacked Iran, gave him economic aid, helicopters, and licences for exports that were crucial to his development of chemical weapons (Rumsfeld is said to have personally delivered word of arrangements for these.) It looked away when he used those weapons against Iran (half-a-million people were killed in that US proxy war) and later, when he killed 200,000 Kurds with poison gas. "In return," Urquhart writes, "Hussein paid off his US loans, gave [the US] a one-dollar-per-barrel discount on oil, reined in Iraq-based Palestinian groups, and even supported the Arab-Israeli peace process..."

Though there have been months of wrangling about the international community's support for Bush's aims, the war, in fact, has long been under way. The US has been bombing the Iraqi no-fly zones (a dubious concept for which there is no provision under international law) for 12 years, to such an extent Pentagon officials complain they can't find targets for this offensive.

US special forces have operated inside Iraq for months, gathering intelligence and seeking to enlist opposition forces, in hopes they can make the formal war, when it comes, a virtual fait accompli. Senior US commanders moved to the Persian Gulf with 1,000 ""war planners" last July.

But how the war unfolds remains a mystery, not to mention its aftermath. Whether Iraq's three oft-warring ethnic groups can be reconciled - whether the Iraqi people will choose to be "pacified" by the US - remains to be seen. And the PNAC plan raises serious doubts about the administration's desire to "liberate" Iraq, about whether it really means to place itself at the centre of the region and initiate a whole series of "regime changes" and other "reforms". Iraqi civilians will, of course, suffer the brunt of the killing.

We searched in vain in American sources several weeks ago for an article, widely published throughout the rest of the world, disclosing that the U.N. estimated 100,000 people will die in the first week of bombing. Americans simply have not been faced with the human consequences of the planned attack, and this sickens us.

And to that number many more thousands will be added should it come to battle on Baghdad's streets. (How President Bush and his administration can rationalise such killing in the context of a Christian faith they so often piously and manipulatively claim is beyond our understanding.)

Despite US precautions, the cost in American lives may be high. Estimates of the number of potential deaths of US soldiers range from 10,000 US troop casualties over six months, to between 500 and 1,000 if the war lasts four to eight weeks, as optimists hope. Military planners are, of course, working overtime to anticipate Hussein's moves. But as Urquhart puts it, one can't help think "that with the advantage of the avalanche of information and speculation about a US invasion" in the media, "Saddam Hussein must have had the time, and the incentive, to think up a few surprises of his own." Hussein will try to sabotage the Iraqi oil supply. US soldiers will be intent on preventing it - and Halliburton company technicians will travel in beside them - but any serious long-term disruption of Iraq's 15 per cent of the global oil supply could be the straw that breaks the back of the global economy, sending the world into profound depression (or, depending which economists one believes, deepening the current one).

Hussein has 430,000 soldiers, but what these soldiers do when faced with the US juggernaut is the US$10,000 question. The wives of many must be quietly slipping white handkerchiefs into their loved ones' kit bags even now, praying they will use them. For the war will bring a humanitarian crisis. One-and-a-half million Kurds had to flee their homes after the last war. The UN last week declared that plans to feed and (crucially) provide water for the 200,000 estimated people made homeless by planned bombing were inadequate. How many Americans know this?

Do any of you even watch Al Jazeera, or are you just making un-informed, ignorant, views. ^_^

No need to answer, you'll just lie.

At 3/26/03 03:49 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: So, you agree with Al Jazeera that we are targeting civilians and slaughtering innocents that are trying to surrender?

Oh well, I guess they say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your bliss.

You should know about ignorance being bliss, have you even watch Al Jazeera?

They present all news in a profesional manner. They simply broadcast what happens. They have rebroadcasted iraqi state television to show civilian/american/iraqi casualties. However that does not make them biased.

Does CNN support osama bin laden when they rebroadcast one of his tapes? No, I mean use your fucking brain.

Al Jazeera isn't limiting there content like the American media has, they have shown all asspects of war. Thats somthing the American media cannot say they have done.

At 3/26/03 03:21 AM, mysecondstar wrote: there are plenty. more than plenty.

Not really. America's left is Europes right, and Canada's center. You basicly have a right wing party, and a slightly less right wing party.

At 3/25/03 10:29 PM, Shrapnel wrote:

At 3/20/03 01:05 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: I saw the list of nations in the coalition, and Canada wasn't on it. I think the Canadian government is opposed to war.

The Prime Minister is stupid to listen to what he perceives to be the popular opinion when in the long run, not assisting the US will = pissing off Canada's greatest ally.

The majority of Canadian don't support war.

Trade over democracy? How is that any better?

Unless of course you're a fascist, and believe in a corperate state ...........

$75 billion for first month of war
Last Updated Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:40:12
WASHINGTON - An anxious White House is trying to change expectations for an easy and quick war just as U.S. President George W. Bush made his first formal request to Congress for the funds to fight it.

INDEPTH: Iraq

Bush is expected to ask for at least $75 billion US. And that may be just the beginning.

George W. Bush
Bush's bigger problem, though, may be in shaping public opinion.

Many Americans had thought the war would end in a matter of days. But as the fighting intensifies, Bush and his officials are having to readjust their own message and prepare Americans for a rising casualty toll.

Bush has been barely visible in recent days, leaving it to his military commanders to do most of the talking. But the fighting is serious and difficult. Casualties are rising, PoWs are in enemy hands and Saddam Hussein's regime, instead of falling apart, is hanging tough.

Many Americans believed the war would be over in days, though White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was careful to point out that Bush had never left that impression.

The president will make major public appearances both Tuesday and Wednesday.

"Regardless of what happens with casualties, or the pace of casualties, the president knows that it is always an important part of his job to communicate with the American people and that is why he will continue to do it," Fleischer told reporters.

It's expected Bush will also talk about the financial cost of the war.

Twelve years ago, during the first Gulf War, Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia paid just about all the bills. This time around it will be U.S. taxpayers.

More than $60 billion of the $75 billion Bush is seeking will go directly towards paying for the war. The request assumes it will take 30 days of combat to oust the Iraqi regime.

For months the president has been dodging complaints that he'd gone out of his way to hide the costs of the war. Fleischer has suggested that other nations will be helping.

"There is a commitment from nations to help in the humanitarian aspects of helping the Iraqi people with the reconstruction costs. So there will be some effort, but clearly this is something the U.S. has to take the lead in."

The White House and Pentagon continue to be confident about the war. But they're also watching public opinion polls very carefully.

In recent years Americans have been used to seeing their armed forces fight long-distance sterile air wars, with few if any casualties.

The invasion of Iraq is turning out to be a different kind of war.

here

more

more dead civilians

What you don't see in the American media. The horror of war and the result of "percision" guided weapons.