Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The grand jury did not indict Officer Darren Wilson about an hour and a half ago. Shortly afterward, news outlets reported gunshots and tear gas on the streets of Ferguson and Clayton, Missouri.

At this point it's unclear how severe the protests may become. In some areas, cars have been set on fire, other areas are relatively calm. Missouri is under a state of emergency, and police are in full riot gear.

President Obama released a generic statement, telling the protestors that violence is not the answer. Not much besides that, but President Obama has dipped into other similar incidents, like saying that Trayvon Martin could have been his son.

The racial road looks rough ahead, and 2014 will be one of those years. What's to come? Will things get better? Worse? How much are the actual shootings linked to race? You decide.

At 11/23/14 10:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: We all have that info. I however don't have the wherewithal, resources, weapons, propaganda machine, scare tactics and bombs to draw up a document that could go up against and debunk the biggest gorilla in the room. I will not shut up and lay down like the so many people that have been propagandized by this Government garbage nor do I have to.

In other words, "I have all the info but I'm too lazy to actually do research."

At 11/23/14 09:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: you can count on me challenging and questioning and rationalizing every move they make.

There is a difference between questioning and disbelieving. Absolutely question everything the government says, but don't blindly assume everything they say is a lie. That's what you've been doing. If you do that you are no better than those who believe the government never lies.

At 11/23/14 09:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The evidence we have is a .gov document linked to in the article

I got your .gov article right here. Now will you provide some proof to your claims?

At 11/23/14 08:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I will ask you to look over and critically analyze the evidence we have so far and summon common sense instead of just assuming that the Government is always telling you the true and nothing but the truth.

And there we have it. Besides failing to realize that my post about Lindsey Graham was a jab at you, you have shown us that your reality is based off of intuition and emotions. Nobody is claiming that the report is 100% true and perfect. You are the only one making a claim, and aviewaskewed is asking you to back it up. So do so! And don't just find a video and say, "watch this!" It is your job to find and present evidence, not ours.

I think leanlifter's onto something. Lindsey Graham just released a statement calling the report "garbage." Because there's no reason either leanlifter or Graham would criticize a report because it just didn't feel right. Nope, they base their claims on fact.

To be pragmatic, amnesty for non-violent members of society and a quick, legal path to citizenship. And increased border security and a trade deal with Mexico to prevent people from leaving in the first place.

At 11/18/14 03:00 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: 1.) Hail Hitler !
6.) Stalin

It's interesting (though not surprising) that you would choose these two, because they are quite different leaders. Hitler and Stalin were brutal leaders who wanted the exact same thing but went about it in different ways. Hitler allowed his passions and hatreds to dictate his actions, which led to his ruin. For example, what possible benefit was to Germany by using up soldiers, and capital to finance the Holocaust? Not to mention that German Jewish scientists could have created the atomic bomb for Germany. And invading the USSR and declaring war on the United States while still embroiled in a war against Britain was imprudent, especially since Hitler could have avoided both these conflicts.

Stalin, on the other hand, chose to weaken the Germans by letting them freeze in the Soviet wasteland, and then was able to conquer Eastern Europe as a liberator from the Nazis, even though Stalin's intentions were no more noble than Hitler's. Stalin was not afraid to ally Russia with "capitalist imperialist pigs" like the US and UK when it served his interests. His emphasis on "socialism in one country" emphasized building up Russia militarily before exporting communism, and it certainly worked, despite disastrous humanitarian results.

In short, while Stalin and Hitler had the same goals and were on the same level morally, one was prudent and the other fanatical. One died in an underground bunker in the capital of a collapsed state, while the other died in bed in the imperial palace of an empire that stretched from Berlin to Vladivostok.

A moneyless system is ridiculous. You'd have to do a massive amount of bartering just to get basic goods, and who would determine the exchange rate? Currency was invented for a reason.

At 11/14/14 12:07 PM, malfunction19 wrote: Now ISIS is a tricky thing, the war in 2003 by G.W Bush didnt do much honestly, it actually stabilized iraq for a good amount of time, but the problem was that if the troops left, the problem would just come back again, thats where obama fucked up, bringing them home too soon

Saddam was a major stabilizing force, and was uprooted by the coalition in 2003. Any stability during the Iraq War was caused by the 2007 troop surge, though frankly it was delaying the inevitable. President Bush also was the one to sign the agreement saying all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The troop withdrawal was cutting our losses, because staying in Iraq was unsustainable, as was the peace.

At 11/13/14 08:47 PM, Feoric wrote: General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq."

I would love to hear their rationale for this. It better be something besides "we want to help the Iraqi and Syrian people find freedom."

At 11/13/14 12:50 AM, Feoric wrote: The review is a tacit admission that the initial strategy of trying to confront ISIS first in Iraq and then take the group's fighters on in Syria, without also focusing on the removal of al-Assad, was a miscalculation.

This makes zero sense. The Free Syrian Army needs manpower and weapons, not the ouster of al-Assad. I have no clue why the Obama Administration would think that the best way to defeat ISIS is to take out al-Assad. If you take out al-Assad, ISIS will fill the power vacuum, not the FSA.

Instead of wasting time trying to decapitate ISIS's leadership, we need to focus arming Kurdish and Iraqi forces, and bomb areas contested between those two groups and ISIS. Russia's going to be doing the same thing with al-Assad, so there is neither a need for us to attack nor aid al-Assad. Let the Russians throw their rubles down that black hole while we throw dollars down ours.

How unfortunate that neoconservatism is alive and well. President Bush dragged it as well as Wilsonianism out of the trash heap of history. Despite opposition to the Iraq War, that same rhetoric of "take out the regime and the people will democratize" still flourishes. Iraq has proven it wrong. Egypt has proven it wrong. Libya has proven it wrong. Syria is proving it wrong. ISIS is proving it wrong. When will the West learn from this?

There are a number of reasons for why this is. At this point I can only guess, but I'd say it had to do with the Cold War. Germany was more important strategically than Japan during the Cold War, so more attention was given to it. Plus, whereas it was just the US occupying Japan, four countries, three of whom were superpowers, occupied Germany, and thus more international focus was put on Germany.

To update this, Operation Inherent Resolve has seen multiple airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, President Obama recently announced 1,500 advisors and other noncombat military personnel to Iraq.

How far this escalation will go is unclear. I do not think we are set for another long occupation, but I would not be surprised if some ground forces, perhaps special forces, were to be deployed in noncombat situations.

Unfortunately, there has been too much of a focus on killing Baghdadi. Yes, it would be a setback for ISIS but in the long run not very useful.

The best thing to do in the meantime is arm the Kurds and Iraqi forces to contain ISIS, and aid Sunni tribes fighting against ISIS. Killing Baghdadi would have little relevant impact unless we full-on invaded. Perhaps aim a missile at his palace, something to make him remember who he's dealing with.

Sad to see that my home state of Illinois has gone red. We've always been more of a purple state than people think, but this overhaul is surprising.

I love how on CNN Newt Gingrich is acting like Republicans today have a plan. The Contract with America in 1994 was crap, but at least it was a plan. The GOP has no idea what to do with a majority in Congress--or even worse, plan to do nothing.

My guess is that this will be a watered-down version of 2010. The GOP may take the Senate, but they won't have a supermajority. Unfortunately I'm sure many moderates will lose their seats. I'd kill for a couple of more Blue Dog Democrats to get some seats.

Whaddaya know, it happened. Guy Scott is Zambia's new (acting) President.

At 10/27/14 08:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Provide them opportunity at home, and cross your fingers. Most radicalization is born out of stagnation and loss of purpose. If you can keep opportunities open for people to both live and work, they will less likely to be radical. There is a small few who are predispose to be radical and are 100% unpreventable. You're best hope with these people is that they find a relatively benign form of extremism.

Could not agree more. We cannot stop radicalism just by threatening to punish those who join terrorist groups. But we cannot also assume that the people ISIS is targeting for recruitment will find ISIS as despicable as we do. Those vulnerable to radicalization need to be provided an alternative to ISIS.

This brings up a good discussion: How do you stop radicalization at home? Besides simply making it dangerous for those who may convert to that set of beliefs, what do you do to provide a viable alternative to radicalization for angry young people?

At 10/24/14 08:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: probably imprison all the racist white pieces of shit who would no doubt be spewing their furiously hatred over everything by that stage

This may come as a shock, but based off of your response you are most likely just as racist as the white pieces of shit you hate so much.

At 10/24/14 03:36 AM, Korriken wrote: If you ran a diverse western nation, how would you handle this scenario?

A religious terrorist group overseas calls for holy war and through a published overseas e magazine, calls for lone wolf attacks on enemy nations.

It began slowly, occasionally someone would mount an attack on the police/military/government/etc. Each attack kills 1 or 2 people. Problem is, over a couple of years time others see these attacks as successful and plan their own attacks. The national intelligence community manages to catch some, but many end up mounting their own attacks, be it by shooting random people, blowing themselves up in public, or otherwise targeting and killing.

Now the attacks have become almost a daily occurrence, sometimes even multiple attacks every day.

What do you do?

I'd probably start with arresting of anyone suspected with the attacks, and instill martial law in the areas that need it most. However, I would also work to combat the real reason why people do these things: there is some socioeconomic issue that is not being addressed. I would probably increase welfare benefits a little bit and put in a stimulus to create more jobs. Because I believe most people would rather go to work in a store than blow themselves up.

At 10/17/14 05:37 PM, DarkBowser007 wrote: I wish for...an idea for something to wish for.

You wish for something terrible that you immediately regret.

I wish for Reeses Cups.

At 10/17/14 12:24 PM, kazumazkan wrote: not my problem.

What type of flag is that? Why does it have 50 stars? We only have 48 states.

At 10/16/14 12:09 PM, Feoric wrote: The administration would actually love it if Assad could just kill everyone and restore order; Erdogan is the one who wants Assad gone, not us.

I still think the administration is still entertaining ideas of somehow getting rid of al-Assad, but first things first: ISIS.
But why does Erdogan want Assad gone any more than us? If ISIS were eliminated and this became a fight between the FSA and SAA, I could see that. But with ISIS already on Turkey's border, wouldn't al-Assad's removal make Turkey less secure? Al-Assad has no territorial ambitions outside the status quo ante bellum, and he'd be stupid to attack NATO member Turkey.

I just don't see the security threat al-Assad poses to Turkey that would be alleviated upon his ouster.

At 10/16/14 02:31 AM, Korriken wrote: I still wonder why America didn't go into Syria.

The answer is a four letter word ending in q.

At 10/15/14 10:53 PM, Korriken wrote: Airstrikes alone are practically useless in the long run. We may take out some of their soldiers and equipment, but in the end ISIS is still advancing and taking over cities. This plan is both half-hearted and to be honest, stupid...These airstrikes are little more than slapping the back of a person who is beating up a defenseless person while you scream, "Get off of him!"

If that's true, I wonder why our airstrikes against Gaddafi in '86 and against Saddam during the 1990s were so effective? What was different in those cases?

At 10/14/14 02:08 PM, SentForMe wrote: Anyone else heard about this White Shroud Group targeting ISIS members?

While I certainly don't condemn White Shroud's actions, we need to be cautious. I have a feeling White Shroud is neither enemy nor friend of the United States.

I'm going to focus on leaders that stabilized and/or strengthened their state.
In no particular order:

George Washington. Not for 1000 years will we see a leader like him who was offered unlimited power and refused it. He could've turned the US into a monarchy and thrown away all pretense of democracy, but he did not. His wisdom, as well as those of the Founding Fathers, granted Americans freedom without anarchy. The experiment of democracy would not have worked if not for Washington.

Joseph Stalin. This is one of the few empire builders who was cautious and prudent. Yes, he and Hitler were on the same level morally. But one died in the underground bunker of a collapsing state. The other died in a superpower that expanded from Berlin to Vladivostok.

Lee Kwan Yew and Deng Xiaoping. Their zealous pragmatism and insight onto what makes a government work turned their third-world countries into modern economic powers. Neither were committed fully to any ideology, and that's what worked.

Nelson Mandela. He won power in a time of great social upheaval. He could have easily done to South Africa what Mugabe did to Zimbabwe. Instead he went against hardliners in his own party (as well as his own history) and pursued reconciliation over revenge. One of the greatest civil rights leaders in the true sense of the word.

At 10/10/14 12:22 PM, Feoric wrote: The Obama administration must be feeling trapped by this point, I think they know they have to do something but what it would take for them to achieve that goal is probably too high of a price they are willing to take. Letting Kobani fall is not going to reflect well on the administration, and I expect this to point to be hashed and rehashed from now until November 4th.

I think you're right; I just wish the government wouldn't outright say "it's no big deal." I'd rather us not say anything.