Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'm not suggesting that we rush in and attack North Korea. I just think we should just start readying forces in the region, just to let them know that we are serious. Kim Jong Il may be a crazy bastard, but I doubt even he is crazy enough to take out LA or Seattle and go down in a blaze of glory. He has the same mentality as any other dictator--his main goal is to maintain power. He can't maintain power if he is dead and his country is in ashes. I think he would back off.

If you merely define peace as the absence of war, then you could probably say that Bush doesn't deserve the prize. But what if you must fight to preserve peace? I think Bush is only doing what he has to do to protect the nation, so that its citizens may continue to live in peace and freedom. The Nobel people apparently don't see it that way, and define peace as the absence of war, and thus, instead of giving it to Bush, they give it to Jimmy Carter. Damn them.

A little more on shooting yourself:

Looking at it from a Christian standpoint, shooting yourself may be the best option. God probably wouldn't want everyone to die, but He would probably prefer that you sacrifice yourself rather than kill another man to save yourself. If you're an atheist, I can see where you're coming from about killing another to save yourself if you don't believe in eternal repurcussions, though I personally would find it difficult to live with myself. If killing oneself is an option, it is probably the best option, regardless of whether or not you believe in an afterlife.

Now here's another question: what if the terrorists said they would kill the others if you killed yourself?

Is shooting myself an option?

Allow medical personnel to use the new discovery, but punish the group that made it. How simple can it get?

At 2/19/03 05:47 AM, EvilEgbert wrote: I don't know about you but I prefer not having to defend myself against a gun over defending myself against a gun WITH a gun.

What if gun control laws mean defending yourself against a gun WITHOUT a gun? As I said before, even if you ban guns, people determined to commit crimes will find ways to obtain them. Law-abiding citizens wouldn't be able to defend themselves, unless they also illegaly obtained a gun, and then they wouldn't be law-abiding citizens anymore, would they?

I'd like to see a second resolution passed to authorize military force, but France won't let it happen. Unilateral action is starting to look more and more attractive to me. If 1441 gives us all the authority that we need, then let's move ahead. It may not be a very popular move in the eyes of the international community, but I think it is the right move.

At the risk of sounding like I'm saying, "OMG Democrats suX0rs!", I personally think that the Democrats have NO ONE who can beat Bush in 2004. Lieberman might have a chance in the general election, but is too moderate to get the party nomination. Also, the general public seems to be dissatisfied with liberals at the moment. As for Al Sharpton, does anyone take that guy seriously? Doesn't he run every year and never win the party nomination? The Democrats are reeling right now. The 2004 election is still a year and a half away, but if the election were today, Bush would win in a landslide.

SOMETHING must be done about North Korea. The difference between them and Iraq is that while Iraq seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them. However, I don't think North Korea would nuke us--not if they know what's good for them. If they fired one nuke at us, you can be sure that we would completely decimate their country. I say we call their bluff, and make a show of force. I'll bet they would back down.

Wow. I couldn't have said it better myself. It may be an angry, disorganized rant, but it covered every point that can be made by us who support military action. I'd like to see the anti-war people respond to this one.

At 2/17/03 09:05 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote: I doubt the majority of you have ever visited an oppressive country or lived in one. I have been to China many times and the people I met there didn't like the government but there's nothing they can do about it.

Revolution?

Hard to have a revolution if the government takes away your arms--but that's a different debate entirely.

The situation in Iraq is parallel. The people there don't like Saddam but they can't do anything about it.

Which explains why the kurds are independant in Iraq?

Only because we've established no-fly zones so Saddam can't gas them again.

If this were really about "freeing the Iraqi people" why didn't American do it ten years ago?

We figured he would be toppled by his own people. We were wrong.

Now this is not a 1 to 1 parallel to Iraq and I realize this so arguing it will just be a waste of your time.

Why bring it up if it doesn't fit, nor can you defend it?

I think he meant that while they aren't exactly the same, they are similar.

No ones preaching in-action, but war should be a last resort.

You're right--war is a last resort, and should only be used if diplomacy fails. However, it is my opinion that diplomacy HAS failed, and it has come to war.

The UN worked to protect freedom and world peace. Canada worked to protect freedom and world peace. No one should feel in-debted to America.

The US worked to protect freedom and world peace. The US has done a large amount of that work. Other nations don't exist to serve America, but you don't have to disrespect us either. We've done a large amount of work to preserve freedom. The least you can do is say, "Thanks."

They've been trying to contain Saddam with sanctions and a bunch of red tape.

Care to look at the current resolutions?

Do YOU care to look at the current resolutions? Specifically, the part of 1441 that says that Iraq must show the UN ALL of its weapons or there will be war?

If the US doesn't police the world... who will? Who will defend the innocent? I'm not saying the US always makes the right decisions.

THE FUCKING UN, it's called collective security.

The UN is supposed to be policing the world, but right now, France isn't letting it. If the US must take matters into its own hands, so be it.

At 2/14/03 08:40 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 2/14/03 04:06 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: We have a sizable number of allies ready to provide support.

Damn right! The UK and ....... like ..... um ..... Spain ... and ...... um Poland!

Good thing you have the Poles on your side!

Hahahahaha!

Last I counted, we had 18 European nations ready to support us. Some may not be exactly thought of as great military powers, but every little bit helps. Even with American and British troops making up the bulk of the force, we should be victorious.

That, of course, is speaking from a strategic standpoint. From the standpoint of international opinion, there are those who say that the US shouldn't act alone, but we aren't exactly "acting alone", are we?

PRO

At 2/17/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote:

(Shrapnel) Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?

What about now in Afghanistan? It has pretty much stayed the same :

(Alakazam) WOW. I guess you think things can just fix themselves overnight. Say Terry, why don't you use your magic wand?

The idea that it is overnight is laughable. They've had a year, nothing has happened, they've justinstalled thier Oil Dictator Hamid Karzai.

One year is quite a short time. It took several years to establish the government in Japan. Our troops are still in Afghanistan, trying to help the new government get on its feet. We did it in Japan, and we can do it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And he didn't "gas his own people" it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds.

Where exactly did you dig that one up? It seems that you think that "if America said it, it must be false." Everything I've heard about that incident is that Saddam was behind it, not Iran.

To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. It was a pre-WMD, pre-superpower time. The consequences of Hitler's actions would not be as bad as Saddam's. :

Come again? The consequences of Saddams's actions would be worse....in a pre-WoMD era?

Urm...what? I never said that. I said in Hitler's time it was a pre-WMD pre-Superpower time, so Hitler would suffer not as bad consequences. And this is what it says, or can't you read?

You're suggesting that Hitler was able to get away with what he did because there weren't any nations that had nuclear weapons, and thus did not have to fear getting nuked. If Saddam acquired nuclear weapons, he would be able to do what Hitler did, because anyone that nuked him would be nuked back. Besides, France and other European nations seem to want to use the same policy of "appeasement" with Saddam that they used with Hitler. The difference? This time, the United States will have none of it.

Yes...it is. It's like convicting someone of a crime that you aren't sure they were going to commit. :

See? You do amaze me Terry! The fundamental difference is Terry, Saddam has NOT come clean of WoMD. He has attacked countries in the past and kills his own people. Nor has he owned up to UN Resolution 1441 which calls for IMMEDIATE disclosure and not this 'give me more time' crap.

All this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, him attacking AMERICA. Really, you should look at the context.

Please quit ignoring Resolution 1441. Whether you like it or not, it is relevant.

I don't see what right you have to involve yourself in Civil Wars or democratically elected leaders(see Guetamala.) If Communism wants to spread in other countries America has no right to stop it.

We didn't have any business in Vietnam, but that was purely internal, whereas Saddam has threatened his neighbors in the past.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat?

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

Red herring, we are talking about Iraq being a threat to global security, not the UN resolution.

Iraq IS a threat to global security. And I ask you one more time, quit ignoring the UN resolution.

Geez, Slizor, you note how predictable Alakazam is, but it seems you are pretty predictable yourself. Just once, can't you concede that we may have a point here?

At 2/17/03 12:07 PM, Markus_Kangas wrote: How about if some1 is mentally ill and can still get a gun since they are just everywhere....does he deserve 2 b shot???

As I said before, although the general public should have the right to bear arms, there are certain people who should not be allowed to own guns, such as convicted felons. I think the mentally ill would also fall into that category.

At 2/15/03 07:57 PM, Sirterox wrote: I didnt say i wanted them banned.

I know, I was talking to the nuts who do want them banned. I'm glad to see you share my opinion.

It's quite obvious that France is going to veto any war resolution. We don't need their help anyway. It's time to act without the UN. It's time for the United States and its TRUE allies to move in and rid the world of the menace known as Saddam Hussein.

I will laugh at the French after we're finished, when the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets, happy to finally be free, and our troops are uncovering massive numbers of weapons of mass destruction. I really hope the French will be proud of themselves after that.

Even if guns were banned, people determined to kill someone will still find a way to obtain one, and I wouldn't like it if the only way for people to protect themselves from criminals were to become criminals themselves. Guns should be kept out of the hands of convicted felons, but banning them entirely would never work.

That's an interesting theory. Not real sure how he could have had the surgery before leaving Afghanistan, though, and if he's in Pakistan, I'm not sure how he could have had it there before being found. I find it more likely that he quite simply shaved his beard. Personally, I think that either he is now beardless and hiding somewhere in Pakistan, or he is dead.

Argh. The French never cease to piss me off. What part of Resolution 1441 don't they understand? They can triple the number of inspectors, they can use the U2 planes, they can do whatever they want, but the inspectors aren't there to find the weapons, they are there for Iraq to SHOW them the weapons. I fully agree with the President's statement that Iraq has weeks, not months. If France vetos a UN resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, then I say we do this without the UN. We don't need France's blessing, and we certainly don't need their military assistance. We have a sizable number of allies ready to provide support.

I am a Republican, and the thing is that minorities often tend to be Democrats for one reason or another (maybe it's the Democratic rhetoric telling minorities that Republicans aren't looking out for them, while Democrats are, yada yada yada). The Republican party does need to try to win over more minority members, maybe by getting the message out that they don't need the Democrats' big government programs to help them get ahead.

I would vote for a minority candidate if I felt that his views were close to my views. I wouldn't mind seeing someone like a Colin Powell or a JC Watts in the White House.

At 2/8/03 07:05 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote: You forget that the 'missing anthrax' is sent to Iraq by the USA in 1980-1988!
That also is the reason why Bush knows exactly how many Saddam has!!!

I'm not sure if that is true or not, but if it is, it is irrelevant. If we DID provide WMDs to Saddam in the '80s, then you'd think we could just say, "Hey, we gave you these weapons, you misused them, so now we're taking them away."

I don't think age is that important (I'm 19, only three years older than Slizor), but I do think that Alakazam has a point about the Wall of Ignorance(tm). Slizor, if you still think war is unnecessary, I respect that opinion, but I would like to see you concede that Iraq may just still be in material breach of UN Resolution 1441.

The Trojan War really did occur, but there is still a lot of work to do separating myth from fact.

Personally, I want to know whether they really did build that big wooden horse. :)

At 2/7/03 05:15 PM, Slizor wrote:

(Wade's statement) We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq hasn't accounted for this antrax and has provided no proof that it was destroyed.

Indeed, but the UN resolution does not call for it.

Yes, it does. That's the whole point. The resolution didn't put the burden on the United States to prove it--it put the burden on Iraq to disprove it. That's the whole point of inspections. They aren't there to look underneath every rock in the Iraqi desert to try to find weapons. They are there to verify Iraq's claims that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is supposed to show them proof that the weapons have been destroyed. As Wade said above, vast quantities of anthrax that we KNOW that they had remain unaccounted for. There are other chemical and biological agents that are unaccounted for as well. Iraq must show proof of their destruction, and if they do not, then we have war. Period.

At 2/7/03 08:20 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote: If you mean by that Bush should attack Saddam, think of all those people who are not free which are going to die!
Saddam is an aashole, but there must be an other way to stop him except for attacking Iraq and killing all those people!
(Not that I KNOW an other way, but that's not the point.)

I do happen to support military action in Iraq, but the point I was trying to make is that it is ludicrous to say that the Iraqi people are "free" when they are ruled by a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, even if you do oppose an attack.

As far as the attack goes, I think we can do a pretty good job of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum, as long as Saddam doesn't start using them as human shields (which I wouldn't put beyond him).

At 2/6/03 12:21 PM, Morextremist wrote: busharuman has gathered a great army against the free people of iraq. a veil of shadow falls across middle east...

Free people of Iraq... That's a good one. Those people are far from free. Saddam is a tyrant, pure and simple.

At 2/6/03 04:42 PM, KaneOfNod wrote: Gays are already protected by normal laws; I fail to see the reasoning behind "hate crime" legislation except for political gain among supporters.

That's a very good point. Can't ANY crime be defined as a "hate crime", anyway?

They can tack on additional penalties if they BELIEVE it was based on sexual orientation? Shouldn't they have to PROVE it?

At 2/6/03 01:41 AM, Hannetz wrote: The vidence could be fabricated... The US has been known to do that before. And yes, the evidence needs to be analyzed by the inspectors and other experts in the subject. Saying it doesn't need outside analyzation is ignorant and stupid.

It could be fabricated... but I don't think so. I don't see Colin Powell as the kind of man who would present fake photos to the UN. Besides, since were on the subject of analysis, would we really present fake evidence if we knew it could be analyzed and proven to be fake?