Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/2/02 12:50 AM, Boo_Destroyer wrote: I don't want to bitch, but...

Why have a whole forum JUST for something random like Politics?

Sorry to bother you guys, but I'm too curious.

My guess is that the reason there is a separate political forum is that politics is something that some people here want to talk about, but is something that not everybody wants to hear about. So, they created a forum to set off politics from general discussion.

At 10/31/02 02:01 AM, Jay17 wrote: Does anyone know if this fact is true? The worlds oil supply with be gone within 50 years at the current rate of consumption? I found that interesting, I can't remember where I heard it from.

That statement is rubbish. The world's oil supply may be limited, but certainly not to that degree. There are several places in the world that still have vast oil reserves.

And a note on Iraq: As mentioned above, there are still places in the world that have oil. Iraq is one of them, but is not the only one. Someone on another message board (I believe) asked why we don't attack these other oil countries instead of Iraq. The answer, of course, is that none of those other countries are ruled by a fanatical madman.

The notion that this war is strictly about oil is absurd.

At 10/23/02 03:47 PM, The_Raven wrote: Now, if its the UNs job; maybe just maybe the americans should leave well enough alone and let who is SUPPOSED to handle it, handle it.

Therein lies the problem. The ones who are SUPPOSED to handle it DON'T handle it. The US has gotten itself into some foreign policy mishaps before, and we've been in places we shouldn't have been in, but often the UN is more inclined to sit and do nothing (like in Iraq, for example, though they are starting to warm up to the idea).

To the guy that suggested that word that North Korea has a nuclear weapons program was made up by the Bush administration (D2KVirus): WAKE UP--They admitted it! I really don't think action against North Korea is going to come anytime soon, as I think they might be more responsive to diplomacy than Iraq. However, we had a treaty with North Korea that provided economic aid to them if they did not have a nuclear weapons program running. Now that we know that they do, we should cut off all economic aid to North Korea until they shut it down.

I'm sorry, but someone has to say this, and it might as well be me, so...

GO BUSH!

What are you people smoking? No, the government is not the most honest institution in the world, but you have to be pretty screwed up to believe that the government would be responsible for attacks on its own citizens. You anti-government types make up some interesting theories, but I want to see proof.

If he gave the Weapons Inspectors "unrestricted access" as he agreed to 10 years ago, there probably wouldn't be a war.

He's offering it now.

If you had read the news today, you would have seen that Iraq is backing down from that offer. Iraqi spokesmen said that they would not let inspectors back in, and that accusations that they are building up weapons are a "lie". They never meant to let inspectors back in; they were just trying to stall the US from making an attack. Well, we didn't take the bait. Since we know that they won't let inspectors back in, I think it's time we got to the business of planning an attack.

First of all, to the person that said that if we attacked Iraq, we would lose: under that logic, shouldn't we have been defeated in Afghanistan? There, we were able to bomb the hell out of the Taliban, and let opposition groups do the rest. Is there any reason that it wouldn't work in Iraq? There are a number of groups within Iraq that would love to see Saddam dead. Saddam's army is probably bigger and/or better organized than the Taliban, but all that means is that we may have to send in some of our own troops as well. I see no reason why we couldn't win. Yes, Vietnam was a disaster, but we have learned much since then.

As for the people who say that an attack on Iraq is unjustified, remember that they agreed to let in weapons inspectors as a condition of ending the Gulf War. They haven't held up their end of the bargain, so why should we hold up our end?

Personally, I would love nothing more than to have Saddam's head mounted on my wall. Yes, there are risks involved with going to war, and we need time to plan an invasion of Iraq and to figure out what will happen once Saddam is toppled. That is why we haven't already attacked them, and why we probably won't for another year or two. But still, Saddam is a pest, and his removal would be for the best for everyone involved.

Given the stupidity of people in general, the precedent set by the tobacco lawsuit, and the fact that people like to sue for anything these days, I knew this would happen eventually. People always want to blame the stuff they ate, drank, or smoked for their health problems when THEY are the ones who chose to eat/drink/smoke it. It's getting ridiculous.

At 7/17/02 01:14 AM, P-Chan wrote: I might be mistaken about this, but I thought that Ted Williams expressed wishes that he wanted to be frozen when he died.

Again, I might be wrong...

If I'm not mistaken, his official will said that he did NOT want to be frozen. His son claims that he changed his mind after writing the will. The whole thing sounds kinda screwy to me...

At 7/11/02 03:45 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

I could say the same thing about liberalism.

At 6/27/01 11:49 PM, NPalidin1 wrote: If she knows that she cannot provide the right kind of care for her child, then she has two options, adoption or abortion, both equally harmful to the woman. Most women who put their children up for adoption regret their decision and spend much of their lives trying to find their child. Those who have abortions have to deal with the psychological pain of knowing what they have done.

While abortion and adoption are both equally harmful to the woman, adoption is far less harmful to the child then abortion. I personally am opposed to abortion, and I think that adoption is a viable alternative. There are many couples out there who want, but can't have, children. A child that is unwanted by a woman who can't take care of it could go to one of these couples.

I personally think that McVeigh got what was coming to him. No, it's not going to bring back those that he killed, and I don't know about if it's a deterrent, but I just think that justice was done. Besides, why should our tax dollars go to support these people in jail?