Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just thought I should mention that US troops are now in Baghdad. We are encountering stiff resistance, but have not yet seen any "unconventional" tactics. Suicide attacks may come, but I doubt that 4000 people are really willing to die for Saddam when they know his days are up.

Well, at least they weren't afraid to say it in front of an American audience, unlike the Dixie Chicks...

I think they were just expressing their opinion, which I can respect. I only get upset when celebrities make a show out of it to get attention. But since this was at their own concert, I don't have that much of a problem with it.

But if I were there, I would have booed too. I'm not sure if I would have gone so far as to walk out, but I might have.

At 4/4/03 08:54 AM, Ruination wrote: All this from the people who were pressing the point that America was not in this war for financial gain..tsk tsk..

There are financial rewards in Iraq, and I have no doubt that once this war is over, the US will be a major buyer of Iraqi oil. But the main reason for the war is, and always has been, to disarm Saddam Hussein. (Obviously, if he's out of power, then he doesn't have any weapons.) But once that job is done, Iraq will need to be rebuilt. Oil profits will probably cover that bill. Iraq will be rid of Saddam Hussein, and the oil money will go where it belongs: to the people. In the meantime, with war fears removed and with a new source of oil, prices should drop, which will tremendously help the American economy. It's not the main reason we're at war, but it is a nice bonus.

Should France have a role in the new Iraq? That's a good question. One of the reasons they opposed war is because they were worried about losing their existing oil contracts in Iraq. I personally think that France should be shut out. They did not risk anything to free Iraq, and thus should not reap any of the financial rewards of rebuilding it.

Palestine has the right to be angry at Israel, but Palestinians do not have the right to blow themselves up on Israeli city buses and kill Israeli civilians.

Israel has the right to defend itself. Sometimes they go a little too far. But when Palestinian terrorists attack, and Israel makes an incursion into Palestinian territory to bust some terrorists, how is that different from what we did in Afghanistan? Israel is just defending itself, unlike Iraq.

I don't think that anything Saddam does surprises anyone anymore.

The Battle of Baghdad is just now beginning. How long until the city falls?

At 4/3/03 01:47 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: IF the US is fighting the war like they are now... It's gonna get REAL ugly. The US and there troops are underestimating the iraqi army and overestimating the Republican Gaurds.

If things get ugly, we can make a few changes to the battle plan and reclaim the advantage.

It's mostly the Republican Guard that we'll be fighting in Baghdad, and it's better to overestimate than underestimate.

The main phase of the war will soon be over.

At 4/3/03 12:52 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote: How many of those 10 countries were bribed by the U.S. into promising a yes vote? And I would have to say that Bush didn't need any help from France or anyone else to paint himself into a corner.

Ahh... the bribery accusation. Absolutely groundless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it one more time: the United States has the right as a sovereign nation to declare war. People whine and whine about how the US is violating international law. Never mind the fact that Saddam's regime spits in the face of international law, and that some countries in the UN are too spineless to do anything about it. People say that what we are doing shows that we don't care about international law. I say that we are doing it because we DO care about international law, unlike some countries (France and Russia).

If Saddam can get away with what he's doing, then there is no such thing as international law, and if there's no such thing as international law, then we don't need ANYONE'S approval to go to war.

I think I'm going to have to set some people in their place...

The reason the Iraqi people are reluctant to show support for US troops is that they aren't sure that victory has been won yet, and are still afraid of Saddam. But yes, you do still see several instances of Iraqis being happy we're there. I think the people will show more happiness and gratitude once Saddam has been toppled.

Oh, and comparing Bush to Hitler is just plain stupid. Hitler was a genocidal maniac, and no matter how much you want to believe he is, Bush is not.

Well, are we going to try again?

I missed last night... homework...

But invading the chat might be fun.

This was already posted a while ago...

Getting back to the original topic...

I was reading about some of those political parties that Freak posted, and some of them were just hilarious.

The Southern Party in particular caught my eye.

"We advocate the return of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, and ultimately, outright independence, to the Southern states."

Damn... I guess they really did mean it when they said, "The South shall rise again!" :)

They do seek to do it peacefully, though.

At 4/1/03 11:55 PM, thenark wrote: Well what amuses me, is that Bush and Blair say this is in the name of democracy, when they wont even go about it democratically, they go without UN approval, and without approval of 51% of the worlds support, yet somehow, what they are doing is fair and democratic. And once Iraq is conquered and Saddam dead, will Iraq really be a democracy? or will the US just turn a blind eye once they get cheap, plentiful oil?

Maybe slightly off topic, but I'll respond anyway.

The majority of the people in the United States and Great Britain support action in Iraq, and that the governments chosen by them (the US Congress and British Parliament) authorized Bush and Blair to do what they are doing. Also, the US and Britain were very close to having a war resolution passed democratically in the Security Council (though I said previously that the Security Council is not democratic in that the representatives of the nations are not chosen by the people of those nations). What happened? The resolution was pulled because of a very un-democratic veto threat from France.

And one more thing: the US and Britain are sovereign nations, and I would prefer that the people of these nations determine their actions, rather that the government of France.

I'm not particularly fond of the two-party system. Often, third parties fail to gain support because some of their views are adopted by the Republicans or Democrats.

True democracy is not a good system, because the majority can trample the rights of the minority. That's one of the reasons our government was set up the way it was. It is a republic, not a democracy. That is why we have a two-house legislature, and is also why we have the Electoral College.

At 4/1/03 11:37 PM, HernetheHunter wrote: US will win, but in the long run, Iraq may have more victories. Just b/c the war will be over doesn't mean there won't be more attacks. I'm sure they'll try doing something to us. Maybe not right away, but something will happen. I Just hope the gov't finds out about it before it's too late.

Iraqis won't do anything to us. They'll be too busy dancing in the streets of Baghdad, joyful that Saddam is gone.

People from other Arab nations will probably try something. But we can't let that deter us. Besides, I'm sure we'll be better prepared for anything that might come.

At 4/1/03 11:35 PM, mysecondstar wrote: the only problem with this is there is no hard, concrete evidence to prove that they were. it can only be assumed.

Maybe so... but I sure as hell wouldn't put it beyond Saddam to do such a thing. I'm not surprised at all.

The way that Saddam is conducting the war is proof enough that he must be removed.

At 4/1/03 11:06 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I think that the only way to fairly deal with race is to not consider it. It should be utterly and totally ignored and universities should not even be informed of an applicants race.

Agreed.

And to the person who said that the institution should decide who they want to admit and who not to, private universities should have that right (there are still all-women schools), but public ones should admit anyone who qualifies based on academic achievement. This means no quotas.

Anyone who thinks Iraq has a chance needs to get out more.

I agree that Syria is out of line. If you don't like the war, fine, but sending people and equipment to help out Saddam is something that I frown upon.

And once we're through in Iraq, I think we will use a little restraint, and not go after anyone else just yet. I can see us continuing to pursue the War on Terror, perhaps by working with the governments of nations like Pakistan. (Though Iran might be a problem...)

And North Korea needs a slap in the face, too.

At 4/1/03 02:56 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: I just found a fine example of MOD hatred here on Newgrounds...

Ouch. Looks like someone is just begging to be banned. Nothing wrong with not liking mods, in my opinion, but posting something like that is flat out insane.

We launched a raid operation in Afghanistan as little as 45 minutes after the war in Iraq began. It is my guess that this operation or a follow-up is still going on.

That is wrong in just so many ways.

Whether you're pro-war or anti-war, you cannot deny that the troops are heroes.

There is debate over whether war is necessary, but no one can deny that Saddam needs to go. Thus, most sensible anti-war people should say, "I don't think we should be over there, but since we are, we might as well win."

But to wish defeat upon our troops is sickening, and hints at support of Saddam.

If I found out that one of my professors thought like that--or worse, tried to push that belief on me--I'd drop his class in 2.3 seconds.

Veggiemeal---Posted: 3/31/03 03:35 PM

1) He cut a half a BILLION dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. Who needs to look after the environment when there’s all that oil drilling going on?

Relax, I'm sure that the EPA wasn't the only agency whose budget was cut. We need to cut back expenses anyway.

2) He approved a bill that denies financial aid to students convicted of misdemeanor drug charges (though convicted murderers are still eligible for financial aid).

One wonders why a murderer would even need financial aid, given that they're likely spending the rest of their lives in prison, if not sitting on death row. But I am opposed to the war on drugs--a war which is supported by both parties.

3) He recently sent a delegation to the UN children’s summit to declare that the use of condoms is not a valid way to fight AIDS and that abstinence is the only solution. This is the view shared by some other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and the Vatican. It seems that his policy of, "No child shall be left behind" has a whole new meaning.

Well, abstinence is the only guaranteed way to avoid it. But you're right, people are still going to do it, so condom use should be encouraged. But putting the Vatican in the same group as card-carrying members of the Axis of Evil™? Just what did they mean by that?

4) He wouldn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, which was ultimately signed by 178 other countries. He also told the entire European community that he would listen to their arguments, but he would not change his mind, effectively treating Europe like an 8 year old child. This may have something to do with why most of the world hates the US.

Environmental reponsibility should be encouraged, but if I'm not mistaken, Kyoto went a little far.

5) He rejected an international accord to enforce the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare. Of course that would mean that the US would have to stop producing biological agents too.

Never heard that one before. Can you cite another source besides the one where you got this list from?

6) And talk about the fox watching over the hen house, he nominated former mining company executive Dan Lauriski as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

Well, whoop-de-fucking-doo. You people act as if "former corporate executive = evil". You'd think someone who's worked in the mining industry might know something about mine safety, or at least know others who know something about mine safety.

7) He allocated only 3% of the amount requested by Justice Department lawyers in the governments continued litigation against tobacco companies.

Make no mistake--the tobacco companies need a slap in the face. But is more litigation really necessary? I think the tobacco companies have already been punished plenty, and will continue to find ways to do what they've always done, no matter how much you try to limit them. Hell, the "youth smoking prevention" ads that the government makes them put out actually make people want to smoke MORE (and it's pretty obvious why--those ads suck, big time).

8) He prohibited any financial aid from going to international family planning organizations that provide abortion counseling, referrals, or services with their own funds.

And this is a bad thing?

9) He provided every member of the Bin Laden family living in the U.S. a chartered plane shortly after 9/11 to fly back home to Saudi Arabia without questioning them. One of GW’s first petroleum venture was partnered with the Bin Laden family and George Sr. has been getting filthy rich selling defense contracts to the Bin Ladens. These are just some examples of the many ties the Bush family has with the Bin Ladens.

Once again, I want a second source.

10) He officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

Do we really need to be bound to cold-war-era treaties? The world has changed, folks.

13) Over the past 10 years, the US prison population has more than doubled. This is mainly due to unfair three strikes laws, and harsher drug penalties. OK so maybe W. wasn’t behind this one, but the Republicans are.

Once again, both parties support the war on drugs. And once again, I am opposed. At the very least, legalize marijuana. That would solve a lot of prison overcrowding problems.

15) George replied, "Ken who?" when asked about his relationship with Kenneth Lay, the CEO of Enron, during the federal bankruptcy hearings. This was after Enron gave him their company jet to use for his presidential campaign. George and Kenny were such good friends that Ken was actually seen giving wedgies to the president in the oval office. Yet he still replied, "Ken who?"

This one is really reaching. The wedgies comment suggests that this source isn't really one to be taken too seriously. I want to see more proof that Bush and Lay know each other. And even if they do, I doubt Bush had any role whatsoever in the scandal. Just more of the "Bush in bed with corporate robbers" propaganda.

Source: punkvoter.com

A reputable source indeed.

At 3/31/03 06:15 PM, PoptartKing wrote: He even took the time to mention(actually, not mention) hydrogen powered cars in his State of the Union address. And even though U.S. is a sovereign state, we're still bound by the U.N.(apperantly Bush thinks otherwise)

If a nation is to be truly independent, then the decisions of the UN should not be binding. The UN is a great forum for diplomacy, but it is not a one-world government.

And to be brutally honest, if the UN's decisions are not binding on Iraq, why should they be binding on us?

Does any one of you realize that this thread is almost two years old?

How will Bush be remembered?

Some will remember him as a great president who toppled not one, but two terrorist regimes.

Others will remember him as a warmonger who fought a war without international approval.

With the economy slumping right now, it has yet to be determined how Bush will be remembered for domestic policy.

But mark my words on this: Bush will be remembered as a two-term president.

A recent poll had Bush losing to an unnamed Democrat if the election were held today. I can't remember who, but someone said, "It's the named Democrats who are the problem." :)

At 3/28/03 04:57 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I don't pretend to know what a man was thinking in 1848. Let alone Lincoln.

Pick it apart if you have, to. It's a thought provoking quote that I enjoy. If you don't, then simply don't use it.

I didn't say I didn't like the quote. I was just noting the irony of it.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't both Steve Case and Ted Turner recently resign from AOL Time Warner?

I'm all for developing new sources of energy, but they're still a little ways off, and we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil NOW. What better way than to increase domestic oil production?

And the Democrats whine whenever a bill is proposed to drill in ANWR, but the fact of the matter is that only a small portion of the reserve would be set aside for drilling, and wouldn't have that much environmental impact at all.

At 3/28/03 04:14 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1848

Lincoln said that? Because he didn't exactly allow the South that right. Not to defend the institution of slavery, but that's essentially what the South did in 1861.

With 13 years in between, perhaps Lincoln changed his mind and decided that preservation of the Union was more important?

At 3/28/03 04:08 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote:

At 3/28/03 03:52 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: So instead of taking the bum-rap that America is already getting, get it over with, kill anyone with a gun shouting "Allah Ackbar!" or whatever and call it quits.

I love it when the true colors of the pro-war crowd start showing.

I suppose since you think killing civilians in a war is ok, you won't villify terrorist groups for killing U.S. citizens in the "War on Terrorism", right?

Not everyone in the pro-war crowd agrees with the idea of going in without regard for the safety of civilians. We need to do everything we can to minimize civilian casualties. But I don't think we should let fear of killing civilians deter us from hitting key military targets. We were reluctant at first to take out Iraqi TV because of fear of civilian casualties. But with Saddam using it as a propaganda tool to try to turn world opinion against us, it became a key target in the war. Thus, a pair of bunker-busters hitting the communications tower.

But still, we shouldn't go in blowing up everything that moves. We need to avoid killing civilians, as well as protect them from whatever Saddam's troops might try to do to them, and provide humanitarian aid. Is this not what we're doing right now?