Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/28/03 10:19 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Hey, Hillary has a good chance of winning in 2008.

If Hillary ever became President, I'd move to Switzerland.

Communism in theory is not a dictatorship. That's just the way it happened. All communism means is that commerce and industry are controlled by the state.

In a socialist system, there are private businesses, but certain key industries (utilities, health care, etc.) are controlled/regulated by the government.

I personally like the way things are done here in the US: capitalism with just a little bit of regulation.

Well, we can always use more ways to put those unwanted AOL CDs to good use...

Huh? I thought we finally knocked Iraqi TV off the air...

At 3/28/03 01:15 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

At 3/27/03 12:47 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: We never invaded Iraq in 1991. We simply drove them out of Kuwait.

Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day - hitting targets in Iraq territory - the "No Fly Zones"

Ah, the No Fly Zones. Those were set up for a reason (part of the cease-fire agreement, I believe). I don't think hitting targets in the No Fly Zones counts as a full-on invasion. Hey, when they fired on our planes that were patrolling the zones, of course we were going to take out the people that were firing on us.

And you mention reinstating Kuwait's "dictator", as if we were the aggressor, not Iraq.

..word is that Saddam phoned to the then President George Bush Senior first, to get the ok for the attack on Kuwait.

Source please.

Hell, Jim Traficant ran for reelection while he was in prison. Granted, he didn't win, but it can be done.

At 3/27/03 06:10 PM, TheShrike wrote: Not anti-Bush, but still worth posting.
Watch out, Dubya! This'uns more slippery than shit from a duck's ass!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! That one was great.

At 3/27/03 05:24 PM, karasz wrote: SO, people invoking their first amendment is stupid to you (you spelled it wrong, im going to assume it was for a reason, or u just didnt know either way thats unimportant...)

I don't think the first amendment protects the right to block busy intersections.

explain to me why you dislike the protesters, is it just cuz they are anti-war, OR their style OR something else...

It IS their style. Voicing your opinion is fine. But disrupting traffic or breaking any other laws is not.

I say the police should call some monster trucks into manhattan!!

so while their are people in a desert that are MY age being shot at, and these people want them back home where they WONT be shot at... i just dont see ur way of keeping the soliders in harms way the best way to support them...

ALSO while the soliders are being attacked in the desert fighting to try to install democracy, YOU want to shut people up and want everyone to fall in line with the administration....

THATS NOT A DEMOCRACY, pal...

It's not about shutting them up. It's about getting them off of the street so everyone else can go about their business.

What's this? Russia, France, and China at the very top of the list? I'm absolutely shocked!

Maybe now you'll rethink who the "bad guy" in this conflict is?

Okay, that's a little much to ask.

At 3/27/03 12:06 PM, Jiperly wrote:

Why should America be trusted to protect every nation? Actually recent US history on helping or attacking countries is mostly based on self-interest - HENSE THE CURRENT PROTESTING!

heres some proof of the above statement:
in 1953, United States overthrows the Prime Minister of Iran, installs a Dictator, in 1954 The United States overthrows the democraticly elected president of Guatemala, killing 200,000 civilians in the process. In 1963, the US supports the assassination of South Veitnam's President, and from that point on till 1975, 4 million people are killed by American soldiers in Asia, or 2/3 the estimated number of Jews killed by Nazism during WWII. In September 11th, 1973, The United States stages coup in chile, and assassinated their democraticly elected president- and replaced him by a dictator. 5,000 chileans were murdered. In 1977, America supports the militart rulers of El Salvador, leading to the deaths of 70,000 Salvadorans and 4 american nuns.. In 1980, Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists were trained to kill soveits, and the CIA gives them 3 BILLION!
In 1981, the Reagan Admin. trains and funds the 'contras', 30,000 Nicaraguans die. In 1982, the US gives billions in aid to Iraqi to create weapons to kill Iranians in their war, and in 1983, the US secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait with weapons they recieved from America. In 1991, America invades Iraq and reinstates the dictator of Kuwait. Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day, and the UN estimates that 500,000 Iraqi civilians die from sanctions and bombs. in 2000-2001, the Taliban received 245 million in aid, and in Sept. 11th, 2001 Osama Bin Laden, with his CIA training, killed 3000 people

What is your source? You act as if the US has deliberately murdered millions of innocent people. Some of these statements are true, but I want to see proof of your statements. There are also some flaws in your account. We never invaded Iraq in 1991. We simply drove them out of Kuwait. And you mention reinstating Kuwait's "dictator", as if we were the aggressor, not Iraq.

I honestly wonder what the hell they're teaching in history classes in other countries these days. I can respect those who give rational and logical reasons for opposing war, but there seem to be some people who are just blatantly anti-American, trying to paint us as an evil, aggressive nation at every opportunity. What did we ever do to you?

At 3/27/03 02:38 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: I'm not going to get into the war in Iraq, because quite frankly, I don't feel like it. However, I do have some things to say concerning Bush's domestic policy...

Education
His idea for national testing is decent, but he doesn't give the states the money to enforce the provisions of his program. Result? Education still being poor and state governments being pissed at Bush on this issue

Is education the responsibility of the federal government? I don't really see how you can blame education problems on the federal government, especially when you only cite the national testing program. Here in Oklahoma, the education system is practically broke. But I can't say I hold Bush or anyone in the federal government responsible. I pin the blame on our state government (Frank Keating has to be the worst governor in history). And right now, it is the state government that is taking the initiative to fix our education system (and we'll get a lottery, to boot!). I believe education is the responsibility of the individual states.

Environment
When Bush went into office, he undid a shitload of envirnmental acts. Moreover, he continues to allow SUV's to have crap fuel efficency under a loophole. Add to the fact that he pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and we've found that Bush is a envirnmentally unfriendly President. Even his supporters admit that they are putting business interests above the environment.

SUVs are one issue I disagree with the administration on. But I don't exactly like the Kyoto treaty. Businesses need to show responsibility regarding the environment, but don't impose too many environmental restrictions that could adversely affect businesses. It's just a matter of priorities. People disagree on what should be a priority between the economy and the environment. And with the economy in the shape it's in right now...

Corporate Accountibility
Before Enron, Bush took the opinion of "trust Big Business. They regulate themselves" With this in mind, Bush, in the name of removing economic barriers, reduced several regulations on businesses in regard to accounting. Bush changed his public statements after Enron and Worldcom, when he realized that, shit, one can't always trust big business. His Corporate Accountibility act, fell well short of its intended goal, as the loopholes that plagues it have left the rate of scandels before the acts equal the rate after its passage.

I haven't heard much about accounting scandals lately. Granted, the war has dominated the news, but someone would probably find some room to report on it, right? Look at it this way: in the cases of Enron, Worldcom, etc., for their stock prices to be that overinflated, they would have to have been overstating their profits for quite a while. That means under Clinton's watch, boys and girls! I think it's funny that these companies had been doing this while Clinton was president, and then when Bush comes into office, they finally get caught. Of course, Bush gets the blame.

Fiscal Responsibility
Bush, in a nutshell, wants/ed to cut taxes and increase spending. Um, anyone see a problem here? Two minus's do not make a plus. With the Clinton era budjet plans, the US managed to get a surplus, a surplus squandered by the Bush administration. The tax cuts did not "pay for themselves" even before 9-11, and the loss of the surplus preceeded that tradegy.

There was no talk of increasing spending before 9/11. The tax cuts were giving the surplus back to the people. But let's see... 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, the troubled economy, the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate for a year... is this entirely Bush's fault? When the economy turns around, with more companies generating more revenue, more tax dollars will come in. Maybe that will cut the deficit a little bit. And come on, be honest... can you say that you DON'T like the fact that you aren't paying as much in taxes every year?

Before anyone can come in here saying "OMG it is about the oil! They're just doing this to make money for themselves!", I would like to point out that the article mentions that Cheney sold all of his Halliburton stock when he became Bush's running mate. He does not stand to profit from this himself.

House_Of_Leaves, I just wrote a long and detailed response to your post, but I had some sort of Windows error that closed my browser window and wiped out the whole thing. Let it be known right now that I hate Microsoft. Now let me try again:

At 3/24/03 06:00 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Snipping TheEvilOne's comment, and going to answer this one directly. First? Whoever said no one has died, is wrong. ONE did. Also, it wasn't an accident. They don't know for sure, but the grenade was thrown because he was angry about the war. He was anti-war, and didn't want to be there, among other things. He had a bad attitude and had been reprimanded.

And that's not really irony. It's sad.

Well, it was deliberate. But at the time I wrote that post, we had not yet suffered many combat casualties. I wanted to make the point that sometimes, an accident happens, or someone goes crazy, or whatever. It's not always avoidable. But when we have more people dying from stuff like that than with combat with the enemy, it speaks volumes about our military capabilities. Since then, we've had more combat casualties, but I stand by my belief that our military cababilities are far superior, and will help to shorten this war.

What DOES piss me off is that the news makes a point to say the soldier that did it is Muslim. So what? I'm sure if the man was Christian, it wouldn't be an issue. Muslim IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with terrorist.

No argument about the Muslim not synonymous with terrorist part. But one thing is that the initial reports did not mention the fact that he was a Muslim. I personally think that this would have made headlines either way. And I don't care what religion he is--he murdered some of his fellow soldiers, and should face the firing squad.

First of all, I don't give a crap what you think about the Scuds. The bottom line is that they were forbidden under the UN resolutions.

TheEvilOne: This is to you. Scuds or no Scuds, they're not able to cause MASS destruction. Sure, they broke the rules. So did our President. He's waging war on a country for not complying with the UN. While at the same time not complying with the UN himself. That's a flawed argument. Besides...the stated goal isn't the weapons anymore. It's regime change. Which is illegal. A GOOD IDEA. But illegal.

I was responding to thenark's statement that the weapons that Iraq denied having had yet to surface. I was making the point that Iraq had weapons that were banned under the UN resolutions. As far as this conflict is concerned, the UN is no longer relevant, and you're right--it's really not about the weapons anymore. But even so, when someone mentions that the weapons haven't surfaced yet, I feel the need to mention what has surfaced. Iraq had weapons that they denied having. And since I wrote that post, we've had reports of our troops finding a 100-acre chemical facility, reports of them finding chemical suits abandoned by Iraqi troops, and reports of Saddam himself giving the order to use chemical weapons. NOW would you say that the weapons have surfaced, thenark?

They may not have been particularly violent at first, but they sure are disruptive, blocking roads and such.

I snipped the rest of what TheEvilOne said in response, because this is the part I want to address. Blocking roads? So what? You can add all the what-ifs you want, but demonstrations NEED TO GET ATTENTION to cause change and HELP.

I think it would be okay if the protest were well-planned and well-organized, perhaps with a city permit and a police roadblock. But these protests were really causing a lot of problems in these cities, and I think if they could keep emergency vehicles from getting through, then they need to be broken up.

I haven't heard anything about it costing THAT much($1.28 trillion). What is your source?

First of all, yes. THAT much. I'll break it down.

This is from the Congressional Budget Office. These are approximations.

-- Sending troops and equipment to Iraq: $14 billion.
-- First month of combat: $10 billion.
-- Every month after that: $8 billion.
-- Bringing troops and equipment home afterward: $9 billion.
-- Immediate humanitarian needs (food, meds): $10 - $30 billion.
-- Post-war occupation/reconstruction: $12 - $48 billion per year.
-- Veteran benefits (based on Desert Storm estimates) $3 - $4 billion

Calculations: Based on 6 months of war and using the higher number in the spans given...that's $1.28 trillion.

That seems to be a pretty liberal interpretation (six months and the maximum of Congressional estimates). I still think the main phase of the war will last two months at most, with small pockets of resistance to clean up after that. If the figure gets that high, then it's not over the course of one year. The figure I've heard is $80 billion. Also, the Senate has cut Bush's proposed tax cut in half to help pay for it.

At 3/26/03 03:48 PM, TheShrike wrote: ... And our leader speaks

Are you using that quote to call Bush a hypocrite? If so, look at the wording again:

"No political cause can justify the deliberate murder of citizens."

Yes, civilians die in war. That is a given. And I also see that you don't exactly agree with the reasons for war. But to accuse Bush of "deliberately murdering" civilians is just plain wrong. We go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties.

At 3/26/03 11:18 AM, Slizor wrote: They weren't Scuds, it was reported at the time they were Scuds, but later confirmed they were not.

They were still missiles that Iraq wasn't supposed to have, and they were still missiles that Iraq denied having.

As for civilian deaths, sure they happen. But my, aren't some of the people here a little quick to place some of the blame on the US for the civilian deaths in this war. We never deliberately kill civilians, which is quite unlike Saddam, who puts his forces and other things that may be strategic military targets in civilian-populated areas.

I stand by my belief that the burden of responsibility for civilian deaths falls on Saddam alone. He had every opportunity to avoid war, and if he truly cared about his people (and I doubt anyone here has ever thought that he did), he would have disarmed.

At 3/25/03 05:17 PM, Slizor wrote:

The fact remains, however, that he has sought the weaponry to do so.

No, he sought weaponry which COULD do so. Not to do so, to do so means he had intent to attack the US. Which is idiotic since the majority of the WMDs he had/has he got during his time as an Ally of America.

He's not an ally of America anymore, and yet still has some of these weapons. He could still use the weapons that we gave him against us. There is also evidence that he has tried to acquire more weapons since 1991. You are right about the "COULD do so" part, but more on that later.

I think you're going to have to prove this rabid anti-Americanism Saddam is meant to have. And the war still has nothing to do with Osama.

I can't "prove" anything, but it's a pretty safe assumption after what we did to him in the first Gulf War. I may be wrong about the "he definitely would kill Americans" part, but he has attacked his neighbors in the past, and I would bet he would use these weapons to do so again, as well as our interests in the region. I also doubt that he's above trying to make a quick buck by selling weapons to terrorists who would use them on American soil. I can't "prove" that he would take advantage of these opportunities, but I still don't think we should let him have these opportunities.

First of all, Slizor, keep in mind that Dennis Miller is a comedian, and much of what he said was intended to draw laughs (particularly the France Google search thing). Now to respond to some of your points:

At 3/25/03 02:29 PM, Slizor wrote:

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations
approval before they try to kill us.

Saddam has never tried to kill Americans....well only when his country is being attacked.

Maybe not... yet. The fact remains, however, that he has sought the weaponry to do so. With these weapons, he could attack our allies and interests in the region, or sell them to terrorists who would bring them to our own shores.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an
"infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.

The war has nothing to do with bin Laden.

Osama and Saddam are cast from the same mold. One may be a religious fanatic, and the other a secularist, but they both hold a grudge with America, and both would kill Americans if the opportunity presented itself. To be honest, I'm not real sure about supposed links between Osama and Saddam, but I don't think we need to link them together in order to justify this war.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy,"
but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit
hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

See this is kind of stupid. It doesn't address if Saddam is a danger, it just tries to link people who are anti-war with people who think there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Once again, this was intended as a joke. It does attempt to link the anti-war movement with the left, but tries to be funny about it, and also notes that anti-war people don't think Saddam is that dangerous (even though he is).

10) Whether you are for military action or against it,
our young men and women overseas are fighting for
us to defend our right to speak out.

Who are they fighting for again? Is it us, the Iraqi people, the government? Or maybe they are waging an aggressive war to "protect our rights". Talk about your bullshit.

Don't knock on our troops. Whether or not the cause is just, the fact remains that these men and women are willing to risk their lives for their country.

At 3/25/03 12:26 AM, karasz wrote: well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

I knew someone would say that. I can counter by saying the following:

As I said above, we have the authority under Resolution 1441. And in case you think we don't, than I have a point to make about the UN resolutions. Iraq was not complying with 1441, which said that Iraq must declare what weapons they have or had, and account for every single one of them. Every last ounce of mustard gas, every last missile, every last vial of anthrax. No one here can say they did this. And yet, when we proposed an ultimatum to sternly warn Iraq that force would be used if they didn't comply by a certain time--one that probably had enough votes to pass--one nation that shall remain nameless--France--refused to accept it, and threatened to veto it. Apparently, UN resolutions are meaningless to France. And if UN resolutions are meaningless, then Iraq has the right to carry WMDs... but we have the right to go to war without UN approval. Whoops!

At 3/24/03 08:09 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: America has more chemical and biological and nuclear weapons than any other country. How does it justify this now by saying "but we don't attack other countries first"

Think of it like this: people are allowed to own guns, but that right is forfeited when one is convicted of a felony. Iraq committed a "felony" in 1990, when it invaded Kuwait. Therefore, they forfeit the right to own "guns" (weapons of mass destruction).

US wins because they found the evidence.

no, none found yet... o_O

The 100-acre facility that we found yesterday? It hasn't been confirmed as a chemical weapons facility yet, but the inspectors had no idea that it was even there.

The ends justify the means in this situation because the US is allowed to defend itself without UN permission.

that's International Law you are brushing aside!!?

What about the right of a sovereign nation to declare war? And what about the fact that Iraq is blatantly violating international law, and yet the UN refused to do anything about it? Someone has to do something, we have the authority under 1441, and in any case, we have the right as a sovereign nation to declare war.

Who else would Iraq launch (them) at...Israel?

Simple answer, YES - and why not?!

No comment.

A few things:

1. I doubt anyone "expected" Iraq to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. I also doubt that anyone cares. Those responsible are war criminals, and will be tried as such.

2. Taliban/Al-Qaeda are not a sovereign nation. They said that Taliban were being treated according to the rules of the GC because they were the de facto government of Afghanistan, but al-Qaeda, as a terrorist organization, was not subject to the GC. I fully agree with this view. We are not "picking and choosing", so to speak, but recognizing who is subject to the GC and who is not.

At 3/24/03 12:11 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Talking about the whole history... Did the fact that the US armed Saddam themselves so they could fight against the Russians come up in your head?

And this is relevant because...?

I'm shocked that no one has had anything particularly negative to say about Moore's speech. For crying out loud--why do people keep dwelling on something that happened THREE YEARS AGO? 2000 is long gone, folks. Hmmm... let's see... Bush's high approval rating? Republican victories in 2002? Doesn't anyone think that the 2000 monkey is off of Bush's back? The fact that Moore can't come up with anything better than mentioning 2000, duct tape, and orange alerts says to me that he was just talking crap. Surely, even with only one minute, you can give some better arguments than that, right?

Oh well. I didn't even watch the Oscars. I say let Hollywood have their happy little anti-war party, and let people who are actually aware of the situation make the decisions.

At 3/22/03 06:26 AM, Slizor wrote: The media knows their place....they're lying to you. It may be more subtle than the Iraqi attempts but it shapes people's views. Like the idea that they are enforcing a UN resolution. A good example is the amount of flak that France has been recieving, people seem to have forgotten that there were other countries opposing a second resolution.

Well, France was the main one. There were others, but when France says they'll veto the measure when we were on the verge of getting enough votes to pass it, they're the ones who are going to take most of the heat.

I'm not sure how much of what the US media says is true, but I find it much more accurate and reliable than the Iraqi Ministry of Propoganda™.

At 3/22/03 11:43 PM, thenark wrote: 1. Does anyone find it ironic that so far, the greatest number of US casualties has been caused by one of the US's own soldiers in a mishap with a grenade thrown into a tent housing officers of the 101st airborne?

Let me say this... accidents happen. And when not only are more people being killed in accidents than are being killed by the enemy, but it makes headlines whenever we have any casualties whatsoever, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job.

2. The war has been going strong for 2 days now, but these alleged weapons of mass destruction have yet to rear their ugly heads. And please, dont say he launched scuds, because those are all products of world war II research and development, and have not hurt anyone.

First of all, I don't give a crap what you think about the Scuds. The bottom line is that they were forbidden under the UN resolutions. Just wait till the troops roll into Baghdad... that's when we'll probably start uncovering vast amounts of the forbidden weapons.

3. Has anyone else seemed to notice that what were peaceful demonstrations only turned violent after the police got over zealous in their LAPD-rodney king idea of crowd control?

They may not have been particularly violent at first, but they sure are disruptive, blocking roads and such. Suppose that, say, terrorists struck somewhere (just an example, other disasters could happen too). Suppose that emergency vehicles that needed to be at the scene couldn't get through because these protesters were blocking the road. That would be a problem, wouldn't it? They have the right to protest, but when they start disrupting things, they've crossed the line, and police should use whatever means necessary to disperse them.

5. Attrition seems to be taking a bigger toll on american forces than the Iraqi's, helicopter crashes, and disgruntled soldiers throwing grenades at their own team. Yet the news still claims they died defending america. Defending it from what? I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate invading the US.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that someone like, oh, say, Saddam Hussein, wouldn't be crazy enough to try. A few weapons sold to terrorists and brought into the states could really cause a lot of problems.

6. There are dozens of countries that commit attrocities on their prople, many of these countries also have, and it is proven that they have, nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, to quote your beloved president, yet america only sees fit to go after Iraq. I could name 10 countries that are commiting far worse attrocities right now than saddam ever has, yet you only focus on Iraq, who has no weapons of mass destruction at all.

First of all, quit denying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. There were weapons that the inspectors found and ordered destroyed, and there is evidence that Saddam has more weapons. You sound like you're saying you'd trust Saddam before you'd trust the US. As for these other countries... all in due time. After we finish up in Iraq, we'll probably turn our attention to North Korea.

1.2 trillion dollars on a war that is not even going to accomplish anything. I'm just glad that I'm not an american tax payer

I haven't heard anything about it costing THAT much. What is your source? Waging war is expensive, but to disarm Saddam (who I think is already dead) and free the Iraqi people, I think it is well worth the cost. Oh, by the way, Bush is giving us another round of tax cuts.

I'm absolutely furious about the protests going on right now. They can claim "freedom of speech" all they want, but the First Amendment does not allow violence.

At 3/22/03 01:54 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 3/22/03 01:16 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: Anyone following the basketball tournament?

yup. i feel sorry for SIU. highway robbery against Mizoo.

That was that questionable blocking call, right? I kinda thought SIU might pull that one out. After Mizzou's run in the Big 12 tournament, I wasn't really expecting SIU to play them so close.

Oh well. My Oklahoma State Cowboys won, so it's all good.

Let's see if we can get a break from silliness.

Anyone following the basketball tournament?

Fox News is reporting that Saddam was seen being put into an ambulance on a stretcher. This was after that first strike of the war. It's looking more and more like Saddam is already dead. But nothing has been confirmed yet.

Saddam may be dead, he may not. Nothing has been confirmed. Here we are, talking about how we think or don't think that he may be dead.

Jeez--it's Osama all over again! ("He's dead!" "No, he's alive!" "No, he's dead!")

Okay, so this thread is turning into a place for us to all do goofy crap. I'd be happy to join in!