Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The way things are going right now, it may be over by Sunday.

Let me attempt to jump-start more talk about what's going on in Iraq:

We have begun moving ground troops into Iraq, while we continue to pound Baghdad with bombs. There are reports that Saddam himself was in a compound that was hit. Saddam may already be dead.

So, does anyone think any of this may have the Iraqi military in disarray? If Saddam is dead, then who is in charge right now? And if Saddam is still alive, is he still able to effectively command the Iraqi military? We do seem to still be encountering some resistance, so maybe someone has control over the Iraqi military.

I think you forgot about the New York Yankees. God, how I hate them so...

I think that without Saddam's money, terrorism will be dealt quite a blow. Anti-American sentiment already runs high over there, so other than a few new recruits for al Qaeda, I don't really see how this could increase the danger of terrorism. Terrorists may try to launch a retaliatory strike, but I doubt it would be on the level of a 9/11.

I saw the list of nations in the coalition, and Canada wasn't on it. I think the Canadian government is opposed to war.

At 3/20/03 12:24 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Have you ever played Civilization III? This is a form of covernment called "Virtual Democracy". It's like the second best government in the game. Anywho, just thought I'd point out the reference.

I just thought I'd point out that from my experience playing Civilization, the best form of government in the game is Communism. Just a thought...

I wonder--are the human shields still there? If they are, they're idiots. I would bet that at least some of them have fled.

Here's a link from Yahoo. The story is from the AP.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...s/afghan_us_military_operation

I guess this strike was planned to be launched concurrently with the beginning of the war in Iraq. Damn--what if we get Osama and Saddam in the SAME DAY? It would make me celebrate that much harder once the Fourth of July rolls around, that's for sure.

At 3/19/03 11:12 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: curious how Bush normally sez "if our troops die in brave valour on the battlefield - they will be remembered as heroes" ..it translates similar to martyrdom

Well, the idea of those who die in battle being remembered as heroes is not a new concept. It is similar to the concept of martyrdom, but I don't consider the 9/11 hijackers or anyone else who blows themselves up to kill civilians to be "heroes".

At 3/19/03 10:32 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: it's kinda interesting that both America and Isreal seem to think "leadership targets" are fair game in modern warfare.

Well, if we can kill Saddam with a quick missile strike, it saves us the trouble of capturing him, trying him for war crimes, and putting him in the chair. I think it's clear that Saddam is a target, and we will either get him with a bomb, or if our troops find him, they will shoot him. Is there anything wrong with targeting Saddam and his cronies, who are among the most evil men in the world? We did target Osama in Afghanistan, after all.

Well, obviously, the various channels will compete to show the best/most sensational coverage to get the best ratings. But even so, I think it's a good thing to know when the war begins, and when we make a major strike. I'm actually pretty interested in the strategic aspects of war.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the war has begun. I can't wait for Bush's address. Let the rain of fire begin!

Anti-aircraft fire and explosions have been reported in Baghdad, and Ari Fleischer has announced that the war has begun. President Bush will address the nation in 15 minutes.

Well, did anyone expect it to begin so soon?

At 3/19/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote: Why has no-one else mentioned Thatcher?!

I think most people are limiting it to people who are currently in office. But if you want to talk about people who are now out of office, then go ahead and add Bill Clinton to my list. I don't care if I already have three people.

At 3/19/03 05:08 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: this topic is defintely becoming the "I'm taking my anger out on people that counter me the most" thread

Yeah--let's try to keep personal insults to a minimum, and remember why this thread was created--as a forum for the regulars to unwind/discuss non-political issues without having to go to the General board.

At 3/19/03 05:11 PM, Slizor wrote: Here's a link to the USA one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,912338,00.html

So, basically, we're not allowed to even use tear gas as a weapon of war?

At 3/19/03 03:42 PM, Slizor wrote: TheEvilOne: What's this about them being war criminals if they use WMDs? I would find it ironic if they were tried for that as Donald Rumsfeld actually wants to use chemical weapons (y'know ones thatare just sitting there in America in breach of international law.)

Well, that is what Bush said: Anyone who uses chemical/biological weapons will be tried. And I haven't heard anything about us having chemical weapons. Hell, we probably do. But as I have said time and again: after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN decided that Iraq had forfeited the right to carry such weapons. And I don't think we will use chemical weapons. If we did, it would be hypocritical, but I think the main thing is that it just flat out won't be necessary.

Well, if he does use WMDs, then it proves that we were right, and makes France look stupid...

But still, it would probably be a good idea to take out some of the sites where he keeps the weapons before we move in. Just remember though, that any Iraqi soldier that uses WMDs will be prosecuted as a war criminal, and since I'm betting that most Iraqi troops will surrender, it's probably something we don't have to worry about too much.

The government isn't smart enough for there to be some sort of "conspiracy".

At 3/19/03 03:17 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Did you ever see the night I covered the entire front page of the Politics board? I felt like, SO cool.

Geez, I don't know about Judge, but I saw it. It was ridiculous. I laughed my ass off.

1. Saddam Hussein
2. Kim Jong Il
3. Jacques Chirac

At 3/18/03 07:36 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: it took 50 years to fix up Germany, expect 50 for Iraq

Well, you had that whole "West Germany-East Germany" thing because the US and Britain occupied the west side while the USSR occupied the east side, so it took the end of the Cold War to fix things up there.

But we rebuilt Japan in about 5 years. Afghanistan and Iraq may take that long, but it will be done.

At 3/18/03 06:14 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: France, Russia, and Germany don't want the war because the U.S. is greedily jumping the gun in the colonialization of the Middle East. They watch the U.S. put a puppet government in Afghanistan and be about to do the same in Iraq, and they are upset as their piece of the pie slips away.

First of all, let me say that is a reason that some are opposed to war (and in my opinion, it is not a valid reason). You are right about France being worried about losing their piece of the pie, but is the US really trying to greedily grab influence in the Middle East? Or maybe France is the one being greedy, opposing the removal of a brutal and dangerous dictator for their own personal interests. France is not being the "defender of morality" by opposing an "unjust" war. France has its own agenda, and they seek to retain their contracts with the present regime, and embarrass the United States on the world stage. It's not going to work--we will be at war in less than 24 hours. Saddam's weapons will be found, and it would not surprise me at all if one of the nations he was obtaining weapons from was none other than France.

Pro-war, anti-war... it doesn't matter--anyone can see through France's bullshit. Bill O'Reilly is calling for a boycott of French goods, and I tend to agree.

At 3/18/03 02:17 PM, clownfish wrote: Has anyone noeiced that ever since the US started interfering with other countries the have made one mistake after another? Examples? The weakness of the American governement against Hitler, they allowed the Prague massacre(even though the Ruskis were also to blame), the Cuba embargo, Vietnam and Cambodja, arming guerilla armies several times in several cases... Please use real arguments, don't just say "you are an idiot, so you're wrong".

I disagree with your Hitler comment. You could make that argument for before 1941, and you could argue that Japan was our main priority, but I think we did help out in the North Africa campaign. And of course, after 1944, after D-Day, US and British troops marched on Germany from the west, while the Russians advanced from the east. It was only a matter of who would get there first--either way, Hitler was fucked. So don't say we didn't do anything about Hitler.

After that, we made a few mistakes--Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc. I'm not real sure what you're trying to suggest. (Maybe that Iraq is a mistake? Just a theory, I don't know for sure.) But in any case, we shouldn't go where we don't have any business. I think we DO have business in Iraq, though.

At 3/17/03 11:46 PM, TheShrike wrote: Do you forget that Clinton didn't even bother sending troops into Afghanistan when Al Qaida acted up during his administration?
Ohh yeah-Clinton simply sent a bunch of missiles into their heartland, and blew up training camps. Simple and precise.

Clinton didn't do nearly enough. Just launch a few missiles in response to the bombing of the USS Cole, bomb Iraq for about a week to draw attention away from his impeachment proceedings, etc, etc. Clinton had plenty of opportunities, and he blew them all.

To accuse the democrats of being incompetent shows your true bias, as well as your ignorance.

Hey, hey, hey. Calling the Democrats incompetent doesn't make him ignorant. That's just his opinion. You may not share it, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. Hell, I think the Dems were incompetent too.

From what I understand, we had the votes to get the new resolution passed, but there was no way France was going to just let it go. The way I see it, the country that will come out of this with egg on their face will be not the US, but France.

At 3/17/03 11:23 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: There was a news story in some small newspaper about a dachshund that mauled a baby within an inch of its life. That's sad. We need to start cooking up the animals.

A dachshund nearly killing a baby? That's just so hard to imagine... I just can't help laughing trying to imagine it.

But anyway, eating meat is natural and perfectly healthy. It may be a good idea to not eat as much meat, but maybe not necessarily to cut it out of your diet entirely. Don't let anyone tell you that eating meat is unhealthy.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, in case you haven't figured it out yet, this is, well, it. There will be war.

I hope that the French are REAL proud of themselves. They have prevented the adoption of a resolution authorizing force. I hope they're proud of their actions for world peace.

By the time this is over, the French are going to look ridiculous, as usual. Saddam will be overthrown, and the French will look on as our troops find the weapons that supposedly didn't exist. The Iraqi people will finally be free, and won't have to live in fear of a brutal dictator. And the oil? We will buy oil from the new government, and the people of Iraq will benefit tremendously, as will the US. And the world will be rid of a threat to peace. The only losers are Saddam and France.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've really enjoyed debating this issue with you. It now appears that the time for debate is over. We're going in.

Let's Roll™.

At 3/16/03 01:00 PM, Mr_Y wrote: I guess Al-Qaeda does want to make a bigger scene in the United States and in Canada... and I'd like to add to that that Canada's their main entrance to the country, without us it would be much harder for them, since I don't think Mexico gives free citizenships like Canada does...

Has there been any talk up in Canada about tightening up security? It's something that probably needs to be done. It's too easy to get into Canada and then cross the US border.