Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

War is imminent. The troops are ready to go, and I don't think Bush wants to wait around much longer. Chirac has vowed to oppose the war "to the end", so I think we will go in without a UN resolution. I say just get it over with already, so we can move on.

I think you'll actually be quite welcome here.

At 3/14/03 10:31 AM, TheShrike wrote: You do, however, realize that you'd be dealing with a horde of people who're just as blind in their ignorance as the warhawks on capitol hill?

Yeah, no doubt some of those people are very ignorant. It really doesn't matter which side they take. Protestors tend to be morons.

But still, it might be something fun to do: head out there and hold up signs making fun of ignorant anti-war people (not that everyone who opposes war is ignorant, of course), as well as making fun of France, because no other country wears the "kick me" sign quite as comfortably as France.

At 3/14/03 10:06 AM, TheShrike wrote: For a spin, Big Anti-War protest tomorrow, and from what I can see, there are several protests and counter-protests all over the nation... Anyone attending?

There's going to be a pro-war rally in front of the Oklahoma State Capitol (complete with brand spanking new dome built with funds that should have gone toward education!) that I was thinking about going to, but I can't remember the exact date (I think it was the 17th)... I may look it up. But sometimes I think that protestors are the kind of people that have no life... but I don't have a life either, so fuck it, I'll go.

Do you have a list of these protests, and when and where they're taking place?

At 3/14/03 09:14 AM, Ruination wrote: Yes, it is rather ridiculous.... associating the current war movement with any semblance of liberty.

I don't see it that way. Don't you think that the Iraqi people will have more freedom after Saddam is out of the picture?

But still, there is another thread for this, so Freak will probably get the keys out for this one.

At 3/13/03 10:57 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: There's one out there now that's receiving major support: a resolution demanding that France change its national slogan to "Home of the Cowards". Damned if I know what the slogan was before.

"Home of the Cowards"... Hahahahaha. That resolution has MY support, I'll tell you that right now.

At 3/13/03 11:24 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: Isn't it sort of hypocritical that warlike nations like the United States and its allies all get to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, but when a small nation like Iraq may or may not be considering thinking about researching nuclear weapons, they need to be bombed? Or is Saddam Hussein such a crazed dicatator that Iraq should not be armed?

Yes, Saddam Hussein IS such a crazed dictator that Iraq should not be armed.

I posted something about this in the other abortion thread...

You finally got the link to work. And that Iraqi really laid it on that activist.

It seems like people who argue against war because "all those civilians will die!" too often forget that civilians already are dying in Iraq, and it is the fault of Saddam Hussein. Civilians will die in the war, but once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will welcome our troops with open arms, happy that the man who terrorized them is finally gone.

It's not working either way. All I'm getting is a bunch of pop-ups. Where did you find these?

At 3/13/03 11:41 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 3/12/03 01:17 PM, esj wrote: i take it your not from the u.s. which means that your opinions are that of a f**k'ing retard considering all other countries like france germany and russia arent behind us im guessing your one from of those countries. we spout off what we want to here without assholes like you to respond and give consturctive critisism. guess what!? constructive critisism from assholes like you is not needed.

Excuse me, but since when were your opinions remotely important?

If people like you truly represent the opinions of the US, is it any wonder most of the planet hates your country?

People like him don't represent the US. He is just a moron. I sometimes like to say that some members of the anti-war movement are unintelligent and uninformed, but they don't have a monopoly on idiots. There are those who say they support war but really have no idea what they are talking about.

You can't even do a little research for a start. Such as;

1. The Nazis were strong until their invasion of Russia. That is what cost them most, as they managed the remarkable feat of deciding it was a good idea to incur the wrath of Stalin, and the world's largest army at the time.

Not to mention the harsh Russian winter. It seems like every invasion of Russia is doomed to failure.

2. NATO didn't do shit in Serbia. They bombed Kosovo, which was both the wrong country AND the place they were supposed to be pro-tect-ing, and went home when the ratings of the daily bombing went down.

And we can blame Bill Clinton.

The Senate has approved a ban on partial-birth abortions.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...3/ts_nm/congress_abortion_dc_9

Maybe we can get some debate jump-started here...

At 3/13/03 06:35 AM, Ryu_Kage wrote: I heard anout this a serval weeks ago in another state.
In Yahoo. But As usaul on the messagr board, are full of idiots. Saying something like "Good, Less people like them to deal with","Hey, why don't we do that to do blacks" Some theses people in these boards tend to be the following: racist,homophobic,mysoganistic,over-zelously religous,conservative.But theare are some like me that try to "put sense" into them.

Ah. The Yahoo boards. A realm that is seemingly devoid of any intelligent thought whatsoever. I try to stay away from them, but sometimes I just can't. It's like looking at a train wreck--it's an ugly sight, but you just can't turn away from it. From my experience, most of the morons on those boards tend to lean toward the left, but some lean the other way. Either way, they have no clue what they're talking about, and sometimes, I figure, "Well, since I'm here, I might as well put these losers in their place." But of course, they never listen, and continue spouting their ignorant views.

At least here, we get some intelligent thought.

Ahh... war coverage.

Once this thing gets underway, it will be on practically every channel.

I'm just irritated that CBS may pre-empt the NCAA Basketball Tournament for war coverage. Hey, I've been a vocal war supporter and still am, but dammit, if I can't see my Pokes play, I may just have to head down to Baghdad and finish Saddam myself.

Oh well. I'll gladly watch when they are reporting Saddam's demise.

The article only said that relations with nations who voted against us would be strained. (They probably already are in the case of France.) It never said anything about economic sanctions. Did I read the same article that you did?

At 3/13/03 09:06 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Now this is a very intelligent debate. I believe that Saddam Hussein must be taken out of power, and Hans Blix was hindering the act of diplomacy by conveniently hiding the things he found deep in his report. However, I don't see a mass-invasion as the way to get Saddam out. The country is so unstable that we could basically assassinate Saddam Hussein and then occupy Iraq without firing more than a few shots. The massive casualty levels we're going to inflict on the Iraqis is...well...overkill.

Assassination would be a nice scenario, but my worry is that if you simply kill the one man, another dictator could too easily replace him. I don't really see this as a war with many, many civilian casualties. I think the Iraqis won't put up much resistance (remember that some have already tried to surrender), and we can just march into Baghdad. Now, urban fighting against the Republican Guard may cost a few lives, military and civilian, but I think it's a better option than killing Saddam, leaving, and letting another dictator rise to power.

At 3/13/03 09:12 AM, Slizor wrote: What about the fact that the President appoints the Supreme Court Judges? Doesn't really follow with seperation of powers.

That is based on the principle of "checks and balances", where each branch of the government has a check on the other two. Any appointments made by the President have to be approved by the Senate. But still, it is inevitible that politics will get involved in making judicial appointments.

At 3/12/03 04:09 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Wow, this is a very very bad thing. More instability in the middle east. This is definitely going downhill very fast. I wonder who funded them?

I don't disagree that it's a very bad thing, but I wanted to point out that Serbia is in Europe. But it is in a part of Europe which has been unstable, and yes, the last thing we need is more instability there.

At 3/12/03 12:39 PM, Slizor wrote:

I'm not going to try to defend past foreign policy blunders (key word being PAST)

Why then do you attack Iraq for things it did 10 years ago? Or is that the present?

Maybe because the same man who invaded Kuwait 10 years ago is still in power? Things have changed quite a bit over here. They have not changed in Iraq.

but when was the last time we invaded another nation strictly for its oil, as Iraq did with Kuwait?

Why would Iraq invade Kuwait for its oil? That's like America invading Canada for fat stupid people.

I seem to remember that being the reason Iraq wanted Kuwait. Or wait, is that something our "biased, right-wing media" made up?

And don't say that's what we're doing now; I've already debunked that theory millions of times.

Not once...not once.

Okay then, I'll say it again: if we wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying from them.

I never once said that. Only a fool would believe that. But it is our right as a nation to defend ourselves.

Pre-emptive attacks, when there is no immeadiate threat is terrorism. Actually no, it is just a plain unjustified attack, terrorists normally have reasons.

I was referring to carrying nuclear weapons. As for Iraq supposedly wanting to carry weapons as a deterrant, I'll get to that in a moment.

We aren't going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles when nations like Iraq and North Korea are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons so they can threaten us with them.

That is one of the most egotistical things I've heard. Who says they will threaten you? How do you know they don't just want them as a detterant?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Saddam is only seeking to protect his people against the evil American Empire. Never mind that he dumped nerve gas on his people. Can someone with no qualms about killing his own citizens really be trusted with the world's most deadly weapons?

Iraq forfeited their right to carry nukes and other weapons of mass destruction when they invaded Kuwait. Plain and simple.

Wait...here's the past coming up again!

And once again, Saddam is still in power. Is Theodore Roosevelt still in power? He was the one behind all the intervention in Latin America.

And from reading what you have written, I can infer that you hold a general hatred/resentment of the US, which seems to be clouding your judgement in this matter ("If the US is doing this, it must be wrong!") If I am wrong, I apologize, but if I am right, then please wake up.

I would like to say that this is something that I maybe shouldn't have said. I apologize. Opposing the war doesn't make you anti-American. But I just can't stand it when people try to paint us as the bad guy by pointing out things we did in the past, while ignoring the things that Saddam has done. Anger is capable of blinding good judgement, but I've had a little time to think about that statement and wish I hadn't made it.

At 3/12/03 12:00 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Then why are they being touted as headline news? Would it be because they're easy to make a bold statement of a headline from, or is it to keep the journalists from journalism? To invert the old phrase, 1% of statistics aren't made up.

Polls are pretty much spin at its finest. You're going to find one poll that says one thing, and then you'll find another poll that asks the same question, but gives a different answer. Then, newspaper editors can just pick and choose which polls to give publicity to, and voila! The public miraculously supports the paper's position on the issue!

At 3/12/03 12:26 PM, Slizor wrote: 4. Resolution 1441 does not authorize military interevention. What it does do is warn Iraq it will face serious consequences.

What are "serious consequences" if not military intervention?

5. The inspectors have not had 12 years, who ever estimates it. They had 1991-8 and now.

That's still more than enough time to disarm. Why haven't they done so?

At 3/12/03 11:49 AM, D2KVirus wrote: And by the way, you didn't win the War of Independence - the British just got bored of having to pay the expenses of shipping over soldiers to massacre your hillbilly army on a regular basis. You see, those were the days where an economy mattered. And, if you place a bit of paper above and below each line, you won't see that at any point I say we won. Sorry to break it to you, but your're full of shit.

Well well well. Are you the only one over there who's still bitter about the Revolution? Yes, economic interests were a factor in ending the war... but so was the crushing defeat we dealt to you at the Battle of Yorktown. It was then, after Cornwallis surrendered, that most people in the British government decided that the war was no longer worth fighting. Just a quick history lesson, nothing more.

Now if only Gray Davis would apologize for all the idiotic things that he has done. I can't believe that California re-elected this moron.

At 3/10/03 11:52 PM, CrustifiedOnCrass wrote: Peaceful protest is no longer a means of protest, direct and highly illeagle actions, and sabatoge of corporate interests of the current administration are one of the broad things that can be done.

In short, terrorism. Yeah. Sounds like a REAL good idea.

Well said. Well said.

Hehehe... kickass new bomb... can't wait... :)

And to clarify: French toast is from Belgium, and French fries are from Britain.

It sounds like a good idea to me. After all, French fries and French toast aren't even really French.

We did something like this during World War II. The name of any food with a German name was changed. Sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage", hamburgers became "liberty sandwiches", etc.

At 3/11/03 12:23 PM, CrustifiedOnCrass wrote: What about the United States aggression towards other countries? The United States bullies EVERYONE, yet they go unpunished.

I'm not going to try to defend past foreign policy blunders (key word being PAST), but when was the last time we invaded another nation strictly for its oil, as Iraq did with Kuwait? And don't say that's what we're doing now; I've already debunked that theory millions of times.

So...Bush can be trusted?

Typical liberal, acting as if "Bush is a horrible President and a horrible leader" is an established fact, rather than your own opinion. Politicians in general, on both sides of the aisle, tend to be dishonest, but let me put it this way: I would trust Bush before I would trust Saddam.

The unrealistic thing about your argument is that you think this country will last forever.

I never once said that. Only a fool would believe that. But it is our right as a nation to defend ourselves. We aren't going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles when nations like Iraq and North Korea are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons so they can threaten us with them. Iraq forfeited their right to carry nukes and other weapons of mass destruction when they invaded Kuwait. Plain and simple.

Speaking of thoughtless...the news feels the need to be completly biased and right wing...how many anti-war protestors do you actually interview yourself at demonstrations? Go watch your corporate media bullshit.

I saw a video of someone interviewing anti-war protestors on some web site. In fact, the link to it was posted on this very message board (I'll see if I can dig it up). They seemed to have no inkling of what the situation really was. They couldn't think of a better way to deal with Saddam. And when asked, they were quick to throw out the ridiculous and baseless "war for oil" argument.

And don't go thinking that I have been brainwashed by the "biased American media". I have heard both sides of the argument, and since the anti-war people can't come up with anything better than "the inspections are working" (which they aren't), "give peace a chance", or "it's all about oil", I have sided with those who support war.

And from reading what you have written, I can infer that you hold a general hatred/resentment of the US, which seems to be clouding your judgement in this matter ("If the US is doing this, it must be wrong!") If I am wrong, I apologize, but if I am right, then please wake up.

At 3/11/03 10:52 AM, The_Last_Kumiho wrote: Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

If we wanted Iraq to give up their weapons, we would have to do so by destroying ours first and what American is going to do that? I do not care for Saddam at all, but who are we to tell other countries to disarm their defenses while we keep stock piling our own?

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.