Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

From what I understand, France and Russia have said they would vote against the resolution, but have not said they would veto it. If it receives a majority of votes, they may just let it be.

At 3/11/03 05:51 AM, DenkSmoker wrote: Charlie Daniels is a fucking dumbass redneck turned attention-whore.

And Sean Penn isn't an attention-whore? Seriously, I think after hearing all of these ignorant Hollywood types who have no inkling of what is really going on rant and whine for "peace", it's refreshing to hear a celebrity voice his opinion for the other side. Celebrities have the right to their opinion too, but what Sean Penn did was a pure publicity stunt. He should have found a better way to voice his opinion, such as a simple statement, like what Mr. Daniels did here. In my opinion, going to Iraq to protest the war does nothing more than imply support for Saddam.

Maybe Mr. Daniels should write a song about the Sean Penn incident: "The Devil Went Down to Iraq." :)

I think we should lift the sanctions on Cuba. It's not like Castro is a threat to us or anything.

Besides, then we could have Cuban cigars. :)

At 3/10/03 11:37 AM, mysecondstar wrote: my question is what could the White House know that would be detrimental if the public knew about it?

Plenty. People are always asking for enough evidence to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, as if Iraq was a criminal on trial. The problem is that we are about to be at war. And there are things that, for strategic reasons, the public absolutely must not know. Think of it like this: imagine if the public demanded that the government tell them exactly how many weapons Iraq has, and where, in order to prove the justification for war. If information about the location of Iraq's weapons were to be leaked to the public, then Iraq would doubtlessly find out about this, and they could move the weapons to another location. That would create problems for when we try to take these weapons out during the war.

In my opinion, the evidence that has already been made available to the public is all the justification we need, according to the terms of UN Resolution 1441. There is no need to release any more information and jeopardize the war effort.

So, we may actually get the resolution passed? That would be great. More international support for eliminating a brutal dictator and his weapons of mass destruction. Also, if the resolution passes, the UN will be able to come out of this without looking like a bunch of fools. Maybe the French are worried about looking like fools after the US rolls in, disposes of Saddam, and finds ridiculous amounts of weapons that the inspectors had no clue were even there?

And to be brutally honest, did anyone honestly believe that France was going to show up the United States on the world stage? :)

At 3/9/03 09:50 AM, SolarisDX wrote: Saddam recently placed military units right next to churches and civilian objects. What kind of a leader puts his people in harms way? He is furthering his own selfish goals in attempt to make someone else look like the murderer. If the US does start a war with Iraq and we target these military units, it is inevitable that we might hit a non-military unit nearby.... and that is what Saddam is hoping for.

Well said. Of course Saddam wants to make us look like the bad guy. What's sad is that he seems to be succeeding. I'm so sick of hearing anti-war people talking about "what we're going to do to the poor people of Iraq", for two reasons:

1. Saddam is responsible for any civilian deaths, because if he truly cared about his people, he would do what it takes to avoid war and disarm.

2. I've said this before and may be starting to sound redundant, but once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will be MUCH better off.

At 3/9/03 06:14 AM, Slizor wrote: The Democrats aren't at all left-wing. Not at all. They'd probably get somewhere need Tony Blair, but a little more to the right.

How are they not left-wing? Sure, they may be closer to the middle than, say, Communists, but I would still consider them to be on the left side of the spectrum.

If the Democrats are not left-wing, then I lean much further to the right than the test indicates (which may be true).

At 3/8/03 10:22 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: If history has taught us anything, it's war is ALWAYS the answer. No conflict is ever solved positively without war.

I don't think that war is always the answer. If possible, a diplomatic solution should be pursued. However, as I have already said many times, it is my opinion that a diplomatic solution is NOT possible in the case of Iraq.

At 3/4/03 01:55 PM, Slizor wrote: The starnge thing is that I'm pretty certain that the people who are like only a little bit right wing do actually vote for the Republicans, which are very right wing.

Well, I tested to be only a little right wing, and I do vote Republican... I guess if I'm a little right-wing, I'd rather vote for the Republicans than the Democrats, who are very left-wing.

Just have all of the primaries on the same day. There. Problem solved.

At 3/7/03 12:55 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: The sample of the population is compensated for by adding a +/- to the statistics, and it rarely takes more than a +/- of a few percentage points to make the poll statistically accurate even if the sample size is small.

I agree with your point about bias - "statistics never lie, but statisticians do", but that is the information that's on the table and it shouldn't just be discounted because there COULD be bias involved. I haven't seen stats put out there that show a majority of the world supports the war - if you have seen them then I stand corrected.

The point I was trying to make was about IraqNOphobiA's claim that the majority of the world's population is opposed to war, and it is my opinion that you shouldn't jump to that conclusion based on poll data alone.

I disagree. The US is a very nationalistic country which historically is very much behind its country and even it is fairly evenly split (when it comes to attacking w/out UN support). So I don't think it would be a stretch that the rest of the world is very much opposed.

In Europe and Latin America I would bet the average person is more informed about world affairs than the average American - Russia and China I discount because I think the state control over the media prevents them from making a fair analysis. But if a person says that they oppose the war, it is poor form to question their passion and knowledge about the subject - I feel that the world is quite concerned about the situation.

It wouldn't surprise me if the average European is more informed than the average American, and I'm sure that many of them are passionate. I was just saying that there could be some people who are apathetic. I'm not saying that Europeans in general are unpassionate and uninformed; I was just trying to make the point that poll data isn't always 100% reliable.

I'll join. I have already made several attempts to take over the world, but it seems like something always goes wrong, whether it's some "hero" getting in the way, or my partners screwing up, or whatever.

But let me ask you this: once our objective is acheived, how do you plan to share power?

At 3/7/03 09:41 AM, IraqNOphobiA wrote: Recent polls;

65% Against war in latin america
75% Against war in Europe
90% Against war in Russia
and a supposed 100% opposition in China (thats already 1 billion)

Scource: CBS(Nl) worldfactbook,

The majority of the World is against bloodshed in iraq, and no matter what the Us propaganda (the Office for Strategic Influence) say on the radio. THE MAJORITY Of 6 billion people IS AGAINST WAR!

I don't consider polls to be authoritative in saying that the majority of the population of the world is opposed to war. Polls are taken from just a small sample of the population, and there can be bias in the way they are conducted.

How many people know what the situation in Iraq really is? How many people even care? I'm sure that some of those polled were not passionately against war, but people who don't closely follow world events and just think war in general should be avoided. Saying that the majority of the world's population is opposed to war is a stretch.

At 3/7/03 07:51 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Funny, I remember there being Indians out west in the 1800's. You know, that race of people we've wiped out for the better part of 4 centuries.

Okay, I stand corrected. But we've come a long way since then.

Do you have to ask to join, or can you just put the little yin-yang in your sig and be done with it?

I really don't think the OPEC nations would be hurt too badly if they had to lower their prices to compete with Iraq. Though it could be argued that since Venezuela is already reeling, they may not be able to afford it.

Speaking of which: if this were all about oil, then why aren't we getting involved in Venezuela?

Well, I was harsh on thenark right off the bat, and yes, he has been making some good points after being around for a couple of days. I'm still upset about that comment about my musical tastes, though... (Just kidding, I'm not really mad about it.)

As for a person in power who wasn't corrupted, I'm inclined to say George Washington. After winning the Revolution, he could have easily become a dictator. But he felt that would go against what the Revolution was about in the first place, and thus stepped down from his command. That sounds like putting the common good ahead of personal interests, does it not?

You bring up many good points. This world is full of people who are just flat out immature. There's really not much we can do about it, except try to see to it that the intelligent people are the ones running the show.

I do take issue with one comment, however:

At 3/6/03 11:34 PM, Heavy_Metal_Dude wrote: And yet like a fool I think that there are pure hearted and good people in this world, they're the ones who hold high places, right? Wrong. We have the president of the United States of America solving his issues through the solution of violence. Again, I thought we learned problems were not to be resolved that way somewhere around the time we evolved from neanderthals to homo sapiens.

Nobody likes the idea of war or violence, but to be perfectly frank, when you say that we learned that problems shouldn't be resolved through violence when we evolved into Homo sapiens... tell that to Saddam Hussein.

People don't like the idea of war in general, and there are those who don't like this war in particular. But war is a fact of life--whether we like it or not, there will always be someone fighting someone else. We hope for peace, but if war should come, we should be prepared.

At 3/6/03 10:47 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I don't understand anti-abortionists. They BLOW UP buildings to PREVENT murder!

I consider myself pro-life, but you're right. Anyone who bombs an abortion clinic is a hypocrite.

At 3/6/03 12:52 PM, kingflippy9000 wrote: WHAT?! how can anyone think that Bush ISN'T gonna take Iraq's oil. that's just being naive. HELLO?! the Bush family made like all their wealth from oil.

Even so, we don't just take another nation's resources by force. We have never done so, and I doubt that even we could get away with it. We will buy oil from Iraq once the new government is in place, and money will flow into their country. US wins, Iraq wins.

We want to fight to get saddam out, spread democracy to Iraq. Saddam should be ousted, I agree. What I don't agree with is the fact that Iraq has been a dictatorship for a long time. We can't force a political system that does not want it. If someone told you to do something you didn't want to, you'd tell them to fuck off, just like Iraq would do to us.

Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people actually like Saddam? Saddam hasn't stayed in power because of the support of his people. He has stayed in power because he silences those who oppose him. Trust me, once Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will be overjoyed.

So don't tell me that Bush isn't after Iraqi oil or distracting from the fact that our economy is shit, or basically using Saddam as a scapegoat of terrorism because we can't find bin Laden.

We are still looking for bin Laden (one man can be pretty hard to find), and Bush is doing what he can about the economy. With the economy, there are so many factors at work that are beyond the control of one man. But still, another tax cut wouldn't hurt, in my opinion (I know there will be those who disagree). What I am predicting is a quick, decisive victory in Iraq, followed by a post-war economic rebound, thanks in part to cheap Iraqi oil, which we will be legitamately buying, not forcibly taking.

At 3/6/03 02:32 PM, mighty_potato wrote: True, but if interrogated by the US gov't, things can "slip" if you know what I mean. By that I mean torture, it probably happens. Before I get flamed for this remark, its just an unfounded comment...no proof. But Bin Laden is probably still alive.

I think I remember hearing something about using sleep deprivation to get him to talk, but nothing beyond that.

He might be lying, but we should still look for Osama in that area. If he isn't there, we'll probably get someone else, and they may also talk.

At 3/5/03 01:02 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Considering the UK has a faltering health service, transport infastructure and employment rate for a few quick statistics, I think it can be said that the money could've been better spent. Several million of our population would back me up on it, too. After all, what's in it for us to be thrown into Iraq at the whim of Bush, since Blair doesn't have the backbone to question his American Masters (same with Clinton), if we're underarmed, and most likely to form Operation Human Shield anyway?

Well, I'm not going to pretend to know what is going on in the world of British politics. I just figured that an increase in defense spending couldn't hurt, especially in a time of war. If you guys think the money would be better spent, that's fine. It'll probably be the US that foots most of the bill for the war anyway.

At 3/6/03 12:36 AM, kittie_cross wrote: *sighs sadly and shakes head* I feel like I'm the only anti-abortionist here. I mean, and I the only one here that believes a fetus is a living organism?

I'll back you up on this one. I do consider the fetus to be a separate living being, and I don't like abortion.

What about partial-birth abortion, eh? Where the mother can be up to 9 months pregnant, than have an injection that forces her into labor, so that the child's head is out of her... this is where the doctor plunges a kinfe (or some other sharop thingy) into the back of the baby's head, and then procedes to vacuum out itts brain? Tell me that isn't sick and cruel and murderous!

Whether abortion in general is murder is up for debate, I think there is no question that partial-birth abortion is murder. It doesn't matter if the mother hasn't gone into labor yet--at nine months, the baby can survive on its own.

I think it was British troops that burned Washington during the War of 1812. Though, to your credit, our attempted invasion of Canada failed miserably.

At 3/5/03 01:32 PM, Slizor wrote:

This is the problem, right here. "They haven't and they won't" this is a beilef. You can not know the future.

Maybe not, but the present can be a damned good indicator.

How so?

Iraq presently shows no sign of willingness to fully disarm. If they change their mind, fine, but I seriously doubt it will happen.

Does a sovereign nation have the right to declare war for no reason?

Read my previous posts. I stated the reasons for war. You may not agree with them, but don't say we don't have any reasons.

There is proportional representation in the House of Representatives

No there isn't. The number of representatives is proportional to the size of the area, but not to the electoral vote.

Wrong. From Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (which replaces part of Article 1, Section 2):

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state..."

At 3/5/03 01:46 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: they say guns don't kill people, people do...
...
...
...
but i think the gun helps. don't you?

To quote Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket:

"Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong, you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill."

No, we did not leave Afghanistan. We still have troops there, cleaning up, trying to help the new government get on its feet, and looking for Osama and his cronies. We'll take care of business in Iraq, and we'll help get a new government established. It just takes a little bit of time.

At 3/5/03 09:52 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: I am not vegetarian or vegan, but if people want to be I have no problem with that. Some people honestly want animals treated ethically (like myself) and some don't want animals killed/eaten at all. The groups that bring attention to matters they care about are good; the groups who go to extremes (bombing slaughterhouses) are bad.

You bring up some good points, but I still think it's a little extreme to compare those who eat meat to Nazis.

At 3/5/03 06:26 AM, Slizor wrote: This is the problem, right here. "They haven't and they won't" this is a beilef. You can not know the future.

Maybe not, but the present can be a damned good indicator.

Has the UN passed any resolutions telling the US to disarm?

It can't. The US has a veto in the Security Council which makes said resolutions.

The point I was trying to make is that it's not a case of the US telling Iraq that they can't have weapons when the US has weapons itself--it's a case of the world deeming Iraq a threat. Iraq may have rights as a sovereign nation, but if we feel that they are a threat to us, then we have the right as a sovereign nation to declare war on them. Since the UN (officially, at least) shares the opinion that Iraq is a threat, we are trying to go through them so that we will have their support.

I would like you to elaborate on this. What exactly, in your opinion, is a democracy?

A democracy would obviously have to have proportional representation. It would also have to combine initiatives and referenda. Other obvious things.

There is proportional representation in the House of Representatives, while in the Senate, each state has two representatives, regardless of population. It may not be true democracy, but like I said, our government is more accurately described as a republic. And we do have initiatives and referenda (though not so much in the federal government as in the individual states).

And what makes the US undemocratic?

The system of elections. The lack of political participation. The lack of an educated electorate. The bribery and corruption, etc etc.

I'd assume that you're suggesting that the government doesn't represent those who don't vote, which may be true. And I can't really vouch for corruption. Let's face it: the true, ideal democracy is something that can't happen in real life. But we try.

Stop being stupid. We have people on these boards who are opposed to war, and I'm sure they would agree with me that you are not showing any intelligence. All you are doing is just regurgitating typical statements by some of the less informed war opponents without stopping to think about them for yourself.

Mods, please lock this thread.