Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/31/03 06:20 PM, nailbomb wrote:
They had a very good reason, Grenada was not using a capitalist system as they should be.

You continue to state this as fact. Really, it is your opinion as a leftist anti-Americanist.

And what's so evil about Communism?

If you need to ask that question, you should consider Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and the rest. It's not communism itself, it's how it inevitably breaks down, violently and bloodily.

Nailbomb, you're continuing to twist history. the Cuban missile crisis began when Khruschev put missiles in Cuba because of the earlier Bay of Pigs invasion which JFK botched.

Consider this, why isn't Grenada U.S. controlled today? After the invasion was over troops withdrew, general elections were held and the constitution was restored after having been abolished by the Marxists. Where is the "oppression" that you so like to tout?

At 5/31/03 05:48 PM, fantom326 wrote: it is extraordinary. but they do it all the time. so for them, it is just another day on the job. should we have a memorial every day that a firefighter dies in a fucking high rise? it wouldnt make sense. we should feel sorry, and mourn them with everybody else that died. theyre just normal people like everybody else.

An ordinary day is a house fire, or a burning store, not a raging inferno of 80+ stories.

And if we apply this logic to other similar situations, we can see it is an attempt to cheapen the value of brave actions. Let's say soldier gives his life to save a wounded comrade. Are you saying that he doesn't deserve any recognition because it was "just his job"?

Another example, in northern France in 1944, a single U.S. soldier held off 100 Germans during the night with a single machine gun. He received the Medal of Honor for his heroism and his refusal to abondon his post although isolated and alone. One could say he is a hero and deserves this honor. But, by your logic he was "just doing his job" and deserves nothing because he really didn't do anything special.

In March of 1979 a pro-Marxist group took over the government making the island a communist state. Civil order quickly broke down and U.S. forces along with forces from several neighboring Caribbean states invaded. The military action was the result of a call for assistance by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and the governor general.

You're trying to make this seem to be a case of U.S. pounds innocent nobody into dust for no good reason. It was a very quick, clean and efficient operation carried out by request of the island's neighbors and in order to bring law and order to a destabilized island. Furthermore, it was a communist foothold and this was the Cold War.

At 5/31/03 05:24 PM, nitroxide wrote:
But that would mean we are equal

Gasp:

Could this be true.The mighty PC has always believed to be superior to the allmighty DAG?

It means that we don't think you need some spam thread. If you want to talk amongst yourselves, get your own site like we did.

At 5/31/03 05:16 PM, Ozcar wrote:
Are you sure that the 1WW and 2WW are in the first position of the the first and second bloodiest conflicts?

WWI - over 8 million

WWII - over 25 million

How about Vietnam?

not even close.

The civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has become the third bloodiest conflict in history, right behind the World Wars. Over 4 million have already died in the conflict which involves the armies of Uganda, Congo, Burundi and Rwanda, tribal militias of the Lendu and Hemb tribes, and innumerable small rebel factions and breakaway groups. All forces are fighting for differing goals and reasons.

Atrocities abound including mass graves that are found daily, victims are hacked to death with machetes and cannibalism is frequently reported. UN peacekeepers number less than a thousand and have orders not to interfere. Currently, the Un is considering sending many more troops to stop the slaughter and Tony Blair is considering sending in signifigant British Forces.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these developments?

A history of the conflict can be found here.

Information on UN involvement.

Information on atrocities.

Let's see....House lives in Portland.

Yep, this is definitely a Left Coast thing.

At 5/31/03 02:50 AM, fantom326 wrote:
no, thats not what im saying. werent you watching the news? the firefighters were sent in not knowing the buildings would collapse. they just thought they would put out the fire, rescue some survivors, and get the hell out. and i dont belive the first batch sent in knew the second plane was going to hit, seing as they were inside a bunch of fucking rubble.

Yes, but you said they went in not knowing that the planes would crash. In fact, they went in after the first plane had hit and many more after the second. The planes created the incident, not the other way around.

yes, a highrise fire, just like any other building fire....ho hum.

So you're saying that risking your life in a highrise fire isn't anything extraordinary? Just another "day on the job"?

At 5/31/03 03:27 AM, OSC wrote:
One of many. One of many. That one is just the most noted one. Others aren't as well documented so how many is pure wild guessing.

No offense, but it sounds like you're guessing. You have no proof of these "multitudes" of other incidents.

At 5/31/03 02:30 AM, OSC wrote:
Actually, it is. Boycotting is an attempt to make the targetted person conform to your opinion. Done by FORCE. Forcing them into silence. You do realize there are a lot of artists who were against the war, but were afraid to say anything because they didn't want to be labeled Anti-American and have their career ruined. We DO NOT live in a country where we should be afraid to speak our minds. We're not supposed to, anyways. However, we are becoming a country that's forcing people to have one opinion.

So you're telling me that I can't refuse to but something on political grounds? You're going to restrict my freedoms to preserve freedom? Does this make sense? The inherent danger of speaking out for an unpopular viewpoint is that you'll be scorned by others. This is a simple fact and the way ti always has been. You can't make people like or agree with you. Remember, they have their freedoms and you, yours. If they don't want to listen to you or buy your stuff because of something you've said or done, that's their choice, not yours. If you say something controversial, don't be suprised when people get offended. Don't whine about free speech when your rights are perfectly intact. Don't forget that your actions and words have consequences that have nothing to do with freedom this or freedom that.

Not censoring or muzzling? Tell that to the guy who got arrested at a mall for wearing an anti-war shirt.

That's a single isolated incident.

At 5/31/03 01:22 AM, fantom326 wrote:
anyway, how are they heroic if they blindly ran into a building when they had no idea what was going to happen? none of them knew, when going into those towers, that the planes were going to crash.

Umm, let me get this straight, you're saying that they went in before the planes hit? Excuse me, but I think they went in afterwards.

And about not knowing what could happen, I think they knew very well what could happen. You have a massive highrise fire, already an extremely dangerous situation. You know it's been caused by an airplane impact which means the structure is weakened and the building is likely to be unstable. They knew this going in and they went in anyway.

Many stayed right up to, and past, the end when the towers began to fall. I remember hearing an account of one firefighter who began to descend the stairwell just a little before the fall of the tower and his partner decided to stay in and search for just one more person before heading out.

That firefighter never made it out.

At 5/31/03 12:59 AM, OSC wrote:
If only calling them a dumbass and ignoring them was all they did. There's a difference between that and attempting to muzzle and censor.

Proof?

Not buying the CD of an obnoxious, anti-American artist, or watching the show of a know-it-all actor is not an attempt to muzzle and censor, it's a simple boycott. The very fact that these people are saying what they're saying and causing a drastic response among people is proof that they're not being muzzled and censored. Their message is certainly getting out, people just aren't liking it.

At 5/30/03 10:23 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Well, at least wealthy families made some money, eh? The third one so far, and how much do you want to bet that this one won't 'spur the economy' either?

The earlier tax cuts are staggered. The bulk of them hasn't come into effect yet.

At 5/30/03 11:12 PM, nailbomb wrote:
Yes, long live cars, long live global warming, long live the destruction of antartica, long live skin cancer, long lice smog which affects mostly small children and the elderly.

Long live government-supported, politically correct lies and bad science that has led you and many other to believe these things!

At 5/30/03 09:21 AM, Slizor wrote: More likely it is to do with religion.

What does that have to do with it?

Actually most grain sent IS genetically modified and the usual reason is that it is a short-term fix which makes it worse in the long run. If you dump grain on a market the price goes down, so the farmers go out of business, thus next year there is less grain produced, so you dump more on, and on and on.

Yes, it is a short term fix, but you can't accuse us of not sending aid to starving people. We tried in Somalia, too, but the warlords stole it and then killed our soldiers. I think we should just cut off the whole continent from any government support. They seem to not want our help so they can learn to feed themselves or starve. Either way, the proble will fix itself.

I would like to point out that a decent proportion of the money Bush is giving is reserved for Abstinence as a form of protection.

When you've got a sexually-transmitted disease running rampant in Africa, a little less sex there might just be a good idea, (it would help the population problem, too).

What pic? Did I miss something?

At 5/29/03 10:22 PM, BewareOfWhite wrote:
Wow... I undercut myself. Now THERE is something only a fool would say. Remember those World Wars? Well, to be fair, neither do I, but lets not forget those tens of millions of people who would, if they hadn't been KILLED during them.
Its like they say, "Its funny cause its not me"

I never said they were not costly or non-destructive. I said war was a terrible thing, but not without benefit. Read more closely before you make yourself look stupid next time.

At 5/29/03 08:58 PM, jimsween wrote: I read an interesting thing in the newspaper a while back. Apparently we sent several countries in Africa Condoms, drugs, and books about Aids and for some reason they burned them all. I really wish I didnt have the attention span of a goldfish so I could know why but as far as I could remember it was some sort of protest.

Probably because they were from America. We sent grain to countries too, but they refused to distribute it because it might have been genetically modified.

Peace is stagnation and war, though terrifying, is the force of change and advancement. Look at all the technical developments that came from the world wars; those conflicts made the modern era. War stirs the waters of society, gets things moving faster.

At 5/29/03 06:07 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:
So you're quite happy seeing billions of people die and knowing you could have helped at least some of it?

That would be nice, but Judge may very well be right. Africa is degrading fast and we may need to quarantine large areas of the continent at some point. This may not be a bad thing as Africa is a major, if not the leading, breeding ground of new diseases. Ebola, AIDS, West Nile, etc. A jungle environment mixed with primitive third world conditions is extremely dangerous.

At 5/29/03 05:33 PM, PreacherJ wrote:
You know... WE wouldn't have forgotten you in the PC... :P

Yes, there can be forgiveness for those who repent of the DAG! :-)

At 5/29/03 03:44 AM, nitroxide wrote: Hey funk i would like to point out to you that at this moment the PC messages thread is on page 2 of the forum and as usual we reign supreme.

Don't you realize that we don't do most of our talking between ourselves on the forum? The purpose of that thread is conlcluded.

“There is nothing in war that is not in human nature; but the violence and passions of men become, in the aggregate, an impersonal and incalculable force, a blind and irrational movement of the collective will, which one cannot control, which one cannot understand, which one can only endure....”
-Frederic Manning, Her Privates We

A note to you newer people:

THIS THREAD IS OLD!

I remember when it got started last summer. Biseor is long gone especially after his site was shut down for 'racism'. Don't address him because I seriously doubt that he is listening.

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Maybe 'violent rape porn' should be banned as well.

This topic has no useful purpose now.

At 5/28/03 08:19 PM, Lord_Miroku_Sama wrote: I definitly think it's time for it to go.
Gore won the popular by tons of votes yet Bush won all because of the electoral college.

Correction, Gore did not win by tons. His margin in the popular vote was relatively slim to none.

At 5/28/03 02:55 PM, nitroxide wrote:
Hey star im not attacking you but go door to door in iraq and make that statement.

Of course they would be angry, but you can't decide things just on the reaction of the victims. The victims are always going to demand reperations because they only see things from thier viewpoint, what happened to them and what they want. There is a much bigger picture to consider.

At 5/28/03 12:37 AM, mysecondstar wrote: i read something in TIME a while back. it was an editorial that basically spoke of a strategy of unconditional kindness. in a nut shell it said that if we opened ourselves to places like Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, flood them with McDonalds and Chevys, that they would crack under the pressure of their own people wanting more.

It worked on Eastern Europe in the 80s. They realized, "Hey, America sells us great stuff and the government giuves us crap. Maybe we ought to warm up to the West a bit more."

Let me clarify something, I think government distribution of vaccines, cures, etc. is alright because it concerns a threat to public safety. It's the day to day managing of people's healthcare that I'm opposed to.