Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/24/03 04:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: In your next election please vote Gore.

Uh. I did. I voted for Gore in the last election.

And he's not running again, so that's a moot point.

All the points that Commander made are valid. Except for the Gore one. I don't pretend to know how he would have handled it, or what he would have done.

I wasn't being sarcastic about 'America the boxer.' I was oversimplifying. Perhaps I should have said, 'America likes to PRETEND it's a boxer that doesn't hit below the belt.' Because it most certainly does sometimes.

As for 'parading Iraqi POW's around in shackles', so what? That's not illegal, that's self-preservation. You don't think they'd fight back if they weren't restrained? Why do you think our police handcuff people being arrested?

The USA has not been THAT cruel to the Iraqi POWs yet. As far as I know. I'm not behind the door with them, I don't see, but I DO know that I don't honestly think the military's goal is to be cruel. They want to get the POW's out of the way so they can target what they're 'supposed' to be targeting. Saddam Hussein.

Basically, I'm arguing the logic, not the war, now. My stance is known, and it stays anti-war. But right now, it makes more sense to debate what's actually happening, rather than re-hashing WHY the war shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I do know that the US is the only nation that's given a country back to the people after a war. That's part of what I'm using to give myself a little hope that the Iraqi people aren't going to get screwed over.

At 3/24/03 09:30 AM, TheShrike wrote: So I see. Nice pic of Betty Page in your profile.

*lol* Thanks! :) I happen to like it, too.

At 3/24/03 08:55 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/24/03 08:39 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I understand your reasoning, but I can't say I agree. I don't think using ANY human being, friend or foe, as a human shield is acceptable warfare tactics.

War is hell, man.
But if they use Iraqis as sheilds, it just makes them look all the more desparate and incapable.

Psst. I'm a girl. ;)

And I agree with you there. All sorts of things happen in war, most of them horrible. But I don't have to like them.

OOH! And I'm level 10 now. :)

Whee!

At 3/24/03 01:14 AM, TheJoe324 wrote: Today is my birthday, and I also Level 15.

JOEJOEJOE!!

Happy birthday! WOOHOOOOO!

At 3/24/03 08:35 AM, Mr_Y wrote:
Using the enemy as human shields is ok (I think you can do that in Splinter Cell), since you can stop them from firing and killing thier friend, but using your own people is not reasonable,

I understand your reasoning, but I can't say I agree. I don't think using ANY human being, friend or foe, as a human shield is acceptable warfare tactics.

I do understand why you'd say that, tho. So, really, it's just differences in ideals.

At 3/24/03 08:26 AM, MuscleHed wrote: Where do you get your info? Did you see the smaller expolsions taking place within the large ones? That was ammo backfire from anti-air craft weapons they hit. Admittedly, they were close to civilian targets, but they did not aim for any schools or Apartment buildings.

People seem to forget that our Army is beyond doubt the must humanitarian in the world today. We are not Vikings or pirates or Romans, we go out of our way to protect the civilian, not just in this war, either.

The point of the Shock and Awe raids is to end the war fast, and limit the number of civilian and military casuistries on both sides and in case you haven’t been watching the new, it has worked!

OH, for the LOVE of GOD! Will you people stop asking where we get our information from? WATCH THE GODDAMNED NEWS! Or even better, look on the internet for facts!

Civilians have been hurt. There is NO way that the United States can drop more artillery in ONE NIGHT than they did during the ENTIRE DESERT STORM CONFLICT, and not harm a civilian. There have been civilians hurt.

I heard an official on the television, during an interview say flat out, 'The point of Shock and Awe is to cause psychological damage, and make it harder for them to fight. Destruction shocks them, they didn't expect it. That makes it easier for us.'

I do NOT pretend that my opinion is fact. I refuse to. I will always state 'I think' before an opinion, or some similar indication that it's not fact. But when I hear bullshit like that on the television, either I have to take it for face value, or think the interviewee was lying.

At 3/22/03 06:20 AM, Slizor wrote:

Do not be anti-soldier. That's just closedminded and hurtful.

It's not being anti-soldier, it's just not supporting them.

I'm not sure how old you are, or if you know anyone that's a Viet Nam veteran.

My uncle has told me about Viet Nam. Not about being there...but about the horrors of coming home to an anti-soldier nation.

Spit on, beat, kicked, hated. Shunned. What's worse, is that some of them didn't have a choice. The government played lottery games with their birthdays and MADE them.

After Viet Nam, the United States changed. Eventually for the better. If your support for the soldiers is simply...not hating them? That's fine. You don't have to support them killing anyone. But someone has to be in our military. Someone has to protect us. What are they supposed to do? Just up and desert at the sign of war, whether or not they agree with it?

Spreading hate about our soldiers is inhumane. Support doesn't mean applauding or supporting death. I do not support the cause. I do not support death. I support them COMING HOME. I pray every night for it.

At 3/23/03 10:17 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Where are you getting this information from? Al-Jazeera?

CNN. NBC. ABC. FOXnews. You name it. It's HUGE. A psychological warfare tactic. Scare the fuck out of them. Shock and awe them. Then go in for the kill.

Come on, NEMESiSZ. You sound like a smart guy. You don't need to stoop to insults and sarcasm to debate. Don't be a troll. You have a brain, and a good one, at that. Speak your mind! Great! That's what America is fantastic for...having different opinions. But you make yourself sound ignorant when you get insulting and sartastic.

As for the Muslim man that threw that grenade, from the 101st Airborne...it's sad, but him being Muslim shouldn't have anything to do with it. MUSLIM IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH TERRORISM.

*LOL*

I laughed, and applauded. GOOD FOR HIM! Good for him for speaking to an audience like that, and standing up for what he believes!

He got booed, which I expected. He also got applauded, which I also expected. So many people ride the fence on this, and are afraid of such bold statements. Michael Moore said exactly what was on his mind.

My mind, too, really. Shame on you, Mr. Bush.

I mean...who wants to piss off the Dixie Chicks??

At 3/24/03 07:38 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Neither the USA nor Iraq was at the Geneva Convention Treaties.

But I believe the USA adopted the provisions. They talk about it enough. Say they do.

At 3/24/03 07:32 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote: "US President George W Bush has decided that the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war will apply to captured Taleban soldiers in Afghanistan, but not to al-Qaeda (terrorist) fighters."
"..however, neither Taleban soldiers nor al-Qaida fighters detained in Afghanistan at the US base in Guantamano Bay in Cuba would qualify as prisoners-of-war - because they had not carried arms openly or been part of a recognisable military hierarchy."

Ooooh, well isn't that convenient.

That makes me so irate at the people running this country. They pick and choose when they can use something like that. I don't...GAH! *lol* 4:30 in the morning isn't a good time for me to try to think straight about stuff like this. I use too much feeling, and get biased instead of being logical.

Meh, it's frustrating. I think the most frustrating thing, in my mind, is not knowing what or how the soldiers overseas are being advised about the Geneva Convention. I'm sure they know it, and will follow it. Obviously. But I certainly hope they aren't being told by our military to trust that the Iraqi army will do the same. That's just deadly.

At 3/24/03 07:24 AM, Ruination wrote: No, the US government did not expect the Iraqi military and militia to fight "fair". It did on the other hand brainwash the masses into thinking that this conflict would be over quickly and with practically no loss of life (on the coalition side, at least). They're getting it square in the balls now.

Ah...but see? I think on some level they did expect it. Because the man I heard (dammit, I wish I'd seen who it was), sounded totally shocked that they'd do such a thing.

I'm saddened by it. But not surprised. POW camps are something that comes hand in hand with war.

I've seen the pictures, though. The man standing over the dead US soldiers. GRINNING. I can't say that made me any happier.

I do have a grip on reality, though. I can just see our officials making a huge deal out of the fact that they didn't comply with the Geneva Convention. Like they actually expected them to. Something else to distract from all the mistakes and non-support of the war.

At 3/24/03 07:07 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Who cares about them using women and children as human shields? We're sending them human shields! Providing them, even.
All those international peace protestors, getting in the way.
pffft

Actually...I do. I care about the Iraqi women and children. They're innocent. In my heart of hearts I can't say 'so what?' about that. It's not in me.

What will they do about it? I don't know. I'm not war strategist. I hope they do something, though, that will spare them as much as possible.

DAMN THEM DAMN THEM DAMN THEM!

I'm addicted to the slots.

*sigh*

Well, I hope things get sorted out. :)

{{{{clocks!}}}}

At 3/24/03 12:46 AM, Keyser_Soze wrote:
Why? Why does a movie get labeled as "HIGH-CLASS" just because of singing and dancing. Disney musicals aren't referred to a "ART", despite the fact that the musical sequences are highly coreographed and planned, albeit finally executed by animators rather than gay dancers.

So, all dancers are gay? Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you. I'd been wondering about that.

Disney animation IS art. It's someone's drawing on celluloid. It's art. Possibly in a way that you can't comprehend.

Singing and dancing does not art make. I'd say the cinematography and set design was the most artful feature of Moulin Rouge. The songs were all covers, and the dancing was almost non-existant.

Let's see you do the can-can. Also, I'd like to hear you sing something. Singing and dancing does not art make? Please. So the only art out there is on canvas, paper, in print? What? Talent isn't art?

Shit, man. I -hate- the way Piccaso paintings look. HATE. But it's art. At least I have the cojones to admit that even if I don't like something, it's still art. (Btw. Saying I have cojones doesn't mean I'm a guy. I'm a girl. Deal with it.)

Musicals are for the most part, stupid. I liked Moulin Rouge, mostly for the things I mentioned in the last paragraph.

You might someday learn how to better state an opinion. 'I think musicals are stupid.' That would make more sense. Some people don't think musicals are stupid. You're going to have to deal with that.

I would rather watch "Jaws", "The Thing", "As Good as It Gets", "Reservior Dogs", "Clerks", "Fight Club", "Die Hard", "The Royal Tenenbaums" or any other films in my DVD collection than any musical "films".

Because aren't musicals just Broadway shows imprinted on celluoid? They aren't true films.

Chicago shouldn't have won, because it wasn't a "film". It was a "performance" set onto film.

Oooh...I get it now! If you don't like it, it's not a true film. I was wondering, y'know? In all my 25 years, I'd always wondered when I'd find that ONE PERSON in the world that could tell me what is and isn't a true film.

WAKE UP. Your opinion isn't fact. Don't state it as such. Learn to tell people what you feel and think in a way that doesn't tread on other people's opinions, and perhaps you won't come off as such a huge asshole.

At 3/24/03 12:33 AM, Ovalshine wrote: It's a musical and I'm a heterosexual. I wouldn't care about the movie.

Wow, isn't stereotyping a BLAST? I'll be the first to call you an ignorant dumbass. AND a bigot. Grow up, you homophobe.

So! About the movie. I loved it. To the guy who ranted about it being overrated and not 'high-class', that's your opinion. No, there's nothing special about the characters. It's not hugely deep, there's no hidden meaning.

It's goddamned entertaining! OH MY GOD! Someone made a movie that people like! NOOOO!

Sorry, but it's rather rediculous to hear people knock something just because it's not deep and meaningful. Moulin Rouge? Chicago? Both had people with talent in singing and dancing, and that's NEAT to watch. Being a performer myself, it's also a thrill to think about how that would feel, being in a movie like that. Could YOU get up there and perform like that? I doubt it. It's also the costumes and set design. You get involved in the art direction and costuming of a movie, THEN tell me how not 'high-class' it was.

Btw...my favorite song/piece was 'We Both Reached for the Gun'. Very entertaining.

Lighten up, people. Life isn't always about being intellectual or serious. Have a little goddam fun.

At 3/24/03 06:08 AM, MissenLinx wrote: Can I say something

If you have to ask for permission to post...no.

At 3/23/03 01:27 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I agree, witht the exception of a few idiots that think it's a good idea to fight violence with violence. For the most part, yes. Demonstrators are smart enough to realize that NOT being peaceful will negate what they're standing for.

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.

In fact, I bet they blocked a whole SHITLOAD of roads during the march on Washington, with MLK. Mhmm. That was a pretty useful protest, I might add.

*snippity*

1.2 trillion dollars on a war that is not even going to accomplish anything.

Because war hasn't ever accomplished anything, right?

It didn't abolish slavery, facism or communism. OR defeat the Nazi's.

I'm anti-war. But sometimes war is needed. This one? There's other things we could have done first, yes. But you have no way of knowing what it will or will not accomplish. Don't pretend to.

I haven't heard anything about it costing THAT much. 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.

However...William D. Nordhaus has estimated around $1.9 trillion if things are worse.

Tax cuts won't help, either. We need this money HERE. Bush is ignoring his own country, and trying to fix everything else. Hussein is an evil man and needs to die or be out of power. But Bush is ignoring the very Homeland he's trying to keep secure.

Sorry for the long post! But...including the stuff I wanted to respond to...yeah. *lol* Sorry.

I actually started a new thread about the Geneva Convention that sorta touches on this.

We're good to try to not hurt the civilians, but at the same time...we're being naive.

If we think Iraq isn't going to fight dirty, then...well...yeah. We're being a little blind. They'll fight dirty out of sheer desperation. I don't condone going around and killing everything we can to retaliate the Iraqi army's tactics...but I also think turning the other cheek is just going to get more American soldiers killed.

We're not being too nice. We're being too naive.

If we weren't scared, we wouldn't be human.

Also, fear sells. some of it's propaganda. But I agree with MJC. It's war, and it's serious. It's alright to be scared.

At 3/24/03 05:01 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: I'm not a regular nor do I have respect and notoriety in this forum ........... yet I've posted in this thread!

Sweet Jesus what have I done! The universe will implode!

*lol* Actually, Juana? You're a regular in my book. You and I had some fabulous posting sprees a while back!

At 3/23/03 12:34 PM, TheShrike wrote: So I read that the great military minds of Baghdad have lit oil-filled trenches around the city in an effort to deter US airstrikes and missile strikes.

Do they think we're using old soviet technology, too?

They've also started using women and children as human shields.

I'm getting angrier by the day.

Okay, so. Here's the thing.

I'd love to see Bush get it in the ass for starting an illegal war, but there's no way in hell I'm going to hope we LOSE because I disagree with it. So I've been doing a little reverse thinking.

Al-Jazeera showed images of dead and captured US soldiers, showed forced interviews, all that. I heard that, and put my head back on the couch, disgusted. Sad. I dunno who said it, because I wasn't watching...but whoever it was had the gall to say, 'They've BREACHED THE GENEVA CONVENTION.'

OH. MY. GOD.

Did our government or military actually think the Iraqi army gives a flying fuck about the Geneva Convention? PLEASE! Iraq is losing, and losing badly. They're not going to fight fair.

America's like...the boxer that doesn't hit below the belt.

Iraq is the bitch that claws with her inch-long nails and pulls out chunks of hair in her fists, then BITES. Iraq fights dirty.

Did our leaders actually expect the Iraqi government or army to comply with the Geneva Convention? Are they really that naive?

White flags, my ass. KEEP YOUR GUN ON THE SONS OF BITCHES, white flags be damned.

*sigh* Alright. So I believe my stance with this war has changed a little. I still dislike it, I don't think -anyone- likes war. I'll still demonstrate, but at demonstrations that are more geared toward what WILL help, rather than pointless protests. But I think I'm going to add to my opinion. If we're there, we'd better win.

Why is it so hard to keep personal attacks OUT OF THIS? Christ Almighty.

I'm just wondering...because I can't remember who said what, but whoever attacked typing skills instead of ideas needs to readjust and try again.

If you disagree? Disagree. Don't call names and sink to childish levels.

After all, this war is about fighting for freedom. Perhaps not OURS, but freedom. Aren't we free to have differing opinions? Especially in America?

Just a thought. I enjoy this forum. I'd hate to see it filled with petty bullshit rather than intelligent debates.

First: losing patience with anti-war opinions isn't going to help. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the freedom to express it. God Bless America!

Second: I don't have to agree with this war, and I will continue to demonstrate peacefully against it. That is my right, and I'm protesting the reasons behind it, and the fact that our President can commit war crimes but no one else can.

Third: Polls on Yahoo, or CNN, or any place at all, I don't trust. How many people were polled? The entire country? How is that possible in such a short amount of time? My point is: it depends on where you poll. If they were to poll Portland, I'd almost guarantee you'd have an overwhelming majority be against the war.

Fourth: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT SADDAM HUSSEIN. I'm tired of people thinking it's black and white. I'm going to be potty-mouthed, thanks. Hussein is a motherfucking coward, and his army is now using women and children as human shields. I HATE THAT, it makes me sick. I still hold to my opinion that there were other, more peaceful ways that could have been exausted before going to war.

Fifth: I AM NOT ANTI SOLDIER! I have a cousin in Kuwait. I have a friend in Kuwait. I have friends waiting to go. Ready to go. I LOVE THEM, and I don't want them hurt. I applaud their bravery, I hope they're safe, and I want them to come home.

Sixth: DEMONSTRATIONS, even during war, have helped throughout time. You cannot argue with history. The march on Washington (not during war, but an example of a demonstration that was part of a successful campaign), the Velvet Revolution, the end of the USSR, the Viet Nam war. All of those involved demonstrations that added to a greater GOOD.

As long as my country is spending billions and billions of dollars on this war while schools and courthouses close, and prisons let people go free, I will protest.

DISCLAIMER: The above was my statement of WHY I protest, albeit peacefully, and my opinions. Again. *lol* I've given them many places. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. The internet is not the place to do that. Respect for opinions is what I ask for. I'm afraid that will go by the wayside eventually.

While I'm not for this war, I have to agree with you.

First, I don't believe at ALL that the goal of this war is OIL OIL OIL. (...did anyone just hear the Sex Pistols? Heheh, sorry.) Anyway, I'm going to assume high school is the school you're talking about. Most of the time? When kids like that make shirts like that, and protest against something...it's to be cool/a rebel/make a statement/whatever. I'd be willing to bet, if you calmly went up to him and asked, 'What FACTS do you have to support your statement?' He'd be up shit creek without a paddle. Now, not all kids are like that, there are exceptions, but I'd be willing to bet that one who argues 'NO BLOOD FOR OIL' is one of them.

As for the protests...yes. War has solved problems. Slavery, communism, facism, Nazi regime...all of it gone because of war. Fantastic!

Protesting and demonstrating has helped solve plenty as well. MLK's march on Washington. Pulling out of Viet Nam, while the hatred of the soldiers was ATROCIOUS, was helped in part by the huge anti-war sentiment in the country. The USSR/communism was also brought down by demonstrations. The Velvet Revolution.

Peaceful demonstrations are good. You don't have to be a part of them, but they do cause change for the good. When there's violence in a protest, it's sad. Very sad. Because, like the ones I took part in, it was a few people that caused the violence, while the rest of us were peaceful throughout. We cannot be blamed for the actions of a handful of people.

I don't blame you for being angry, though. This war has brought out the passion in a lot of people, one way or the other.

Goodnight.

Do NOT fall into the post-Viet Nam trend of hating the soldiers, or being bitter toward them.

Be anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-weapon, anti-ANYTHING.

Do not be anti-soldier. That's just closedminded and hurtful.