Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/29/05 03:40 AM, -poxpower- wrote: I see it this way: its like a donation.
For instance, if you go to the cops and say you were speeding too fast and they should give you a ticket, I mean, they'll take your money, right? Its just like you donating to them. So maybe the gypsy is like donating money for the fine or maybe she'd have to Star in a comical movie called "Bring Back Big Burger, Bitch" which would only be with black people raping to get money to save the Big Burger, with the help of the gypsy magic.
It would be awesome.

Did you get hit on the head when you were a child?

Even if the gypsy admits to the curse, there would still be no proof. All you have of proof for the curse being was caused the slump in business is that it coincided with it.

You can't sue someone with a coincidence as your argument.

At 7/29/05 03:11 AM, Jerconjake wrote: The actual events occurred because Berliners were given the option of the lesser of two evils. One would think that without that choice the army and the Volkssturm would fight just as hard, since it's that or total defeat.

But if they were going to choose either of the 'evils' in the first place, then why wouldn't they submit to an 'evil' willingly if it was the only 'evil'?

Also, and I'm sure you're going to tell me "GO FUCKING READ THE THREAD!!!!!," but American forces never fought the Germans at their full strength. They had difficulty with the Germans even after they were almost a spent force that had been fighting for the last five years and had become undermanned and undersupplied. The importance of air power was also lost on them because of its mediocre impact on the Russian front, and the Luftwaffe accordingly declined.

The Germans never fought the Americans at full strength. The number of soldiers in Europe was just a small fraction of those we had in active duty.

At 7/29/05 03:51 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Do you really think Colombia collects more cash than the drug cartels? Im not so sure Id be so quick to say that. Those cartels are worth bitchloads of money.

The GDP of Columbia is 281 billion dollars.

And, to be fair, their are people who have tried to fix Colombia, but usually they end up dead if they decide to speak out against the Cartels. And the Cartels pay off everyone else. I dont think there is another country in the world where the terrorists effectively run the country as much as the cartels do there.

Much like China for quite some time.

And at that, how are terrorists that rule the country any different than a dictatorship, really?

At 7/28/05 08:19 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Considering you've said that like 4 times, common sense would say this would go faster by restating the question in the first place.

Hey idiot, maybe you could have looked at the question THE FIRST FUCKING TIME I ASKED IT???

"Second, Iraq had a war going on for quite some time, why couldn't we have made something up then?"

it was learned that U.N. inspectors had identified many United States-manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs

First of all, that is yet again a blog. Funny the only sources you can find on this issue are all from web pages dedicated to proving it.

Second, that doesn't even say what the items are. They could very well have been vaccines.

What news media today doesn't report on an editorial foundation? You cite a fact, then report a point of view on it. Some things are so blatant and obvious that it would be stupid to cite the source every time. Does someone writing an editorial about 9/11 have to footnote CNN everytime they write that the Hijackers were Islamic Extremists? You're really boardering on that line.

Every news media doesn't report on an editorial foundation. They have things called articles. The editorials are a completely seperate part where the writers get to express thier opinions and don't have to be as factual.

Every time someone cites an editorial, it's on an issue that was purely speculation, and its because no article would claim speculation was fact.

You're right, I forgot. Opinions negate all factual events editorials are based off of.

Unless they have a credible source for these factual events, they do indeed.

No, it's not like when Radical Islamists crash planes into buildings and people start saying their way of life needs to be crushed because they are naturally evil and violent. Nope, that didn't happen at all when we bombed Baghdad. Ignoring everything about the warring extremist tribes, you still manage to come out correct.

Is there a point in that statement? I couldn't decifer one, it sounded like you were trying to do a rant, but forgot to make your sentences have something to do with eachother.

If you can't get it through your head that fighting a World War against the plague of Facism that nearly conquered Europe was different then going out of our way to settle a crisis in some small country that posed no direct threat to the United States, then there is truly little that can deter you from your own version of history.

Thats not at all what youre claiming. Your trying to say that NAZI's need more bombs to kill then Iraqis, which is bullshit and you know it.

At 7/28/05 05:58 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: and since they arent fighting, they can be mobilised to fight off you. and if your going to land on western europe, you gonna sail all the way from the US? I think you'd need somewhere close by personally but obviously you don't need anyone else.

FYI, the only reason the Berliners were fighting was so they could surrender to the US instead of the Russians. The reason the Russians encountered so much resistance amoung the populace was because they raped and pillaged everything along the way.

And do you have any idea the distance from the US to Hawaii? Much less the distance from the US to Iwo Jima?

oh really? heh heh. and why not?

Its rather hard to when you make out your enemies to be devils. And at that, Americans were much more afraid of the Great Depression than a war.

At 7/28/05 05:55 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: have i? well we have your word there.

No we have a statistic from the US census bureau. They were funded with billions of dollars to find this information.

well i gave you the numbers in the next post from a different site. you appear to have a problem with that one.

No... all you gave was the spartacus statistic.

and your base of operations is where?

The United States.

At 7/28/05 09:33 AM, ghost_dance wrote: A. We created this problem.\

No we didn't.

B. Legislation is irrelevant. This is done on a para-military level; it's already illegal to kill people, just like it's illegal in China to pay workers below a sustainable wage, but it's done anyways because of our demand for cheaper, better, even more useless goods.

No. The government of Columbia easily collects more revenue then both Coca-Cola, and all the drug cartels combined. The excuse that they can't fight them because it's American money is bullshit. They don't want to fight them, they aren't willing to fight them yet.

The United States had slavery for 80 years because of the Spanish demand for cheap cotton. But we took the initiative and got rid of it. China had opium for hundreds of years because of the Britsh, but they took the initiative and got rid of thier old innefective government.

Stop making excuses for them, it's thier problem, not ours. If we keep fixing thier problems they will just come back again. That is a proven historical fact, no matter how much you help a country it doesnt matter unless they want to help themselves.

There isn't nearly enough to prove the Gypsy is responsible. A simple 'action and reaction' doesn't meet the burden of proof.

At 7/28/05 06:38 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: so you still think you can do without russias 30 million men? look. in terms of manpower i dont think you can argue. let me put it this way. the US needed the rest of us.

The US had a larger population than both Japan and Germany combined so thats not a real good argument. What your not realizing is that most of those troops were militia, not trained soldiers. The entire populace of Berlin was 'mobilized' to fight off the Russians.

and now your going to say 'manpower doesnt matter we had the production advantage'. well you're right but you dont have enough of an advantage. someone else has already said that itd be a stalemate. accept it

It could not end in a stalemate, for the United States would never accept one.

At 7/28/05 05:57 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: ok im pretty sure thats not just US kills

Why would that matter? The question was not who killed the most but rather could they be killed.

US air force

A link from the website that has already been proven wrong.

ah but no matter how 'prestigous' the site, its still disagreeing.

No I'm afraid not. You have been disproven.

yeh i did. go check all those numbers of troops i gave you last time. back near the beginning of this crazy argument.

That was total number served. Not the number at any one point in time. And at that, your website has already been proven innacurate.

i actually do this stuff all day usually. im not sure what sortve knowledge building youve undergone but a claim like 'the US couldve taken the world on on its own' sounds really silly to people like us and just sounds like another egoncentric yank trying to defend his patriotism. and you really havent given good evidence that supports your claim. tell me how theyd actually do it. you obviously have a large grasp of history *cough*

I already explained. We would do it the same way we did with Japan. Long range troops transports and aircraft carriers.

ok mr silly bear. what the hell is this argument about? im pretty sure that was it.

Thats irrelevent, thats not what you said.

At 7/28/05 05:13 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: ok last night id been drinking heavily. now im back on to finish off. i hate to say this,

Ok so whats your response?

sources please dont just throw figures at me. i have a hangover

http://uboat.net/fates/losses/

no buts its actually a part of your previous source. unlucky

No it's not. Thats not how wikipedia works. It's user contributed so some things could be wrong. But mine is backed up by sources (see bottom) while yours admits it is innaccurate.

well no it hasent. youve merely found sites that disagree.

THE US CENSUS BUREAU!

When the US Census Bureau disagrees with your fact, you are wrong.

ok so firstly im pretty sure all your carriers were in the pacific during the war. and the only sources youve given me are trying to prove how you had 12 million troops. still outnumbered by the axis btw.

No, only 3 out of 7 were in the pacific at the start of the war. And by the end we had built many more.

Second, you have given no proof that there were more than 12 million axis troops at any point in time. You are just making that up.

ooo someones getting techy. you want to know what really grinds me up about this argument. my grandpa died in fighting for this country during that war. and then some little pissant comes along and says "hey there was no point to his death. we didnt need you at all!" thats why i will never chicken out of this argument ya big tool

So you just admitted that no matter how much evidence given your still going to deny that the US could have won the war alone? Yeah thats real mature.

oky doky. Do all yanks think that they couldve taken the whole of WWII on their own?

Thats not at all what you originally said. You said yanks believe nobody else contributed.

Corporations are not meant to be moral beings. Simple as that. To expect it to be one is idiotic and frankly childish.

We have laws for a reason. If you want to stop Coca-Cola from doing something, you petition and vote, you don't boycott. Boycotting at it's very best will stop one corporation from doing something for a period of time. More often however, it either fizzles or the company just decides to hide it better.

Personally, I'm not going to do a damn thing. Why? Because these countries need to figure out these things on thier own. Every time we solve a problem it comes back, they need to be the ones to fix it. They need to appropriate legislation.

But I guess it's alot easier to pretend you care about Columbians or whoever and make alot of noise about how cool you are for boycotting coke.

But... my religion requires me to look at pornographic material.

At 7/28/05 04:36 AM, darkmage8 wrote: Well I must be psychic then. Because all the crap I just made up concerning U.S involvment with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia building up to the Gulf War is basic history. If you can find anything that stringently contradicts the basic history I've written about the U.S involvement with Iraq before the war, I'd very much like to see it.

First, I'm still waiting for an explaination as to how your reply had anything to do with my question.

Second, If it's such basic history then why can't you provide a source?

I thought it pretty obvious by the tone of the articles that it was common knowledge the united States had willingly armed Saddam. If I honestly have to find an article that spells out how we armed Iraq, then this should be sufficient. If you can't trust sources that range from the Washington Post, to ABC Nightline, to Times, you're on your own to live in the dark. I especially like this one:

First of all, those weren't sources. Those were editorials. You might as well cite a blog. Robert Novak needs to offer proof just as you do.

Second, it's not even a matter of not trusting them. None of them offered prove, they just gave conjecture.

http://www.iranchamb..cles/arming_iraq.php

What is this? A blog? A blog that cites editorials as sources? A blog that cites ITSELF as a source? 13 'Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com'

Look, Jim. Bombing the shit out an entire nation whose religion already considers Westerners infedels and lost followers of Satan is one thing. Keeping medicine, food, and clean water from them for six years before even implementing the damn Oil for Food program is another. Throw in the Radical Islam that's already *been* in Iraq though the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, who are already pissed off at eachother for not *agreeing* on who the successor of Islam is, and you can honestly NOT tell me that Radical Islam in Iraq was uneffected by western bombing of their country in the Gulf War.

So basically your argument isn't that you neccesarily have any proof that radical islam has spread because of the bombings, but rather that it should have. Because, you know, if you do anything to muslims, they turn radical and start bombing.

I really don't even know how to respond to that. It would seem you think the combined strength and technology of the Axis that rivaled much of the Western world in it's era was on par with the non-existant strength and power Iraq posed against the United States in the 90s. A group of rag-tag Iraqi soldiers in clunker Soviet tanks as opposed to running into a flank of highly-trained S.S troopers jacked up on stims and meth. Yeah, the nazis posed the same threat as the Iraqis.

HAH! Saddams army during the first invasion was not rag-tag, it was a huge army with weapons bought from not just the Soviets but other well developed countries like France as well.

But of course, you still basically said that a bomb will kill an Iraqi easier than a Nazi. Which doesn't need anything to be proven wrong.

At 7/28/05 02:24 AM, capn_g wrote: You sure? I mean, ostensibly you're right but wasn't there some...something... spewed forth from the white house press pool about Al Quaeda recieving funding and or harbouring from Saddam back in the day as part of the whole "make it seem like it connects to 9/11 even though it doesn't" deal?

There was some guy with a bin in his name who lived in Iraq. Other than that no.

At 7/28/05 02:15 AM, capn_g wrote: Jeezus Jim, you're starting to sound like the finger-in-the-ears type. Are you actually suggesting that the Gulf war has absolutely no influence whatsoever on what's going on in Iraq now? So far I've yet to find fault with any of the counter arguments being throw at you but you seem to be dismissing them out of hand.

I never said that at all. I'm saying it has nothing to do with the terrorism against the west and Al Quaeda.

At 7/27/05 07:43 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: ok you obviously dont want to let that go. i know for fact you're wrong but what the hey

The Census Bureau disagrees with you. How exactly is your crappy little british site more informed on the subject then the US government?

can you prove it. no, like you cant prove any of your outrageous and frankly insulting claim.

We sunk 86 U-boats in 1942. 236 in 1943. And 235 in 1944. By the end the decoding just made the U boats even easier to find.

hey its your source site dimwit

You obviously don't understand how wikipedia works. My source cited is accurate, yours is a completely different one with admits its own possible innacuracy.

Perhaps you could offer an argument as to why that wouldn't be possible.

yeh you havent given any details

Like what? What needs details? What have I not sufficiently explained?

ok Jimsween im seeing a pattern here. i come up with proof and you come up with 'proof'. ive decided to take the high road. i remember you saying that anyone with a slight military knowledge would say that the US couldve taken WWII all on its own. While knowing that the US probably had the best chance, i say the opposite. most of my miliary history collegues would say that it was not possible.

Your proof has been disproven several times, by the US census Bureau at that. This is just a pitiful attempt at weasleing out of a losing debate.

I've given you sources, and explainations. You mentioned the inability to do bombing raids without Britain, I showed that we did the same for Japan without any place to bomb, and your response was 'hmmmm i dont think you've really thought about that one'.

If you don't have a rebuttal, just say you don't, don't pretend you have one but your not going to dignify me with a response. Thats childish.

i would also like to say that a lot of yanks find it mentally impossible to accept the fact that you had help during the war. i find it sad

Find me a 'yank' that wont accept that.

At 7/27/05 08:03 PM, Usmarineskicksass wrote: Just stop talking

Thanks? Like it or not, it's true.

At 7/27/05 05:36 PM, madzakk wrote: Maybe the reform party. I like Jesse Ventura, he speaks his mind (vs. political doublespeak.)

Yeah, hes also insane though.

He delayed fishing season because nobody bought his book.

At 7/27/05 06:51 PM, bcdemon wrote: Nope, didn't mean that at all, you're confused with the Russia - Syria thingy, I said nothing about Syria.

If your going to bring up past arguments you can at least be expected to remember anything about them.

Russia sold missiles to Syria even when it said it wasn't. Russia's selling nuclear material to Iran even though it's obviously going to be used for nukes. So it's not at all undue to suspect Russia of doing the same with Palestine.

At 7/27/05 06:08 PM, darkmage8 wrote: First, the said events were all facts of the U.S build-up and involvement in the middle-east. They were spawned out of gaining influence there and intimidating Saudi Arabia for an invitation. Secondly, why would you think that the United States would want to help or deter any of Iraq's conflicts in the first place? Ever since Iraq nationalized their oil market with a raised price for the U.S coincidentally started calling him a terrorist leader.

Nice job not answering my question at all. I guess you feel content just making crap up instead.

I beg to differ. The fact that the United States was actively fighting a war with someone they branded a threat to peace and justice in the world while selling him the chemical and biological weapons he used to carry those acts out *with* the knowledge of his character made the United States, once again, a significant factor in influencing the level of destruction that conflict reached before intervention.

Again, your response had nothing to do with what I wrote.

Are you saying there is no proof that the United States sold Sadam Huessein their chemical and biological weapons? There were at least 25 countries that were doing this and condemming the war at the same time, so this isn't some big conspiracy aimed at the United States; it's fact.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp

Not a single one of those offers proof. Just conjecture. Perhaps you didn't read them?

Right. Because Iraq didn't become a newborn-cesspool for Radical Islam as a result. One doesn't have to be a terrorist leader or crash planes into buildings to help Radical Islam grow. There are plenty of Iraqis who hate the United States to this day for the very reason of the Gulf War and support and praise the Radical Islamic Ideology for it's twisted-Jihad on the West.

Uhhuh, Iraq became a cesspool for Radical Islam. Yet another thing you just decided to make up on the spot. Or maybe I was just thrown off by the fact that no terrorists were Iraqi, nor were any prominent extremists for that matter.

Maybe they used secret mind control powers developed by ARPA and sold to them to generate more Islamic extremism. You know, since theres really no money trail either.

Oh I don't know, how about not keeping econmoic sanctions implemented on a defenseless country severay YEARS after it's lost the ability to fight. You know, the ones that don't even effect the military hierarchy and only kill off civilians?

Because once the army is gone that means it's gone forever. It's not as if oil is valuable or anything.

Considering Germany needed half the civilized world to unify in hopes of even stepping foot on Europe, I'd say Axis members were in a tad different category than ragtag Iraq.

You would say that. Well I guess I'm not suprised, it's alot easier to call the NAZIs superhuman than admit you cited a bomb statistic without knowing a thing about bombs.

Well lets just take a look at this, shall we?

You know, I read that, thinking it would somehow offer evidence to prove you correct. But it didn't. Strange, it's almost as if you did the exact same thing you did before, except this time compared it to the second Iraq invasion. I'm curious, how does that exactly prove we destroyed Iraq?

Yes, Iraq has plenty of reasons to attack coalition forces and send a message that we're not wanted nor welcome there for "certain" reasons. I wonder why.

Wow, you have to have add or something. That doesn't at all address my point. In fact almost every reply in your last post was not at all related to my post.

I guess I should have expected that from someone who can't tell the difference between the first Iraq war and the second.

At 7/27/05 08:57 AM, bcdemon wrote: How many stingers has Russia sold to the PLO since agreeing to assist the Palestinians earlier this year? That should refresh your memory.

You mean in the arms deal that Sharon didn't let happen? I would assume zero, since he didn't let it happen.

But of course your assumption that Israel just likes to oppress Palestine for no reason is clearly better than my assumption that they would do the exact same thing they did with Syria.

At 7/27/05 07:40 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: yers. the red white and blue site is completely unbiased i am sure.

It's troops numbers, a bias wouldn't matter. It's not some highly controversial issue.

And at that, that is not the source cited, the sources cited is number 14 on the list.

by you

Here is a statistic that proves yours wrong.

http://www.census.go..editions/001747.html

Some sources that cite 12 million.

http://www.parapundi..archives/002489.html

http://www.donaldsen..n-and-now-again.html

http://www.carleton...ers/Siu08Nov2004.pdf

http://ebs.gmnews.co..4/Front_Page/06.html

http://faithmag.com/..ith/2004/6-1-04.html

yes i can see.....wait a minute, what does that have to do with the enigma code. you know i really hated that movie u-571 where it showed the americans capturing the enigma device and being the heroes of the hour. the enigma machine was recovered from poland by mi6 and, yes fabolous, the poles.

Okay so why does that matter? We still would have got it form the poles. And at that our navy was still capable of defeating the submarines, it was doing it perfectly fine up until then.

Better figures

This one throws a better light on your figures. note non-combat aircraft

Haha, notice on the bottom where it says '(accuracy, differences in numbers, have not been rectified as to what is correct on tables)'

hmmmm i dont think you've really thought about that one

Perhaps you could offer an argument as to why that wouldn't be possible.

Holy shit... democrats.... AND republicans are stupid?!

Woah man.. woah... thats deep.

At 7/26/05 10:02 PM, bcdemon wrote: Actually, I was refering to a discussion we had a while ago,

What discussion are you even talking about?

At 7/27/05 01:06 AM, capn_g wrote: Broken link. And from dictionary.com:

It's not actually really broken, you just need to copy the entire thing.

"Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing...."

Even Mark Twain had syphillis. Actually... no he probably didn't. Nevermind.

I dont understand why they would shoot him upon having him subdued. It makes no sense, shooting him while running does, but not when hes pinned down.

You wan't to keep him alive to find out his connections at the very least.

Unless someone can give any reason, I have to say some of the witnesses are probably lying.

At 7/26/05 09:25 PM, bcdemon wrote: Umm not really Jimbo. I usually drop the debate with you when you incorporate your imagination into it.

Ah of course. I guess its my fault for assuming credible third party sources weren't part of my imagination.

At 7/26/05 09:21 PM, capn_g wrote: Tsk tsk, Jim. No such word. I expect better of such a competant debater.

Psh.. whateva.

http://www.google.co..-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:200
4-25,GGLD:en&q=Irregardless

At 7/26/05 04:09 PM, bcdemon wrote: Lol, I would love to jump in on this one, but arguing Jimsweens imagination is boring.

Funny, you have a pattern of avoiding debate with me. Whether its after I've proven you wrong, or just beforehand. Strange.