Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/28/03 02:25 PM, NSS-SEPP wrote: I aint got any problem with nuking the iraq.
It would be a very fast and painless death for those "innocent" people.

yeah, that makes sense a very quick and painless death for some innocent people... damn towelheads...

and u know what the best part is the ones that dont die, will have skin fall off of their body, hair and teeth fall out... NOW THATS REALITY TV... and then the people that are still alive will have to deal with 2 things... SUPER-HUMAN POWERS (comic books dont lie) and not being able to make food cuz the once FERTILE CRESENT becomes as barren as the space between ur ears...

Anyways even if the UN gets very pissed, what can they do? Isolate or attack the US? I dont think so.

ok, lets say you get in a fight with 3rd graders... now you can take like 7 or 8 of them at once... but what happens when 40 of them, all with more nukes that u are ready to turn ur little country into a gigantic crater...

and yes if the other nations decide to say FUCK AMERICA they can easily isolate the US, granted it would take about 10-15 years to get out of the following depression but nothing is impossible...

nuking baghdad is pointless... my question is what if they use chemical weapons on us? do we retailate with other WMD OR do we restrain ourselves?

first things first PHILLY ROCKS...

and on a more serious note, i think this is just a waste of time and money, while the legislature is debating on a resolution that is NO different than a SUGGESTION, it takes time away from something more important like, the economy perhaps... also if people want to boycott French materials let them, but dont 'SUGGEST' to me what i can and can not drink...

so lets review: PHILLY= BEST CITY EVER (take that NYC)
Resolution = waste of time, cuz its a suggestion...

I'm going to go Capitalism WITH A pinch of Socialism... maybe give el government-o more powers over the corporations like in Canada to keep prescription drug costs low...

man that would be sweet... but impossible cuz of all the damn dirty republicans...

<A> http://www.aljazeerah.info <A>

i go there, seems fine to me...

gotcha...

At 3/27/03 10:03 PM, implodinggoat wrote: These protesters or at least the people who make their T shirts are raging anti semites. They are wearing shirts reffering to the war claiming "witness to Jewish terrorism". What the fuck do Jews have to do with anything?

there is a belief, that if it werent for israel the ARABs would be quite nicer to all... but dont know and cant find out...

The Nazi party is making a grass roots come back.

super... where do i sign??? and by sign i mean find the fuckers so i can blow them up so there is no hint of dictatorship in the US... (ur next ashcroft... although u would probably be at the meeting anyway)

zMDUDE and THEEVILONE... points taken, that is why i took the stance opposing 'zmdude' to see ur rationale behind your stance...

i do have to admit im surprised there was no flaming i thought i wouldve been screamed at quite a few times...

as for my stance: i dont take sides on any issues... i play devil's advocate at all times... that is my style, this way i can piss both sides off enough to where they will see me as a friend instead of an enemy... basically cuz i hate not being liked... cuz im a big big dork

raptorman, good enough rational for me

(seriously, im NOT being a dick)

At 3/27/03 05:37 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/27/03 05:24 PM, karasz wrote:

At 3/27/03 04:45 PM, zMDude wrote: God, how stoopid are these freaking protesters!!??! MSNBC reports that protesters in New York are going as far as lying in the middle of intersections to disrupt traffic!

SO, people invoking their first amendment is stupid to you (you spelled it wrong, im going to assume it was for a reason, or u just didnt know either way thats unimportant...)

that's not what he meant. i don't think this topic was directed at the protester's ideals as much as their methods. lying down in the street, throwing things at the police, ect, is pretty stupid. they're only causing discourse in the country they say is off track enough.

explain to me why you dislike the protesters, is it just cuz they are anti-war, OR their style OR something else...

once again, i don't think he was really talking bout their ideals.

all of this is understandable... just asking

I say the police should call some monster trucks into manhattan!!

so while their are people in a desert that are MY age being shot at,

and there are poeple MY age in iraq being oppressed there. the people YOUR age are saving them.

TRUE, 110% absolutely true... BUT afghanistan what did we do about the women being oppressed??? NOTHING, until Osama attacked... true it sucks but THEY SHOULD do something about it... if this war was just about freeing the iraqi people and taking out ALL dictators i would be all for it... BUT i cant NOT look at all the other evidence, which points to OTHER reasons for the war... and i know this is falling on opposing ears, and it would seem like i support saddam, which is what i do NOT do, im just giving the rational opposing side to this question...

and these people want them back home where they WONT be shot at...

and neglect the thousands more that are being oppressed?

see above...

i just dont see ur way of keeping the soliders in harms way the best way to support them...

a soldier's job is to be in harms way. that's why they call them soldiers. they do battle when need be.

but shouldnt we be doing something about saudi arabia where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from (where did the other 4 come from? if anyone knows please tell...) or china where human rights is a question... OR TURKEY since they kill the KURDS just like IRAQ, but i guess iraq is the biggest threat to us... not north korea with its NUKES...

At 3/27/03 04:45 PM, zMDude wrote: God, how stoopid are these freaking protesters!!??! MSNBC reports that protesters in New York are going as far as lying in the middle of intersections to disrupt traffic!

SO, people invoking their first amendment is stupid to you (you spelled it wrong, im going to assume it was for a reason, or u just didnt know either way thats unimportant...)

explain to me why you dislike the protesters, is it just cuz they are anti-war, OR their style OR something else...

I say the police should call some monster trucks into manhattan!!

so while their are people in a desert that are MY age being shot at, and these people want them back home where they WONT be shot at... i just dont see ur way of keeping the soliders in harms way the best way to support them...

ALSO while the soliders are being attacked in the desert fighting to try to install democracy, YOU want to shut people up and want everyone to fall in line with the administration....

THATS NOT A DEMOCRACY, pal...

At 3/26/03 11:53 PM, Jiperly wrote:

At 3/26/03 01:16 PM, karasz wrote:

At 3/26/03 09:39 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

so then Al-Qaeda is a bunch of revolutionairies...

wow.....glad you're reading his post in its entirely.....he said terrorists use violence to get their message across- revoltutionaries do not(not entirely true on its own either, since the American revoltutionaries were extremely violent, but still)

wait a sec... u say that im wrong... THEN u agree with me... which is it??? also im just using this as an example... i dont really wanna hear that im anti-american or shit... just tossing out the idea... forcing EVERYONE to think...

hit up http://consumptionjunction.com and click on videos, THEN check the 25th and u will see the videos from al-jazeerah...

enjoy

At 3/26/03 09:24 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Hey, if he gets elected, it means that elected office really is open to anyone. Lucky he was a minor when he got arrested. I didn't think you could run for office with a conviction...or maybe that's just a felony. Something like that.

u can run... just not vote... believe me, the former mayor of providence was arrested for a felony and was still re-elected like 3 times... but its ok cuz NOW he's getting it up the butt...

At 3/26/03 09:39 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

so then Al-Qaeda is a bunch of revolutionairies...

Terrorism is using violence and illegal and unenthical methods that are disapproved by the majority which are the civilian.

well only 1/3 of the colonists were pro-independence... lets not forget how some people tarred and feathered some loyalists...

if otherwise, that is called revolution. no one shame the french for casuing a bloody terror to their own country and their own royal blood.

so then which is it? terrorism or revolution?

At 3/25/03 10:05 PM, stuff_the_clown wrote: i agree with you. war is immoral but do you want saddam to stay in power? assuming you say no, i answer with "well then, this was necessary."

well thats the thing... im not debating the war or the rationale for war... but being necessary doesnt mean its moral...

think of this, guy attacks with a gun... u pull urs out and shoot him, now although this is legal (self-defense) u still kill someone and killing is immoral, whether its self defense or justified or anything really, killing is wrong, always will be...

At 3/25/03 08:20 PM, stuff_the_clown wrote:

At 3/25/03 07:13 PM, karasz wrote: hey i answered the question 'how is this war illegal'... all wars are illegal, the reason for a war is to kill the other side... whether it be for offense, defense or anyother reason war is made to kill others...

but where would we be without wars? war is a natural human behavior. even primates have turf wars. wars are only "illegal" because of the laws of humans. we contradict ourselves a lot don't we?

touche, good sir stuff the clown... illegal was the wrong word i used... immoral would be better applied...

At 3/25/03 07:33 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: 1. The abandoned apache fighter is demonstrative of the lack of training the pilots have for war-time situations(note because it was not destroyed the Iraqis and Russia have the technology to copy)

sell, you cant train for EVERY situation... accidents happen, sadly.

2. The People's Revolt in Bosra is a sign that the people of Iraq are willing to accept change in leadership.

sell, Iraq has tricked us a few times already... wouldnt be surprised if they are waiting to throw some chem weapons in the troops face.

3. Turkey's encroachment on the Kurds -- being an older and more personal issue than the current US vs Iraq issue -- is the main reason why they did not allow the US to use its military fields.

sell, i think the 94% against the war in turkey helped... but this is probably one of them

hey i answered the question 'how is this war illegal'... all wars are illegal, the reason for a war is to kill the other side... whether it be for offense, defense or anyother reason war is made to kill others...

At 3/24/03 05:45 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Many of the protestors whine about how this is an "illegal" war. I ask you, how so?

thats easy... ALL wars are illegal... they do nothing but kill people.

granted there are reasons to throw down, but it doesnt make wars legal, just allowed...

At 3/25/03 04:38 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/25/03 09:03 AM, Ruination wrote:

Like that ever happened... Afghanistan belongs to rival warlords, once again. Absolutely nothing has changed there.. Same evil, different name, is all.

if you actually mean that, you are among the most flagrant morons in this topic. look it up, you'll see i'm right. the situation is gradually getting better. it's just easy for you to say, "no it's not".

although u are right swayside, the situation is getting gradually better, inside of kabul... ruination is also correct, in the fact that outside of kabul the warlords are in control...

but u are going to have to wait about 8 years until u can start complaining about the lack of progress being made cuz it took the US from 1776 to 1789 (13 years) to go from a 'terrorist group' to a democracy...

At 3/25/03 01:07 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/25/03 12:26 AM, karasz wrote: well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

I knew someone would say that. I can counter by saying the following:

As I said above, we have the authority under Resolution 1441. And in case you think we don't, than I have a point to make about the UN resolutions. Iraq was not complying with 1441, which said that Iraq must declare what weapons they have or had, and account for every single one of them. Every last ounce of mustard gas, every last missile, every last vial of anthrax. No one here can say they did this. And yet, when we proposed an ultimatum to sternly warn Iraq that force would be used if they didn't comply by a certain time--one that probably had enough votes to pass--one nation that shall remain nameless--France--refused to accept it, and threatened to veto it. Apparently, UN resolutions are meaningless to France. And if UN resolutions are meaningless, then Iraq has the right to carry WMDs... but we have the right to go to war without UN approval. Whoops!

but this whole arguement is baseless due to u already stating 'it (the UN) has no authority to tell the U.S. (any country, cant just single out the one u want) what it can and cannot do.' meaning the arguement of being in violations of UN resolutions is irrelevant...

now just to set the record straight, you are right that Saddam should be out of power, and if that was the only case the US would make i would be more than happy to be behind it... its when the US violates the UN to attack Iraq for violating the UN that i dislike.

I know all nations have their own soverignty to think about and such, and i totally understand that... and yes any nation has the right to attack any nation it wants to... but world opinion, public opinion is a different story... also the case that the US can attack Iraq under resolution 1441 does not exist because of what i have said earlier...

At 3/25/03 12:31 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 3/25/03 12:26 AM, karasz wrote: well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

I don't care about UN resolutions. I want to be rid of Saddam because he is one of the few true tyrants left on this planet and one that can be rather easily desposed of.

ok but now, make the case for attacking iraq without using the broken UN resolutions... also killing his own people is a pretty bad example cuz turkey does that and we just gave them a brib... relief aid and they shoot kurds, just like iraq...

At 3/24/03 11:54 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Anyone who thinks war should have rules is an idiot.
Like it or not, Killing civilians can make or break a war.
Civilians work to feed the army. Civilians can join the army. Civilians are the ones who provide the financial backing for the army.
Every civilian you kill is one less morsel of food in an enemy soldier's mouth.

well if thats ur belief dont bitch about iraq torturing the US troops... after all u hold the belief that all is fair in love and WAR... right?

At 3/25/03 12:27 AM, thenark wrote: karasz is right

i like the sound of that... i encourage everyone to say that much more frequently... u dont even have to mean it...

At 3/25/03 12:13 AM, implodinggoat wrote: This war is ethical, the United States does not recquire UN permission to declare war despite Kofi Annan's beliefs. The constitution gives our government the right to declare war. The U.N. is a fine forum for diplomacy but it has no authority to tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do.

well if the UN has no authority then attacking Saddam for being in violation of UN resolutions is moot and cant be used anymore... thus meaning that Iraq is allowed to have nuclear weapons, since the UN resolutions are irrelevant...

At 3/23/03 12:37 AM, NJDeadzone wrote:

At 3/23/03 12:22 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Since the U.S. has proceeded without U.N. aproval the U.N.'s power has been greatly undermined.

Yes and the US's power to veto will ensure that Iraq's new government will made in the interests of the US, since the UN indirectly required the invasion of Iraq and cost America alot of money

well france has said that they are ready to veto a resolution stating that britian and america run the show in iraq after the war... (CNN approx 330pm)

im anti-war, anti-saddam, and anti-bitching about either side... i am personally sick and tired of the talking about: war, reasons for it, bush sexuality, saddam and his towel-headed friends; its all a bunch of useless shit, i cant think of reading one post that honestly meant it when they said 'well u changed my opinion i agree with u'

this whole forum is basically set up in 2 groups, morons that bitch and morons that rationally,calmly bitch about the topic... and neither side gains any ground, cuz at the end of the day what happens... same people talking walk away from the post with the same thoughts and ideas they had when they left...

basically im waiting for the war to be over, i would like to see what the forum is like when there is no war to talk about...

At 3/22/03 11:59 PM, jimsween wrote:

6. There are dozens of countries that commit attrocities on their prople, many of these countries also have, and it is proven that they have, nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, to quote your beloved president, yet america only sees fit to go after Iraq. I could name 10 countries that are commiting far worse attrocities right now than saddam ever has, yet you only focus on Iraq, who has no weapons of mass destruction at all.

Saddam killed 2 million of his own people, can you find anyone who did that much?

NO this is fucking irrelevant... the fucking taliban killed women if they were outside... IS THAT WHY WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN? NO, its cuz they had Osama... the US doesnt give a damn if a govt kills its own people... i.e. Turkey kills the Kurds,same people Saddam kills,but its with bullets, so i guess thats ok since they arent using chemical weapons that we gave them (i know we havent given turkey chem weapons...) if dead people mattered we would do more in the israeli-palestinian problem... along with China and its killing of people and any other fucking place that kills people

at the end of the day the US doesnt give a damn about the dead people... just the people doing the killing and whether or not those people are pro-US or not...

am i the only one that things the forum sucks now???

At 3/22/03 12:59 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: I'm absolutely furious about the protests going on right now. They can claim "freedom of speech" all they want, but the First Amendment does not allow violence.

what violence??? other than the guy in san fran i have heard of nothing...

granted i havent watched war coverage all day...