Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

a democracy is basically a majority. the majority will always win. and also a democracy will not work in principle because of people wanting power. everyone wants power, and a true democracy will never be found.

the missle attacks made were targeted at the leaders in several bunkers surrounding Baghdad. they used bunker piercing missles to get to them to "cut off the head of the snake" as it's been said using cruise missles from naval ships and F-117 stealth bombers. excellent strategy if you ask me.

1. kim jong il
2. saddam hussein
3. JudgeMeHarshX --!!??

heh heh heh >=)

that's a spooky picture.

oooh, how cryptic...

hmm...a secret society dictating what can and can't be said. it's like what the popular kids used to do in third grade (i was the kid that didn't know how to speak english in third grade. i obviously didn't get to join no stinkin' club).

but i do share Commander's concerns.

At 3/19/03 12:30 AM, karasz wrote: yeah but the democrats runnin for president will ask y are we giving SO MUCH money to iraq, when the US economy is horrible?

and so on and so forth so perhaps they may get the edge...

watch a war rally on the stock markets. it happened on the 17th, watch it happen again.

also, on a different note, no matter how many people and countries don't want the US to go in and fight, they all want the US to win. no one likes saddam hussein, that can be agreed upon by all parties, but not all agree on the means of removing him. but once iraq is ridded of saddam, the UN, which had already discussed a resolution to help rebuild iraq, will help. it is garaunteed.

and i'm fairly certain that we are safe from terrorist attack. the US just raised the security level rating to orange, so we are expecting something. if anything will happen, it wiil be absolutely catastrophic. and the chances of that is unlikely.

At 3/19/03 02:17 AM, WolfSoldier wrote: Did I say i believe any of this...NO No i believe i said it was just interesting and a good topic for discussion but no you had to go and be stupid and ruin it

my my, aren't we touchy. you alright there? need a prozac? wow, how could i be so stupid and ruin your wonder, thought provoking thread? should i not have stated my opinion at all? evidently, according to you, i shouldn't have at all. you posted, you asked for opinion, i gave mine. if anyone is stupid, i would point straight back at you.

you do realize that it's all speculation. there is no concrete evidence of government conspiracies, or secret organizations with a hand in every aspect of world affairs. i will agree with you that there are somethings that the government hides from us to prevent mass hysteria. but aside from that, i find it highly unlikely.

At 3/18/03 04:27 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:
Bush stands quite a good chance of getting elected, especially since there are relatively few high-marquee Democrats planning to run. Now, if we had Hillary, we'd have a shot, but she's waiting until 2008. That's going to be a FUN one to watch.

Hillary sure is a smart one. it would be too close of a race if she were to run against Dubya. and we don't want a repeat of the last election, now do we?

[counts hanging chads]

well, it seems that iraq does have WMD. now we have to deal with "chemical ali", the general in charge of deploying all chemical or biological weapons. the US is in big trouble if they use it.

At 3/18/03 03:40 PM, LedZep77 wrote: The foriegn minister of Iraq reported yesterday that Suddam was not leaving iraq.

then it's on. no turning back now.

the French just don't believe that the iraqis have and weapons of mass distruction. let's just call it denial i suppose. so if they ever use them or we demonstrate their existence, then i guess they'll help.

At 3/18/03 02:17 PM, clownfish wrote: Has anyone noeiced that ever since the US started interfering with other countries the have made one mistake after another? Examples? The weakness of the American governement against Hitler, they allowed the Prague massacre(even though the Ruskis were also to blame), the Cuba embargo, Vietnam and Cambodja, arming guerilla armies several times in several cases... Please use real arguments, don't just say "you are an idiot, so you're wrong".

elaborate your examples. and your Hitler example is poor. Hitler wasn't a US priority in WWII, Japan was. it was later when the US helped the UK fight off the Nazis. so elaborate on all of them, so i can actually make an intelligent argument instead of saying, "you're wrong, you friggin' idiot."

At 3/18/03 03:16 PM, clownfish wrote: Bush's chance for being reëlected is somewhere between 0 and 0.00001 percent. The only worry is that his successor will be just as big an idiot as he is... The only chance for Bush to get a few votes a second time is win the war in less than a day, so that he could use it in all of his bullshit propagandist speeches.

Bush's approval rating is amazing. if this war ends quickly and he quickly address the economy, which should correct itself, he'll take 2004 with no problem. in fact, if the US finds chemical or biological weapons, it'll be garaunteed that he'll be reelected. and i find that very possible. in fact, i am going to vote Bush in the 2004 elections like i did in 2000. he is one of the most moderate Republicans ever, and that is right up my alley.

let's start from the beginning. if saddam hussein were to do anything, it would be chemical or biological attack. the reason why is because iraq does not possess nuclear weapons.

not only that, but if the iraqis will lose face if they use any of them, and the iraqi regime's task now is to create the illusion that they are the victim in all of this. if they use chemical or biological weapons, the whole world will be against them. today, a French diplomat, quoted on Fox News, said that if the US troops were attacked with biological of chemical weapons, the French will join in and fight along side the Americans.

what the hell was the last two general forum-esque posts? jesus, that's what i get for starting a thread says "48 hours or bust".

HEY! you're taking shots without me? phooey...

[goes out to buy some baileys]
[wonders if liquor store is still open]
[crap...i think they're closed]
[sulks around watching Lupin III...how gay...]

TheShrike is absolutely right. that is one of the mose Republican things i've heard in some time.

i had this debate with my sister, who happens to be a super conservative, and she was insistent that the Democrats wouldn't have taken care of the terrorist crisis as well as the GOP did. i said that it wouldn't matter whose administration it was, it would not only get them reelected for another term, but also make no difference as to the mission in Afghanistan after 9/11.

all these threats are real. and America is doing something about all of them. the idea that a leader of a nation may sell terrible weapons to terrorists is something we can't ignore.

the conflict in Korean isn't as simple as you say it is. and i'm sure you didn't look at what i wrote in the other Korean thread. if you don't know what i'm talking about, i guess i'll tell you again, but until then, i'm off.

At 3/17/03 09:54 PM, Jlop985 wrote:

At 3/17/03 08:43 PM, mysecondstar wrote: the world agenda is the US's agenda. simply put, if the US doesn't consider it a priority at the time, it just isn't.

What's funny is that the US has historically regarded the Americas as its sphere of influence.

eh, i guess the US is just going onto better things (sounds like what my ex-girlfriends told me).

this politics council is intriguing. i wonder what it's about exactly. top secret or not, i'm sure some of us want to know what the dilly yo is.

At 3/17/03 09:34 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: ..maybe you mis-understand the term "ULTIMATUM" ..it means if Saddam is still in Iraq in 46.5 hours then he won't be "slipping thru" to some other refuge country alive. I'd rekon that all human exodous will be blood tested on the Iraqi borders ;)

dude are you high DREDD? anyway, what are you talking about that all human exodus will be blood tested on the border? and i'm sure that saddam hussien could easiler slip through if he really wanted to.

on a different note, i'm watching ABCnews and they are showing the two possibilities of attack for the coalition forces. sick.

the world agenda is the US's agenda. simply put, if the US doesn't consider it a priority at the time, it just isn't.

looks like, unless saddam hussein leaves, we're off to war. you could here the, "i want to kick saddam hussein's ass" in his voice. we'll see how fast this will take.

At 3/17/03 01:59 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: "Cheese eating surrender monkeys!" - Matt Groenig, I hope that they are happy. Now the United States has to go it alone with only a handful of countries. Don't people see that Western Appeasement didn't work for Hitler, and sure as hell won't work for Saddam!

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend France?
No one knows, they've never done it before.

umm...what are we appeasing? iraq didn't attack anyone this time (beside their own people). the Nazis were appeased. saddam hussein has never been appeased for any reason. and the whole French joke is just not tasteful. no wait, aren't they called freedom jokes now?

wow that post just disappeared! it's magic!

At 3/17/03 01:54 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote:

Time to move on to something else, like protesting the 50,000 children (using figures from the 1991 gulf war) that were killed during the initial invasion.

Just kidding, I don't like children.

He he... stupid children!

ummm...anyway...

about the children, i'm sure you all heard of the e-bomb under development in the US. there is a small explosion and then an electromagnetic pulse. and as you know it short circuits anything in the blast radius which means we can stop biological/chemical missle launches etc.

i swear i just stopped for a second because there was a good Tom and Jerry cartoon on, and all of a sudden there's 10 posts by Judge, Slizor, panik and Nem are going all out, and i just finished my post on S. Korea. i guess i'm too slow.

i actually have a bigger problem with those super conservatives.