Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/16/06 01:46 AM, abacacus wrote: and it makes people hate your country if you win, and probably destroy it if they win. its a lose lose situation.

Yeah, war is so pointless and futile that nations risk huge amounts of wealth and power to win them...

Even if the victor of the war is "hated," he still comes out ahead because he now wields the power that came with his victory. And, when all is said and done, power is the only thing that has any real value.

At 8/18/06 02:46 PM, Proud_American wrote:
Stop Spewing Shit. It isn't racial supremacy, it is global politics mixed with religion. These people are doing this because their leader tells them to, he says that if you fight us, you will go to heaven. Politics + War Torn Countries + Religion = Extremists.

This might be true for the rank-and-file terrorist; after being fed all that religious nonsense in indoctrination centers, they can't think rationally anymore. End result: they become puppets for charismatic leaders to manipulate. While extremely dangerous to civilians, they pose very little threat to an organized military (as they have poor combat training). If all terrorists were like these puppets, we would have won this war on terror a long time ago.

But the leaders themselves (the true threat if you ask me) are just as delusional as their puppets, but are very rational in their practices. And they have more than just politics in mind. To them, political power is a means to an end.

Like their puppets, they see the world as a war between the forces of good (their religion) and evil (anything other than their religion). In their minds, they see themselves as messiah-type figures that will usher in a new era of religious rule so that their god's return to the earth might be hastened. Needless to say, they will resort to any means to ensure that this happens.

Unlike their puppets, they are skilled in more than just violence. They have a great understanding of politcs, theology, business, psychology and (ironically) diplomacy and use them to great advantage. They know how to play their enemies against themselves, make (and subsequently break) truces, raise finances, and diciminate propaganda. The use of these skills had made fighting them difficult.

The key to winning is killing all of these charismatic icons that the puppets can grvitate around. Without them, the puppets will be demoralized (they are trained to obey leaders without question, but without solid leadership they will fall apart) and likely end up throwing themselves at their enemy in a blind charge in hopes of achieving glory. One they run to their deaths like a herd of lemmings, we win.

Two things:

1. Both parties draw in constituants from ALL walks of society. This "party of the rich" is a MYTH! You have been listening to too much of your own party's propaganda (BTW: the news source you referenced is a mouthpiece for the Liberal political movement, they admit it in their "About Us" section; not exactly an "fair" observer of events).

2. Most people don't want more taxes! Even if the taxes proposed would come down hardest on the upper-class sections of society, the middle class (backbone of our economic system) generally won't go for it because it would still raise their taxes (even if it's a small percentage). Most people are already frustrated with the fact that their tax dollars are wasted by the overgrown beauracracy that they are hesitant to give any more money out of their paychecks to them.

Besides, I doubt that they money would have been put to good use anyway: with the legislators giving most of it away as "pork," I be surprised if more than 30% of the money actually went towards funding the daycare they promised.

At 6/23/06 02:27 AM, facksfunny wrote: LIMITED GENE POOL. Obviously the people who wrote the bible knew nothing about genetics.

God created more people you say? First of all I haven't read the entire bible, but I am positive that most of you haven't either. So don't guess and say that God probably would have created more people. Why do you assume that he made more people? To support, your argument ofcourse. But your assumption doesn't make it true. I will assume that he didn't create anymore people, to support my side. If you say that God created more people, post a quote from the bible in support of your statement.

This whole argument for the existence of a pre-Ademic race of men is based on one little obscure scripture; Genesis 1:2- And the earth was withuot form and empty...

Many christians assume that god never does a half-assed job, so they believe that this verse REALLY means that the earth "became without form and empty." They then go off on a whole bunch of nonsensical theories about how god created pre-Adamites, dinosaurs, and all those other creatures that their theology doesn't really acknowledge.

The argument is stupid, but they really want to believe that the bible is absolutely true so much that they will build mountains out of molehills to help them support that belief...

At 6/22/06 07:19 PM, DesertFOX135 wrote: Wow, you get your sources from FOX News? I think you should find more credible news sources. And the discovery of the Mustard Gas was presented a long time ago, like right after Bush declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in Iraq.

More credible? I cite a mojor news organization (which has a reputation to defend and sources to protect) for this thread, and you ask me to find one more credible? At least I didn't cite a "certain" organization that released fraudulent documents and defended them until they could longer make a case for them (you know of whom I speak)...

You seem to be missing a few things:

1. This is the total number of Serin/Mustard gas shells found SINCE 2003, not found in 2003. They probably waited to collect more shells for evidence because of the PR disaster of the one serin shell found in an IED. My guess is that they wanted to show that this isn't just an isolated incident...

2. The weapons predate the Gulf War: Sadaam supposedly DESTROYED all of his chemical weapons duting that time! This proves that the inspectors working for the U.N were DEAD WRONG when they declared that Sadaam destroyed all his chemical weapons.

3. Even if nerve agents are degraded (read: no longer at their original potency), they are still USABLE! Although these agents might not be battlefield deployable, they could still be used for terrorist actions on civillian targets. Degraded =/= impotent.

To all the doubters out there, to those who chanted the slogans of "Bush lied, people died" and "No blood for oil" I present you with vindication for the war in Iraq. The WMDs are real and they have been found! Don't believe me? Take a look for yourselves...

http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,200499,00.html

For a copy of the actual document, read:

http://www.foxnews.c..WMD_Declassified.pdf

Now that 500 mustard gas and serin shells predating the Gulf War have been recovered, you have no basis for your ridiculous George Bush conspiricy theories and stupid chants any more. Reality is calling to you, I suggest you answer...

At 6/20/06 07:53 PM, xineph wrote:
That's poor logic. Gays have been allowed in the military since the military was invented, it's just that they've slipped through the radar. Do you think every man ever to enter army service was one hundred percent heterosexual? It's just statistically unlikely. It's not like gays in the military are going to start putting up rainbow posters and being openly promiscuous, that's just stupid. They're focused on combat and their job, just like everyone else is. It's like saying "I don't want watch-makers to be allowed in the military because it would make me uneasy. I mean, who wants their team mate focusing on adjusting their Timex when they're needed in the heat of battle?"

No, the official policy is "don't ask, don't tell." They have no problem with gays joining the military, but they DO have problems with them advertising it to other soldiers in their respective units because it can initiate "relationships" between them that will promote favoritism. Combat is no place for favoritism! All soldiers are to be interchangable with each other and equally commited to watching the back of every man in the unit (not just the one who he is in a "relationship" with).

Plus, in recent years, women have been allowed into the military. In Israel, they can opt to serve on the field, in the heat of battle. And how many times have you heard about women "making moves" on their male counterparts? None, strangely enough. No one is joining the army to meet a prospective boy/girlfriend.

Israel allows women to serve because they need all the manpower they can get! They are a small country surrounded by hostle states that barely recognize the legitimacy of their existence! They have been assaulted four times since they were formed in 1947, and are currently under-going a lot unrest within there own borders during the past two decades. Countries as small of them can easily be destroyed by these circumstances if they don't keep their army at full staff at all times (which is difficult for a nation with a population as small as theirs).

They let women serve because they don't have a choice in the matter. It's either let them in, or suffer a shortage of military personel (unacceptable).

Um... I really think that this needs to be pointed out here: Iraq is a WAR ZONE! Rules in war zones are different than those applied in areas not at war! Speeding towards a checkpoint in a war zone is a sign of an impending attack (whether or not that is the driver's intent) and is treated as such.

I know, it's unfair. But what are you going to do about it? The only solution in this case would be to end the war, but the war won't end until the region is stablized. So until the terrorists are all put down, this will continue.

As much as Congressmen love giving themselves raises (I'm sure you would too if you had the ability), raising the minimum wage would hve no long-run impact on the lives recieving minimum wage. The wage increase would lead to inflation, which in turn will lead to future wage increases and still more inflation of prices... Repeat ad infinitum.

Sorry, but nothing would be accomplished by doing that.

At 6/19/06 12:41 AM, Goliath- wrote: Or grind them up, sprinkle in some parmason(sp) and thousand island, and bam.
World hunger, gone.

Soylent Green anyone?

At 6/17/06 01:25 AM, Dinodoode wrote: I don't think you quite grasp the fact that they actually picked a quote from HITLER. HITLER, you know the guy that the entire world hates, killed 6 million jews and others? Yeah, he was one guy that I wouldn't base my college quote on, no matter how sensical it sounded. Stalin, Mao and Saddam aren't too far from the bandwagon of Not-Quotable-in-College-Yearbook.

So what? Hitler was an intelligent man and a great statesman! Even if you don't like he guy, you can learn from him. And the same goes for Stalin (lesson: how not to manage your cabinet), Mao (lesson: how not to structure an economy), and Sadaam (lesson: don't make threats with weapons you don't have); so don't think I'm discriminating here...

At 6/17/06 04:52 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:
There are drugs that can help you with your psychological disorder. Most people don't simply burst out laughing at the idea of extraterrestrials. Atleast no one that happens to work in the studies of physics.

Oh, I understand the possibility of life outside this planet, I just have a hard time believing that they want anything to do with us.

And I know full damn well that other physicist relish the idea ot ET life-forms too, but they don't run around claiming that they are here to protect/save/interact with humans at all! Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest such things!

I'm sorry what was that you just said? I lost my what? Oh yeah that's right... You don't even know what you are talking about. Seems more like you've lost your credibility by denouncing the intellectuality of the several great minds of society.

No, you lost your credibility for believing (and pronouncing as fact) things that have no evidence to back them up! And, as I said before, I DON'T disagree with the possibility of ET life!

You just sunk even lower because you attacked my credibility without even knowing my stance on the issue...

So what if they referenced Hitler? A genocidal maniac he may be, but a master politician and prapogandist he was also. We can learn quite a bit from this man...

These people campaigning agaist television today would be campaiging against other forms of media if television wasn't availible to pick on. Hell, these people would probably be petitioning against books, theater, and orchestra music if they lived a century earlier...

So these "Annunaki" are just gods/mythical creatures/halucinations that a bunch of conspiricy wackjob name their aliens after, huh? -bursts out laughing-

I'm sorry Mr "Descendant," you just lost all your credibility...

At 12/10/05 01:16 PM, Imperator wrote: whole bunch of coincidental stuff...

OMG! Slayer released "God Hates Us All" on 9/11! 9/11 was god telling us how m uch he hates us!

The Twin Towers looked kinda like a number 11 too... God hates the number 11!

Seriously, grow up!

At 6/15/06 03:04 PM, Hydra9 wrote: OK let me awnser these points...
1. global warming has been caused by nature but if we calculate how much the past centuary carbon in the O zone layer from nature and how much there is its obviouse theres some other force (man)

Even if the Ozone is taking damage (as you imply), the atmosphere will still stay intact. It's true that many life-forms my die due to the damage, but others will adapt to this new atmosphere and continue the cycle of evolution.

In short, life wil always find a way...

2. most animals do have harmony with nature....

And do you know what that harmony is? The law of predator and prey! Animals survive by competing against each other and often killing each other. Complete harony with nature, on the other hand, is only achieved by the dead; for nature seeks to kill us all in time...

3. ok i dont know how to stop killing but we could try and make a society tht makes it less likely for a bastard to grow up.

No such place. Man is a primal beast hidden behid a thin layer of civilization; when it breaks (not if, when), the beast will come out. It is unavoidable

At 6/15/06 07:04 PM, Begoner wrote:
Knowledge of military maneuvers? Please, what you all have displayed is more like knowledge of the most efficient way to slaughter innocents and guilty alike while preserving the lives of as many American "soldiers" as possible.

Cal me crazy, but that is the essence of caombat tactics: destroing the enemy as quickly, efficiently, and with as little loss of life on your side as possible. Any "innocents" (not all civilians are what they seem) killed are collateral damage: an unintended consequence, but often an unavoidable one.

:This is a perfect example, as a recon team (apparently stranded in the middle of nowhere, with no knowledge of how they got there and no way to get back) called in an airstrike immediately after arriving at their destination, which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians.

They were dropped off to proceed on FOOT! If you knew anything about urban recon, you would know that vehicles draw a lot more attention than a small group of soldiers. They FOUND the enemy (the defined purpose of a recon mission) and arranged for other forces to destroy them.

:If you think that is a suitable military maneuvre, then you are the one who is beyond retarded. Arguing morality with you is like arguing morality with Stalin.

Firstly, this is an effective military maneuvre! It destroyed the enemy and allowed us access to his secret cache of documents, which led to many of his partners. Read for details: http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,199586,00.html

Second, you are talking to a holder of Machiavellian and Neitzschean philosophies. Moral arguments are irrelavent; all that matters in the end is whether the job was completed efficiently or not.
Note: Stalin was just a psychopath who bulldozed over anyone who he though was in his way (as it turns out, most of his fears were all in his head), defying basic Machiavellian principles. So don't liken me to him...

One more thing, these "Annunaki" you keep mentioning, what in the hell are they?

You might want to show us what makes you think these things have any interest in our species.

So, why are we discussing things you saw a little while back on the Sci-Fi channel?

I admit that Sci-Fi does become reality in some cases, but you don't talk about all the Sci-Fi that didn't become real (ex. in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" a scientist discovers that there is an ocean at the earths center and sails over it). Take whatever these Sci-Fi people tell you witha a grain of salt: it may or may not have merit.

At 6/15/06 02:05 PM, Hydra9 wrote:
No thts not my definition of a utopia i think perhaps here we have clashing perceptions of a utopia. my perception is no glabal warming no killing and harmony with nature i think what your thinking of is the place with sugar plum faries singing

No global warming? The globe has warmed (and cooled) many times before man even evolved!

No killing? People will always kill each other over something, and so will the other animals.

Harmony with nature? Nature is the most brutal killer of them all! Hurricanes, floods, drought, predators, volcanic activity, earthquakes, etc... Nature is doing all in its power to destroy life! To be in perfect harmony with nature, you will have to die first.

Sorry, but this isn't going to happen...

Religion didn't adavnce anyone anywhere! It's a collection of old ideas that are accepted on the basis of faith rather than reason.

Also, you example regarding slavery is wrong: the christian bible openly supports slavery every time the issue is mentioned. Although the abolishionist movement did quote scriptures related to freedom (but not for slaves), the core of there belief system stemmed from various humanist and deistic philosophies, not religion.

Science, on the other hand, has advanced us far beyond our primitive society (just look around you for proof). Science IS the driving force in the forward direction while religion is the dead weight that holds us back. If we drop religion, we can go to places we could never have imagined in our wildest dreams.

At 6/14/06 11:07 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
It didnt even take an hour for Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, both Delta Force, to die. They took extreme risks to save other American lives in a hasty and unpreparred manner and unfortunately the laws of probability caught up with them when bullets killed both of them.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make: a soldier can be killed instantly if he makes a miscalculation, thus "waitiing for an hour (like Begoner proposed)" would have gotten all of them killed. Thanks for sharing this information.

And there was no need to risk American lives for Zarqawi and his kinds sake.

I'm behind you 100% on that.

At 6/14/06 05:33 PM, Begoner wrote:
I went to the "war college" of common sense. Let me put this in a way you'll understand -- there is a lottery. You have the choice of participating in it, or not. If you do choose to participate, there are 100 cards. If you draw any one of a certain 99 cards, then Zarqawi and his henchmen die or are apprehended, and his family is spared from murder. If, however, you draw the other card, then you die and Zarqawi and his henchmen die or are apprehended, and his family is spared from murder. However, if you choose not to participate in the lottery, then you live and Zarqawi, his family, and his henchmen all die. What do you do?

This is "common sense?" You liken war to a lottery? Last time I checked, combat isn't exactly the state "Powerball."

Yes, and I'm sure that backup could have arrived with all the weapons which you have described, and more. I am also sure that a helicopter from a nearby air field could be contributed to the apprehension of such a valuable individual, providing both a means of escape and quick deployment of backup.

No one questions whether it would have got there, but would it have gotten there on time to make a difference? That's the question that the troops weren't willing to wait around to have answered. In war time is critical: if you delay, you will miss serious opportunities.

I assume that there would be a Hummer or whatnot owned by the US military at a base that is somewhere near their location. I mean, come on, assuming that they drive at 30 mph, they would have to be over 60 miles away not to get there within the hour, which should be ample time for the troops located in the farmhouse to murder some more innocent women and children while awaiting a non-existent counterattack.

You say "an hour" like it's nothing. Spec Ops. forces strike fast and clear out in MINUTES! If they wait "an hour," the small team will likely find its position overrun.

Well, if back-up was so far away that it could not arrive in time, then there are much more pressing concerns in Iraq than the apprehension of Zarqawi. If US troops are really that helpless as to be unable to eliminate a single man without waiting for back-up to come from a long distance away, then the US is doing zip in Iraq, and they should withdraw immediately.

Firstly, the troops in question was just one patrol squad doing a recon mission. Recons tend to go pretty far from the base of operations (even a school kid can tell you that).

Second, they weren't "helpless:" They were able to take and hold the vantage point from which the operation could be monitered (which is what they are EXPECTED to do).

Third, if there are more pressing concerns than killing the leader of the most powerful enemy organization in the region, please tell me what those are. I can't think of anything more tempting than taking out the enemy "king."

Really? Well, go ahead and turn this cardboard box into a "stronghold." The point is that the farmhouse was not a stronghold in any way, shape, or form. There were no stormtroopers waiting to shoot at any US troops. There were no evil genetic experiments being conducted to create super-soldiers. It was just a fucking farmhouse!

Firstly, I said "structure." This implies a foundation, rooms, halls (even smal ones), etc...

Secondly, this "fortress you describe comes out of some badly written comic book. Real fortresses don't have these things and you know it!

It took 25 years to dig all the tunnels, starting in the 1940s. Anyway, are you saying that Iraqi terrorists are drilling tunnels in an urban environment, unbeknowenst to US forces? No, the insurgents in Iraq sometimes plant IEDs and shoot at US troops, but that's the extent of their activity.

The tunnels in Vietnam (inividually) did not take too long to dig. It took 25 years to create them in mass quantity!

And actually, a number of terrorists have built tunnels to hide weapons and personnel. We found Sadaam in one of them! Oh, forgive me, I thought you read that newspaper you boasted about...

So if a US soldier has a clear shot at an insurgent in a building, but instead orders an airstrike on the entire building, you do not find that microcosmic of genocide? They didn't need to be massacred -- there was an alternative.

I'm not going to redefine genocide for you, so deal with it!

Please, if I wanted to sound like a fool, I'd say: "too bad, he mad the bad one!" and claim that the Viet Cong tunnels were built in a matter of days.

Firstly, the typo was made by FABULOUS, not me.

Second, the individual tunnels didn't take long to build. The reason it took so long is because they built so many of them! In fact, U.S. troops in Vietnam spent most of their time hunting down and blasting these numerous tunnels and attested to how quickly the VC re-dug them.

Please stop embaressing yourself and give me a half-decent argument to refute...

At 6/27/05 07:42 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

You're an idiot. The church of Satan doesn't actually require a believe in God or the Devil, It's really about worshipping what the devil character in religion stands for. Things such as temptation etc.

wow that that is a really gay ass relgion and they deserve to be shot.

Don't knock Satanism just because they're a little unorthadox compared to other beliefs. While I do think their ideas about magic are bogus (just cheap pop psychology, really; but what magic isn't?), I find the candor of their philosophy to be very refreshing. At least they admit that they worship an image of god they concocted instead of claiming that "god revealed himself" to them (like most religions do).

At 1/26/05 10:11 PM, IceDragon91 wrote: God exists I know he does. I used to be Athiest until a few months ago.

The god of religion exists in our minds, I know he does. I used to be a Christian until a few years ago...

We could argue back and forth like this forever...

At 6/14/06 12:37 PM, Begoner wrote:
That never stopped US forces before. They frequently entered the houses of uninvolved Iraqi civilians without checking for booby traps or anything of the like. They simply entered whenever they suspected someone whom they needed to apprehend (read \"murder in cold blood\") was inside.

The deaths of allied troops due to IEDs is in the thousands. Many of them were placed on roads and doorways. If one is assalting an enemy fortess, it is logical to assume they have some lying around.

They didn\'t. There was no reason to suspect there was anybody like that there and there no recorded case of anything like that. To assume that would be stupid. Of course, you\'re just fabricating lots of \"unknowns\" which have no bearing on real life. If such events were assumed possible in any case, US forces would be doing absolutely nothing (well, actually, that\'s exactly what they\'re doing, except they\'re doing nothing while bombing innocent women and children. I don\'t think that\'s better, though).

What war college did you go to again? Unknowns in combat are "fabrications" and have "no bearing on real life?" What is this shit you are spitting out?

They didn\'t have the correct weapons? What would you want them to have -- water guns? They could have easily waited for backup to arrive (with whatever weapons you deem necessary -- I think submachine guns, with which they are armed, should suffice. Anything more is overkill, such as a 1000-pound bomb).

You ever heard of grenades? What about C4 strips? There is a lot more to storming a building than just runing in with guns...

Well, I think they know how to drive. Cars are a wondrous invention of the modern age, you know -- they can transport people faster than a horse and carriage.

So, a patrol that was dropped in ON FOOT is supposed to just get a car and drive into the sunset? What car would they use? A civilian model wouldn't have the armor to protect them if they get attacked on the drive back...

Yes, they had multiple choices. First of all, they should have called for backup the second they got there, knowing that they had insufficient forces to apprehend Zarqawi. If he left prior to the arrival of backup, then they could eliminate Zarqawi and whatever other important aides were with him and egress. It\'s not like they would be trapped there indefinitely -- as you said before, they are not retarded.

Firstly, there is no guarantee back-up would get there in time. Secondly, there was no telling ho many men he had with him: making a direct confrontation undesirable. They're not retarded, you know...

So are you saying that all US forces shouldn\'t go anywhere because there might be transmission booby traps there? It\'s a completely unreasonable assumption to make -- there are very, very few booby traps in Iraq. The chance of getting wounded by one on a random street is so small it is insignificant.

This is a reasonable assumption to make when the place is an enemy FORTRESS!

It wasn\'t a terrorist stronghold or anything like that. It was a farmhouse which was being used as a base of operations. Had it been a \"fortress\" as you claim, it would have been destroyed a long time ago. However, it was not, and as such, it was not protected through complex means. I think you\'ve been seeing too many Indiana Jones movies, chap. Try differentiating fantasy from reality.

You do know that any structure can be made into a small fortress, right? I believe the proper term is "stronghold."

What does this have to do with Vietnamese tunnels, which took decades and an extreme amount of work to build prior to the US getting involved in that arena? Absolutely nothing is what.

Actually, most of those tunnels were dug in days. The terrorists in Iraq do use similair methods, but only in an urban environment.

I used it as a looser term referring to people who reside in Iraq, not those that were necessarily born there. Don\'t argue semantics.

Actually, that is a good point. If he was Jordanian, why is he fighting in Iraq? Answer, he doesn't see Iraq as a separate nation, but rather sees all Arab nations as one. This is the philosophy of Pan-Arabism.

No, I am referring to your reckless disregard for all but American life and your justification of criminal acts that only serve to slaughter thousands of innocent Iraqis. What number do you put on genocide? How many innocent people must die before you call it such?

Even if what you say is true (I doubt it), it's still not considered genocide! As I said before, genocide targets specific people groups, not just collateral damage like you imply.

Now's a good time to start doing your homework because you sound like a fool...

At 6/14/06 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote:
Second only to the Bush Administration. And for the record, I don't hate america, just the present administration and the public that voted him in.

Bush was elected by the majority of the voting populace. So you hate the majority of the nation if what you say is true.

Be careful, we have ways of dealing with those who hate us...

I knew that the federal govt. couldn't handle the homless very well on its own. I'm happy to see that some one has taken the refuse of our streets and turned them into a money-saving device: I give this guy the thumbs up for turning society's shit into gold!