Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"Beacause the US has done everything in its power to indirectly prevent and even eliminate socialist movements in Latin America, leading to concentration camps in which those who didn't believe in Washington's point of view were tortured to death, and then thrown into rivers . Thousands were killed."

All that was was trading the Soviet Union's dictators for dictators that were more friendly to the U.S. There's only so much that the U.S. could do back then and the government probably viewed it as necessary to try to win the Cold War. It's not like their dictators would be much better than anything the CIA put in place.

Bush has made bad decisions, but he's not Hitler. I think people forget that people die in war and should stop acting so shocked that people, you know... died.

At 3/13/07 02:48 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: who is the modern day "hitler" (if u consider him evil) or guy who kills everyone.

In my opinion, george bush is cos hes dumb shorly followed by tony blair

I think people will start taking you more seriously when you start taking the time to spell in at least the first post of the topics you create and stop making yourself look incredibly stupid.

But honestly, do you have any idea how worse it is in other parts of the world? Come on man, stop reciting other people's sarcasm when you don't even know what it means. Bush is not Hitler. Bush is not evil, to the best of my knowledge. He is incredibly mistaken on many things, but he has never advocated genocide. Same goes for Tony Blair. So they invaded the wrong country. At least they didn't start committing ethnic cleansing.

If you really want to know who the real bad dictators are, try looking at some countries in Africa.

Let's take Omar al-Bashir, for example, leader of Sudan. He imposed Sharia law (that is, Islamic law) over northern Sudan, and then proceded to advocate racism against non-Arabs in his country. This lead to the genocide in Darfur. (or at least attempted genocide; genocide is the Janjaweed's intention) At least 400,000 people have died and over 2 million have lost their homes in the Darfur conflict. And it's all state-sponsored.

These are pretty small numbers compared to to other dictators, but you can only kill so many people in place where so many are already dead.

If you're looking for personality cults, try North Korea, and recently Turkmenistan, though their leader, Saparmurat Niyazov is dead now.

Bush is not Hitler; whatever his intentions were for the Iraq War only so much bad can be said about dismantling a brutal dictatorship, as poorly handled as the war has been. And let's remember many nations participated in the invasion of Afghanistan, which was a just cause.

Bush has made poor decisions but he's not an evil dictator.

Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it should be banned. It is our own choice to pollute our bodies.

This is great news! :) Handguns are a great tool for defense, and there are many cases where they have stopped real murders/robberies. In the great words of Bob Saget, OH YEAH!

At 3/10/07 04:15 PM, intrinsik2 wrote:

You disregard the intimacy involved in sex. And that intimacy is not only a consideration for those partaking in the action, but those observing. A person can be offended by sex for other than moral reasons. Aswell, a person can simply find sex disgusting. It'd be rude to have sex infront of these people, regardless of morality.

You also disregard the reality and importance of values. And I use the word importance not under the context of righteousness, but under the context of psychological and social mechanics.

One more thing about censorship- the government has no business censoring sex/nudity on television. You can turn off the TV; it's not the same as giant billboards and people banging in front of your house. Just because they're "public airwaves" doesn't mean anyone is being forcibly exposed to it.

You're trading conveniences. How does the person know to turn the television off? When they see the content offending them? You can always look away from a billboard or not answer the door too. It's the fact that you don't know not to look at the billboard until you actually do.

You aswell could try appreciating others' interests.

I'm talking about government censorship, not the right thing to do. I would be pissed at NBC if they suddenly started randomly putting up the goatse image. But should government censor it? No. Civil rights override the possibility of offending people. Free speech is a right, deciding what is right for other people to broadcast is not.

People may find sex immoral for other reasons, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. And I am not disregarding intimacy. It is rude to fuck in front of people who it offends, but should everything rude be illegal? We could make it illegal to pick our noses too, but that would be stupid. I do agree that people should get a room sometimes though. :)

The bottom line is, just because some people find sex disgusting doesn't mean that we should have to give up our rights to broadcast on stations we own. Maybe some guy finds pictures of spiders disgusting, but television stations shouldn't be expected to accommodate everyone's personal tastes. It's not a personal right for what you want to be on TV to be on TV. If you're watching HBO at 1:00 then you shouldn't be angry when you see boobs.

Hopefully someday we won't live in a society where people are so prude.

OH NO WE HAVE TO STOP THIS CHILD! HE MIGHT HAVE PREMATURELY CAUSED A FIRE DRILL THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE OTHER STUDENTS TO BECOME SLIGHTLY BETTER IN THE FACE OF A FIRE EVACUATION!!!

Honestly, why is this a felony? He should have gone drunk driving instead.

I think that whether there should be a troop surge or not depends on whether you think American troops should stay there longer or not. If you do, then it only makes sense to fortify your positions. Either way, only half-assedly defending Iraq when there are insurgents makes no sense- you either do it or you don't.

Oops, accidentally pressed return too soon. Anyways, for all the people saying "WEL KILLING AND DEFECATING AR NATRAL TOO LOL", these things are yucky. It's pretty rude to take a shit in front of someone's face is rude because it smells bad and is harmful. Showing a woman's bewbs does nothing to harm anyone; society just views it as bad. Sex is immoralized because of STDs. However, we have something called birth control now, and people need to stop being uptight now. People shouldn't have to go to jail for showing sex on TV because some puritan thinks its immoral. Noone's making you watch TV, and if you're too prude to see some boobs, change the channel, or turn off the TV. Public sex is frowned upon for the same reason people making out in public is frowned upon- people get jealous. If people were more open about sex and practiced it with proper safe methods I think we'd be a lot better off. Don't use the HIV/AIDS excuse because that can be prevented if you take the time to protect yourself.

And remind me again, how is sex instead of handshakes supposed to be a deterrent? Seems like a very friendly way of saying hello...

One more thing about censorship- the government has no business censoring sex/nudity on television. You can turn off the TV; it's not the same as giant billboards and people banging in front of your house. Just because they're "public airwaves" doesn't mean anyone is being forcibly exposed to it.

Sex is censored because mainstream religions have portrayed it to be immoral. Also, politicians use the thinkofthechildren platform because it gets them votes. Making sex look bad gets votes, and that's why we have all of this bullshit regulation.

I think the Rosie O'Donnel-Donald Trump war is pretty stupipd.

At 2/24/07 03:33 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/24/07 03:31 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

not yet. DUN DUN Dun

Duuuuuuuuuuuuun o.O ?

For some reason you just made me think of that "dooooooop!" from Home Improvement.

(bong hit)You see man, this is why gun control is bad. (exhales) The chimps will come into our homes and murder us with their spears of death.

I don't think we really need to worry about chimps coming to kill us anytime soon... I mean, can't orangutans already bitchslap us to death?

Daft Punk- Short Circuit

You see, it's a circuit that's not as long as others. GET IT?

Doesn't seem like the type. I doubt he'll get very far but it'll get a nice marketing ploy for him.

"The insurgents are by no definition terrorists." Well, they did kidnap Nick Berg and held him for ransom. Pretty sure that's terrorism: as is setting off bombs in civilian areas to make a point.

"Despite the authoritarian regime which was in charge of Iraq, it was relatively tame in scope"

The Halabja poison gas attack (when Hussein gassed Kurds) was the largest-scale chemical weapon attack against a civilian operation in modern times. That's not tame. And while you complain about the U.S. invading Iraq, remember that Iraq invaded Iran, which had much less reason than the current Iraq war. He also invaded Kuwait. I wonder if you support the Desert Storm operation? I agree with you that there were much easier dictators to remove, and I agree with you that this was a tactical mistake, but that doesn't justify the killing of U.S. soldiers.

"I'm sure that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc., would despise you for that comment."

And I'm sure there are plenty of people that would hate your guts for advocating attacks against Coalition troops. Plenty of the sectarian terrorists also hate American troops, and they're the same people who are murdering civilians- such as Al Qaeda. So I do not see the problem with Coalition forces shooting back at them.

Keep in mind that if any of these sectarian or Islamic militants came into power they would put Sharia law into place, and you can be sure a long line of human rights abuses will follow.

"Furthermore, sectarian slaughter is not an action perpetrated by the insurgents, but rather certain militias."

Al Qaeda is part of the insurgency, and it also fights against the Shiite militias, so this is not always true. As previously stated many of the perpetrators of sectarian slaughter also have a distaste for U.S. forces as well.

Begoner your love affair with revolutionaries is nice and romantic at all but you need to understand that not all revolts are just.

And you still haven't responded to my post about the insurgents, so I'll add a bit on. Here's another wonderful little war crime commited by your "valiant" revolutionaries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/world/middl eeast/22iraq.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

No soldiers involved, they just murdered innocent civilians. This is not the result of misguided missles or bombs, or a few soldiers going crazy and massacring a few people, this is the official policy of the terrorist insurgency. They used chlorine on civilians. Don't you consider that inhumane?

And really, I don't see why you support the bombing of nuclear power plants of Iran. You support the killing of American soldiers because of the "illegal" war. Iran has committed illegal acts as well- a U.N. Security Council resolution was passed that demanded they stop the enriching. And yet they only expanded.

So let's be fair when we talk about different countries breaking international law. :D

GTA: I wonder if noone locks their doors in big cities in real life.

At 2/22/07 11:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: Ni**a stole mah topic!

Hey! He stole that guy's pizza! :)

you're the man now dog!

At 2/22/07 10:31 PM, Begoner wrote:

I'll try to respond to your first post later, since I don't have enough time right now. However, I will say that neo-conservatism was a movement "founded" by disillusioned socialists and anti-Soviet liberals. They were socially quite liberal, as you yourself are, but were very hawkish on military matters. So what you said above does not contradict the neo-conservative label (although it does go against the modern implications of the term).

Okay. I don't like to think of myself as a war hawk; I'm just very anti-authoritarian. The terrible regimes we see in so much of the Third World today bother me very much, and it pisses me off when people pretend like these regimes are perfect and anyone who is against them hates freedom somehow. War is a terrible thing but I wish something would be done to curb the effects authoritarianism is having on human rights in so many countries today. Perhaps if the U.N. was more effective in enforcing human rights we wouldn't have the human right problems we have today. It's pretty bad that people ignore the fact that if many of these fundamentalist Islamic groups took power and put Sharia law in place that Iraq and the disputed territories in Israel we would find that they would most likely be just as oppressive as Saddam's regime. And Begoner, if the U.S. goes to war with Iran in the next few years (Be it a result of Bush making one more stab before his term is up or Iran providing terrorists with nuclear weapons) and the draft is reinstated, I hope you won't still advocate the murder of U.S. soldiers, especially if you're drafted yourself! (or me)

And you know I don't subscribe to a neo-con agenda. I'm agnostic, pro-choice, anti-Bush administration, pro-legalization of recreational drug use... I'm pretty libertarian but I do have a bit more of a liberal tinge at times. (i'm more pro-welfare and social programs than most libertarians, I suppose).

"No, I did not forget Africa." Sorry, I thought you were referring to all countries as a whole.

"I did not mention the word "terrorist" in any of my posts in this topic. Where did that come from? Also, it is the Americans, who illegally invaded and devastated the country, who are the terrorists (as well as the sectarian butchers, of course). The brave and legitimate resistance fighters are simply defending their country (valiantly, too, I might add). No, the Americans are the guiltiest party here."

No, but the people (Al Qaeda and the other insurgents) are terrorists. Are you a Ba'athist now or something? Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and his party was far more oppressive than any that has ever been in power in America. Tactically the Iraq War was a mistake, but I will not say that in itself it is wrong to tear down an oppressive regime like his. I think you forget the initial happiness that spread across the country when they suddenly were liberated from the oppression of his regime. The reason this euphoria is gone now is because of the insurgents and sectarian terrorists that ravage the country and make life there a war zone. If you think killing American troops is justified, you are very mistaken. Would you rather there be absolutely no order at all and we can just let the Shiite and Sunni militants ravage each other as they please? And SOMEONE's been reading a little bit too much CounterPunch... valiant? You think the insurgents are valiant? They suicide bomb places with absolutely no regard to who is there, as long as they can make their stupid little point and 72 virgins.

"Of course not. Are you shitting me? The Americans illegally invaded the country -- those who are defending Iraq from such an unlawful incursion are completely in the right legally. They are completely innocent of any wrongdoing."

They're still enemy combatants. And why is it suddenly okay for everyone else to break international law but it's the end of the world when America or Israel does it? I think you're forgetting the things these terrorists do... So you're saying it's totally cool with international law when the terrorists behead innocent reporters? When they kill civilians purposefully? Is it okay when they violate the Geneva Convention?

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

As far as I know, Nick Berg (the reporter beheaded) did not himself invade Iraq and cause devastation.

The insurgents are not following the law either.

Sorry for triple post, just wanted to clear the last one up- I meant to say that prison sometimes makes people change their criminal ways... prison changes everyone regardless of whether it's for better or for worse.

And yes, prison does occasionally change people.. but I highly doubt the level of inhumanity is necessary.

At 2/22/07 09:09 PM, zendahl wrote: And yet murder, rape, and drug deals happen every day.

And yet, prison only makes murderers/rapists more angry at society... remember, prison is the world's top place for higher criminal learning.

As for drugs, their illegality ruins more lives than the drugs themselves. The association with real criminals wouldn't have to be there if recreational drug use was legal.

At 2/22/07 08:55 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 2/22/07 05:42 PM, Begoner wrote: No, I don't want to see half a month's worth of extreme propaganda.

This is funny coming from the guy that links to CounterPunch as a legitimate form of journalism.

I was going to use the chance to ridicule CounterPunch as well but you have to admit Fox News is also stupid. I haven't read that much CounterPunch (which is why I decided not to make the comparison to Fox) but I've read enough to see they're insane as well. I was amazed at how anti-semitic (no, not just anti-zionist, anti-semitic) they are, after reading an article they wrote supporting Hezbollah, following the same old rhetoric of "it's okay when hezbollah purposefully murders innocent children (and makes it part of their official policy) but not okay when Israel accidentally hits them because they won't stop hiding behind them."

Not that soldiers don't occasionally go wacko and start a massacre, but honestly... Hezbollah are terrorists, whether you agree with their cause or not. It's like advocating suicide bombing random places in America because you want to legalize marijuana.

40 years is an extremely long time. Can you even comprehend that? Imagine the difference between 1960 and 2000... that's way too long to be away from society.

Why hello there Begoner!

"The US and the UK, of the world's 21 most developed countries, were the worst place to be a child due to the ultra-capitalist systems which prevail in both countries. The crime rate is sky-high in the US. Social inequality has reached a level never before seen in the history of the world. Natural resources are being squandered at an astounding rate."

You forgot 95% of Africa. And China. And the entire third world. Are you trying to say that it's better to grow up in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Zimbabwe, China then the U.S.? That seems pretty silly. There is poverty in the U.S., but I think there is a much lower percentage of people living in the Stone Age here or in Europe.

"A soldier is required to perform ethically dubious acts (ie, kill innocent people who are simply defending their country from an illegal invading force)"

Oh those terrorists, they're so innocent, I mean they only blow up buses full of fellow civilians and plant explosives on the roads to kill the soldiers. Why, shame on these soldiers for defending themselves against people who shoot at them; I mean, they only want to initiate a state under Sharia law so women can legally be burned alive for adultery. [/saracsm]

I believe the proper phrase is... are you shitting me? Come on man, we all recognize there is unavoidable collateral damage and occasionally soldiers go nutters and slaughter innocent people, but can't we at least admit that fighting against the combatants that are fighting against you is not killing innocent people?

And while I think a few more social programs would be helpful, I hope you're not insinuating that the U.S. should be a communist nation? I think we've seen what happens when people try to create communist utopias... *cough*Soviet Union,PRC,North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba*cough*

I do agree with you that Fox News is full of crap.

Do you think in the morning extemely tired:
"I have to get into work today. I need to give that FUCK long presentation and I fucking know no one else wants to do it!! What can I do? I cant tell my boss that I don’t want to do it. Where are my bullets?

That person has a serious problem, going to kill people because he doesn't want to do a representation. But let's say that in your society where guns are banned, he gets himself a gun (illegally) and goes into work that morning and kills everyone in the board room (all without guns, because they're law abiding citizens of course!) The security guards would like to do something, but they aren't allowed to have firearms. :( So he's free to kill anyone until the cops get there. Maybe if someone had been allowed to keep a derringer he could have been stopped earlier, but no, guns are baed!!!

At 2/19/07 10:47 PM, pendelum5 wrote: [Ins] : ###

Sound it out...

What? It shows up fine on my compy. Woot for OS X. :D

Why didn't you just write them out?

I think you meant:

:D
=D
=p
=3
=^D
Q(^_^Q)

Koreans- Not just Starcraft players

Australians- Not just a knife. Now THIS is a knife.