Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/19/04 01:15 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/19/04 12:51 AM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, those are only casualties on one side, many many more Iraqi fighters and civilians died.

I never mentioned Iraqi fighters or civilians, did I? No one did. Ok, wait, yes miket311 was very vague when he said "more people die from..". I thought it was made fairly evident that he was talking only of American casualties. Perhaps you didn't catch that.

I'm pretty sure I did, how 'bout you go back and read what I wrote?

Second, I'd like to see your sources that state more of the deaths were from friendly fire.

I never said more deaths were from friendly fire in the latest war, I said "I wonder how many were from friendly fire."

Who said anything about the latest war?
A lot of the conflicts we've been involved in as of late, the main cause of death is friendly fire.

And third, this all neglects the fact that because of the lack of UN support, the US was only able to invade from one end, which made the need for bombing before hand much greater.

I thought Turkey not agreeing to being a base of operations was the major cause. Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly before a ground invasion. This is by now the standard mode of operation.

And with UN support Turkey would have agreed. And I never said they wouldn't bom, I just said that the fact that they have less leverage increases the amount of bombing they will need to do, so they will undoubtedly do more. Do you really think we just randomly drop bombs because we like the pretty colors they make?

At 2/19/04 12:53 AM, ichbincow wrote: go back to schoool...it was a private french citizen that aided us---the french government didnt join in until it was only convinced by the victories lafayette was producing in conjunction with the american military and very strident talks.

You go back to school, and get some common sense. Britain didn't send a force large enough to crush the American revolution, because they had to safeguard Britain, from France, Spain, etc. There were other factors at play than just the fighting in America.

At 2/19/04 01:24 AM, Jimsween wrote: I'm pretty sure I did, how 'bout you go back and read what I wrote?

Yes, that's very nice. I'll clarify, the person that I had replied to, was talking about American troops. I continued along those lines.

Who said anything about the latest war?
A lot of the conflicts we've been involved in as of late, the main cause of death is friendly fire.

"Of all Allied deaths during the Gulf campaign approximately 51% (UN estimate) were due to friendly fire."
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ffg.htm

And with UN support Turkey would have agreed. And I never said they wouldn't bom, I just said that the fact that they have less leverage increases the amount of bombing they will need to do, so they will undoubtedly do more.

Your opinion. And it's apreciated, it really is.

Do you really think we just randomly drop bombs because we like the pretty colors they make?

Did I ever say anything of the sort?

At 2/18/04 09:45 PM, fhqwgads wrote: It's kind of old, but can you believe those french? turning thier backs on us like that. we're in war, we can use thier help, and just like that those stankey asssed pansies shoe us away. (French Accent) "No no. you never helped uz. we helped ourzelvez in ze world war two." am i the only one pissed here?

You dont need their fucking help. You could have flattened Iraq. Let's face it, they didn't have anything ebtter than a couple of tanks and an AK-47 anyway.

Oh, and the big question is: Can america be trusted. Everyone trusts the French.

At 2/18/04 10:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Actually, if you manage to decifer what he is actually saying, he seems to make some sense. What I got out of it was; We were already in the war, the French knew we were going to go though with it, so thier opposition only managed to cost more American and Iraqi lives.

Which proves taht YOU PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN HOW TO FORM SENTENCES CORRECTLY!

dude, it was a french accent. they say thier S's like Z's. and, accually, you all have a point. so, uh, my bad.

At 2/19/04 01:36 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/19/04 01:24 AM, Jimsween wrote: I'm pretty sure I did, how 'bout you go back and read what I wrote?

Yes, that's very nice. I'll clarify, the person that I had replied to, was talking about American troops. I continued along those lines.

So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

Who said anything about the latest war?
A lot of the conflicts we've been involved in as of late, the main cause of death is friendly fire.

"Of all Allied deaths during the Gulf campaign approximately 51% (UN estimate) were due to friendly fire."
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ffg.htm

Fair enough, but your using an coalition war as an example, who knows how many more casualties there would have been if it was just US. If you really wanted to prove your point you would use a unilateral war as a source.

And with UN support Turkey would have agreed. And I never said they wouldn't bom, I just said that the fact that they have less leverage increases the amount of bombing they will need to do, so they will undoubtedly do more.

Your opinion. And it's apreciated, it really is.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

Do you really think we just randomly drop bombs because we like the pretty colors they make?

Did I ever say anything of the sort?

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly before a ground invasion. This is by now the standard mode of operation.

www.georgewbush.com

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly

Duh. What's your point? Sheesh.

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly

Duh. What's your point? Sheesh.

My point? That the US uses bombing to weaken the defenses of thier opponent, and if they had been able to stage a war on two fronts, they would have had to weaken thier defenses less, therefore bombing less. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or what.

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

That doesn't prove anything.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly

Duh. What's your point? Sheesh.

My point? That the US uses bombing to weaken the defenses of thier opponent, and if they had been able to stage a war on two fronts, they would have had to weaken thier defenses less, therefore bombing less. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or what.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

At 3/5/04 12:14 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

That is not what you are doing though, you are not disagreeing. You don't jump into a debate and go, I do not disagree or agree with your argument, you just sit there and be quiet.

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

That doesn't prove anything.

Who ever said it did? I'm simply saying that your example cannot be used to prove that most casualties in modern wars because your example is a coalition war, and the Iraqi war wasn't.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Well, putting a verb in might improve it. And changing the nominative statement to the second person singular pro-noun couldn't hurt.

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly

Duh. What's your point? Sheesh.

My point? That the US uses bombing to weaken the defenses of thier opponent, and if they had been able to stage a war on two fronts, they would have had to weaken thier defenses less, therefore bombing less. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or what.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

You have nothing else to do, don't you?

At 3/5/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:14 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

That is not what you are doing though, you are not disagreeing. You don't jump into a debate and go, I do not disagree or agree with your argument, you just sit there and be quiet.

So no one can utter any dissent? If I disagree, then I'll say so.

I don't agree.

There. What are you going to do about it?

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

That doesn't prove anything.

Who ever said it did? I'm simply saying that your example cannot be used to prove that most casualties in modern wars because your example is a coalition war, and the Iraqi war wasn't.

So what? It's still utterly pointless to bring that up. Your self-defeating.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Well, putting a verb in might improve it. And changing the nominative statement to the second person singular pro-noun couldn't hurt.

You're stupid.

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly

Duh. What's your point? Sheesh.

My point? That the US uses bombing to weaken the defenses of thier opponent, and if they had been able to stage a war on two fronts, they would have had to weaken thier defenses less, therefore bombing less. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or what.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

You have nothing else to do, don't you?

What is your problem? You want to talk about goldfish, fine, let's talk about goldfish.

Yes, they are pretty, and very cheap. Hardy also.

At 3/5/04 12:26 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:14 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

That is not what you are doing though, you are not disagreeing. You don't jump into a debate and go, I do not disagree or agree with your argument, you just sit there and be quiet.

So no one can utter any dissent? If I disagree, then I'll say so.

I don't agree.

There. What are you going to do about it?

There is a difference between disagreeing and not agreeing, disagreeing means the opposite of agreeing, not agreeing could mean you are nuetral on the subject.

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

That doesn't prove anything.

Who ever said it did? I'm simply saying that your example cannot be used to prove that most casualties in modern wars because your example is a coalition war, and the Iraqi war wasn't.

So what? It's still utterly pointless to bring that up. Your self-defeating.

You were the one that brought it up. Doesn't that make you self-self-defeating?

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Well, putting a verb in might improve it. And changing the nominative statement to the second person singular pro-noun couldn't hurt.

You're stupid.

I never said anything about an apostrophe. Just for that, you may no longer refer to me in the second person, I demand you either reply in the first person singular or third person plural.

Regardless, I don't see why the US wouldn't bomb incessantly

Duh. What's your point? Sheesh.

My point? That the US uses bombing to weaken the defenses of thier opponent, and if they had been able to stage a war on two fronts, they would have had to weaken thier defenses less, therefore bombing less. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or what.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

You have nothing else to do, don't you?

What is your problem? You want to talk about goldfish, fine, let's talk about goldfish.

Yes, they are pretty, and very cheap. Hardy also.

Slut.

At 3/5/04 12:46 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:26 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:14 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

That is not what you are doing though, you are not disagreeing. You don't jump into a debate and go, I do not disagree or agree with your argument, you just sit there and be quiet.

So no one can utter any dissent? If I disagree, then I'll say so.

I don't agree.

There. What are you going to do about it?

There is a difference between disagreeing and not agreeing, disagreeing means the opposite of agreeing, not agreeing could mean you are nuetral on the subject.

I totally disagree. I don't know how anyone could be nuetral on this subject. It's pretty much polarized. And your not helping the situation any.

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

That doesn't prove anything.

Who ever said it did? I'm simply saying that your example cannot be used to prove that most casualties in modern wars because your example is a coalition war, and the Iraqi war wasn't.

So what? It's still utterly pointless to bring that up. Your self-defeating.

You were the one that brought it up. Doesn't that make you self-self-defeating?

You brought up the fact it was a coalition war. That's what's self-defeating. When you say stuff like that, it defeats your purpose.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Well, putting a verb in might improve it. And changing the nominative statement to the second person singular pro-noun couldn't hurt.

You're stupid.

I never said anything about an apostrophe. Just for that, you may no longer refer to me in the second person, I demand you either reply in the first person singular or third person plural.

By turning it into "You're stupid.", it's a full, correct sentence. You are just arguing for the sake of it. You know I'm right and your wrong. Just admit it.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

You have nothing else to do, don't you?

What is your problem? You want to talk about goldfish, fine, let's talk about goldfish.

Yes, they are pretty, and very cheap. Hardy also.

Slut.

No, we're still talking about goldfish. And I don't believe goldfish have sluts.

At 3/5/04 12:55 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:46 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:26 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:14 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

No, I don't disagree

Then stop posting.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

That is not what you are doing though, you are not disagreeing. You don't jump into a debate and go, I do not disagree or agree with your argument, you just sit there and be quiet.

So no one can utter any dissent? If I disagree, then I'll say so.

I don't agree.

There. What are you going to do about it?

There is a difference between disagreeing and not agreeing, disagreeing means the opposite of agreeing, not agreeing could mean you are nuetral on the subject.

I totally disagree. I don't know how anyone could be nuetral on this subject. It's pretty much polarized. And your not helping the situation any.

So you believe there would be more casualties if the entire UN was involved? Ok, so now give me some evidence of that.

but your using an coalition war as an example,

so what?

The Iraqi war wasn't a coalition war.

That doesn't prove anything.

Who ever said it did? I'm simply saying that your example cannot be used to prove that most casualties in modern wars because your example is a coalition war, and the Iraqi war wasn't.

So what? It's still utterly pointless to bring that up. Your self-defeating.

You were the one that brought it up. Doesn't that make you self-self-defeating?

You brought up the fact it was a coalition war. That's what's self-defeating. When you say stuff like that, it defeats your purpose.

No, it defeats your purpose. Because it was a coalition war it cannot be used as an example for your argument.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Well, putting a verb in might improve it. And changing the nominative statement to the second person singular pro-noun couldn't hurt.

You're stupid.

I never said anything about an apostrophe. Just for that, you may no longer refer to me in the second person, I demand you either reply in the first person singular or third person plural.

By turning it into "You're stupid.", it's a full, correct sentence. You are just arguing for the sake of it. You know I'm right and your wrong. Just admit it.

How can you be sure it is correct? For all you know there are two people at this computer, or maybe nobody is at this computer, or maybe the person you were referring to is now out of the room and you are talking to a different person, or two different people, or that person who left could have been two people, or you could be bi-polar and talking to yourself, or even two other personalities. You just don't know.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

You have nothing else to do, don't you?

What is your problem? You want to talk about goldfish, fine, let's talk about goldfish.

Yes, they are pretty, and very cheap. Hardy also.

Slut.

No, we're still talking about goldfish. And I don't believe goldfish have sluts.

No no, you are a slut.

At 3/5/04 02:06 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:55 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:46 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:26 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:14 AM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 3/5/04 12:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/4/04 11:05 PM, re-dsk-unk wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: So then will you agree that if the US had UN support there would have been less Iraqi casulaties.

Why? No one can question your opinion?

That is not what you are doing though, you are not disagreeing. You don't jump into a debate and go, I do not disagree or agree with your argument, you just sit there and be quiet.

So no one can utter any dissent? If I disagree, then I'll say so.

I don't agree.

I totally disagree. I don't know how anyone could be nuetral on this subject. It's pretty much polarized. And your not helping the situation any.

So you believe there would be more casualties if the entire UN was involved? Ok, so now give me some evidence of that.

No. You give me some evidence that that's not the case. Come on now.

but your using an coalition war as an example,

So what? It's still utterly pointless to bring that up. Your self-defeating.

You were the one that brought it up. Doesn't that make you self-self-defeating?

You brought up the fact it was a coalition war. That's what's self-defeating. When you say stuff like that, it defeats your purpose.

No, it defeats your purpose. Because it was a coalition war it cannot be used as an example for your argument.

Yes it can. Why can't it? What is your point? Get to the point already, sheesh.

You're supposed to offer a counter-argument now. You know, to try and make my opinion less justified.

your stupid.

Yeah, you keep working on that counter-argument.

Why? It's already perfected. Sums everything up, doesn't it?

Well, putting a verb in might improve it. And changing the nominative statement to the second person singular pro-noun couldn't hurt.

You're stupid.

I never said anything about an apostrophe. Just for that, you may no longer refer to me in the second person, I demand you either reply in the first person singular or third person plural.

By turning it into "You're stupid.", it's a full, correct sentence. You are just arguing for the sake of it. You know I'm right and your wrong. Just admit it.

How can you be sure it is correct? For all you know there are two people at this computer, or maybe nobody is at this computer, or maybe the person you were referring to is now out of the room and you are talking to a different person, or two different people, or that person who left could have been two people, or you could be bi-polar and talking to yourself, or even two other personalities. You just don't know.

That has no bearing on this conversation. You always try to change the subject when your cornered and losing an argument. Why don't you just admit that your wrong? It would make things so much easier. Just give up.

What do goldfish have to do with this? Stop trying to change the subject. Sheesh.

What is your problem? You want to talk about goldfish, fine, let's talk about goldfish.

Slut.

No, we're still talking about goldfish. And I don't believe goldfish have sluts.

No no, you are a slut.

What does that have to do with anything? What about the goldfish? Forgot about them? Because I didn't.

It's obvious your just arguing for the sake of it. You know I'm right, and your obviously wrong. Just give up. Show me some proof.

Jimsween <3

Jimsween: You are wrong and stupid
(rational person): How am I wrong?
Jimsween: Because you are stupid.
(rational person): How am I being stupid?
Jimsween: Because you are wrong, dumbass. Now suck it!
(rational person): What the hell is wrong with you?
Jimsween: (continues flaming to any rational rebuttal and never backing up arguments with facts indefinitely)

wow, so Jimsween and 70TA are like... the same person... though, he calls you gay instead of stupid

At 3/5/04 04:41 PM, -gOOie- wrote: wow, so Jimsween and 70TA are like... the same person... though, he calls you gay instead of stupid

Yeah, and jim is slightly less homophobic, but the GENERAL aspect is there.

Funny how when people no longer have a reasonable argument, they begin to insult thier opponent.

Go on, pretend to be the better man, at least I stick to politics.

At 3/5/04 04:54 PM, Jimsween wrote: Funny how when people no longer have a reasonable argument, they begin to insult thier opponent.

Go on, pretend to be the better man, at least I stick to politics.

Lighten up. So I'm pretending to be a reoublican for shits and giggles. So what? =P

At 3/5/04 04:54 PM, Jimsween wrote: Go on, pretend to be the better man, at least I stick to politics.

At varying times, Jimsween ALSO wrote:

No no, you are a slut.
Why haven't you stopped talking yet?
Take my advice, you look like less of an ass.
Opinion. Do you ever not talk out of your ass?
Aren't you done yet?
You are still talking?
Forgive me if I'm sounding too critical, sometimes I forget you live on that tiny island in the Atlantic.
No

Thank God you stick to Politics Jim. We really would be lost without you. 70TA doesn't come here often enough for us to be flamed by.

At 3/5/04 04:57 PM, -gOOie- wrote:

At 3/5/04 04:54 PM, Jimsween wrote: Funny how when people no longer have a reasonable argument, they begin to insult thier opponent.

Go on, pretend to be the better man, at least I stick to politics.

Lighten up. So I'm pretending to be a reoublican for shits and giggles. So what? =P

What the hell are you talking about?

At 3/5/04 04:54 PM, Jimsween wrote: Funny how when people no longer have a reasonable argument, they begin to insult thier opponent.

Go on, pretend to be the better man, at least I stick to politics.

How ironic that YOU would be the one to say that.....

Jizz iz teh Funnay!

At 3/5/04 05:07 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Thank God you stick to Politics Jim. We really would be lost without you. 70TA doesn't come here often enough for us to be flamed by.

And how many of those were not direct responses to posts that had absolutely nothing to do with politics to begin with.

At 3/5/04 05:10 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: How ironic that YOU would be the one to say that.....

Jizz iz teh Funnay!

And how Ironic that you would be the ten billionth person to use that as a comeback.

At 3/5/04 05:12 PM, Jimsween wrote: And how many of those were not direct responses to posts that had absolutely nothing to do with politics to begin with.

Two. Any other questions?

At 3/5/04 05:18 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/5/04 05:12 PM, Jimsween wrote: And how many of those were not direct responses to posts that had absolutely nothing to do with politics to begin with.

Two. Any other questions?

And of those two, how many were in posts that contained political arguments?

At 3/5/04 04:54 PM, Jimsween wrote: Funny how when people no longer have a reasonable argument, they begin to insult thier opponent.

slut.