Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/10/04 10:18 PM, Pueidist wrote:

At 2/18/04 09:45 PM, VG_Prodigy 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?

shut up fag

Though the guy had it coming to him, would ya lay off the faggot calling a bit? Its like you have a one word vocabulary.

At 3/11/04 07:45 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Though the guy had it coming to him, would ya lay off the faggot calling a bit? Its like you have a one word vocabulary.

Amen to that. So dumbasses in this forum think that calling someone a fag is a real insult. After awhile, it doesnt have the impact it use to have!

At 3/10/04 10:18 PM, Pueidist wrote: shut up fag

witty

Mine was whitty, too... *pouts*

I am going to remind every single American here that in 1940 while the German Heer was running rampant through France, the American Army and people were sitting at home enjoying wine women and song refusing to interfre in a war where two of their "supposed" allies were getting invaded and bombed back to the stone age.

Everytime a Soverign nation says no, America acts like a two year old and throws a temper tantrum.

no one seems to remember how the communists in russia and the british took the brunt of the fighting and damage. (especially the commies) so americans should piss off when a soverign nation wont help them get their way.

oh and it is really obvious why that all worked out the way it did (at least i think so)
euro would be strengthened by influx of trade with iraq in oil and business contracts after sanctions ended soon. Dollar and pound would suffer accordingly...we made up reasons to go in, french, germans and russians tried to get us to back down because they thought we were bluffing about being dumb enough to invade iraq....so there we have it im want to move to an island, international politics are slightly concerning.

You guys can say all you want, but one fact remains. . .

FRANCE SUCKS!!!

At 3/15/04 11:53 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: You guys can say all you want, but one fact remains. . .

HA, . . . . . HA HA HA, fact huh? This is no place for petty online name-calling. Do you not get enough attention at home? stfu!

FRANCE SUCKS!!!

In what way? because they would help in a useless war for tyrannical supremicy? its not, but im sure thats the way they see it, because 1. there is no good reason for this particular war, and 2. because america has never helped out in anything unless it aides them a substancial way.

You cant blame Joe, hes an unfortunate victim of the to far right wing government propaganda who is turning the American people against the world and in turn the world against America due to Georgys presidency.

not helped you eh? well guess what in the american revolution from england france helped you with ecuippment, also the french
are not youre whiping slave like the britts.

The war in Iraq was for the oil and propaganda, if they whanted to
save an country from dictator ships they shuld, liberate congo, or atleast try to stop the hatian revolution?

well this is what I think about amercn forgin politcs: amerca is an
young nation, it has much to learn, until they can take the reponseblity if ever of being global police.
Amerca is a bit to immature to try to controll the world

(pardon my spelling, in a bit dyelsxitc)

PS: do you have an problem with gays, go shoot youre shelf this is the 22nd century

America is a young nation compared to others like France, Britain, Germany, China, Italy, ect.... After the American Revolution, seeing as how they beat back the most powerful army of the day believed that they were powerful and needed to expand this power (ala: War of 1812) and now these modern wars and invasions and occupations of other "sovereign" countries.

At 3/16/04 01:28 AM, Roktiken wrote: hes an unfortunate victim of the to far right wing government propaganda who is turning the American people against the world and in turn the world against America due to Georgys presidency.

it seems as though you are an unfortunate victim of the cliff hanging far left, who cannot even defend their own Presidential nominee, because the only thing they CAN do it seems is blame George Bush for things that are hardly his fault. How is the whole world turning against us, if im not mistaken England is still right beside us, Spain was, but has now backed away because of a new president. I say that the world isnt what will make America fall, i say that America will fall only because of petty disputes over small amounts of power, so stop bitching about what George Bush is doing, LIVE WITH IT, other people had to live with Clinton. And by the way Eskimo Joe, France DOESNT suck, just a few of the people who rule it do, but that is only my opinion, many probably think that George Bush is a terrible president, but he isnt half bad. He is better than some wanker that sits on his ass in the oval office getting his carrot waxed.

Ahh yes, i forgot to add that France has been receiving threats from a number of terrorist organizations. Which sends the message that unless EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS PLANET obeys what these terrorist wankers want, they will continue to bomb and harm civilization as we know it.

every body hates terrorists, bu what makes them do their deeds,
not Islam but the poverty and wars, mostly made by america

At 3/17/04 06:20 PM, HellsingXero wrote: Which sends the message that unless EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS PLANET obeys what these terrorist wankers want, they will continue to bomb and harm civilization as we know it.

Thus making them terrorist. They don't stop and we all know it.

At 3/17/04 06:20 PM, HellsingXero wrote: Ahh yes, i forgot to add that France has been receiving threats from a number of terrorist organizations.

Why? People never tell you this.

At 3/18/04 04:21 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/17/04 06:20 PM, HellsingXero wrote: Ahh yes, i forgot to add that France has been receiving threats from a number of terrorist organizations.

Why? People never tell you this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3518786.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3539311.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3515959.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3515959.stm

Have you been living in a cave or something?

At 2/18/04 09:45 PM, VG_Prodigy wrote: It's kind of old, but can you believe those french?

why would you want to help someone else do something you totally don't agree with?

At 3/15/04 11:53 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: You guys can say all you want, but one fact remains. . .

FRANCE SUCKS!!!

How can a country "suck"? Furthermore, what does it exactly suck?

At 2/18/04 09:45 PM, VG_Prodigy wrote: turning thier backs on us like that.

So you are pissed because the French did their job? The U.N. security council is set up so that if one of the 5 says "No" it fails. France disagreed with what our governments plains were and voiced it. They were looking out for what they thought was the world's best intrest. They aren't our lackey. Also they spoke for 95% of the world. The only countries that agreed with with us were England,Spain, and Austrailia. The French did nothing wrong.

At 3/19/04 07:05 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 2/18/04 09:45 PM, VG_Prodigy wrote: turning thier backs on us like that.

So you are pissed because the French did their job? The U.N. security council is set up so that if one of the 5 says "No" it fails. France disagreed with what our governments plains were and voiced it. They were looking out for what they thought was the world's best intrest. They aren't our lackey. Also they spoke for 95% of the world. The only countries that agreed with with us were England,Spain, and Austrailia. The French did nothing wrong.

Yes they did. They knew we were going to go in anyways, everyone did, them voting against the resolutions only stopped the whole UN from getting involved. Why is this bad you ask? Because if we had the entire UN support, less bombing would have been needed, so less Iraqi civilians would have died, and Iraq would not have been damaged so bad.

Really they only managed to hurt Iraq.

At 3/19/04 07:12 PM, Jimsween wrote: Because if we had the entire UN support, less bombing would have been needed, so less Iraqi civilians would have died, and Iraq would not have been damaged so bad.
Really they only managed to hurt Iraq.

Generally speaking when you oppose someone you try to stop them. Like when the Lions play any, they don't give the receiver free passage to the end zone (though it may not seem it) they still try to stop it. Our actions would have been the same regardless of UN support. We would have bombed just as long. And killed just as many citizens. Vietnam was a UN operation, and we still bombed Cambodia, and killed many many citizens.
This brings me to my next point, why aren't the lives of the people we are "liberating" our primary concern?

At 3/19/04 07:25 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 07:12 PM, Jimsween wrote: Because if we had the entire UN support, less bombing would have been needed, so less Iraqi civilians would have died, and Iraq would not have been damaged so bad.
Really they only managed to hurt Iraq.

Generally speaking when you oppose someone you try to stop them. Like when the Lions play any, they don't give the receiver free passage to the end zone (though it may not seem it) they still try to stop it.

If the reciever would save lives by getting to the end zone, they would.

Our actions would have been the same regardless of UN support. We would have bombed just as long. And killed just as many citizens.

This is just simply not true. We don't just indiscriminately bomb, we bomb as much as we have to in order to take over the country. And if we were able to invade from Turkey on the northern side, the amount of bombing needed would have dropped drastically. If you go into a building full of soldiers armed with knives and unarmed civilians with 5 guys with machine guns, your going to kill alot of civilians, but your still going to get the job done. However, if you go in with 200 guys with machine guns, you overpower the enemy and there is much less fighting, thus, much less civilian death.

Vietnam was a UN operation, and we still bombed Cambodia, and killed many many citizens.

Your comparing apples and oranges. We bombed because we had to in order to weaken them, I never claimed we wouldn't have bombed Iraq with UN support, I simply said we would have bombed less, and surely if we didn't have support in vietnam we would have bombed much much more.

This brings me to my next point, why aren't the lives of the people we are "liberating" our primary concern?

Who said they weren't? If we went in there without bombing, we would have had an all out massacare, everyone shooting and fighting would have killed many many more Iraqui's. We used preciscion weapons for a reason, all in all only about 1/3 of a civilian was killed for every bomb we dropped.

At 3/19/04 07:34 PM, Jimsween wrote:

If the reciever would save lives by getting to the end zone, they would.

The french were trying to prevent lives. BY STOPPING A NEEDLESS WAR. The regime in Iraq was failing. Many Western corporations were being successful at making reforms...bloodless reforms.

:We don't just indiscriminately bomb, we bomb as much as we have to in order to take over the country.
The only bombing "needed" was military bases, and military units on the move. Not asprin facoties/schools/hospitals.

If you go into a building full of soldiers armed with knives and unarmed civilians with 5 guys with machine guns, your going to kill alot of civilians, but your still going to get the job done. However, if you go in with 200 guys with machine guns, you overpower the enemy and there is much less fighting, thus, much less civilian death.

This is just about the most retarded thing I've ever heard. In the civil war(most american blood lost of any war) only ONE civilian casualty. This is because of open war, in open land (which Iraq has a lot of) and not needless destruction of buildings and lives. Guns are better than bombs, knives are better then guns in terms of civilian death because you have to see/be near what you are trying to kill.

only about 1/3 of a civilian was killed for every bomb we dropped.

It should be horrible that the ratio is that high. Before the 1900 the worst thing that you could do was kill a citizen in war. You don't liberate by killing off mass populations.

At 3/19/04 07:53 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 07:34 PM, Jimsween wrote:

If the reciever would save lives by getting to the end zone, they would.

The french were trying to prevent lives. BY STOPPING A NEEDLESS WAR. The regime in Iraq was failing. Many Western corporations were being successful at making reforms...bloodless reforms.

But they knew they couldn't stop it, everyone knew that the US was going in anyways, it was obvious. All France managed to do was kill more civilians.

We don't just indiscriminately bomb, we bomb as much as we have to in order to take over the country.

The only bombing "needed" was military bases, and military units on the move. Not asprin facoties/schools/hospitals.

They didn't bomb asprin factories, schools, and hospitals. At least not intentionally.

If you go into a building full of soldiers armed with knives and unarmed civilians with 5 guys with machine guns, your going to kill alot of civilians, but your still going to get the job done. However, if you go in with 200 guys with machine guns, you overpower the enemy and there is much less fighting, thus, much less civilian death.

This is just about the most retarded thing I've ever heard. In the civil war(most american blood lost of any war) only ONE civilian casualty. This is because of open war, in open land (which Iraq has a lot of) and not needless destruction of buildings and lives. Guns are better than bombs, knives are better then guns in terms of civilian death because you have to see/be near what you are trying to kill.

First of all, many more than one civilains died, the only reason less died is because of the type of weapons they were using, it's hard to accidentally kill a person with a gun that takes 3 minutes to load and only shoots 50 yards.. Second, are you claiming that the war would all be fought out in the desert? I think thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard. The US can't win the war by just sitting out there out in the desert, and the Iraqi's sure as hell wouldn't go out there to attack them when they could just as easily sit in the city and wait for them to run out of supplies. The only way to win the war would be to attack the city, anyone with half a brain can realize that.

only about 1/3 of a civilian was killed for every bomb we dropped.

It should be horrible that the ratio is that high.

Up until that point, the ration has been consistantly above 1000x that.

Before the 1900 the worst thing that you could do was kill a citizen in war. You don't liberate by killing off mass populations.

No, in fact it was not bad at all to kill a civilian, back before then they fought wars for land and resources, why would you care about the people? Where exactly in your ass are you pulling this from?

At 3/19/04 08:09 PM, Jimsween wrote:

But they knew they couldn't stop it, everyone knew that the US was going in anyways, it was obvious. All France managed to do was kill more civilians.

At that point America was pleading for the UN to condone the war which it did not. If we had had a million ground soldiers we would have bombed just as long because of the mentality that bombing reduces the risk for the men on foot. The only differnce is that there would have been more bombs made elsewhere flying.

They didn't bomb asprin factories, schools, and hospitals. At least not intentionally.

They bombed many schools and hospitals. When I was studying in Japan, they didn't have the bias news that they have here. I've seen pictures of parents carrying dead children out of rubble screaming in agony over the loss of their babies lives. Legs mangled to the point that it looked like hollow,shredded rubber. This is burned into my memory. It was a fucking elementry school. No a military base, or a gun depot. Their wasn't one of those in the area.

First of all, many more than one civilains died, the only reason less died is because of the type of weapons they were using, it's hard to accidentally kill a person with a gun that takes 3 minutes to load and only shoots 50 yards.. Second, are you claiming that the war would all be fought out in the desert? I think thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard. The US can't win the war by just sitting out there out in the desert, and the Iraqi's sure as hell wouldn't go out there to attack them when they could just as easily sit in the city and wait for them to run out of supplies. The only way to win the war would be to attack the city, anyone with half a brain can realize that.

First sorry I meant to say battle of gettysburg and bloodiest battle. I was typing in a hurry. We didn't have to wait in the desert. They attacked us out to cities. Just as they did in 91'. But we drove them into the cities. And your perception of who would have run out of supplies is wrong. With 87 billion dollars we could have kept out troops full of food and water for years. By cutting off the supplies going in they wouldn't have lasted long. But this would have also lead to starvation of the citizens if they did not surrender. I agree that we would most likely have to enter the cities, but leveling the cities before entering is not the proper course of action.

Up until that point, the ration has been consistantly above 1000x that.

This helps your case how?

No, in fact it was not bad at all to kill a civilian, back before then they fought wars for land and resources, why would you care about the people? Where exactly in your ass are you pulling this from?

Are you not familiar with the Staus Quo set down by the prussians in 1600. They created the guidelines to be followed in modern warfare, and the guidelines were followed. They cared about the citizens for two reasons for this they recognized that citizens are not the enemy. They are just living. Secondly (depending on what country was invading before the prussians) citizens made great slaves. Free labor was a valuable resource.

At 3/19/04 08:46 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 08:09 PM, Jimsween wrote:

But they knew they couldn't stop it, everyone knew that the US was going in anyways, it was obvious. All France managed to do was kill more civilians.

At that point America was pleading for the UN to condone the war which it did not. If we had had a million ground soldiers we would have bombed just as long because of the mentality that bombing reduces the risk for the men on foot. The only differnce is that there would have been more bombs made elsewhere flying.

Thats simply not true, we don't indiscriminately bomb, boming is a process that is taken with a grain of salt, why throw a grenade when you have an entire division behind you?

They didn't bomb asprin factories, schools, and hospitals. At least not intentionally.

They bombed many schools and hospitals. When I was studying in Japan, they didn't have the bias news that they have here. I've seen pictures of parents carrying dead children out of rubble screaming in agony over the loss of their babies lives. Legs mangled to the point that it looked like hollow,shredded rubber. This is burned into my memory. It was a fucking elementry school. No a military base, or a gun depot. Their wasn't one of those in the area.

Proof?

First of all, many more than one civilains died, the only reason less died is because of the type of weapons they were using, it's hard to accidentally kill a person with a gun that takes 3 minutes to load and only shoots 50 yards.. Second, are you claiming that the war would all be fought out in the desert? I think thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard. The US can't win the war by just sitting out there out in the desert, and the Iraqi's sure as hell wouldn't go out there to attack them when they could just as easily sit in the city and wait for them to run out of supplies. The only way to win the war would be to attack the city, anyone with half a brain can realize that.

First sorry I meant to say battle of gettysburg and bloodiest battle. I was typing in a hurry. We didn't have to wait in the desert. They attacked us out to cities. Just as they did in 91'. But we drove them into the cities. And your perception of who would have run out of supplies is wrong. With 87 billion dollars we could have kept out troops full of food and water for years. By cutting off the supplies going in they wouldn't have lasted long. But this would have also lead to starvation of the citizens if they did not surrender. I agree that we would most likely have to enter the cities, but leveling the cities before entering is not the proper course of action.

But we didn't level them before, we used preciscion weapons to take out military bases, do you actually know the headcount for military personell deaths? The problem is, Bahgdad is so dense even if the bombs go a little off course, someone innocent can die.

Up until that point, the ration has been consistantly above 1000x that.

This helps your case how?

It proves that we don't indiscriminately bomb, if we did, we wouldn't spend billions of preciscion weapons, we would just use daisy cutters, like everyone else up to this point has.

No, in fact it was not bad at all to kill a civilian, back before then they fought wars for land and resources, why would you care about the people? Where exactly in your ass are you pulling this from?

Are you not familiar with the Staus Quo set down by the prussians in 1600. They created the guidelines to be followed in modern warfare, and the guidelines were followed. They cared about the citizens for two reasons for this they recognized that citizens are not the enemy. They are just living. Secondly (depending on what country was invading before the prussians) citizens made great slaves. Free labor was a valuable resource.

Just because the prussians made some rules doesn't mean everyone followed them. When the explorers came to America, they killed millions of indians, the only reason alot of Europeans didn't die from 1600-1800 was because there wasn't a whole lot of land wars in europe at that time. Before 1600 though, they didn't give a damn about civilians.

At 3/19/04 09:10 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/19/04 08:46 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 08:09 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Thats simply not true, we don't indiscriminately bomb, boming is a process that is taken with a grain of salt, why throw a grenade when you have an entire division behind you?

The reason we tend to through a grenade with a division behind us is that we are trying to clear out the room. We aren't treating like a hostage situation. If you through a nade into a room then storm the ashes there is less casualties on your end. That is why we would have bombed regardless of support.

Proof?

I there was a gallery in Tokyo. They were showing the devistaion of the war. The proof was in the maps they had, the reports they had from the photographers and the journalists.The nearest gun depot was a mile away . Japan is as close to our lackey as you could ask. They aren't trying to slander us.

But we didn't level them before, we used preciscion weapons to take out military bases, do you actually know the headcount for military personell deaths? The problem is, Bahgdad is so dense even if the bombs go a little off course, someone innocent can die.

We do use precision bombs. But we bomb everything. The biggest problem comes from the intel. We offer a substantial reward for information from civilians. Thus we have many "defectants" that name random buildings so that they can collect. This was one of the primary problems in the WMD intel.

Just because the prussians made some rules doesn't mean everyone followed them. When the explorers came to America, they killed millions of indians, the only reason alot of Europeans didn't die from 1600-1800 was because there wasn't a whole lot of land wars in europe at that time. Before 1600 though, they didn't give a damn about civilians.

The Prussians made the rules because of constant land wars. The following of these rules by Europe and the U.S. is why there were so few land wars. Everyone followed them and respected them. President Bush Sr. even recognized these laws and respected them. In an interview he claimed following the status quo as his reason for not ousting Sadam 13 years ago.

At 3/19/04 09:29 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 09:10 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/19/04 08:46 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 08:09 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Thats simply not true, we don't indiscriminately bomb, boming is a process that is taken with a grain of salt, why throw a grenade when you have an entire division behind you?

The reason we tend to through a grenade with a division behind us is that we are trying to clear out the room. We aren't treating like a hostage situation. If you through a nade into a room then storm the ashes there is less casualties on your end. That is why we would have bombed regardless of support.

And like I said before, if we didn't care about casualties on thier end, why didn't we just drop some real bombs? Why not just drop a moab?

Proof?

I there was a gallery in Tokyo. They were showing the devistaion of the war. The proof was in the maps they had, the reports they had from the photographers and the journalists.The nearest gun depot was a mile away . Japan is as close to our lackey as you could ask. They aren't trying to slander us.

I still see no proof, for all I know you could be lying. If it exists, it's on the internet.

But we didn't level them before, we used preciscion weapons to take out military bases, do you actually know the headcount for military personell deaths? The problem is, Bahgdad is so dense even if the bombs go a little off course, someone innocent can die.

We do use precision bombs. But we bomb everything. The biggest problem comes from the intel. We offer a substantial reward for information from civilians. Thus we have many "defectants" that name random buildings so that they can collect. This was one of the primary problems in the WMD intel.

We don't bomb everything, our preciscion weapons target specific floors of buildings, the only times civilians die, is when they are too close to one of those buildings, or a missile's guidance gets completely fucked.

Just because the prussians made some rules doesn't mean everyone followed them. When the explorers came to America, they killed millions of indians, the only reason alot of Europeans didn't die from 1600-1800 was because there wasn't a whole lot of land wars in europe at that time. Before 1600 though, they didn't give a damn about civilians.

The Prussians made the rules because of constant land wars. The following of these rules by Europe and the U.S. is why there were so few land wars. Everyone followed them and respected them. President Bush Sr. even recognized these laws and respected them. In an interview he claimed following the status quo as his reason for not ousting Sadam 13 years ago.

And that did so much good for the Iraqi's. The reason there were so few land wars is because everyone was busy exploring, why fight for land when you can claim it with no resistance?

At 3/19/04 09:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: And like I said before, if we didn't care about casualties on thier end, why didn't we just drop some real bombs? Why not just drop a moab?

Don't you think it would be suspicious if we dropped an A-bomb on the people we are "trying to liberate" By using a smart bombs, you can bomb Bagdhad like Dresden, and still claim to be targeting. Less red tape.

Proof?

I there was a gallery in Tokyo. They were showing the devistaion of the war. The proof was in the maps they had, the reports they had from the photographers and the journalists.The nearest gun depot was a mile away . Japan is as close to our lackey as you could ask. They aren't trying to slander us.

I still see no proof, for all I know you could be lying. If it exists, it's on the internet.

I my friend took pictures at that gallery. I can write her, she can e-mail them to me, and I could do the same for you if you would like. I don't know why you want to see such grotesque disfigurement.

:: We do use precision bombs. But we bomb everything. The biggest problem comes from the intel. We offer a substantial reward for information from civilians. Thus we have many "defectants" that name random buildings so that they can collect. This was one of the primary problems in the WMD intel.

We don't bomb everything, our preciscion weapons target specific floors of buildings, the only times civilians die, is when they are too close to one of those buildings, or a missile's guidance gets completely fucked.

Read what's above it again. I think you missed the point.

And that did so much good for the Iraqi's. The reason there were so few land wars is because everyone was busy exploring, why fight for land when you can claim it with no resistance?

Though America was Colonized at about the time that the Prussians were writing the status quo framework. Mass colonization of Africa, The Middle East, and Asia didn't start until the late 1800's early 1900's, when capitolism showed the first signs of wavering.

I would love to continue this all night but I have to leave. If you want to keep this discussion going, please email me. I would gladly share information and opinions with you.