Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/19/04 09:53 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

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.

And that only manages to help my argument. They could reduce suspiscion more if they dropped even less bombs, which they could do if they had more support.

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.

And what does that prove? For all we know those photographs were faked. You need a credible news source.

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.

We use satellite pictures, not random defectants. Again, prove your claims.

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.

But most of the indians died before America was even founded.

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.

Yeah, whatever.

At 3/19/04 09:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: If it exists, it's on the internet.

I just really had to quote this with an angry face.

OH JIM! Can you find me the ads on page 3 of the July 15th 1956 edition of the New York Times?

*gasp*

IT'S NOT ON THE INTERNET?!??

At 3/19/04 10 :13 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/19/04 09:53 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

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.

And that only manages to help my argument. They could reduce suspiscion more if they dropped even less bombs, which they could do if they had more support.

I
'm back, and quite drunk. But I still have enough sense to know that what you are spewing is utter bullshit. This does not prove your point, right now with a complete fraudulent war on its hands the U.S. is grasping for P.R. to save its ass from foriegn financers pulling away us. That is the whole reason behind using the smart bomb in this war. If we could get away unquestioned we would have used MOABs and A-bombs by now. But since the world is in dissagreince with us, we have to use weapons that say "We care", and do you even know what happened to Dresden. Obviousley not if you think I proved your point. And get it through your head, we would rather bomb a country to rubble then send in ground troops. We are all caught up in "American lives" at stack that we don't give a shit about anyone else's. That is the whole purpose of bombing destroy as much of the enemy as possible so that they can distroy as little of us as possible. The only problem with this is that we make all of Iraq the enemy. When it is only the regime and its army that can even be thought of as the enemy.

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.

And what does that prove? For all we know those photographs were faked. You need a credible news source.

Yes, you caught me. I faked pictures of dead Iraqie children just for this very instance, When I would have to prove to a 14 year old that he is full of shit when it come to american foriegn policy (My apologies some 14 year olds) Face it other people have seen the world, and seen a world that you will never see. And just because you weren't there doesn't make it less true. The nazis still invaded Poland, and the Japanese still bombed Pearl Harbor. If you want to scower Japanese search engines for a site in a language you can't read be my guest. However you ask me for some pictures or worse yet trust me that I know what I have seen.

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.

Bullshit we don't. One of out major arguements for going to war was the mobil chem plants made by some random defector. This also turned out to be false.

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.

But most of the indians died before America was even founded.

Tell a Cherokee that. The trail of tears brought forth due to Andrew Jackson killed more than a third of their population. Let alone the indians killed by our small pox blankets, and settling on the frontier.

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.

Yeah, whatever.

Hard to believe someone else has a life? I was offering to continue it, but you are the one that rejected the offer. Catch me later when you grow a little and know what you are talking about.

At 3/19/04 10:13 PM, Jimsween wrote:

We use satellite pictures, not random defectants. Again, prove your claims.

Please insert above before my third to last line.

At 3/19/04 10:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: Again, prove your claims.

If you need it mosy points brought up tonight can be found in the following
1) Erich Fromm "Marx's concepts of Man"
2)John Stoessenger "Why Nations go to War"
3)James Payne "The American threat"
4)Zbigniew Brzezinski "Out of Control:The politics of organized insanity"
5)Benjamin R. Barber"Jihad vs McWorld:Terrorism's challenge to Democracy"
6)Samuel P. Huntington "Crisis in the World Order"
7)A documentery on the Iraq war, with interviews from former CIA chief, agents, and others, (Name and specs I could have by early next week if anyone is interested)

And speaking of which, what is the proof for your claims?

At 3/20/04 01:38 AM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/19/04 09:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: If it exists, it's on the internet.

I just really had to quote this with an angry face.

OH JIM! Can you find me the ads on page 3 of the July 15th 1956 edition of the New York Times?

*gasp*

IT'S NOT ON THE INTERNET?!??

Thats because they didn't print an edition on July 15th, they did on July 20th. However, you need to spend 70$ to find it. It is on the internet, however. Wanna try a different example?

Oh wait, my mistake, they did print an article on page 3 on July 15th 1956.

And the kicker, Here it is!

Even you have to admit punk, thats really fucking funny.

At 3/20/04 02:07 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

'm back, and quite drunk. But I still have enough sense to know that what you are spewing is utter bullshit. This does not prove your point, right now with a complete fraudulent war on its hands the U.S. is grasping for P.R. to save its ass from foriegn financers pulling away us. That is the whole reason behind using the smart bomb in this war. If we could get away unquestioned we would have used MOABs and A-bombs by now. But since the world is in dissagreince with us, we have to use weapons that say "We care", and do you even know what happened to Dresden. Obviousley not if you think I proved your point. And get it through your head, we would rather bomb a country to rubble then send in ground troops. We are all caught up in "American lives" at stack that we don't give a shit about anyone else's. That is the whole purpose of bombing destroy as much of the enemy as possible so that they can distroy as little of us as possible. The only problem with this is that we make all of Iraq the enemy. When it is only the regime and its army that can even be thought of as the enemy.

None of that disputed the fact that they would have looked even more like they cared by dropping less bombs, and if they had UN support, they would have had to drop less bombs.

Yes, you caught me. I faked pictures of dead Iraqie children just for this very instance, When I would have to prove to a 14 year old that he is full of shit when it come to american foriegn policy (My apologies some 14 year olds) Face it other people have seen the world, and seen a world that you will never see. And just because you weren't there doesn't make it less true. The nazis still invaded Poland, and the Japanese still bombed Pearl Harbor. If you want to scower Japanese search engines for a site in a language you can't read be my guest. However you ask me for some pictures or worse yet trust me that I know what I have seen.'

I'm still waiting for proof.

Bullshit we don't. One of out major arguements for going to war was the mobil chem plants made by some random defector. This also turned out to be false.

No, it was true. They found the trucks, but they had been cleaned thoroughly. Unless there was just some Iraqi chemical company using them, that is the trucks.

Tell a Cherokee that. The trail of tears brought forth due to Andrew Jackson killed more than a third of their population. Let alone the indians killed by our small pox blankets, and settling on the frontier.

A third of the populationa t the time. But that was not more than a million. Before the colonists came, there were upwards of 2o million indians, and they killed 15 million before America was even made.

At 3/20/04 03:14 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/19/04 10:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: Again, prove your claims.

If you need it mosy points brought up tonight can be found in the following
1) Erich Fromm "Marx's concepts of Man"
2)John Stoessenger "Why Nations go to War"
3)James Payne "The American threat"
4)Zbigniew Brzezinski "Out of Control:The politics of organized insanity"
5)Benjamin R. Barber"Jihad vs McWorld:Terrorism's challenge to Democracy"
6)Samuel P. Huntington "Crisis in the World Order"
7)A documentery on the Iraq war, with interviews from former CIA chief, agents, and others, (Name and specs I could have by early next week if anyone is interested)

None of that can be classified as sources. Those are just books written with the premise of proving an opinion, it would be like using another persons post as a source.

And speaking of which, what is the proof for your claims?

What claims?

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

:am i the only one pissed here?

Yeah, you are, because most anyone with half a brain didn't buy Bush's slippery slope arguments about the threat Saddam posed to the world. While I'm not going to defend anything Saddam did, I do not think it's up to one country to start running around saying "we know what's best for the world" especially one with as shitty a record of nation building as ours.

At 3/20/04 01:04 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/20/04 02:07 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

But since the world is in dissagreince with us, we have to use weapons that say "We care", and do you even know what happened to Dresden. Obviousley not if you think I proved your point. And get it through your head, we would rather bomb a country to rubble then send in ground troops. We are all caught up in "American lives" at stack that we don't give a shit about anyone else's. That is the whole purpose of bombing destroy as much of the enemy as possible so that they can distroy as little of us as possible. The only problem with this is that we make all of Iraq the enemy. When it is only the regime and its army that can even be thought of as the enemy.

they would have looked even more like they cared by dropping less bombs, and if they had UN support, they would have had to drop less bombs.

This is true, but why would they drop less bombs? Your flaw in thinking is that you believe we are treating this like a hostage rescue, and sending in a SWAT team with flash bangs to incapacitate the enemy and save t he hostages. We don't do that. We send in Guerillas with frag nads, clear out the room (whoever is in it) so that there is minimal casualty on your end. This is why regardless of UN support bombing would have comenced just as long. Why would you send and troops through a door when you know a poised enemy is waiting on the other end. This could have disasterous effects, much like the Spartans brave stand against the Persian army at (I believe) Theolodite. 100 V 1000000. Though they lost they kicked a lot of ass. Bombing acts as that frag nade. Once you blow the shit out of the room, you run in and kill whats left. If Hostages are left alive at the end its a Bonus.

Bullshit we don't. One of out major arguements for going to war was the mobil chem plants made by some random defector. This also turned out to be false.

No, it was true. They found the trucks, but they had been cleaned thoroughly. Unless there was just some Iraqi chemical company using them, that is the trucks.

What is your evidence for your claim? Mine comes straight from a CIA agent in the Documentery. They had mobile trucks but they were not being used for BioChem creation.

Tell a Cherokee that. The trail of tears brought forth due to Andrew Jackson killed more than a third of their population. Let alone the indians killed by our small pox blankets, and settling on the frontier.

A third of the populationa t the time. But that was not more than a million. Before the colonists came, there were upwards of 2o million indians, and they killed 15 million before America was even made.

Depending what historian you talk to. Some project the number as high as 15 million. Most believe it to be around 8 mill. As for the colonist killing them all before foundation, that's just ludacris. The colonists weren't allowed bast the Appalachians. Or into Florida. This makes the U.S. that they walked on the original 13, until Americas founding. I can't believe that you have the gusto to claim that all native Americans lived soley in this area, and we exterminated in a hundred years. They were spread all across the continental U.S. (Which as I stated we weren't allowed into). The trail of tears was around the 1820's, and mass settling into the west came after the Lousiana purchase. Some time after our founding. Did you pay attention at all in you U.S. history class?

If youre talking about the Iraqi war then the Iraqi war is an invasion,not a war.

At 3/20/04 01:06 PM, Jimsween wrote:

None of that can be classified as sources. Those are just books written with the premise of proving an opinion, it would be like using another persons post as a source.

Have you ever done research before? Probably not. This is what you do. You read non-fiction books and use the facts in them, or supported opinions to prove your case. When you get into "Big Kid" school you will do this a lot. Everyone of those sources has facts inside them. Each fact is just as viable as any other fact.

What claims?

You claim increased ground troops reduces bombing.
You claim schools, and hospitals weren't bombed. But even on American T.V. they talk about it.
You claim not only that their cities are self sufficent but could easily outlast $87 Billion in supplies on our end.
You claim that the U.S. does not listen to defectats but if you watch the State of the Union speach from 2 years ago or Powell's speach to the UN, much of the arguement to go to war was based on defectants.
You claim that Europe was doing massive Colonization from 1600-1800.
You claim that 15 million Native American lives were lost from the time that Jamestown was founded to the Revolutionary war. And furthermore, that the native american population primarily lived in the original 13 colonies.

At 3/20/04 03:02 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/20/04 01:04 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/20/04 02:07 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

But since the world is in dissagreince with us, we have to use weapons that say "We care", and do you even know what happened to Dresden. Obviousley not if you think I proved your point. And get it through your head, we would rather bomb a country to rubble then send in ground troops. We are all caught up in "American lives" at stack that we don't give a shit about anyone else's. That is the whole purpose of bombing destroy as much of the enemy as possible so that they can distroy as little of us as possible. The only problem with this is that we make all of Iraq the enemy. When it is only the regime and its army that can even be thought of as the enemy.

they would have looked even more like they cared by dropping less bombs, and if they had UN support, they would have had to drop less bombs.

This is true, but why would they drop less bombs? Your flaw in thinking is that you believe we are treating this like a hostage rescue, and sending in a SWAT team with flash bangs to incapacitate the enemy and save t he hostages. We don't do that. We send in Guerillas with frag nads, clear out the room (whoever is in it) so that there is minimal casualty on your end. This is why regardless of UN support bombing would have comenced just as long. Why would you send and troops through a door when you know a poised enemy is waiting on the other end. This could have disasterous effects, much like the Spartans brave stand against the Persian army at (I believe) Theolodite. 100 V 1000000. Though they lost they kicked a lot of ass. Bombing acts as that frag nade. Once you blow the shit out of the room, you run in and kill whats left. If Hostages are left alive at the end its a Bonus.

But as you just said, they wanted to look good to the press, the american people, and the other countries. What better way to look good then to not kill as many Iraqi's and drop less bombs?

Bullshit we don't. One of out major arguements for going to war was the mobil chem plants made by some random defector. This also turned out to be false.

No, it was true. They found the trucks, but they had been cleaned thoroughly. Unless there was just some Iraqi chemical company using them, that is the trucks.

What is your evidence for your claim? Mine comes straight from a CIA agent in the Documentery. They had mobile trucks but they were not being used for BioChem creation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/view.html?documentid=2036

Tell a Cherokee that. The trail of tears brought forth due to Andrew Jackson killed more than a third of their population. Let alone the indians killed by our small pox blankets, and settling on the frontier.

A third of the populationa t the time. But that was not more than a million. Before the colonists came, there were upwards of 2o million indians, and they killed 15 million before America was even made.

Depending what historian you talk to. Some project the number as high as 15 million. Most believe it to be around 8 mill. As for the colonist killing them all before foundation, that's just ludacris. The colonists weren't allowed bast the Appalachians. Or into Florida. This makes the U.S. that they walked on the original 13, until Americas founding. I can't believe that you have the gusto to claim that all native Americans lived soley in this area, and we exterminated in a hundred years. They were spread all across the continental U.S. (Which as I stated we weren't allowed into). The trail of tears was around the 1820's, and mass settling into the west came after the Lousiana purchase. Some time after our founding. Did you pay attention at all in you U.S. history class?

Not all, most. Where did I claim all indians live in that area? Most indians are logically going to live by water, so they can fish, which would place them on the coasts, and for many reasons california was not nearly as habitable as the east coast. The fact of the matter is, more than 75% of Native Americans were killed before America was even founded. I think it's you who might need to pay a little more attention in school.

At 3/20/04 03:19 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/20/04 01:06 PM, Jimsween wrote:

None of that can be classified as sources. Those are just books written with the premise of proving an opinion, it would be like using another persons post as a source.

Have you ever done research before? Probably not. This is what you do. You read non-fiction books and use the facts in them, or supported opinions to prove your case. When you get into "Big Kid" school you will do this a lot. Everyone of those sources has facts inside them. Each fact is just as viable as any other fact.

Not all non fiction books are factual. You can't just assume everything you read is true, it needs to be backed up. And your insults only manage to prove how childish you are and that you lack an solid debate.

What claims?

You claim increased ground troops reduces bombing.

It does, and I gave an argument as to why that is true already.

You claim schools, and hospitals weren't bombed. But even on American T.V. they talk about it.

You claimed they were to begin with. I just said your claim was incorrect, and asked you to back up your claim.

You claim not only that their cities are self sufficent but could easily outlast $87 Billion in supplies on our end.

First of all, we didn't have 87 billion in supplies, they didn't designate a specific amount of money we could spend, theoretically we coud have spent all we want. And second, I never claimed that, you brought that up, I just said we couldn't beat them by not invading the cities. Which is true, we couldn't, we would only be killing civilians.

You claim that the U.S. does not listen to defectats but if you watch the State of the Union speach from 2 years ago or Powell's speach to the UN, much of the arguement to go to war was based on defectants.

I never claimed that. I said the US doesn't base thier intellegence solely on defectants, and you were the one that claimed they did to begin with, so you would be the one to offer proof.

You claim that Europe was doing massive Colonization from 1600-1800.

This needs proving?

You claim that 15 million Native American lives were lost from the time that Jamestown was founded to the Revolutionary war. And furthermore, that the native american population primarily lived in the original 13 colonies.

First of all, I only claimed that at least 15 million natives were killed between 1492 and 1776, not that the native american population was primarily located in the 13 colonies. Yet again, you were the one who brought this up, thus proving what a moron you are. And FYI, over 70 million nativs lived in America at the time, it wouldn't take most of the population to live on the east coast in order for 15 million to die, not nearly most.

And; http://gfisher.org/ch_4__overkill.htm

Estimates of American Indian populations have varied widely. In 1541, Bartolomé de las Casas, author of a primary source on early treatment of Indians by the Spanish, argues that 15 million Indians died in the West Indies alone between 1500 and 1540.

http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~jmikhael/Mar%202%20-%20Evil.htm

20-30 million Native Americans killed during colonization of Americas, maybe even up to 80 million (there were only 1 million left by the end of 1600).

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Native%20Americans

Some historians have argued that more than 80% of some Indian populations may have died due to European-derived diseases

http://www.historysage.com/basics_contact.phtml

Meanwhile, the "age of discovery" resulted in the greatest human catastrophe the world has ever known: 90% of Native Americans killed by 1600;

At 3/21/04 12:08 AM, Jimsween wrote:

What is your evidence for your claim? Mine comes straight from a CIA agent in the Documentery. They had mobile trucks but they were not being used for BioChem creation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/

This article doesn't help your cause. It is dated before the fall of Bahgdad. And in the Article all that it said was found was fertilizer, though they were expecting chemicle agents.

Not all, most. Where did I claim all indians live in that area? Most indians are logically going to live by water, so they can fish, which would place them on the coasts, and for many reasons california was not nearly as habitable as the east coast. The fact of the matter is, more than 75% of Native Americans were killed before America was even founded. I think it's you who might need to pay a little more attention in school.

Though it is true that the indians would be near water, it is not true that they had to fish, or had to be coastal. Many tribes were nomadic, following migrations various animal herds for food. And as all Native inhabitants branched down from the Berring Straight it doesn't make sense that the mass population would be on the other side of the continent. These are some of the Western tribes
http://www.edwardscurtis.com/tribemap.html

At 3/21/04 01:02 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/21/04 12:08 AM, Jimsween wrote:

What is your evidence for your claim? Mine comes straight from a CIA agent in the Documentery. They had mobile trucks but they were not being used for BioChem creation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/

This article doesn't help your cause. It is dated before the fall of Bahgdad. And in the Article all that it said was found was fertilizer, though they were expecting chemicle agents.

First of all, why does the date make it invalid? Second, they didn't find fertilizer, they found nothing. And third, it was obvious it was cleaned, which is why they found nothing, unless it was a brand new truck never ever used, and then buried for no apperant reason whatsoever.

Not all, most. Where did I claim all indians live in that area? Most indians are logically going to live by water, so they can fish, which would place them on the coasts, and for many reasons california was not nearly as habitable as the east coast. The fact of the matter is, more than 75% of Native Americans were killed before America was even founded. I think it's you who might need to pay a little more attention in school.

Though it is true that the indians would be near water, it is not true that they had to fish, or had to be coastal. Many tribes were nomadic, following migrations various animal herds for food. And as all Native inhabitants branched down from the Berring Straight it doesn't make sense that the mass population would be on the other side of the continent. These are some of the Western tribes
http://www.edwardscurtis.com/tribemap.html

And nomadic tribes are signifigantly smaller than tribes that settled. And it does make plenty of sense that they would be on the other side, they had thousands of years to move. I never denied the fact that there are tribes in the west, I simply said the tribes in the east are bigger.

At 3/21/04 12:42 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/20/04 03:19 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/20/04 01:06 PM, Jimsween wrote:

None of that can be classified as sources. Those are just books written with the premise of proving an opinion, it would be like using another persons post as a source.

Have you ever done research before? Probably not. This is what you do. You read non-fiction books and use the facts in them, or supported opinions to prove your case. When you get into "Big Kid" school you will do this a lot. Everyone of those sources has facts inside them. Each fact is just as viable as any other fact.

Not all non fiction books are factual. You can't just assume everything you read is true, it needs to be backed up.

Facts and evidence are in the books them selves. The nonfiction books like these (with the exeption of the the book on Marx) are large research papers.l And Stoessenger doens't even try to prove a real point. He just analyzes the events leading to each war. Each book is filled with its own support. Most of the books that I mention are purely analytical, analyze facts and outcome. The facts being analyzed are what is the importance is on. I haven't messed around with their ideas on the facts.

What claims?

You claim increased ground troops reduces bombing.

It does, and I gave an argument as to why that is true already.

You never supported this and I counter argued, thus it is you turn.

You claim schools, and hospitals weren't bombed. But even on American T.V. they talk about it.

You claimed they were to begin with. I just said your claim was incorrect, and asked you to back up your claim.

First of all, we didn't have 87 billion in supplies, they didn't designate a specific amount of money we could spend, theoretically we coud have spent all we want. And second, I never claimed that, you brought that up, I just said we couldn't beat them by not invading the cities. Which is true, we couldn't, we would only be killing civilians.

I know that we didn't use 87 billion in supplies. That was (less than but a large piece) of the total coast of war. I was using that figure because if the choice was made to wait them out, that was about the maximum that could have been used for supplies. The way that Sadams army has folded in firefight and out (because of lack of food, supplies, proper equipment on their end) after a week they would have surrendered if not sooner.

You claim that the U.S. does not listen to defectats but if you watch the State of the Union speach from 2 years ago or Powell's speach to the UN, much of the arguement to go to war was based on defectants.

I never claimed that.

At 3/19/04 09:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: We use satellite pictures, not random defectants.

You claim that Europe was doing massive Colonization from 1600-1800.

This needs proving?

I believe that it does. It wasn't until the late 1800's that Africa,The Middle East, and China (most of Asia for that matter) were colonized by European powers. Through your research it seems that you have mixed up exploration with colonization.

First of all, I only claimed that at least 15 million natives were killed between 1492 and 1776,

Most of the native tribes killed from 1492- (roughly)1600 were in the Carribean and Mexico. Though their those people do qualify as Native Americans, they are not applicable to this arguement. Jamestown was founded 1606. The mass of American indians in America could not have been dessimated down to a million people. The numbers that I gave were for native americans in what is present day america.

not that the native american population was

primarily located in the 13 colonies.
When you speak of the colonization of America, it is infered that you speak of the area that we are at.

20-30 million Native Americans killed during colonization of Americas, maybe even up to 80 million (there were only 1 million left by the end of 1600).

Your evidence states that this is in Central America and carribean. Once again not applicable.

As I stated earlier there was no Colonization of what is now America by 1600. The Jamestown was 1606, plymoth rock some short time after that.
http://www.apva.org/history/
And as Richard Shenkman points out in his book "Legends lies and Cherished Myths of American history" encyclopedias are often wrong.

At 3/21/04 01:37 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/21/04 12:42 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/20/04 03:19 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/20/04 01:06 PM, Jimsween wrote:

None of that can be classified as sources. Those are just books written with the premise of proving an opinion, it would be like using another persons post as a source.

Have you ever done research before? Probably not. This is what you do. You read non-fiction books and use the facts in them, or supported opinions to prove your case. When you get into "Big Kid" school you will do this a lot. Everyone of those sources has facts inside them. Each fact is just as viable as any other fact.

Not all non fiction books are factual. You can't just assume everything you read is true, it needs to be backed up.

Facts and evidence are in the books them selves. The nonfiction books like these (with the exeption of the the book on Marx) are large research papers.l And Stoessenger doens't even try to prove a real point. He just analyzes the events leading to each war. Each book is filled with its own support. Most of the books that I mention are purely analytical, analyze facts and outcome. The facts being analyzed are what is the importance is on. I haven't messed around with their ideas on the facts.

And a book needs to have it's own sources in order for the facts to be valid. Those are the sources you should be presenting.

What claims?

You claim increased ground troops reduces bombing.

It does, and I gave an argument as to why that is true already.

You never supported this and I counter argued, thus it is you turn.

I already did, in the post above yours.

You claim schools, and hospitals weren't bombed. But even on American T.V. they talk about it.

You claimed they were to begin with. I just said your claim was incorrect, and asked you to back up your claim.

First of all, we didn't have 87 billion in supplies, they didn't designate a specific amount of money we could spend, theoretically we coud have spent all we want. And second, I never claimed that, you brought that up, I just said we couldn't beat them by not invading the cities. Which is true, we couldn't, we would only be killing civilians.

I know that we didn't use 87 billion in supplies. That was (less than but a large piece) of the total coast of war. I was using that figure because if the choice was made to wait them out, that was about the maximum that could have been used for supplies. The way that Sadams army has folded in firefight and out (because of lack of food, supplies, proper equipment on their end) after a week they would have surrendered if not sooner.

NO it was not the maximum, we could have used an infinite amount, it would just put us in more debt, 87 billion is what we used, not the maximum amount. And it's funny you say they would have surrendered, because we had blockaded Tikrit for a month before we were even able to weaken them the slightest. Again, back up your claims.

You claim that the U.S. does not listen to defectats but if you watch the State of the Union speach from 2 years ago or Powell's speach to the UN, much of the arguement to go to war was based on defectants.

I never claimed that.

At 3/19/04 09:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: We use satellite pictures, not random defectants.

Like I said, I never claimed that. Where in that did I say we don't listen to defectants?

You claim that Europe was doing massive Colonization from 1600-1800.

This needs proving?

I believe that it does. It wasn't until the late 1800's that Africa,The Middle East, and China (most of Asia for that matter) were colonized by European powers. Through your research it seems that you have mixed up exploration with colonization.

China and the Middle east weren't mainly colonized by European powers. And African colonization began before North Americas.

http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum211/timelines/htimeline3.htm
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/resource/chron3.htm#ch17
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hm/08/af/hm08af.htm

Need some more?

First of all, I only claimed that at least 15 million natives were killed between 1492 and 1776,

Most of the native tribes killed from 1492- (roughly)1600 were in the Carribean and Mexico. Though their those people do qualify as Native Americans, they are not applicable to this arguement. Jamestown was founded 1606. The mass of American indians in America could not have been dessimated down to a million people. The numbers that I gave were for native americans in what is present day america.

My point was that if 15 million were killed in the west indies alone why is it so hard to believe that many were killed in America?

not that the native american population was

primarily located in the 13 colonies.
When you speak of the colonization of America, it is infered that you speak of the area that we are at.

America is literally both North and South America.

20-30 million Native Americans killed during colonization of Americas, maybe even up to 80 million (there were only 1 million left by the end of 1600).

Your evidence states that this is in Central America and carribean. Once again not applicable.

Why not? It is entirely applicable.

As I stated earlier there was no Colonization of what is now America by 1600. The Jamestown was 1606, plymoth rock some short time after that.
http://www.apva.org/history/

And the conquistadors just vanished from all your history books?Ya know, England wasn't the first one to get to America.

And as Richard Shenkman points out in his book "Legends lies and Cherished Myths of American history" encyclopedias are often wrong.

Proof?

At 3/20/04 12:56 PM, Jimsween wrote: And the kicker, Here it is!

Oh hunny, I asked for the ads, not the articles.

At 3/21/04 02:11 AM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/20/04 12:56 PM, Jimsween wrote: And the kicker, Here it is!

Oh hunny, I asked for the ads, not the articles.

The ads would be with the articles, duh. If there was an article on the page already then the page couldn't possibly be all ads. But unless your willing to pay, you won't be able to see that.

At 3/21/04 02:15 AM, Jimsween wrote: The ads would be with the articles, duh.

You have no proof of that :-O

At 3/21/04 01:13 AM, Jimsween wrote:

The date does not necessary make the acrticle invalid. It does however make it out dated in the sense that we know (as news stations post) we have found nothing. At the time it was written it was about what it could be. Under inspection they found that it was probably used to make hydrogen artillery balloons.
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_powell.htm

And nomadic tribes are signifigantly smaller than tribes that settled. And it does make plenty of sense that they would be on the other side, they had thousands of years to move. I never denied the fact that there are tribes in the west, I simply said the tribes in the east are bigger.

The united States is over 9.158 million sq. killometers big, and why one would think that the majority of the native population would cram into less than a third of that is beyond me. Nativ tribes adapted to their surroundings, and created ways of life that allowed them to flurish in the practicing of their daily/seasonal rituals (migration is a example).

At 3/21/04 02:05 AM, Jimsween wrote:

And a book needs to have it's own sources in order for the facts to be valid. Those are the sources you should be presenting.

Technically true, but each of the books has several pages for factual data, and research. This is why when you asked for them I gave the larger works. I'm not hiding them. You can feel free to verify it. But I thought that the forum wouldn't appreciate citing more than 6 pages worth of data.

NO it was not the maximum, we could have used an infinite amount, it would just put us in more debt, 87 billion is what we used, not the maximum amount. And it's funny you say they would have surrendered, because we had blockaded Tikrit for a month before we were even able to weaken them the slightest. Again, back up your claims.

There is no such thing as an infinit amount. There is not infinite amount of food, water, money. And after a certain point people revolt. There is only so much that the gov could possibly spend, and 87 billion was the size that was aloted to them by congress.

You claim that Europe was doing massive Colonization from 1600-1800.

This needs proving?

I believe that it does. It wasn't until the late 1800's that Africa,The Middle East, and China (most of Asia for that matter) were colonized by European powers. Through your research it seems that you have mixed up exploration with colonization.

China and the Middle east weren't mainly colonized by European powers. And African colonization began before North Americas.

http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum211/timelines/htimeline3.htm
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/resource/chron3.htm#ch17
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hm/08/af/hm08af.htm

North africa was colonized, longer ago than 2 thousand years. Any area that had decent ports were going to have port cities, and colonialization reaching slightly inward. However the drive to colonize the rest of Africa, the middle east, and the non-port areas of china can in the late 1800's. The middle east used to be under British control, China was divided. You can see that after the push in the 1800's every inch was staked out of Africa and China for these reasons.

http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum211/timelines/htimeline3.htm
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/resource/chron3.htm#ch17
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hm/08/af/hm08af.htm
Need some more?

Yes, these sights prove nothing other than that europeans had been there. There is a very distinct difference between exploration, trade, and colonization.
I never said that many weren't killed in America. I was saying more were killed than you claimed. You claimed that less than 1 million were killed after america was found and that is not true. There were one million remaing to the south of us and north of present day columbia. There were many more that 1 million in the continental U.S.

My point was that if 15 million were killed in the west indies alone why is it so hard to believe that many were killed in America?

I never said that many weren't killed in America. I was saying more were killed than you claimed. You claimed that less than 1 million were killed after america was found and that is not true. There were one million remaing to the south of us and north of present day columbia. There were many more that 1 million in the continental U.S.

not that the native american population was

primarily located in the 13 colonies.
When you speak of the colonization of America, it is infered that you speak of the area that we are at.

America is literally both North and South America.

You can't try to throw this obvious intricacy in my face. If I held you to it as well your agruments go out the window to. You have also used phrases "before americas founding." This error would not have been reached had you properly used "The Americas" that is the term used to avoid confusion. When someone speak of America singular the nation is implied.

20-30 million Native Americans killed during colonization of Americas, maybe even up to 80 million (there were only 1 million left by the end of 1600).

Your evidence states that this is in Central America and carribean. Once again not applicable.

Why not? It is entirely applicable.

Because America wasn't colonized until 1606. The Americas weren't colonized until after. They were explored and conquered. Quite a massive difference.

As I stated earlier there was no Colonization of what is now America by 1600. The Jamestown was 1606, plymoth rock some short time after that.
http://www.apva.org/history/

And the conquistadors just vanished from all your history books?Ya know, England wasn't the first one to get to America.

Correct, but the conquistadors weren't either. The weren't in America, they were in the America's (and yes I know that the spanish took owner ship of france and California. But the conquistador were around Mexico city.)

And as Richard Shenkman points out in his book "Legends lies and Cherished Myths of American history" encyclopedias are often wrong.

Proof?

The encylopedia of Britanica in one of its publications said "Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked it's edge." But Aristotle proved the world was round more than a millenia before columbus' birth

I was able to find the picture of the dead Iraqi child.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
There were other pics like this one at the gallery.

At 3/21/04 02:33 AM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/21/04 02:15 AM, Jimsween wrote: The ads would be with the articles, duh.

You have no proof of that :-O

Oh wow, Time magazine magically found a way to create a new dimension in which they can have two seperate page 3's in the same magazine, one for articles, and one for ads. Amazing.

At 3/21/04 02:42 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

At 3/21/04 01:13 AM, Jimsween wrote:

The date does not necessary make the acrticle invalid. It does however make it out dated in the sense that we know (as news stations post) we have found nothing. At the time it was written it was about what it could be. Under inspection they found that it was probably used to make hydrogen artillery balloons.
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_powell.htm

After close examination, and they still aren't sure. What does this tell you? That our inteligence wasn't just BS, they knew the vehicles existed, and they knew what they could use them for. You still have't proven your point.

And nomadic tribes are signifigantly smaller than tribes that settled. And it does make plenty of sense that they would be on the other side, they had thousands of years to move. I never denied the fact that there are tribes in the west, I simply said the tribes in the east are bigger.

The united States is over 9.158 million sq. killometers big, and why one would think that the majority of the native population would cram into less than a third of that is beyond me. Nativ tribes adapted to their surroundings, and created ways of life that allowed them to flurish in the practicing of their daily/seasonal rituals (migration is a example).

I never said the majority would. The majority doesn't have to, there were 50-70 million indians in america, how is 15 million the majority? Maybe you need to retake math class.

At 3/21/04 03:16 AM, awkward_silence wrote: Technically true, but each of the books has several pages for factual data, and research. This is why when you asked for them I gave the larger works. I'm not hiding them. You can feel free to verify it. But I thought that the forum wouldn't appreciate citing more than 6 pages worth of data.

Actually, the type of facts you are talking about, would be in the back of the book, under sources. Which is why I am asking for sources.

There is no such thing as an infinit amount. There is not infinite amount of food, water, money. And after a certain point people revolt. There is only so much that the gov could possibly spend, and 87 billion was the size that was aloted to them by congress.

There is an infinite amount of food water and money, as long as we keep growing it, it will keep coming, and water just gets recycled, and money often times isn't even exchanged in a material form, it's just computer data. The iraqi people tried to revolt before, but sadam had too much power over them, and making them starve would just increase his power over them. Also, 87 billion was NOT the size alloted by congress, thats a bullshit figure, NO amount was alloted by congress, they didn't specify a limit, it was not included anywhere in the budget until after the war.

North africa was colonized, longer ago than 2 thousand years. Any area that had decent ports were going to have port cities, and colonialization reaching slightly inward. However the drive to colonize the rest of Africa, the middle east, and the non-port areas of china can in the late 1800's. The middle east used to be under British control, China was divided. You can see that after the push in the 1800's every inch was staked out of Africa and China for these reasons.

Just because it was under thier control doesn't mean it was colonized, it means it was annexed. The slave trade was mainly over by the 1800's, so the colonization after the 1800 doesn't matter. You original point was that countries before 1600 cared about civilians, and I showed you several examples of why this wasn't true (colonization of America and slave trade in Africa). You have still yet to rebut these claims.

Yes, these sights prove nothing other than that europeans had been there. There is a very distinct difference between exploration, trade, and colonization.
I never said that many weren't killed in America. I was saying more were killed than you claimed. You claimed that less than 1 million were killed after america was found and that is not true. There were one million remaing to the south of us and north of present day columbia. There were many more that 1 million in the continental U.S.

I never claimed that less than one million were killed, I claimed most were killed BEFORE the US was founded, which is true, you just keep dancing around that fact and all the evidence I gave of that fact.

I never said that many weren't killed in America. I was saying more were killed than you claimed. You claimed that less than 1 million were killed after america was found and that is not true. There were one million remaing to the south of us and north of present day columbia. There were many more that 1 million in the continental U.S.

Once again, you are full of shit.

You can't try to throw this obvious intricacy in my face. If I held you to it as well your agruments go out the window to. You have also used phrases "before americas founding." This error would not have been reached had you properly used "The Americas" that is the term used to avoid confusion. When someone speak of America singular the nation is implied.

The difference is, I was talking about modern America then, when talking about America pre 1776, it usually means both North and South America. And this is beside the fact, your "point" was that they cared about the lives of civilians pre-1600, the deaths in south America would be plenty relevent to my arugment that that isn't true.

Because America wasn't colonized until 1606. The Americas weren't colonized until after. They were explored and conquered. Quite a massive difference.

Again, the conquistadors killed many, just because they weren't setteling doesn't mean they didn't kill anyone.

Correct, but the conquistadors weren't either. The weren't in America, they were in the America's (and yes I know that the spanish took owner ship of france and California. But the conquistador were around Mexico city.)

That doesn't change the fact that many people died, and your whole "Prussian" arugment is bullshit.

The encylopedia of Britanica in one of its publications said "Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked it's edge." But Aristotle proved the world was round more than a millenia before columbus' birth

How does that prove that all parts of American's history are lies?

At 3/21/04 09:48 AM, awkward_silence wrote: I was able to find the picture of the dead Iraqi child.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
There were other pics like this one at the gallery.

And how does this prove America indiscriminately bombs hospitals and schools?

At 3/21/04 02:09 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/21/04 03:16 AM, awkward_silence wrote:

Actually, the type of facts you are talking about, would be in the back of the book, under sources. Which is why I am asking for sources.

This is true, but in stoessenger alone there are rough;y ten pages of sources. This is why I summed up the larger works/

There is an infinite amount of food water and money, as long as we keep growing it, it will keep coming, and water just gets recycled, and money often times isn't even exchanged in a material form, it's just computer data. The iraqi people tried to revolt before, but sadam had too much power over them, and making them starve would just increase his power over them. Also, 87 billion was NOT the size alloted by congress, thats a bullshit figure, NO amount was alloted by congress, they didn't specify a limit, it was not included anywhere in the budget until after the war.

$87 Billion was the number that was given to congress in September of 2003
http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2003/09/18/1113092.xml
And anyone that truely believes there is an infinite amount of food,water,money, anything (except for time and space) is being truely niave about the subject.

North africa was colonized, longer ago than 2 thousand years. Any area that had decent ports were going to have port cities, and colonialization reaching slightly inward. However the drive to colonize the rest of Africa, the middle east, and the non-port areas of china can in the late 1800's. The middle east used to be under British control, China was divided. You can see that after the push in the 1800's every inch was staked out of Africa and China for these reasons.

You original point was that countries before 1600 cared about civilians, and I showed you several examples of why this wasn't true (colonization of America and slave trade in Africa). You have still yet to rebut these claims.

No I claimed that civilian lives were important post 1600, then the prussians set the status quo framework. I said some countries cared about citizen because they could be used for slaves(and other reasons before that). The source for this is James L. Paynes "The American Threat: National Security amd Foreign Policy" Copywrite 1981 Lytton Publishing Texas. I cannot cite the notes because I only have the first half of the book. (As part of a packet for class) The library of Congress Catalog # is 81-80540. I'm not hinding it look it up.

I never claimed that less than one million were killed,
At 3/20/04 01:04 PM, Jimsween wrote:

A third of the populationa t the time. But that was not more than a million.
All the evidence you gave said most were kill in the Central America and Carribean area.

There were one million remaing to the south of us and north of present day columbia. There were many more that 1 million in the continental U.S.

Once again, you are full of shit.

I'm not. I used your own sources for that.

And this is beside the fact, your "point" was that they cared about the lives of civilians pre-1600, the deaths in south America would be plenty relevent to my arugment that that isn't true.

And once again you missquote me, what I said at 8:46 3/19/04 was
" 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."

Because America wasn't colonized until 1606. The Americas weren't colonized until after. They were explored and conquered. Quite a massive difference.

Again, the conquistadors killed many, just because they weren't setteling doesn't mean they didn't kill anyone.

I never said that they didn't, however you said that so many were killed in america, before it's foundind. And I'm saying no, So many were killed in "The Americas" before America was founded.

Correct, but the conquistadors weren't either. The weren't in America, they were in the America's (and yes I know that the spanish took owner ship of france and California. But the conquistador were around Mexico city.)

That doesn't change the fact that many people died, and your whole "Prussian" arugment is bullshit.

wow, I meant to say florida not france.Hahaha
And no its not. The figures you have given have been between the years of 1492 and 1600. This was before prussia set down the status quo.

The encylopedia of Britanica in one of its publications said "Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked it's edge." But Aristotle proved the world was round more than a millenia before columbus' birth

How does that prove that all parts of American's history are lies?

I never said that American History is full of lies. I simply said that the encyclopedia is known to not be accurate. Though usually a good source of information. I simply gave an example. And Richard shenkmans book is filled with many others. Thes aren't neccesarily lies, the are just incorrect statements.