Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

You asked for proof, and claimed that only military installments were bombed. I gave pic that I recalled from a Gallery in Tokyo. If you want more, the U.S. bombed a restraunt on purpose because of a defectors claims. This was seen on the Daily Show, twice. (Once for its original airing, the other on its special "Iraq: A look Baq"

---

At 3/21/04 03:25 PM, awkward_silence wrote:

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

If you really "summed it up" you would have had a few important sources from teh books, like the ones related to the facts you were giving, not just the books themselves.

$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

September 2003 was AFTER the war, duh. Was that just a horrible mistake on your part or did you think I was stupid enough not to notice that?

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.

I've given my argument, calling me niave isn't going to prove me wrong.

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.

And I showed you that that simply wasnt true, because they killed millions of Indians for no reason.

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.

And it was not, the Trail of Tears did not kill more than a million indians, by then the population was very small.

All the evidence you gave said most were kill in the Central America and Carribean area.

Which still shows that the people didn't care about civilians.

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.

Proof? And there would have had to be more than 3 million for 1 million to be killed in the trail of tears.

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

I wasn't talking about the bottom portion of the paragraph, I was talking about the top.

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."

No, I believe I quoted you quite perfectly.

Posted: 3/19/04 08:09 PM
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.

Posted: 3/19/04 09:29 PM
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.

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.

Yes you did say that they didn't. "Everyone followed them and respected them" Why do you think I brought up the Indians to begin with?

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.

So your actually denying that indians were killed from 1600-1776? And if civilians were so important, then why did the Russians burn down more than half of Moscow when the French Invaded?

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.

And how does a quote prove that?

---

At 3/21/04 03:29 PM, awkward_silence wrote: You asked for proof, and claimed that only military installments were bombed. I gave pic that I recalled from a Gallery in Tokyo. If you want more, the U.S. bombed a restraunt on purpose because of a defectors claims. This was seen on the Daily Show, twice. (Once for its original airing, the other on its special "Iraq: A look Baq"

First of all I claimed that only military installments were intentionally bombed. And a pic doesn't prove otherwise, and what is your proof that is was a resturaunt or that it was from defectors claims?