Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/2/04 03:49 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: . It's a quagmire, plain and simple, an that's what it will remain until someone decides to do SOMETHING and put their foot down on the situation.

Well fine then. Do you have any suggestions?

At 4/2/04 03:49 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: My response: What has happened is truly tragic in that we've followed this wild goose chase to the point where we can no longer get out without causing infinitely more harm to not only the Iraqi people and their newly independent nation, but to our confidence as a nation and our respect on the world stage. It's a quagmire, plain and simple, an that's what it will remain until someone decides to do SOMETHING and put their foot down on the situation.

There is one thing you could do. Well, not you personally, but the American Administration. Turn over all power to the UN, and give other countries a bigger role. It'll show that America is not afraid of admitting it's mistakes or not holding the power.

Do you think that the UN would really do a good job? I think most of us could take it for granted that they would do better than the US. But I don't think that any one group could do a good job. Except maybe the Swiss.

Giving the United States military power in Iraq while turning over building and infrastructure to the United Nations is the best plan. This gives the US control over their occupation, but the UN control over building things up from the rubble.

Now that plan shows some real ingenuity, but do you think that leaving the bullies on the playground will do anything to help the already flaming anger of the militant factions? Still that's the best plan I've heard so far. Admittedly I've been too wraped up in personal matters to researched the topic in as much detail as I would like.

While "leaving the bullies on the field" will not stop the violence, I highly doubt there is very much short of a full removal of ALL foreign forces that will stop the violence in Iraq, especially Hussein holdout territory like Fallujah. The idea I proposed allows the United States to save face by remaining in Iraq and "keeping control" whle the combined United Nations forces assist in the building of not only a government, but electrical and water grids, and assisting the injured, an area that is dangerously understaffed as it stands right now.

Sometimes the quickest way to pass the buck is to meet in the middle.

At 4/3/04 02:20 AM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: and assisting the injured, an area that is dangerously understaffed as it stands right now.

Sometimes the quickest way to pass the buck is to meet in the middle.

(surprised) Really? What are the Red Cross doing over there, sitting on their duffs? I'm sorry about all my ignorance on recent issues, death in the family and such. When it's all over I'll make sure to return to my common practice of reading the morning paper after another night of insomnia over three cups of black coffee. (somebody help me) Anyway, do you believe America deserves to save face. I feel keeping up appearances should be the least of our conern, but then again I fall into hypocracy quite often.

At 4/3/04 01:35 AM, JMHX_DeLux wrote: Giving the United States military power in Iraq while turning over building and infrastructure to the United Nations is the best plan. This gives the US control over their occupation, but the UN control over building things up from the rubble.

Yeah, that would work. As long as there is a body consisting of more than just Bush, Tony and a few selected Oil contractors with all the power.

The UN has about 60,000 troops deployed across the world, the US has 80,000 troops in Iraq. Now even if the UN took all the troops away from everywhere else, they would still fall short of the amount of troops neccesary to do the same crappy job the US has been doing.

Simply put, the UN is useless. If we did hand over control, we would either have to keep all our troops there, or Iraq would... die.

At 4/3/04 12:54 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

Simply put, the UN is useless. If we did hand over control, we would either have to keep all our troops there, or Iraq would... die.

It's my understanding, that every time we've pulled out of a country early, the militant factions start killing the people who are trying to rebuild. The UN is not special, their big UN's on their uniforms and vehicles are not going to protect them against people who are dead set against foreign intervention. Imagine if the UN came into the United states and tried to forcefully convert us to Communism, I'd bet that the businessmen would start bombing UN trucks, This kind of thing happens when certain groups of people get shafted by a restructuring, regardless of whether or not they deserve to get shafted.

At 4/3/04 12:54 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: The UN has about 60,000 troops deployed across the world, the US has 80,000 troops in Iraq. Now even if the UN took all the troops away from everywhere else, they would still fall short of the amount of troops neccesary to do the same crappy job the US has been doing.

Simply put, the UN is useless. If we did hand over control, we would either have to keep all our troops there, or Iraq would... die.

Maybe the reason the US soldiors are getting attacked isn't because of their number, but more to do with the fact that THEY HATE YOUR GUTS...

Possibly... i'm jjust saying.

At 4/3/04 03:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Maybe the reason the US soldiors are getting attacked isn't because of their number, but more to do with the fact that THEY HATE YOUR GUTS...

Any country, anywhere, dislikes foriegn conquerers. If the UN moved in, nothing one change.

Additionally - if the UN did move in, they would need to be given more free reign than they have in the past. UN missions in the past have always been a recipe for failure. Why? They're set up for failure. UN troops by and large aren't that poorly trained, but they're always limited so much that they can't conceivably win whatever mission they're on.

At 4/3/04 03:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Maybe the reason the US soldiors are getting attacked isn't because of their number, but more to do with the fact that THEY HATE YOUR GUTS...

Possibly... i'm jjust saying.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure they love the UN soooooooo much. Anybody occupying thier country, they will hate, simple as that.

Ok while, I can see where all these statements are coming from it still doesn't answer the important question, what do we, the american citizen, the non-american citizen, the american administration, do about it?

At 4/3/04 07:18 PM, FatherVenom wrote: the non-american citizen, the american administration, do about it?

I'm just going to wait and see what happens in June. I would prefer that the UN would step in and take a larger, leadership role in Iraq, and we wait to fully 'hand over power' until we're sure that the country is 'stable' enough.

Hussien was bad, but it does get worse.

This sounds like a UN meeting.

At 4/3/04 04:03 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: Any country, anywhere, dislikes foriegn conquerers. If the UN moved in, nothing one change.

Whilst that is very true, remember there's one hell of a difference between the words "dislike" and "hate". Dislike is kicking a guy in the teeth. Hate is dragging 4 of them through the streets and stringing them up.

At 4/3/04 06:03 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Oh yeah, and I'm sure they love the UN soooooooo much. Anybody occupying thier country, they will hate, simple as that.

The US has bombed Iraq for years and years before the war. The people MIGHT just not like America one teency-weency bit because their families were killed by their bombs. Maybe, just maybe that's the case.

At 4/4/04 04:01 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/3/04 06:03 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Oh yeah, and I'm sure they love the UN soooooooo much. Anybody occupying thier country, they will hate, simple as that.

The US has bombed Iraq for years and years before the war. The people MIGHT just not like America one teency-weency bit because their families were killed by their bombs. Maybe, just maybe that's the case.

I'd sure like to see your proof of these families being killed by pre-war bombs. And where did I say they like America? I simply said they are not going to like anyone who occupies thier country.

At 4/4/04 05:17 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: I'd sure like to see your proof of these families being killed by pre-war bombs.

Bombs go boom.

At 4/4/04 02:32 PM, CrassClock wrote:

Bombs go boom.

No.

At 4/4/04 04:01 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: The US has bombed Iraq for years and years before the war. The people MIGHT just not like America one teency-weency bit because their families were killed by their bombs. Maybe, just maybe that's the case.

And the UN has imposed sanctions over the last ten years which have devasted the country. The Iraqi people by and large would not be any more glad to see their country controlled by the UN.

I should of rephrased my earlier response: "Any country hates being conquered by any foreign army"

At 4/4/04 03:40 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/4/04 02:32 PM, CrassClock wrote:

Bombs go boom.

No.

I'll just save this one for my records, next time Jimmy thinks somebody other than himself is being an ass...

At 4/5/04 09:56 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 4/4/04 03:40 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/4/04 02:32 PM, CrassClock wrote:

Bombs go boom.

No.

I'll just save this one for my records, next time Jimmy thinks somebody other than himself is being an ass...

Oh boo hoo, j00 make me cry.

At 4/4/04 05:17 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: I'd sure like to see your proof of these families being killed by pre-war bombs. And where did I say they like America? I simply said they are not going to like anyone who occupies thier country.

The pre-war bombs killed tens of thousands. Some sources say hundreds, but I can't find them, because my favourites are indexed badly.

I can't PROVE that those families were killed by pre-war bombs. But the americans dropped millions of bombs, smart, dumb and cluster on Iraq for Years, this is common knowledge. Lots of children unexplicably blew up after playing near areas where cluster bombs. I'm putting two and two together, and rounding the answer up to four.

At 4/5/04 03:57 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/5/04 09:56 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 4/4/04 03:40 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/4/04 02:32 PM, CrassClock wrote:

Bombs go boom.

No.

I'll just save this one for my records, next time Jimmy thinks somebody other than himself is being an ass...

Oh boo hoo, j00 make me cry.

Ah, fuck it - this is going on my T-shirt site. After all, it's to priceless to waste by just copying it, putting it in bold, and using it every time Jimsween insults us by hitting "Reply With Quote"...

At 4/5/04 04:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/4/04 05:17 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

I can't PROVE that those families were killed by pre-war bombs. But the americans dropped millions of bombs, smart, dumb and cluster on Iraq for Years, this is common knowledge.

Yes, because Clinton caught flak for stepping up the bombings. It was called a Wag the Dog to veer the public away from Lewinsky, and he ended up fading it back down.

At 4/5/04 04:47 PM, D2KVirus wrote:

Ah, fuck it - this is going on my T-shirt site. After all, it's to priceless to waste by just copying it, putting it in bold, and using it every time Jimsween insults us by hitting "Reply With Quote"...

OMG did you hear what jimsween said, omg omg did you see that. That is so going in my signature, omg I'm going to keep it and save it in a word document so I never ever lose it, wow can you believe he said that, wow.

At 4/5/04 06:25 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

Yes, because Clinton caught flak for stepping up the bombings. It was called a Wag the Dog to veer the public away from Lewinsky, and he ended up fading it back down.

I can't believe it didn't work. Honestly you would think Americans would have been more up in arms about us killing people than about a sex scandal at which citizens in most other countries wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

At 4/5/04 09:40 PM, FatherVenom wrote: I can't believe it didn't work. Honestly you would think Americans would have been more up in arms about us killing people than about a sex scandal at which citizens in most other countries wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

Never underestimate how
a) stupid, and
b) apathetic
People can be. It would have happened in any country in the world. "TONY BLAIR HAS SEX WITH OTHER WOMAN" will sell more papers than "CLUSTER BOMBS DROPPED ON IRAQ". The lntellectual fraction will buy the second, butthe vast majority couldn't care less, and just want to hear another stupid celeb scandel.