Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have an idea, let's all whine because the world isn't exactly the way we want it to be.

However, I think it is important that we bomb Iraq. Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, and the first step in doing that is suppressing him.

Forge not works of art but swords of death, for therein lies great art.

At 8/18/01 01:21 AM, matias wrote: I have an idea, let's all whine because the world isn't exactly the way we want it to be.

Good use of sarcasim, bad idea behind it. Obviously sence this is a furom we debate our opinions rather than just state something and leave.

However, I think it is important that we bomb Iraq. Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, and the first step in doing that is suppressing him.

Well explain your opinon, why you think that, and why what saddam is doing is wrong, we can't debate if you just say nothing new.

Other than that you seem like you have some promise. Don't let me down, we have enough laserbeambandits.

Anhonymous: Your naivete guised as patriotism never ceases to amaze me.

America was founded for freedom and government of the people, by the people...oh, except if you were black or a woman (or both), in which case, no government of or by you then...

Thomas Jefferson had slaves, so don't give me that bullshit.

Furthermore, the US doesn't get involved in wars to be the good guy and help people out. It conveniently ignores a whole lot of these situations if they're of no benefit/profit to the US, and especially if they're done by allies, as is the case in Latin America, Turkey and Indonesia to name but a few. Your morals dictate you should help free people from Saddam, yet you have no problems placing your own ultra right wing leaders in countries such as Indonesia or Latin America (until they no longer do as you like and then you get rid of them), nor in either disrupting or overthrowing democratically decided elections or their results if they don't suit you.

Anarchy: The public was aware of Hitler's actions long before war broke out. The holocaust was known before then, as was the Anchluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1936 and 1938 respectively. Likewise, on the other side of the world, the Japanese had invaded Manchuria in 1932, and there were gross human rights transgressions there.

"O Contrer mon frer"

Jesus H. Fucking Christ. Is it not enough that you people butcher English that you need to diversify into other languages also?! It's "Au contraire mon frere." Au is a contraction of a + le, and literally means at the, or to the...

amhnonymous: Your dates are way off. The Berlin Wall wasn't built until 1961, and the subsequent Allied food drops weren't until the sixties. As such, that would put such events three decades after the German arms build up during the depression of the thirties, in which Germany was worst hit. Two completely different times and events.

This was all one crazy thread really.

shorbe

Here are the facts;

Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979. He soon started the Iran-Iraq war which began in 1980, and lasted eight years. This had a crippling effect on both country's economies. Before Iraq even had a chance to recover from the above-mentioned effects, Saddam Hussein led them into the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The UN security council condemned the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and demanded a complete withdrawal by the 15th of January 1991. Saddam Hussein didn't follow this order, and the Persian Gulf war pursued. The war lasted only six weeks, ending when a cease-fire was proclaimed. The cease-fire had strict conditions and demanded the destruction of all stockpiled Iraqi weapons. By early 1992, it became apparent that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, and intense international pressure to eliminate these weapons was brought to bear, in the shape of UN economic sanctions. In 1993 the Security Council voted to maintain these sanctions, despite attempts by Iraq to have them lifted. To date he has still caused trouble.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein is a malignancy on his people, and should be removed from office. His country, due to it's resources, could be much more productive under different leadership.

A lot of you seem to have the attitude of: "It's not my country, why should I care?" To this I will respond with a quote. "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." If you don't understand how this quote is applicable to our current situation, try a little harder.

At 8/18/01 03:08 PM, matias wrote: Here are the facts;

Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979. He soon started the Iran-Iraq war which began in 1980, and lasted eight years. This had a crippling effect on both country's economies. Before Iraq even had a chance to recover from the above-mentioned effects, Saddam Hussein led them into the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The UN security council condemned the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and demanded a complete withdrawal by the 15th of January 1991. Saddam Hussein didn't follow this order, and the Persian Gulf war pursued. The war lasted only six weeks, ending when a cease-fire was proclaimed. The cease-fire had strict conditions and demanded the destruction of all stockpiled Iraqi weapons. By early 1992, it became apparent that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, and intense international pressure to eliminate these weapons was brought to bear, in the shape of UN economic sanctions. In 1993 the Security Council voted to maintain these sanctions, despite attempts by Iraq to have them lifted. To date he has still caused trouble.

Well you back up your arguement, yet it is a bit neive and grade schoolish... this I appreciate.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein is a malignancy on his people, and should be removed from office. His country, due to it's resources, could be much more productive under different leadership.

In your opinon. But not in the opinion of the people of Iraq, I don't know how many times it has to be said, He has something like a 95% approval rating, the people like him, and they want him. They are fundamentalist concernd about the Islamic faith, not worldy matters. Though we might disagree, that doesn't mean that we should intervene.

We must stop aggresive acts, and when such things occur and if given proper casue, then enter Iraq and establish Z.o.C. and take Husein to trial in the Hauge, We should have done in during desert storm, but missed the oppurtunity. Our Failed policy towards Iraq is to blame as much as Saddam.

Anyway In fundamentalist countries, a slightly egotistical despotic religious wacko who puts the military before anything save self glorifaction isn't that hard to find.

A lot of you seem to have the attitude of: "It's not my country, why should I care?" To this I will respond with a quote. "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." If you don't understand how this quote is applicable to our current situation, try a little harder.

Nice ending with a quote, but the last part made you sound like an arrogant prick. We have alot of those already.

At 8/18/01 08:54 AM, shorbe wrote: Anhonymous: Your naivete guised as patriotism never ceases to amaze me.

I can't help if I know how it is and not wishing how it should be. All of you live with your anti-government views yet you still are here in the government you are against. Maybe you should relocate to a government with the same ideals and stop wasting your time trying to change the minds of those who support how we handle tyrants that oppress their people like saddam. You give props to people that gives the finger to us yet you call their country shitholes. Why do you think their country is a shithole?. Maybe its because they can't face the fact that their system of government isn't working. Yet they always seem to blame us for their troubles.

At 8/18/01 05:35 PM, anhnonymous wrote:

At 8/18/01 08:54 AM, shorbe wrote: Anhonymous: Your naivete guised as patriotism never ceases to amaze me.

I can't help if I know how it is and not wishing how it should be. All of you live with your anti-government views yet you still are here in the government you are against. Maybe you should relocate to a government with the same ideals and stop wasting your time trying to change the minds of those who support how we handle tyrants that oppress their people like saddam. You give props to people that gives the finger to us yet you call their country shitholes. Why do you think their country is a shithole?. Maybe its because they can't face the fact that their system of government isn't working. Yet they always seem to blame us for their troubles.

I agree with shorbe on a few things, disagree on a great many more. Initial I thought we were similar in out thinking, now I find we're not however I can say this and say it in full knowledge that shorbe will agree. Government has it's place, but it's just that, government has it's place and some places arn't for it.

Now Personally I belive that in the past government was required to a larger degree but as we progress less and less is needed, fortunatly the american government allows for such flexibility but not if we handy cap ourselfs by saying "that's the way it's done becuase I'm american". As we progress we become less needy on government and more towards direct democracy, though I see that objective never comming to fruition, it is the acomplishments made towards that goal that is important.

At 8/18/01 05:48 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/18/01 05:35 PM, anhnonymous wrote:

At 8/18/01 08:54 AM, shorbe wrote: Anhonymous: Your naivete guised as patriotism never ceases to amaze me.

I can't help if I know how it is and not wishing how it should be. All of you live with your anti-government views yet you still are here in the government you are against. Maybe you should relocate to a government with the same ideals and stop wasting your time trying to change the minds of those who support how we handle tyrants that oppress their people like saddam. You give props to people that gives the finger to us yet you call their country shitholes. Why do you think their country is a shithole?. Maybe its because they can't face the fact that their system of government isn't working. Yet they always seem to blame us for their troubles.

I agree with shorbe on a few things, disagree on a great many more. Initial I thought we were similar in out thinking, now I find we're not however I can say this and say it in full knowledge that shorbe will agree. Government has it's place, but it's just that, government has it's place and some places arn't for it.

Now Personally I belive that in the past government was required to a larger degree but as we progress less and less is needed, fortunatly the american government allows for such flexibility but not if we handy cap ourselfs by saying "that's the way it's done becuase I'm american". As we progress we become less needy on government and more towards direct democracy, though I see that objective never comming to fruition, it is the acomplishments made towards that goal that is important.

Uhhh...whatever. At least you realize...I hope.

Uhhh...whatever. At least you realize...I hope.

Realize what the hell your talking about with a one line response? No can't say that I do, why even say "whatever" it adds nothing, either don't respond or say something of use please. Don't want a fellow patriot looking poorly.

Now Personally I belive that in the past government was required to a larger degree but as we progress less and less is needed, fortunatly the american government allows for such flexibility but not if we handy cap ourselfs by saying "that's the way it's done becuase I'm american". As we progress we become less needy on government and more towards direct democracy, though I see that objective never comming to fruition, it is the acomplishments made towards that goal that is important.

First you get the proper social structure, then you can get rid of the government.

At 8/19/01 06:58 AM, Slizor wrote:

Now Personally I belive that in the past government was required to a larger degree but as we progress less and less is needed, fortunatly the american government allows for such flexibility but not if we handy cap ourselfs by saying "that's the way it's done becuase I'm american". As we progress we become less needy on government and more towards direct democracy, though I see that objective never comming to fruition, it is the acomplishments made towards that goal that is important.

First you get the proper social structure, then you can get rid of the government.

I disagree, Even with the perfect social structure, humans are not perfect and there for require guidance. Maybe not all of them, but some do.

I disagree, Even with the perfect social structure, humans are not perfect and there for require guidance. Maybe not all of them, but some do.

Who are you talking about? Which people?

At 8/19/01 07:11 AM, Slizor wrote:

I disagree, Even with the perfect social structure, humans are not perfect and there for require guidance. Maybe not all of them, but some do.

Who are you talking about? Which people?

Any one who couldn't make it as a unitarian.

At 8/19/01 07:14 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/19/01 07:11 AM, Slizor wrote:

I disagree, Even with the perfect social structure, humans are not perfect and there for require guidance. Maybe not all of them, but some do.

Who are you talking about? Which people?

Any one who couldn't make it as a unitarian.

What the heck? I mean Utlitarian.

In your opinon. But not in the opinion of the people of Iraq, I don't know how many times it has to be said, He has something like a 95% approval rating, the people like him, and they want him. They are fundamentalist concernd about the Islamic faith, not worldy matters. Though we might disagree, that doesn't mean that we should intervene.

Where did you get this 95% approval rating information? Either Saddam and his puppets made it up, or they went around and killed the people who said they didn't approve of him. Even if I took this poll myself I wouldn't trust the results, because everyone answering would be afraid I might pull out a gun and shoot them if they said they did not like their dictator.

What the heck? I mean Utlitarian.

And why wouldn't anyone be able to do that?

At 8/20/01 06:07 AM, Slizor wrote:

What the heck? I mean Utlitarian.

And why wouldn't anyone be able to do that?

What I'm saying is, the only people in our society who can deal with a freebase (giggles I said freebase) society would be those who could survive as a utliatrian, societal restrictions and structure, hurt the stong but let the weak survive. Now if your
darwinist in this, you would probably like that, but a civilized society would have none of that. Also, I don't want a response from some 12 year old saying "Ohh yes the strong should kill the weak" while eating some macdonalds, becuase in reality we are the weak, and the man in ethopia who can live with almost unsurvivable conditions.

you gotta be the stupidest kid on earth,

what would america have to gain by showing the world its brave?!?. america is already classified as the worlds only super power.

saddam is a terrorist, we need to keep his troops inside the iraq boarder.

FUN FACT America knew saddam was watching CNN the whole time, we used the to our advantage, its called military deception.

At 8/25/01 12:45 AM, FAT_MAN2k1 wrote: you gotta be the stupidest kid on earth,

At least your direct, that's always a good thing. Get to the point, n00b!

what would america have to gain by showing the world its brave?!?. america is already classified as the worlds only super power.

Arrogence, simple arrogence. We're like a school yard bully, we push around countries smaller than ourselves simply because we can. I've used Kosovo as an example before. We didn't bomb military bases, we bombed homes and TV stations!

saddam is a terrorist, we need to keep his troops inside the iraq boarder.

I've also said before that China is a much more brutal country, and we don't even raise an eyebrow! Maybe we should keep troops in the borders of countries we don't have business relations with.

FUN FACT America knew saddam was watching CNN the whole time, we used the to our advantage, its called military deception.

First of all, I already knew that, we used a similar tactic in World War II by creating fake invations on film. Second of all, one AnarchyPenguin already mentioned that. Now, Anarchy is an intelligent person, so I'd be more likely to respect his answer more than guy who calls me stupid when they don't even know what the shift key is for! I'm not saying I haven't made the occasional typo or two, but when insulting someone, try not to screw up too much.

Oh, FAT_MAN, I just heard that the US just opened fire on some Iraqi civilains. This was while blowing up their radio station. I know Saddam's a terrorist, but judging from what I just heard, we're no better!

At 8/26/01 03:34 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Oh, FAT_MAN, I just heard that the US just opened fire on some Iraqi civilains. This was while blowing up their radio station. I know Saddam's a terrorist, but judging from what I just heard, we're no better!

Uhhh it was a radar station, and if there was civilians there so be it. I'm sick of arguing about this, if they don't know by now that we will keep bombing radar and military sites they deserve to be a casualty.

At 8/26/01 09:01 PM, anhnonymous wrote:

At 8/26/01 03:34 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Oh, FAT_MAN, I just heard that the US just opened fire on some Iraqi civilains. This was while blowing up their radio station. I know Saddam's a terrorist, but judging from what I just heard, we're no better!

Uhhh it was a radar station, and if there was civilians there so be it. I'm sick of arguing about this, if they don't know by now that we will keep bombing radar and military sites they deserve to be a casualty.

Yeah! If those foreginers keep Standing in the place where we are going to drop bombs then it's THEIR FAULT! ... Wait... what?

At 8/14/01 11:16 PM, GameboyCC wrote: I heard that America has one again started dropping bombs on Iraq... yawn... just another day...

It seems like we just bomb that country to keep the media busy! Who do we think we're bombing? Saddam Hussein? He's tucked away in his bunker finding out our next move! When we bombed Kosovo, we just hit TV stations and villages! It seems that America wants to show how "brave" it is by bombing a bunch of third world countries! Lord help us if we get in a war with a larger country like Russia or China. That's my rant, what do you think?

While I agree on some level with Anarchypenguin, that it's not that simple. You might also want to think about how many times US has done this in the past (ie. Vietnam). But there is a difference here, Saddam is a dictator who needs to be kept in check every so often. And his people starving and dying are no one's fault but his own... yes, it is unfortunate of course.

At 8/18/01 08:54 AM, shorbe wrote: America was founded for freedom and government of the people, by the people...oh, except if you were black or a woman (or both), in which case, no government of or by you then...

shorbe

picky picky picky.. :)

At 8/26/01 03:34 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Oh, FAT_MAN, I just heard that the US just opened fire on some Iraqi civilains. This was while blowing up their radio station. I know Saddam's a terrorist, but judging from what I just heard, we're no better!

i know we killed a few civilians, we bomb iraq so much its almost routine, and why are civilians working in military radar bases??

At 8/26/01 03:34 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Oh, FAT_MAN, I just heard that the US just opened fire on some Iraqi civilains. This was while blowing up their radio station. I know Saddam's a terrorist, but judging from what I just heard, we're no better!

i know we killed a few civilians, we bomb iraq so much its almost routine, and why are civilians working in military radio bases??