Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hahaha! Reading the last few replies gave me quite a laugh ! lol ... "chicken fucker" ha ha ha !

Quite a thread , isn't it?!

At 6/22/06 05:20 PM, DttUsliCa wrote: OK!!! on a serious note :P ever notice anytime bush says/does something indicating we're "winning" the war, the war turns around and bites us/sticks a hand up our ass? i.e. the battelship/visiting the iraqi P.M?

Totally man, I mean what's the ratio of dead americans to dead insurgents and Iraqi Republic Guard, 1 to 17? We're definitely losing this conflict.

(sarcasm)

well, i didnt know about this POST HERE ABOUT BUSH OR ELSE!!! -thing so i made a different thread... pff... sorry... i guess. so just in case, heres the stuff about the bush-hitler connection:

well, i just found out about this today, and its a sorta weird story... or conspiracy theory?

supposedly, george w. bushs grandfather, prescott bush, had an interesting connection with nazi germany. before and during wwII, he was chairman of a bank that dealt with the finances of/was partly owned by the thyssen company. the thyssen company was a german steel company producing war goods for hitler. also, fritz thyssen (the owner) helped finance hitlers early attempts with the nazi party, thus practically helping him to come to power. thyssens partner in germany was the flick company, that made use of slave labor in concentration camps. the us knew about these concentration camps, but didnt take any steps to destroy them... due to the pressure of such companies as the harriman bank (bank i mentioned before that prescott bush was a part of)? america didnt get involved in the war until 1941, even though hitlers intentions must have been obvious by 1939, the invasion of poland. this didnt change anything for p. bush, though, involvement with nazi germany wasnt illegal. this happened only after the us had entered the war, but its unknown when p. bush gave up his shares of that company which was involved with thyssen and all that.

apparently the bush family always knew how to profit from wars, considering the fact that it happened back then, and still happens today (the old oil story). now, what do you think of that prescott bush thing?

by the way: source

At 6/24/06 09:14 PM, rockizzy wrote: heres the stuff about the bush-hitler connection:

From the Anti-Defamation League:

Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.

Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer

At 6/24/06 10:25 PM, Tal-con wrote: If a theory this groundbreaking had any actual ground, you'd think a major media outlet would do a single story on it, but no, it's been ignored - as it should be. This is about as credible as that "Kerry is an American traitor" theories.

so youre saying the guardian is no major media outlet? why? because its one of the biggest british newspapers? i dont understand.

well, maybe i posted under the wrong topic... maybe this doesnt concern the presidency of george w. bush so much, as this is just about his grandpa. maybe its more about the question of ethics in business, as in "is it okay to have business connections with a fascist regime" or something like that. where you could come right back at george w. bush. yay!

At 6/24/06 10:35 PM, Tal-con wrote: No, I'm pointing out that for a story this huge that noone has picked up on it except British newspapers. I think it's a load of bull, your story.

but... but... i thought it was a fun story! and, wikipedia also mentions it! wikipedia! and there are other sources too, like this one:
some guy
or this one:
ultimate proof
just google it! dont you believe the internet?!
i liked my story.

This thread does NOT die people. Use it, or lose your BBS priveledges.

At 6/24/06 10:47 AM, Tal-con wrote:

:I wouldn't call a government that gassed it's own people "stable" under any circumstance, period.

Holy man, you're never gonna drop this "gassed his own people" thing are ya? Just curious, but how are Kurdish settlers in northern Iraq considered 'Saddams own people'? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Saddams actions at the time like the US gov did, but these people (Kurds) are trying to create thier own lil country in northern Iraq. Even going behind the new US-backed Iraqi constitution to create Kurdish villages, and trying to claim Kirkuk as thier own, which will lead to heavy violence between Sunni Arabs and the Kurds. Remember at the time of the apparent gassing, Iraq was using these types of weapons on a regular basis against the Iranians. Like you say, war has its casualties, are you positive that Saddam wasn't at war with the Kurds?

At 6/25/06 09:56 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/25/06 08:11 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 6/24/06 10:47 AM, Tal-con wrote: I wouldn't call a government that gassed it's own people "stable" under any circumstance, period.

Holy man, you're never gonna drop this "gassed his own people" thing are ya?

Why would I want to drop something which I know is factually true?

It's factually true that USA killed scores of Vietnamese with chemicals, but you don't recite that on an hourly basis do you? But lets not get into that here shall we?

Just curious, but how are Kurdish settlers in northern Iraq considered 'Saddams own people'?

http://en.wikipedia...ja_poison_gas_attack

Just read about it, you don't seem to understand the severity of what Saddam did.

Oh I have read alot on the subject as of late and I understand it perfectly well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Saddams actions at the time like the US gov did,

The US defended Saddam's actions?

Yes actually. The UN security council president released a statement after numorous gas attacks by Iraq and the US voted against the issuance of that statement. Although this particular statement was made on March 21-1986, it still shows the US defending Iraq chemical weapon use. And even after the Halabja attack, the US still financially supported the Iraqi weapon (WMD) machine.

Like you say, war has its casualties, are you positive that Saddam wasn't at war with the Kurds?

There is a distinct difference between killing innocent civilians of another country by accident and slaughtering citizens of your own country on purpose.

"Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran".

So, your source says that Halabja was held by Iranian troops and Kurdish settlers at the time of the gassing. So basically, innocent civilians got caught up in a war between Iraq, Iran and the Kurdish guerillas. Remember that Saddam and the Kurds have been in conflict for years prior to the gassing. So, just because the Kurds were on Iraqi soil, doesn't make them Iraqi citizens, especially to a guy like Saddam.

Kids crying, we shall continue this debate.

At 6/24/06 10:25 PM, Tal-con wrote:

If a theory this groundbreaking had any actual ground, you'd think a major media outlet would do a single story on it, but no, it's been ignored - as it should be. This is about as credible as that "Kerry is an American traitor" theories.

Kerry is a fucking traitor. He could have fucking kept on fighting against Bush in the last election but what does he do? He fucking bails out like the chicken shit that he is.

At 6/26/06 06:31 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/26/06 02:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: It's factually true that USA killed scores of Vietnamese with chemicals, but you don't recite that on an hourly basis do you? But lets not get into that here shall we?

Oh and this of course justifies Saddam killing his own people, right? Bullshit, try discounting my own points insteading of reminiscing (<sp?) events that took place 30 years ago.

It doesn't justify Saddam gassing the Iranians and the Kurds in Halabja. But you seem to say "Saddam gassed his own people" on a daily basis. I was just pointing out that your own country gassed people aswell but you don't bring that up, ever. Regardless if it was 30 or 18 years ago. Nor am I trying to discount the gassing at all.

Yes actually. The UN security council president released a statement after numorous gas attacks by Iraq and the US voted against the issuance of that statement.

I would like to see a source for this.

The UN doesn't have info on the votes of presidential statements, but here is the statement (search for 2667) . Here is info on US vetoes and votes against this particular statement here , and here (Search for numerical link 51). Hope thats enough for ya.

Although this particular statement was made on March 21-1986

In which time the United States had gone through how many different administrations? 4 or 5? blah, I'm too lazy to count.

Actually, Reagan was POTUS during both, the issuance of the presidential statement and the gassing in Halabja.

it still shows the US defending Iraq chemical weapon use. And even after the Halabja attack, the US still financially supported the Iraqi weapon (WMD) machine.

I would also like a source for this.

Anything I can do to help. Check this site , search for B353226 for starters, from there you can just read around at the info.

"Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran".

Doesn't matter who the hell was holding the city. America wouldn't nuke NYC if terrorists took over somehow.

Please don't compare Halabja existance in Iraq to NYC existance in USA, your comparing apples to Jaguars.

So, just because the Kurds were on Iraqi soil, doesn't make them Iraqi citizens, especially to a guy like Saddam.

They were Iraqi citizens no matter where the hell they are. Are you trying to discount their citizenship or something? Saddam did a horrible deed killing those Kurds. Even if you are right, and the Kurds are somehow not citizens of Iraq (despite them, you know, living there), Saddam took drastic measures in killing those people. At least when America kills innocent civilians it's an accident, Saddam knew full-well he was killing innocent people.

You keep forgetting that Saddam was at war with the troops and guerillas that had Halabja under thier control. And considering his most trusted allie (supplier) at the time (USA) didn't give a rats ass about him using gas against the Iranians, and he had been in constant battle with the Kurds, it's reasonable to see why he would gas the town.

i was thinking y is his name bush?!? its a odd name 4 a guy how dos not know wat he is doing!!!!!

Anyone dumb enough to get pissed off over being banned from an internet forum is too dumb to make a postive contribution on the over-hashed subject of Bush.

Anyone retarded enough to get this upset about something as dumb as this and threaten it with a ban is too dumb to make a topic that noone will complain about.

Our president has some words for the "Official Bush Topic" posters.

At 6/27/04 05:11 PM, red_skunk wrote: bush sux

amen

At 6/29/04 01:35 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote: I suggest that all of you see Fareinhet 9/11.

That movie is a crappy propaganda film.

Although we have all heard about teh war and Bush's war plans over the past four years, what have we heard about his domestic adn other actions? He hasn't done much.

There were all those tax cuts that brought government revenues up, and is the only reason why we are not still in a recession.

When I heard the news on Bush being elected, I simply said "let's get ready for war." He was extremely trigger happy, and I knew that there was going to be a war, most likely with Iraq. "After all, he did try to kill my daddy," I believe he said when talking about Saddam Hussein.

There was this thing that happen. Something about people ramming planes into the World Trade Center, and all the people demanded action. But I'm sure you believe that is Bush's fault too.

Bush is too self-absorbed to be president.

wtf. How so.

The only reason he is in Iraq is for the oil;

Sure we all know George Bush stole all of Iraq's oil, and congress voted give Bush the authority to use military force, and all those Islamic Extremists blowing up American soldiers do not have any affect on us continueing being in Iraq.

he knew that there were no weaposn of mass destruction there, and his presidential team made numerous statements about how Iraq had no weapons before 9/11. Again, see Fareinheit 9/11 for these clips.

Since the intellegence from America and the UK claimed there were WMDs in Iraq, in addition to Saddam's Generals saying that they thought they had them. This Thread says that we found them.

Ultimately, Bush has bombed out Afghanistan and Iraq in an attempt to get cheaper oil and support his cronies' companies. Too much of Bush's plans are for personal gain, and he should not be elected.

I wonder why oil prices have gone up then, and don't worry about him being elected again.

Again, see Fareinheit 9/11.

http://www.freerepub..f-news/1169995/posts

http://www.eppc.org/...2189/pub_detail.asp

I just pray for the day hes out of office, maybe American can go back to the good days.

At 7/3/06 02:45 AM, BloodyNinja wrote: I just pray for the day hes out of office, maybe American can go back to the good days.

My sentiments exactly. Nice to know that I'm not the only person in here that thinks Der Fuhrer should be out of office if not raped and killed. Oh well.

At 7/5/06 12:37 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote: It's nice to know how you like to treat liberators and heroes.

Sooo... who wants to talk about how the Bush Administration should react to North Korea's 6 missles that landed in the Japan Sea, one of them going over Japan itself. This could definitly pose a threat to the international community

No oil there. Sorry.

At 7/5/06 12:41 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote:

No oil there. Sorry.

If we wanted oil. We'd tell the enviornmentalists to fuck off and we'd start drillin'.

awwww.... im banned i didnt know)-,= no1 told me

At 7/5/06 03:02 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/5/06 12:41 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: No oil there. Sorry.

What does oil have anything to do with the country America invades at all?

well YoureAllStupid, or should I say TAL-CON, that's a very good question. Allow me to answer that for your retarded ass.

Iraq and other Arab nations is the mother continent of oil. We Americans are so fat and lazy that we have to have dirty polluting fossil fuels just to get through another day otherwise we become even more animal like than ever.

Korea on the other hand is so not like Iraq. It actually has weapons of Mass Destruction the very thing Bush says that we're looking for but he would keep overlooking them even with the strongest prescription of glasses permanently attached to his eyes. No oil though.

Oh well.

At 7/5/06 03:02 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 7/5/06 12:41 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: No oil there. Sorry.

What does oil have anything to do with the country America invades at all?

I was kidding.

At 7/5/06 06:05 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote:
I was kidding.

awww.....and i thought you were actually serious. damn it!

i'm still the only one in here that thinks Der Fuhrer should be shot and killed for his crimes.

Oh well!

Oh no me 2 im gonna be banned. i didnt see this before. oh well.

Two more years of it, then this entire thread will erupt in explosive orgasm at the thought of Dubya having to head back to the ranch forever.

At 7/7/06 10:34 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote: I'd just like to restate for all of you that there is absolutely no, non-circumstancial evidence that would lead one to believe that Bush's main intentions to invade Iraq were for oil. None. Zero. Zip. Period.

Just as there is no evidence to lead one to believe that GW Bush invaded Iraq over WMD programs. So, if the evidence (or lack there of) says the invasion wasn't for WMD or oil, then what did Bush invade for?

At 7/8/06 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Just as there is no evidence to lead one to believe that GW Bush invaded Iraq over WMD programs. So, if the evidence (or lack there of) says the invasion wasn't for WMD or oil, then what did Bush invade for?

Don't answer a question with a question, dick.

Man, I'm really stepping into it this time. OK, flame away.

I don't think we can analyze the intentions of this administration as a whole. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few members who invaded for the main reason of getting oil. Many of them including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, had been wanting to go back into Iraq ever since we pulled out in 1991. They thought our leaving was a mistake and desperately wanted to correct it. They had been publicly advocating for the invasion since 1997. Part of this was to spread American influence, and the three of them believed that the military should serve a primary role in accomplishing this. Paul Wolfwitz is believed by some, like james risen, to have believed that doing so would be good not only for America but also that it would greatly benefit the Iraqis. As things currently stand, I'd say he was blinded by idealism, not realizing that people may not automatically want the American way of life.

Oil was certainly a factor in this invasion, though I don't believe it was a primary reason. A friendly regime in an oil rich nation would certainly be a great boon, and a puppet regime would be even better. I have the suspicion that some memebers of the administration would prefer the first, and that others would prefer the second. It will take more research as more sources become available to determine what happened.

As for Bush, I'm not sure why he went in. I think part of it was that he was influence heavily by members of cabinet. Bush had only six years of political experience as governor of Texas. Compare this with the decades of experience both Rumsfeld and Cheney had. These two men were known for having pulled a political coup within the Nixon administration of all places, and both had already served as secretary of defense in prior administrations. September 11 occured only nine months into Bush's presidency. He was likely a bit overwhelmed, as anyone in his position would be, and likely had to rely heavily on the experience of his cabinet, which included Rumsfeld, and his vice president. Coinsidering the fact that these two were a potent political team, they likely carried the day when it came to Iraqi policy, even over the objections of a more tempered Colin Powell.

There is also the another factor to consider with bush. Before september 11, his presidency had little purpose or mission. He was floundering in the polls, with many people still pissed about the supreme court fiasco. On september 11, Bush found his cause, not simply his political cause with the people, but the mission for his presidency. When his advisors told him to go Iraq, it probably seemed to him like the next step in his legacy.

OK, flame on.

To find the terrorist and organize Iraq.