Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/23/06 11:37 PM, BanditByte wrote: Our dearly departed friend, ClassicalStar, hasn't returned yet to debate me one on one. And I thought he was gonna own me.

I just read your post at the bottom of page 68. It makes me laugh every time.

Nevermind, it was 66. It was still funny, though.

At 10/26/06 09:51 PM, Steel-Reserve wrote: Nevermind, it was 66. It was still funny, though.

Lol, I wonder if I still have that pic in my harddrive.

At 10/25/06 11:38 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: Well, I think that he dropped "stay the course"..

old line dropped, new line adopted..

30th Oct. 2006: "US President George W. Bush charged Monday that 'terrorists win and America loses' if opposition Democrats win 7 November legislative elections dominated by the unpopular Iraq war."

The plan to divide up the land amongst the 3 main factions in Iraq is probably as best as can be done about that situation. If we stay: more soldiers and Iraqis die due to miltary occupation of the area. If we suddenly leave without striking any compromise: the 3 factions could tirelessly war with one another for resources and land without having to abide by any set boundaries or regulations.

Now, the reglations set forth by the committee in charge will probably not be followed so closely, but at least instructions will be given on what to do to avoid conflicts. Troops should be brought back, just not all at once but rather at a gradual staggered rate. I really hope if the democrats win they won't all decide to pull every soldier out and leave the area as is. Keeping my fingers crossed >.<

This thread still hasn't brought up rousing points and BanditByte still hates you all.

At 10/30/06 04:30 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: 30th Oct. 2006: "US President George W. Bush charged Monday that 'terrorists win and America loses' if opposition Democrats win 7 November legislative elections dominated by the unpopular Iraq war."

I don't understand the relation between that and my post.

At 10/31/06 06:43 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote:

At 10/30/06 04:30 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: 30th Oct. 2006: "US President George W. Bush charged Monday that 'terrorists win and America loses' if opposition Democrats win 7 November legislative elections dominated by the unpopular Iraq war."

I don't understand the relation between that and my post.

He's saying Bush may have dropped the line "Stay the course," but is not playing on people's stigma on democrat's shitty management of the military. I happen to agree with Mr. Bush. If democrats would pratically ask America's enemies to walk all over us. This is evident from the colossal gutting Clinton committed during his failure of a Presidency.

At 10/30/06 04:30 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: George W. Bush charged Monday that 'terrorists win and America loses' if opposition Democrats win 7 November legislative elections dominated by the unpopular Iraq war."

As opposed to? Ohhh, Bush thinks that if the Reps stay in things will miraculously turn around in Iraq? When it comes to Iraq, USA failed, badly. Atleast you were able to raise Iraqs power grid by 442 megawatts since the invasion, lol good job.

Grammar, you want someone to show you the Dems plan that doesn't include cutting and running. I defy you to show us a victorious Rep plan for Iraq.

Anyways, what do you guys think about Bush dropping the phrase "stay the course"?

Reading the full transcript, it's clear that he's an idiot.

By stay the course, he meant in terms of our overall presence there.

By "not staying the course", he meant in terms of failed tactics.

I think Bush just needed a new word to use, and couldn't find one with his limited vocabulary.....

Overall: What he said was taken out of context.

Grammar, you want someone to show you the Dems plan that doesn't include cutting and running. I defy you to show us a victorious Rep plan for Iraq.

Jackass. You have to go first. Answering a question with a question....how clever of you.....

Point is that Americans don't like indeciciveness in their elected leaders. If they don't have a plan, they aren't gonna win.

The Reps may not have GOOD plans, but the Dems don't have ANY. Which means, don't be surprised if the Reps miraculously hold on to the lead......

Isn't the plan to stabilize their government and train an Iraqi army capable of defending itself from insurgents without the the United State's help. Does there really need to be more elaborate plan than that?

No, but I do think that America cannot go through with this plan because frankly, we haven't gotten any closer to succesfully quelling the insurgency or any other "victory" apart from disposing of Saddam himself. It's time to sit back and see if this country can work on its own. But I don't think it can. You see, I view this whole Iraq situation extremely similar to, if not exactly alike, Yugoslavia. Think about it for a minute. A country jammed together with many different opposing ethnic groups all being held together by a facist dictator. I am of course referring to the Yugoslavian dictator Tito. When he died, Yugoslavia fell apart, and I strongly believe that unless the way is paved for another facist dictator to take hold, Iraq will do the same.

At 11/1/06 07:12 PM, Grammer wrote: And the name is Grammer. GRAMMER. Only one a.

Yeah, but the word is spelled grammar.

bush is a f@#$%ng bastard

One of the largest problems I have with bush is that he dismantled the Iraqi military after bagdad fell. Think about it. Iraq has a standing army that was told to go home. Most of these people owned their own guns, and the US cut off their source of income. So instead of using the military power that sadam already had in place to police the people, we dismantle the army and send thousands of Iraqis home, with their weapons, jobless? Seems a little foolhearty to me.

At 11/1/06 07:12 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/1/06 09:34 AM, bcdemon wrote: Grammar, you want someone to show you the Dems plan that doesn't include cutting and running. I defy you to show us a victorious Rep plan for Iraq.

I'd rather have a failed plan than no plan. Democrats keep whining about how everything in Iraq is going bad. Well, if things are so bad, what can you suggest to make things better?

Thats a fair question to ask of the democrats, but to expect a victorious plan first off is hardly reasonable.

It's easy to criticize, but it's not so easy to provide a winning plan. I will say this though, protecting the Iraqis until they can defend themselves is a better idea than retreat.

You're correct, the Reps haven't provided a winning plan. I think as an occupational force in Iraq, protecting the Iraqis should be paramount, so when are you going to start protecting them? October saw almost 4 Iraq police officers killed everyday, and over 32 civilians were killed everyday according to the AP, the UN puts that number closer to 100 killed everyday in October. Is this your idea of protection?

And the name is Grammer. GRAMMER. Only one a.

woops.

At 11/2/06 08:47 AM, bcdemon wrote: October saw almost 4 Iraq police officers killed everyday, and over 32 civilians were killed everyday according to the AP, the UN puts that number closer to 100 killed everyday in October. Is this your idea of protection?

Something tells me you're the kinda person that couldn't give less of a shit if these people die and only use their deaths for a political point.

At 11/2/06 08:47 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 11/1/06 07:12 PM, Grammer wrote:

You're correct, the Reps haven't provided a winning plan. I think as an occupational force in Iraq, protecting the Iraqis should be paramount, so when are you going to start protecting them? October saw almost 4 Iraq police officers killed everyday, and over 32 civilians were killed everyday according to the AP, the UN puts that number closer to 100 killed everyday in October. Is this your idea of protection?

And the name is Grammer. GRAMMER. Only one a.

woops.

Hey Grammer, could you state where you got the information about the people dying? I'd like to read about it if you don't mind.

At 11/2/06 12:23 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/2/06 12:00 PM, BanditByte wrote: Something tells me you're the kinda person that couldn't give less of a shit if these people die and only use their deaths for a political point.

Something tells me you have no right to speak for him.

Who said I was speaking for him? There's a difference between conjecture and putting words into a person's mouth. The fact he has no qualms with giving N.K and Iran nukes speaks for itself.

At 11/2/06 01:17 PM, Grammer wrote: You didn't have to say you were, I already know it. Who the Hell are you to say he doesn't care if people die? No, I mean seriously. Who the HELL are you to tell him he believes that?

Alright, jackass, I'm going to break this down for you. I said quote on quote: Something tells me :end quote so since when does "something tells me" translates into "You definitely (insert whatever here)?" I didn't say he doesn't give a shit. What I conveyed was I'm guessing he doesn't truly give a shit.

That is, not even the issue at hand

He claims he is against the Iraq War because of the casualities, yet he has no problem with giving rogue nations nuclear arms, which could cause a world conflict ending in more deaths. So I stand by my point, my theory that he is only using death as a crux to further his politics which is in line with anti-US diatribe.

George Bush:

Great president? Or the greatest president?

I just thought I'd take the oppertunity to ask if what Kerry said about the troops has been discussed yet? Surely all of us must've heard about that by now.

At 11/2/06 05:36 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: I just thought I'd take the oppertunity to ask if what Kerry said about the troops has been discussed yet? Surely all of us must've heard about that by now.

Wrong topic.

At 11/2/06 12:00 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 11/2/06 08:47 AM, bcdemon wrote: October saw almost 4 Iraq police officers killed everyday, and over 32 civilians were killed everyday according to the AP, the UN puts that number closer to 100 killed everyday in October. Is this your idea of protection?

Something tells me you're the kinda person that couldn't give less of a shit if these people die and only use their deaths for a political point.

Then you shouldn't listen to "something" (is that what you call the voice in your head?). The absolute senseless loss of innocent life in Iraq is pretty much my entire problem with your invasion/occupation of Iraq. Blowing up the sandy desert doesn't bother me so much, but killing thousand upon thousands of people does.

At 11/3/06 05:22 PM, bcdemon wrote: Blowing up the sandy desert doesn't bother me so much, but killing thousand upon thousands of people does.

Ah, the retarded bull crap Demon.

No wonder these boards are full of stupidity.

At 11/2/06 04:44 PM, Jose wrote: George Bush:

Great president? Or the greatest president?

What exactly makes you say that.?

Jeorge Bush is a #@3@3@2# bastard for me

At 11/4/06 02:10 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote:

At 11/2/06 04:44 PM, Jose wrote: George Bush:

Great president? Or the greatest president?

What exactly makes you say that.?

*Cough* Stephen Colbert humor *Cough.*

I just watched 100 funniest moments and you know George bush's dumb speaches where he blinks rapidly. Well thats number 9. Its where its like when your computer crashes. The mouse cursor is there but its not moving.