Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/15/07 02:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/15/07 09:09 AM, bcdemon wrote:

So because they said so that means it's true? Do you have anything to SHOW that you are winning?

So just because people like you say we're not winning, it means it's true?

No, because the numbers show conditions in Iraq are getting worse. If you were winning conditions would be improving, would they not?

Whereas if the US and Iraqi gov admits failure, they would lose all credibility for the war effort. And I'm sure you know about troop moral, so they won't/can't admit failure.

It's kind of funny how you guys never have any proof of that.

Proof of what?

Yeah really. Scroll to the bottom chart, it's the same one I posted on page 111 of this thread, apparently you missed it.

It's a small number. 70 a day is nothing.

Really? Well I guess when it's not your country losing 70 a day it's no big deal.
Personally I find 70 innocent civilians killed each day pretty sad.

So what, this isn't about your congress failing. Try to stay on topic will ya?

Avoiding the comparison are we?

You're comparing the failures of the Iraq government to the failures of your congress? ROFL. Then again, you did compare Stephen Hawkings inability to speak to GW Bush, so this really should be no surprise.

you CAN'T tell me how your winning so you resort to insults, lol go find a sandbox.

I can tell you that we're winning in terms of statistics.

Really? Then show me these statistics. I'm curious how you define "winning".

At 7/14/07 11:12 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Three guys? Unless they run, you're going down.

Um, if I have access to an automatic or semi-automatic weapon than I have the upperhand. The only reason I'd go down is because of the idiotic laws that ban automatic weapons. If I'm forced to use a pistol or shotgun than my chances of prevailing are drastically cut. If I have an AK at hand, than they go up.

You might get two, If it makes you happy.

If I can't use an automatic weapon, yes. I'm pretty sure my survival is more important than your fear of assault rifles.

If you need the fear factor, get one made of plastic.

Hey, if you're scared of a fire happening in your house then you're toast. If you need to feel safer than get a fire extinquisher made out of paper, you can't get a real one since I'm scared of the color red.

SWAT guys aren't millitary,

Yet they get to use these weapons. Tell me what, makes a SWAT member anymore qualified than a person who's been shooting guns all their life and know how to handle them? That's right - nothing.

but they aren't quitordinary citizens either.

Anyone who trains with paramilitary or law enforcenment programs isn't.

They undergo extensive traning, way more than the average joe, even rivaling the army reserve.

And so has my uncle who served in the military and went through a training course and regularly registers hiw weaponry.

They aren't military, but they're damn close.

Not they're not. They're not any closer to the military than someone who goes paintballing on the weekend.

Assault rifle ban = bullshit.

Hold on, didn't your source say there weren't any numbers?

no, but it does give statistics on what weapons are more likely to kill cops or be involved in violent crimes, as I said.

Also, are you suggesting a ban on handguns?

No I'm not. I'm pointing out they kill more people, therefore, statistically more dangerous than an assault rifle.

Because I think you have the same stance as me on this issue (handguns). I think the current laws are fine, as long as they're enforced. For example, the VA tech guy.

As I said before I'm not laissez-faire on gun laws, but I think any ban on a type of firearm is completely unacceptable. It shows that the government has no faith in its citizenry and is another step closer to banning all guns. I'm going to acknowledge assault rifles are military grade, which I argued in contrast on the other pages, and say that the musket was the 18th Century's military grade weapon.

He was nuts (all hail captian obvious). He got a gun because his therapy was confidential. Also, only 10% of insane people are in the "no gun for me" database(CNN) .

You should take this up with privacy measures.

This is a problem, no?

I wouldn't want Howard Dean running around with a gun, so yes.

I see what you're saying. You have a point. So, are you going to shhift the debate from assault weapons to the those termites with 9mms?

I can see understanding analogies isn't your forte.

Youre nitpicking. "avid criminals"

Elaborate on that.

"Little information exists about the
use of assault weapons in crime. The
information that does exist uses varying
definitions of assault weapons that
were developed before the Federal
assault weapons ban was enacted."

Read the graphs. They display the known amount of ratios of crime.

I watch MythBusters a lot, and isn't it M1 a bolt action?

Actually, the M1 Garand is a semi-automatic rifle used in WW2. Many historians say the designer of the revised Sturmgewehr took inspiration from it.

But now I'm nitpicking. Fine, let's shift this thing to handguns.

It was never my intention to shift it to handguns. I was merely pointing out they're used in more crime than any other type of weapon, logically if you're going to ban something it should be that, not the asssault rifle.

What do we do about them? I'm sure you'll agree that it is an inalieable (no spelling bee for me) right to at LEAST own a handgun.

My entire point is banning assault rifles is illogical and stems from emotion alone. People say they wish to ban these kinds of weapons because they want to reduce crime, yet they ignore a much bigger contributor of crime. The thing is, people don't want to ban assault rifles because of its role in crime, people want to ban it because they're simply bigoted toward it for whatever reason. I s'pose leftwingers don't like the idea of the people being armed with weapons they can use to overerthrow a tyrannical government.

I mean Michael Moore brought up a good point in Bowling. Why do we Americans have such high murder rates. Almost no other industrialized nation has murder quite like the US. WTF America? You have any ideas?

They're a myriad of reasons why. We have a much higher concentration of uneducated, poor innercity minorities in addition to 20+ million illegal immigrants. Not to mention the violent culture we have. Why is it Switzerland has such a low crime rate?

THIS JUST IN! (Yesterday)

Doctors have removed 5 polyps from the President's colon yesterday. None appeared to be worrisome, doctors stated. During the procedure, which Bush was placed under general anesthesia, Dick Cheney became acting President, the second time he has done so. The previous occasion was in 2002, when Pres. Bush received a colonoscopy.

Stay tuned to www.newgrounds.com for the latest in Presidential colorectal health.

The only reason handguns are used more in crimes is because they're easier to conceal, and they're cheaper. If you want to rob somone, using a rocket launcher to do so is not very smart.

But the same thing can be said explaining why they're more usefull for defensive purposes

At 7/17/07 11:32 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/14/07 11:12 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Three guys? Unless they run, you're going down.

Um, if I have access to an automatic or semi-automatic weapon than I have the upperhand. The only reason I'd go down is because of the idiotic laws that ban automatic weapons. If I'm forced to use a pistol or shotgun than my chances of prevailing are drastically cut. If I have an AK at hand, than they go up.

You might get two, If it makes you happy.

If I can't use an automatic weapon, yes. I'm pretty sure my survival is more important than your fear of assault rifles.

We're getting a little off topic with this hypothetical.

If you need the fear factor, get one made of plastic.

Hey, if you're scared of a fire happening in your house then you're toast. If you need to feel safer than get a fire extinquisher made out of paper, you can't get a real one since I'm scared of the color red.

The color red can't kill you.

SWAT guys aren't millitary,

Yet they get to use these weapons. Tell me what, makes a SWAT member anymore qualified than a person who's been shooting guns all their life and know how to handle them? That's right - nothing.

A badge. And years of academy training that would weed out the crazies.

but they aren't quitordinary citizens either.

Anyone who trains with paramilitary or law enforcenment programs isn't.

yup.

They undergo extensive traning, way more than the average joe, even rivaling the army reserve.

And so has my uncle who served in the military and went through a training course and regularly registers hiw weaponry.

Your point being?

They aren't military, but they're damn close.

Not they're not. They're not any closer to the military than someone who goes paintballing on the weekend.

Please. don't insult you own intellegence with an example like that.

Assault rifle ban = bullshit.

Hold on, didn't your source say there weren't any numbers?

no, but it does give statistics on what weapons are more likely to kill cops or be involved in violent crimes, as I said.

And as I knew. No matter what Bush does, it will always be less likely for an AK-47 than a 9mm to be used in a crime.

Also, are you suggesting a ban on handguns?

No I'm not. I'm pointing out they kill more people, therefore, statistically more dangerous than an assault rifle.

So? What do you propose we do about it?

Because I think you have the same stance as me on this issue (handguns). I think the current laws are fine, as long as they're enforced. For example, the VA tech guy.

As I said before I'm not laissez-faire on gun laws, but I think any ban on a type of firearm is completely unacceptable. It shows that the government has no faith in its citizenry and is another step closer to banning all guns. I'm going to acknowledge assault rifles are military grade, which I argued in contrast on the other pages, and say that the musket was the 18th Century's military grade weapon.

Seems like we've reached a compirmise on assault rifles. How bout this? You can have them, but you have to either have been involved with millitary or police, or have to have a special permit that requires extensive screenings to acquire (for all you gun collecters out there).

He was nuts (all hail captian obvious). He got a gun because his therapy was confidential. Also, only 10% of insane people are in the "no gun for me" database(CNN) .

You should take this up with privacy measures.

Insanity is not private.

This is a problem, no?

I wouldn't want Howard Dean running around with a gun, so yes.

Neither would I.

I see what you're saying. You have a point. So, are you going to shhift the debate from assault weapons to the those termites with 9mms?

I can see understanding analogies isn't your forte.

Never was

Youre nitpicking. "avid criminals"

Elaborate on that.

Only if the above comprimise doesn't make you happy.

"Little information exists about the
use of assault weapons in crime. The
information that does exist uses varying
definitions of assault weapons that
were developed before the Federal
assault weapons ban was enacted."

Read the graphs. They display the known amount of ratios of crime.

I watch MythBusters a lot, and isn't it M1 a bolt action?

Actually, the M1 Garand is a semi-automatic rifle used in WW2. Many historians say the designer of the revised Sturmgewehr took inspiration from it.

OK

But now I'm nitpicking. Fine, let's shift this thing to handguns.

It was never my intention to shift it to handguns. I was merely pointing out they're used in more crime than any other type of weapon, logically if you're going to ban something it should be that, not the asssault rifle.

In that case, I agree with you.

What do we do about them? I'm sure you'll agree that it is an inalieable (no spelling bee for me) right to at LEAST own a handgun.

. I s'pose leftwingers don't like the idea of the people being armed with weapons they can use to overerthrow a tyrannical government.

Point taken.

I mean Michael Moore brought up a good point in Bowling. Why do we Americans have such high murder rates. Almost no other industrialized nation has murder quite like the US. WTF America? You have any ideas?

They're a myriad of reasons why. We have a much higher concentration of uneducated, poor innercity minorities in addition to 20+ million illegal immigrants. Not to mention the violent culture we have. Why is it Switzerland has such a low crime rate?

They watch live free or die hard too. Either way, I now agree with you on the assault thing. I guess that means you win?

PS I'm still on vacation. I'm surprised I had time to make this post.

Really? Well I guess when it's not your country losing 70 a day it's no big deal.

Personally I find 70 innocent civilians killed each day pretty sad.

You would because you don't understand that statistically this is insignificant.

We lose 114 American civilians per day in car accidents.
We lose something like 70 American civilians per day due to suicide.

I don't see you with a public outcry about how "sad" these civ deaths are.....
So your opinion must either be based on emotion.....or political reasons.....or both.....

Cause 70/day is a drop in the bucket no matter how you look at it.

At 7/22/07 05:12 PM, Imperator wrote:

Really? Well I guess when it's not your country losing 70 a day it's no big deal.

Personally I find 70 innocent civilians killed each day pretty sad.

You would because you don't understand that statistically this is insignificant.

We lose 114 American civilians per day in car accidents.
We lose something like 70 American civilians per day due to suicide.

I don't see you with a public outcry about how "sad" these civ deaths are.....
So your opinion must either be based on emotion.....or political reasons.....or both.....

Cause 70/day is a drop in the bucket no matter how you look at it.

Those Americans are killed because of car accidents. The Iraqis? Well.. they're getting killed because of Bush. There's an important difference there.

By your rationale can I kill you and your family because you know, its a drop in the bucket in comparison to car accident deaths.

At 7/22/07 07:10 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Those Americans are killed because of car accidents. The Iraqis? Well.. they're getting killed because of Bush. There's an important difference there.

No. Get it right.

The troops are just there to protect civilians. They only open fire when the enemy opens fire.

Well.. they're getting killed because of Saddam loyalists and muslim extremists.

There's an important difference there.

to hell with President Bush, he is truely the original professional American Psychopath.

Who Higher on the list mentioned switzerland?
I Can Answer the low crime rate question.

They all Have ASSULT RIFLES. All of Them. The Swiss don't need an army, they ARE an army. When everone is armed, the problem goes away.

Free Glocks for Everone!!! Im just gunna atick with my FAL for now...

At 7/22/07 09:33 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/22/07 07:10 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Those Americans are killed because of car accidents. The Iraqis? Well.. they're getting killed because of Bush. There's an important difference there.

No. Get it right.

The troops are just there to protect civilians. They only open fire when the enemy opens fire.

Well.. they're getting killed because of Saddam loyalists and muslim extremists.

There's an important difference there.

Exactly, Bush's invasion of Iraq was the trigger for the civil war.
"saddam loyalists and muslim extremists"
Clearly you don't know anything.

At 7/22/07 10:21 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Exactly, Bush's invasion of Iraq was the trigger for the civil war.

Pft, Iraq is hardly in a state of Civil War.

Especially considering that in 4 years, under 100k civilians have died so far (officially).

Hell, in the US civil war, we lost 618,000 people.

AND WE DIDN'T HAVE CAR BOMBS.

And then there's also that little fact on how there are less Iraqi's who think they're in Civil war than Americans do.

Clearly you don't know anything.

Clearly.

Sunni's make up around 80% of the insurgency. Half the suicide bombers come from Syria. And we've recently found out that many of the insurgency have been following under an imaginary leader by the name of Baghdadi.

yes. Clearly I don't know anything.

well...we don't need glocks we need w200 sniper rifles, berret 50 cal sniper rifles, browning m2 50 cal. mgs, ak-74s, rgp-7s and of course the "Ol' Glory" the General Eclectric M134 Electric driven gatling gun...then all we gotta do is hi-jack an entire company of M1A2 Abrams Tanks...after that all thats left on the checklist is a couple of Intercontentental ballistic missiles to light up the sky on next july 4th...i mean come on...there is no way the swiss don't have gun control laws...i meanif everyone had an ak and a few 9mm's under there pockets there would be murders every day and riots 24/7/365

At 7/22/07 10:28 PM, Memorize wrote:
Pft, Iraq is hardly in a state of Civil War.

Especially considering that in 4 years, under 100k civilians have died so far (officially).

Then what would you call it, a religious festival? Sunnis and Shiites embracing each other in a show of manliness by blowing each others heads off?
In any case the conflict they're in was triggered by U.S occupation and the overthrow of Saddam. Bush responsible for their deaths? He ordered the troops in there and their presence triggered it... so yes

Sunni's make up around 80% of the insurgency. Half the suicide bombers come from Syria. And we've recently found out that many of the insurgency have been following under an imaginary leader by the name of Baghdadi.

yes. Clearly I don't know anything.

What's that got to do with anything? You're throwing random irrelevant statistics at me and assuming they correlate with your knowledge. The majority of foreign insurgents come from our good allies the Saudi's

The insurgency and wave of new terrorists is directly attributed to the War. Has Bush helped prevent terrorism? No he's made it worst

At 7/22/07 10:55 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Then what would you call it, a religious festival? Sunnis and Shiites embracing each other in a show of manliness by blowing each others heads off?

Tell me. There are 27 million Iraqi's. The insurgency is mostly made up of the minority Sunni's. How many people is the insurgency made up of, and how many are Iraqi's?

In any case the conflict they're in was triggered by U.S occupation and the overthrow of Saddam. Bush responsible for their deaths? He ordered the troops in there and their presence triggered it... so yes

Fucking idiot.

More have died under Saddam than this entire war. If and when we hit the million mark of civilians dead, then you can blame Bush.

But news flash: Saddam was tried, convicted and then executed by his own people.

Come back when you have at least some knowledge about the war. Because what i'm saying is very basic stuff.

What's that got to do with anything?

THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WAR ARE THOSE WHO ARE BLOWING PEOPLE UP!!!

The majority of foreign insurgents come from our good allies the Saudi's

I never said they weren't.

I said that half of the suicide bombers are from Syria. Not that most of the foreign insurgents are from Saudi.

There is a difference. Learn to read.

No he's made it worst

They were always there, dumbshit.

They just no have a battlefield to fight on.

At 7/22/07 07:10 PM, tony4moroney wrote: By your rationale can I kill you and your family because you know, its a drop in the bucket in comparison to car accident deaths.

You could kill me and my family, and by comparison, it would be a drop in the bucket. 4 dead compared to 114 dead. Unless you wanna talk about my extended family, which then could very well topple the 114 mark. Otherwise you'd have to kill my family 28 times (or 28 families of 4) before reaching that mark.

What's there not to get about this? does the manner of death in any way have an importance on the overall sphere of things? Do 4 murdered people = 114 deaths by accident? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

At 7/22/07 05:12 PM, Imperator wrote:

Really? Well I guess when it's not your country losing 70 a day it's no big deal.

Personally I find 70 innocent civilians killed each day pretty sad.

You would because you don't understand that statistically this is insignificant.

It may be insignificant as far as stats go. But overall, 70 innocent civilians killed per day is very significant. But I understand your stance on innocent beings so I can see why you think it's insignificant.

We lose 114 American civilians per day in car accidents.

USA has more cars than Iraq has people, and most of them are white.

We lose something like 70 American civilians per day due to suicide.

Umm, suicide is self inflicted, how in the fuck does that coincide with this discussion?

I don't see you with a public outcry about how "sad" these civ deaths are.....

Then make a topic about them and I will voice my opinion on those topics.

So your opinion must either be based on emotion.....or political reasons.....or both.....

Cause 70/day is a drop in the bucket no matter how you look at it.

A drop in the bucket? It's 3 times the amount that were killed per day in the first year of your occupation. And considering the people who brought war to their country only lose 1.2 people per day on average, I would say 70 a day is quite considerable. How do feel about the USA losing approx 2 innocent civilians a day due to terrorism?

At 7/22/07 11:38 PM, bcdemon wrote: It may be insignificant as far as stats go. But overall, 70 innocent civilians killed per day is very significant. But I understand your stance on innocent beings so I can see why you think it's insignificant.

Pray tell, what's my stance on innocent beings? I always love to hear what I'm thinking, since everyone else always seems to be the expert on that....

USA has more cars than Iraq has people, and most of them are white.

I know what you mean, but work on your English. This sentence actually says most cars are white.

Umm, suicide is self inflicted, how in the fuck does that coincide with this discussion?

70 dead per day compared to 70 dead per day. The fuck does the manner of death have anything to do with it? Dead is dead, don't really matter how you end up that way.

Then make a topic about them and I will voice my opinion on those topics.

The point was that if you feel so bad about 70 dead iraqis, why not 70 suicides? Who makes the cut in your book of sympathies? Is there a raffle or somethin?

A drop in the bucket? It's 3 times the amount that were killed per day in the first year of your occupation.

Insurgent forces usually take some time to get organized and coordinated. I think the US is really one of the only countries that could talk about invading, and actually invade within 24 hours. Supplies, food, intelligence, strategy, weapons, ammo. Logistics dude. That shit just wasn't magically there for all the insurgents to use. A rise in deaths isn't surprising.

And considering the people who brought war to their country only lose 1.2 people per day on average, I would say 70 a day is quite considerable. How do feel about the USA losing approx 2 innocent civilians a day due to terrorism?

What? The US loses at least 114 people per day, by car accidents alone. How can you say we lose "1.2 people per day" when I JUST gave a stat saying we lose 114 per day on ONE aspect alone? Dude....come on....

And I feel fantastic about the US only losing 2 a day due to terrorism. Either we're doing a fab job of protecting ourselves, or the terrorists just don't bother attacking us, or something. I feel great about living in the USA, and knowing now that terrorism is the least of my worries!

Are you trying to say I should somehow feel "bad" or maybe "guilty" because more people die in Iraq, and die as a result of the invasion?

At 7/22/07 11:18 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/22/07 10:55 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Then what would you call it, a religious festival? Sunnis and Shiites embracing each other in a show of manliness by blowing each others heads off?

Tell me. There are 27 million Iraqi's. The insurgency is mostly made up of the minority Sunni's. How many people is the insurgency made up of, and how many are Iraqi's?

So you're declaring it a festival then. Settled.

In any case the conflict they're in was triggered by U.S occupation and the overthrow of Saddam. Bush responsible for their deaths? He ordered the troops in there and their presence triggered it... so yes

Fucking idiot.

Great answer.

More have died under Saddam than this entire war. If and when we hit the million mark of civilians dead, then you can blame Bush.

Are you fucking stupid? Saddam was tried and convicted for chemical bombing Kurds. Chemical bombs that the Reagan administration gave to him to use on Iranians during the conflict. Oh and you should note that his administration was fully aware of this atrocity at the time but they were partners and they were reluctant to act on this so they swept it underneath the carpet.

Incidentally that's got nothing to do with the trigger for the Iraq War the motive was WMD's which was an outright lie and a spit in the face of intelligence officials which told him otherwise and UN inspectors which told him that Hussein was complying and that they found none, nor was it probable that they would find any and that they needed more time to fully investigate. Therefore you haven't disproved the fact that Bush is responsible for the Iraq Conflict and the subsequent deaths.

What's that got to do with anything?

THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WAR ARE THOSE WHO ARE BLOWING PEOPLE UP!!!

They're acting in retaliation to the U.S occupation as I said. Even the Iraqi majority didn't want us to intervene nor do they still want us there now. They're not responsible for the war, the Republican invasion was. They're one side that's responsible for the current conflict caused by your war.

The majority of foreign insurgents come from our good allies the Saudi's

I never said they weren't.

I said that half of the suicide bombers are from Syria. Not that most of the foreign insurgents are from Saudi.

There is a difference. Learn to read.

Nope, I was trying to point out with subtlety that you were wrong. 50% of insurgents don't come from Syria and that perhaps we should review our foreign policy as opposed to blaming a bunch of ex-puppet leaders the Government were responsible for.
pwned

No he's made it worst

They were always there, dumbshit.

They just no have a battlefield to fight on.

No fuckwit the majority of them weren't initially there to begin with, the current Iraqi circumstance has allowed for more terrorist support and more terrorist programs. Read the article instead of making up shit in your head based on the opinions you got from Bill'O.

At 7/22/07 11:54 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

So you're declaring it a festival then. Settled.

No according to the poll, the Iraqi's are declaring it a festival.

Great answer.

Great job hacking off the rest of the reply.

Are you fucking stupid? Saddam was tried and convicted for chemical bombing Kurds. Chemical bombs that the Reagan administration gave to him to use on Iranians during the conflict.

Gee, with that reasoning, I could condemn every catholic on the planet because of the crusades!

That was 20 years ago. Before... either of us really. Different president and a different time with different mindsets.

But... wasn't Saddam told to dismantle all of his weapons?

Apparently he did... not.

Oh and you should note that his administration was fully aware of this atrocity at the time but they were partners and they were reluctant to act on this so they swept it underneath the carpet.

Yep.

Israel still has POWs from years back. But we're their allies so we support them.

Think about it. All we do here in the US is support middle eastern states who are willing to help us out against other murderous dictators.

It's certainly much easier than sending out people.

Therefore you haven't disproved the fact that Bush is responsible for the Iraq Conflict and the subsequent deaths.

Your first mistake was saying that the WMD fiasco was a lie.

That just proves how full of bullshit you really are.

Almost everyone said he had WMDs. Especially british intelligence, considering Saddam still had illegal weapons.

They're acting in retaliation to the U.S occupation as I said.

Oh. So you support the car bombings that blow up civilians.

Great, another terrorist supporter here on the forums.

Even the Iraqi majority didn't want us to intervene nor do they still want us there now. They're not responsible for the war, the Republican invasion was.

Apparently you didn't pay any attention to the vote when congress authorized military conflict.

Nope, I was trying to point out with subtlety that you were wrong. 50% of insurgents don't come from Syria and that perhaps we should review our foreign policy as opposed to blaming a bunch of ex-puppet leaders the Government were responsible for.

Once again:

I NEVER SAID 50% OF THE INSURGENCY CAME FROM SYRIA, YOU FUCKING IDIOT

I said that 50% of the suicide bombers and car bombings are from those who come from Syria.

Once again: LEARN TO READ

pwned

The fact that you use the word "pwned" on the politics forum clearly displays your level of intelligence.

Read the article instead of making up shit in your head based on the opinions you got from Bill'O.

Tell me, how the hell do you factor in every insurgent from multiple terror sponsoring nations?

They were always there you fucking idiot.

Prove that he didn't. Prove that we found weapons you dumb shit. Exactly that's what I thought.

It's certainly much easier than sending out people.

Therefore you haven't disproved the fact that Bush is responsible for the Iraq Conflict and the subsequent deaths.

Your first mistake was saying that the WMD fiasco was a lie.

That just proves how full of bullshit you really are.

Almost everyone said he had WMDs. Especially british intelligence, considering Saddam still had illegal weapons.

CIA Intelligence didn't say it had concrete proof that Saddam had WMDs it was skeptical at best, testimonies of the U.N Inspectors said they didn't find any, that he was complying and that they needed more time until Bush overruled them. Keep up to date with your knowledge did you just shut off your peanut-sized brain after 2003 or something?

They're acting in retaliation to the U.S occupation as I said.

Oh. So you support the car bombings that blow up civilians.

Great, another terrorist supporter here on the forums.

Where did you derive that from? Learn to read you dumb shit. I don't support their actions I'm putting it into correct perspective for you but obviously you're just an idiot that likes to swim in his own shit of lies. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. I don't support terrorists of any kind and therefore I don't support your administration.

Even the Iraqi majority didn't want us to intervene nor do they still want us there now. They're not responsible for the war, the Republican invasion was.

Apparently you didn't pay any attention to the vote when congress authorized military conflict.

Apparently you missed all the polls and research that tell you the PEOPLE not the government want us there. Idiot.

Nope, I was trying to point out with subtlety that you were wrong. 50% of insurgents don't come from Syria and that perhaps we should review our foreign policy as opposed to blaming a bunch of ex-puppet leaders the Government were responsible for.

pwned

The fact that you use the word "pwned" on the politics forum clearly displays your level of intelligence.

Your lack of legitimate rebuttals is enough evidence for your stupidity. The fact that you can determine one's intelligence through a commonly used internet slang is testament to your stupidity.

Read the article instead of making up shit in your head based on the opinions you got from Bill'O.

Tell me, how the hell do you factor in every insurgent from multiple terror sponsoring nations?

They were always there you fucking idiot.

OK keep vomiting out your shit. This isn't worth it. The fact that you think terrorists grow on fucking trees tells me everything already. What a fucking weak argument.

*the above was a bad, fragmented post

At 7/23/07 12:26 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/22/07 11:54 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Are you fucking stupid? Saddam was tried and convicted for chemical bombing Kurds. Chemical bombs that the Reagan administration gave to him to use on Iranians during the conflict.

Gee, with that reasoning, I could condemn every catholic on the planet because of the crusades!

So by your own admission we should've absolved Saddam from his crimes 20 years ago? Fuck youre an idiot.

That was 20 years ago. Before... either of us really. Different president and a different time with different mindsets.

Read above

But... wasn't Saddam told to dismantle all of his weapons?

Apparently he did... not.

Prove that he didn't. Prove that we found weapons you dumb shit. Exactly that's what I thought.

It's certainly much easier than sending out people.

Therefore you haven't disproved the fact that Bush is responsible for the Iraq Conflict and the subsequent deaths.

Your first mistake was saying that the WMD fiasco was a lie.

That just proves how full of bullshit you really are.

Almost everyone said he had WMDs. Especially british intelligence, considering Saddam still had illegal weapons.

CIA Intelligence didn't say it had concrete proof that Saddam had WMDs it was skeptical at best, testimonies of the U.N Inspectors said they didn't find any, that he was complying and that they needed more time until Bush overruled them. Keep up to date with your knowledge did you just shut off your peanut-sized brain after 2003 or something?

They're acting in retaliation to the U.S occupation as I said.

Oh. So you support the car bombings that blow up civilians.

Great, another terrorist supporter here on the forums.

Where did you derive that from? Learn to read you dumb shit. I don't support their actions I'm putting it into correct perspective for you but obviously you're just an idiot that likes to swim in his own shit of lies. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. I don't support terrorists of any kind and therefore I don't support your administration.

Even the Iraqi majority didn't want us to intervene nor do they still want us there now. They're not responsible for the war, the Republican invasion was.

Apparently you didn't pay any attention to the vote when congress authorized military conflict.

Apparently you missed all the polls and research that tell you the PEOPLE not the government want us there. Idiot.

Nope, I was trying to point out with subtlety that you were wrong. 50% of insurgents don't come from Syria and that perhaps we should review our foreign policy as opposed to blaming a bunch of ex-puppet leaders the Government were responsible for.

Once again:

I NEVER SAID 50% OF THE INSURGENCY CAME FROM SYRIA, YOU FUCKING IDIOT

I said that 50% of the suicide bombers and car bombings are from those who come from Syria.

Once again: LEARN TO READ

pwned

The fact that you use the word "pwned" on the politics forum clearly displays your level of intelligence.

Read the article instead of making up shit in your head based on the opinions you got from Bill'O.

Tell me, how the hell do you factor in every insurgent from multiple terror sponsoring nations?

They were always there you fucking idiot.

At 7/22/07 11:53 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 7/22/07 11:38 PM, bcdemon wrote: It may be insignificant as far as stats go. But overall, 70 innocent civilians killed per day is very significant. But I understand your stance on innocent beings so I can see why you think it's insignificant.

Pray tell, what's my stance on innocent beings? I always love to hear what I'm thinking, since everyone else always seems to be the expert on that....

Well it's clear to me that you don't care about the innocent civilians. Calling their deaths insignificant.

USA has more cars than Iraq has people, and most of them are white.

I know what you mean, but work on your English. This sentence actually says most cars are white.

No shit Sherlock. Glad you could figure it out.....

Umm, suicide is self inflicted, how in the fuck does that coincide with this discussion?

70 dead per day compared to 70 dead per day. The fuck does the manner of death have anything to do with it? Dead is dead, don't really matter how you end up that way.

Sure dead is dead. But your comparing the suicide rate of a country with 300 million to the kill rate of innocent civilians in a much smaller country. You comparing these 2 figures is like Memorize comparing Stephen Hawkings inability to speak to GW Bush inability to speak.

Then make a topic about them and I will voice my opinion on those topics.

The point was that if you feel so bad about 70 dead iraqis, why not 70 suicides? Who makes the cut in your book of sympathies? Is there a raffle or somethin?

I never said I didn't feel shitty about 70 suicides, or 114 car deaths, like I said, make a topic and I will voice my opinion on it. This discussion isn't about that.

A drop in the bucket? It's 3 times the amount that were killed per day in the first year of your occupation.

Insurgent forces usually take some time to get organized and coordinated. I think the US is really one of the only countries that could talk about invading, and actually invade within 24 hours. Supplies, food, intelligence, strategy, weapons, ammo. Logistics dude. That shit just wasn't magically there for all the insurgents to use. A rise in deaths isn't surprising.

And considering the people who brought war to their country only lose 1.2 people per day on average, I would say 70 a day is quite considerable. How do feel about the USA losing approx 2 innocent civilians a day due to terrorism?

What? The US loses at least 114 people per day, by car accidents alone. How can you say we lose "1.2 people per day" when I JUST gave a stat saying we lose 114 per day on ONE aspect alone? Dude....come on....

Actually I was wrong on my nubers, you are losing just over 2 soldiers a day in Iraq. Can you possibly realize there are no similarities to car deaths in the USA and civilian casualties of a US war in Iraq?

And I feel fantastic about the US only losing 2 a day due to terrorism. Either we're doing a fab job of protecting ourselves, or the terrorists just don't bother attacking us, or something. I feel great about living in the USA, and knowing now that terrorism is the least of my worries!

I'm sure no one in the USA felt fantastic on Sept 12 2001.

Are you trying to say I should somehow feel "bad" or maybe "guilty" because more people die in Iraq, and die as a result of the invasion?

Should you feel bad about Iraqis dieing for your own countries cause, hell no. I would never expect an american to feel that way.

At 7/23/07 08:38 AM, bcdemon wrote:
Well it's clear to me that you don't care about the innocent civilians. Calling their deaths insignificant.

I care about those suicide statistics. They're the ones that really get me.....

No shit Sherlock. Glad you could figure it out.....

So much for free advice I thought I was giving.....shit, no need to be pissy, I didn't even nazify my grammar meddling.....

Sure dead is dead. But your comparing the suicide rate of a country with 300 million to the kill rate of innocent civilians in a much smaller country. You comparing these 2 figures is like Memorize comparing Stephen Hawkings inability to speak to GW Bush inability to speak.

Alright, 70 dead a day in a country of 25 million (is that the pop of Iraq?). At that it will take 357,000 days to wipe Iraq off the map, or around 978 years.

And let's be historic with it. 70 per day is the absolute LOWEST civilian casualty rate I've seen in a war lasting this long, covering this much area, and with this level of intensity. What makes 70 dead per day important?

Actually I was wrong on my nubers, you are losing just over 2 soldiers a day in Iraq. Can you possibly realize there are no similarities to car deaths in the USA and civilian casualties of a US war in Iraq?

yeah, I can realize it. Can you realize where 70 per day would fit into a historical look at war?

I'm sure no one in the USA felt fantastic on Sept 12 2001.

What's your point?

Should you feel bad about Iraqis dieing for your own countries cause, hell no. I would never expect an american to feel that way.

Oh. So Iraqi's are dying (d-y-i-n-g spell check yourself, it makes you look more professional) at my expense? For my sake? What sake are they dying for?

I could swear they were dying for one or two major reasons; Kick US forces out, or Stabilize the country and build a government.

And no, I don't care about them, you're right there. I see their deaths as an inevitable result of war.

At 7/23/07 08:48 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 7/23/07 08:38 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I could swear they were dying for one or two major reasons; Kick US forces out, or Stabilize the country and build a government.

And no, I don't care about them, you're right there. I see their deaths as an inevitable result of war.

OK yeah, the death rates are low for a war. But the circumstances we're in are completely different, any opposing standing army has been obliterated. Either way it doesn't detract from the fact that these people are dying due to what YOU and your administration wanted.

Not to mention how Bush declared war which wasn't in his power(congressional power) which made it illegal, even the grounds on which he declared war were illegal. Then his post-invasion ideal was apparently 'to spread Democracy and Peace' . Its been the trigger for chaos, a civil war, and the Iraqis were against intervention and occupation and still are making the idea of it being a war for democracy a paradox.

At 7/23/07 04:02 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

OK yeah, the death rates are low for a war. But the circumstances we're in are completely different, any opposing standing army has been obliterated. Either way it doesn't detract from the fact that these people are dying due to what YOU and your administration wanted.

Yes. Because the US are strapping on bombs and running into buildings.

Not to mention how Bush declared war which wasn't in his power(congressional power) which made it illegal, even the grounds on which he declared war were illegal.

Fucking idiot.

The president is allowed to impose military force for 60 days without congressional approval. After which, he must have that congressional approval for military conflict after that 60 days... which he got.

Christ man! Stop being an idiot!

At 7/23/07 12:47 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

So by your own admission we should've absolved Saddam from his crimes 20 years ago? Fuck youre an idiot.

We should've done it during the Gulf War.

But was I president? No, I was not!

Read above

I'm just saying that with your logic, we should blast and condemn the founding father's because of their stances on women's and black's rights.

CIA Intelligence didn't say it had concrete proof that Saddam had WMDs it was skeptical at best,

Did I say CIA? No I did not.

I said British.

testimonies of the U.N Inspectors said they didn't find any, that he was complying and that they needed more time until Bush overruled them.

He was not complying with them. In fact he kep them very restricted.

Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to comply with the US, he didn't, we went to war.

I also like how you completely skipped over the UN report which claimed Saddam was planning on rebuilding his WMD program.

CNN

Not to mention, Saddam still violated the UN and had illegal weapons.

Where did you derive that from?

That you're a terrorist supporter.

You're saying Bush is causing the bloodshed in Iraq. That's completely false.

You're just shifting the blame because you don't like who's president.

The real blame should be put on the people who willingly blow people up, not the soldiers who try to protect the civilians.

I don't support terrorists of any kind and therefore I don't support your administration.

You're a dellusional nut.

Apparently you missed all the polls and research that tell you the PEOPLE not the government want us there. Idiot.

I'm going to use wikipedia for this one as they can at least get poll numbers right.

wiki

"Opinion from 2003 to 2005
At the outset of the war, the U.S. Congress and public opinion supported the notion that the Iraq War was part of the global war on terrorism. The 2002 Congressional resolution authorising military force against Iraq cited the U.S. determination to "prosecute the war on terrorism", and in April 2003, one month after the invasion, a poll found that 77% of Americans agreed that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism"

I was talking about the public opinion of going to war with Iraq.

And would you look at that? 80%. Yippie!

Of course it went down as time went on.

At 7/23/07 04:02 PM, tony4moroney wrote: OK yeah, the death rates are low for a war. But the circumstances we're in are completely different, any opposing standing army has been obliterated. Either way it doesn't detract from the fact that these people are dying due to what YOU and your administration wanted.

You act as if that's somehow analogous to a great human travesty. Yeah, they're dying because we wanted into Iraq. Not gonna argue that point. Innocent Germans died because we carpet bombed their cities in WWII. Innocent Koreans, innocent Viets, innocent Serbs. Innocent people die when a military functions. That's war. What I WILL argue is whether or not the lives lost were worth it, or whether or not they died for a good cause.

Not to mention how Bush declared war which wasn't in his power(congressional power) which made it illegal, even the grounds on which he declared war were illegal.

Bush never declared a war, and Congress authorized military use in Iraq. The US has not issued a declaration of war since WWII.

Then his post-invasion ideal was apparently 'to spread Democracy and Peace' . Its been the trigger for chaos, a civil war, and the Iraqis were against intervention and occupation and still are making the idea of it being a war for democracy a paradox.

Democracy and peace take a while to establish. The Greeks fought over it, the Romans fought over it, the British had revolutions, the French Revolution, shit, even the US fought over it. Less than 100 years after our nation was born we fought a civil war and almost tore ourselves to shreds over democracy (states rights).

If you want to argue that Iraq is in a Civil War, I'd be more than happy to oblige that point, since it shows that they're operating on a much faster timeline than most countries that embrace Democracy ever have. Civil War is natural. A strong central government and unity after a civil war is natural. If anything, I'd LIKE to see Iraq in a civil war. The aftermath of which would be such a bonding as you would never believe.

i wanted to be the last person to post something on this topic which started in 2004 and to my post in 2007.... i feel so special.....oh and i think bush is leading our country to god knows where....

At 7/23/07 04:21 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/23/07 12:47 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

So by your own admission we should've absolved Saddam from his crimes 20 years ago? Fuck youre an idiot.

We should've done it during the Gulf War.

But was I president? No, I was not!

I'm just saying that with your logic, we should blast and condemn the founding father's because of their stances on women's and black's rights.

What logic? I wasn't the one that decided to try Saddam Hussein for his crimes. Your administration decided on capturing him and sending him to the courts for the Kurdish massacre. You're Administration. I then said that it was Reagan that gave him those weapons. So now you're picking and choosing, 'hey yes we should've captured and tried Saddam but no, Reagan is totally absolved of any wrong-doing because its in the past', please where's the logical sense in that? You know what that's called? Hypocrisy.

CIA Intelligence didn't say it had concrete proof that Saddam had WMDs it was skeptical at best,

Did I say CIA? No I did not.

Actually you said 'nearly every intelligence agency'. Which first of all is hearsay, and by which I had the right to assume you perhaps may have insinuated CIA intelligence which is of course the primary source of intelligence used by the White House.

I said British.

So you're saying British intelligence overrides CIA Intelligence now? What I'm saying is the war of aggression was unjustified. Bush cherry-picked his intelligence and deceived the public by saying it was an imminent threat and that all reports proved there were WMD's when he clearly knew there was a strong element of doubt and skepticism by the admission of CIA intelligence. They also said there was civil turmoil in Iraq which most likely could be triggered into a civil war if we invaded. Bush chose to ignore all of this when he said they would embrace us as liberators. He ignored all the intelligence the CIA presented and decided to go to war misconstruing facts to deceive Congress and the U.N into believing that threat was imminent.

testimonies of the U.N Inspectors said they didn't find any, that he was complying and that they needed more time until Bush overruled them.

He was not complying with them. In fact he kep them very restricted.

He complied with them. He may have been reluctant to comply fully but he was never an imminent threat, still gave sufficient cooperation and Hans Blix and his team asked for more time, by his own testimony the Administration was unjustified, their allegations were flawed, and they should've been patient, all the evidence that U.N inspectors presented proved there were no WMD's but just for reassurance they wanted more time.

Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to comply with the US, he didn't, we went to war.

He threatened Saddam despite having complied and agreeing to comply with future investigations. Saddam stood his ground being sick of having to comply with stronger and brasher sanctions despite having conformed to every one sufficiently in the past. Consequentially a psychopath decided to declare war, against the U.N's wishes, against CIA intelligence, against Inspectors testimonies, against the will of Russia and France and Europe.

This proves Bush is a despot terrorist as much as Saddam is, his unjustified war has been responsible for causing more terrorist support, more terrorist activity and the massacre of innocents by triggering a civil war.

I also like how you completely skipped over the UN report which claimed Saddam was planning on rebuilding his WMD program.

CNN

You can't impose years of sanctions on a sovereign nation and expect no repercussions. That's called dreaming, especially after you've allied with them and decided you'll just bully them into submission. It doesn't change the fact that the U.S has no right to impose its will unto another sovereign nation. That's Imperialism not Democracy. And as I said, they found ZERO WMD's which was consistent with the skepticism of CIA intelligence, despite Cheney pressuring them to do otherwise. I never said Saddam never intended to try and create WMDs in future, he simply had ZERO WMDs and ZERO capacity to create them which means.. Bush's grounds for war were LIES.

Not to mention, Saddam still violated the UN and had illegal weapons.

Where did you derive that from?

That you're a terrorist supporter.

Nope, the terrorist supporter would be you fucking Nazi. This is spiralling into a WW, the jews are now the muslims, youre a fucking nazi and Bush and his GOP cronies are Hitler and the Third Reich.

You're saying Bush is causing the bloodshed in Iraq. That's completely false.

You're just shifting the blame because you don't like who's president.

I'm not shifting no blame. As I have PROVED Bush had no right to trigger the war. and As it is ALREADY KNOWN BY EVERYONE BUT YOU. The U.S started the war by invading Iraq. I'm saying these terrorists aren't the ones responsible. ITS YOU AND YOUR ADMINISTRATION. How would you feel if China came over bombed NY to oblivion and said they were spreading freedom to you? Would you be pathetic or would you be a patriot and defend your country? That's how these men see it. You think they're terrorists, they think they're patriots.
I say you're both terrorists and incredibly stupid to boot.

The real blame should be put on the people who willingly blow people up, not the soldiers who try to protect the civilians.

Do I condone terrorism? Of course its tragic thats why Im against the war, dont pull this rhetorical shit on me, youre partially responsible for the war, theyrethe other side and now both sides are ignorant and blaming each other for everything, please grow up its not black and white.

I don't support terrorists of any kind and therefore I don't support your administration.

You're a dellusional nut.

Says the guy that thinks Bush was justified in starting the war! But also thinks we're not responsible for it. Says the guy that thinks Saddam shouldve been tried for his crimes but not reagan with no justification other then 'no because it was a long time ago' which technically absolves both of them.

'support the troops'
Why the fuck won't Bush? sending them in there without a plan, without an exit strategy, on flawed intelligence, on lies, with poor equipment, refusing rest that the democratic congress wanted to pass, stretching them to breaking point.
Support the troops? Bring them home where no one can kill them! Polls say most troops want to go home as well, and the iraq war is a failure there is zero progress But don't take my word for it the Iraqis experiencing it first-hand almost unanimously say its worst because of the U.S
Its funny, you think liberals don't support the troops when the truth is its you dumb shits that don't support the troops.