Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You don't really hear about stuff like happened with me and my wife, we met each other, and are having a very hapy marriage. I know of 2 other personal friends that have done the same, and all ended up great. But you won't hear about those on the news because it won't sell. But when you meet a serial killer and end up in 15 pieces after meeting them, now thats news worthy.

If you were gay, there wouldn't be a happy marriage thanks to Bush.

Honestly, I think the news media does a good job of HIDING the really bad stuff that goes on over there. A smidge of the bad stuff everyday and no one can complain that they arent doing their jobs... I personally know several people who enlisted soley so they could hurt some iraqis, and they didnt care if they were innocent or not, children, men, or women, or not.

You mention this to a recruiter, and do you get the 'hmmm maybe i should look into this, you get, 'sounds like a patriot to me'

At 6/30/04 05:19 PM, chesspeaceface wrote: This is how the sovereignty in Iraq breaks down:

dude you nailed it. TOPIC WINNER!!!

We can close the topic now and go back to Moore Bashing or Defending.

At 6/30/04 05:19 PM, chesspeaceface wrote:

Democracy is certainly what the Middle East needs, but not top-down, imperialistic democracy. The foundation of democracy is the will of the people. That is what the administration's warhawks are neglecting.

How would you do it differently or what different would you do?

At 6/30/04 05:23 PM, antiklaus wrote:

At 6/30/04 05:19 PM, chesspeaceface wrote: This is how the sovereignty in Iraq breaks down:

dude you nailed it. TOPIC WINNER!!!

We can close the topic now and go back to Moore Bashing or Defending.

You act like a child. Go away and let the adults talk.

At 6/30/04 05:21 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 05:17 PM, antiklaus wrote:

What you are saying is like saying that because I made a cake to shove into a person's face that you couldnt eat it.

Eat the cake already... it may be dripping off Bush's face, but its still food.

I am constantly amazed at the lack of maturity of the Kerry suporters!

lack of maturity? I made a very valid point, whereas you made no logic at all. Admittedly my analogy was silly, but only because I figured it was one a ten year old could understand.

And if you think I support Kerry you are immensely ignorant.

Why would I support Kerry, who is in all but name, Bush Lite?

I support a true democratic canditdate who wants to return america to america, and cut the corporate ties to the white house. Alas, such a presidential candidate has not been proffered...

How would you do it differently or what different would you do?

Ok. That is the million dollar question. What is happening in Iraq is policy on top of policy on top of policy. One internet messageboard scumbag can't possibly come up with a panacea for the Middle East. But here's where I'm coming from:

I read a book called Orientalism by a former Palestinian named Edward Said, who was a renowned scholar on the subject. And basically I've subscribed to his way of thinking. Democracy and self-rule can only truly be created by the people on their own. Attacking Afghanistan to smoke out al-Qaeda was necessary, to prevent more attacks like 9/11 and to not appear impotent to an enemy. Iraq had no urgency like that. There was no reason that we couldn't have just put Saddam under the microscope for longer until we had something truly concrete. When Powell went before the UN and presented our evidence for war, no one but the most staunch cheerleaders of the US bought it. What we should have done was reevaluated our situation before launching an invasion. That is with the benefit of retrospect, though. What can we do now to fix it? Your guess is as good as mine. Handing over sovereignty completely and holding a direct general election would be the most benevolent way of doing it. It would be a lottery though, and it could quite possibly blow up in our faces and the faces of the Iraqi people. At the core, the Iraqi people don't want to be ruled by white people. They don't want to walk to the store and see fully-armed Americans on their street corners any more than they want to be repressed by Saddam's guard. Its a touchy situation any way you look at it, and no answer is going to be both morally right and stable at the same time.

At 6/30/04 05:25 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 05:23 PM, antiklaus wrote:

At 6/30/04 05:19 PM, chesspeaceface wrote: This is how the sovereignty in Iraq breaks down:

dude you nailed it. TOPIC WINNER!!!

We can close the topic now and go back to Moore Bashing or Defending.

You act like a child. Go away and let the adults talk.

Hmm look at the beginning of this thread and see what I posted about soveriegnty, guatamala, and the united fruit company.

Analysis, not childlike banter. The reason I have devolved to the 'childlike' elements in my last few posts is so even the slow kiddies like you have a chance to understand, since you couldnt contribute a single comment concerning sovereignty (the topic - wow) or any of the examples or issues i presented earlier.

I'm sorry, but this is as low as I can set the bar for you, if you cant understand that then really. find a topic more your speed like: Britney's marriage or Bush's latest pair of trousers.

At 6/30/04 05:39 PM, chesspeaceface wrote: At the core, the Iraqi people don't want to be ruled by white people. They don't want to walk to the store and see fully-armed Americans on their street corners any more than they want to be repressed by Saddam's guard. Its a touchy situation any way you look at it, and no answer is going to be both morally right and stable at the same time.

What you say makes good sense. I think democracy is deffinantly going to take time for them to soak it in and it isn't going to come naturally right off the bat. I think of people who have done years of prison time that don't really know how to function in the real world. They are so use to a dictator and have been supressed for so long, it will take them a while to get used to a democracy; if they can. I think many people are impatient and expect it to happen over night.

Indeed, but what I'm getting at is deeper. The fact that we are holding their hand through the process of democracy is outright condescension, and that is how it is perceived by the Middle East. There are so many opressive totalitarian regimes holding its people hostage, if we are warranted to liberate Iraq for the sake of liberation, what stops us from leapfrogging all over the globe invading countries for our own ideals? If that is the right thing to do, then why aren't we planning our next hostile takeover? Where is the line between Iraq and Iran, North Korea, or Libya? Why did we choose Iraq in particular? That's what I'm getting at. If our reasons were so benevolent, then why are we not applying them across the board?

At 6/30/04 06:48 PM, chesspeaceface wrote: Indeed, but what I'm getting at is deeper. The fact that we are holding their hand through the process of democracy is outright condescension, and that is how it is perceived by the Middle East. There are so many opressive totalitarian regimes holding its people hostage, if we are warranted to liberate Iraq for the sake of liberation, what stops us from leapfrogging all over the globe invading countries for our own ideals? If that is the right thing to do, then why aren't we planning our next hostile takeover? Where is the line between Iraq and Iran, North Korea, or Libya? Why did we choose Iraq in particular? That's what I'm getting at. If our reasons were so benevolent, then why are we not applying them across the board?

Why Iraq? Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Part of the problem is that we did not complete the job the first time. We walked away. We set a set of demands and walked away. Do you turn the other cheak or do you go back in. It was politically unglier the second time. I believe there were more factions to fight the second time too.

Yes we are holding their hand but I am not sure what else we can do (you probably agree). If we give them full sovernety, they tell us to leave, we go, then what?

How long do you think it will be before they revolt? Noone respects their police/authority over there.

The Iraqis/foreign insurgents have already revolted. The country has been in a constant state of revolution against the coalition since major combat operations have ended.
What will happen when the coalition-trained Iraqi security forces take over (which, I might add isn't happening soon)? Use the town of Fallujah as a sample. There was fierce enough guerilla resistance and protest that the coalition had to find an alternate way to manage the town. They placed Iraqi security forces and former soldiers of the republican guard in charge. They are far more loyal to their compatriot Iraqis that they failed to apprehend rebel leaders and quell the anti-American sentiment there. Whether you see that as a good or bad thing, that is how it happened, and I'm pretty sure that it is how it will happen when they take over. There won't be a fierce offensive against criminals and anti-American rebels because race is thicker than alliance with the US. But we won't be able to see what will really happen until the coalition's military forces vacate the country.

Why Iraq? Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Part of the problem is that we did not complete the job the first time.

What was the intended job the first time? Certainly it wasn't to overthrow Saddam Hussein. If memory serves me correctly, it was to chase the Iraqi invasion force out of Kuwait. That job was accomplished.

At 6/30/04 07:08 PM, chesspeaceface wrote:

Why Iraq? Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Part of the problem is that we did not complete the job the first time.

What was the intended job the first time? Certainly it wasn't to overthrow Saddam Hussein. If memory serves me correctly, it was to chase the Iraqi invasion force out of Kuwait. That job was accomplished.

Yes you are right but we pulled out the forces with many conditions, weapond inspections, etc. The more he got defiant, the more suirmishes there were, the more we dug ourselfs a hole.

Yes we are holding their hand but I am not sure what else we can do (you probably agree). If we give them full sovernety, they tell us to leave, we go, then what?

One way or the other we are going to lose control. Iraq isn't going to be our ally unless we have them at gunpoint. And the longer we have them at gunpoint, the more their American hatred grows. How long to stay now that we've went through the entire process of invasion and occupation is completely up in the air. There's no concrete answer that covers all bases.

At 6/30/04 07:14 PM, chesspeaceface wrote:

There's no concrete answer that covers all bases.

Agreed.

There were one or two topics about this (well, i did one before, and someone else did one after)...

And, like many have already said - They aren't sovereign

At 6/30/04 06:22 PM, antiklaus wrote: Analysis, not childlike banter. The reason I have devolved to the 'childlike' elements in my last few posts is so even the slow kiddies like you have a chance to understand, since you couldnt contribute a single comment concerning sovereignty (the topic - wow) or any of the examples or issues i presented earlier.

Thanks antiklaus. You spared me some flaming in this post.

At 6/30/04 09:33 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote:

And, like many have already said - They aren't sovereign

No kiding, the discussion here has been how and when to give them their sovereignty.

At 6/30/04 09:59 PM, gem1 wrote: No kiding, the discussion here has been how and when to give them their sovereignty.

Yeah, I skipped over that dribble. My guess would be, at the earliest, the 2005 elections. If they aren't pushed back.

At 6/30/04 10:13 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote:

At 6/30/04 09:59 PM, gem1 wrote: No kiding, the discussion here has been how and when to give them their sovereignty.

Yeah, I skipped over that dribble. My guess would be, at the earliest, the 2005 elections. If they aren't pushed back.

I think it's going to be spooky for both them and us!

What I mean is we don't want it to fail after everything we have put into it and I doubt they do either.

At 6/30/04 11:52 AM, antiklaus wrote:

an excerpt:

The government that the United States overthrew was the most democratic Guatemala had ever had. ...political critics.

So what? You're saying that because the US has business dealings with Iraq thats the reason we went in and got rid of saddam? How about Saddam was an asshole who was a potential threat and we wanted him gone. Thats the only justification I need.

I wonder why we haven't invaded Cuba to be honest.

So, I manage to get a two-pager started on title alone? tell me, why did no-one else even bother to mention the alleged handover before? It's news and has plenty of scope for conspiracy theories, so surely had to be a viable topic?

God, having to sound like a n00b to get a debate started...

At 7/1/04 09:28 AM, The_Enforcer wrote: How about Saddam was an asshole who was a potential threat and we wanted him gone. Thats the only justification I need.

I wonder why we haven't invaded Cuba to be honest.

So you are fine with us going around to all of the counties of the world that have dictators and overthrowing those governments? You have any idea what the would cost in not only in money, but in the lives of all of those people, American and not. Not to mention that it would give North Korea even more of a reason to develop longer range nuclear weapons, and even attempt to do a preemptive strike on the US before we go after him, as well as China since they are pretty bad on human rights violations.

The US has no right to be going around saying I like you I like you I like you, sorry bud you gotta go we're invading.

At 7/1/04 11:00 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/1/04 09:28 AM, The_Enforcer wrote:

The US has no right to be going around saying I like you I like you I like you, sorry bud you gotta go we're invading.

I believe that the US has a responsibility to promote democracy and freedom. Unfortuantely there are a lot of americans who think that the US shouldn't act alone, that we should wait for the UN to give us the go ahead.

The moment we allow that to happen we cease to be an independant country. I believe we should import freedom to the oppressed.

You bring up North Korea, I say we take care of them first before anything else.

At 7/1/04 10:21 AM, D2KVirus wrote: So, I manage to get a two-pager started on title alone?

It has "Iraq" in it.

tell me, why did no-one else even bother to mention the alleged handover before? It's news and has plenty of scope for conspiracy theories, so surely had to be a viable topic?

We did! I wrote one about the 'upcoming' transfer on, I think, the 27th, and Reiper(right?) made one on the 28th after it was "handed over"!

At 6/30/04 02:59 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote: Moore's movie is a documentary, a compilation of facts.

And judging by Moore's track record with"facts", not too many people are willing to accept Moore's word as Gospel. Me included.

I guess I can understand it. Most 11-year-olds don't open their minds and only listen to mommy and daddy's political views.

Your one to talk.

Oh, and nice lollipop you've got there.

Nice bracelet.

At 6/30/04 05:27 PM, antiklaus wrote: I support a true democratic canditdate who wants to return america to america, and cut the corporate ties to the white house. Alas, such a presidential candidate has not been proffered...

And because of this statement, you feel justified in postig on here with a "Holier Than Thou" attitude? Instead of discussing a political figure you think could do the job right, you would rather bash the people running for the office?

Am I missing something here?

I wonder why we haven't invaded Cuba to be honest.

Hello, and welcome to the nineteen-eighties. Do you have any grasp on ethics? If we would go around, haphazardly policing the world according to your rules, no one in their right mind would stand for it. Iraq is a perfect example. The backlash has been so enormous that Bush wouldn't dare try pulling a stunt like that again.

At 7/1/04 12:48 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/1/04 11:00 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/1/04 09:28 AM, The_Enforcer wrote:

The US has no right to be going around saying I like you I like you I like you, sorry bud you gotta go we're invading.

I believe that the US has a responsibility to promote democracy and freedom. Unfortuantely there are a lot of americans who think that the US shouldn't act alone, that we should wait for the UN to give us the go ahead.

Democracy can also be a bad thing in certain areas, especially in some areas of the middle east where there are a lot of extremists, and the people can probally be easily swayed one way, portentially causing genocides and such on the minorities. But personally I don't want to have the US to pay the price for doing this, in american lives, the lives of the people in the countries we invade, innocent or not, as well as the taxes, and the serious drain it will put on our military. Hell the IRR is already being called up for the army <inactive ready reserve> and that isn't a good thing. When you sign up for the military, you sign up for 8 years, 4 - 5 years active duty <for the marines not sure about lengths on active duty of Navy, Air Force and Army> and then the remaining years as an inactive ready reserve which means you can be called back to active duty if needed. Where are we going to get the money, the people to take out North Korea, Cuba, the Congo, China, and all of the other countries that aren't democratic and/or are human rights violators? You're living in a dreamland if you believe that is possible without crippling the United States both militarily, financially, and our government would lose so much support from its people because they would have to take the money from other domestic things and the normal people of the US would suffer as well, not to mention the need for a draft to do such a thing and that would create a huge uproar against our government. It would also promote terrorism because any "rogue nation" would be much more willing to help terrorists attack the US because they're already fucked as it is, they might as well help others bring the US down.

Do you actually want to see what would happen if we went after North Korea next? They have nukes, while they may not hit the US, or the US soldiers, they can cripple the economies of other countries though by nuking Tokyo.

The moment we allow that to happen we cease to be an independant country. I believe we should import freedom to the oppressed.

We are an indepentance country. We don't need the UN to say what we can and cannot do, but we have no right to go around forcing our culture, our ideals on others. Its like if the Catholics went around with guns saying "become catholic or die."

You bring up North Korea, I say we take care of them first before anything else.

Read above please. Sorry about the real big paragraph.

At 6/30/04 11:42 AM, awkward_silence wrote: How long do you think it will be before they revolt? Noone respects their police/authority over there.

Those are the guys shooting in the streets dumbass. The revolt has begun.