Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i say pity america

we can't hold are own and in 10 yrs we'll be in such a depression it won't matter

then duckfucker1088 you'll be on my level

And why would we be in a depression?

At 7/23/04 12:14 AM, Metal69hed wrote: And why would we be in a depression?

Hell, you're a good few hundred billion dollars in debt... I had a BRILLIANT website that talked about Wall Street Crash, and how it might happen again, but I lost it. It was slightly satire, but made for a good read.

At 7/22/04 03:38 PM, KirbyMan wrote: They did a damn good job being how, THERE ARE NONE IN IRAQ!!!

there were, he destroyed them, or burried them in the deserts. he use nerve gas on Iran, and on his own people.

dump the UN. they do nothing. they have an army, yet they cant be in a war... wtf?

dump the UN. let them rot. they do more harm then good

Dump the UN?

I think dumping Bush would be a better idea.

At 7/23/04 07:47 AM, mabzie wrote: there were, he destroyed them, or burried them in the deserts. he use nerve gas on Iran, and on his own people.

Yes, he did them in the desert and we can't find them. Funnily enough, 'm jumping to the conclusion that he didn't have any. Yeah, he used Nerve gas and all that, and we used bullets made of Depleted Uranium... So what?

Yeah why not break up? I mean we already cheated on them with the coalition.

At 7/23/04 07:47 AM, mabzie wrote:

At 7/22/04 03:38 PM, KirbyMan wrote: They did a damn good job being how, THERE ARE NONE IN IRAQ!!!

there were, he destroyed them, or burried them in the deserts. he use nerve gas on Iran, and on his own people.

weee Id like to see you back this hidden WMD thing up. But alas you probably can't since is so massivly speculative.

Also we gave him the as you speak of.

You are just trying to take the blame from the US and her allies.

It’s not about what the UN didn’t do when they where suppose to, it’s what the we did when it had no right to.

At 7/22/04 06:50 PM, grand_retard wrote: Bush wasn’t elected by the American people.

actually he was.

Bush is a dictator.

no, he is an elected official

Bush has nukes.

no, the U.S. air force has nukes

The UN should go to war with the US.

they would just get there asses kicked

I have this article i got printed out, i cant remember but the UN is illegal under the US constiution, it violates our soverigen right to do as we please. We as a soveriegn nation, can choose to go to war, under our own restrictions, like say congress and such, but in reality, we have to basicaly ask the UN before we can do things internationaly, it effects us. We supply 25% of the UN budget anyway. We the US have provided 75% of the weapons that those blue helmets use. Without the US, the UN is like a tiger without claws. The UN BY NATURE is a failure. The security council, with its veto powers, look during the cold war. Anything the US wanted, Soviets veto'd. Anything USSR wanted, US veto'd. Its the same principle today. The ICC would like to prosecute harry truman and the pilot/crew of the Enola Gay for dropping the A-Bomb on Japan. Should we of dropped it? It saved millions of lives that would of been lost in the invasion of japan. It killed civiilans yes, thousands of them, but if we had not dropped them, it is likely millions would have died. The UN has a hole is a pompus fat man.

At 7/30/04 07:06 PM, mabzie wrote: actually he was.

The people don't elect someone, the electorate does.

no, he is an elected official

True.

no, the U.S. air force has nukes

In a wartime situation, I believe there can be abilities granted to the executive branch. Perhaps there's more truth to that "nuclear button" than we think?

they would just get there asses kicked

Everyone would lose. The nations that make up the UN and the US would completely obliterate each other. That little "Well, we're the most powerful, so we'd win" attitude is bull. Maybe in 1-on-1, but do you think the rest of Europe will stand by and watch the US, and say, Britain duke it out? It's like ants. One can't take down a beetle, but enough ants can.

He is right, the US wont destroy the world. If someone nukes us, we nuke them, we both destroy the world. INDIA-PAKISTAN nuke each other, china nukes india, we again are all screwed. Russian nuke goes missing blows a city up, its shoot first ask questions later.

At 7/30/04 07:13 PM, Celly07 wrote: I have this article i got printed out, i cant remember but the UN is illegal under the US constiution, it violates our soverigen right to do as we please. We as a soveriegn nation, can choose to go to war, under our own restrictions, like say congress and such, but in reality, we have to basicaly ask the UN before we can do things internationaly, it effects us. We supply 25% of the UN budget anyway. We the US have provided 75% of the weapons that those blue helmets use. Without the US, the UN is like a tiger without claws. The UN BY NATURE is a failure. The security council, with its veto powers, look during the cold war. Anything the US wanted, Soviets veto'd. Anything USSR wanted, US veto'd. Its the same principle today.

It does not violate the constitution one bit. It doesn't even violate our role as a sovereign (and by sovereign, I mean a antion that has control over itself, not over everyone else) nation. We choose to follow the will of the UN. It's like high school football, you're not forced to any of the hard work, if you don't want to do it, just leave, but by leaving you forfiet your right to play. And by us ignoring the UN we forfeit any diplomatic legitimacy to anything we do.

The ICC would like to prosecute harry truman and the pilot/crew of the Enola Gay for dropping the A-Bomb on Japan. Should we of dropped it? It saved millions of lives that would of been lost in the invasion of japan. It killed civiilans yes, thousands of them, but if we had not dropped them, it is likely millions would have died. The UN has a hole is a pompus fat man.

The ICC is full of shit if they wish to do that. I'm not sure they realize that there was a deadlier bombing campaing going on at the same exact time. And as far as I've been informed, that bombing campaign is the deadliest we've ever had on earth to date.

Everyone would lose. The nations that make up the UN and the US would completely obliterate each other. That little "Well, we're the most powerful, so we'd win" attitude is bull. Maybe in 1-on-1, but do you think the rest of Europe will stand by and watch the US, and say, Britain duke it out? It's like ants. One can't take down a beetle, but enough ants can.

do you relly think all the nations of the UN would fight? do you relly think more than 3 would want to fight?

Yes the ICC is shit. No it does violate our right, as a soveriegn nation becuase of the ICC, clinton signed it, but bush left the ICC if im correct, but our soldiers could still be prosecuted under it. The ICC assumes jurisdiction over every country in the world. Not just the ones who signed the ICC TREATY. The ICC i think is the main reason we should leave. Our soldiers make mistakes, kill innocent people, i dotn condone that, its wrong, but they should prosecute say Sudans government, or Liberia, or Iran, or other countries, not just US soldiers, which they have not done.

At 7/30/04 07:20 PM, mabzie wrote: do you relly think all the nations of the UN would fight? do you relly think more than 3 would want to fight?

Look at it this way. Two of the most popular people start a fist fight. Now, aren't some going to choose one side and some going to choose the other? Admittedly, a few will stay neutral, but a few at best. And last time I checked, no nation wanted a nuclear wasteland next door. So I think Canada, Mexico, and the European nations might have something to say if a war started.

In nuke war, no one is neutral, cause everyone is effected. there is no neutrality possible, cause nukes effect things globally. Djoubiti would get effect by the Us nuked Russia. It all is interlocked, thats why there has been no nuke war, its like MAD, Mutualy Assured Destruction, you fuck us, we fuck you right back.