Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/29/04 03:02 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 12/29/04 02:27 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Over 10 years ago.

ok.

But not deveping. I can look up how to make pipe bombs, but that doesn't mean I am going to. I understand the mechanics of a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean I am going to attempt to build one. He might have been looking into it for when the sanctions were lifted.

With the situation after 9/11, and the people demanding action and with evidence saying that saddam had possible ties and saddam restricting inspectors, we gave saddam 48 hours to leave, we got no response so we went to war.

Possible ties, very loose ties. Bad intelligence which has killed thousands of people. Cost the Americans billions of dollars. You'd think with that kind of stuff on the line you would be positive about something before launching an all out invasion of a country. The 48 hour thing was just a BS thing, there was no way that Sadaam would have left in those 48 hours. And if he did, guess what would have happened anyways. We would install our government in Iraq. Which with the extreme religious there, and with the minority over the majority there for so long, someone is going to get majorly screwed over with a democratic government.

Where are these terrorists. They made a big deal out of one of them they found in a city during the invasion, but in a country a little bigger than California there are lots of places to hide without the Iraqi government even knowing you are there.

exactly, it'd be the perfect place to hide "terrorists".

Its not hiding if they dont know they are there.

Exactly.

sure...whatever.

At 12/29/04 03:07 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Possible ties, very loose ties. Bad intelligence which has killed thousands of people. Cost the Americans billions of dollars.

US intelligence wasnt properly funded thanks to clinton, so got other intelligence, why choose ours when they havent been getting the funding it needed?

You'd think with that kind of stuff on the line you would be positive about something before launching an all out invasion of a country.

After and even such as 9/11 someone's going to have to pay, and with a major disaster like 9/11 you cant be too careful, so of course even if we were to get the slightest information about saddam or anyone else who could have possible links then we're going to do something about it, which is what people wanted.

The 48 hour thing was just a BS thing, there was no way that Sadaam would have left in those 48 hours.

Saddam had his chance to get out, he was warned, so he did this to himself.

And if he did, guess what would have happened anyways. We would install our government in Iraq.

yeah, so, we still have people stationed in places like bosnia because clinton decided to go to battle.

Which with the extreme religious there, and with the minority over the majority there for so long, someone is going to get majorly screwed over with a democratic government.

I thought liberals were open to new ways.

At 12/29/04 03:19 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 12/29/04 03:07 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Possible ties, very loose ties. Bad intelligence which has killed thousands of people. Cost the Americans billions of dollars.

US intelligence wasnt properly funded thanks to clinton, so got other intelligence, why choose ours when they havent been getting the funding it needed?

Sorry Balancing the budget was a major issue with him. Still doesn't change the fact that the President was told some of his information was incorrect, and he used it anyways. Still doesnt' change that he was pressuring the FBI agents to give him the information saying what he wanted it to say. "The answer that you want is in the question that you state" as one song more or less says.

You'd think with that kind of stuff on the line you would be positive about something before launching an all out invasion of a country.

After and even such as 9/11 someone's going to have to pay, and with a major disaster like 9/11 you cant be too careful, so of course even if we were to get the slightest information about saddam or anyone else who could have possible links then we're going to do something about it, which is what people wanted.

So even the people who are innocent have to pay? Sadaam who had nothing to do with 9-11 besides him not saying it was a bad thing. The people being illegally held in Guatanamo Bay without trial. The US is doing a lot of very bad things, which only breeds more hatred towards the US. But I guess we'll find that out when the next terrorist attacks start.

The 48 hour thing was just a BS thing, there was no way that Sadaam would have left in those 48 hours.

Saddam had his chance to get out, he was warned, so he did this to himself.

The US did this to him. The US had no right to give him that altimadum to get out. The US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent threat to its neighbors much less the US.

And if he did, guess what would have happened anyways. We would install our government in Iraq.

yeah, so, we still have people stationed in places like bosnia because clinton decided to go to battle.

Bosnia happened because the war crimes were being commited at that time. Iraq's happened over a decade ago.

Which with the extreme religious there, and with the minority over the majority there for so long, someone is going to get majorly screwed over with a democratic government.

I thought liberals were open to new ways.

The US is trying to Americanize the Iraqi government. I highly doubt its going to work well. It goes against many of the Iraqi's religions beliefs, as well as with the minority controlling the government for so long, there is going to be much bitterness against it, so they will be oppressed severely as soon as they get a chance. And this also weakens the country so that their friendly neighbors Iran, which has a nice little hatred towards Iraq could easily take over when we turn our backs, and the Iraqi government fails.

The US has had a horrible horrible history of putting governments and people into power. We put Osama and Sadaam into power, and they ended up the US's worse enemies.

At 12/29/04 03:37 PM, ReiperX wrote:

So even the people who are innocent have to pay?

Yes, because thats how it works, cpecially with wars. If you had to go thru civilians to stop a major disaster from happening, would you do it?

Sadaam who had nothing to do with 9-11 besides him not saying it was a bad thing. The people being illegally held in Guatanamo Bay without trial.

I dont know much about the Guatanomo bay thing, i havent really looked at it.

The US is doing a lot of very bad things, which only breeds more hatred towards the US. But I guess we'll find that out when the next terrorist attacks start.

As if the world didnt hate the US before, and its not like the US hasnt done any bad things in anyone's presidency.

The US did this to him. The US had no right to give him that altimadum to get out.

Maybe if saddam wouldve cooperated, we might not even be at war; he knew what would heppen.

The US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent threat to its neighbors much less the US.

My excuse, saddam needed to be taken out, yours, iraq wasnt a threrat. this isnt going anywhere.

Bosnia happened because the war crimes were being commited at that time. Iraq's happened over a decade ago.

So its ok for a dem. president to go into battle, but not a rep. president.

The US is trying to Americanize the Iraqi government. I highly doubt its going to work well. It goes against many of the Iraqi's religions beliefs, as well as with the minority controlling the government for so long, there is going to be much bitterness against it, so they will be oppressed severely as soon as they get a chance. And this also weakens the country so that their friendly neighbors Iran, which has a nice little hatred towards Iraq could easily take over when we turn our backs, and the Iraqi government fails.

with a democracy (if you would call it one) the majority rules, so i dont see how they would oppress the majority.

The US has had a horrible horrible history of putting governments and people into power. We put Osama and Sadaam into power, and they ended up the US's worse enemies.

yeah, we made a mistake, now we're correcting it.

At 12/24/04 11:40 AM, BobDoUrden wrote:

At 12/24/04 11:27 AM, Slizor wrote: The US Army is both a terrorist and freedom fighting organisation. It fights against the freedom of nations - deposing democratically elected leaders (Allende, anyone?) and kills civilians left right and centre - so much so they refused to take a body count.

Main difference being that we don't do it porposely

Right so when the americans took the indians land by force that was just an accident they didn't mean to do it

Usa and irak are maybe freedom fighter or not we will come to it but before:The iraqis are exhausted of the war, i mean, they are in war, so they loose their $$ to get the little left they have to eat. They was allied to the usa and, for me one think is clear: Bush want the $$ of the oil. IT'S SURE! -It's strange, before, don't remeber years ago, they start to build a pipeline, somes terrorists decide to "cut" it. -the soldier are becoming, strangely near of the old pipeline. of course they tries other place too. So if you say the usa, i mean YOU, are fighting for the freedom, the freedom of the Full $ to usa, whatever... But the "terrorist" aren't good too... because they don't try too find new way, to solve, the problem with usa. One think for them: USA HAS TO GO OUT! and i'm sure most of them decide to 'go' because they have family and terrorist group pay their family. But the terrorist group are runned by whom? for what? i think, they it's a band of dreamer and/or band of stupid. they just want to have a muth' fu'kng' piece of the pipeline oil, for the iraqis, but for most of them because they will claim theirself has: helper for developement of the country and will try to 'eat' all the money. ok i write it a little bit fast, so maybe somes lines are "special" or maybe i forgot a couple of things. The one THING to rule them all is the $. Usa rule over the world, no i mean the corporations rule over the world, so why they want more? Simple, why an baseball player live in a big house but want to buy a bigger want? it's like the drug, whatever the number you have taked you can take a little bit more. Again sorry my text is a little bit weird to read.

At 12/29/04 04:41 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 12/29/04 03:37 PM, ReiperX wrote: Sadaam who had nothing to do with 9-11 besides him not saying it was a bad thing. The people being illegally held in Guatanamo Bay without trial.

I dont know much about the Guatanomo bay thing, i havent really looked at it.

Even worse now there are reports that claim that the prisoners there are being mistreated, mal nutritioned, tortured (I've heard in some cases), and not allowed to pray.

The US is doing a lot of very bad things, which only breeds more hatred towards the US. But I guess we'll find that out when the next terrorist attacks start.

As if the world didnt hate the US before, and its not like the US hasnt done any bad things in anyone's presidency.

True Soul Chamber, however, now more than ever it seems that the U.S. is trying to be the world watchdog and doing a miserable job at it.

The US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent threat to its neighbors much less the US.

My excuse, saddam needed to be taken out, yours, iraq wasnt a threrat. this isnt going anywhere.

My proposition, Saddam should have been taken out when we had the chance and when we were at serious odds with him with George Bush senior as president, not Jr.

Bosnia happened because the war crimes were being commited at that time. Iraq's happened over a decade ago.

So its ok for a dem. president to go into battle, but not a rep. president.

Straw Man fallacy, you took ReiperX's words and mis-shaped them to sound like if we went to war because a democrat president was in office at the time. What ReiperX was saying is that the war crimes on Bosnia were being committed then, then was when we should have taken action, just like we should have taken action against Saddam when George Bush senior was in office and Saddam was not only commiting many war crimes but also in serious opposition to us.

with a democracy (if you would call it one) the majority rules, so i dont see how they would oppress the majority.

What if the majority are persuaded to become insurgents or defiant citizens?

The US has had a horrible horrible history of putting governments and people into power. We put Osama and Sadaam into power, and they ended up the US's worse enemies.

yeah, we made a mistake, now we're correcting it.

Apparently the correcting also seems to be another mistake.

At 12/30/04 05:40 AM, shuriPen wrote: Usa and irak are maybe freedom fighter or not we will come to it but before:

Interesting how you spelled "Iraq" wrong.

The iraqis are exhausted of the war, i mean, they are in war, so they loose their $$ to get the little left they have to eat.

They want to be free. who whouldn't? think before you post.

They was allied to the usa and, for me one think is clear: Bush want the $$ of the oil.

Bush want. ug. grammer. please. no proof.
I mean, HOW DARE anyone do something good for another country except us?

So if you say the usa, i mean YOU, are fighting for the freedom, the freedom of the Full $ to usa, whatever... But the "terrorist" aren't good too... because they don't try too find new way, to solve, the problem with usa.

They don't know what they are doing at all. they were brought up the wrong way.

One think for them: USA HAS TO GO OUT!

one think?

your grammer is terrible. I can't even read the rest of your post. bleck.

At 12/30/04 04:48 PM, drDAK wrote:

A response to shuriPen's post.

It's best to not reply to posts of this kind, unless you want to make an example of what not to do.

At 12/29/04 03:37 PM, ReiperX wrote: We put Osama and Sadaam into power, and they ended up the US's worse enemies.

After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country.

In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence. During this period he married his cousin Sajida. They later had two sons and three daughters.

But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/eve...akers_and_diplomacy/236486.stm

America had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power, they just made an ally of him durng the 1980s when relations with one of their other middle eastern connections soured.(IIRC)

At 12/30/04 04:48 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 12/30/04 05:40 AM, shuriPen wrote: Usa and irak are maybe freedom fighter or not we will come to it but before:

Interesting how you spelled "Iraq" wrong.

whatever, irak, are you happy?

The iraqis are exhausted of the war, i mean, they are in war, so they loose their $$ to get the little left they have to eat.

They want to be free. who whouldn't? think before you post.

:I was meaning they haven't money so how are they supposed to " prepare attack? "

They was allied to the usa and, for me one think is clear: Bush want the $$ of the oil.

Bush want. ug. grammer. please. no proof.

:Bush want money!

I mean, HOW DARE anyone do something good for another country except us?

by not buying. except money what do you have?

So if you say the usa, i mean YOU, are fighting for the freedom, the freedom of the Full $ to usa, whatever... But the "terrorist" aren't good too... because they don't try too find new way, to solve, the problem with usa.

They don't know what they are doing at all. they were brought up the wrong way.

One think for them: USA HAS TO GO OUT!

one think?

:yes, i mean, they(people of irak) think about one think: solider stop to kill us.

your grammer is terrible. I can't even read the rest of your post. bleck.

maybe but i don't care. i'm trying to learn english, japanese too, so i can do many errors. look: Watashi nihongo hanaseru. i don't know if i made a mistake but if i correct all of my sentence it will be long.

America had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power, they just made an ally of him durng the 1980s when relations with one of their other middle eastern connections soured.(IIRC)

Weren't we talking about freedom fighter? Saddam is not a freedom fighter and it's clear.

At 12/30/04 05:40 AM, shuriPen wrote:

Bush want money!

You mean Bush wants money.

At 1/2/05 12:37 AM, GoldenToe wrote:

At 12/30/04 05:40 AM, shuriPen wrote:

Bush want money!

You mean Bush wants money.

Excellent correction, you grammer-slut.

At 1/2/05 12:50 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Excellent correction, you grammer-slut.

You post-slut. When posting about someones grammatical errors, try not spell grammar wrong.

It was always known that osama and saddam had no connections, it was are president who tried and lead us to beleive that. Second we are not fighting freedom fighters but a bunch of terrorist groups trying to take control of the country. If we weren't there, ( which we shouldn't be) instead of killing us they would be killing each other. All these terrorist leaders just want to be the next sadam, and as long as they don't have nukes and the people don't want to stand up for there rights i don't care what happens over there.

As far as Iraq goes, what terrorists are you talking about?. Terrorism can be done by anyone, a group or a government, its just doing something to really scare people (doesnt have to involve killing people, but it seems to work well) and use that fear to futher a cause or to create a scapegoat to justify something. A freedom fighter is someone rebelling against a highter power (government, invaders) to take back their freedom.

The rebels or "terrorists" in iraq are completley different from the group that bin-laidens in, I thought it was pretty obvious to most americans by now.

Usually when people call a rebel either a terrorist or freedom fighter, its just their spin on it, wether they hate them or love them, in things like this, barley anyone tells the blunt truth.

At 1/2/05 03:54 PM, Adun wrote: Usually when people call a rebel either a terrorist or freedom fighter, its just their spin on it, wether they hate them or love them, in things like this, barley anyone tells the blunt truth.

I niether love nor hate them. And i speak the blunt truth, brother.
Iraqis that fight the American military, or the Iraqi government are known as insurgents. You can also call an insurgent a freedom fighter, if the mood hits you. Iraqis that kill innocents, and target civilian buildings are terrorists, and nothing but.

Period. That's unbiased, straight from the dictionary.

I think the word "terrorist" has changed now in Iraq because after those first bomb shells hit Iraq in Spring 2003, Iraqis opinions changed. Because we've killed so many innocents there, I'm sure some people have been so pissed, they just wanted to kill our soldiers. I don't blame them. If we were invaded, and you felt on-the-line about the invading force that is so called "good," and they killed your family from bombs or any other kind of weapons, wouldn't you want to fight back? I know I would.

At 1/2/05 07:18 PM, AngryToaster wrote: I think the word "terrorist" has changed now in Iraq because after those first bomb shells hit Iraq in Spring 2003, Iraqis opinions changed.

Thier opinions don't affect the definition of the word. The definition says ANYONE who kills innocents for political gain, or fear inspired power. Period. If they aren't killing civilians, they aren't terrorists.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because we've killed so many innocents there, I'm sure some people have been so pissed, they just wanted to kill our soldiers.

You're speaking of an insurgent. And insurgent is not a terrorist. An insurgent in iraq is attacking military or police targets. That's not terrorism.
Terrorists attacks innocents for political gain. Anyone who attacks innocents for political gain is a terrorist. Anyone who does NOT attack innocents for political gain, is not a terrorist.

I don't blame them. If we were invaded, and you felt on-the-line about the invading force that is so called "good," and they killed your family from bombs or any other kind of weapons, wouldn't you want to fight back? I know I would.

I may choose to fight, yes. Would i attack civilians, instead of the military? No.

Look, i'm not even saying terrorism is wrong or right, in this post. I'm simply pointing out the definition of a terrorist, and a definition of an insurgent. They are not the same thing.

Yes, there are some terrorists in Iraq. Did i say they were al-qaida? No. Do they think they're doing the right thing? Probably.

Still, though, anyone who kills innocents for political gain is a terrorist.

Why is this post even still up? Are people STILL confused about the difference between a terrorist, and an insurgent?

I know the differences between a civilian, an insurgent, and a terrorist. I'm just saying it's a shame that our country thinks that anyone who kills our soldiers are terrorists.

At 1/2/05 07:40 PM, AngryToaster wrote: I know the differences between a civilian, an insurgent, and a terrorist. I'm just saying it's a shame that our country thinks that anyone who kills our soldiers are terrorists.

You don't speak for the country, boy. Don't even try to.

Most people know that anyone who fights against America isn't a terrorist. You cant base results on the handful of Newground idiots we have. If i was to base my opinion of liberals off those who visit newgrounds, i wouldn't have a very good (or realistic) view of them, would I?

At 1/2/05 07:42 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

You don't speak for the country, boy. Don't even try to.

Most people know that anyone who fights against America isn't a terrorist. You cant base results on the handful of Newground idiots we have. If i was to base my opinion of liberals off those who visit newgrounds, i wouldn't have a very good (or realistic) view of them, would I?

I'm not trying to speak for our country, just ordinary normal Americans. I GUARANTEE you, if you asked normal civilians about the War and questions about the fighting going on there, the majority of the people would say that terrorists, and only terrorists, are killing our men.

At 1/2/05 07:46 PM, AngryToaster wrote:

At 1/2/05 07:42 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: You don't speak for the country, boy. Don't even try to.
Most people know that anyone who fights against America isn't a terrorist. You cant base results on the handful of Newground idiots we have. If i was to base my opinion of liberals off those who visit newgrounds, i wouldn't have a very good (or realistic) view of them, would I?

I'm not trying to speak for our country, just ordinary normal Americans.

And i'm saying, I'M a ordinary normal American. As is my family, and my friends. And, yet, we all know world events very well. Your insinuations of 'normal America' are insulting.

I GUARANTEE you, if you asked normal civilians about the War and questions about the fighting going on there, the majority of the people would say that terrorists, and only terrorists, are killing our men.

Not...anyone that went to school. Terrorist don't kill 'our men', genius. Terrorist kill civilians. Last time i checked, the American military were not civilians. America knows this.
You have nothing to back up your claim that 'normal americans' are stupid, other than your own unbacked opinion.

And hey, you can have that opinion. But that doesn't make it fact.

I know you're a normal American and so am I. But then again, so are some other people that have way lower IQ's. And go ask some people on the street. They will say terrorists are killing our military.

Because who else would?! /end acting like average joe

At 1/2/05 08:00 PM, AngryToaster wrote: I know you're a normal American and so am I. But then again, so are some other people that have way lower IQ's.

Yes, it's common knowledge that some Americans are stupid. So are some Europeans, some australians, and some french.
SOME. Not ALL, or even MOST.

And go ask some people on the street. They will say terrorists are killing our military.

Oh yes, because, seeing as how you're 14 years old, i'm sure you have LOADS of knowledge from 'taking it to the streets' for information, right?

At 1/2/05 08:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

Oh yes, because, seeing as how you're 14 years old, i'm sure you have LOADS of knowledge from 'taking it to the streets' for information, right?

Well let's just say I'm more mature than any other teenagers my age. Don't doubt someone's knowledge on how old they are. At my friend's school, there is an 8 year old girl who is in senior classes.

At 1/2/05 08:07 PM, AngryToaster wrote:

At 1/2/05 08:02 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

Oh yes, because, seeing as how you're 14 years old, i'm sure you have LOADS of knowledge from 'taking it to the streets' for information, right?

Well let's just say I'm more mature than any other teenagers my age. Don't doubt someone's knowledge on how old they are.

I'm not doubting your knowledge, i'm doubting your 'street-experience'.

At my friend's school, there is an 8 year old girl who is in senior classes.

And that has to do with average Americans...how, again?

At 1/2/05 08:08 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

I'm not doubting your knowledge, i'm doubting your 'street-experience'.

But you just said because I'm 14 years old, it means I have little 'street experience.'

And that has to do with average Americans...how, again?

It's just saying, again, don't doubt someone's knowledge by their age.

At 1/2/05 08:14 PM, AngryToaster wrote:

At 1/2/05 08:08 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

I'm not doubting your knowledge, i'm doubting your 'street-experience'.

But you just said because I'm 14 years old, it means I have little 'street experience.'

Well, that's true. I highly doubt you go around, asking random people a list of questions, on the street.

In fact, i'm POSTIIVE you don't. You're 14 years old. You go to school...you have homework...you have curfew. And, of course, you spend all this time on NG.

You ain't no member of the AP, so don't even try.

And that has to do with average Americans...how, again?

It's just saying, again, don't doubt someone's knowledge by their age.

Oh, so because you know someone who knows of a young girl in a senior class, that makes ALL youth smart?

Look, this is axiomatic: Most 14 years old don't know shit about the world, and how it works. There are exceptions, of course. You are one of them (though i could have still guessed you were a young teenager). Most 14 years old are shallow, naive, and uncouth about their opinions.