Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/23/05 11:58 PM, Empanado wrote: Won't happen, though, so I don't know why the fuck I'm typing this.

Crazy Chilean thing?

At 10/24/05 05:19 AM, adamsaysmoesgay wrote:

e ass whupping from India, who I'm sure would love to do so with U.S. approval. As for us...

actually, they invaded iraq so that when they invade Iran(the people that actually have weapons) iraq wouldnt help. They wont attack Iran first though, they are going to attack Syria first, and then go for Iran, this way they will have the place surronded. Idiotic teenagers huh? I don't fear them at all,lol, i am muslim. Look, the countries themselves wont do shit, but alot of people will go out of there country and will fight in however they can. Donate troops? You gotta be kidding. The minute isreal touches syria, Hezaballah is gunna bomb the shit out of israel. You underestimate not only the enemy, but the faith of alot of people.

You really think that Saudi Arabia would do anything that would hinder an attack on Iran? Besides, I wasn't saying that Israel invading Syria was part of the plan, I meant that the possibility would be a deterrent for Syrian interference. You are right about people leaving their country to "Fight the good fight". But these aren't gonna be organized troops capable of organizing an effective resistance, they'll be punk kids with AK-47s and bombs strapped to their chests. Which as we have seen provides great fuel for protesters and not much else. Oh yeah, and good target practice. I really don't see an effective Arab alliance any more than I see an effective western alliance. Oh yeah, I really don't think Iraq would ever have helped Iran either. In case you forgot, the Iran-Iraqi war was one of the events that led to the Desert Storm.

At 10/24/05 07:51 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: I'm really annoyed that other arab countries did not do nothing while their fellow muslim country, Iraq gets invaded by their sworn enemy(next to israel). Notably Iran and Saudi Arabia

Yet another who overestimates the value of theology over politics and, of course, money. Neither of those governments gives a shit what happens to Iraq, if anything they were glad to watch Saddam go down. This whole "unity" only exists in the minds of extremists and OPEC.

i personally think the Yanks are power hungry and someone needs to knock some political sense into them.

http://www.scotiafootball.com

awwww ty so much and ya something has to be done or America or even the world will be in trouble

At 10/23/05 02:58 PM, DMXRoid wrote: So, basically, what you're saying is, you're an idiot who doesn't really know anything but has decided that his nationality gives him the ability to see into the future, like Nostradamus?

dude im not an idiot alright see all of ppl who posted to this BBS wood an idiot really make a good BBS and i didnt say i could see into the future i just say it could happen alright i love my backround many of my friends who are Iranian say that they should hide their true backround well not me im proud of who i am im proud of being middle eastern i have no shame so if that makes me an idiot fine im an idiot

american liberals just LOVE IT

when European countries deal in terrorist afairs.

Why?

Because every time regan or bush senor caught a terrorist. The Europeans let them free.

dude im not an idiot alright see all of ppl who posted to this BBS wood an idiot really make a good BBS and i didnt say i could see into the future i just say it could happen alright i love my backround many of my friends who are Iranian say that they should hide their true backround well not me im proud of who i am im proud of being middle eastern i have no shame so if that makes me an idiot fine im an idiot

FIrst off, dude, like a third of these posts are mine. Secondly, the stupidest people often start the longest threads, because they say retarded things, and then someone has to defend it, and then someone has to answer it, etc...

You being proud of your heritage doesn't make you an idiot. For starters, your grammar and spelling do. It's also the fact that you're making completely ludicrious statements with no backing. It's also the fact that you decided that I thought you were dumb for being proud you're MIddle Eastern. It's also because you started this thread with "ok im Iranian so im no all of this so dont think im an idiot who made this up ok", like that matters.

At 10/24/05 07:15 AM, thebigo1081 wrote:

You really think that Saudi Arabia would do anything that would hinder an attack on Iran? Besides, I wasn't saying that Israel invading Syria was part of the plan, I meant that the possibility would be a deterrent for Syrian interference. You are right about people leaving their country to "Fight the good fight". But these aren't gonna be organized troops capable of organizing an effective resistance, they'll be punk kids with AK-47s and bombs strapped to their chests. Which as we have seen provides great fuel for protesters and not much else. Oh yeah, and good target practice. I really don't see an effective Arab alliance any more than I see an effective western alliance. Oh yeah, I really don't think Iraq would ever have helped Iran either. In case you forgot, the Iran-Iraqi war was one of the events that led to the Desert Storm.

I never said saudia arabia would help. A bunch of punk kids? You will be suprised at the ages of the people that will go. Like mentioned before, hezeballah will be gathering forces from anywhere possible, and that means that most of the people that will go to fight, will first go to lebanon to meet up with a member of hezaballah to find out what he must do. I do recall desert storm, but sadam would have gone against the states, no matter what arab country it would fight, thats was one of the reasons sadam made such a big army(yea, he had a big one). Iraq would have just simply tried to take over the land if the states would have left, thats all.... though they wouldn't have dared to take Lebanon im my opinion.....

anything i missed?

At 10/24/05 07:51 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: I'm really annoyed that other arab countries did not do nothing while their fellow muslim country, Iraq gets invaded by their sworn enemy(next to israel). Notably Iran and Saudi Arabia

Saudia arabia sadly will never do shit for any of the muslim countries! These are probably the most corrupt muslims of them all! They mention Allah alot, and then go and drink beer.............very religious. I am arab too, and i think that dm whatever the hell his name is is just being a ass, so amir just ignore him.

At 10/24/05 08:41 PM, adamsaysmoesgay wrote:

At 10/24/05 07:15 AM, thebigo1081 wrote:

Are you fucking kidding me? Islam is much more splintered then Catholisim. By appealing to one side of Islam, you alienated all the other sides of Islam.

IE: Lets say you endorse Bin Laden.

You get his fanatical troopers, yet the Arabian countries would most certainly distance themselves from you.

You ally yourself with the moderates? The Fanatics call you a traitor.

Islam has never been united to the point to which it transcends national boundaries

At 10/24/05 07:51 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: I'm really annoyed that other arab countries did not do nothing while their fellow muslim country, Iraq gets invaded by their sworn enemy(next to israel). Notably Iran and Saudi Arabia

I'm really annoyed by flies. They're all flying around and stuff, it's annoying. Am I right or what?

At 10/24/05 08:41 PM, adamsaysmoesgay wrote:

At 10/24/05 07:15 AM, thebigo1081 wrote:

I never said saudia arabia would help. A bunch of punk kids? You will be suprised at the ages of the people that will go. Like mentioned before, hezeballah will be gathering forces from anywhere possible, and that means that most of the people that will go to fight, will first go to lebanon to meet up with a member of hezaballah to find out what he must do. I do recall desert storm, but sadam would have gone against the states, no matter what arab country it would fight, thats was one of the reasons sadam made such a big army(yea, he had a big one). Iraq would have just simply tried to take over the land if the states would have left, thats all.... though they wouldn't have dared to take Lebanon im my opinion.....

anything i missed?

Yeah, where was the support for Iraq? Once again, all we see is a bunch of punk kids (and adults) blowing their own asses up. Personally, I wish they'd just make their big political statement with a mass suicide, and stop inflicting their stupidity on innocent civilians.

At 10/23/05 11:27 PM, Papa_Smuff wrote:

At 10/23/05 08:58 PM, random8982 wrote: and even if WMD's are developed, Iran has no way to use them on another country other than places like Iraq.

I think most people are actually worried that they'd sell it to another country.

selling it to another country would be a problem but probably not as big as you'd think...developing nuclear capability isnt a small feat...it would be noticed by someone somewhere. then suddenly you have eyes watching you from lets say country X, Y, and Z. now that their eyes are on you, imagine them trying to sell a WMD on the arms market...it would be virtually impossible and response would be swift.

At 10/24/05 05:24 AM, adamsaysmoesgay wrote: look, thats what everyone said when usa invaded iraq, and no one helped but britain, i doubt any of the europe countries will get involved, though i thats just how i feel right now.

thats because there was no solid proof of WMD's inside of Iraq...if there was solid evidence that the do have them, watch the world jump on them to have it disarmed and neutralized. on top of that, with all the alliances bound up in the area, a chain reaction would occur from that one attack and the result would be world war.

It's known that 4 trucks were photographed leaving iraq the day before the united states entered the country.

It must have been for Sadams oil for popcicles program.

selling it to another country would be a problem but probably not as big as you'd think...developing nuclear capability isnt a small feat...it would be noticed by someone somewhere. then suddenly you have eyes watching you from lets say country X, Y, and Z. now that their eyes are on you, imagine them trying to sell a WMD on the arms market...it would be virtually impossible and response would be swift.

If only it were that easy. If it were, the risk of Russian scientists going to work for rogue nations wouldn't have existed post-Cold War.

We should worry about Iran's nuclear program, both because they will use them (they have been buying delivery system components from the Chinese and Syrians for a while now), and because the regime in control of Iran will have no compunction about giving those weapons to, for example, Egypt, or Syria, or Jordan.

thats because there was no solid proof of WMD's inside of Iraq...if there was solid evidence that the do have them, watch the world jump on them to have it disarmed and neutralized. on top of that, with all the alliances bound up in the area, a chain reaction would occur from that one attack and the result would be world war.

World war is a myth in the modern era. Before we could reach the 1,000,000+ casualty range as we did in WWI and WWII (and yes, I know the casualty counts were much higher in those wars, but a million is a good round number), the United States would just settle it with a couple of nukes, and then dare someone to bitch about it.

At 10/24/05 06:16 PM, DMXRoid wrote:

dude im not an idiot alright see all of ppl who posted to this BBS wood an idiot really make a good BBS and i didnt say i could see into the future i just say it could happen alright i love my backround many of my friends who are Iranian say that they should hide their true backround well not me im proud of who i am im proud of being middle eastern i have no shame so if that makes me an idiot fine im an idiot

FIrst off, dude, like a third of these posts are mine. Secondly, the stupidest people often start the longest threads, because they say retarded things, and then someone has to defend it, and then someone has to answer it, etc...

You being proud of your heritage doesn't make you an idiot. For starters, your grammar and spelling do. It's also the fact that you're making completely ludicrious statements with no backing. It's also the fact that you decided that I thought you were dumb for being proud you're MIddle Eastern. It's also because you started this thread with "ok im Iranian so im no all of this so dont think im an idiot who made this up ok", like that matters.

*sigh* ok ok look i have been in many fights before with ppl like u who are 3x smarter than me yet i fight them the best way i can im not going to fight u anymore say the **** u want to say to me but remember ur posting more stuff on MY BBS and by the way i have good spelling and grammer i just shorten words to i can type fast jeez

*sigh* ok ok look i have been in many fights before with ppl like u who are 3x smarter than me yet i fight them the best way i can im not going to fight u anymore say the **** u want to say to me but remember ur posting more stuff on MY BBS and by the way i have good spelling and grammer i just shorten words to i can type fast jeez

First off, a topic doesn't belong to the person who started it, or anyone else. It isn't _your_ topic any more than it is mine. I don't post here because of you, I post here because a couple of people have had points that I like to argue. I also post here because I get off a little on controversy, but whatever.

If you have good spelling and grammar, use it. It's worth about a billion credibility points to use complete sentences, spell things correctly, etc... It's very hard to take someone seriously who types "u" instead of "you", doesn't capitalize properly, and generally sounds un-intelligent. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you need to sacrifice speed for quality. I type pretty quickly, and you'll never see me taking shortcuts like that.

At 10/25/05 08:32 PM, Amir72 wrote:

At 10/24/05 06:16 PM, DMXRoid wrote:

What have my eyes ever done to you you bastard

At 10/25/05 07:26 PM, DMXRoid wrote:

World war is a myth in the modern era. Before we could reach the 1,000,000+ casualty range as we did in WWI and WWII (and yes, I know the casualty counts were much higher in those wars, but a million is a good round number), the United States would just settle it with a couple of nukes, and then dare someone to bitch about it.

yea, then recieve a couple up there asses too by russia or something...

At 10/25/05 07:26 PM, DMXRoid wrote: If only it were that easy. If it were, the risk of Russian scientists going to work for rogue nations wouldn't have existed post-Cold War.

I don't see why it couldnt be this easy...Well...nothing is ever easy, but since the cold war, techonology and intelligence departments all over the world have been vastly improved. Again, nuclear capability isn't something that would just slide under the radar, and if it did, it wouldn't remain hidden very long.

We should worry about Iran's nuclear program, both because they will use them (they have been buying delivery system components from the Chinese and Syrians for a while now), and because the regime in control of Iran will have no compunction about giving those weapons to, for example, Egypt, or Syria, or Jordan.

I've read some of your precious arguments and I've noticed you tend not to think highly of the United Nations. However, the U.N. will have the power to designate a coalition force powerful enough to halt any plans made by those countries to use nuclear weapons. Such a serious threat would never go unchecked and unchallenged. And even with the delivery systems being bought, it wouldnt make it very far to the U.S. and various first world countries with interceptor missles. I personally feel that they would wiegh the risks of blowing one of those bad boys up while it's still in the air than letting it hit its mark.

World war is a myth in the modern era. Before we could reach the 1,000,000+ casualty range as we did in WWI and WWII (and yes, I know the casualty counts were much higher in those wars, but a million is a good round number), the United States would just settle it with a couple of nukes, and then dare someone to bitch about it.

Nuclear war, i feel, is in the past for America. Today, there are far many more weapons of mass destruction that they could use to create the same effect without risk of nuclear winter. I.E. the hydrogen bomb. And ever since alliances started, there has been no such thing as a small war. If a serious attack were to occur, alliance treaties would come into effect and it would call on country upon country to aid another and before you've realized what happened, there is battle on every continent. From what I've learned and noted over the years, nothing to me is a myth anymore, and world war is enitrely possible.

I've read some of your precious arguments and I've noticed you tend not to think highly of the United Nations. However, the U.N. will have the power to designate a coalition force powerful enough to halt any plans made by those countries to use nuclear weapons.

Yeah? Where was the UN when North Korea was developing their program? Or Iran? Or India or Pakistan, for God's sake? The argument that the UN is a successful non-proliferation mechanism is laughable. They'd never be able to mobilize a force against a new nuclear power, because at least one member of the Security Council would veto *cough*France*cough*Russia*cough*China*cou
gh*

:Such a serious threat would never go unchecked and unchallenged. And even with the delivery systems being bought, it wouldnt make it very far to the U.S. and various first world countries with interceptor missles.

Wait, so you support a strong national missile defense?

Nuclear war, i feel, is in the past for America. Today, there are far many more weapons of mass destruction that they could use to create the same effect without risk of nuclear winter. I.E. the hydrogen bomb.

Nuclear winter is an impossiblity with the kind of weapons we use now. In the early days of nuclear weapons, the largest bombs were ground burst, so they'd explode on contact. The explosion would kick up dust and particulates, not to mention ash and debris, into the air. Nowadays, we use air burst weapons that wouldn't have that effect, and, actually would have a minimal impact on the quality of the air and rain in that area.

At 10/25/05 09:41 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Yeah? Where was the UN when North Korea was developing their program? Or Iran? Or India or Pakistan, for God's sake? The argument that the UN is a successful non-proliferation mechanism is laughable. They'd never be able to mobilize a force against a new nuclear power, because at least one member of the Security Council would veto *cough*France*cough*Russia*cough*China*cou

gh*

haha...You've got me on that one

Wait, so you support a strong national missile defense?

I support complete national defense in any way that it can be done. If a threat is coming to attack a country, then I feel it is with-in that country's right to defend itself in anyway they deem neccessary; sacntioned or unsacntioned by Geneva Convention rules.

Nuclear winter is an impossiblity with the kind of weapons we use now. In the early days of nuclear weapons, the largest bombs were ground burst, so they'd explode on contact. The explosion would kick up dust and particulates, not to mention ash and debris, into the air. Nowadays, we use air burst weapons that wouldn't have that effect, and, actually would have a minimal impact on the quality of the air and rain in that area.

Radioactive contamination is something that can not be avoided, however and would make any target hit unusable for some time. So when everything is turned to dust by a nuclear warhead, whether it explode by ground burst or air burst, radioactive particles are going to get into the air. And then god forbid a cross-breeze come by and catch those particles and send them to a nearby villiage or city just outside of the blast radius. You can't deny that it would not be a problem before response teams could get there.

\: Radioactive contamination is something that can not be avoided, however and would make any target hit unusable for some time. So when everything is turned to dust by a nuclear warhead, whether it explode by ground burst or air burst, radioactive particles are going to get into the air. And then god forbid a cross-breeze come by and catch those particles and send them to a nearby villiage or city just outside of the blast radius. You can't deny that it would not be a problem before response teams could get there.

That's easily solved by only using neutron bombs, which don't output any heat or explosion, just radiation. So, nothing turns to dust, just organic matter dies, and the site is clean shortly after.

At 10/25/05 10:21 PM, DMXRoid wrote: That's easily solved by only using neutron bombs, which don't output any heat or explosion, just radiation. So, nothing turns to dust, just organic matter dies, and the site is clean shortly after.

Or we could just skip the clean up all together and drop a hydrogen bomb. Organinc matter dies and no radiation by product...just a really big crater.

At 10/25/05 12:21 PM, thebigo1081 wrote:

Yeah, where was the support for Iraq? Once again, all we see is a bunch of punk kids (and adults) blowing their own asses up. Personally, I wish they'd just make their big political statement with a mass suicide, and stop inflicting their stupidity on innocent civilians.

that was a wrong move in my opinion. They should have helped Iraq. The reason they didnt i think is because they either didnt like sadam, or they didnt really care for Iraq.

I'd like to ask a question, a valid one in my opinion.... whats the fucking problem if iran has nuclear weapons? dont you think its a bit wierd that america is on this fucking crusade to stop people making nuclear weapons when it probably has more of them than the WHOLE WORLD COMBINED?

At 10/26/05 11:36 AM, SmilingAssasin wrote: whats the fucking problem if iran has nuclear weapons? dont you think its a bit wierd that america is on this fucking crusade to stop people making nuclear weapons when it probably has more of them than the WHOLE WORLD COMBINED?

So, lets phrase it this way.

Do you think America is dumb enough to use nuclear arms? Do you think America is dumb enough to proliferate nuclear arms?

Now, do you think Iran is dumb enough to use nuclear arms? Do you think Iran is dumb enough to proliferate nuclear arms?

Id say yes to the last 2. Thats why, fignuts.

At 10/25/05 10:30 PM, random8982 wrote: Or we could just skip the clean up all together and drop a hydrogen bomb. Organinc matter dies and no radiation by product...just a really big crater.

??? A hydrogen bomb is just a gigantic atomic bomb. Id like to see a source for this cause I think its a load of crap.

At 10/25/05 10:21 PM, DMXRoid wrote: That's easily solved by only using neutron bombs, which don't output any heat or explosion, just radiation. So, nothing turns to dust, just organic matter dies, and the site is clean shortly after.

Thats a load of crap.

These same authorities say that the common perception of the neutron bomb as a "landlord bomb" that would kill people but leave buildings undamaged is greatly overstated. At the conventional effective combat range (690 m), the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of inutility almost any civilian building. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area.

However

According to Cohen, one possible tactic of using such "true" neutron bombs is therefore to launch them as defensive weapons against armored attacks. Civilians enter fallout shelters, and the bomb is exploded 10 km over the armored attack. Portable armor is said to be unable to shield tank and aircraft crews. In such an event, a city's trees and grass would have been killed by radiation, but buildings would remain undamaged for the emerging civilians (who would however have to wait several days for certain short-lived isotopes to decay).

So if you exploded them 10km in the air, they most likely wouldnt destroy buildings. But what you said is still untrue.

Iran being reduced to rubble = one less adversary in the region to deal with. Let's do it!

At 10/26/05 03:01 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Iran being reduced to rubble = one less adversary in the region to deal with. Let's do it!

O_O dude wtf thats my family your talking about killing!!!!!!!! not to mention many other iranians!!!!!!!! and iran makes a lot of oil so if it was destroy you wouldd be destroying a part of oil resourse in the Middle East so dont you dare say to blow up Iran like an idiot