Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/1/06 04:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong on that one, but I remember most people being against the war at the beginning (US citizens, I mean). Do you have a source?

I'm pretty sure that it was aroung 70% were prowar before it was found out ther the WMDs did not exist. I'll look into it after work if you want.

Its called the Electoral College, go to Middle School. Also, Hitler had the ruler killed after :becoming a counsel. Bush didn't.

Yes, the electoral college allows a president to be elected even when the majority of the votes favor the other candidate. That doesn't invalidate the point that Bush and Hitler both didn't get the majority of the votes.

Hmm...has any American ever been stopped from getting food, b/c of Bush, how about :getting evicted, gased, had their children burned alive, robbed of all belongings, No?

Have you ever heard of a slippery slope? When one constitutional right gets eroded, what's to stop all of them from getting curtailed? Nothing. Today it's wiretapping, tomorrow it's cameras everywhere, and in 25 years we have little to no liberties at all. As Franklin said, "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

It's called war, besides Kyoto was for the environment. And lets see what Hitler didnt :follow, its called Genocide?

What are you talking about? What's called "war"? The International Criminal Court is the main body that prosectues those who commit war crimes, such as genocide. Bush nullified the signature on the treaty upon coming to office.

Poland had no army and was a peaceful country, Iraq was ruled but a dictator who :murdered his own citizens on countless occasions.

Poland had no army? Is that a joke? Anyway Poland was as peaceful to Germany as Iraq was to the US. The US also murdered its citizens on various occasions -- it's called the death penalty. I'm all for abolishing it, though.

I'm pretty sure that it was aroung 70% were prowar before it was found out ther the WMDs did :not exist. I'll look into it after work if you want.

No, no need to look into it -- I'm probably wrong on that count. I'll revise it to fabricating evidence to gain popular support for a war. :)

begoner, hey, this is fun look at my analysis of what you said. its true people didnt want to go to Iraq

Sorry i didnt see that you already did.

You are correct, the wire tapping was not necessary.

So let me lay it out.

Bush did make mistakes and basically said, "Fuck you" to the world. I agree with that. He is setting us up for less liberties, if the next president is like Bush, but i dont see any idiots up for next time. But you can't say the the death penalty, which punishes criminals is equal to purposeful and hateful killing of 11 million peope (jews, gypsy's, homosexuals, muslims, communists, blacks, and criminals.) Also, this was not just men it was everyone rich or poor, young or old, man or women. So i can agree with some points, but comparing a bubling fool to an evil racial extremist is not logical and really will fuck you up in this world, personally, it is insulting. Yes I dislike Bush (not pussy), but he is no Hitler.

At 3/1/06 03:05 PM, comix123 wrote: Goddamnit, im jewish and yes 6 million jews were slaughter, but if you want to make an even better point say 11 million, bc hitler had 5 million, gays, black, gypsys, and anyone who helped them murdered.

How can anyone be compared to Hitler?

Why are you guys talking about the holocaust... there's more than enough posts outside of here about that. It's about what's happening in the world RIGHT NOW. stop living in the past. European countries don't like that America is at war because this should be a time of peace. It was different back then when the whole world was involved in a war, maybe that's why it's called the World War

:But you can't say the the death penalty, which punishes criminals is equal to purposeful and :hateful killing of 11 million peope

I was referring to your quote about the ethnic cleansing in regard to Hussein, not Hitler. I wouldn't compare the death penalty to the Holocaust.

The communists killed about 110,000,000 million people for their cause, but I suppose people think hitler was worse because he was more open about it?

guess we wrapped that up, cool

its true people didnt want to go to Iraq

Sorry for double-posting (again), but I found a poll that was on March 6, 2003 (right before the war) that said that only 47% agreed that the Bush administration had made the case for war. Not quite the majority. :)

http://www.cbsnews.c..lls/main543034.shtml

At 3/1/06 04:43 PM, Begoner wrote:

its true people didnt want to go to Iraq

Sorry for double-posting (again), but I found a poll that was on March 6, 2003 (right before the war) that said that only 47% agreed that the Bush administration had made the case for war. Not quite the majority. :)

http://www.cbsnews.c..lls/main543034.shtml

Every site will present a different poll, one taken in Boston, one in Dallas, on all over but only people with a College Degree. Its probably true that its near 50/50

i think america needs to be hated more. scotland mooned the prez on his first visit of his presidency to the country. lol.

1. Neither Bush nor Hitler were elected by a majority of the people.

R: Ok, that is kinda true. But everyone was happy with the electoral college before and honestly I am happier now then ever with it.

2. Both Bush and Hitler limited civil liberties in response to a disaster (9/11, Reichstag fire).

R:Ok, heres a lil re-enactment. Lil Johny: dadda what do we do if a bad thing happens that could have been prevented safely.
Dad: well we sit there and hope nothing else happens because stupid people get mad with good changes.END
ok we didnt just target innicent people we targeted terrorists sure we invaded personal privacy but Hitler didnt bother he just killed them we check them before making ANY decisions.

3. Both Hitler and Bush did not heed the majority of their populace or foreign nations in their foreign policy or wars.

NationsR:Ok, your at your highschool. Some guy whacks you in the face and is continuallt pounding you.
ChoiceA. Wait until he is done and then tell a teacher and hope he doesnt break THAT many bones.
choice B. Fight him off of you to save yourself pain and a big hospital bill
Now teachers and the after school counsler persons would say that you should do choice A. the MAJORITY ( of the leaders/school employees) would tell you to do. Now choice B would be the sane and honestly smart thing to do. We were self Defense
on the other hand hiler was a greedy dude wanting more land/ money
Rpopulace: every one was like " yah lets get those Irqies and liberate there innocent"
But ounce the 1st American dies everyone complains. Listen people both sides get hurt or die in war DEAL WITH IT ( I know what its like k?) wouldnt you like to support what your family/solideirs DIED FOR they belived you should to we didnt force a single person to fight Hitler would actually capture families and FORCE his soldiers to fight. If the soldeir quit there family died. If the soldier died his family died. If the soldeir talked down about the war his family died. If the soldier was involved in a failed mission his family died. If the soldier was succesful and wanted a promosion his family died. Yah Bush kills tons of innocent familys doesnt he.

4. Like Hitler, Bush does not follow international laws or treaties (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court).

R:Ok, Clinton didnt either and all of you who are slamming Bush probobly loved this Rapist. ( at least he violated the ones that you can in not war times) Iraqu is also breaking these laws. Hitler killed soldiers and cicillians with this.

5. Bush and Hitler both launched pre-emptive strikes on countries they considered a "threat," such as Poland and Iraq.

R Bush:OK, none of you know much about Hitler it seems. 1st let me cover Bush then Ill let you on to somethin. Iraque is a threat. If they were not a threat they would 1st off have a decent goverment and a leader who doesnt shoot people point blank for little or no reason. If iraqu is actuallt no threat then howcome they kill all of our soldiers well enough to get us complaining (not saying much but read the war obituarys) also this us purely what I think but they proboly dumped the W.O.M.D.
R Hitler:Now Hitler was a genius ( read on please) but he was to smart. There is a mental dissorder in which the brain overthings every little thing the only question most people have with this after some point is " What is it like to kill someone" studies show Hitler had this disease. He never actuallt thought these countries are a thret he just claimed he did in order to gain favor. Also the entire poin of the holocast was to make certain citizens feel decent about themselves by giving the the perspective over other types of humans allowing them to be more rash. He never belived any of the crap he said he used it to gain favor. He belived with true world dominance he could created world peace. (similar to Ghengis Khan but thats WAY different.) He used scummy tactics in order to gain favor and found no loss in killing 3 quarters of the worlds pop. in owrder to do this. ( making him a nihilist) I hate hitler but pitifully he actually was kinda smart.
( Dont belive me eh? well read Hitlers never ending journal 1,000 pages about him him and uhm..him. Now thats torture)
Note: Bush couldnt have had this disease for it results when a part of the brain is overgrown and he has had a brain scan thingy. Also Bush is smart but he could be smarter not calling him dumb

And there are many more similarities.

Like what ok they are both male but uhm they arnt alike ok? You are clueless about Hitler and his intentions think before you speak.

At 3/1/06 04:53 PM, Lawndeer wrote: i think america needs to be hated more. scotland mooned the prez on his first visit of his presidency to the country. lol.

That must suck, considering Scotland is just England's bitch.

NationsR:Ok, your at your highschool. Some guy whacks you in the face and is continuallt :pounding you.
ChoiceA. Wait until he is done and then tell a teacher and hope he doesnt break THAT many :bones.
choice B. Fight him off of you to save yourself pain and a big hospital bill
Now teachers and the after school counsler persons would say that you should do choice :A. the MAJORITY ( of the leaders/school employees) would tell you to do. Now choice B :would be the sane and honestly smart thing to do. We were self Defense
on the other hand hiler was a greedy dude wanting more land/ money
Rpopulace: every one was like " yah lets get those Irqies and liberate there innocent"
But ounce the 1st American dies everyone complains. Listen people both sides get hurt or :die in war DEAL WITH IT ( I know what its like k?) wouldnt you like to support what your :family/solideirs DIED FOR they belived you should to we didnt force a single person to fight :Hitler would actually capture families and FORCE his soldiers to fight. If the soldeir quit :there family died. If the soldier died his family died. If the soldeir talked down about the war :his family died. If the soldier was involved in a failed mission his family died. If the soldier :was succesful and wanted a promosion his family died. Yah Bush kills tons of innocent :familys doesnt he.

Your metaphor of somebody beating you up is very accurate...if you are talking from Iraq's point of view. Iraq never did anything to harm the US, and it was by no means a threat. It did not even have WMDs. The US did not act in self-defense. I don't know how anybody could say that little Iraq was a threat to the US. It wasn't. Nonetheless, the Americans invaded it, espousing propaganda at every turn. The Iraqis decided that they weren't going to take the bully punching them in the face. So they fought back -- that's why there is a continuing insurgency in Iraq. The US was the bully that punched Iraq in the face, and Iraq did exactly what you suggested -- it fought back.

Not everybody wanted to "liberate their innocent" or whatever you say. I personally wouldn't find the killing of 30,000 Iraqi citizens, the complete destruction of the Iraqi water, power, roads, education, and other infrastructures, and the utter devastation of the entire country "liberation." You just sat on your lofty morals, preaching how to save the Iraqis from their oppression, while on the other hand you were oppressing them and killing them, doing a better job than Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis did not want the US to "liberate" them (and their oil). They weren't begging for a US invasion.

Both sides get hurt and die in war, yes. But what are they fighting and dying for? The Iraqis and the insurgency are fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime (US). What are the American soldiers fighting and dying for? Not the lofty morals that they were brainwashed into believing -- just oil. I do not support mindless killing in the name of a natural resource. And as to not forcing people to fight -- did you hear about the Stop Loss policy? A soldier can be ordered to fight for longer than it was agreed in his/her contract.

Lastly, you also say that Hitler killed the families of those who were involved in unsuccessful missions, died, or wanted promotions. That is an outright lie.

At 3/1/06 04:02 PM, Begoner wrote:

Holocaust never happened.

Uh, yea, it did.

The Nazis systematically slaughtered jews, and others. That was Hitler's "solution", remember?

...

At 3/1/06 06:29 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 3/1/06 04:02 PM, Begoner wrote:

Holocaust never happened.

Uh, yea, it did.

The Nazis systematically slaughtered jews, and others. That was Hitler's "solution", remember?

...

How nice of you to blatantly fabricate quotes. I never said that. In fact, I'll give you a quote that I said on the previous page if you bothered to read:

"There was a Holocaust all right -- Auschwitz ovens don't lie."

Both sides get hurt and die in war, yes. But what are they fighting and dying for? The Iraqis and the insurgency are fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime (US). What are the American soldiers fighting and dying for? Not the lofty morals that they were brainwashed into believing -- just oil. I do not support mindless killing in the name of a natural resource. And as to not forcing people to fight -- did you hear about the Stop Loss policy? A soldier can be ordered to fight for longer than it was agreed in his/her contract.

Uhh, no actually that was just the first wave of the insurgency. Now they are trying to turn it into some theocratic state like Iran.

Your metaphor of somebody beating you up is very accurate...if you are talking from Iraq's point of view. Iraq never did anything to harm the US, and it was by no means a threat. It did not even have WMDs. The US did not act in self-defense. I don't know how anybody could say that little Iraq was a threat to the US. It wasn't. Nonetheless, the Americans invaded it, espousing propaganda at every turn. The Iraqis decided that they weren't going to take the bully punching them in the face. So they fought back -- that's why there is a continuing insurgency in Iraq. The US was the bully that punched Iraq in the face, and Iraq did exactly what you suggested -- it fought back.

Yah i know we were never invited into Iraq but still we wernt there to just steal there oil well not completly at least. You can not say sadam is a nice person. Here is just ONE example of his cruelty: his armys shot a women for waving at an American Chopper and were comanded to shoot civilians who were in contact or have seen Americans. In my metephor we were choiceC. freind jumps in and saves you from pain and suffering since you live by the laws of others. Bush I belive thought with utter confidence they did have WMDs. He wished to simply check the country for safety sadam says screw you. Now this is a good reason to invade a country at risk that they may have WMDs. I truthfully think that once Sadam relized he was going to lose ( but kept on sacrafising the few loyals he has) he dumped the WMDs in the ocean or gave them to N.Korea. We also whent in there to help the cictizens and give them freedom. They seemingly wanted freedom due to the fact that they are very happy with the election and happy with the Sadam being captured. Honestly we went in a little bit for free oil but that was just a "while your there might as well" thing.

Not everybody wanted to "liberate their innocent" or whatever you say. I personally wouldn't find the killing of 30,000 Iraqi citizens, the complete destruction of the Iraqi water, power, roads, education, and other infrastructures, and the utter devastation of the entire country "liberation." You just sat on your lofty morals, preaching how to save the Iraqis from their oppression, while on the other hand you were oppressing them and killing them, doing a better job than Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis did not want the US to "liberate" them (and their oil). They weren't begging for a US invasion.

Ok, fine just ok, I agree that not EVERYONE wanted to liberate the civilians some just wanted a medal or to shoot some one but over half of them had good causes. Ok, I want to know where you got the info. about killing 30,000 citizens cause I have never ever ever ever EVER heard of that. also they had poor education and little water, to begin with. We have been giving some civilians water and have for a short time took them out of school in order to rebuild there schools to make them semi-like American schools. Also we give them more water/food. to replace what we cut off. The roads true we cut off but thats natural for war but we didnt cut off the power. Also they couldnt beg because Sadam would kill them before they could start.

Note about Hitler: he actually did kill familys for failure and Death the promosion was just a sense of saying if they got him P.O.ed =(

At 3/1/06 05:34 PM, CrazyBoomerang wrote: NationsR:Ok, your at your highschool. Some guy whacks you in the face and is continuallt pounding you.
ChoiceA. Wait until he is done and then tell a teacher and hope he doesnt break THAT many bones.
choice B. Fight him off of you to save yourself pain and a big hospital bill
Now teachers and the after school counsler persons would say that you should do choice A. the MAJORITY ( of the leaders/school employees) would tell you to do. Now choice B would be the sane and honestly smart thing to do.

Ok...I think the best strategy, at least from my POV, is to respond with equal or lesser force, preferably something either rendering him harmless for the moment (then run and tell!) or something to get him/her off of you and run like hell...

snip

I'm too tired to write a post about everything you said, but I will say that I got the casualty count from various sites, including:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://en.wikipedia...t_in_Iraq_since_2003

OMG did you read what this parody was about. Its ather A your really smart or B your an Idiot. If your talkinga bout well this in the Iraq situatuin then Yah I geuss you could be right you are half and half in this thing. ( I think) but I you are just talking about this in a real fight then you are proboly right but who are you gonna tell the U.K? no matter who you tell it's gonna end up in 1 war or another cuz Sadam will and did put up a fight

This info is taken from some of the links you gave me:
however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less accurate and less reliable, and given the political significance of these figures and the varied agendas of all parties, no source can be considered free of bias. At best, we learn of estimates of casualty levels either from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, or from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media.
The word "casualties" in its most general sense includes the injured as well as the dead. Accounts of the number of coalition wounded vary widely, partly because it is not obvious what should be counted: should only those injuries serious enough to put a soldier out of commission be included? Do illnesses or injuries caused by accidents count, or should the focus be restricted to wounds caused by hostile engagement? Sources using different definitions may arrive at very different numbers, and sometimes the precise definition is not clearly specified. As for the Iraqis, where even the death toll has only been very roughly estimated, it appears that no one has attempted to count the wounded.

BACK TO ME: ok, few bluepoles in your little uhm link. One It admits how unaccurate it is for it is just a guess from REPORTERS. no offense but they often massivly exagerate. Also I have seen a lot of bodys lined up in a row. It looked like a serius estimate of 2,000 while there was 157 bodys. Often time people such as reporters and untrained soldeirs can esily go into shock and have hallucinations and unclear unsane thoughts. Looking at bodys mainly dead you always think you see more than you actually do. We dont mean to kill civilians it is mainly missfires abd over Adrenilin shots/ bombs. I must say we have some seriusly crazy men in there (at least we dont have Michael Jackson) I am just saying that reporters can make a golden story out of this and honestly may have exagerated a bit. War is sad but sadly sadness is sad so war is sad and this is another part of the saddening sad part of sad war. We want to save civilians but not endajer our own men. If you wana see something bad look at the civilian death toll for WWII. Also Terrorisr + brains+civilians=Terrorists deskising themselves as civilians in an attempt to not get shot and shoot our brave if not slightly crazy troops.

Note: If your too tired to type drink more caffine

America is so hateful we would kill this(look @ post!)