Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

::mockingly:: "80 Million Dollars?! We can almost pay Dr. Evil so he doesn't have to destroy the earth!"

At 3/23/03 01:27 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/22/03 11:43 PM, thenark wrote: 1. Does anyone find it ironic that so far, the greatest number of US casualties has been caused by one of the US's own soldiers in a mishap with a grenade thrown into a tent housing officers of the 101st airborne?

Snipping TheEvilOne's comment, and going to answer this one directly. First? Whoever said no one has died, is wrong. ONE did. Also, it wasn't an accident. They don't know for sure, but the grenade was thrown because he was angry about the war. He was anti-war, and didn't want to be there, among other things. He had a bad attitude and had been reprimanded.

And that's not really irony. It's sad.

What DOES piss me off is that the news makes a point to say the soldier that did it is Muslim. So what? I'm sure if the man was Christian, it wouldn't be an issue. Muslim IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with terrorist.

2. The war has been going strong for 2 days now, but these alleged weapons of mass destruction have yet to rear their ugly heads.

First of all, I don't give a crap what you think about the Scuds. The bottom line is that they were forbidden under the UN resolutions.

TheEvilOne: This is to you. Scuds or no Scuds, they're not able to cause MASS destruction. Sure, they broke the rules. So did our President. He's waging war on a country for not complying with the UN. While at the same time not complying with the UN himself. That's a flawed argument. Besides...the stated goal isn't the weapons anymore. It's regime change. Which is illegal. A GOOD IDEA. But illegal.

3. Has anyone else seemed to notice that what were peaceful demonstrations only turned violent after the police got over zealous in their LAPD-rodney king idea of crowd control?

I agree, witht the exception of a few idiots that think it's a good idea to fight violence with violence. For the most part, yes. Demonstrators are smart enough to realize that NOT being peaceful will negate what they're standing for.

They may not have been particularly violent at first, but they sure are disruptive, blocking roads and such.

I snipped the rest of what TheEvilOne said in response, because this is the part I want to address. Blocking roads? So what? You can add all the what-ifs you want, but demonstrations NEED TO GET ATTENTION to cause change and HELP.

In fact, I bet they blocked a whole SHITLOAD of roads during the march on Washington, with MLK. Mhmm. That was a pretty useful protest, I might add.

*snippity*

1.2 trillion dollars on a war that is not even going to accomplish anything.

Because war hasn't ever accomplished anything, right?

It didn't abolish slavery, facism or communism. OR defeat the Nazi's.

I'm anti-war. But sometimes war is needed. This one? There's other things we could have done first, yes. But you have no way of knowing what it will or will not accomplish. Don't pretend to.

I haven't heard anything about it costing THAT much. What is your source?

First of all, yes. THAT much. I'll break it down.

This is from the Congressional Budget Office. These are approximations.

-- Sending troops and equipment to Iraq: $14 billion.
-- First month of combat: $10 billion.
-- Every month after that: $8 billion.
-- Bringing troops and equipment home afterward: $9 billion.
-- Immediate humanitarian needs (food, meds): $10 - $30 billion.
-- Post-war occupation/reconstruction: $12 - $48 billion per year.
-- Veteran benefits (based on Desert Storm estimates) $3 - $4 billion

Calculations: Based on 6 months of war and using the higher number in the spans given...that's $1.28 trillion.

However...William D. Nordhaus has estimated around $1.9 trillion if things are worse.

Tax cuts won't help, either. We need this money HERE. Bush is ignoring his own country, and trying to fix everything else. Hussein is an evil man and needs to die or be out of power. But Bush is ignoring the very Homeland he's trying to keep secure.

Sorry for the long post! But...including the stuff I wanted to respond to...yeah. *lol* Sorry.

At 3/23/03 05:19 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/23/03 03:04 PM, TheShrike wrote: Estimated cost of this war is actually around 80 billion dollars. And that includes post-war rebuilding.

80 BILLION DOLLARS??? thats enough to make sure half the poor countries in Africa have water for years

I thought Fleischer said 90 Billion American dollars for this war? Oh, and don't mention Africa, we've done a great job of leaving the truly needy out of this so far.

At 3/23/03 05:19 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

80 BILLION DOLLARS??? thats enough to make sure half the poor countries in Africa have water for years

What are you talking about? That isnt even close to enough to make sure they have water. Even if it was when was it our job to help out everybody, its a double standard to say, we can help the african countries but not the Iraqi's. And dont tell me were not helping them because they sure seem to be glad to have us there. Besides most anti-war people are pro-attrition which means you let things happen on thier own WITHOUT interference.

Finally, someone seems to agree with me to some extent, now that that has happened, I promise to quit making war threads during this conflict

im kinda lazy and theres no chance in hell im reading all this bs... from what i read before my eyes shut uncontrolably...

jimsween: your a fucking retard 911 wasnt an invasion...

NJdeadzone:

if you can find any concrete evidence that Iraq and Bin Laden are at all connected, and I mean real evidence, not american paranoia, I will rescind my above statement

connected in religion-> Game Over

either that was an exageration or your a retard

thats almost the same as saying im conected to you because we are both human

and also, their muslim views vary

i didnt read anything after that... like i said before im very lazy

At 3/25/03 09:02 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

thats almost the same as saying im conected to you because we are both human

Bad Counter

and also, their muslim views vary

Good Counter

i have nothing against you...never did, don't take me so personally

At 3/25/03 09:02 PM, benisveryc00l wrote: im kinda lazy and theres no chance in hell im reading all this bs... from what i read before my eyes shut uncontrolably...

jimsween: your a fucking retard 911 wasnt an invasion...

I never said it was an invasion dumbass. He said I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate invading the US. but since you say it wasnt an invasion.

in·va·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

9/11 fits both 2 and 3.

So next time you feel the urge to make an idiot out of yourself; think, get your head out of your ass, and then talk.

At 3/24/03 06:00 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: -- Sending troops and equipment to Iraq: $14 billion.
-- First month of combat: $10 billion.
-- Every month after that: $8 billion.
-- Bringing troops and equipment home afterward: $9 billion.
-- Immediate humanitarian needs (food, meds): $10 - $30 billion.
-- Post-war occupation/reconstruction: $12 - $48 billion per year.
-- Veteran benefits (based on Desert Storm estimates) $3 - $4 billion

-- Removing a viscous dictator from his position of power: Priceless

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sorry, but he set himself up for that one. I'll just shut up now at let you all get back to business as usual.

Kazou Kiriyama

At 3/25/03 10:17 PM, Kazou_Kiriyama wrote:

At 3/24/03 06:00 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: -- Sending troops and equipment to Iraq: $14 billion.
-- First month of combat: $10 billion.
-- Every month after that: $8 billion.
-- Bringing troops and equipment home afterward: $9 billion.
-- Immediate humanitarian needs (food, meds): $10 - $30 billion.
-- Post-war occupation/reconstruction: $12 - $48 billion per year.
-- Veteran benefits (based on Desert Storm estimates) $3 - $4 billion

-- Removing a viscous dictator from his position of power: Priceless

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sorry, but he set himself up for that one. I'll just shut up now at let you all get back to business as usual.

Kazou Kiriyama

*DIES laughing*

Actually? To be honest? I almost put something like that on there. I knew someone would. *lol*

I agree that he needs to be taken out of power. I've never done anything but agree with anyone who's stated SADDAM IS EVIL!

That doesn't make regime change legal, or wise in the spending department. Maybe I sound like I have no compassion, but I like dealing with facts.

AND OH MY GOD!! I AM A GIRL!

I do not have a wang!

I DO NOT HAVE A WANG!

I'm a girl! I'm not a he!

*lmao* Sorry, I just get 'he' a lot. It seems that not many women debate here.

And Kazuo, its vicious, not viscous, viscous is a word describing the thickness of a liquid, eg: Molasses sure is viscous

Idiot

OK---I posted some fairly rationly things on diff post but I gotta ask=

YOU DO KNOW they have found/secured bio/chem plants that exist for only one reason=makeing biological/chemical weaponary to kill LOTS of people...the scary part there are probably more....Do you REALLY like the idea of someone who is not only able but willing to use chemical weapons not only on his on people but others as well ( US,CANADA,KOREA,etc. are all fairgame to him)

YOU DO KNOW that despite the vague wording the bottomline is SADDAM is in violation of the UN accords and while this is not a popular fight/war=WHY on earth would you let a KNOWN maniac with chemical/biological weapons continue ownership/buildup of said weapons...SOMEONE has to put a stop it and I dont see very many people/nations willing to stand up to what amounts to a global mencace--PERSONALLY I would like to be able to go somewhere and not fret aboout being biologicaly/chemically bombed---juust think what would happen if a Plane/JET full of tourists from say the US blow up over say CANADA or KOREA or AUSTRALIA and chemical/biological weaponary was part of the bomb package? That jet trip to Las Vegas or DISNEYLAND would certainly take a turn for the different. sad to say but based on some of the logic shown thus far it would take a bomb to go off in someones hometown to convince them they are in danger.

I have nothing against the antiwar guys and in fact I agree that war is and should be a last resort BUT at times it is necssary--no offence but were it not for war alot of people would be speaking german or japanse with no freedooms save what was decided for them today were it not for a war.

But the attacks by Japan and Germany were ON ANOTHER COUNTRY, The first gulf war was justified because Iraq attacked Kuwait, but Hussein does not posess the technologyto propel chemical warheads anywhere near the states, so this is just shooting someone before you even know they have a gun, not shooting in self defense or the defense of another

the war wont cost 1.2 trillion u fool, look at what bush is asking for, 80 billion its still unreasonable but theres no fucking way its 1.2 trillion

Its a forecast you moron, you know? like the weather forecast? they dont exactly predict the weather, but using logic and reason, make a prediction close to the real value.

At 3/26/03 05:50 PM, thenark wrote: And Kazuo, its vicious, not viscous, viscous is a word describing the thickness of a liquid, eg: Molasses sure is viscous

Idiot

You'd best watch your ass with the flaming bud. I'm been doing my best to keep me from blasting your pre-pubescent teen-angst no-one-is-on-my-extremist-side ass, so play nice.

Kazuo Kiriyama

"But the attacks by Japan and Germany were ON ANOTHER COUNTRY, The first gulf war was justified because Iraq attacked Kuwait, but Hussein does not posess the technologyto propel chemical warheads anywhere near the states, so this is just shooting someone before you even know they have a gun, not shooting in self defense or the defense of another"-thenark

Ok nark its obvious your grasp of tatics is rather LIMITED so here's a break down for you=

1)he HAS missles capable of reaching US allies-- so in essence yes he can attack us..or...all it would take is a boat pulling into or near a harbor(even a cruise ship would be easy too) and BLAMMO instant chemical attack

2)if the AUM cult was able to threaten japan with a chemical attack..how much easier is it for a well founded/organised group to do it on an international scale..???

3)The AXIS war was cited as an example of WHY we should stop saddam---it was not used to cite HOW he would deploy/attack us nor cite what technologies he may or may not posses.....and it was obvious you did NOT fully read the examples provided and went off on an emotional rant instead of fully reading and then debateing the subject. He again CAN equip missles with chem/bio payloads....Im sure with his connections/efforts he CAN get a missle to reach us if he were given time and he does have the money. Better still the jet plane scenario is more viable and would be a more effective attack.

nark...stay away from CNN/FOX..read some of the info available readily from international news/info sources on the web BEFORE you even try to make an attempt at discussing much less debateing a war which you seem to truly not understand.

Your kind of right in principle but thats a little oversimplified.

I am going to comment on everything I can. There's a lot to say. One of those things is that yes, TheNark has been uneccesarily offensive, but don't bother to bring yourself down to that level and assrape him for technicalities. =P

-see my post about demonstrations and how the are irrelevant
NJ Deadzone

Protests and demonstrations are irrelevant? O.o

the US has never been fond of letting things play themselves out. I mean look at the stink you made about the womens sufferage movement and the emancipation proclamation, or blacks getting the vote. The kkk also liked to use violence to stop those who threatened the status quo.
TheNark

Protests have been damn useful there. I want to find that topic of NJ's now ;)

-We're not fighting to prevent invasion. We're fighting a government and its backward, one religion, one leader, one economy mentality, we're giving Iraq a quick lesson in Westernization
NJ Deadzone

And of course Westernization is just so great and we reserve the right to press it upon others... Western worlds have been the things that create the need for sweatshops, that take pay off countries to ship all their crops there and leave their own people starving, western worlds are the lands where greed has hardly any limits.

Err.. but... yeah, you're right. Saddam and his government need to be ousted because it's even worse. Heheh. The western system might be flawed but it works well enough for me, and I certainly won't be able to stop it. =P THEY will find me, and THEY will get me... *nervous glances*

-if you speak of NK, the US will use Iraq's deserts as a military base, since turkey didn't wanna share its military zones. Iraq will be used as the US's middle east post, for all future events occuring there, and in Asia
-and we're not the world's babysitter, get that straight!
NJDeadZone

So you're not the world's babysitter; yet you're still going to get involved in this? I see a little contradiction there. Maybe you'll defend saying that they pose a threat to US, but I say don't attack them until you've got some god damn proof.

The police were not the provokers, tear gas can be avoided by running away from it you dont have to attack the police officers
jimsween

Uh... Last time I checked, hurling canisters of gas at a mob threatens them in a way; thus provoking them.

TheEvilOne: This is to you. Scuds or no Scuds, they're not able to cause MASS destruction. Sure, they broke the rules. So did our President. He's waging war on a country for not complying with the UN. While at the same time not complying with the UN himself. That's a flawed argument. Besides...the stated goal isn't the weapons anymore. It's regime change. Which is illegal. A GOOD IDEA. But illegal.
House_of_Leaves

Perfect example. Yes, our President DOES have a bit of a contradiction there too!.. and yeah, they need a regime change, also not legal. Good input. Can't add much.

Again, i question where you get your information. Augusto Pinochet, Ede Amien (who is in exile in libya), and Milosevich, amongst others have done things to make saddam look like an amateur (not to mention Iraq is the most forward thinking arab state in the world) and incidentally, the turks, your glorious allies want to butcher the kurds as badly as the Iraqi's do. Read a book
TheNark

For what NJ accused as a young and unknowing 16-year-old... you certainly have a great amount of knowledge for your age in my eyes ^_^. There's a lot of evil elsewhere yes, but they just have more incentive to pick Iraq in particular in their eyes of course ^_~...

you are just too out of context. French had the politiques, and the enlightenment thinkers during that time. In Russia, intellengentsia played a substantial impact in their revolution. What's wrong with this picture in Iraq? Number one, they never evolved from the agricultural revolution. They're partying like it's 1599. Number two, as a result of number one there is no intellegent and aspiring middle class to create such a revolution. The Kurds would be successful if they weren't a bunch of warlords. You expect a nation that might as well be in africa to get to a level from french or russian revolution?
NJDeadZone

Good response. This is what I call a debate. Although a bit hostile. TheNark brought the hostility upon himself though...

if you can find any concrete evidence that Iraq and Bin Laden are at all connected, and I mean real evidence, not american paranoia, I will rescind my above statement
TheNark
connected in religion-> Game Over
NJDeadzone

You even state your comment was simply a technicality and it "wasn't a 'SOLID' reason." Don't bother with technicalities and simple law, what is more important is what's right and what you actually believe in =P.

:(not to mention Iraq is the most forward thinking arab state in the world)

TheNark
Your a moron...
JimSween

Uh, Thanks for your great intellectual input *rolls eyes*

And Canada has always been this Utopian country?
TheShrike

Did he say it ever WAS a Utopian country? We have almost just as many problems as you do ;)

jimsween: your a fucking retard 911 wasnt an invasion...

Mmmm such kind words..

And Kazuo, its vicious, not viscous, viscous is a word describing the thickness of a liquid, eg: Molasses sure is viscous
TheNark

Uneccesary comment. It's what he meant to say that matters. Don't ruin his kick ass joke!

And those are my two cents.

THE BIG QUESTION THAT ALL THIS IS ABOUT IS THIS THOUGH!

Should we leave Iraq to solve the problem on their own though? I'd say that it's the best case scenario if they did since the people could get their power back and do what they wanted, rather than have another country go in and have a permanent presence there; possibly setting it up with a leader who favors the US and cuts oil deals for them, or allows heavy military presence. BUT, since that obviously isn't happening... what choice do we have?

Pro-Attrition -> To me that's the favorable situation if it happens fast, but people hurt while we wait for that to happen people suffer
Pro-War -> The real problems will come some time AFTER the war... Problems between US and other countries will arise. North Korea, Russia, maybe China.
Anti-War -> War is a neccessity in change sometimes. Just look at some of the great examples given in other posts. Nazis, Soviet Union's bein' overthrown, slavery abolishment was fought for (Anti-Slavery defended during the civil war at least)... yadda-yadda! War can be justified. Don't be so closed-minded.

Overall though, there's no one word I can give to explain my position, it's just "Oh well, any choice we will suffer for, I'll accept what's being done." Armageddon will hit us eventually... free the world from our greedy corruption... Humanity has been a virus for the planet. Fortunately we will undo our own creation. I'll just have fun till' then. Spread my views.. *plays some Tool.. Aenema* Ahh...

Fine I will.
1. Saddam said he a few months ago he would pay the family of anyone who would suicide bomb U.S.
2. The Iraqi parliment urged citizens of Iraq to seek "martyrdom" by attacking U.S.
3. Iraq doesn't neccesarily have the power to attack us from where they are but it's very likely that Saddam has hired terrorist to attack U.S. especially with all the money he was offering.

House_Of_Leaves, I just wrote a long and detailed response to your post, but I had some sort of Windows error that closed my browser window and wiped out the whole thing. Let it be known right now that I hate Microsoft. Now let me try again:

At 3/24/03 06:00 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Snipping TheEvilOne's comment, and going to answer this one directly. First? Whoever said no one has died, is wrong. ONE did. Also, it wasn't an accident. They don't know for sure, but the grenade was thrown because he was angry about the war. He was anti-war, and didn't want to be there, among other things. He had a bad attitude and had been reprimanded.

And that's not really irony. It's sad.

Well, it was deliberate. But at the time I wrote that post, we had not yet suffered many combat casualties. I wanted to make the point that sometimes, an accident happens, or someone goes crazy, or whatever. It's not always avoidable. But when we have more people dying from stuff like that than with combat with the enemy, it speaks volumes about our military capabilities. Since then, we've had more combat casualties, but I stand by my belief that our military cababilities are far superior, and will help to shorten this war.

What DOES piss me off is that the news makes a point to say the soldier that did it is Muslim. So what? I'm sure if the man was Christian, it wouldn't be an issue. Muslim IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with terrorist.

No argument about the Muslim not synonymous with terrorist part. But one thing is that the initial reports did not mention the fact that he was a Muslim. I personally think that this would have made headlines either way. And I don't care what religion he is--he murdered some of his fellow soldiers, and should face the firing squad.

First of all, I don't give a crap what you think about the Scuds. The bottom line is that they were forbidden under the UN resolutions.

TheEvilOne: This is to you. Scuds or no Scuds, they're not able to cause MASS destruction. Sure, they broke the rules. So did our President. He's waging war on a country for not complying with the UN. While at the same time not complying with the UN himself. That's a flawed argument. Besides...the stated goal isn't the weapons anymore. It's regime change. Which is illegal. A GOOD IDEA. But illegal.

I was responding to thenark's statement that the weapons that Iraq denied having had yet to surface. I was making the point that Iraq had weapons that were banned under the UN resolutions. As far as this conflict is concerned, the UN is no longer relevant, and you're right--it's really not about the weapons anymore. But even so, when someone mentions that the weapons haven't surfaced yet, I feel the need to mention what has surfaced. Iraq had weapons that they denied having. And since I wrote that post, we've had reports of our troops finding a 100-acre chemical facility, reports of them finding chemical suits abandoned by Iraqi troops, and reports of Saddam himself giving the order to use chemical weapons. NOW would you say that the weapons have surfaced, thenark?

They may not have been particularly violent at first, but they sure are disruptive, blocking roads and such.

I snipped the rest of what TheEvilOne said in response, because this is the part I want to address. Blocking roads? So what? You can add all the what-ifs you want, but demonstrations NEED TO GET ATTENTION to cause change and HELP.

I think it would be okay if the protest were well-planned and well-organized, perhaps with a city permit and a police roadblock. But these protests were really causing a lot of problems in these cities, and I think if they could keep emergency vehicles from getting through, then they need to be broken up.

I haven't heard anything about it costing THAT much($1.28 trillion). What is your source?

First of all, yes. THAT much. I'll break it down.

This is from the Congressional Budget Office. These are approximations.

-- Sending troops and equipment to Iraq: $14 billion.
-- First month of combat: $10 billion.
-- Every month after that: $8 billion.
-- Bringing troops and equipment home afterward: $9 billion.
-- Immediate humanitarian needs (food, meds): $10 - $30 billion.
-- Post-war occupation/reconstruction: $12 - $48 billion per year.
-- Veteran benefits (based on Desert Storm estimates) $3 - $4 billion

Calculations: Based on 6 months of war and using the higher number in the spans given...that's $1.28 trillion.

That seems to be a pretty liberal interpretation (six months and the maximum of Congressional estimates). I still think the main phase of the war will last two months at most, with small pockets of resistance to clean up after that. If the figure gets that high, then it's not over the course of one year. The figure I've heard is $80 billion. Also, the Senate has cut Bush's proposed tax cut in half to help pay for it.

At 3/25/03 10:08 PM, jimsween wrote:

I never said it was an invasion dumbass. He said I dont think any country in the middle east has the resources or manpower to even contemplate invading the US. but since you say it wasnt an invasion.

in·va·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

9/11 fits both 2 and 3.

words rarely if not never use all their definitions in one sentence.

for example, when i call you gay, i dont mean that you're happy AND a homosexual, i mean you're just a homosexual. when thenark used invasion, he meant ONLY your first definition. If you can not see this then you are clearly retarded.

and as to your first arguement, kamikazee bombing us is hardly being able to comtemplate an invasion...

try reading all of this post before you post a retarded "comeback" if it can be called that

At 3/27/03 04:07 PM, benisveryc00l wrote:

words rarely if not never use all their definitions in one sentence.

for example, when i call you gay, i dont mean that you're happy AND a homosexual, i mean you're just a homosexual. when thenark used invasion, he meant ONLY your first definition. If you can not see this then you are clearly retarded.

Did he specify the first definition? No he didnt, it is impossible to tell which definition he meant. And your childish namecalling only proves that you know nothing about what you are talking about and are grasping for something to say.

and as to your first arguement, kamikazee bombing us is hardly being able to comtemplate an invasion...

So youre saying Websters dictionary is wrong and your right?

try reading all of this post before you post a retarded "comeback" if it can be called that

And you call calling someone retarded and gay a comeback?

At 3/27/03 04:33 PM, jimsween wrote:
And you call calling someone retarded and gay a comeback? (directed to Ben)

be careful, he's sensitive...

Do not use "retarded" or "gay" as insults.

At 3/28/03 10:09 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Do not use "retarded" or "gay" as insults.

If you want to insult someone, just call them Jimsween. Heh, no, just playing with you, Jim. You know I don't hate you. Anymore. Um.

*runs away*

Grrrr *chases judge with his retro glove* wait... this glove is useless, why did I want to get to lvl 9.

At 3/28/03 10:09 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Do not use "retarded" or "gay" as insults.

I do wish people would listen to this. If not listen to reason, then listen to the mods.

Why is it so hard to understand that insults only make you look like you've lost the debate, and are grasping at straws? Let that sink in before more insults are thrown around.

(This was a collective 'you'. Not directed at someone. Just anyone who uses insults.)

LOL most writers dont specify which definition they are using! wtf are u thinking. Ever see a sentence like this? The (1) dog (2) walked (1a) down (2c) the (1) street (4b).

Can you really not see that thenark implied the first definition? if you can't.. well thats just sad...

i would only be disagreeing with websters dictionary if i agreed with you that he didnt mean the first defintion of invasion, which i clearly dont

the fact that you change arguements every other post proves that you dont have a fuckin clue what your talking about

go ahead call me childish because i swear, you RETARD :)

and to make you happy with the specifying definitions...

your gay (4a)