Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/12/03 12:58 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Alright...as unprofessional as this may sound....SHUT UP SHUT UP! All of you!

C'mon. Me and Implodinggoat are having a good healthy argument. Sure he's calling me an idiot, but why shouldn't he? He's been disagreeing with me rather intensely. It's hard as hell to voice disagreement like that without some emotion overtaking intelligence (admit it Implodinggoat, insults and personal attacks is a moment in a lapse of intelligence. I'm a victim of these lapses, too. More often than I like actually...). I respect him in that he's kept the debate from getting the better of him despite what he thinks of my opinion (and it is opinion... logically, I don't want to go the "I'm right, you're wrong" with anyone. Emotionally, however, I'm an asshole). He's cool.

At 4/12/03 03:14 AM, Ovalshine wrote:

At 4/11/03 11:05 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

This war is far from a political victory for him.

Maybe, but it sure keeps people forgetting how bad Bush has fucked up the economy or should I say fuck up the economy more?

As long as Georgie can keep the economy off people's tongues, he's got a political victory on his hands. This great act of deception has not only swayed us from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, but from the slumping economic condition of the United States to the ripping down of a bronze statue halfway across the world. George is a regular Houdini.

At 4/12/03 04:30 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

As long as Georgie can keep the economy off people's tongues, he's got a political victory on his hands. This great act of deception has not only swayed us from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, but from the slumping economic condition of the United States to the ripping down of a bronze statue halfway across the world. George is a regular Houdini.

well no it hasn't done any of that. firstly the economy has gotten better since the war started, it wasn't cured of course but it's been getting better. secondly we're fully aware that bin laden is still out there, but we're also aware that the fat drunk shake mohammed guy who mastermined 9/11 was caught which takes some of the sting out of things.

At 4/12/03 04:30 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: As long as Georgie can keep the economy off people's tongues, he's got a political victory on his hands. This great act of deception has not only swayed us from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, but from the slumping economic condition of the United States to the ripping down of a bronze statue halfway across the world. George is a regular Houdini.

sorry, but Georgie has made a political fuck-up. 50%of the world thinks the americans are a lot of stuck up twats who deserve to be nukes by Iraq with MADE IN U.S.A on th bomb. i fail to see where the victory is there.

sorry, but Georgie has made a political fuck-up. 50%of the world thinks the americans are a lot of stuck up twats who deserve to be nukes by Iraq with MADE IN U.S.A on th bomb. i fail to see where the victory is there.

So the U.S. is bashed by people in 50% of the world for giving freedom to people in another part of the world, a place where I would bet that the 50% has never been to, or seen what's happened since 1979......

At 4/12/03 03:14 AM, Ovalshine wrote:

There is something called sovreignty of nations look it up.

I'm sure the US ignores that, too.

I feel that the U.S. is justified in violating Iraq's sovreignty because Saddam Hussein is not a popularly elected official. If his nation were a true democracy and the Iraqis truly wanted him in power then our actions would have been unjustified.

So peace is always the answer? Do you even know who Neville Chamberlain is?

1) I ignore your reference to Neville since I'm not well versed on him. Why? Because whoever he is, he's not an issue here. 2)No, peace is not always the answer. Peace was not an answer in OBL's case. He FUBARed himself. Saddam is an entirely different story. All we have on him is that he treated his people bad. Small potatoes, sadly. Was peace the answer here? Bush jumped the gun too quickly for us to know. Bush denied us that answer.

Neville Chamberlain is a very important part of history. He was prime minister of England prior to Sir Winston. He attempted to negotiate with Hitler for several years, allowing him to violate prior resolutions about Germanies military and allowing him to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia by force. He then claimed that he had "Achievied peace in our time." soon afterwards Hitler invaded Poland, Chamberlain was revealed for the fool that he was and the British put Churchill in charge.

Also I wouldn't call destroying individual liberty in a nation and killing thousands of your own citizens "small potatoes.". It is just as serious as him having a few anthrax scuds.

It didn't work over the past decade and as I pointed out and you have refused to acknowledge it didn't work for Neville Chamberlain.

There's more proof it did work than it didn't.

Really? He continued to opress his people. He continued building weapons that he wasn't supposed to have. Damn that international pressure was really getting to him.

Have we? We are in the process of setting up a pro western state in the heart of the middle east. That will be of great benefit to pro western causes in the future.

Did you just admit we're conquering Iraq rather than liberating? Nah, it's just how I'm interpreting this. You gotta work on your wording on that one. We failed in sense of we tried to increase safety, to ensure no more 9-11s. I think we did the exact opposite. That's how we failed. We gained enemies rather than gained trust.

What I said is exactly what we are doing. I am no fool, I don't believe that any nation would go to war with another and not take some sort of advantage in setting up its new government. I realize that we are more than likely going to set up a pro western government there, but if we instill democracy along with it, than it is just.

Iraq will then be a center of stability in the region rather than a powder keg.

I can't prove anything I didn't say. If I was to say it, it would be to the effect that Saddam was a tyrant to his own people. We're a tyrant to every country, but our own and I don't even know how long that will last. I said we could be more evil than we are now. We already have a bit of global tyrancy displayed and the pro-war crowd so wants us to be the global tyrant because noone can stop us. We can treat every country like Saddam treated his civilians. One thing I can be thankful for of Bush is that he's not as bloodthirsty as his supporters are.

You have taken your hyperbole to such a level that you are starting to believe it. An agressive diplomatic strategy is far from treating every other nation on Earth like a tyrant. Making such exagerated and unfounded statements only makes you appear foolish.

Only our own laws should matter to us. We need to live by our standards not the worlds. And according to the constitution this war was totally legal.

That's funny cause last I checked, the UN doesn't abide by our constitution. We can't say to the UN that it was legal based on a document that only applies to the US only. On one side of the fence, the UN is useless.... forgetting of course that on the other side of the fence, the constitution is useless. Remember that next time you feel the need to bash the UN for not supporting us. We go to the UN, we play by thier rules, not ours.

I wasn't bashing the U.N. for anything. They have all the right in the world not to support us if they choose. However they have no right to say that any war that is approved by the congress of the United States is illegal. We have proved that we don't need their assistance and the only way that they can attempt to salvage their base of power is by saying that we aren't allowed to legally go to war without asking them permission and giving Kofi Anan a blow job.

At 4/12/03 03:39 AM, Ovalshine wrote:

At 4/12/03 12:58 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Alright...as unprofessional as this may sound....SHUT UP SHUT UP! All of you!

C'mon. Me and Implodinggoat are having a good healthy argument. Sure he's calling me an idiot, but why shouldn't he? He's been disagreeing with me rather intensely. It's hard as hell to voice disagreement like that without some emotion overtaking intelligence

Yes, its all in good fun and its a rather good debate. I call members of my own family much worse.

At 4/12/03 05:40 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: sorry, but Georgie has made a political fuck-up. 50%of the world thinks the americans are a lot of stuck up twats who deserve to be nukes by Iraq with MADE IN U.S.A on th bomb. i fail to see where the victory is there.

50% of the world has hated the U.S. since 1945, they envy our power. Whenever we use that power in any way they get intimidated. Thus we are supposed to sit back and pretend that like them we depend upon the U.N. to take action for us, and that we a nation who's economy makes up for half of the trade on the planet, and who's culture is copied by every nation on earth is somehow the equal of France or Trinidad and Tobago.

Sorry my mistake our economy makes up for about 60% of the trade and profit on the planet not a mere half.

I took too long in attempting a reply late last night, so it got delayed to now.

At 4/12/03 01:05 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I feel that the U.S. is justified in violating Iraq's sovreignty because Saddam Hussein is not a popularly elected official. If his nation were a true democracy and the Iraqis truly wanted him in power then our actions would have been unjustified.

I slightly disgaree about Saddam not being a popularly elected official in the sense that I prefer to say he wasn't properly elected. Ok. So it's a meaningless vocabulary technicality I'm griping about. I see your opinion on that the idea of choosing the lesser of one evil sucks donkey nuts. As yes, to the Iraqis, the label of jusified or unjustified don't mean shit to them as long as Saddam is out of their lives. My debate with you got so heated I forgot to keep the argument from straying into seeming I was against the war. I'm only against how we got it.

Neville Chamberlain is a very important part of history.

Yikes. I really don't think the UN is that bad. At least, they better not.

Also I wouldn't call destroying individual liberty in a nation and killing thousands of your own citizens "small potatoes.". It is just as serious as him having a few anthrax scuds.

"Small potatoes" in that I see where things can be far worse than that. I added the word "sadly" because using the words "small potatoes" in reference to the civilians is something I hate to say.

Really? He continued to opress his people. He continued building weapons that he wasn't supposed to have. Damn that international pressure was really getting to him.

The working point has nothing to do with the oppression, but rather the control of WMD.

What I said is exactly what we are doing. I am no fool, I don't believe that any nation would go to war with another and not take some sort of advantage in setting up its new government. I realize that we are more than likely going to set up a pro western government there, but if we instill democracy along with it, than it is just.

I can't say for sure if it would be just, but it's definitely preferrable.

You have taken your hyperbole to such a level that you are starting to believe it. An agressive diplomatic strategy is far from treating every other nation on Earth like a tyrant. Making such exagerated and unfounded statements only makes you appear foolish.

I probably do. I was playing devil's advocate on that one.

I wasn't bashing the U.N. for anything.

Too many are bashing the UN. Seems like the latest trend. Based on that, I took your comments for granted as UN bashing.

They have all the right in the world not to support us if they choose. However they have no right to say that any war that is approved by the congress of the United States is illegal.

I think amist all the emotional tirade, one point that ticked me off, but never mentioned was that so many bashed the UN for expressing their choice. The whole desire to boycott and or bomb anyone who dare tell us no feels like dictatorship. Congress led the way for this bloodthirsty mob with their Freedom Fries bullshit. The war isn't illegal by our means and you're right. For us, the constitution overrides anything stated by the UN. However, to keep tensions from becoming worse, it would've been wise to treat the UN with more respect than we did. The thought of the UN not taking what we did to them in a manner I feared is some comfort.

At 4/12/03 01:13 PM, implodinggoat wrote: 50% of the world has hated the U.S. since 1945, they envy our power. Whenever we use that power in any way they get intimidated. Thus we are supposed to sit back and pretend that like them we depend upon the U.N. to take action for us, and that we a nation who's economy makes up for half of the trade on the planet, and who's culture is copied by every nation on earth is somehow the equal of France or Trinidad and Tobago.

they arent really envious of your power. and i suppose, if i really admit, they arent envois of your bombs, your government or anything like that. they hate your factories in their countries. the factories that employ children to make things such as t-shirts and get coffee. the american businessman makes a mint and the workers get nothing.

now, i know this isnt the fault of the govenment, but laws could be passed and then 53 countries in africa would like you. and because you had given their people a proper wage their economy would be boosted. they would like you and you them. trade would increase and the world would get slightly more peaceful and people like me, and other bright left-wing liberals would like america a hell of a lot more.

the americans would gain power and money and the africans would gain power and money. everyone would start liking you and you'd have friends rather than just allies.

i stand by everything bumcheekcity has said.

The "New Era" we have entered (the new era brought to a head by 9-11) and the typical response (expected American over-reaction) is everything we've been conditioned to expect by Hollywood standards ..to an extent, that ultimately capitalism itself will be the loser. The "American Dream" has long been the outside world's nightmare.

At 4/15/03 12:38 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: I stand by everything bumcheekcity has said.

That bought a tear to my eye. Call me Bum. Most do.

Still, George has failed to catch either of the two leaders he said he was going to capture, as well as finding no real WMD's in Iraq. Alright, some pesticide. We have that here, too. It's used to grow the onions in my back yard. I suppose if you drink a barrel it'll kill you, but then, isn't bleach a weapon of mass destruction?

At 4/16/03 11:28 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Still, George has failed to catch either of the two leaders he said he was going to capture, as well as finding no real WMD's in Iraq. Alright, some pesticide. We have that here, too. It's used to grow the onions in my back yard. I suppose if you drink a barrel it'll kill you, but then, isn't bleach a weapon of mass destruction?

Er... technically, I suppose. If a country possesses it and doesn't inform the UN we could send in Weapons Inspectors. *Thinks* Hmmm... That is very true about Bush though, he hasnt done anything he has said he will do.

At 4/16/03 12:18 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Er... technically, I suppose. If a country possesses it and doesn't inform the UN we could send in Weapons Inspectors. *Thinks* Hmmm... That is very true about Bush though, he hasnt done anything he has said he will do.

Yeah except for removing the Hussein regime.

At 4/16/03 11:28 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Still, George has failed to catch either of the two leaders he said he was going to capture, as well as finding no real WMD's in Iraq. Alright, some pesticide. We have that here, too. It's used to grow the onions in my back yard. I suppose if you drink a barrel it'll kill you, but then, isn't bleach a weapon of mass destruction?

Okay, so nothing really came out of the reports that I posted. But that doesn't mean the weapons don't exist. If the weapons are buried deep underground, then it will take a while to find them. People want to point out the fact that we have yet to find the weapons. Have patience.

And it's really not that hard for one man to elude capture if he maintains a low profile. Have patience on that one too. I think it's only a matter of time before we get Osama. Same with Saddam, unless he made it to Syria.

At 4/16/03 11:28 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Still, George has failed to catch either of the two leaders he said he was going to capture, as well as finding no real WMD's in Iraq. Alright, some pesticide. We have that here, too. It's used to grow the onions in my back yard. I suppose if you drink a barrel it'll kill you, but then, isn't bleach a weapon of mass destruction?

This is a very simplified view of political issues. The men themselves are nothing without their followers. Al Qaeda has been severly injured and Saddam's regime has been totally destroyed.

The men themselves are not important. By themselves Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are nothing more than a pair of power hungry assholes with aggression disorders.