Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/7/07 07:03 PM, Begoner wrote:

Why do you think the military invaded Iraq in the first place? Because of their oh-so-humanitarian sentiment? Please.

lol

I love your 15 year old anti-military knowledge.

At 1/7/07 07:03 PM, Begoner wrote: Please.

I'm not letting you change the subject on me. Answer the damn question or remain silent.

At 1/7/07 07:06 PM, Reconstruct wrote: I love your 15 year old anti-military knowledge.

I love your very naive outlook on the military. Guess what? It's not the source of all good and happiness in the world, but it's the source of all the destruction and much of the death. And guess what else? The people in power aren't altruistic -- they do what's in their best interests. They didn't care about Rwanda, about Guatemala, about Haiti, about Cuba, etc., and they don't care about Iraq.

At 1/7/07 07:10 PM, Begoner wrote:

I love your very naive outlook on the military. Guess what? It's not the source of all good and happiness in the world, but it's the source of all the destruction and much of the death. And guess what else?

Like I said.

It's rather Ironic that the people in the military give a positive outlook and want to stay until the job is finished.

At 1/7/07 07:09 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm not letting you change the subject on me. Answer the damn question or remain silent.

I did answer the question. We're staying there for the same reason we went in, which had nothing to do with terrorism, Saddam, or WMDs. I was implicitly referring to petrol as the reason for our invasion, and it also happens to be the reason for our continued (and unwelcome) stay in the country.

At 1/7/07 07:00 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/7/07 06:02 PM, reviewer-general wrote: But serously, I'm proud that the Iraqis can make the best of such a situation.

Let me ask you something, my sarcastic little friend;

If the situation in Iraq was as bad as the media portrays it here, do you think that the Military would bother to waste another second over there?

Well, we already wasted a couple years there, so why not a few more seconds? And, tell me, HOW exactly was I being sarcastic? With the chance that any minute the street in front of them could dissolve into a charnel house of blood, gore, and shrapnel I'm quite frankly suprised that they have somewhat stabalized the economy. . .

Ah, yes, I almost forgot. Fuck off.

At 1/7/07 07:13 PM, Reconstruct wrote

It's rather Ironic that the people in the military give a positive outlook and want to stay until the job is finished.

I seem to recall that all but one of the Iraqi veterans who decided to run for federal political office in 2006 chose the Democratic party and wanted a withdrawal from Iraq. Ironic, no?

At 1/7/07 07:16 PM, Begoner wrote: I was implicitly referring to petrol as the reason for our invasion, and it also happens to be the reason for our continued (and unwelcome) stay in the country.

This war has already cost us upwards of 355 billion dollars, and all you can think about is a couple billion dollars worth of oil?

You're stupider than I gave you credit for.

At 1/7/07 07:18 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Well, we already wasted a couple years there, so why not a few more seconds?

Because it's a quagmire! It's awfull, it's brutal, people are dying by the thousands on a daily basis! Isn't that what we've been force fed to believe for the past five years? If it was REALLY THAT BAD, why doesn't the military follow common sense and just leave?

Ah, yes, I almost forgot. Fuck off.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

At 1/7/07 07:18 PM, Begoner wrote:

I seem to recall that all but one of the Iraqi veterans who decided to run for federal political office in 2006 chose the Democratic party and wanted a withdrawal from Iraq. Ironic, no?

ooo, 1 iraqi vet, as opposed to...?

At 1/7/07 07:30 PM, Proteas wrote: This war has already cost us upwards of 355 billion dollars, and all you can think about is a couple billion dollars worth of oil?

A strategic reserve of oil is more important than money. A diamond is worth more than a pint of blood. Does that mean that you'd allow all the blood to be sucked out of you for 100 diamonds? Of course not -- you need blood to live. Similarly, the US needs oil to maintain its current status. Thus, it is willing to sacrifice less important considerations (according to some people) for that oil. You're not stupid, but you're very biased and unwilling to look at the big picture.

At 1/7/07 08:09 PM, Begoner wrote: You're not stupid, but you're very biased and unwilling to look at the big picture.

You're right, I don't understand how someone could spend upwards of 355 BILLION DOLLARS for 3 or 4 billion dollars worth of oil from a country a thousand miles away when we have vast oil reserves of our own to drawn on, along with the technology to make our vast coal supplies into a readily available alternative fuel..

But then again, it could equally be argued that we went over to Iraq for oil because green peace liberals like yourself wouldn't let us tap our own oil reserves or use such technology because it might "upset the balance of nature."

At 1/6/07 10:41 AM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/5/07 10:44 PM, Proteas wrote: And you would know this based off of... what, exactly?

You know, the ever-increasing death toll is not a good sign. That over 500 Iraqi civilians are dying daily from war-related causes is not an auspicious indicator. Who the fuck cares about stocks when there is an utter lack of security in the country and civilians are being butchered by the truckload?

Why are you such a negative pessimistic individual ? would you like a hug? get you some xanax or Prozac? seriously hearing good news is a positive thing , the war is not getting shown in the proper light nobody sees all the things we have accomplished, and are working very hard on accomplishing.

you made a statement that it is the same now as three years ago I can tell you for a fact that you are mistaken. yes it is not all roses but it is a work in progress. and if more people would realise this and look at the positive instead of the negative this administration just might get even more accomplished.

The Article shows how a depression can lead to great results. (when handled well).
It gives people more drive to better their situation.

You can see that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a bad thing after all. The people live in danger, but are free. When the economy keeps growing, people will get less and less reason to fight.
And will end up using deplomacy.

The only thing needed now, is a goverment that also supports the soeni minority.
Even Saddam's followers should get their place. That is what democracy is about.

Give it some time and even the militias will get tired of the fighting, and get a job.
And remember, if the most chaos is around Bagdad, it doesn't mean the rest of the country can't do well.

You know, the ever-increasing death toll is not a good sign. That over 500 Iraqi civilians are dying daily from war-related causes is not an auspicious indicator. Who the fuck cares about stocks when there is an utter lack of security in the country and civilians are being butchered by the truckload?

Christ Begoner, IT'S A WAR! The "ever-increasing death toll" is what happens in a WAR you twat!

For all the remainder of your arguments, I refer you to here .

Have a wonderful friggin day you PRICK!

There's a major flaw in this argument. Pepperoni pizzas will never see the light of day in an Arab nation.

On a side note.. How in the hell can one benefit from the positive effects of a strong economy if you can't even be insured basic security? Who would truly (apart from American interests trying to make a quick buck) invest in such an unstable environment? Is it really likely some internationally renown company would ever dream of building a multi-million dollar HQ in downtown Baghdad? Come on...