Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 2/15/07 02:11 AM, Tanktunker wrote: Blah blah blah I'm Israeli

לך שקרן

לנאום

---

Well we all knew it wold happen sooner or later.

Here is a quote from Weird Al Yankovics song Lets Bomb Iraq.

"What will you do,the day that [Saddam Hussein]I'm through?"
"I'll bomb another country that is nastier than you[Iraq]"
"Bomb Irannnnnnn,Yeah Lets Bomb Iraaan"

There ya have it.

---

Israel deals directly with U.S. companies for the vast majority of its military purchases from the United States. U.S. antiboycott regulations make it illegal for American citizens and companies to refuse to trade with Israel.(from Wikipedia)

WTF? did you know it's illegal to boycott the selling of arms to Israel?The US passed regulations prohibiting boycotts!

---

At 2/14/07 09:59 PM, WarV wrote: The F-16 is the M16 or jets if you think about it.

Not really, the M-16 is a piece of shit rifle and the F-16 is a revolutionary fighter that is the workhorse of the USAF and a great many other Air Forces. The M-16 on the other hand is usually passed up by foreign militaries in favor of the AK-47...

---

At 2/16/07 08:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

The M-16 on the other hand is usually passed up by foreign militaries in favor of the AK-47...

AK-47. Greatest. Weapon. Ever. Haha, no, but it is VERY commonly known.

---

At 2/16/07 08:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/14/07 09:59 PM, WarV wrote: The F-16 is the M16 or jets if you think about it.

Not really, the M-16 is a piece of shit rifle and the F-16 is a revolutionary fighter that is the workhorse of the USAF and a great many other Air Forces.

Mason you're out of your mind. You're allowing your misguided personal opinion distort the truth.

The M-16 is much better than the AK-47 for a modern, well-trained military.

The M-16 is more accurate, has longer range, is capable of greater volumes of fire (and greater volumes of accurate fire), and uses parts and ammunition that are more logistically efficient than the AK-47 and its primitive, inaccurate 7.62x39mm round.

Not only this, but combat effectiveness has proven the M-16 is more effective, and that is why even the Russians themselves abandoned the AK-47, and developed the AK-74 with the 5.45X39 round which was designed to duplicate the combat effectiveness of the M-16 and its 5.56X45 round. That is why every modern, advanced military adopted the M-16, and/or adopted their own indigenous rifles that fire the same 5.56x45 bullet that the M-16 pioneered.

The M-16 on the other hand is usually passed up by foreign militaries in favor of the AK-47...

WRONG. Until the recent development of more modern rifles that fire the 5.56x45, the M-16 and its derivatives were the most used combat rifle among advanced militaries.

To this day, the only people that pass up the M-16 for an Ak-47 are people who CAN'T AFFORD IT. Or countries who decided to develop an indigenous rifle that however fires the SAME BULLET as the M-16 and therefore attempts to duplicate the combat ability of the M-16.

Notice how the ONLY people that still use the AK-47 are countries who CANNOT afford more advanced rifles? Notice how the weapon of choice for drug smugglers, African gorilla groups, and countless 3rd-world militant organizations use the AK-47?

The AK-47 is fine and dandy for illiterate, untrained peasants who can't be counted on to maintain and use an M-16 properly.

But for advanced, educated, highly-trained militaries, the M-16 allows MUCH greater combat and logistical effectiveness.

Studies from the Vietnam war showed that a 9-man US squad armed with M-16s could out-gun a 30-man squad of NVA armed with AK-47s without the use of heavy weapons on either side. Yes, the AK-47 caused greater wounds, but the M-16 caused MORE wounds of sufficient damage and this is what modern infantry warefare calls for.

And by the way, I own a few of both. I know both rifles inner functions like the back of my hand. The Ak-47 is more reliable, and that is the only thing going for it in my opinion. But the difference in reliability means nothing when the user of the M-16 knows how to properly maintain it.

Other than that, the M-16 is superior in every conceivable aspect, it was designed for modern infantry engagements, based on the new discovery of what capabilities were essential in winning such an engagement.

The AK-47 however was designed as a cheap, low-quality weapon to be mass-produced to equip the Russians' human waves that consisted of illiterate peasant farmers who weren't trained long enough or well enough to maintain their rifles, let alone shoot accurately. And the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the AK-47 and its inaccurate round is a testament to the fact that the last thing the Russians needed was a rifle that was accurate or of high quality.

And that is why, to this day, the people who favor the AK-47 are the ones who aren't capable of affording, maintaining, or operating a higher-quality rifle. And that is why the Russians, after studying lessons learned by the NVA in Vietnam, decided to try and duplicate the M-16's capabilities, and abandon the Ak-47 in the process.

And there you go

---

I think that Iran obviously hates America, and the president of Iran unfortunately seems to have a lot of sway over the rest of the area. He's like the Hamri al-Assad of the real world, only he's not on our side :P

But does that mean we should declare war on them? I don't currently perceive them as a major threat, and if we're gonna keep spending all our money on "liberating" people, we might as well be focusing it on places that really need our help. But, if Iran says something along the lines of "we're going to kill you", then yes, a few weeks of terrorist ass-pounding will probably do us good, and get war out of the new president's system :P

---

At 2/16/07 11:10 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: I think that Iran obviously hates America, and the president of Iran unfortunately seems to have a lot of sway over the rest of the area. He's like the Hamri al-Assad of the real world, only he's not on our side :P

But, if Iran says something along the lines of "we're going to kill you", then yes, a few weeks of terrorist ass-pounding will probably do us good, and get war out of the new president's system :P

well put But I just want Iran to go to hell and I hope they make threats so everything could go Kaboom! on their side

---

I forgot something

---

the only reason we entered iraq was for oil and to gain a strategic position against iran
iran knows that and its the last thing they want
no other country would let america go against iran from their home land because they didnt want wats happenin in iraq to happen to them

---

At 3/1/07 10:03 PM, AIDSextravaganza wrote: liberal rhetoric.

yeah im sure we went over there just to get the oil and attack iran, if that was the case we would have ALREADY attacked iran.