Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/4/03 08:06 AM, karasz wrote: another reason people hate america for this reason:

Raise your hand if During any time America came to your side... Canada, you would probably be speaking German, French and English... Britain you guys would be Germany 2... im not sure where anyone else is from...

but yeah that is pretty much it... oh well, somehow us americans will have to get over it...

Oh yah, thanks for helping. Man you guys really helped us out by sitting out the first two years of the war. While the Commonwealth, France, and the USSR fought of fascist aggression America just sat there! Way to go! Really tank you.

At 5/3/03 12:42 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: America has taken it upon itself to police the world. It has pushes it's ideology on the un-willing. Floods many countries with weapons. Creates terror and savagery. Uses people to fight off it's enemies, only to cast them aside when their enemie falls.

Newsflash, people kill anyways, we just make sure the person we want to win does.

17 million deaths can be atributed to America itself, or the result of American interference. To put that in perspective, thats more people killed then by Hitler, and more people killed then by Stalin.

Stalin killed 35 million, and your comparing to people who only were in power for at the most 50 years.

Thats not even to comment on American culture. You're percieved as arogant, self-rightous, annoying, and ignorant of the world around you.

I hate ethnocentric people.

At 5/4/03 08:32 AM, Slizor wrote:

Raise your hand if During any time America came to your side... Canada, you would probably be speaking German, French and English... Britain you guys would be Germany 2... im not sure where anyone else is from...

No we certainly would not, we stopped the invasion of Britain on our own. Eventually Russia would have defeated Germany and probably occupied the whole of Europe.

He was wrong about the german part, you would all be speaking japansese, but the point still stands.

At 5/3/03 03:04 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote:

At 5/3/03 08:14 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote: Guess WHO he is?

Who is he? ....Ariel Sharon of-course.

Good point, but you left out the part where he oversaw the massacres at the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps (as Defense Minister in 1982) and was forced to resign.

The U.S. gives a human butcher like Sharon state dinners and then wonders why the world doesn't take our "War on Terrorism" seriously.

We fund the country, not the man. If this is the person the Isreali's want so bbe it but you have to understand that we dont necesarily fund attacks we only fund defenses. If we didnt than all of isreal would be dead.

At 5/4/03 03:13 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

· 3,000,000 Vietnamese murdered over the course of about 30 years of US aggression.

Wars do not count as murder. It is subjective to say that it is murder because they were civilians because you dont know if they were hostile and you dont know if they were accidental.

· Well over 300,000 Japanese were massacred when the US raided Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on the urban civilian areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Once again act of war, and we saved more japenese using the bomb than we killed. It was estimated that an attack on the mailnad would result in over 1 milion casualties.

· 600,000 civilians were killed in Cambodia by US bombing between 1969 and 1975.

Are you going to keep naming acts of war the whole time? Just because we arent at war doesnt mean that we cant commit acts of war, ongoing hostilities force countries to have to attack all the time.

· Over 500,000 people were killed in Laos when America subjected civilians to “secret bombing” from 1964 to 1973, dropping over two million tons of bombs on the country. Over one fourth of the population also became refugees.

Are you getting these from that stupid guerilla news site because if you are this whole thing is a load of crap.

· 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to the Korean War by a brutal repression supported by US forces in 1945. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt on Cheju Island.

It looks as if you ARE going to keep naming acts of war as murder.

· Up to 4,500,000 Koreans were killed from 1951 to 1953 during America’s massive slaughter in the Korean War.

Ok this is so wrong, we were fending off a north Korean invasion of south Korea.

· 200,000 were murdered when the Philippines were conquered by American forces. (This took place just over 100 years ago.)

Technically since there were hostilities between US and them these were acts of war but this is probably the most unjust one you got.

· 23,000 people were slaughtered in Taiwan by US-backed, trained, equipped, and funded forces (Chiang’s Nationalist army) during the late 1940s.

You mean during WW2?

· 700,000 Indonesians (mostly landless peasants) were murdered in 1965 when the US armed and supported General Suharto.

"Supported" you mean not take out, sounds kinda hipocritical of you.

· 200,000 were slaughtered in East Timor in 1975 by General Suharto with US support.

Ok this is going to go on for a while so I'll just cut out the onse that are pointless to respond to.

· Over 1,700,000 Iraqis have been killed by US bombings and sanctions, mostly women and children.

First, youy have no idea that they were women and children. Second, the sanctions did not do this because Saddam hadnt spent much money on food before them, he used the money to buy weapons.

· Over 1,000,000 lives were lost during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s in which the US used direct force and supported Hussein and Iraq.

So we should have supported the ayatollah?

· 35,000 Kurds were killed, 3,500 villages were destroyed, and between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 became homeless as a result of aggression by Turkey with US arming and training in the 1990s.

"Arming and Training" We coulndt have known they would kill people and we did not kill those people so this is crap.

· Over 1,000,000 people were killed in Afghanistan’s civil war from 1979 to 1992, in which the US strongly supported the Moujahedeen, the most violent and sadistic of the forces. (This also set the stage for the CIA-backed Taliban to attain power.)

If you plan on the future than you never get things done. And it is Ironic that you blame us for the muders another man did when you dont want us to stop such man.

· 45,000 people were killed in South Lebanon since 1982 by Israel, always armed and supported by the US.

Even more Isreali's were killed by lebonese interfearing in farming and shooting the civilian farmers from on top of the golan hieghts.

· Thousands have been killed in Palestine and millions (in both Palestine and Lebanon) were made refugees by US-backed Israel.

You suspisciously leave out how many Isreali's were killed.

At 5/4/03 03:39 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/3/03 12:42 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: America has taken it upon itself to police the world. It has pushes it's ideology on the un-willing. Floods many countries with weapons. Creates terror and savagery. Uses people to fight off it's enemies, only to cast them aside when their enemie falls.

Newsflash, people kill anyways, we just make sure the person we want to win does.

Jim, that is quite possibly the most callous thing I have ever heard anyone say in the 14 years I have been alive. I really hope you don't mean that.

Thats not even to comment on American culture. You're percieved as arogant, self-rightous, annoying, and ignorant of the world around you.

I hate ethnocentric people.

So do I. In general the Americans are arrogant. They are naive and maybe describved as ignorant. Self-rightous, no. Annoying depends on your view.

Americans have loads of good points, the main being that they work bloody hard for what they do. An American has some get-up-and-go about him.

At 5/4/03 04:20 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Jim, that is quite possibly the most callous thing I have ever heard anyone say in the 14 years I have been alive. I really hope you don't mean that.

Would you rather we dont help the person we want to win? And you really dont know what the world would be like if we hadnt supported those people so you cant honestly say it was wrong.

So do I. In general the Americans are arrogant. They are naive and maybe describved as ignorant. Self-rightous, no. Annoying depends on your view.

Americans have loads of good points, the main being that they work bloody hard for what they do. An American has some get-up-and-go about him.

Have you even been to America?

At 5/4/03 04:39 PM, jimsween wrote: Would you rather we dont help the person we want to win? And you really dont know what the world would be like if we hadnt supported those people so you cant honestly say it was wrong.

Im not saying that, I'm saying that the americans have helped a lot of people to win. A lot of them were oppressive and/or dictators. I have no problem with Americans helping people. The Americans only seem to help dictators though.

Have you even been to America?

Never, I know loads of Americans though.

At 5/4/03 04:39 PM, jimsween wrote: Would you rather we dont help the person we want to win? And you really dont know what the world would be like if we hadnt supported those people so you cant honestly say it was wrong.

Im not saying that, I'm saying that the americans have helped a lot of people to win. A lot of them were oppressive and/or dictators. I have no problem with Americans helping people. The Americans only seem to help dictators though.

Have you even been to America?

Never, I know loads of Americans though.

bumcheekcity, will you be my friend?

Raise your hand if During any time America came to your side... Canada, you would probably be speaking German, French and English... Britain you guys would be Germany 2

America didn't get involved in WWII (or I) until towards the very end, and we didn't do it to "come to people's aid." We did it because Germany was begining to become a threat to us as well (and possibly the only reason we won, was because we didn't get involved in the war until Germany was already weakened from it's long battle with France and Britain-----basically, we came in with fresh supplies, fresh men, etc.).

Now, I don't blame America for starting a war for it's own self-interest (when that self interest isn't money). After all, no country has ever gotten involved in a war if it's own self-interest wasn't involved.

However, unlike most other countries, we lie about our self-interest being involved. I do think it's rediculous to portray America as "just doing it to fight evil or to help other people out of the goodness of our hearts."

I believe that is what makes so many Americans feverishly proud of their country, and makes other countries consider Americans to be arrogant. The media turns our national relationships into one big movie. One in which the US stars as the "good guy." Well, nothing is that "black and white."
-----
Even when we admit self-interest in a war, we usually downplay what that interest is. The reason being is that most of the US's wars are for financial benefit (which is not very good publicity for us----after all, the "hero" in a movie never fights for money). I believe this is why we feel the need to play up the "stopping evil" or "helping people" role (or the "world's police man" as some call it) to our own citizens and even the rest of the world.

After all, who would back us if Bush went up and said "OK, we want to fight Iraq, take over it's oil, and destroy OPEC, which will make us insanely rich and put us at the top of the oil trade (and stop our oil crisis in a half-assed way, which will still allow people in the oil business, such as me, to be rich without actually doing anything that will help our fuel situation in the long run or help the environment), and which will affect all the countries that depend on OPEC for the worst....Will you help us?"

See what I mean? He wouldn't even get the support of his own people (and that's another key to the media's flattering portrayal of American interest).

The only difference now is that we have a president that isn't very good at covering up our intentions. The whole excuse we've been using to fight Iraq is lame, especially considering that there are dozens of other countries that are insanely more dangerous than Iraq and Saddam. I mean, just look at his last quote (I listed it in a previous post), "We will ultimately find weapons in Iraq."

So, now the "hero" is bombing a country and causing deaths "just to see if the people have weapons." @_o'

It shouldn't make anyone wonder why the rest of the world isn't buying it.

Hey, bumcheekcity. You have a lot of good points. ^_^

I just hope that you don't hate American's though. ^_- A lot of us are really nice people, and sometimes those who are so rediculously proud of their country are only that way because our biased media makes them that way (sometimes it's not really their fault, they're just uneducated or don't know any better *sigh* -_-').

We just have a really crappy government as of now (and often, actually *sigh*). @_o' But they don't necessarily speak for us. In fact, Bush didn't even win popular vote. He's a moron. lol.

But it's nice to hear from the perspectives of other countries. ^_^ I bet they publish a lot of material about US relations that they don't here. Have any English books or such you can recomend for me? ^_^

Thank a bunch!

Wars do not count as murder.

They do if that war is for simply financial purposes (such as oil trade). A murder is still a murder, regardless whether or not you take the guy's wallet afterwards or not.

Newsflash, people kill anyways, we just make sure the person we want to win does.

Firstly, the US has pushed countries into war (such as Carter in the Iranian Conflict for example).

Also, these people wouldn't "kill anyways" if we didn't give them the ability to kill (such as funding them with money, weapons, and even training). In fact, we made the Taliban. We organized them, sent money to train and finance them, and even armed them.

So basically, we're not talking about two groups that hate one another and are going to fight anyway, and then the US just comes in and aids one. We are talking about the actual creation and financing/arming of one group by the US to fight another for our own purposes.

I know "how the world would" be if we didn't help create and then fund the Taliban or screw with Palistine.....9/11 wouldn't (and couldn't) have happened at all. How's that suit ya?

At 5/4/03 06:24 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: But it's nice to hear from the perspectives of other countries. ^_^ I bet they publish a lot of material about US relations that they don't here. Have any English books or such you can recomend for me? ^_^

Right... English books. I reckon you should read or watch anything that is written by Michael Moore because he tends to agree with me :D I also reccommend watching Newsnight if you can get it somehow. It is really biased though (towards the left) so it isn't brilliant. TheBBC Newstends to be left-wing but it gives a fairly impartial view of things.

Newspapers... The Times is very good at being impartial and will often have two articles written by two journalists who have separate views, to balance things out. The Guardian is fairly good. Dont read wither the Express or the Mirror though, their views are too biased towards the Right and Left respectively.

Thats about it for reading material. As you are an American you will have to log on to their websites - just do a search for the name of the paper you want.

Yes I will be your friend, mypopopen. I will be everyonbes friend. Except Jim's because he is wrong. :P

Seems like that Bumcheekcity and popenfresh will be in bed together.

Seems like that Bumcheekcity and popenfresh will be in bed together.

Seems like BlackPaladin still goes to bed with his mom. lol.

Seriously, though, grow up.

Oh, bumcheekcity, you like Michael Moore, too? That guy is so brilliant! I'm glad to see that there are other people who pay attention to his work. ^_^

At 5/4/03 03:50 PM, jimsween posts: 666

If this is the person the Isreali's want, so be it..

the same could then be said for Saddam (despite crimes against humanity)

but you have to understand that we dont necesarily fund attacks we only fund defenses.

Israel attacks it's neihgbours with US made Apache helicopter gunships, tanks, fighter jets and missiles.

If we didnt than all of isreal would be dead.

Israel is akin to having a Communist Military State in the heartland of America during the last Cold War (wha do you think would happen?)

We fund the country, not the man.

Then it's a crying shame you can't even catch a couple of men, but feel you have to invade whole countries they resided in and kill everyone who had to pledge allegiance.

~ 2 Wars in 2 years... ( Plz pay attention ;)

The world DISLIKES America because they seem to be aggressively pursuing their own interests and making the world one giant, Resource sucking capatalist playground. We're sick of the U.S. so called freedom which seems to translate to severe censorship, coverups and complete ignorance of other peoples points of view.. that and I hate Jerry Springer

Paladin - Im getting a Mafia contract out on you...

Ninja - Michael Moore is my God. Literally. We have no copies of the Bible in my house, but 4 or 5 different Michael Moore books that I study religiously.

:D Looks like Jim's given up.

Why does the world hate America?

We're an arrogant, self-centered, world police state that only puts its nose in other nation's affairs when there's something in it for us.

Let the flame begin.

At 5/4/03 05:02 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 5/4/03 04:39 PM, jimsween wrote: Would you rather we dont help the person we want to win? And you really dont know what the world would be like if we hadnt supported those people so you cant honestly say it was wrong.

Im not saying that, I'm saying that the americans have helped a lot of people to win. A lot of them were oppressive and/or dictators. I have no problem with Americans helping people. The Americans only seem to help dictators though.

Doesnt that make you think that maybe they have a plan then? As far as I can see the US has done a pretty good job of not letting there be a WW3.

Have you even been to America?

Never, I know loads of Americans though.

In person?

At 5/4/03 07:09 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Yes I will be your friend, mypopopen. I will be everyonbes friend. Except Jim's because he is wrong. :P

Awright, yeah that jim guy is pretty right-wing if you ask me.

At 5/5/03 12:30 AM, Judge_VOLT wrote:
~ 2 Wars in 2 years... ( Plz pay attention ;)

2 wars... that is if you count american soldiers going into a desert bombing caves. I dont know how much americans were killed, but i do know that the number was ridiculously low. Thats not because they were incredibly good, oh no, its because, well, ill let you figure it out, because it is rather obvious.

Dont mean to be critical, but many of you when talking about thge allied forces fightng WWII, you never talk about the USSR.

At 5/5/03 12:30 AM, Judge_VOLT wrote: At 5/4/03 03:50 PM, jimsween posts: 666

If this is the person the Isreali's want, so be it..

the same could then be said for Saddam (despite crimes against humanity)

Nobody electec saddam and he is at it for life, not just a few years.

but you have to understand that we dont necesarily fund attacks we only fund defenses.

Israel attacks it's neihgbours with US made Apache helicopter gunships, tanks, fighter jets and missiles.

We give them the weapons for defense, and Isreal uses them more for defense than attacks. Also I'm pretty sure apaches were never used in an agressive war since the last attack Isreal did was back in the early 80's.

If we didnt than all of isreal would be dead.

Israel is akin to having a Communist Military State in the heartland of America during the last Cold War (wha do you think would happen?)

I'm not sure what you just said but I'll assume that you mean that Isreal wants to set up a communist state in america (which doesnt make since) and has nothing to do with what I said.

We fund the country, not the man.

Then it's a crying shame you can't even catch a couple of men, but feel you have to invade whole countries they resided in and kill everyone who had to pledge allegiance.

Your a dumbass.

~ 2 Wars in 2 years... ( Plz pay attention ;)

It's one war genius, as bush stated it is a war on terrorism. And Afgahnistan is in better shape than it was before. (but they still are in bad shape)

At 5/4/03 06:25 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Wars do not count as murder.

They do if that war is for simply financial purposes (such as oil trade). A murder is still a murder, regardless whether or not you take the guy's wallet afterwards or not.

Do you have proof that this or any other war was for that?

At 5/5/03 04:22 PM, jimsween wrote: Doesnt that make you think that maybe they have a plan then? As far as I can see the US has done a pretty good job of not letting there be a WW3.

Possibly, yes. I give you that. The Americans have made a bloody good job of stopping WW3 by making loads of little wars and spreading them out.

In person?

Yup. That was a hard question.

At 5/5/03 04:28 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/4/03 07:09 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Yes I will be your friend, mypopopen. I will be everyonbes friend. Except Jim's because he is wrong. :P

Awright, yeah that jim guy is pretty right-wing if you ask me.

Nah, Jims alright, but he is wrong. :D In my esteemed opinion.

you have proof that this or any other war was for that?

Read a history book, and check out all the other information I have about the war under the topic, "War on Iraq, Review" under the politics section.

Also, this war is related to the Iranian Conflict in the earlier 80's which was also for oil (and there are documents which prove this). And the US threatened to go to war with Afghanistan after 9/11 "unless they agreed to an oil pipeline to run through Afghanistan into the Central Asian oil supplies." If they had conceeded, we may not have gone to war with them at all. There is also documents that prove this.

If you would like some links that talk about this (with quotes from and links to those documents), I'll send you them. ^_^