Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You must have a small wang to be comparing it to a thread.

Not when it's three pages long.

It's kind of funny that your country doesn't even have a name, per se. "United States of America"... there's no NAME there. It sounds like a military alliance. I laugh. Dominion of Canada!

At 5/7/03 10:12 PM, DarkCorellon wrote: It's kind of funny that your country doesn't even have a name, per se. "United States of America"... there's no NAME there. It sounds like a military alliance. I laugh. Dominion of Canada!

well it was founded as a military alliance... 13 different colonies... thats why the US has the system that it does...

and lets not forget the US could kick Canada's ass anytime...

hell we will even GIVE YOU a nuke just to spice it up a bit

At 5/6/03 09:52 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/6/03 09:13 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: How do you know it's a "bunch of raving" if you "won't read it?"

I started reading and it and then quit cause it was stupid.

Here ya go:

http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html

(it tells you how to get to that document on this site, and it also has some snippets from those document as well).

The water doesnt need to be as pure as they limit to drink. With weapons it is much higher than that and most countries dont use distillation.

Well, Iraq did need distillation. I take it you didn't read to the part where 500,000 kids died from this. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it needs to be pure to drink then.

http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
--------------
Here's also some information on the Bush-Bin Laden relationship.

We have a free market economy, our companies can sell that stuff to Iraq if they want to.

OK, and my problem with this is why are we suddenly "mad at Iraq" for supposedly having these exact same weapons? That was my point.

"Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens," Hindustan Times
AFP
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/bush_twarted.htm

Did you ever think this might be because it is against the constitution to spy on citizens and maybe because this would provoke them

Actually, it had to do with an oil pipeline through Afgahnistan. Also, what does "spying on citizens" have to do with this? Al Queda destroyed two buildings. The FBI had to make absolutely sure that it was Al Queda who did it before the US made any plans after the attack. Bush put a halt on the FBI investigations (so they couldn't prove that Bin Laden or Al Queda was behind it for a while).

"BUSHLADEN"
by Jared Israel [8 October 2001]
Includes report from the 'Wall Street Journal'
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

FDR had links to the mafia but that didnt make him lieniet to them.

That wasn't my point. The Bin Laden family is actually a nice family (excluding their estranged son, Osama). The problem was that, even though both families were a partial cause to the attack on 9/11 (Bin Ladens, because it was their son, and Bushes, because they financed the Taliban and helped put them in power), only the Bin Laden's pulled out of the Caryle group, while the Bush family stayed in to pad their account in the up and coming war. Get it?

CNN, AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN, "Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S. Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Ok, this is just a transcript from a show on CNN, I cant possibly reply to it because everything said on it was already debated. All I can say is that this was written by a french man while french hatred for Americans is high, I.E. more money.

Suit yourself. You don't have to believe it. But just because France dislikes us, doesn't mean that they'd make an entire book "lying about this incident." Because they're not as pro-America (and therefore, don't have a, "shhh, don't say anything bad about America" attitude) then they're more likely to have looked into this and have material like this available. You can use the same logic to see why there is little material on this publically available in such a pro-American country like ours (obviously). Just because it's unflattering doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also, the book is actually made up of mostly statements from the FBI investigaters who were halted by Bush in the 9/11 investigation. And it even has some quotes from the Bush administration (note the one where they threaten war if they didn't get the needed pipeline).

"Osama Bin Ladin joined a Secret Energy Commisson meeting of Senators and Oil execs."
http://www.gwbush.com/archive/index2-5-02.shtml

Thats a website making fun of bush, Why is Osammas head bigger than everyone else and he is in camouflauge, Derrr it's doctored. I cant belive you fell for that.

Maybe, but if you search the site some more, I'm sure you will see that they have many reliable sources available (like snippets from NYTimes, etc.). At least that was what I found last time I was there.

Also, once again, this source you don't have to believe if you don't want to. I only put it here because it lists all the information in such a "simple fashion." I figured it would be good for you since you couldn't even finish my posts.

However, once again, please note where some of that information comes from. It's a Bush-haters site, so they gather a bunch of unflattering information from many sources. You don't have to believe all of their sources, but please note that some of them are reliable. Also, just because they dislike your beloved president, doesn't mean that they'd fabricate an entire issue like this out of nothing. In fact, if you are still interested in this issue, you can try to look up some more on it over the internet from another site that suits you better (since this is all over the web----another sign that they didn't just decide to make this up out of nothing.).

Judicial Watch: Bush/bin Laden Connection "has now turned into a scandal!"
Comment by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

The ossamma family is a highly prestigious business family in the middle east, seeing as how bush has connections in the oil industry and alot of oil comes from the middles east. You dont hink there would be the slightest connection? The kennedy family stretches farther than you could know but when someone is friends with a kennedy people dont think, oooh he must be in with the government.

Um, you do realize that much of the Bin Laden family lived in America, don't you? But once again, Bush's connection to the Bin Ladens wasn't my point. It was the two families work in the Caryle group and the action they took after 9/11, Bush's halting of FBI investigations surrounding the attacks to finish up negotiations with the Taliban, and of course, Bush Sr.'s financial and military support of the Taliban, and his involvment in their creation.

"We Decide, You Shut Up," an interview made on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, printed out in the latest edition of Harpers. The man is named Jeremy Glick (his father died in 9/11).
-------------
Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever was, and yet Bush does nothing about this (Korea has no oil).

"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat": http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

It's not for oil, it's because they HAVE a nuke. You dont mess with somebody who has a nuke, bush knows that and that's why he is ignoring them which IS the best option because Kim Jong IL just wants any reason to attack.

I thought we were "messing with Iraq" because they supposedly have nukes. Don't you watch the news? That was Bush's "big reason" for going to war with them. If we "don't mess with countries that have weapons of mass destruction," then explain why we're going to war with Iraq.

My point is that we were threatening war with Iraq because they supposedly have weapons of mass destruction. However, we already know Korea has them and we know that they are more ready to use them (and are even expected of having plans to attack us in the near future).

Actually, the reason Bush is ignoring them isn't because they have nukes. You got it backwards. Bush started ignoring them, and then they got nukes (read the whole article). That's the problem. So ignoring a country that wants to attack us and is suspected of having plans to in the future isn't exactly a good idea. Esspecially if you believe in the whole "Hitler Theory."

Again, my point was, if Bush's main reason we are bombing Iraq is because they supposedly have weapons, then why he more concerned about these countries that already have weapons and who are more able and closer to using them on us? Well, what's the difference between Iraq and Korea? You guessed it: oil.

"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

see above

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.
-------------------
Iraqi oil consumption by the US.

NOTE: I even bothered to write the person in charge of Marketing information at Middle East Economic Survey (MEES), MIDDLE EAST PETROLEUM AND ECONOMIC PUBLICATIONS (CYPRUS) and asked her about US and Iraqi oil trades up until the war. Here is what she wrote me back:

"THE US CONTINUED TO PURCHASE IRAQI OIL UNDER THE TERMS OF THE UN
OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM UP TO THE START OF THE WAR. IRAQ NEVER HALTED
EXPORTS SPECIFICALLY TO THE US -- ALTHOUGH IT DID HALT EXPORTS IN
GENERAL FROM TIME TO TIME"

What does this have to do with the war being for oil? Why wouldnt we trade, its for a good cause.

*sigh* After the we got involved in the Iranian Conflict for purposes surrounding oil, we succeeded in getting both Iran and Iraq weak enough so that they would both continue to be heavily dependent on the US as an oil customer. However, and here's the key, while Iran can trade freely with us, Iraq can only trade a limited amout of oil in the "food-for-oil" program pushed on them by the UN. This means that, although Iraq has the second largest oil supply in the world, they can only trade a few hundred thousand barrels a month of oil to us. So, the plan was to get the largest amount of oil out of both Iran and Iraq after both countries became weakened through our involvement in the Iranian Conflict. Get it now? If we bomb Iraq now, then we can screw UN oil sanctions and get all the oil we want.

Note that MEES is the company that also did the report on the US's Iraqi oil consumption in 2001 (which wound up being 90% of Iraq's oil at the time).

October 4, 2002
Bush Donors: Saddam's Best Customers
A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
by Margie Burns
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/04_Oil.html
----------------
"Oil Puppet" we're putting in Baghdad.

"Our Man In Baghdad," by Jon Spade, Harpers Magazine, March 2003.

This is pathetic, saddam would have traded oil with us for decades if only instead of fighting we just befriended them and lifeted the sanctions. Saddam would even make it cheaper knowing that we could impose the sanctions again at any time. Why would we fight it for oil when it will take us 16 years of cheap oil imports to pay back how much the war costed.

Actually, we couldn't lift the oil sanctions. Only the UN could (since the sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the UN to begin with). And the UN was very harsh on these restrictions. They even got mad at Russia for paying Iraq for their oil instead of giving them humane supplies (which is a part of the "food-for-oil" plan). So, even if we "befriended" Iraq, they still couldn't give us more oil. Nor would they probably want to after what we did to them in the contaminated water incident or the Iranian Conflict. The only way we could get more oil from them would be to, you guessed it, go to war with them.

Once we take over Iraqi oil trade, we'd be so ahead in the oil trade that OPEC may completely disappear (according to Harpers). We'd get rich off this war (or at least the oil companies will). That's one way to "pay the bill" for this war. However, I doubt the oil companies will share. What does Bush care how much this war costs? Wars are faught using tax dollars, so this bill goes to us anyway.

At 5/6/03 10:06 PM, 0gn34jmhag wrote: Daaaaamn. This thread is as long as my wang. About half way through I stopped reading, because I only want to say one thing...

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.

Hey, you are the US. If someone steals from you, are you gonna fight him(you are, after all, the most powerful person in the world), or are you going to ask him nicely to return it? Or, give a warning or two...or eight, or even more(like you usually do), but they still don't do anything. I think that if someone so what as insults the US should have their ass handed to them. They are asking for it.

Um, since when did Iraq "steal from us." And what about Korea who is also casting off UN sanctions and is actually building weapons of mass destruction (unlike Iraq). If that is your concern, then don't you think we should be focusing our energy over there instead of on a country that has no ability to defend itself anyway?

Also, I was responding to someone who said that this war doesn't count as "murder" because we get something out of it....which is obviously really stupid. Killing people is still killing people whether you get some financial benefit out of it or not. Get it now?

At 5/7/03 09:03 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Jesus...the war's over, and it wasn't a goddamned war for oil. There are much better targets if we wanted some Texas Tea.

Um, I think the country with the second largest oil supply in the world and which has no way to defend itself in a war is a pretty good target to me.

-------------------
So Karasz, you really believe that a couple of thousand American soldiers in each country "keeps international order?" Especially when most of the countries (such as Korea) have a population of a couple million? And that if then if the few Americans leave then "all hell with break loose?" If any country wanted to invade the other, I don't think a few thousand Americans are going to "stop them." You really think that the presence of a handful of US troops "keeps order?"

......You seem to have a bit of a pompous view of your own country. Our country may be strong, but not enough to "control the world and all it's happenings." If that was the case, then again, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

You need to keep reading your Captain America comics. Americans are not that much of a "threat" to everyone.

Also, I think you should really look into some of my links about the Iranian Conflict....and pretty much everything else.
------------------

Well folks, I have some "real life" work that I have been putting off for way to long. *sigh* So, I'm going to have to catch up with all of you in about 6 days.

See ya all then! ^_^

At 5/7/03 10:51 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

So Karasz, you really believe that a couple of thousand American soldiers in each country "keeps international order?"

yes, it does... if the US leaves those places the countries have no choice than to build up their armies, even a little... the slightest increase in germanys army would get russia to build its up... THEY ARE STILL FREAKED OVER ww2... which would get china and france to build its army... and so on and so forth...

If any country wanted to invade the other, I don't think a few thousand Americans are going to "stop them." You really think that the presence of a handful of US troops "keeps order?"

yes, because if any of those few thousand americans are killed in battle the rest of the americans will be calling for war against the responsible nation... thats how the US works... thats why the US is there... its called deterrence...

......You seem to have a bit of a pompous view of your own country.

no its called a realistic view of the world... the world is viewed in the Hobbesian state of nature in the minds of those that are in the know, such as the council on foreign relations

Our country may be strong, but not enough to "control the world and all it's happenings." If that was the case, then again, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

terrorists attacks will still happen, stopping the big shit is important too though...

You need to keep reading your Captain America comics. Americans are not that much of a "threat" to everyone.

im not a fan of captain america... i never said the US was a threat to everyone...

Also, I think you should really look into some of my links about the Iranian Conflict....and pretty much everything else.

i saw ur links on north korea and they were horribly skewed... the first one i think was peace guy... or something... yeah thats a credible source

At 5/7/03 10:12 PM, DarkCorellon wrote: It's kind of funny that your country doesn't even have a name, per se. "United States of America"... there's no NAME there. It sounds like a military alliance. I laugh. Dominion of Canada!

GO SENS!(cause your from ottawa)

Ninja: I had a Really long post written but a damn error page on NG came up and it's all gone now, I too lazy to rewrite it now but I might later.

If it wasn't for oil, then what was it for?

Get something straight - the fact that oil proved a rather persuasive substance in this situation doesn't make it evil. And the fact that Bush's intentions were cloaked by a bunch of iraqi's dancing in the streets and robbing their museums doesn't change the motivation. Oil counted. It still counts. Otherwise, why the hell would there have been contracts for oil drilling and preserving oil wells?

If you wanna live in your delusional world where everything is for the sake of apple pie, lofty evening walks, and the happiness of EVERYONE, you go right ahead... but please spare us your ignorance and naivete when you attempt to present some sort of argument against blatant truths.

--hooty mcboob

<A> http://randallsworld.cjb.com <A>

At 5/5/03 04:46 PM, jimsween wrote: 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.

For "defense"? What about the hundreds of homes being demolished by bulldozers every single week, so that more settlements can be rebuilt? What about Rachel Corrie, a girl that die by being run over by a bulldozer in cold blood murder? American T.V. is very pro-Israel. It has to be. Zionist Jewish groups have a tight control over anything said against Israel. Rarely will you ever see the Palestinians die. On more fair channels, such as the BBC, you will. About 700 Israelis have died since the second intifida, but rarely do you hear on American T.V. that about 2300 Palestinians have died since then too. Israel is one of the worlds leading violators of human rights. Israeli's many human rights groups have blasted Israel for their killing of innocent civilians. Their is about a 50/50 split in Israel between those that want peace with Palestine and two states, and those that want all Palestinians to be exported out of the occupied territory. The large reason for the hatred of the U.S. around the world, and especially in the Arab world is U.S. support for Israeli aggresion. Israel has violated 69 U.N. resolutions, including two ordering for Israel to leave the occupied terrority. Iraq has violated 17, and we attacked them because of it. Hypocrisy? Most of the world thinks so, and they are right. I really hope that this "road map" to peace will work. I don't see how their is a chance in hell a murdered like Sharon, who himself is the arcitect of the settlement activity, will ever dismantle them. There is just no way.

Another reason for the world hating us can be demonstrated in Christina Aguilara's video "Dirty". It really represents everything wrong with America's sexualized society. We are the sluttiest nation on Earth.

At 5/24/03 07:49 PM, Mushroom_Clock wrote:

A long stupid rant.

None of this has anything to do with the weapons we gave them so this is just a pointless rant, and on top of that you just revived an old topic. Way to go...

At 5/24/03 07:56 PM, Mushroom_Clock wrote: Another reason for the world hating us can be demonstrated in Christina Aguilara's video "Dirty". It really represents everything wrong with America's sexualized society. We are the sluttiest nation on Earth.

You puritans are so annoying, there is nothing wrong with sex so stop making it seem dirty. And as for us being the sluttiest, we are relatively calm compared to many european nations. They often go all out and show people completely nude.

We westerners are so oversexed we cant even think of two men kissing without thinking of homosexuality. shit, two men cant even touch each other in a nonviolent way during conversation, or even stand within one foot of one another for that matter. Hang out with some middle eastern guys, and find out what sexual liberation really is.

*realizes half his good friends are now middle eastern*

*realizes this is probably a good thing*

I think this is the reason
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stands/5008/victims.html

And please turn your speakers up.

Please, Like Europeans don't make porn??? Whats with the Germans and shitting on other peoples faces and chests? I think thats a fucked up version of sex ha ha ha. I certainly don't mind Aguilera dancing around like a slut, and get real it's not like America is the only place with sluts.

Honestly, I hope we never get invlolved in anybody else's shit ever again. We can't win, since we are the most powerful country in the world people bitch if we don't get involved, even worse if we do get involved other countries bitch even more. And to make it even worse you get all these little 15-17 year old punks on Newgrounds from Canada that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, all they ever do is copy and paste shit. All they want to do is throw shit on us. I hope we never help anyone ever again. Everyone hates America so much, fuck it, lets become Neutral and save money for our own country. Canada's military is so weak it could be overun by their hocky players, because they know the United States is right below them. And who was the fucking retard before saying that America doesn't even have a name??!?! WHY THE FUCK DO WE CALL IT AMERICA THEN ASSHOLE??? Like Canada is some kind of special name you and your fuckin red maple leaf. What a joke, lick my AMERICAN nuts mother fuckers. I hope you all get nuked by a gook in north korea or some doon coon from Iraq. Tired of all your pissing and moaning. Like your countries are so perfect???

I don't recall any of us asking you...

At 5/24/03 07:56 PM, Mushroom_Clock wrote: We are the sluttiest nation on Earth.

Bullcrap. I have a friend who stayed in the Moulon Rouge in Paris and said that was quite an experience. Anyway, I nominate France as the sluttiest nation on the planet.

At 5/25/03 08:46 AM, Slizor wrote: I think this is the reason
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stands/5008/victims.html

And please turn your speakers up.

so wait a minute, they hate us because of Elvis (music)? Or because we make memorials to our dead? Thats the only two things I saw on your link.

Please explain why those are reasons to hate the US. Hate us because we are lewd, I understand, but hate us for what was on that link? I dont get it, but I might just be retarded.

At 5/25/03 11:23 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: so wait a minute, they hate us because of Elvis (music)? Or because we make memorials to our dead? Thats the only two things I saw on your link.

Please explain why those are reasons to hate the US. Hate us because we are lewd, I understand, but hate us for what was on that link? I dont get it, but I might just be retarded.

I think they hate you because of the extreme amounts of hypocracy and lunacy. Does it tell you exactly why the US got attackd? No? Do you know, or can yoiu make a good guess? No and maybe.

so wait a minute, they hate us because of Elvis (music)? Or because we make memorials to our dead? Thats the only two things I saw on your link.

It was A)increadably cheesy B) horribly patriotic (patriotism in excess is a very very bad thing, see Hitler) and C) blowing it totally out of proportion.

At 5/25/03 02:39 PM, Slizor wrote: It was A)increadably cheesy B) horribly patriotic (patriotism in excess is a very very bad thing, see Hitler) and C) blowing it totally out of proportion.

And d) bloody hypocritical. and e) one sided.

This a conversation between two americans i heard infront of me on a plane last week!
A: Like, i totally like told brad like what are you doing like with alice
B: Like oh my god like i know totally like what you mean like

Even at one point they did this, i swear
A: That is so true like
B: Like
A: Like

At 5/25/03 06:13 PM, el_torro wrote: This a conversation between two americans i heard infront of me on a plane last week!
A: Like, i totally like told brad like what are you doing like with alice
B: Like oh my god like i know totally like what you mean like

Even at one point they did this, i swear
A: That is so true like
B: Like
A: Like

And no other country has slang...

At 5/25/03 06:24 PM, jimsween wrote:
And no other country has slang...

damnit jim, quit making sense, it goes against all my personal rules of propriety.

Amercans over-use 'like' and 'quaint'

American pop idols overuse the phrase "Can I say crappy on British TV?" I hate that.

At 5/25/03 09:31 AM, AmericanBADASS wrote:

:gook

This is why everyone hates America. We think we're badass, name ourselves after kid-rock songs, and force the rest of the world, who are starving and scraping together a living making our shoes for slave wages, to watch Puff Daddy pour $1000 champaign out of his bentley window. Then we call them gooks, and beat them up because they are different.