Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

but shouldnt we all be grateful for the chance to say what we want when we want?

ALLAH BLESS AMERICA!!

Anarchy woudnt work under any circumstance, if it would, it would be survival of the fittest.

At 5/16/03 08:53 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Anarchy woudnt work under any circumstance, if it would, it would be survival of the fittest.

What? This is a topic about America.

At 5/16/03 03:32 AM, WaldenPunk wrote: ALLAH BLESS AMERICA!!

Allah is the Arabic word for God- it means the same thing if you say Dieu bless America (God in French), or Gott bless America. It is not a different God, just the word God in another language.

I saw the matrix last night. At the end neo gets a lecture from the architect. So the guy keeps going on and on and finally he starts talking about the flaws of humanity, a bit like agent smith did in the first movie. All around this guys room is a bunch of screens that show different scenes dependind on what theyre talking about. When he talks about the flaws of humanity, theres a picture of George W. Bush that pops out amongst footage of terrorist acts and whatnot. I dunno, i found that pretty funny.

Please, you want to know what is a joke? all these Canadians that come on and trash America's government, you say we are all blinded by the media, apparantly you are too. Guess what is an even bigger joke? the fact that Canada's military couldn't defend itself against an attack. Why? because they don't fund anything to their military, because America is right below it, so you fuck with Canada you fuck with America. Want to know where all there money for the military goes? into medicine RX plans, they don't pay shit for medicine in Canada. Every other country acts like they are perfect, please every country has it's fucked up past, America, Canada, France, Germany, England, EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY so stop acting like America is the worst gov on the face of the earth for once and all. Fucking idiot's like Mrpopnfresh, the DAG ooooooo your so bad ass what a joke, half of them aren't even out of high school yet. get a life.

Other Governments being crap doesn't make yours any better. And just citing "History" is plain crap. Could you honestly judge the moral character of a country by what it did a 100 years ago? Certainly not, pretty much anyone who was alive is long dead. What about 50 years ago? Or 30? If we use these standards we see the US isby far the worst country when it coes to foreign affairs, bombing, killing and raping the third world.

So, the Canadian military couldn't defend itself against attack, therefore it'd be easy? I hate to break it to you, but the US is totally unprepared for an attack, as witnessed at Pearl Harbour and downtown New York, so what's the official line there; they cheated?

What you miss is the fact that it's because the US takes up most of the landmass, there is little chance of attack, and the complacent nature of this has seen you caught with your pants down. Of course, the Iraqis couldn't invade you, since there'd be ample warning of an invading force of a couple of million crossing the Pacific, complete with tanks, weapons, and whatever else they'd use, and there'd be one of two places to stash them: Canada or Mexico, places with little, if any, escape (although Canada is big enough to hide in, I guess).

Compare this to Europe. Somewhere like Belgium is surrounded by France, Hollad, and Germany, and if at any point one of them get that Domination fever, you can pretty much assume they'll be one of the first to go, since small nations are easy to conquor, and take about a week if you're lazy in doing so. Also, there wouldn't be as much warning - true, you'd probably see and/or hear reports about massing forces, along with diplomacy trying to prevent this happening, but there is little chance of stopping huge invading forces piling across the border and deciding they like your country so much, they'll take it. There are generations in several European countries that have experienced this twice.

Now, with the US, already they have shown vunderability to attacks, BUT nobody has tried invading at any point. The basic reason isn't "because we'd kick their ass", it's because you'd have to either ship troops over, and invade at about 2:30am in every coastal state, and methinks there'd be resistance in most of them, but that leaves the whole landmass in the centre, and of course, how do you stop uprisings? That's the reason China hasn't decided they wanted to invade Australia, even though it is more than possible - the effort itself will be too much, and costly as hell. And, if it fails, it gets probolematic.

GHowever, your idea that it's OK for the US to get genocidal because, hey, France, Germany, England, Japan, Italy, Greece etc. have histories like that is rather futile. For one thing, when England, France and Spain were carving up the world map for themselves, they were the three seats of power in the world, and regularly sparred with each other over who got Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus. But that happened to be several hundred years ago (as in the 19th century), and since then Spain has become one of the poorer nations of Europe, England the butt of most of the jokes (I can see Schroeder laughing at nationals that believe we'll get our Empire back, and join in), and France have incurred the wrath of the US for having an opinion. In the past century, Germany and Japan rose up, and were quashed, yet they have a millstone of shame to carry with their national identity every since (the fact England ruled the world for 300-odd years, caused untold amounts of bloodshed, and invented the Concentration Camp are apparently non-problematic, of course, since we won).

But to think that makes it fine for the US to flesx their muscle as the only Hyperpower on the planet, because everyone else has, is the typical High School morality and emotional discourse that I expect from you. This is the 21st Century, people aren't burning witches any more. The world has been discovered, conquored, and gained independence. There are no savages, none that need to be taught Christianity, and they wouldn't like to work on your plantation, thank you very much. Yet why act like it is? When the New World Order reads thus...

1. America

...there will be problems, especially when they are being controlled by somebody that wants to show why They're Number One at every opportunity he gets, without any moral sense. What's the current line on Iraq: "They had programs that could have made Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons." And? The US has them. France has them. England has them. But what about "Saddam killed his own people!" Ever hear about the Junta in Argentian in the 1970s? Tens of thousands killed by their own Government, but was a finger raised? How about Pinochet in Chile? Oh, a finger was raised - TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT, AND INSTALL HIM AS PREMIER!!!

You see, acts like that are more likely to fuel Anti-American feeling than "Oh, you're just jealous of us." I've posted that list of America's targets post WWII already this week:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=66972&page=4 (Source, Adbusters)

As you may see, those are not peaceful actions, and that is the last 58 years. That isn't history, that is the present, and it makes a hell of a lot of difference. It isn't like the Conquistadores, the Crusaders, or the Roman Army were greeted with open arms at any point. However, at least they kept their affairs to themselves, and didn't dictate what other nations should do. Caesar didn't polarise the globe with statements like "You're either with us, or against us", didn't sell arms to other nations, before wondering why they were having "issues" with their neighbours, and at least he was honest about the reasons he went to war.

no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

Wow, you'd be a great general.
"Yeah, all you men, over the top right into the line of the machinegun."

When you can't fight someone head-on.....you don't.

At 5/19/03 03:27 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

since when were covert bombings a non-military attack? Theyre not wearing civilian clothes, they just take the word camouflage to the extreme. I'm all for patriotism, but dont buy the propaganda, guy. I'm sure if they had tanks and planes they would use them. Lord knows the Japanese did.

At 5/19/03 03:27 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

How come this guy isnt banned yet?

And why are you always bitching about canadians anyways? Do you why we have such a poor military? Thats because we dont need one. Whens the last time you heard of anti-canadians countrys?

check out my signature pic! I did it myself after many trial and error.

nitrous you and redneck are both unfortunatel wrong..

you are wrong for disrespecting the military, redneck is wrong for failing to question the motivations of his government. all in all it is the soldier who comes out morally on top since he or she is the least selfish person on the face of the earth for giving away their lives for an idea.

if only thats how it really worked.. that your life would be given for an idea you truly believed in. i hate to say it redneck but i seriously doubt that every time you pick up a gun and put your life on the line it is for something you believe in. its all very depressing, but nitrous you have no right to criticize a soldier because you are not the one giving up your life.

i criticize the american government without remorse because that is my right and my duty as a citizen.. but i will never, ever criticize a soldier from any nation.

mrpopenfresh: Here's another trial and error- adding the Politics Crew ying yang when you're not a member. Please remove it.

At 5/19/03 03:27 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

Wow, I don't know whether I'm offended by such an idiotic point of view, or whether it may just be so blind that it fails to insult at all. Attacking a nation isn't always supposed to be head-on. What happened on 9-11, while dastardly to the extreme, was genius on the behalf of the organizations that conspired to pull it off.

At 5/19/03 03:27 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

An opinion shared by King Harold in 1066. Pity for him (and the English gentry, that had to spend the next 300 years speaking French) that it didn't work too well in the harsh light of day.

One day, the Mexicans will snap...

At 5/19/03 03:27 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

terrorists are no different than freedom fighters...

the US revolutionary armies used terrorist acts... it all comes down to the easiest way to level the playing field... cuz lets face it, the US shouldve gotten raped by britian... but we used terrorist warfare and the french and the US got the win...

At 5/19/03 03:27 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: no, nobody has the balls to try and attack us, with MILITARY force not TERRORIST.

You don't seem to understand that when we are attacked almost all of the time it is termed as terrorism even when they attacked us in Iraq during the war. The government molds the minds and views of their "loyal" citizens and they like it like that. So call me un-loyal but I am still a citizen…..one that can make up her own mind.

I guess all my points have been taken...
America has its flaws, but I believe that it can live up to its purported greatness if the government is returned to the people. Also, the people need to be informed about American hypocrisy. Once I used to be intolerant about supposed "anti-American" opinions, but I realized that criticizing the government is the most patriotic act one can do. To say that one needs to leave America if they don't agree with its goverment's policy is very ignorant, and promoting mental slavery. I don't want any terrorists in here, but I respect other people's opinions.

Here's a thought that concerns D2K's comment on Pearl Harbor. America does have a habit of nodding off to sleep in the area of military alertness in the homeland during long periods of peace. This happened before WWI, WWII and 9/11. The lesson to be learned from all these examples, however, that although you may be able to pull off a first strike on America, (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.), you have not defeated us, only awakened the sleeping giant....and made the giant very pissed. Yes America was unprepared and caught off guard on these two instances, but we then proceeded to double-time it in making up for lost ground. We went on to beat back Japanese forces all the way to the threshold of the Japanese home islands and we've launched a global campaign to stamp out Al-Qaeda and associated terror groups.

However, the Japanese knew (according to historical records, however useful they are) that they weren't likely to win against the US, but were hoping that if they wiiped out their fleet, they would even up the playing field, and have a chance. If the aircraft carriers were not out at sea, or the Japanese actually used their "super battleships", the complexion could've been somewhat different.

Of course, then the can of worms about the US' involvment in WWII will be opened. But, if Hitler was intent on invading Russia anyway, the War probably would've gone the same way, but lasted a couple more years at the very least. Pardon my tangient.

Better leave it before I consider the entire South American continent teaming up and invading through El Paso...

At 5/20/03 12:54 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

. all in all it is the soldier who comes out morally on top since he or she is the least selfish person on the face of the earth for giving away their lives for an idea.

if only thats how it really worked.. that your life would be given for an idea you truly believed in. i hate to say it redneck but i seriously doubt that every time you pick up a gun and put your life on the line it is for something you believe in. its all very depressing, but nitrous you have no right to criticize a soldier because you are not the one giving up your life.

i will never, ever criticize a soldier from any nation.

Are soldiers paid to die, or paid to kill? Do they train for years to be excellent dying machines, or excellent killing machines? No soldier wants to die for a belief, they only want to kill for one. The problem arises when the other side recprocates. I cannot buy this "holy soldier" concept you are selling, Lyddiechu, simply because the soldiers dream is to come home victorious, not to be a martyr.

Are soldiers paid to die, or paid to kill? Do they train for years to be excellent dying machines, or excellent killing machines? No soldier wants to die for a belief, they only want to kill for one. The problem arises when the other side recprocates. I cannot buy this "holy soldier" concept you are selling, Lyddiechu, simply because the soldiers dream is to come home victorious, not to be a martyr.

soldiers are paid to kill at the risk of their own life. they are martyrs if they die no matter what their intentions are in the first place, since they ultimately always die for an idea (usually that of a corporation.. im not saying being a martyr is a good thing).

true, soldiers to get paid.. but i seriously doubt that anyone joins the military thinking that they are doing it just to make a living without at least a little idealogical thinking going into it. soldiers join the army knowing full well they might have to die for a belief.

heck, i am pro military because it keeps me safe and protects the interests of the country that is responsible for my well-being. however, i think that the force they employ is often misused and misdirected, yet the soldiers have no say in that. i think that soldiers are so selfless because they give themselves up to be the pawns of a system they hope will benefit them. they basically lose control of their fate.

its too bad that oftentimes this system screws the soldiers over (ex.. most people in the military are lower-middle class, guess who is screwing them over? the country they fight for)

in closing i dont think that being a soldier is a great idea if you believe in controlling your own destiny. its tragic, but its about as holy as something can get in the world today.

plus heavy artillery is really, really fun.

At 5/18/03 10:13 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: Every other country acts like they are perfect, please every country has it's fucked up past, America, Canada, France, Germany, England, EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY

Wait a sec.....Canada has a bad past? off the top of my head i cannot think of a horrible past, other than maybe some horrible things we did under the British Monarchy.....but that cannot be directly attributed to Canada, since we were under the control of another Nation.....

As for military preparedness, we fought the "War to end all Wars" before America, starting day one- America took, what, 3 years to join? And WWII, we joined 7 days after Britian did- America joined after they were attacked(how brave). We were one of the largest supporters of Britian- the damn Queen lived in Canada while London was a burning. Canada currently has serveral Battleships outside of Afganistan- why? because Iraq suddenly became alot more dangerous than the war on terror. Canada has fought in the war of 1812, which was started by American Warhawks who believed ruling all of North America was Americas destiny, and we fought back America back to their boarders, not to mentention burned down your white house. And how about your revoltution? you attempted to Invade Canada's french province of Quebec to force them into joining the Americas after they declined to join the revoltution. After a joke of an Attack, they were easily defeated.

So i think Canada does have the right to boast their military strengh, esspecially since we were the only country to go up against The United States Of America and not lose any control over our nation or lose land in anyway- but we now live in a times where a military is less needed, although Americas agressions will most likely cause many Nations to build up their armies to defend against America, if they so choose to defeat their rights.

That's the argument about their nuclear arsenal.

There was another time where two nations decided that, in order to prevent an all-out war, it would be better to arm themselves to the teeth, ergo they would cancel each other out, because they wouldn't want to go to war with each other when faced with such Weapons of Mass Devastation.

The countries? England and Germany. The time? Around 1914. The overall impression of that plan? To quote Edmund Blackadder, "It was bollocks."

At 5/11/03 12:25 AM, JBoneZ wrote: I am sick of people hating their own country(I am talking about the US). It is far from perfect, but I will be damned if there is another country better than th US!-some person I forgot the name of. If they are living in the best country in the world, and they start protesting against its decisions, and hate the country itself, why don't they just...leave?

Does this mean the Cherokee have to leave America because they're angry at America for separating their people into 2 tribes and forcing them out of their original land and sending them down the Trail of Tears and then putting the man responsible for all of that (Andrew Jackson?) on $20 bills?.

Fucking hypocrite.

At 6/24/03 02:10 PM, nailbomb wrote: Does this mean the Cherokee have to leave America because they're angry at America for separating their people into 2 tribes and forcing them out of their original land and sending them down the Trail of Tears and then putting the man responsible for all of that (Andrew Jackson?) on $20 bills?.

Damn right. If those Indians don't like it, they should go back to Africa where they belong.

(Note: That's a joke and if you are a MST3K fanatic you'd REALLY get the joke)

Damn straight, JBoneZ