Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/2/07 04:39 PM, Memorize wrote: Psh, you're just using excuses because you realize the error of your hypocricy.

Are you saying that I should either demand USA to attack every dictatorship in the world or none, without any regard of the current situation, its urgency, and the possible consequences of the military actions, or else I'm a hypocrite?

At 6/2/07 03:29 PM, animehater wrote: I say the rest of the world should just shut the fuck up and leavethe U.S to it's own affairs for it is none of your concern.

If you continue like this i will be.

At 6/2/07 04:54 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

Are you saying that I should either demand USA to attack every dictatorship in the world or none,

You have to start somewhere.

Where the UN fails, others should fix.

or else I'm a hypocrite?

Considering darfur has even less to do with us than Iraq (since before the invasion), then yes.

At 6/2/07 05:07 PM, Memorize wrote: Considering darfur has even less to do with us than Iraq (since before the invasion), then yes.

I see. So the leading nation of the free world chooses its military targets based on its own national interests, rather than the actual need for military intervention in the area.

At 6/2/07 06:56 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

I see. So the leading nation of the free world chooses its military targets based on its own national interests, rather than the actual need for military intervention in the area.

Considering Saddam violated several UN treaties and resolutions ranging from illegal weapons, torture, genocide, and the peacetreaty 17 times; I'd say he was a good target.

Not to mention attacking US allies.

At 6/2/07 07:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/2/07 06:56 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

I see. So the leading nation of the free world chooses its military targets based on its own national interests, rather than the actual need for military intervention in the area.

Considering Saddam violated several UN treaties and resolutions ranging from illegal weapons, torture, genocide, and the peacetreaty 17 times; I'd say he was a good target.

Not to mention attacking US allies.

Are you concerned with how expensive these actions are and that we actually do have to pay for them eventually.

At 6/2/07 07:27 PM, Memorize wrote: Considering Saddam violated several UN treaties and resolutions ranging from illegal weapons, torture, genocide, and the peacetreaty 17 times; I'd say he was a good target.

Not to mention attacking US allies.

Well, that's nice, but Saddam's dead and we're still there, so you're gonna have to either come up with a better reason for the war or admit that the whole thing's been one giant clusterfuck.

At 6/3/07 12:33 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

Well, that's nice, but Saddam's dead and we're still there, so you're gonna have to either come up with a better reason for the war or admit that the whole thing's been one giant clusterfuck.

How about trying to get the Sheits and the Sunnies to get along with one another?

At 6/3/07 12:36 AM, slackerzac wrote: How about trying to get the Sheits and the Sunnies to get along with one another?

And we have to be Iraq's kindergarten teacher because.....

At 6/3/07 12:47 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

And we have to be Iraq's kindergarten teacher because....

There acting like kindergarteners. Only more voilent and for peity differences on how you should bow to mecca.

At 6/3/07 12:36 AM, slackerzac wrote: How about trying to get the Sheits and the Sunnies to get along with one another?

Not a valid reason to go to war in Iraq.

Before the invasion Saddam actually had the different groups under a decent amount of control. It is only after he was removed from power that problems between the two became troublesome to the level they are currently at.

At 6/3/07 06:21 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:36 AM, slackerzac wrote: How about trying to get the Sheits and the Sunnies to get along with one another?

Not a valid reason to go to war in Iraq.

It is one of the legitimate reasons for staying in Iraq.

But wait... trying to get the Shiites and the Sunnis to get along isn't a valid reason for intervention or continued intervention? But getting the Janjaweed Arabs and the Black Sudanese to get along IS a reason to get involved in Darfur?

First of all, why is one worthy of the effort, but one not? What - other than blatant and blinding political bias - causes you to criticize policing one civil war, while you criticize the reluctance to police another? There is no real reason, no rationale in it. It's just people perceive two similar situations differently due to a logic overriding bias. You evolve your views in order to maintain any conceivable negative interpretation of US actions.

There is a positive and negative of everything the US does or refrains from doing. You emphasize the negative and ignore the positive or potential positive.

Secondly, the US is doing far more than any other country to help the situation in Sudan in the first place. The US has provided more aide in terms of food and supplies to the refugees. The US has also proposed and engineered basically every form of international action against the Sudanese government, both UN, and private financial sanctions. But the US can't do what some people are proposing, of a full-blown US military intervention. A) It would be blocked by China and Russia who financial interests in Sudan B) It would result in even FURTHER criticism of US actions.

The US is being attacked for not doing something, yet if the US did do it, those very same people would change their stance and attack the US for doing it, labeling the deed as further imperialism or use of hyperpower.

Meanwhile, what the fuck has the international community done? What has the EU done? What has Canada done? Hmmm? Why aren't the supposedly benevolent soft powers doing anything, all while expecting the US to do it while criticizing the us SIMULTANEOUSLY for doing a similar thing elsewhere?

The hypocritical, and inconsistent bombardment of international criticism against US action concerning Darfur is getting ridiculous.

"America, GTFO out of Iraq even though it will mean chaos!!!"
"Oh yeah, and America, why aren't you HELPING THE SUDANESE PEOPLE???"

Both views are entirely fucking flawed, misguided, and utterly hypocritical. Put them together and it validates the theory that the mindset of modern liberals constitutes a mental disease.

Before the invasion Saddam actually had the different groups under a decent amount of control.

Yes, under a totalitarian control in which instead of militias fighting militias, the killing was taking place almost exclusively by the hands Iraqi Sunni Baathists government forces against the population. The US took the regime out of power, and the change in power acted as an equalizer for the Shiites to get back at them. It's a negative byproduct of freedom. But it's still worth it.

It is only after he was removed from power that problems between the two became troublesome to the level they are currently at.

Actually, the trouble was just less covered and less noticeable. It got less attention because nobody cared about it at the time. There were no reliable statistics or news coverage of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Therefore, it only seems more troublesome now because the US is involved and can be blamed by it.

It may have been more stable back then, but it wasn't really better, unless you consider having a singular brutal murderous dictator exacting his will on innocent civilians to be better than having a power struggle between a democratically elected government and various militants.

At 6/3/07 07:24 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But wait... trying to get the Shiites and the Sunnis to get along isn't a valid reason for intervention or continued intervention? But getting the Janjaweed Arabs and the Black Sudanese to get along IS a reason to get involved in Darfur?

I never said we should be leaving Iraq, I'm actually in favour in staying there. I don't want to cut and run.

First of all, why is one worthy of the effort, but one not? What - other than blatant and blinding political bias - causes you to criticize policing one civil war, while you criticize the reluctance to police another?

Because at the time of the Iraq Invasion the situation in Darfur was worse than the situation in Iraq. It is not blind political bias, but simply a matter of priorities.

There is no real reason, no rationale in it. It's just people perceive two similar situations differently due to a logic overriding bias. You evolve your views in order to maintain any conceivable negative interpretation of US actions.

I LIKE the the USA. I think you have one the best governmental systems in the world. I like a lot of things the USA produces. I hold the same ideals that the US was founded on. Democracy, equality and freedom. Don't generalise, it just makes you look stupid.

There is a positive and negative of everything the US does or refrains from doing. You emphasize the negative and ignore the positive or potential positive.

Where have I done that. Find me an example where I have done this. The positives for going into Iraq are that we got rid of a dictator, a good things yes, I agree, and now we are there I don't think we should leave till we can ensure that democracy prevails there. But that doesn't mean that I can't believe there were more pressing problems to deal with.

And what's the positive on not getting involved in Darfur?

Secondly, the US is doing far more than any other country to help the situation in Sudan in the first place. The US has provided more aide in terms of food and supplies to the refugees. The US has also proposed and engineered basically every form of international action against the Sudanese government, both UN, and private financial sanctions. But the US can't do what some people are proposing, of a full-blown US military intervention. A) It would be blocked by China and Russia who financial interests in Sudan B) It would result in even FURTHER criticism of US actions.

I am aware of this, and I approve of what the US is currently doing, but more could and needs to be done in way or the other. That's what I'm complaining about.

The US is being attacked for not doing something, yet if the US did do it, those very same people would change their stance and attack the US for doing it, labeling the deed as further imperialism or use of hyperpower.

Yes because Humanitarian missions are so unpopular...

The reason Iraq is unpopular is because it wasn't about humanitarianism. It was about George Bush securing some kind of lasting legacy and finishing what his Daddy started.

Meanwhile, what the fuck has the international community done? What has the EU done? What has Canada done? Hmmm? Why aren't the supposedly benevolent soft powers doing anything, all while expecting the US to do it while criticizing the us SIMULTANEOUSLY for doing a similar thing elsewhere?

The Governments of that are in control within the 'soft powers' are not necessarily representatives of the peoples beliefs.

Actions taken by them may not be what the people want.

Basing the beliefs of an entire continent, or an entire nation on what their government does is stupid. It would be like saying, 'Hey the US went to Vietnam, so...all the US citizenry must be must have been in favour of it!'

We, the people, criticise you, the US, because you have the capability to do so much more, yet you don't. And in my opinion,those who have the capability to help, SHOULD.

Yes, under a totalitarian control in which instead of militias fighting militias, the killing was taking place almost exclusively by the hands Iraqi Sunni Baathists government forces against the population. The US took the regime out of power, and the change in power acted as an equalizer for the Shiites to get back at them. It's a negative byproduct of freedom. But it's still worth it.

I agree, it is worth it, but the fact that there wasn't the degree of religious conflict in Iraq before the invasion means that it can not be used to justify the invasion itself.

Actually, the trouble was just less covered and less noticeable. It got less attention because nobody cared about it at the time. There were no reliable statistics or news coverage of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Therefore, it only seems more troublesome now because the US is involved and can be blamed by it.

<eye roll>

Yes because everything that goes wrong in the world is obviously perceived by us Dirty Liberals as the US's fault.

Whilst what you say may be true, and yes Saddam's regime did do some very fucked up stuff, he was a SECULAR dictator. From my udnerstanding suppressed religion, but he suppressed them all equally to so speak. He killed indiscriminately, regardless of whether they were Sunni or Shiite.

It may have been more stable back then, but it wasn't really better, unless you consider having a singular brutal murderous dictator exacting his will on innocent civilians to be better than having a power struggle between a democratically elected government and various militants.

I never said it was better. I actually agree that a power struggle between insurgents and a democratically elected government is a better situation to be in. So where you're basing this idea that I'm somehow in favour of Saddams regime is beyond me.

At 6/2/07 11:54 PM, AdamRice wrote:

Are you concerned with how expensive these actions are and that we actually do have to pay for them eventually.

Our debt, in comparison to places like Japan and Canada, is lower.

Try percetange based on the size of the economies.

At 6/3/07 12:33 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

Well, that's nice, but Saddam's dead and we're still there, so you're gonna have to either come up with a better reason for the war or admit that the whole thing's been one giant clusterfuck.

No shit. How many of you stupid people actually thought everything would be nice and easy after Saddam was killed?

I'd love to know how many of you morons there really are.

You know, every time you idiots keep calling it a "clusterfuck" (honestly, how many times is that word going to be used), i'm going to refer you to a site created by someone in Iraq and an interview with him.

Site: link
Interview: link

At 6/1/07 08:20 PM, JakeHero wrote: Nonamerican asshole: "You fucking americans are imperialists. You shouldn't of invaded Iraq! Don't stick your nose in other people's business!"

two years later

Same nonamerican asshole: "You fucking americans only care about yourselves! You should help Darfur!"

Well in all respect part of that could have to do with america bombing darfur and then doing nothing about it...... i dunno im just spit balling........

At 6/3/07 12:36 AM, slackerzac wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:33 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

Well, that's nice, but Saddam's dead and we're still there, so you're gonna have to either come up with a better reason for the war or admit that the whole thing's been one giant clusterfuck.

How about trying to get the Sheits and the Sunnies to get along with one another?

Uh i doubt that will ever happen their hatred runs generations upon generations deep...

Pretty soon, there will be a world war where it is everyone against the USA, Great Britain, and Israel.

Hopefully that never happens.

At 7/6/07 02:44 PM, trojanhippie wrote: Hopefully that never happens.

Yeah, because America would pwn every other world power.

You're the dumbest fuck ever. Obviously Iraq and all the other middle eastern countries have had something to do w/ bin laden so you need to read up on history, duh!

At 7/7/07 10:58 AM, cheriberry80 wrote: You're the dumbest fuck ever. Obviously Iraq and all the other middle eastern countries have had something to do w/ bin laden so you need to read up on history, duh!

Iraq has absolutely no links to 9/11. Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden. We are in Afghanistan for Bin Laden, and we're supposedly in Iraq for WMDs.

though this might sound a little crazy, I love george bush and everyhing that is america. WHY? simply because everyone else hates him and thinks he's stupid. I love bieng different, and if it means supporting George W Bush, then so be it! viva la insanity!

We should go back to isolationism. When we interfere, someone's going to hate us. Keep to our selfs, then when we get attacked, kick ass.

It's not often times the exact same people making the demands for action in one country and a pull-out in another, but the groups themselfs are intertwined in the category of individuals who are disatisfied with the united states.

There's really nothing you can do, 6 billion people on the planet; you cant be everything to everyone.

1) but why do you hate america?

2)who has yelled at us?

eh what do you expect, people see the front of america where we are a great country, and miss the part where america has a lot of complicated problems that cant be taken care of easily.

Uncle Sam wielding a double edged sword... AND THEN NINJAS ATTACK!!!

But seriously, I wouldn't think anyone would mind if America took an isolationist standpoint. If America can not have any allies or enemies, and the only ties to the outside world are economic, I think we'd be a lot better off. We can nuke the shit out of anyone who decides to fuck with us, so we're okay isolated.

gah, you people are like broken fucking records. quit telling us what we already know. even though you said not to pull the 'don't like it, get out' card, we practically have to. if you're not going to contribute in helping to change this country's problems, then either start helping and stop bitching - or - get the fuck out - because you're existance as an american consumer contributes to the exact opposite of the goal you say you want to achieve

sorry but George Washington once said to not get caught in European's toils with mean don't get involved with the rest of the world if we do that it is better because

1. we do not get involed with a war where noting happened to us to get in that war
2. no countries will hate us because we did nothing to them
3. we can focus money on finding cures for cancer, aids and other stuff.
4. we can get a even better economy
5. we can focus on technology and get a very good defense set up.

and there are other things that are good about not being involved with the rest of the world.

Don't wanna be an American... wait...

The U.S. is a great country and they save our ass 2 times before, but america has NEVER helped anyone without getting profit theirselves. For example: d-day wasn't actually needed to beat the germans in the second world war, because Russia had almost taken Berlin, the reason for this is that if they didn't free Europe theirselves (now i mean Britain and the U.S.), Russia may have taken almost entire Europe and thus the cold war may have gone slightly diffirent. Not that i blame them, i don't recall any country helping other countries without obligation or profit chances.
The people who are yelling at you guys the most are extremists eastern guys, pacifists (cuz you sometimes seem to get the urge of seeing bombing as a solution for everything) and some 'moral' guys who complain about things they call 'decadention'.
I don't think USA is bad, but you guys definetly have a bad attitude at some point. Some americans i've met seem to know everything about the world, but later on that world seems to be no bigger than the USA. So many of you guys don't even KNOW anything about any other place than the US. It may be a big country, but it's not the world. So try to know what you talk about before you do.
about interventing in other country's affairs. now matter what you do, someone is gonna yell at you for it. That's just the way it is. Anything that anyone does, has it's purpose. If terrorists start acting up, it means some guys have something bigger (and badder) in mind than just blowing up buildings, busses, metros... Keep that in mind, it can be even more dangerous than it looks. and about iraq and israel, Bush probably had his reasons of getting influence there, even tough i'm happy to hear yet another dictator is out of the way.
Don't harras me for being nonamerican