Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/10/08 03:15 PM, machacker2000 wrote: I mean, it's the same bag of greaseballs who bombed us 4 times.

What, you're seriously suggesting the entire nation of Iraq supports Al Queda?

You're a funny guy, you know that.

At 2/12/08 04:02 PM, AznWarlord wrote:

Owned.

Alright, normally I despise making more than one post in a thread in a day, but I make exceptions for smugness.

First of all, some portion of the bombs are thrown at our troops. Civilian dies in the attack. Yes, it's the fault of the terrorist. But it would not have happened if we weren't there.

Secondly, sectarian violence. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, and persecuted people that weren't from his sect. Sometimes, that involved killings. Now, with him gone, the sects of radical Islam are fighting each other, resulting in more civilian casualties than if we weren't there.

Yes, the terrorists are possibly at fault. But, if a crazy person escapes an kills someone, who do you blame: the nut, or the guard who was asleep on the job?

At 2/12/08 04:24 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

Yes, the terrorists are possibly at fault. But, if a crazy person escapes an kills someone, who do you blame: the nut, or the guard who was asleep on the job?

If a crazy person escaped, we wouldn't blame anyone until he was stopped.

One more point for my side.

It benefits Al-Qaeda

Every bomb we throw in combat is PR boost for the terrorists.

You're a 20ish Iraqi man living a fairly shitty life under Saddam. Then, one day, the Americans bomb your house trying to oust him, and your entire family dies. Al-Qaeda says that they want to stop the Americans. Would you join? I would, and I think most people would as well.

At 2/12/08 02:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Pathetic. You're an idiot.

ha ha ha ha you actually responded to my list and tried to justify them, even blaming dems for some of their failures.

pathetic. You're and idiot.

At 2/12/08 07:42 AM, Imperator wrote: Now which part of that 'bullshit' don't you believe now, considering it's the consensus of 16 spy agencies....OUR agencies, might I add?

Summary view of all three articles:

Al Quida is expanding at the same time our war on terror is going on.

I don't believe that killing our enemies or actively protecting ourselves makes our enemy stronger. None of your links offer any proof that our actions are strengthening our enemy. Since our enemies have been recruiting people into their cause for decades, the fact that people are still signing up means nothing.

Corroaltion =/= causation.

At 2/12/08 02:28 PM, Empanado wrote: The same article states that, other than Iraqi officals meeting with Bin Laden to secure his cease of support to anti-Saddam insurgents, there were no significant ties confirmed - training camps, resources, guns - nothing substantial.

Gotcha, meetings to cease hostilities don't count as "ties". What a load of crap.

The point remains that, while there might exist valid reasons to support the attack on Iraq, the ones claimed by the OP are moronic, and people still clinging to them do nothing more than raise disinformation and make even more of a mess of things, as far as public opinion goes.

If you say so.

At 2/12/08 04:46 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: ha ha ha ha you actually responded to my list and tried to justify them, even blaming dems for some of their failures.

Teddy Kennedy authored No Child Left Behind. Sorry, you don't get a free pass on bullshit. "It's all Bush's fault (even tho it was written by liberals). ALL BUSH!" Shove off.

pathetic. You're and idiot.

You blamed Bush. I pointed out it was liberals. You laughed.
I'm still right. You're still stupid.

At 2/12/08 07:42 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/12/08 02:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 2/10/08 03:55 PM, Imperator wrote: Moreover the War in Iraq has made the War on Terror worse, as cited by the 9/11 Commission Report, and the CIA themselves.....

Absolute Bullshit

thanks for playing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15024576/
same story, different source.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/2 4/iraq/main2036338.shtml
Ok, I've covered my three sources.

Now which part of that 'bullshit' don't you believe now, considering it's the consensus of 16 spy agencies....OUR agencies, might I add?

Let's also look at the fact that the NIE is wrong (by their own estimate) at least 50% of the time. This is the agency that claimed Saddam had nukes, then later claimed he hadn't had a single WMD since we invaded in 91. They claimed Iran was about 18 months away from nuclear weapons, then later claimed that they didn't even have the capability to make fissile material.

Let's also point out that we were attacked dozens of times before 9/11, and none since.

Let's also point out that al Quida is in retreat all over Afghanistan and Iraq, where they were flourishing before.

Let's acknowledge that we've killed tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq alone, and a good number in Afghanistan.

How about that when we invaded Iraq, several surrounding countries disbanded their weapons programs.

But hell, I guess if you construe "getting worse" to show that we weren't fighting before 9/11 and now we are, then, hell, you're right!

At 2/12/08 05:07 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 2/12/08 02:28 PM, Empanado wrote: The same article states that, other than Iraqi officals meeting with Bin Laden to secure his cease of support to anti-Saddam insurgents, there were no significant ties confirmed - training camps, resources, guns - nothing substantial.

Gotcha, meetings to cease hostilities don't count as "ties". What a load of crap.

They're not substantial ties - or at least, not the kind of ties that counts in a phrase such as "war on Iraq was ok because they had ties with Al Qaeda"

Actual ties worthy of notice would be if the Iraqi government had provided any sort of resources to Bin Laden - training camps, military equipment, logistics - you know, all those things that they didn't give. Osama, as stated in the article, only granted the meeting because he wanted to boost his rep in Sudan - a completely external reason. It's like saying that the US has ties with North Korea because it hasn't attacked it yet.

At 2/12/08 04:28 PM, AznWarlord wrote:
If a crazy person escaped, we wouldn't blame anyone until he was stopped.

Well the real life counterpart of my hypothetical crazy guy blew himself up already.

At 2/13/08 06:11 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Well the real life counterpart of my hypothetical crazy guy blew himself up already.

You would blame both.

It was an illegal undeclared war, based on evidence which turned out to be false. Now, if they had backed out once they realised there were no weapons of mass destruction, that would be a wise thing to do. But they didn't, because the big defence contractors and oil companies run America, and without war, these companies do not reep in billions of dollars worth of profits.

How anyone can NOT oppose the war is disgusting. You people need to do some good, hard research beyond the propoganda that Fox Newsspits at you.

At 2/13/08 07:18 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It was an illegal undeclared war, based on evidence which turned out to be false.

Your right, it was a undeclared 'war', based on evidence which wasn't true.
But it is legal.

At 2/13/08 07:08 AM, SuperDeagle wrote:
You would blame both.

Precisely!

Your right, it was a undeclared 'war', based on evidence which wasn't true.
But it is legal.

No it isn't. The US has already submitted itself to (and used) the vast majority of International Law, having violated this (through the crime of aggression (which was defined in both the Nuremberg trials and by the UN in the 1970s)) makes the war illegal. Issues of national sovereignty do not apply when the precedents of International Law are properly applied.

What's with all this arguing? Theres a simple solution. Withdraw all troops and send a couple of nukes in. Any other country whines about it, give them a nuke too.

Let's also look at the fact that the NIE is wrong (by their own estimate) at least 50% of the time.

How convenient. Source is now not credible, because it doesn't fit your views. Or is that just coincidence?

So when they also say Iran is an imminent threat (or any threat), maybe I'm actually correct in blowing them off?

Why do we even have NIEs if they're so unpredictable?

In any case, I think the NIE is just about as official and as accredited a source as I can get here, it's the consensus of all 16 US spy agencies, I'm not gonna do any better. I dunno, would you take Mike Scheuer as a source then? I'm out of options here if you're throwing out the top spy report available to the public......

Anyways, I don't think it's rocket science to figure out Iraq probably hurt our War on Terror. In their eyes (Mid East eyes that is) we've invaded a Muslim country without provocation, and now occupy it, putting in Western culture and values. I'm not so old as to not remember that nearly every Muslim country was at our throats in 2003 for invading, and that Osama might have gained a few friggin recruits as a result. I really don't think that's any sort of stretch or logical leap there, and in that sense I think the NIE was correct. To what EXTENT it was correct might be a better objection than saying they're wrong in saying Iraq made the War on Terror worse.

At 2/13/08 08:15 AM, hippl5 wrote: What's with all this arguing? Theres a simple solution. Withdraw all troops and send a couple of nukes in. Any other country whines about it, give them a nuke too.

NUCLEAR WINTER LOL!!!!!

guys, Iraq has suffered from war and domestic violence since biblical times. If we dont try to keep our grip on the middle east and destroy al-queda and all like it, it will become once again like darfur. Although what the US should do in my opinion, is 1. Fix our economy, 2. Secure the borders and 3. Build an army for the eventual WWIII where China and Russia will try to take over the world.

At 2/13/08 08:15 AM, hippl5 wrote: What's with all this arguing? Theres a simple solution. Withdraw all troops and send a couple of nukes in. Any other country whines about it, give them a nuke too.

Please tell me you are jokeing.

At 2/13/08 08:10 PM, arcansi wrote: guys, Iraq has suffered from war and domestic violence since biblical times. If we dont try to keep our grip on the middle east and destroy al-queda and all like it, it will become once again like darfur.

True something must be done about it but a tactical withdraw is still in order. Our initial strategy isn't working and the people want the troops back.

Although what the US should do in my opinion, is 1. Fix our economy, 2. Secure the borders and 3. Build an army for the eventual WWIII where China and Russia will try to take over the world.

Where did this crazy WWIII thing come from? Why would China and Russia try to take over the world?

The terrorists want to kill americans so they will eventually come to America.

The only problem is that we all know a full-scale invasion would fail big time in America. So how will they strike us? Nuclear weapons.

I realize that these people only claim to be doing good for the world, despite that they're doing the opposite.

At 2/12/08 02:51 PM, ScreamiNSemeN wrote:

HAHAHA! Are you fucking serious? Maybe do a little research into the past 50 years. You'll see it's been considerably more than 4 times even. And hijacked planes by filthy stinking middle eastern faggots are not a new thing for 2001 either.

Actually, no. You'll see the correct number is zero times.

At 2/12/08 05:02 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

Corroaltion =/= causation.

Oh, oooooooooh oh oh oh oh, recite your signature, recite your signature!!!

At 2/15/08 06:17 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

OH, OH OH, don't address his argument!

What the fuck are you talking about?

At 2/15/08 07:33 PM, Cisco-Delgado wrote: He lowered the taxes for the rich people, when he should have lowered it for EVERYONE!

That was a bad move, it only contributed to increase the differences between the different social classes in the USA.

... When did this happen?

Maybe I think that violence is wrong.

What's wrong with that.

Seems like a logical thing.

We have these huge brains.

And this ability to communicate.

Do we use this ability.

No, never.

aggression is also a form of communication.

At 2/17/08 01:06 AM, SolInvictus wrote: aggression is also a form of communication.

Yes it is.

But since I said I was against violence obviously I wasn't talking about that form of communication, Mr. Word Picker. I.e. I have nothing to say, I will point out a minor flaw in your post.

Violence is fucking disgusting if you support the killing of other people I really have nothing to say to you.