Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

It's the fact that, while George W. Bush may not have spiked the ball into the Trade Centers, he sure as hell ran with it when those buildings went down. He ran with the ball through Afghanistan and Iraq, ran with it over the Constitution and civil liberties of so many Americans, ran with it through the U.N. and all to every senseless direction hereafter.

---

At 9/20/03 05:26 PM, OSC wrote:

At 9/20/03 05:22 PM, OSC wrote:

At 9/20/03 06:38 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: They've already sold Coca-cola International Airport (yes, formerly known as Saddam International) and the oil-fields are...

HOLD THE PHONE!!! Coca-cola International Airport??? Are you fucking kidding me??

Nevermind. I now see the comment was in sarcasm or something like that. However, I'd like to point out how little faith I have in humanity since for a few minutes I actually believed that.

OSC, the uncanny thing about calling myself Judge is that a mild form of precognition seems to run in my family (whether peolple believe that or not is for events to decide) But sure, that post was entirely in jest -off the top of my head as they say. But here's the strange thing; I didn't even know that the World Bank AND IMF were holding a conference in Dubai on Iraqs future until it was announced on BBC news about half an hour ago. The headlines were almost exactly along the lines of my joke text (maybe we share the same lack of faith in humanity ;)

i'll compare from memory koz both the BBC website and Google News references haven't listed the summary of details just announced from Dubai;

:The US Troops are just cleaning up before all the buyers arrive.

apparently spot on. They've decided that any foreign company can own 100% of ANY Iraqi business including their 5 main trading banks.

and the oil-fields are also up for tender.

not correct. They've chosen to exclude oil at this stage (but we know that certain Texan companies are contracted already)

They've already sold Coca-cola International Airport.

ok, i was trying to think something thirst quenching and the abbrieviantion C.I.A. sounded good -hehe!

Even the estimated 130 billion dollars worth of Iraqi National debt has been re-financed several times over by the World Bank and is likely to be snapped up by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

this wasn't mentioned, but suffice to say that both Organizations are heavily involved in negotiations already.

which estimates it'll re-coup the balance in interest alone within 50 to 60 years as oil-4-debt repayments.

we'll have to wait for such details to be released.

Ph33r not, America will turn a nice profit, and all coalition countries will get a decent slice of the pie!

They specifically said that the decision to totally sell off of Iraqi industries is a direct attempt to underwrite reconstruction (quote attributed to a US official)

..Well, what started purely as a joke has suddenly become news headlines. Did anyone notice me put a predictions quote in my sig two days ago :]

*chalks another 1 up for the Judges*

---

At 9/21/03 02:11 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: Pearl Harbour - a surprise attack! [even despite having the best military radar equipment of the day?!]

The gov nknew something was coming from Japan, but did not know where. If they could have prevented it, they would have.

now what else did these events have in common? Both were expecting one of two possible outcomes; some sort of admission of personal moral fault - or - a complete overreaction response!

When someone starts maliciously killing Americans, we're gonna start cracking skulls. We have the best military, why not use it in defense of the country?

The massive fleet amassed in Pearl Harbour (that the Japanese well knew about i might add) represented a clear and present threat to Japans own sovereignty. The WTC towers on the other hand, represented everything undemocratic about global financial domination by 1 nation. The anticipated response in both cases was surely the latter case (a complete over-reaction and war) Osama coulda bet money that Bush (Junior) would go guns blazing! (..and sure enough he did)

You seem to imply that taking out (or at the very least
routing them from Afghanistan) was a bad thing.
And what about Chinese sovereignty? Did the Japanese have a right to invade China? They were the bad guys in that war, if you haven't noticed.

You also imply that going to war with Japan was unjustified. What should we have done? Stood back while they destroyed our military like a bunch of pacifist hippies?

So i ask you, who has the moral highground? The one brandishing the biggest stick? or the one who taps America on the shoulder by way of saying "hey, what are you intending to do with all this overwhelming super-power?"

You go to the crying families of the victims of 9/11 and tell them that the loss of their loved one was morally justified.

---

"You go to the crying families of the victims of 9/11 and tell them that the loss of their loved one was morally justified."

the problem with that is is that there are SO many fewer families that have to grieve for wrongly murdered relatives in america than iraq. i think it's about 5 times as much. you go tell an iraqi mother that the US soldiers gunning down her son for no reason was justified. or you go tell the sister of the teacher in the school in bagdhad that was bombed to the ground by the US (a SCHOOL!) that her death was justified.

---

At 9/21/03 11:21 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/21/03 02:11 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: Pearl Harbour - a surprise attack! [even despite having the best military radar equipment of the day?!]

The gov knew something was coming from Japan, but did not know where. If they could have prevented it, they would have.

So maybe, just maybe, the Japanese had the same impression reversed, AND DID ACT to prevent it!Hasn't that ever crossed your mind before?? America might have been the good guys up until Pearl Harbor, but the Japanese had every right to be concerned about the massive military expenditure looming on it's doorstep.

..a complete overreaction response!

When someone starts maliciously killing Americans, we're gonna start cracking skulls. We have the best military, why not use it in defense of the country?

is this regarding 9-11? America wasn't attacked by an opposing government (it's a common misconception that the Taliban or Saddam regime were somehow directly involved)

Such an impressive militarty machine is only useful against a similarly sized militay might (cold-war style) but has never before proved an effective treatment against a mountain or forest of city based rebel army (remember the Russians tried and failed) - i suppose you think the US troops are more suited to the task? well, in your hollywood dreams maybe it's so :)

Osama coulda bet money that Bush (Junior) would go guns blazing! (..and sure enough he did)

You seem to imply that taking out (or at the very least routing them from Afghanistan) was a bad thing.

I'm saying that everything is going to Osama's plan.

they were not routed, they melted into the towns and villages and surrounding countryside. Infact, it could be argued that their numbers increased as a result of the arial slaughter of all those attending a wedding party (between 50 or 100 innocent ppl died last we heard)

And what about Chinese sovereignty? Did the Japanese have a right to invade China? They were the bad guys in that war, if you haven't noticed.

The USA did NOT go to war to save the Chinese. The British tried to make a stand at Singapore but gave up on protecting their enclave, as troops were more needed in Europe and Africa. It was the WHOLE WORLD AT WAR remember!!
Even countries like Russia signed up to Hitlers expansionistic assault early on - and America didn't even go to save their British kin-folk until the tide of war had pretty much turned, so how do you suggest they were in the Pacific just to help save China from it's small neighbour?

You also imply that going to war with Japan was unjustified. What should we have done? Stood back while they destroyed our military like a bunch of pacifist hippies?

NO! America N-U-K-ING 2 Japanese cities when (as already mentioned) Japan was already finally preparing to surrender WAS unjustified.

You go to the crying families of the victims of 9/11 and tell them that the loss of their loved one was morally justified.

9-11 was a horrendous criminal act that killed 2 or 3 thousand people - perpetrated mostly by SAUDI NATIONALS - how does that morally justify INVADING and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq ..and all that other stuff that JMHX mentions???

---

At 9/21/03 01:35 AM, adrshepard wrote: GAH! stop quoting bowling for Columbine!!! The civilian stats are misleading,

Are you saying that those numbers, taken from UN, CIA and Amnesty International reports, aren't accurate?

GAH!

---

Man, are people ever brainwashed! What a joke. I just can't believe how someone could make such a statement as the one that man did in your local newspaper.

"They should pay us"

Gah!(felt like using it)

---

"..so why clean your own streets when you can contract out to foreign companies and pay them with oil."

the news agencies have finally just detailed the newly announced laws on foreign commerce in Iraq;

-The U.S. official noted the open-ended foreign investment proposals did not require any screening process -- something he said the Iraqis had requested -- which would make investment there more alluring to foreigners. "There is no screening committee. There is no way for a sort of niggling process to grab hold of your ankle and chew on it," he said.

-Foreign investors cannot own real estate but can lease property for 40 years under the new rules.

-"You can make money in a country like Iraq," the U.S. official said. "You don't have to have everything be perfect to make money."

-The reforms also include a free transfer of foreign exchange earnings for investors, full central bank independence and relatively free entry for foreign banks into Iraq.

-New bank rules were signed in Iraq Saturday, the U.S. official said. Six foreign banks will get "fast-track" entry into Iraq and full ownership of local banks within five years.

-"We are going to have a separate and early ... process to select two of those banks. And we are going to ask those banks to do substantial lending early," he said.
Other foreign banks would be allowed 50 percent stakes in local banks.

-The new laws also slash top marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations to 15 percent from a prior 45 percent, the U.S. official said.

-Iraq will also slap a five percent surcharge on all imports except for humanitarian goods like food, medicine and books. The CPA had earlier declared a tariff-free, open-border regime in Iraq that was to last to the end of 2003.

---
so what does everyone think about all this "freedom" of foreign ownership?

---

As the official BBS Fascist, I am all for domination by terror. That terror being the fear of the US's military and financial might. How else can the entire world be united under one government, one morality, one language, and one currency? Globalization is the first stage in the phasing out of the government. You didn't really think the utopic anarchy/technocratic autarchy came FIRST, did you?

"Buy in, sell out, or be destroyed."

---

We all know the American plan of ruling Iraq with 100 000 troops is working out so well for them. What next storm troopers. Stop making rules that will basically allow American companies to own Iraq so it will become your puppet, then maybe people wont be so mad (both in Iraq and around the globe). I mean what good will come of foriegn banks taking over control of the Iraqi banks?

---

At 9/22/03 04:26 PM, punk_disease wrote:

At 9/21/03 01:35 AM, adrshepard wrote: GAH! stop quoting bowling for Columbine!!! The civilian stats are misleading,

Are you saying that those numbers, taken from UN, CIA and Amnesty International reports, aren't accurate?

GAH!

No, I'm saying that too many people use them to say that the US is such a horrible country when so many other countries, especially European countries, have had their own share of little wars, and you don't see any posts on why those countries suck.

---

At 9/22/03 05:38 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: What a joke. I just can't believe how someone could make such a statement as the one that man did in your local newspaper.. "They should pay us"

i heard yesterday (ABC News) that Bush's request for $20 Billion reconstruvtion funding is now going to be revised as a $10 Billion loan to be repaid in oil exports. This goes totally against Bushs sworn pledge that the war was not to take Iraqi oil out of Iraqi hands.

It's not like they are giving the Iraqis $10 Billion to spend as they want.. NO, it's all pre-spent thru American companies that have close ties to the White House.

As was stated on BBC News, that makes America like an amred robber, invading a sovereign state with absolute superior weaponry just to claim the spoils. It also puts America entirely at odds with Russia and China whom already have large contracts with Iraqi mechants for a post-sanction marketplace in oil production.

How totally disgusting!!!!!!