Messages

I'm having trouble piecing this together. You say the Iraq war is a step in the right direction of removing Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment in the region. But surveys from the British military in September 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing presence of coalition troops. By these statistics, doesn't that logically mean the very presence of US troops in Iraq is actually generating more Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment?

Yeah this is late, but I just happened to read this post.

Anyway, yes, the Iraqi people want us out... I don't have exact figures, but last I heard most polls the majority of US people wanted us out... Well why aren't we out? Two words... The Governments.

The Iraqi government hasn't asked us to leave (to my knowledge), and Bush doesn't want us to leave. Therefore, the troops are staying. End of Line (Tron reference, not arrogance).

Understandibly, but you do realise that the same purpose for fighting the war (to stop Anti-American sentiment in the region) is actually doing the opposite (creating more Anti-American sentiment)? That's was more my point, the hypocrisy of the purpose.

No, I don't beleive that had the US invaded before September 11th that the attack would have ceased, in fact, it may have been accelerated.

Thanks for answering this, though I should mention that the comments about linking the Democrats with the terrorists was me going off on a tangent and wasn't specifically aimed at you.

I'm from Brizzy.

What I am really talking about is about the bombings in markets, police stations, mosques and civilian neigbourhoods. You are talking about resistance agains an invading country (and I agree, that a certain degree of annoyance is "normal") and the other is to volutarilly start a civil war when you have the first opportunity in decades to have peace.

I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish. No matter if you say no, and you win some internet debates because that war has been provoqued by the "Yankees". Inside you, I am sure you agree with me. 

Not really because the fighting between sunnis and shiites is due to the destablisation of the US. If you're going to call the civil war in Iraq "childish", you might as well call every other civil war in history "childish".

But I still think it's arrogant of the US to say they're going to be peacekeepers for a region they destablised in the first place.

---

By the way, isn't anyone going to comment on my Iraq policy from my previous post?

Do I think that the Iraq war is helping American Freedom? Not yet. But I believe it's a step in trying to remove some Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Western sentiment in that area. More of an attempt really. Either way, trying to change that opinion (no I don't mean taking Saddam out of power, I mean winning the hearts and minds of the people, and we are trying, you don't hear about it alot on the news, but humanitarian efforts go on day by day by day there) does protect the country by slowing, or curbing a potential bed of individuals that could wish to do us harm in the future. Could Iran be next? Possibly, North Korea, possibly. I try not to think about what foreign country I may have to spend in combat in again, I like being home with my family.

I'm having trouble piecing this together. You say the Iraq war is a step in the right direction of removing Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment in the region. But surveys from the British military in September 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing presence of coalition troops. By these statistics, doesn't that logically mean the very presence of US troops in Iraq is actually generating more Anti-Americanism and Anti-Western sentiment?

I'm not critical of the troops, mind you. Troops fight where they're told to. Can't blame them for the decisions of the leaders above them. Following that, I am very critical of foreign policy decisions such as the ones in force now. You have to admit, it's been a huge fuck up that now has no "good" ending despite whatever option is chosen.

As a side note: I also don't think it's a good idea to keep hold of the region for the sake of not letting the terrorist win. All this garbage about certain Democrats, like Obama, wanting to withdraw and thus pleasing the terrorists... I don't think terrorists really give a shit what's happening in Iraq. Let's say the US occupied Iraq prior to 9/11; do you think the terrorists wouldn't have crashed the WTC because of this? I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of terrorists groups act very independently from Iraq. If the War on Terror is a road, then Iraq is basically a detour with no end in sight.

Nacho and SSH: Just to add to your discussion...

SSH:

You asked: "how many americans decided to invade"... well, ultimately 1: George W. Bush.

Incorrect, you forgot the Senators and Congressmen who approved the invasion.

Nacho:

Curious... Why yor rule of three works and mine not?

Because I don't think it's childish to be pissed off with a military force that is occupying your country, has blown up a lot of the region and is responsible for the many civilian deaths. I'm sure if the US was being occupied by another country, they'd be just as pissed. But I do think it's arrogant of the US to say they're stepping into a peace-keeping role for a country they destabilised in the first place.

Nikolas:

Thing is that, while your math are correct and indeed a 0.002% is not a high percentage, you do need to compair it with a different country... for example the UK. Here in the UK there's been 2 bombings in all? For the past 5-6 years, unless mistaken. But certainly not 500. And the population is about the same. That does give an idea...

I don't think that's a good comparison. The UK isn't under military control by another country. And you'll see from other occupations that there is retaliation though not in the form of bombings. Consider the British occupation of Ireland in 1171 by King Henry II. There were several wars and rebellions against the British until the War of Independence (1919-1921). This is pretty much the same as Iraqi insurgents rebelling. And I'm just taking a guess here, but the frequency of attacks by Irish Catholics would have been about the same (or possibly greater) than the number of attacks by Iraqi insurgents. The only difference the the weaponry has changed to something a little more explosive.

So, the moral of the story is if you're going to compare Iraq to another country, compare it to one under a period of occupation. Don't compare it to the UK of today because doing so is meaningless.

---

Okay, on to something new... here's how I'd deal with Iraq: A majority of Iraqis are against the US occupation, right? What I think needs to be done is to withdraw US troops from the area but form a deal with another country for their troops can step in as peacekeepers because, for a start, there's no fucking way the US can fulfill such a role. Basically, they need a good mediating force that can gain the Iraqi's trust. The US can cut back on spending for escalating their military and fund a proxy army in an agreement of bi-lateral control with another country. Maybe keep a minimal amount of US forces as secondary force but have the primary peacekeeping taken over by another country. Plus the US can focus on using the evacuated forces in keeping the homeland safe.

You'd need a country that is not currently an ally of the US in the War on Terror, like France or Germany. A country that will say, "We're not participating in the War on Terror and we had nothing to do with the Iraq War... but we're willing to help rebuild Iraq." That way the insurgents will be less likely to target them. The problem is I doubt you'll find a country that'll lend a hand since the Bush administration has pretty much ruined all diplomatic relations with countries not fighting in the War on Terror. A lot of potential countries would turn their noses up saying, "You want US to risk lives to clean YOUR mess?! Pfft, fat chance!!"

Then again, perhaps it's not too late. Perhaps the US can find a diplomatic ally before things get worse in Iraq. Then again, why would the Bush Administration do such a thing especially when oil prices have been rising steadily over the last four years. Oh wait, I forgot, that's a coincidence and I'm a left-wing hippie freak who believes in crack-pot conspiracy theories.

Anyway, tell me if my Iraqi plan is somewhat workable or not. If you guys think it is, I'll e-mail it to Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Gore if he'll run. Not Biden though because I'll be damned if I'm giving away my plan to a candidate polling at 2 per cent! Although he's got his own plan for Iraq so it doesn't matter. But I think mine is better.

Manly lesbians are fun. They drink quality liquor and they can give you some good tips on making your woman happy

IF YOU GET MY DRIFT

(oral sex)

I should also mention that this get-together won't be for a couple of months. My budget is pretty thin at the moment so I'm going to be saving up some $$ over the next few months.

Would non-Aussies be able to attend and, if so, any idea on the time-frame?

I have a week's vacation I have to take (not that I don't want to) coming up and I'm looking for a place to go!  I was thinking Spain (to hang with Nacho!!) but Australia is a place I've always (REALLY) wanted to go and why not see some AGSers in the process!!

Oh and DG promised me a beer a few years back

Wha-a-a? You promised me a beer!

How about this, you bring over your favourite American beer for me and I'll get you some Aussie beer.

Oh, it's time for the annual plan-an-aussie-meeting.
Let's see how far they get this time!

Hahaha, it's funny cause it's true!

Yeah, I'm not interesting in the beach if we do a get together. The last few months in Queensland have been hot as fuck so I wouldn't mind something a little cooler.

So, sign up! C'mon, Aussie, c'mon! Where the bloody hell are ya? Oi oi oi and all that bullcrap!

You must get off this site sometime: Read up my friend.

You know what's crazy? I DID get off this site and visited that exact page before typing my reply. I also checked this page, especially the part entitled English Colonial America (1493-1776). But according to you, we should ignore this part because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the formation of the Declaration of Independence.

Like you, I read what I like and respond how I feel about it. That's what the General Discussion area is all about, right?

Great, respond how you feel. Just read the thread first instead of typing your usual "USA A-OK" nonsense. Then respond.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts you so much.

That's like the most stupidest thing you've said. "The truth hurts so much". What is this? A Few Good Men?

We ARE a young nation, is this not a true statement? And other European countries HAVE been around much longer, have they not? Yet another true statement.

I sense tension in your gibberish as well! But this is good, because it shows you love your country as much as I love my country. (The way it should be.) 

Great, but this has nothing, nil, zippo, zilch, nada, and sweet buckleys to do with the Boston Bomb Scare.

Anyway, I've made my point. I'm out of this thread.

[respect]

See other posters above.

Cop-out. The Declaration of Independence defined us as a country, not the "white" immigrants that just decided to settle here.

Okay, so ignore all history that lead to creation the Declaration of Independence. Obviously none of the stuff that happened between 1493 to 1776 had any relevance in shaping that particular document. Gotcha.

Once again, something patriotic that has absolutely nothing to do with the whole Boston bomb scare. I'm guessing if this conversation was about puppies you'd write something like "GOD BLESS THE USA FOR PUPPIES!!1!"

Esper shows his disgust for a country that I am proud to be apart of. How is this not relevant?

Esper is disgusted for an actual reason. Yours is something that didn't actually have anything to do with what he said. I mean, do you actually read threads like these, or do you just write "GOD BLESS USA" where ever there's some loose connection.

Key word here, respect.

I respect people and their beliefs. If you think America is awesome, good for you. I got nothing against America and I know a lot of fine people there. But when someone writes gibberish such as "America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes. (They're not free first.)" then I calls it like I sees it. Yeah, looks like gibberish. Smells like gibberish. *munch munch* Whoa, it even tastes like gibberish.

Also this might sound a little odd explained this way but because I've never been a blokey bloke, and because of my theatre based interests I coped alot of crap in school for being gay, which hasn't gone away that much (at an average 50% of people think I am, which pisses me off). Recently one of my voice teachers, confronted me and told me I would prolly be a lot happier if I considered being honest with myself about my sexuality, and because I was depressed I went away for a week and thought about things, add in the fact that I worry about irrational things to begin with it was not a great week. And only now have i come to the end of it with the decision that I prefer women alot more than men. And once I realised that I was thinking about the subject from a forced perspective,( that was making me forget alot of life experiences), I calmed down and I realised I'm me, and I've always been honest... just single and no girls like me (but then its hard for girls to like a guy who totally mood swings, and gives off weird emotional vibes).

Dude, your voice teacher is full of shit. I was into theatre and so forth and a lot of people thought I was gay. But then I thought about the proof for and against being gay:

FOR
Some bullshit stereotype that all theatre people are gay

AGAINST
I can't dance ala the stereotype that gay people can
My bedroom is consistently messy ala stereotype that gay people are neat
I like boobs
And women
And sex with women
oh and this one time this girl and I [deleted by moderators] and then the goat ate the rest

Yeah, that last one, that convinced me I wasn't gay.

You're right! America is still a young country! And you'd think after 500 or so years it'd graduate from diapers to big boy pants, but they just haven't potty trained it enough yet.

Not 500 years. Try (2007 - 1776 = 231 years.)

See other posters above.

By the way, I love your knack for adding something patriotic to a conversation, even though 90 per cent of the time it has no relevance to what anyone is talking about and/or is complete gibberish.

Yes, even though my country appears to look evil to the rest of the world, it actually is made up of a lot of good citizens. I am not ashamed. I am very proud to be an American!

Once again, something patriotic that has absolutely nothing to do with the whole Boston bomb scare. I'm guessing if this conversation was about puppies you'd write something like "GOD BLESS THE USA FOR PUPPIES!!1!"

And you do realise no matter how much you tell me you're proud to be an American, I'm still not going to raise my care-factor above "I don't give a crap".

And thank YOU ever so much, DG, for taking the time out of your busy schedule to go through that man's gay pictures and put them one by one on AGS for our perusal... I can die fulfilled now that I have seen Jason Freakin' Baca's (isn't that Japanese for dumbass?) pointy buttcheeks sitting on the moon.

youre welcome i am always happy to sort through pictures of the homosex persuasion to find many a-pointy buttock photos for you

i bet you wish the moon was ur penas am i rite lol that was ajoke about gay sex if you get my drift nudge nudge wink wink roftlolhahaomg

America is still a young country and we must be learning from all of Europe's mistakes. (They're not free first.) 

You're right! America is still a young country! And you'd think after 500 or so years it'd graduate from diapers to big boy pants, but they just haven't potty trained it enough yet.

By the way, I love your knack for adding something patriotic to a conversation, even though 90 per cent of the time it has no relevance to what anyone is talking about and/or is complete gibberish.

It was a marketing stunt, a viral campaign that's backfired. It was meant to get people talking about a show.

My butthole it's backfired! If anything the news has given it huge publicity and people ARE talking about the show. It doesn't matter if the news surrounding the incident is bad, more people are going to be aware of ATHF's pressence when the film is released due to all this coverage.

If anything, the fake bombing reports are the best thing that's happened to ATHF's publicity.

It seems to be by Steve Martin.

It ain't.

Welcome to 1998!

Dear Andail,

If you do not draw me...







... I will crush you!

Jason Baca

http://www.jasonbaca.com

Also, please note...



Jason Baca is the kid from the Dreamworks logo.

Stay connected! IMVU users get a free, easy to pimp homepage.
Get a homepage now!

Big Daddy Kane should get a IMVU homepage to make his pimpin eaiser.

This year it's just been unfortunate that still a relitavely good game compared to things like Andy Penis's Big Aventure has made it into that category.

andy penis big adventure was brilliant so fuck you

Seriously, I think it's fun that an alter ego of the guy who created the award wins the very first booby prize.

I almost heard a vaudeville WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAAH trumpet noise when "Andy" won that thing.

How I envisioned the PEN1S Award...

The award is partially supposed to be a bit of fun but also to be the kind of award to help people put more effort. Way, way back in the good ol' days of AGS there were a lot of people who were phone in their "games" usually they'd be one room pieces of crap using the default anims and sprites.

Oddly enough, I made a parody of this kind of crap called "Andy Penis' Big Adventure", which won the first ever PEN1S award. However, there have been nominations I think are justified such as squalman's garbage. Nice kid but he made shitty games.

But like I said, it's about effort. I don't think a game deserves a PEN1S award if the author has clearly demonstrated a certain level of effort. For example, I thought Flashbax didn't deserve a PEN1S nomination. If I remember correctly, there was a fuss was over a severed hand in the game. Great, but at least the author tried hard to made a solid adventure.

So yeah, give the award to people who put very little effort in their games. But don't knock the people who are actually trying their best.