Proposed Changes to the Statue of Liberty.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 4, 2004, 4:55 pm

Given the US government's recent incline to invade foreign countries, I thought it would be fitting to have the US's most famous monument changed to reflect this aggressive nature.

They should probably change the name to the Statue of Pre-emptive Strikes.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 4, 2004, 4:58 pm

begin cartoon references NOW!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 4, 2004, 4:59 pm

Your message would be potent if America intended to stay in Iraq.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 4, 2004, 5:02 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Your message would be potent if America intended to stay in Iraq.

I like to think of this as a peice of digital prophecy if Bush gets re-elected.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 5:04 pm

lol, I like it.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » June 4, 2004, 5:07 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Your message would be potent if America intended to stay in Iraq.

Right, because after June 30th everythings going to be all peachy keen over there in Iraq, and there'll be no need for us to keep troops there indefinitely like we have in Afghanistan. Oh wait...

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 4, 2004, 5:20 pm

Canadian Trolls

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 4, 2004, 5:30 pm

Haha, that's great!

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 4, 2004, 5:44 pm

Looks Great....Would be better if she was in black chain mail though.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 4, 2004, 5:49 pm

Nah it would be better if she had a necklace with "Buddy Christ" on it

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 4, 2004, 6:09 pm

I think to fit the proper view of the current government she should be barefoot and pregnant with an american flag tattood on her chest.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » June 4, 2004, 6:10 pm

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 4, 2004, 6:58 pm

Ashur wrote: Canadian Trolls

you would do a lot better if you listened to us canadian trolls once in awhile instead of acting like a bunch of militant fucking savages.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 4, 2004, 7:14 pm

Have you thought about what a free and democratic Iraq will do for that region?

Water to the thirsty.

"militant fucking savages" -kyo

Compare and contrast these viewpoints. What a expanse exists between.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 4, 2004, 7:42 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Have you thought about what a free and democratic Iraq will do for that region?

Water to the thirsty.

Yes, you know better than Iraqis (and the region) what form of government will best serve them.

If people are really thirsty they find their own water. You support forcing water on the quenched, killing some of them in the process.

Democracy is no holy grail. It is easily corruptible, all it takes is money. Do you really think democracy in a region known for government corruption will bring about some kind of utopia?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 4, 2004, 7:57 pm

*shrug* I don't know, Iraqis seem to be latching on to their chance for a free society.

The Iraqi foreign minister has given his broad endorsement to a UN draft resolution on the transfer of power to his government at the end of the month.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani gave his cautious approval to the caretaker government but called on it to prove its efficiency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 774785.stm

"militant fucking savages" -kyo

I wonder about that label.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 4, 2004, 8:28 pm

Iraq seems to be latching on to their free from the US society.

It speaks volumns that the security council has struggle with the US to give them back sovereignty of their own country. Yet even with the latest resolution sovereignty won't be restored, US military will still be the ultimate authority with the "authority to take all necessary measures for security" clause.

The latest concession which states that the US-led multinational force will leave if asked to by the Iraqi government is a good thing but shouldn't that be a default power of a sovereign government? Why must the US be pushed and prodded to give "full sovereignty" (there is no full sovereignty or partial sovereignty, there is only sovereignty).

sov·er·eign·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 4, 2004, 9:53 pm

Anyone that honestly thinks there is ever going to be a day in their life when there will not be a major US presense in an oil producing middle eastern nation is out of their minds.

We are there to stay, no matter what anyone tells you. If not in Iraq, it will be elsewhere.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 4, 2004, 10:46 pm

I don't deny the oil interests. Hell the whole world has a stake in this until we figure out fusion.

However, to say that we are "militant fucking savages" while giving 25 million people a change at representative goverment AFTER suffering under a brutal dictator is off target.

The US is slow to leave, because they want to leave Iraq with a military and police force that can handle the security burden. Othewise it all falls apart. Reference south Vietnam for premature pullouts.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » June 4, 2004, 10:48 pm

She doesn't mean all of us are militant savages, just the ones like you.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 4, 2004, 10:55 pm

Elaborate,

How have I been a savage? How have I been militant?

Better yet, how would you handle Sadam? Would you leave him alone to do whatever he wanted?

Would you continue the 14+ years of weapon inspections?

Xyun, you are dictator of America, how do you play the senario?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 4, 2004, 10:55 pm

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz Jesus Christ same old stuff day in day out. You ever feel you guys are fighting a losing battle?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 5, 2004, 12:50 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:However, to say that we are "militant fucking savages" while giving 25 million people a change at representative goverment AFTER suffering under a brutal dictator is off target.

You've killed 10,000+ and counting Iraqis to do it. It isn't a way out there label after killing that many people.

Edit: We could have continued weapon inspections for decades and it would have been cheaper in both $ and lives.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 5, 2004, 1:15 am

Kylere wrote:Anyone that honestly thinks there is ever going to be a day in their life when there will not be a major US presense in an oil producing middle eastern nation is out of their minds.

We are there to stay, no matter what anyone tells you. If not in Iraq, it will be elsewhere.

And you think this is okay?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 5, 2004, 11:42 am

Cartalas wrote:ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz Jesus Christ same old stuff day in day out. You ever feel you guys are fighting a losing battle?

No doubt. My thoughts exactly. This forum is starting to become one big circle of the same arguments and idiocy over and over.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 5, 2004, 11:54 am

they need to have the other arm of the statue out in the hitler thing

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 5, 2004, 12:19 pm

Interestingly enough, the new government they just put in power there now was handpicked by the US again.. and it looks pretty much exactly like the old one. Of course, they once again ignored the UN in the process.. yet they are asking for UN help.

Make up your minds, either you do it with the UN or without. But then you have to carry the cost and the failure as well.

Of course, we saw what their last handpicked leader did (sold secrets to Iran), what will the new one do? Maybe he is an al Qaeda leader in disguise!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 5, 2004, 1:02 pm

Forthe where do you get your 10k number from?

Xyun, how would you play out this senario?

Kel, if you don't like the current method. How would you do it? How would you keep things from falling into chaos while transitioning to a new governement that is elected by Iraqi's?

You do recognize that this current step is just a part of a larger transition process right?

The key to complaining is to propose a better solution. Otherwise you get nowhere and go in circles.

Let's hear the better idea and discuss its merits.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 5, 2004, 1:28 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Forthe where do you get your 10k number from?

It was backed up here on these forums a while ago, there are a few sources tracking the numbers. That is civilians also, not the poor smucks unlucky enough to have been in Iraq's army.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 5, 2004, 3:10 pm

Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Forthe where do you get your 10k number from?
It was backed up here on these forums a while ago, there are a few sources tracking the numbers. That is civilians also, not the poor smucks unlucky enough to have been in Iraq's army.

Sounds similar to the numbers you get after running an optimized nVidia card!

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 5, 2004, 3:15 pm

Winnow wrote:
Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Forthe where do you get your 10k number from?
It was backed up here on these forums a while ago, there are a few sources tracking the numbers. That is civilians also, not the poor smucks unlucky enough to have been in Iraq's army.
Sounds similar to the numbers you get after running an optimized nVidia card!

haha shut up

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 5, 2004, 7:28 pm

Kel, if you don't like the current method. How would you do it? How would you keep things from falling into chaos while transitioning to a new governement that is elected by Iraqi's?

Answered that to you before, so all I will say is I would not have gone in the way the US did in the first place.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » June 5, 2004, 9:11 pm

10K was a conservative estimate by the IRC. Course, those bastards have an agenda, too.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 5, 2004, 11:20 pm

Animalor wrote:

BIBS is a 2h slasher not 1h beootch!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 6, 2004, 1:28 am

Kelshara wrote:
Kel, if you don't like the current method. How would you do it? How would you keep things from falling into chaos while transitioning to a new governement that is elected by Iraqi's?
Answered that to you before, so all I will say is I would not have gone in the way the US did in the first place.

OK I belive you've established that you don't like the current method.

How should it be accomplished? Or would you prefer leaving Sadam and sons in power?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 6, 2004, 8:36 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Kel, if you don't like the current method. How would you do it? How would you keep things from falling into chaos while transitioning to a new governement that is elected by Iraqi's?
Answered that to you before, so all I will say is I would not have gone in the way the US did in the first place.
OK I belive you've established that you don't like the current method.

How should it be accomplished? Or would you prefer leaving Sadam and sons in power?

Adex we saw they way they would of handled it, They handled it by sitting on there hands and doing nothing and millons of Iraqs died but thats okay they were rebels so it dosent matter.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 6, 2004, 11:25 am

Cartalas wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Kel, if you don't like the current method. How would you do it? How would you keep things from falling into chaos while transitioning to a new governement that is elected by Iraqi's?
Answered that to you before, so all I will say is I would not have gone in the way the US did in the first place.
OK I belive you've established that you don't like the current method.

How should it be accomplished? Or would you prefer leaving Sadam and sons in power?
Adex we saw they way they would of handled it, They handled it by sitting on there hands and doing nothing and millons of Iraqs died but thats okay they were rebels so it dosent matter.

Cart, Actually they -did- do things that either directly or indirectly caused the deaths of Iraqies

But all of that is regardless, the main point still remains, this country was blatantly lied to in order for a boy with a vendetta to get his way...it disgusts me that conservatives always respond with "well would you have prefered that we had kept Saddam there?"

Guess what? I would have. And here's why: IT ISN'T OUR FUCKING COUNTRY AND WE HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS BEING THERE OR OVERTHROWING ANYONE ANYWHERE EVER

It's as if Canada invaded the US for not having universal health care - which by the way, kills quite a fuckload of people in this country

Saddam was no godamn threat and you jackasses know it...it is absolutely shocking to see you try and defend the actions taken by this President and this country in the last year when it is so clear that we are in the wrong

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 6, 2004, 11:43 am

How I would have handled it?
- By not using false information to attempt to sway the world.
- By not using bogus reasons (WMDs? Puhlease).
- By attempting to unite the world like in Golf I instead of dividing it.
- By not supporting Israel blindly since that is the first step to try and settle the area (and unite the world).
- By not claiming UN is useless when the US is one of the main reasons it is useless (along with France and Ruissa, all 3 need to get their act together).
- By following UN guidelines. Demand to see something, if you get stopped you force your way in. Not a full-scale invasion.

Imho both the US and Europe needs to change their ways and attitudes some, and if that doesn't happen we will face a lot more problems in the future. The key is to be united, the key is to use and build up the UN. The key is to stop worrying so much about your own interests (like oil) and start working towards a better place to live in.

So to answer your question: Yes I would not have gone in and directly removed Saddam unless the more backed up inspections etc found something really bad. He had been mostly quiet for 10 years, waiting a bit longer would not have hurt anyone.

Oh and I also read something interesting today. Tony Judd said in Newsweek that he has travelled France for 35 years, and even though he has experienced quite a bit of anti-American opinions, there has NEVER been any incident of American war cemeteries or war memorial being dishonored. And there is a reason for that: The French DO remember and are extremely thankful for what happened in WWII.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 6, 2004, 11:29 pm

Kel,

- By not using false information to attempt to sway the world.

I as well didn't like how they seemed to push the realm of credibilty with the evidence they had. To me it seemed they were using intelligence to help sell their choice rather than making a choice in response to to intelligence.

- By not using bogus reasons (WMDs? Puhlease).

I disagree here. Sadam had a ton of that stuff. One of the conditions of surrender for the first war was that he'd get rid of his WMD. He cheated and retreated for a few years, and then kicked the inspectors out. For 14 years he played games with with poker chips that could kill thousands. We still haven't figured out where all of stuff went. We knew it existed at one point. Where did it go? That is a hell of question considering what that stuff might do in the wrong hands.

At the time, him continuing to mess with us over this important issue created a threat, a threat that we had to act on. So what did we do? We went to the UN. The UN yanked our chain for near a year. Russia and France, more concerned with their promised oil agreements placed their concerns over the unacceptable threat placed on the USA. We tried the UN, Bush got sick of the games and he acted on his best judgement. The threat was too great not to respond.

- By attempting to unite the world like in Golf I instead of dividing it.

We tried for 14 years. And we waited on the UN the world changed and new threats developed that we can't wait on. Waiting got a few thousand people killed in NY.

- By not supporting Israel blindly since that is the first step to try and settle the area (and unite the world).

I think the US has done an honest job of trying to work that issue out. Every president in my memory has developed a plan, and tried to fix it. Recent policies of Clinton and Bush were even handed requested compromises on from sides.

Also, check out the history of resolutions against/for Israel in the past decade, you'll find USA been even with it's condemnation and praise of Israeli issues.

- By not claiming UN is useless when the US is one of the main reasons it is useless (along with France and Ruissa, all 3 need to get their act together).

Well, I'd like to think the UN good place to act as well, but recent history has shown that it is ineffective when it comes to decisive action. The UN has issues. Look at the human right's council. The member nations heading it up are the very ones who commonly violate human rights. (Sudan for instance)

- By following UN guidelines. Demand to see something, if you get stopped you force your way in. Not a full-scale invasion.

UN guidelines were followed for 14 years. What did we have to show for it?

-Imho both the US and Europe needs to change their ways and attitudes some, and if that doesn't happen we will face a lot more problems in the future. The key is to be united, the key is to use and build up the UN. The key is to stop worrying so much about your own interests (like oil) and start working towards a better place to live in.

Sadly today you can't ignore the stable flow of oil. Our whole fricken society spins to it. Any country that's exporting oil will have the world's increased interest. I aslo agree with you that we need to be better at choosing who we support as we don't know what they'll turn into in the future. (Consider our support for Pakistan's leadership for example)

-So to answer your question: Yes I would not have gone in and directly removed Saddam unless the more backed up inspections etc found something really bad. He had been mostly quiet for 10 years, waiting a bit longer would not have hurt anyone.

We helped to create a monster. He brutalized his people, his agents were meeting with Al Quaeda. He tried to assasinate one of our presidents. Leaving him alone in this new age of terroristic war is akin playing russian roulette with a six shooter loaded with five bullets. It was our responsiblity to act.

-Oh and I also read something interesting today. Tony Judd said in Newsweek that he has travelled France for 35 years, and even though he has experienced quite a bit of anti-American opinions, there has NEVER been any incident of American war cemeteries or war memorial being dishonored. And there is a reason for that: The French DO remember and are extremely thankful for what happened in WWII.

That's good to hear, my grandfather was in pain his whole life after the war due to war injuries in while in France.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 6, 2004, 11:38 pm

Sorry for all the poor grammer.

I'm just not myself tonight.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 6, 2004, 11:40 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote: - By not using bogus reasons (WMDs? Puhlease).

I disagree here. Sadam had a ton of that stuff. One of the conditions of surrender for the first war was that he'd get rid of his WMD. He cheated and retreated for a few years, and then kicked the inspectors out. For 14 years he played games with with poker chips that could kill thousands. We still haven't figured out where all of stuff went. We knew it existed at one point. Where did it go? That is a hell of question considering what that stuff might do in the wrong hands.

At the time, him continuing to mess with us over this important issue created a threat, a threat that we had to act on. So what did we do? We went to the UN. The UN yanked our chain for near a year. Russia and France, more concerned with their promised oil agreements placed their concerns over the unacceptable threat placed on the USA. We tried the UN, Bush got sick of the games and he acted on his best judgement. The threat was too great not to respond.

Pish tosh, the "intelligence" used to justify the belief in the existance of WMD in current day Iraq was about as credible as asking a KKK member if the black family on his block is running a crack house.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 6, 2004, 11:53 pm

If the stakes are high enough, and time is critical, you sometimes have to go with your gut on a decision before the issue bites you in the ass.

That's leadership.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 7, 2004, 12:00 am

If the stakes are high enough, and time is critical, you sometimes have to go with your gut on a decision before the issue bites you in the ass.

That's leadership.

And sometimes you're totally, tragically wrong.

That's bad leadership.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 7, 2004, 1:16 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:If the stakes are high enough, and time is critical, you sometimes have to go with your gut on a decision before the issue bites you in the ass.

That's leadership.

How is that relevant? Are you referring to being the time critical aspect of opening the Iraqi oil fields?

Leadership is simply the ability to lead. That doesn't require intelligence of the cerebral or intestinal kind, just authority and/or charisma. Followers help too.

In the "best case" scenario for your intelligence being correct, you have removed a single nutbag you were aware of from control of WMD to give it to "whoever has the keys and knows where they are". Fantastic, that should keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

I find it distressing to think an otherwise intelligent individual could allow his partisan ideals to cloud his judgement in such a way that he would suggest "going with your gut" is an ideal way to decide to invade a country.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 7, 2004, 5:08 am

Have you thought about what a free and democratic Iraq will do for that region?

Water to the thirsty

I think we're going to find creating a "free and democratic" Iraq is going to take more steps than the current US plan:
1) Kill bad guy
2) Hold a vote.
That's it.

You're also looking at keeping a fuckload of troops under sole US control until 2006 at the earliest. Having 100,000+ troops outside of your control in your country doesn't sound free to me.

Adex, you've banged on and on about how the successful rebuilding of Japan and Germany took 5-7 years after WW2. I can't understand your support for the current gtfo strategy and your expectation of success.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 7, 2004, 11:40 am

Tanc,

The GTFO part applies to getting Iraqis elected into power and calling the shots.

Work towards stablizing Iraq will realistically take 5 years.

We'll most likely have troops there until a solid Iraqi police and army are developed.

Zaelath,

My words apply to the charge that Bush acted on incomplete intelligence. My statement highlighted that time was critical and he made a judgement call based on the intelligence he had. Sometimes you have to act on incomplete information when lives are at stake.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 7, 2004, 2:21 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:My words apply to the charge that Bush acted on incomplete intelligence. My statement highlighted that time was critical and he made a judgement call based on the intelligence he had. Sometimes you have to act on incomplete information when lives are at stake.

heh you are a funny guy

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » June 7, 2004, 10:22 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051 ... lished.pdf

just information

VeeshanVault

Proposed Changes to the Statue of Liberty.

Proposed Changes to the Statue of Liberty.

Re: Proposed Changes to the Statue of Liberty.