Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Indeed!

At 7/29/07 06:31 PM, Grammer wrote: I'm not a general, but I'm really banking on this latest troop surge to do the trick.

I think you're right. I've spoken with some Iraq war vets and they seem to agree that the problem is that there are too many "backup" soldiers (or rather, those supporting those up front) and not enough front-liners to actually make any progress.

The troop surge seems effective.

I dunno it seems Bush is in a real hole here. He's been gettin smack thrown at the war in Iraq since it began, but if he pulls out after stirring up a hornet nest then he will be gettin smack for that too. I think we either need to increase the amount of troops to fix it quickly or slowly withdraw them and force the Iraqi's to be more independent. Although the conspiracy theorists would say that this goes against an imperial desire of Bush's.

Wow I feel owned. I do suppose that living in "terror" means that "terror"ists win...Thanks for helping me realize that.

That's not the point, I don't think they could take out a whole country but even a single nuke could really suck if it hit your city eh?

Well believe me man...If our government did what made sense...and only what made sense...we would live in a very great nation.

At 7/27/07 10:56 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 7/27/07 03:36 PM, Project-Nemesis wrote: Wonderful.

Seize the school. Seriously.
It works.

Yeah in Chile maybe...

This has been buggin me. For about 50 years, we feared that the russians would nuke us...Why? The russians proved to be rational (in that they would rather co-exist than not exist) in that they did not nuke us during that period. We, however, lived in total fear that the next day would not come, because a rational developed nation would nuke us.

Now it is 2007, and in 2001 we were attacked by an irrational force which is willing to perfom scuicide bombings on our people (as in they are willing to kill themselves so long as it kills Americans). don't get me wrong, I am not insulting islamics here only the ones who attacked us. But still, we are being attacked by a terrorist group that would probably not care if they all died even if a few of us died...and we are not TERRIFIED at the thought that they might have nuclear weapons?!?!!

For 50 years we feared that a group that had weapons they would not use would attack us...and we are not afraid that a group that would not mind using these weapons might have them?! Please someone tell me where that makes sense.

True...good point

Interesting info but why cover that up doesn't make a whole lot of sense...not the kind of thing the higher ups would cover up exactly.

I have no proof for this but I actually think that it was the colonists who fired first. Oh yes we put on the Valiant America defending from the British oppressors, but the fact is that our revolution wasn't even justified. Taxation without representation and all that horseshit? naa. That was our excuse. The British army aided us in the 7 years war (French and Indian War) after a long period in which we had self rule. and afterward demanded taxes. Then we dump their tea and they send in troops. We kinda had it coming and I think we would have shot first in an ambush or something...we were pretty underhanded during our revolution...

I suppose before I post my thoughts on this I would describe what a fetus' life really is.

I ask...why is it more tragic to people when a child dies than when an adult dies?

The answer is this...when one kills a child, you not only take the child's life, you take his future. The adult has lived out his life and his future is probably right where he was, but a child however, has much more to live for.

Since a fetus hasn't really done much "living", the only thing it really has is its future.

Therefore I look at an abortion not as ending a life, but as ending a future, which is why I am against it.

When you abort a fetus, you take away everything he could have been: That baby could have grown up to develop a cure for cancer or maybe the perfect form of birth control (ironic).

To refute the arguement that "women should have a choice about their bodies" I say this: They do have a choice...They make the choice when they decided to have sex. Regardless of care taken or birth control used, if you did not know that birth control has a chance of failing, then you were probably not mentally ready to have sex anyway.

So accidents do not permit abortion. The idea is so corrupt if you think about it. If someone sees me performing an illegal act for instance, I have no right to kill that person to cover it up. You can say it's different, but abortion is often used to cover up for mistakes, and no one deserves to lose their life (or their future) for your mistake.

Those who support abortion would probably not support post labor abortions, or basically, shooting newborn babies. Forgive me as that is a crude example but most people would not support that, when in reality there isn't too much of a difference. the baby hasn't lived for very long anyway, so you still aren't ending a life as much as you are a future, which is ultimately the same as abortion, and if you can't support lining up newborns and shooting them in the head, how can you say you support abortion?

Finally however, this issue is not black and white, I mean few are, and there are a few instances in which I support abortion. 1) Rape: If you did not want the sex, you should not be forced to have a child. 2) Mother's life is in danger: You should not be forced to die to have your baby, and if there is an obvious chance that the mother could die during labor, then she should have her choice to abort the baby.

Anyway I just saw tony and memorize goin at it in here like they seem to on many of the topics here so I figured I would introduce my own ideas for them to quote and refute over and over :).

Good luck in convincing the other side...it never happens.

Good point. Nuclear waste is probably the only major problem with utilizing nuclear fission or as we have just named it "fission fuels" or whatever it was.

I guess what we are noticing is that there is not a perfect fuel source on this planet, at least not one that we can conceive.

Even still, all things considered, nuclear power seems like a good idea. Some of the waste is reusable and the other wastes we just have to store to where they cannot leak, as that could be a greater threat to the environment than any fossil fuel polution...

Hey don't mean to just jump into the heated debate but I agree with the idea that sending wastes into space is a bad idea. First off doesn't that harm the environment as well in a way? I mean since we have gone up into space we cannot consider ourselves just bound to earth, so space can in a way be considered part of our environment that should be taken care of as well. Second of course as was already mentioned the cost. It would be terribly expensive to make even occasional trips to space just to dump our waste. Third, even though we have reached out to space, it isn't like we can consider it "ours" like we do earth. It is not our domain, so we don't have authority to decide what to do out there. Finally some people fear that our space missions might be harming the earth. The fear is that water sent into space could be lost, and by that I mean truly lost from earth. Water we use here returns in its natural cycle but water we take into space is lost. NASA now tries to form ways to recycle and return that water to earth, so as to prevent making the earth "lighter." Basically the ultimate fear is that the earth will be pulled closer to the sun and possibly even into it. It sounds crazy, but in thinking for the environment, the only reason we care now is that we feel one thing we do can send it over the edge, the straw that broke the camel's back if you will, and will create a situation we no longer can undo. The same situation can apply with sending nuclear waste into space. True we wouldn't send as much waste up at a time as water, but given enough time the same effect could occur and recycling or returning the waste would simply defeat the original purpose of sending it there. Woah I've talked too long well anyway that's just a few things to think about. If you see any flaws in my logic or arguement please don't hesitate to correct me...I hate being ignorant.