The Ebolaworld Happy Fun Blog Comment Post Page
Well. This makes it clear that they sure arent afraid of what they post in they're news papers. 
Yeah Sam, that is quite funny. In a couple of years IF a Democrat is the President their will prolly be double the scandals and two pages to that guide with their whole Administration.
If a Democrat is President, not only will we hear about his scandals 24 hours a day on Fox News and hate radio, but the Patriot Act will be seen as a bad thing, and so will any war he starts. You also won't have to support the President.
Thanks Sam T., I was having trouble myself keeping up with the many Indian tribes that Casino Jack cheated.
Ummmm. Sam , What does it mean when Gravatar is listed next to your comment?
Ok , Nevermind , its gone
Yeesh
Nader for president
then probably al newsstations will do things against him
the americans will see it as day and night, food and drink
just an american tradition
happily to life in the Netherlands(live o life?)
Live is the verb, Life is the noun. Live is the word you would use in that sentence.
wow, that was random. me, could you try posting just one comment, that is not anti-american?
one more thing me, the division between food and drink is not entirely clear. take jello for example. one can either eat or drink jello.
......LONG LIVE THE ALMIGHTY JELLO!!!!!!!!
Sorry if I'm double or triple posting. My computer's really fucked up. And if I haven't even posted anything yet, ignore this message.
hahah Bush is the biggest loser ever
wow, that was random. me, could you try posting just one comment, that is not anti-american?
Evil Pie | 01.04.06 - 5:53 pm | #
uhm
no that is to difficult for me/me
it is just a bad nation
me, have you even been to the United States? Or are you just judging us from thousands of miles away. To me (myself), it looks like you think that the people that populate our country are all retarded war halks sitting on nuclear missiles that have no way of doing anything except invade other countries, and if left alone, is poised to blow upp Canada, Mexico, and possibly France.
hehehe.... you said upp.
Me, back off. That's all I gotta say about that.
I wish I had been born in the Netherlands.
Hey Colin -
My friend from Sandia thinks that most of the engineers in charge of the nuclear weapons are total nutjobs and really freak him out.
I like the Constitution, but it appears there are indeed retards sitting on our nukes.
http://www.sandia.gov/mission/nu...lear/
index.html
me, have you even been to the United States? Or are you just judging us from thousands of miles away. To me (myself), it looks like you think that the people that populate our country are all retarded war halks sitting on nuclear missiles that have no way of doing anything except invade other countries, and if left alone, is poised to blow upp Canada, Mexico, and possibly France.
Colin | 01.05.06 - 12:48 pm | #
I don't say all american are retards
I say that the people that are in charge and the people that represent the USA are mostly completly stupid
People(like drew) that are republican shouldn't be allowed to vote
I just look at the world(and believe the media in the netherlands are more objective than in the USA) and I see that the USA is the most stupid democracy and the most conservative western country in the world
Drew isn't allowed to vote. He's only 15.
It seems antithetical to say that people shouldn't be allowed to vote in a democracy. No matter what, the minority in a country will always be dissappointed at varying levels. That's no reason to hate the majority. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're stupid. Also, just because several stupid people disagree with you doesn't mean that all people who hold the same set of values as them are stupid. (That's kind of like saying, "You shouldn't eat steak because HITLER ate steak.)
Also, no matter what, the people not in charge will complain that the people IN charge are idiots. (Don't get me wrong, I DO think Bush is an idiot -- however, I also don't know the whole story because, well, I'm not the president of the united states). I say, if you think you can do a better job, then why aren't you actively pursuing a career in politics? I mean, one of our main complaints about republican warmongers is that they are not sending their children into the war. Well, if we think the government is fucking up so badly, then why aren't we entering the fray of politics? Are you seeking public office or at the very least writing to your senators and representatives?
Also, if you think the media isn't doing its job, why aren't you writing to them and complaining? Why are you buying products advertised on Fox? Why aren't you pursuing a career in the media in the hopes to change it? Sure, everybody likes to complain and everybody has a right to complain -- and everyone should complain about real offenses. But if those complaints aren't followed up by action, you might as well be muttering to the wind.
me is thirteen, and therefore not eligeble to run for office.
But yes, saying that republicans shouldn't be allowed to vote is utterly and utterly stupid statment. In a true democracy, a person (or in the case of Athens, every Greek landowning male)with any belief can vote.
Evil Pie,
You forgot applesauce.
Daniel,
You just said my life's goal. Future President for President.
I call Secretary of State.
Shouldn't be allowed to vote huh? First of all (to repeat what Daniel said) I'm only 15 years old and cannot vote.
Second of all, the idea of not allowing someone to vote in a country that claims to be a democracy is ludicrous since the whole reason that the democratic government was established was so that people could vote and that no one person could have too much power.
Third, the subject of the US having Nuclear Weapons. The reason the US even has Nuclear Weapons is to deter anybody else from using them. As we have figured out, launching a nuclear assault on a nation would be pointless for five reasons. First, launching a nuclear assault on a country would destroy most if not all of that country's natural resources. Second, launching a nuclear assault would get rid of most of the population meaning that there would be no industrial benefit. Third, after a large scale assault you can't even inhabit the country you just blew the ever loving crap out of. Fourth, an attack such as this would anger other nations and could even provoke a nuclear counterstrike from one of the many countries with nukes. Finally, any leader that decided to launch such an attack would probably face fierce opposition from the populace. The resulting revolution would destroy the countries economy and would cause the contry to fall into civil war and disarray.
Drew, you're mostly right, but....
Iraq is not a powerhouse of agriculture, water supply, population, or industry. The use of nukes against select areas would have minimal impact on resource (oil) destruction or habitability for US oil corp's. Iraq also lacks the ability to strike back, so nukes can be used unilaterally.
That is precisely why Rumsfeld (and many others) have been pursuing the development of "tactical" nukes, which are tiny and have limited leftovers.
Bush says nukes OK vs. Iraq:
http://www.theage.com.au/
article...3534058079.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news...-iraq-
storyutil
Rumsfeld & tactical nukes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain541137.shtml
Yikes, double-posting and beating a dead horse, what a terrible streak!
However...wanted to say that the US is excited about making and USING tatical nukes, and Sandia & Los Alamos are at the forefront of their development.
Center for Nonproliferation Studies Review:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020408.htm
Technical info about existing mini-nukes:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/...eapons/
B61.html
Editorial on Bush wanting mini-nukes:
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s03/0709-
06.htm
All of those articles were made and published in either 2002 or 2003. They were talking about if Iraq actually used chem and bio weapons on the United States, once again proving my point that our nuclear arsenal is stritly defensive.
As for your argument about Iraq not being able to launch a nuclear counter attack or even a bio or chem attack, I wasn't really talking about them launching an attack. I was talking about the UN and the EU objecting and using equal force on the United States, because using nuclear weapons is considered over aggressive and an abuse of power.
For 1, 2, and 3, there's one simple answer.
Genocide.
hehehe. midget nukes...
Drew - my concern is, when will it be okay to use nukes again?
The US nuked Japan, and many thought that was unnecessary, like Eisenhower, and that surrender was imminent, like MacArthur.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/arch...es/27a/
047.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...AEBB/NSAEBB162/
Now, what constitutes an attack on the US? If our troops get anthrax, should we mini-nuke Iraq? If bin Laden takes down the WTC, should we drop a bunker-busting mini-nuke on his caves?
Unlike regular bombs, nukes move dirt, like the H2 bomb that evaporated islands:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/...000/
2781419.stm
Nukes are supposed to be a last resort, but I fear they may become a first-strike.
nuke = big boom.
i say we nuke the moon. those damn moon marians have had it easy for far to long.
After all, do we really need those tides?
Colin, some surfer dudes prolly don't want the moon blown up.
On a much more serious note teh_guy, the original reason we stockpiled hundreds of thousaands of nuclear weapons was as a countermeasure to the Soviets who were doing the same. When I talk about an attack on our country that constitutes a nuclear response I'm talking about a country one way or another sending a nuclear bomb on one of our cities (more than likely more than one). The purpose of this massive arsenal is much like Teddy Roosevelt's speak softly and carry a big stick policy. We don't want to use these weapons at all. We just want them there so nobody else is bold enough (more like dumb enough) to destroy one of our cities. I would expect that if a terrorist attack with a nuke was carried out on let's say... Baltimore. I would expect we would respond by going to defcon 1 and then launching our military forces in a counterattack. If a country like China (this is just a relevant example) launched a nuclear assault (meaning multiple long range nuclear missiles) we would more than likely respond by destroying their arsenal with our arsenal (meaning they couldn't do it anymore). We would definitely then crush their military without sympathy.
Now, about these tactical nukes, these weapons we would deploy against an enemy (meaning military more than likely not civies) small tac nukes. However, nukes in general are more expensive than the conventional weapons that our forces employ and our conventional weapons make it such that we don't need tactical nukes. The reason we have them is because the military has been experimenting with nukes for forever. Even in the early 50s they came out with a nuclear rocket launcher fired from the back of a JEEP. The military figures there could be use in developing this technology. I seriously doubt any president in his right mind would ever use a nuke period.
Dear Evil Pie & Colin - meh loves your random humor!
Drew -
Nuclear rockets?!?! That's hella sweet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Nuc..._Thermal_Rocket
Mini-nukes do what conventional arms can't by busting deep bunkers (see Rumsfeld link).
If nukes are a last resort or deterrant, we want them big to wipe out an adversary. They are being made smaller to become more acceptable in conventional war.
It's a slippery slope that leads to small-scale nuclear combat.
hehehe...mini-annihalation...
Drew - Hope you're right that our current & future Presidents will use diplomacy as our ultimate weapon.
Thanks for a nice debate on the matter, I appreciated your level-headed logical approach.
See you next discussion!
"So long, mom,
I’m off to drop the bomb,
So don’t wait up for me.
But while you swelter
Down there in your shelter,
You can see me
On your tv.
While we’re attacking frontally,
Watch brinkally and huntally,
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost.
No need for you to miss a minute
Of the agonizing holocaust. (yeah!)
Little johnny jones he was a u.s. pilot,
And no shrinking vi’let was he.
He was mighty proud when world war three was declared,
He wasn’t scared,
No siree!
And this is what he said on
His way to armageddon:
So long, mom,
I’m off to drop the bomb,
So don’t wait up for me.
But though I may roam,
I’ll come back to my home,
Although it may be
A pile of debris.
Remember, mommy,
I’m off to get a commie,
So send me a salami,
And try to smile somehow.
I’ll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!"
Tom Lehrer
HEY!!! wheres all that other crap about midget nukes?!?!?!? also it appears that the order is screwed up now.
uh.....forget my last post....
Evil Pie, you seem so sad and forlorn without your mini-nukes. You're starting to sound like an extremist Republican... or at least a Sandia engineer. 
Thanks for lyrics, Colin! A sad reminder in Doctor Strangelove style.
"also it appears that the order is screwed up now."
I'm glad to know it's not just this computer messing up.
why thank you teh_guy.
Future President ofr president
i send you grettings telefonbuch koln matte mouse geef mij nu je angst ik geef
Commenting by HaloScan
