Jump to content

Curing cancer


16 replies to this topic

#1 Jura

    100% Cacao

  • Administrator
  • 3,751 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 12:12 PM

With so many other health problems and trends in which cause people pick to donate to, do you ever expect cancer can be cured? Would it only be for the ones who can afford such? It's not like cancer will go away anytime soon, as there are so many causes of it.

#2 animemeg

    Usagi

  • Advanced
  • 735 posts
  • Watching GunXSword

Posted 25 June 2007 - 02:37 PM

When it's cured another one will take it's place.....

#3 Dei-Dei

    wat

  • Advanced
  • 158 posts
  • Watching Fate Stay Night
  • Reading Azumanga Daioh

Posted 25 June 2007 - 02:52 PM

I think at best there will only be treatment, unless were like 100 years into the future. I mean not only is there cancer there are tons of STD's which many people are infected with each year, which is probably more deadly then cancer in the long run.

#4 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 27 June 2007 - 03:55 PM

Personally I do not understand how the war on terrorism is more important than things like curing cancer to so many people.

#5 Shian Kiri

  • Advanced
  • 129 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 05:06 AM

View Postreddeath26, on Jun 27 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

Personally I do not understand how the war on terrorism is more important than things like curing cancer to so many people.

Because terrorism disrupts our ability to finding the cure on cancer. If you can stop terrorism or surpress it, it's one less thing to worry about.

#6 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 06:46 AM

View PostShian Kiri, on Jul 3 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

Because terrorism disrupts our ability to finding the cure on cancer. If you can stop terrorism or surpress it, it's one less thing to worry about.
You do know USA is the biggest terrorist nation in the world right?

#7 Shian Kiri

  • Advanced
  • 129 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 09:56 AM

Sure. Just remember this much: The USA never attacked anyone until they were attacked first.

It happened in World War 1, World War 2 and the reason there is War on Terrorism is because a bunch of religion happy guys decided to drive our airplanes into two of our biggest buildings. So if you call defending yourself terrorism, then I guess the USA is a terrorist state.

#8 Jura

    100% Cacao

  • Administrator
  • 3,751 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 12:14 PM

The United States attacked Iraq first. So I can't say that's all that true. I don't believe the US is really doing much to prevent terror attacks. I don't see how attacking countries and producing more violence is helping. Anyway, the US helps to set up death squads. How's that terror?

#9 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 02:35 PM

View PostShian Kiri, on Jul 3 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

Sure. Just remember this much: The USA never attacked anyone until they were attacked first.

It happened in World War 1, World War 2 and the reason there is War on Terrorism is because a bunch of religion happy guys decided to drive our airplanes into two of our biggest buildings. So if you call defending yourself terrorism, then I guess the USA is a terrorist state.
Iraq they were of no threat to USA. How is it USA found them a threat even though they were a very poor country due to economic sanctions. The USA public were fooled in general by propaganda. Even countries which Iraq had invaded found Iraq to be no threat. It was only for control of the oil and to set up another military strong point in the middle east.

#10 Shian Kiri

  • Advanced
  • 129 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 11:28 PM

The point was Iraq HABORED Terrorists. A huge majority of the terrorist forces that have attacked the US was in Iraq, Afghanistan and other middle east countries. People can say a lot of things about the USA, but most people fail to realize that the USA was playing a role of "isolation from the world" up until World War I.
If it wasn't for that, the USA wouldn't be where it is now as a world power. I'm not even pointing at the fact that the USA is trying to secure oil resources, I'm just pointing at the fact that in most of the USA attacks, someone had to provoke us.

In the midst of all the media, no one has taken account all the improvements that has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the people who has worked hard to bring these people better living conditions. There are people around the world from other countries who have made an effort to improve the conditions of these countries but there are still people being kidnapped, killed, beheaded, bombed, holy grounds being shot up to bits and whatever else.

You also fail to realize that Cubans cross the Gulf of Mexico on nothing more than rafts in one point or another to just live in the USA. Even Mexicans come across the border illegally. As much as we have laws to prevent it, we also have laws to allow them to work here. If the USA was truly a terrorist state, Cuba would've already been our 51st state, Iraq could've been the 52nd and what ever else.

Seriously. Everyone always focus on the bad points but thats real life, bad things happen. But if anything, the USA has done a lot to help the world and the countries around them. If you attack the USA and you are known to be a threat in some form or another, then tough sh*t, you're gonna get attacked. No one will stand for having their own country being attacked.

#11 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 29 June 2007 - 04:43 AM

Quote

The point was Iraq HABORED Terrorists.
USA has also Habored terrorists. Ever heard of Emmanual Constant? Responsible for killing 4 or 5000 Haitians was happily living in /queens New York because USA was refusing to respond to call for his extradation.
Or perhaps you have heard the case of the Cuban 5? These are but two examples.

Quote

A huge majority of the terrorist forces that have attacked the US was in Iraq, Afghanistan and other middle east countries.
It was never about Terrorism, they knew if they invaded it was going to cause more terrorism not less.

Quote

I'm just pointing at the fact that in most of the USA attacks, someone had to provoke us.
Iraq did not attack USA, they were of no threat to anyone.

Quote

In the midst of all the media, no one has taken account all the improvements that has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan
Then why do polls in IRAQ show that they are against the invasion? Why do the people support the president of France most when he is symbolic there ofr being against the invasion?

Quote

USA has done a lot to help the world and the countries around them.
USA has shown time and time again in recent history they are the biggest threat to world peace. These terrorism acts you speak of are largely retaliation for what USA has done in the middle east. Have you ever read Noam Chomsky? I suggest you look into him.

#12 animemeg

    Usagi

  • Advanced
  • 735 posts
  • Watching GunXSword

Posted 29 June 2007 - 09:13 AM

View PostShian Kiri, on Jun 28 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

Sure. Just remember this much: The USA never attacked anyone until they were attacked first.

It happened in World War 1, World War 2 and the reason there is War on Terrorism is because a bunch of religion happy guys decided to drive our airplanes into two of our biggest buildings. So if you call defending yourself terrorism, then I guess the USA is a terrorist state.

Iraq, Vietnam, Korea.....Yeah they all attacked us first

#13 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 29 June 2007 - 06:28 PM

View Postanimemeg, on Jul 4 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

Iraq, Vietnam, Korea.....Yeah they all attacked us first
If we are making a list I can help out with that. (^_-)

How about Guatemala, Grenda, El salvador.

Or perhaps even the call for Genocide in Cambodia as said by by Nixon "I want them to hit everything" and his order to the Pentagon "massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves"

Such words if used by another leader would be enough to try them for Genocide. So where was the trial to try Nixon for Genocide?

Shian Kiri I am very curious as to how you will defend USA sending in troops to crush a movement in El Salvador by the people to get more human rights.

#14 Riku

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Watching Gundam Wing
  • Reading Buso Renkin vol 5

Posted 29 June 2007 - 09:41 PM

wow I couldn't help but notice this topic is entitled cancer...and we're...talking about...iraq...*awkward silence*

fine fine fine listen. Iraq probably shouldn't have been invaded I mean to religous peoples of our country they probably wanted to get rid of Sadam Husein because of his genocides... who knows? The point is we're there and now that we're there we have to make sure that we finish the job. Otherwise all those deaths were meaningless...just like in vietnam...after pulled out all those soldiers that laid down their lives for democracy were meaningless. They just died for now reason since we pulled out, it showed what our government thought of our soldiers...just expendable bodies to be pointed and pulled out of every which way direction. The government doesn't want that again.


Also yes we've harbored some not so good men according to some standards...but we set up laws years ago to help certain peoples and now that those laws still exist today some people a.k.a. terrorists, bad men are able to use those laws to be protected. There is nothing we can do about it unless you want to unravel the whole system which no one will do because it's to big of a mess.

Quote

Why do the people support the president of France most when he is symbolic there ofr being against the invasion?

be careful there dragging france into this...ho ho ho you wanna know why they were so against the invasion of Iraq? They were selling weapons to Seddam Hussein and making good money so they didn't want the US to reck that for them.

http://www.command-p...ves/002978.html

http://mediamatters....ms/200502240010

be careful...

Yes we were physically attacked first in world war one and two...but we weren't neutral. We were making good money selling weapons to the allies. Britain cut the atlantic line from the US to Germany thus we were only getting the british side of the war. We weren't neutral, we sold arms to the allies worth millions of dollars. Such as the lend lease act where we gave britain 40 naval ships in world war two.

America is the world police power at the moment and the citizens of America (most) are tired of it. Thats why Iraq is such a hotbed is because people want to go back to isolationism. We can't though, America is to reliant on it's allies nowadays and to scared of what people will think of them for doing something. *shivers* oh no...thoughts of other stuck up nations *sarcasm* You know what? Iran is next since they are having this whole nuclear issue with the UN and America hasn't got another fight in them (at least congress won't allow another one) so China is going to have to take out Iran. Then who? North Korea? Heck we're just moving towards a "kill the man with power that won't listen to us" policy.

Oh and one last thing on the oil issue if the middle east jacks up the price of oil like they did in the seventies I say let em. We'll just embargo them to world's end with water trade. Tell the muslims to drink their oil they have stashed up ^_-

#15 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 29 June 2007 - 10:07 PM

Quote

Iraq probably shouldn't have been invaded I mean to religous peoples of our country they probably wanted to get rid of Sadam Husein because of his genocides... who knows?
I disagree several of his crimes he committed were with the backing of USA. Why would they help to him achieve some of these acts then turn around and punish him for them.

They were after the oil and another strategic base. This was also a chance for them to increase the scope for what they can and can't do.

Quote

Otherwise all those deaths were meaningless...just like in vietnam...after pulled out all those soldiers that laid down their lives for democracy were meaningless.
They were not in there for democracy, there was going to be an election to decide whether the north or south party would take control over the entire nation. So in a democratic way they were going to decide which party would rule.

Quote

They just died for now reason since we pulled out, it showed what our government thought of our soldiers...just expendable bodies to be pointed and pulled out of every which way direction.
I like the fact you neglect to mention the chemical warfare which Vietnam still feels the effect of. Or how USA apologized to their public over going into a war they should never have entered yet they did not say any apologies to Vietnam over their questionable ethics during that war.

Quote

Also yes we've harbored some not so good men according to some standards...but we set up laws years ago to help certain peoples and now that those laws still exist today some people a.k.a. terrorists, bad men are able to use those laws to be protected. There is nothing we can do about it unless you want to unravel the whole system which no one will do because it's to big of a mess.
So it is ok for USA but if anyone else does the same it is bad? Things like this make the very war on terrorism even more absurd.

Quote

be careful there dragging france into this...ho ho ho you wanna know why they were so against the invasion of Iraq? They were selling weapons to Seddam Hussein and making good money so they didn't want the US to reck that for them.
So he is more popular by the people of Iraq because of this? You are changing the topic, the point I made was that they did not like the invasion. Although why would you want to hear about that, USA is all about telling them what they like right? The very idea of actually using polls taken by the people of Iraq must seem completely crazy to you :lol:


Quote

Yes we were physically attacked first in world war one and two...but we weren't neutral. We were making good money selling weapons to the allies. Britain cut the atlantic line from the US to Germany thus we were only getting the british side of the war
For which you were lucky, Germany was trying to get Mexico to invade USA with promises of granting them land back which USA had stolen.


Quote

Oh and one last thing on the oil issue if the middle east jacks up the price of oil like they did in the seventies I say let em. We'll just embargo them to world's end with water trade. Tell the muslims to drink their oil they have stashed up ^_-
Water is a human right and essential to life, oil is not a human right.

#16 Riku

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Watching Gundam Wing
  • Reading Buso Renkin vol 5

Posted 30 June 2007 - 12:42 PM

Quote

For which you were lucky, Germany was trying to get Mexico to invade USA with promises of granting them land back which USA had stolen.

shows how much you know, you are referring to the Zimmerman Telegraph which was leaked to the public? Ummm no this telegraph was planted and Mexico had no intentions of invading the US.

http://en.wikipedia....ermann_Telegram

Quote

So he is more popular by the people of Iraq because of this? You are changing the topic, the point I made was that they did not like the invasion. Although why would you want to hear about that, USA is all about telling them what they like right? The very idea of actually using polls taken by the people of Iraq must seem completely crazy to you

Yes he was against the war in Iraq. This is because he was making a huge profit selling weapons to Iraq. Germany was too and thats why they were against it. They hid behind the facts that "It's not right" "America has no right to stick it's nose in their business." And hmmm when did the US tell the French what they like? Oh wait...it's comming to me...WE DIDN'T The French and the Germans voiced their opinions to us and we ignored them and invaded Iraq anyway. We gave them full right to be against the war. Oh and polls of the Iraqee peoples? Yeah we know that majority want us gone.

http://thinkprogress...27/iraqis-poll/

71% to be exact. Now IF you pay attention to politics the Democrats have control of congress right now and they are pushing for a timetable for the US to leave Iraq. But wait..you didn't know that did you? Yeah polls are crazy to me...I'd never use them but wait? Whats that? A link to a poll? Or are you even checking the evidence I'm putting forth?

Quote

So it is ok for USA but if anyone else does the same it is bad? Things like this make the very war on terrorism even more absurd.

No, I didn't say it was right in fact...*scans* I don't even find the word right within what I said at all. However America shelters bad men, so do other countries. Take world war one for example, after Germany lost the war Kaiser fled to the netherlands where he stand until the end of his days. No one even killed him. We ain't the only ones that do it. Iran houses Al Queda soldiers, funds them and trains them. Lebanon houses Hezbollah, a terrorist group responsible for just about every hate attack in Israel. Are Iran and Lebanon right?


Quote

I like the fact you neglect to mention the chemical warfare which Vietnam still feels the effect of. Or how USA apologized to their public over going into a war they should never have entered yet they did not say any apologies to Vietnam over their questionable ethics during that war.

Those were apologies from politicians facing court charges, and trying to save their political career. Do you honestly think they meant what they said? They wouldn't have gone to war if they didn't think they should have entered and it doesn't change the fact that American soldiers died for what they belived in over there and people booed the soldiers when they returned. Soldiers do what they are ordered and they die to defend America's ideals and they get booed and government apologizes for the soldiers "mistakes" Excuse me for trying to uphold the soldiers honor.

Quote

I disagree several of his crimes he committed were with the backing of USA. Why would they help to him achieve some of these acts then turn around and punish him for them.

They were after the oil and another strategic base. This was also a chance for them to increase the scope for what they can and can't do.

Yeah his crimes backed by the USA? What evidence do you have of that? Give me some evidence of that before you claim it, and punish him? They took him out of power, destroyed his statue and gave him to his own people which hung him. Do you honestly think the US would back him and shut him down? Notice after my quote I say "who knows?" as it was a possibility anyway. I didn't say I believed that suggestion.



Quote

They were not in there for democracy, there was going to be an election to decide whether the north or south party would take control over the entire nation. So in a democratic way they were going to decide which party would rule.

Heck Kennedy's very quote when aiding South Vietnam was "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." We totally went to defend democracy.

#17 reddeath26

  • Advanced
  • 462 posts

Posted 02 July 2007 - 01:06 AM

Quote

shows how much you know, you are referring to the Zimmerman Telegraph which was leaked to the public? Ummm no this telegraph was planted and Mexico had no intentions of invading the US.
Lol all I knew about that was that Germany tried to become allies with Mexico. :lol:

Quote

And hmmm when did the US tell the French what they like? Oh wait...it's comming to me...WE DIDN'T The French and the Germans voiced their opinions to us and we ignored them and invaded Iraq anyway. We gave them full right to be against the war
I have no idea what you are even trying to say.

Quote

71% to be exact. Now IF you pay attention to politics the Democrats have control of congress right now and they are pushing for a timetable for the US to leave Iraq. But wait..you didn't know that did you? Yeah polls are crazy to me...I'd never use them but wait? Whats that? A link to a poll? Or are you even checking the evidence I'm putting forth?
Well you just confirmed what I said about them not wanting the US forces there.


Quote

Heck Kennedy's very quote when aiding South Vietnam was "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." We totally went to defend democracy.
How were they going to defend democracy when it was going to be a democratic vote which decided the ruling party?

Similar Topics
  Topic Forum Stats
New Replies PlayStation 3 to Help Cure Cancer Off-Topic
  • 0 replies