I think your ropes example is a bit off. Let me use ropes in a different example. The difference between wearing a seat belt and not is the difference between climbing with your rope having a little too much slack or not using one. I say this because comparing it to normally using rope is normal and by comparison wearing or not wearing a seat belt and not needing it. The seat belt and rope is something you use but do not focus on. You should be focused on the road driving or the wall you are climbing. No rope you fall and you might still be OK or depending how far you fall (or how bad of an accident) you might die. A safety line still means you are going to fall but you might only fall 10 feet. It's going to hurt it you fall and that rope stops you but it is far less than falling down the entire wall. A seat belt might well injure you but there is a good chance that you will be injured less if you are wearing it as opposed to not.

"All it does is give the government money from people who don't have the time to follow their rules"

You make it sound like it takes an actual amount of time. It takes seconds ... if that is way too long. What is hitting a string of red lights? Life altering event.

Your dispute to her the statement is that it is wrong to fine someone for being too thoughtless, lazy, or indifferent to take 3 seconds to put it on. That is absurd.

Are you saying that it is wrong if you are placed in a situation like that. You need to be a little more specific. If you were placed in a situation where your only choice was to be violent in order to survive, would it be wrong then. We would like to think every situation can be addressed in a non-violent matter but that is not the case. Does this mean being violent means killing something or just attacking it. Not always the same. This could be a very interesting debate ... give a little one detail please.

I would say yes though when you say religion I am speaking of an organization based around belief. It is not so much the concept of having faith in something that is so bad but how it can be utilized. Though there have been tangible benefits to religion the other side to this is far worse. Most religions cannot be proven in a factual sense so it is taken on faith. The problem is this can be bred into the idea that the facts behind something is not as important as the belief in it. For this to work you have to believe that the founders of the religious thought you are following were obvious vessels for your deity then everything they do is ordained. There lies the issue. Its human nature to want to maintain the positive and brush the negative under the rug. History has shown time and time again that one person can through force of will or personality change so much. That is far from always a good thing. A strongly organized religion takes away from you trying to understand your place in the life and how you relate to whatever/whomever you consider divine.

I think you are referring to the Navy with that comment.

The Air Force would commandeer airfields in a pinch while the combat engineers would make them for their use. You would be amazed how fast combat engineers can manufacture things. In its most basic sense all you need is a radar, an air defense unit and a small amount of infantry for security. You could build them anywhere with accommodating ground. A carrier is impressive but it needs 4000+ crew and has the largest bulls-eye on it of any conventional unit.

You realized you just used George W. Bush and responsible in the same sentence. That goes back to the old saying about Military and Intelligence.

I will not speak for anyone but myself but a failed businessman with a father with serious political connections controlled by a VP who can be aptly described by putting Darth in front of his name is far from a solid choice to initiate an action. Maybe they should have nuked Iraq to prevent the use of the WMDs. Whoops .. I forgot there were none.

Define "Use their nukes responsibly"?

Nothing quite says "being responsible" as nuking a population because of their leader.

Anyone who thinks that is a good idea should not even given the responsibility over a fast food fryer.

It is actually a close call on this. It comes down to the doctrine of the two. First of all, you have to see the similarity in some of their roles. The American navy is built around aircraft carriers. They have evolved since a more conventional minded navy is not nearly as useful as it was say 100 years ago. That being said I would still go with Air Force. This is based on 1 simple idea. There is only one military unit who wins wars. That is the infantry. In one fashion or the other they support the infantry. Machines break down and need maintenance and fuel and it has to go somewhere that is going to be guarded by a foot soldier. The past years in the gulf yet again had shown why air force would get the nod. Specialized aircraft such as the A-10 and sheer number of aircraft go to the Air Force. In a larger scale war the Air Force will play a more significant role to ending the war. Smaller scale conflicts will see the Navy and Marines.

America would win. Using a comparison between Vietnam and North Korea does not work. North Korea would have the same issue the Iraq had. That being they want to be seen a recognized world power so there military is trained to fight a war in the conventional fashion. Vietnam beat the French and the Americans because they controlled what type of battle would be fought. America and France fought conventionally with an opponent who would not. This is why America could win the battles but could not win the war.

North Korea's major ally is China who does not want war. The Chinese want to protect and grow their economy and backing North Korea will severely damage their economy. With no real tangible benefit for China you see their support wither on the vine.

The clear winner South Korea or I should say a newly reunified Korea under South Korean leadership. The Korean peninsula is poor in resources as any South Korean citizen will tell you their natural resource is their people. Without natural resources to exploit, very few will oppose a unified Korea.

I believe we are experiencing one of the major effects of a decision made when the foundation of our government was set down. It is not that the government is too corrupt but I believe that a 2 party system does not reflect how this government was meant to be. A two party system essentially requires you (if you stick to your party line) to be either for or against any issue. What is lost is the open debate that originally existed. Current politicians are what are corrupt. They are loyal to their continued careers in government, their legacy of their career, their party, and finally the people. How can one be considered anything but corrupt when by their own actions act to preserve their largest benefactors and not the people in general who voted for them. Couple this with an election environment that is more slanted toward destroy your opponent instead of demonstrating you are better. How often do you see commercials where 75% of it is attacking someone else and then a few seconds about them being the opposite. That mind set is what makes the American government as aggressive as it acts. Both sides want to be right and not have to work with the other. I am amazed where they came up with the idea that this is how it should be. Look at the legacy of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, the failed Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. They were born out of ideological rivals debate and shouted incrimination.