New Mars Forums

LO

So, US citizens paid hundreds billions of dollars, casualties in troops reaching little by little 2000 killed, how many wouded ? in order to remove a dictature, the iraqis had 25000 killed,
and the "democratic" result of it is an "islamic republic" lead by Sharia,
and whe all know how women are "democratically" treated by Sharia.

Just a few questions, mainly to those which supported the war:

- Happy ? 

- Do you think that the investment worth it :
in terms of money ?
in terms of blood price ?

- Do you feel your security has been raised by that war ?*

- Do you feel the World is safer than before war at Iraq ?

*answers such as: "yes, went from orange to red" are tricky   :shock:

LO
Like the "space ascensor" ?
Some physicists demonstrated mathematically and physically in a forum here that a mass tight to Earth by carbon ribons or cables as described in a Nasa news release was by all means unstable in the Earth-Moon dynamic system.
Any object orbiting around Earth tends to join the orbit fitted to its orbiting speed.
If inertially tighted, the "space ascensor" should oscillate more and more due to tidal forces up to a point where the cable should wirl around the earth with some slightly boring consequences     or the "space ascensor" should be permanently energy supplied and be driven by a stabilizing system in order to maintain its geosynchronicity, energy is money  ???

And why should a lift be energy supplied by a laser beam, knowing its poor energy conversion rate, about 30% maximum, if you can have a direct electricity supply throught the cables or ribons ?
To make the project more technologically sexy ?

the more you whish to improve its thrust, the more the launcher will need complex studies, that's to be paid back.

A nuke powered spaceship, that's not complex at all...? ???
Should be over 100 times the price of the Nimitz, no ?

LO

Wouldn't romans have written : "IMPERIUM LIBERTASQUE" ?

Boo
Iraq collateral damages on the forum ?    ???

Well, the support for Bin Laden and is fast shrinking in most of arab and islami countries, as they see day by day the terrorist wildery, extended at young kids.

Guantanamo and mistreatments of anykind, armed overreaction as the Fallujah assault had rose the hostility of the muslims to a top and were the best Al Qaeda supports.

This opinion reversal is not due to tough counter reactions to the terrorists.

The whole world will support USA if acting as morally acting peacekeepers instead of warmongers. No doubts.

Not at all, bombings over french towns had really strategic purposes, killing 50000, as sad as it had been, this was the price for freedom, while phosphore bombings over german towns, killing half a million, were supposed to break the population will to resist. 
Stupid calculation, who wouln't try to retaliate and fight more eagerly ? did Blitz over London broke the Brits ?
But in France, people said they'd better be bombed by the British than by the US Air force, less collateral damages.
Killed by Brits less painful than by US 

And when terrorists are born in the country ?
Those don't feel as regular citizens "home" and seen as strangers in their originated country, then to be recognized as "real" pakistanis and muslims, they are ready to be the heroes of the worst causes.
In Pakistan, the formers authorities did support any terrorist that would allow to act without uniforms against the hereditary ennemy, India, which occupied Kashmir and had splitted Pakistan from Bangladesh. These terrorists went out of control, as well as talibans in Afghanistan.

Watching the stars don't give any knowledge on the average jordaneer's brain

Because of this question  ???
Shows that your quite unable to think the arab point of view.

She is as even less representative of the jordan population as Condy is of the average US citizens, they are part of "the elite".

Anyways, when people hate you that deep, even the good you try to do to them is seen as an humiliation. As a result, they hate you even more.

My girlfriend's son visited Jordan, Syria and Lebanon last year, as a froggy, he was warmly welcome by peoples, he saw how deep was the population anger at USA, even among those who had the means to eat in a MacDonald.

Don't misurderstand me, trying to think the arab point of view doesn't mean to support it in anyway, I just think that some of your posts and mainly Cobra's show that if you had some power to act in middle-east, this would lead to total disasters.

You're right,

I'm more balanced, toppling Saddam was not a mistake, I just think that could have done with threats, (as a chessplayer, I think that threat is often more efficient that direct action). Error was to destroy Iraqi administration infrastructure and to turn the Sunnis into direct foes and insurgents.
At first, more troops and more economic help are to be sent to Afghanistan where Talibans are increasily active.
For Iraq, "We shall stay as long as necessary" without giving a withdrawal calendar seems to me as a very doubtful rethoric, it might sound for the Sunnis as a pretext for a neverending occupation. Argument that the terrorists will just have to wait the troops return and then start again terrorism seems to me as wrong, if assured that the occupation will end, Sunnis have no more reasons to act as terrorists, if they share power with the Shias andthe Kurds.
By the way, iraqi Kurdistan must not become a rearbase for anti turk terrorism tourists are victims of.
Sunnis must be sure that war is not aimed at them as the crushing of Fallujah did. If so, if they don't need the terrorists' help anymore, they will get rid of the Al Qaeda murderers. With no more local support, Al Qaeda could be deleted in Iraq.
Maybe that's where the French can help, mending trust between US and the Sunnis, but I'm not quite sure that the french networks in Iraq kept some influence among the Sunni leaders.
In a conflict, if the aim is to gain peace, the looser must be abble to claim for victory. If the US say they will withdraw and when, the iraqi insurgents will claim this is a victory, maybe they will lower the number of attacks or stop attacks, and then there will be less casualties among the iraqi civilians and the coalition troops.
This is just an opinion, I can't say that I'm right or wrong.

LO
I didn't, this is a Skynews TV screen capture, when I opened The Mail page, article wasn't already on line.
I read the BBC news article on the same topic few hours later.
The spanish troops role may have been rather more symbolic than efficient, they don't seem to have missed drastically to the coalition.
Anyways, I think it's mean of you to scorn the Spanish.
On a french forum, I defend the Brits from accusations of having kindly harboured islamoterrorists with a non agression deal before 9/11, no matter what was my opinion on Blair's war pretexts or the efficiency of action in Iraq on global terrorism. It's no time for bashing any ally or former ally, but to pack toghether and closely cooperate against the terrorist threat.

LO

No ! The very first reason why the troops were withdrawn was the will of the spanish population, it happened that its coincided with the terrorists' will.

With more than 80% of the Spanish opposed to war in Iraq before and during the war, Aznar did engage Spain in an unwanted war.
The spanish population will has not been dictated by the terrorists ! What you say is untrue and unfair.
Should Aznar had acted democratically, he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq, same for most of the coalition countries leaders.
Therefore, you can't consider that the Spanish population betrayed the coalition, you can only do that if the Spanish population had changed his mind because of the attacks, which is not the case.
Aznar just betrayed his people's will as some other leaders did.
Who did lie about the WMD ? Who wanted war whatever would be the inspections results ? Who drove coalition forces straight into the lurch ?

Aznar was interested in fighting ETA terrorism, if he didn't fight islamoterrorism efficiently enough, blame him, he lied about the Madrid attacks authors, blame him, the actual spanish gouvernment is acting against islamoterrorists and trying to have a political agreement with ETA, as well as GB is trying to have a political agreement with the IRA.

LO
some precisions.

The concept of "Nation" is quite recent, let's say 18th Century, and unification of the nations' cultures came with national education programs, end of XIXth Century.
Before that, instead of external immigration, in a country such as France, there were internal immigration motions with people speaking local patois or another language and seen as strangers by local populations.

After WWII, France lived with the traumatism of defeat by a Germany twice more populated than France by 1940.
Yet, during WWI, France had to mobilize almost every men from 18 years old to 45 years old to face up German armies.
That explains why France has a politic supporting immigration and high natality rate, and helping families, with lots of public free nurseries allowing women to work while babies are cared of by professionally diplomed staff, and very young children educated very early, from 3 to 6 years old, in public "maternal schools" described by foreign visitors as the best in the world.

Sorry for black humour...

We all know how tenacious and brave the Brits are