You are not logged in.
feces can be fuel. human hair can have many uses.
Eww. I understand recycling but that's pretty unhygenic. Personally any waste whether from astronauts or algae needs to be broken down into something...less disgusting to be frank. I imagine the right blend of bacteria might make such a compost pile...or septic tank...into a halfway decent methane plant.
What happens if you have a toilet that ejects the crap outside of the hab and deposits it on the ground. Lets say your doing your business on the toilet, and when your done you pull the lever that opens the hatch sucking the crap out of the toilet bowl and out onto the Martian surface. Wouldn't the wet part of it be reduced to a fine powder on the ground, or else part of it would boil away while the other part freezes solid, then some astronaut smashes the chunks with a hammer. After a few weeks, it should be dessicated, you remove the powder to the garder to use as fertilizer.
Well so long as the liberal critics ask why did we go into Iraq, there were no WMDs found, I have to say they were wrong, because technically Chlorine gas is a weapon of mass destruction, when released in to the atmoshere this green gas sinks to the ground, and burns the eyes, lungs and skin of everybody it comes in contact with, thus it is a weapon of mass destruction
I read a report that there's reason to believe that the chemical attacks have now coming from Iranian (sworn enemies of America ) and Saudi (our supposed ally) stockpiles. Both Iran and the Saudis are funding terrorism, using Iraq as a proxy to hit at each other.
From what I hear, some Democrats are afraid that we might redeploy our troops from Iraq into Iran as an invading force and attempt to topple that government there, that's not what the democrats had in mind when they talked about redeployment, they'd much rather redeploy the troops to where they'll do no good, they're terribly afraid that if we topple the government in Iran, that will end the war in Iraq on our terms rather than on the terms of the enemy.
Chlorine was used during world war I as a chemical weapons. One does not chlorinate swimming pools with a tank of compressed Chlorine gas.
What's the point of looking for WMDs if the liberals are going to make an excuse for everything found and give Saddam a pass on it. If its Plutionium, its for a commerical reactor, it is chlorine, its for the swimming pools, it its a potential nerve agent its to make fertilizer etc. And all these non-WMDs fall into terrorists hands and conveninetly use it as a weapon yet you say some GIs burned out lungs does not constitute proof of the existance of chemical weapons in Iraq.
Chlorine if pumped into a cylinder and then detonated is a very simple bomb to make and theres lots of explosives to be found in Iraq. One mistake the USA did make as Rumsfield stated himself was not to stop the looting of the armouries of the Iraqi army after the invasion. Then again most car bombs that explode over there as well as the components for these chlorine gas bombs have there basis in common ammonia based fertiliser. In this case it simply was Chlorine in its liquid form detonated and the heat of the explosion gassified some and the splashed Chlorine would also start outgassing in the blast area.
Nerve agents are not too difficult to make but you have to be out to make them and you can then be caught. There is also the problem that unlike chlorine for real effectiveness they have to be applied and that takes a bit of skill and means to do so. The average insurgent just does not have this. putting a tank in the back of a pickup and then blowing it up is a whole bunch of factors easier than using the really deadly stuff.
Tom no one is looking for Saddams WMDs anymore they are irrelevant now and even if there had been some they are well disapeared across the border into Jordan or Saudia Arabia by now. But will there be WMDs used in Iraq I dont know. The factions that are trying to create the strife and to cause the Civil war we all fear, so bringing in all the surrounding states on the side of the various factions would love to use WMDs on there opponents.
Well so long as the liberal critics ask why did we go into Iraq, there were no WMDs found, I have to say they were wrong, because technically Chlorine gas is a weapon of mass destruction, when released in to the atmoshere this green gas sinks to the ground, and burns the eyes, lungs and skin of everybody it comes in contact with, thus it is a weapon of mass destruction, Saddam wasn't supposed to have this even though it is simple to make, it is still a WMD. So I'm just saying to those liberal critics who say where's the WMD and then assume the answer was their isn't any that they are wrong. So long as they dwell on why we got into Iraq in the first place instead of asking how we will win, I will point out the chlorine gas and other nasty gases the insurgents may see fit to use on our troops, and use that as evidence. If the liberals shut up on the way back machine and start talking about how we defeat the enemy, rather than how we pull out, I'll stop pointing out all the gas attacks. You see so long as we were looking for WMD and might possible use that as evidence that Saddam Hussein had them, the Insurgents were afraid to use them for fear of justifying American involvement and undercutting the democrats argument, now that the Democrats have the majority and aren;t going to listen to any real evidence anyway, the insurgents feel free now to use poison gas on out troops. Isn't it curious that they only started doing so after the democrats got elected.
The Democrats want to pull out and they want their own country to lose, isn't that shameful? The only thing that's stopping them from pulling funds is their fear that our generals are going to point their fingers at then and say the only reason we lost is because our traitorous Congressmen cut our funds and forced us to withdraw and hand Iraq over to the enemy, and their worst fear is that those same generals might point out that they were making gains until the money ran out, and then they'll glare angrily at those congressmen again. I think a forced pullout will divide this country like nothing since the American Civil War. You'll have Republicans looking at the Democrats and blaming them for America's second defeat, and perhaps some of them vowing to go back into Iraq, the moment the Republicans gain the majority in the house once again, and blow out whatever gains the terrorists might have gained in our absence.
I think the American people voted the way the voted in 2006 because they weren't satisfied with the progress we made in the War and wanted to hold someone accountable. They didn't vote that way because they were against the troops, against the war of felt that the terrorists should win. What they wanted was a better strategy and better generals, not a retreat! The Democrats assumed they wanted a retreat, and that's wrong, maybe their left-wing constituents would like to see America defeated, but not the average American.
The Democrats have a problem in that there are too many socialists and America haters in their party, and the vote in the primaries too often, but the general elections contains more less partisan voters who are more interested in whats good for the country than in seeing this country defeated in War, with the help of friends on Congress.
But the initial ratio of Nitrogen to Argon is not 1:1, so making it so would invovle seperating of gases, which is what is difficult. Argon is a nobel gas, much like Helium but heavier, thus it reacts with nothing. Is it radioactive though?
Chlorine was used during world war I as a chemical weapons. One does not chlorinate swimming pools with a tank of compressed Chlorine gas.
What's the point of looking for WMDs if the liberals are going to make an excuse for everything found and give Saddam a pass on it. If its Plutionium, its for a commerical reactor, it is chlorine, its for the swimming pools, it its a potential nerve agent its to make fertilizer etc. And all these non-WMDs fall into terrorists hands and conveninetly use it as a weapon yet you say some GIs burned out lungs does not constitute proof of the existance of chemical weapons in Iraq.
Well it seems that weapons of mass destruction have finally been found:
BAGHDAD - Multiple suicide bombings struck the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, and about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops were treated for exposure to chlorine gas, the military said Saturday. At least two policemen also were killed in the attacks.
The violence started Friday afternoon when a driver detonated the explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.
That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 residents showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.
Another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives Friday evening, also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.
Suicide car bombers have used chlorine against Iraqis in Anbar a total of five times since Jan. 28, it said.
And thus that justifies the invasion of Iraq. Don't believe me, then tall that to those soldiers who are suffering from chlorine gas exposure.
A fix for that is to have the Hab sized rover carry or tow a car sized rover with the same range on a tank of fuel. I've seen plenty of RVs towing smaller cars around on the highway, its sort of a convenience when you have two drivers that wish to bring two vehicles that could be driven to seperate locations at the same time, but also have only one driver when doing the long distance driving yet bring two cars such that only one drives at a time. A Hab sized rover would have an engine with alot of horsepower, with a number of different attachments, it could be used as a drilling rig, for instance or an Earth moving machine for building a more permanent base. With the Hab attachment, it could go the same distance as a smaller rover, but bring along a laboratory, a kitchen and dinning area, and bunks for sleeping, a sanitary facility, and a communication center as well, that can directly contact Earth or one of the Com sats around Mars to communicate with the fixed base if need be.
No question of the Chinese public being "gung ho" for their national space program!
As with all things China, it all depends on the "Emperor" whoever he may be. Do Americans want to be ruled by the "Chinese Star Empire"?
Some of the Main differences between then and now, is we had people that set goals and were determined to hit those goals. We had a presidents that knew the importance of space and were committed to see a National Space Mission happen. Like John F. Kennedy Moon Mission that he gave in 1961. It was three months before the United States had even put any one into space and we are going to the moon.
Having a man like John F. Kennedy, probably had the biggest impact on the American space program than anything else did.
Whether another man like John F. Kennedy would have the same effect, well that been debated before on this web site. So we don't need to go there right now.
Larry,
None of the Kennedy's today seem all that interested in space travel. I talked to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he didn't seem to be much of a space enthusiast to me, he's more into environmental litigation.
Why not let them foreclose on the rubble? I can imagine a bank taking possession of a ruined building and trying to sell it. I don't think they'll retrieve the full value of the mortgage. The value of the land is greatly reduced by the absence of a building. Whoever buys the land is going to have to do some building on it.
I did a study on Jimmy Carter. He was one of the most maligned presidents and cannot be blamed for the rise of Islamic Iran or the hostage crisis. He can be though acclaimed for helping to destroy the Soviet Union and destroying the cold war.
Jimmy Carter should have given the Iranians two weeks, or however long it took to position an invasion strike force in the vicintity of Iran. Once the time has expired, Jimmy Carter should have attacked and overthrown the government.
The hostages would be presumed as prisoners of war, and if they are executed of mistreated, we would scour the country for the war criminals and bring them to justice, that is what Jimmy Carter should have done, then we could topple the revolutionary government and install our own. The whole hostage crisis is why I don't think very well of Iran as a country. The point was Jimmy Carter was unable to get reelected, even with a liberal press on his side.
We will start with the Iran situation. Iran had real problems with the foreign backed Shah and there had been for decades a movement against him and the western powers (the west had already backed a coup against a nationalistic goverment). What really peeved the Iranians though was that when the Shah left the country as it boiled over he was being flown to the US on a US diplomatic jet. When the new leader of Iran, Khomeni called for demonstrations against these foreign powers the students actually planned to take over not only the US embassy but also the USSRs.
There is something called diplomatic immunity, I'm surprised the Iranians haven't heard of it. There miserable treatment of our diplomatic personal and there refusal to respect their diplomatic immunity is the reason we should not be talking to those savages today. People who take diplomats hostage should not be negotiated with since they do not respect the protocols of negotiation. The diplomats, that they took hostage are they ones they should have negotiated with, not negotiated over. I saw Americans burning Iranian flags in those days, and stupid Carter was saying they shouldn't do that. Well if the Iranians wanted peace with us, they certainly took a giant step in the wrong direction. One does not talk with criminals.
But then over the airwaves from Turkey came Radio Turkeys belief that the USA would get another coup to put the Shah back in charge and later that week large crowds gathered outside the US embassy and eventually came over the walls. Of course the students had ment to take over (they had done it before) but they had the very vocal backing of most Iranians.
I frankly don't care, their "revolution" wasn't democratic, it gave no voice to the people. I don't see the Ayatollah as inherently better than the Shah. The Shah at least was a secular leader and didn't pretend to hold the gates of heaven like this Ayatollah does, I prefer honesty in a leader, and the Ayatollah was a liar pretending that he has a aspecial relationship with God as he calls for people's deaths. I totally disrespect their religion, and people who would want such a government over the Shah's. If it was people who were fighting for a representative government, that would be different, but they weren't. If it were going to be one thug over another, I'd rather give them our thug, rather than let them select their own. Terrorism is evil and the Ayatollah supported terrorism, and that gives the religion he represents a black mark in my eyes. The other leaders of shiism didn't denounce him as the Pope would have done had a Catholic Priest undertaken such barbarity.
Many of the embassy staff got away and where able to be hidden in the Canadian and Swiss embassies. 66 though where captured and the demands of the hostage takers where for the return of the Shah for trial (and execution). A military operation called Eagle Claw was tried and it was an unqualified disaster. So the president started talks and days before Reagan took power the basis of the Algerian accords where signed and the treaty for the hostages to be freed was arranged. Reagan took the credit for what Carter arranged.
Or maybe they were afraid of what Reagan would do to them. The Foreign community did not give Jimmy Carter much support when he was President. If they all did their thing, he Jimmy would have had no trouble during his administration and gotten reelected. But the World Community gave Jimmy problem after problem.
The Arabs for instance could have lowered the price of oil, and that would have helped Jimmy get reelected, but they didn't. The Soviets could have held off the invasion of Afghanistan until Jimmy Carter had completed his second term in office out of respect for a fellow left-wing leader, but they did not.
By the way in the only private session since the second world war the Canadian parliement took the unique decision to issue passports to all the hidden diplomatic staff so they could get out of Iran. They broke international law to help there ally.
How did Carter help to destroy the USSR. In 1979 afghanistan was invaded by the USSR. Carter blocked grain and fuel shipments to the USSR as a result but he also ordered the creation of Operation Cyclone. This is where the Afghan tribal leaders where armed and financed by the USA to fight the USSR creating what became the USSRs Vietnam. Unlike Reagan who benefitted from the links Carter put in only local afghans where so trained not till Reagan took over where all the foreign nationals determined to fight the Soviets armed and trained as well.
Incidentally this was a history project when written though it is a good example of the principle that even with so much power you just cant control events and that if you use military force it not necassarily will go the way you want. I only did this project since we where not allowed to do one on the more relevant to my peers Falklands war.
Carter was unable to demonstrate any of these "accomplishments" in time to get reelected, and those examples all bore fruit long after he was out of power, and were managed by his successor, Ronald Reagan. Most Americans have bad memories of the Carter Administration.
I believe the range was 500 km, that is 500 km out and 500 km back, so if you put a fuel station 500 km out and it breaks down, you can still go back. It should be possible to tell if it broke down before getting there.
Ok $400 a pop, but remember its a solar powered fuel manufacturing facility, it can be used for the next mission and the next. There may be places where its easy to put a lander, and other places that are interesting to investigate, you might want a road that connects the two.
One mission profile would be to have a fixed Hab, and a large rover with an equal volume as the Hab, then you place some fuel stations. About 5 or 6 will cover the entire length of the Valles Marineris. Now you can set the Fixed hab down at the mouth of the Valles Marineris, then you set down six solar power fuel manufacturing stations, and each station manufactures enough fuel over 2 years to fill up the Hab sized rover twice, then the Rover can begin its journey along the canyon. Well at $400 million per station, it will cost 2.4 billion to place 6 of these stations along the floor of the Vallis Marineris. The terrain can be mapped out by satellite to make sure that one station is reachable from the next. At around 20 kph, it should take 25 hours to travel each 500 km, assuming no stops, about a week to travel from one end to the other without stopping, of course the point is to stop, so it might take a month or two to do the whole trip. Also consider that sending an unmanned fuel station would be cheaper than sending seperate manned expeditions to check out these sites along the canyon. Another consideration is the RV Hab will burn fuel even when not moving in order to power the life support system, perhaps Solar panels might be place on the foor for emergency power.
I advocate a foreign policy predicated on ensuring American security when it is directly threatened. I advocate a foreign policy that ensures that any and all resources are directed toward achieving the goals. I advocate a foreign policy that is not predicated on political partisanship, opportunism, or deceit to the American people. I advocate a foreign policy where direct conflict is the last resort, not the first solution.
Jimmy Carter tried that one, direct conflict was always the last resort with him, the very very last resort, and Jimmy Carter always found that he can always talk some more, negotiate some more, he stayed up late nights trying to negotiate the release of the hostages, and an inordinate amount of his time was used up trying to negotiate with the Revolutionary "Republic" of Iran with very little progress, he figured the choice was that or lose the 44 hostages and declare war on Iran, but he chose to talk and talk, conucted a token rescue mission that was a failure and talked some more. He made clear that if Iran executed any hostages, there would be consequences, Iran didn't, but it didn't release any either, and so Jimmy Carter just talked and talked, and never used force against Iran, mostly because the Reporters put the pictures of the hostages up on the TV, so Jimmy couldn't sacrifice them by giving the Iranians a deadline and if not met, declare war on them. If you always leave force as a last resort, you may never resort to it, even if you should, because one can always talk uselessly some more.
So Clark, do you want another Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter didn't seem too popular in this country, they weren't satisfied with his late nights of trying to release the hostages, and his sweaters, and his turning down the White House Thermostats, and his inflation and gas rationing. Well the American people got tired of him and didn't reelect him. Do you want to put another one like that in the White House? I'll tell you now, he's going to last one term and then he's out, 4 years wasted.
You can mischaracterize the situation any way you please, however, Congress is seeking to impose its will on the Executive branch, as is their constitutional duty, in order to effect a change in how this war is executed.
So they want to effectively eliminate the office of President by taking away all the powers of that office and micromanage the executive branch by Congressional commitee, simply because they don't like the current office holder. You know if you alter the presidency in this way, the next President is not going to be able to do much good, he won't be able to direct troops or protect this country, and Congress is not going to do what you want, its going to lead the troops into humiliating defeat by zeroing out their budget, and later on were going to have some dictators challenge us in all regions of the world, invading our allies, or formenting revolutions and creating hostile powers, while Congress fiddles, the US soldiers march back and forth in their bases unable to do anything about it , because Congress won't let them.
Congress has been forced to take this drastic action precisely because the executive branch has failed time and time again, and has shown no willingness nor desire to modify its course of action in what is obviously a failure.
And the Congress is so much wiser than the President? I don't think that even you believe that, and if you do, you would be a fool. Committees make poor generals, they cannot react fast enough to rapidly changing military situations, all the can do is debate and vote.
The greatest military might on earth has been bogged down for several years with no tangible signs of success, nor any near term hope of a solid conclusion. Why? How?
Has to do with the rules of engagement. if Vladimir Putin were directing this war, and he wanted to win, he would simply destroy those areas that offered him too much resistance, and the war would be over. Because of our humanitarian concerns, the war drags on. We tend to spare the enemy in order to save the innocent, while Putin is Prepared to sacrifice the innocent in order to defeat the enemy. I think its important that we learn to fight insurgencies, and not retreat from them, otherwise men like Putin will eventually rule the Globe and defeat democracy which is unwilling to defend itself for humanitarian reasons.
As it is, it takes 5 years to equal the casualities of a battleship sunk during World War II. Just because the Media zooms in on their faces, and their next of kin, doesn't make them anymore than the crew manifest of a single battleship lost during World War II.
This has occurred because of politics- but not from Congress. The Executive branch made a political decision to send in fewer troops, and the generals that disagreed were shown the door.
And now they are invited back with a troop surge and now the Congress says no way. George Bush is trying to correct this mistake and Congress is saying, No Way, we want to lose and humiliate the troops, so we can take the White House in 2008.
The Executive branch determined to invade Iraq, using intelligence that suited their particular objective, and ignored the intelligence analysts who pointed out the flaws in their own assumptions.
Ever hear the expression, Assume the Worst?
We all know what a peace lover Saddam Hussein is, the man wouldn't hurt a fly. The worst case scenario when we assume the worst is that we remove a brutal dictator and giver the Iraqis another chance at democracy.
The Worst case scenario is we don't assume the Worst was Saddam taking over the Middle East, by invading Saudi Arabia, and aquiring nuclear weapons and handing them out to terrorists.
The Executive branch, determined to carry out military action on a country that was not a direct threat to our strategic interests did not plan adequately for the post-invasion, and as a result, the executive branch has squandered blood, treasure, and limited our strategic flexibility in dealing with other issues that affect our interests.
So Presidents aren't allowed to make mistakes are they, President's like Lincoln, and FDR? The Surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was unforgivable, the FDR Administration was unprepared, so that is a sign of FDRs incompetance and Congress should act immediately to make it difficult for him to order troops around the World and fight the War.
Basically what your saying is that the President made a mistake, so lets make it harder for him, or lets just give up and lose the war.
The Executive branch failed our military through sheer incompetence and arrogance, and as a result, we are now stuck in Iraq with few worthwhile options. I readily admit that we need to stay in Iraq, but we need to be honest about why that is, and what needs to be done in order to effect an actual tangible success.
I have no problem with Congress getting into a historical debate about what should have been done differently, but when they try to interfere with the proscecution of the war, and do not allow the President to apply lessons learned, then I have a really big problem with that.
You cry about Congress and Democratic would be presidents, but you also ignore the fact that Bush has no new ideas, and none of the republican candidates offer any realistic solutions.
We have been staying the course like a bunch of good little lemmings and all we have to show for it is a more dangerous Iraq, a bunch of dead or maimed Americans, the hatred of the world,
Yeah the World don't like democracies, they are always rooting for the mustached villian, so screw the World!
a breaking economy, and an army that is over extended.
I applaud you for the strength of your convictions. The faith you show in the repeated failures of our sitting president is simply breathtaking.
Lincoln was a miserable failure in prosecuting the Civil War, he has shown nothing but incompetance, until the War was won. if congress took over the executive, the South would have won. the main problem is George Bush stuck with the same generals for too long, it is time to get new ones, not tie their hands. Congress has no military expertise, they don't know how to win, and have shown very little interest in doing so.
Americans have been more than willing to pay the price for war- when the price is worth it.
We were led into a war with Afghanistan and understood the cost and believed it to be the right thing to do because of 9/11. We were then informed, incorrectly, that iraq presented a clear and present danger to our immediate saftey.
So you advocate a "Chicken Feathers" foreign policy to leave an impression in our enemies minds that we are weak or cowards? What does that do for our enemies willingness to engage us later on and embroil us in further wars? They'll assume we'll just chicken out if they manage to kill and certain number of us. Playing games about initial assumptions and excuses for withdrawing will do us no good, as we'll still look like cowards and the enemy will suppose they frightened us away because they killed a certain number of troops. Somalia in a similar vein emboldened the enemy to attack us at 9/11. And right now Congress is trying to do the terrorists a great favor by bueocratizing the armed forces with a series of hoops and requirements before they can respond to an enemy attack.
This has been proven false. Iraq did not pose an immediate threat. Iraq did not pose a short term or medium threat. The immediate threats were and are Iran and North Korea.
Then how come Congress wanted to place further obstacles in front of the President before he can invade Iran? Why is Congress trying to force the President to talk to the Iranians and the Syrians, if they are the real threats? if the Defense Department is made into a buerocratic morass, it can't respond to threats in a timely fashion. If their problem is with this President, then they should focus on the next president rather than trying to shift Presidential powers into the hands of Congress. Congress is not capable of directing troop movements, and if it does, it will only get troops killed and lead them to defeat. I'd much rather put Generals Uniforms on each of the Congressmen and have them individually lead troop movements of various units rather than having them command the armed forces collectively. I think our generals have more experience leading our troops than Congress collectively has. Any Congressman who says the troops should do X, Y and Z, should take on one of our generals and test his meddal against theirs.
Georige Bush's administration trumped up intelligence and presented it as fact to the american people to garner support for an invasion of iraq. The american people believed their president, and supported the decision to invade Iraq to protect america and her allies from a clear, immediate, and present danger.
Support for this invasion has waned not because of the number of US casulties, but because in hindsight, the american people are discovering that iraq was not an immediate threat. the american people are discovering that planning for the invasion was not done adquetly enough to allow for the appropriate resources to succeed in the plan. The american people, based on the facts, have decided that 3200 dead american soldiers, and 23,417 wounded is not worth the price for what even George Bush admits will only be a partial victory.
unfortunetly Iraq NOW poses an immediate threat to american security. it poses an immediate threat because of the way the american executive branch planned and executed the invasion of iraq. Oh irony, the very thing that the George Bush administration claimed to want to prevent is actually the cause.
I unfortunetly find myself agreeing that we need to do everything in our power to succeed in Iraq. I think it is a travesty that poor US military men and women have the unfotunate job of trying to succeed without being given the resources or the competant leadership they deserve. George Bush failed the american people, and led us into a war we did not need to fight, without planning or preparing appropriately for victory. George Bush has demonstrated that he lacked the foresight, the wisdom, or the basic ability to formulate an alternate strategy that would lead us to success.
Saddam Hussein did invade Kuwait, past experience proves the threat, whether he had chemical weapons was besides the point, he was a threat to the region.
The problem is Congress, and the Media have raised the expectations forcing him to do more with less than FDR had. It is purely partisan, the simple answer is the Democrats want the Republican President to fail even if that also means the United States fails, they hurt the United States so they can assume power and take control. Sort of like the crew of the ship sabotaging its engines so they can oust the captian for poor management skills.
We were drafted, and didn't have a thing to say about it. If Harry Truman had thought the way you do, we'd be fighting Japanese suicide-bombers instead of the ones Bush has stirred up. But that was then, and this is now ... so I intend to leave it and go on to more productive topics. Have fun.
We did fight Japanese suicide bombers. i don't think Bush stirred up the Muslim Suicide bombers, George Bush was minding his own business when they attacked the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, then he took action.
CNT materials are self healing
HOUSTON, Feb. 15, 2007 — Pound for pound, carbon nanotubes are stronger and lighter than steel, but unlike other materials, the miniscule cylinders of carbon – which are no wider than a strand of DNA – remain remarkably robust even when chunks of their bodies are blasted away with heat or radiation. A new study by Rice University scientists offers the first explanation: tiny blemishes crawl over the skin of the damaged tubes, sewing up larger holes as they go.
"The shape and direction of this imperfection does not change, and it never gets any larger," said lead researcher Boris Yakobson, professor of mechanical engineering and materials science and of chemistry. "We were amazed by it, but upon further study we found a good explanation. The atomic irregularity acts as a kind of safety valve, allowing the nanotube to release excess energy, in much the way that a valve allows steam to escape from a kettle."
The research appears Feb. 16 issue of in Physical Review Letters.
Now we just have to figure out how to mass produce them uniformly.
I would like to point out that 'countries' are not natural, but in actuality, are the result of artifical and arbitrary concepts generated from a predisposition of human beings to define their individual place within a social hieararchy.
Nations have been around since the beginning of recorded history. I don't know where you get the idea that they are a new phenominon that has only recently been thought of.
Without nations there is no law, and no authority to turn to when laws are broken. People tend not to like to live in environments where somebody can rob them or murder them and there is no recourse but to steal back what has been stolen or to seek vengence for murders. With no authority to turn to, people have no recourse but to seek "justice" for themselves in what ever way the wronged party perceives "justice". Nations embody a set of laws and those laws are in effect over the territory of the nation. If we were to make two nations into one, we'd have to rewrite the laws so that they are common for the territories of both former nations, you can have federalism so that you have sets of laws specific to certian regions, but to maximize trade, you need a common set of laws to expidete the efficiency of one market place as opposed to two.
There is no 'I', without 'You', just as there is no 'Us' without 'Them'.
As such, Tom, it is not unnatural to expect a country to give up control of its border or not to guard them because a country is not natural to begin with and is a societal construct, and being that society can and does construct a wide range of ideas, and has demonstrated an ability in modifying said constructs when it suits their interest, I think we can safely assume that you are once again talking out of your rear end.
I don't know where you get these ideas, but humans are individuals, some will attempt to break the laws if they think they can get away with it. if you propose we simple trust each other and stop commiting crimes, that works fine until someone enters the community who decides to take advantage of the lack of authority. Your asking nationstates to give up authority over the border, and are therefore making it easier for criminals and terrorists to evade the authority, if they can go from one territory where they are wanted by the government to another territory where they are not. this situation tends to undermine the authority of governments on both sides of the border, especially when laws are broken in one country, but the other country decides not to hand over the criminal because it does not agree with the other nation's law. An example is the Death Penalty. Certain crime in the US call for the Death Penalty - someone is murdered and the murderer escapes to Canada. the US government has proof that he is guilty and wants to bring him to trial, but the Canadian government refuses to hand him over because he may face the death penalty. Well the Canadians don't get to write our laws, and if the criminal escapes to Canada and the border is not guarded, then he gets away with murder, the only recourse the family of the murder victim has is to send out an assassin to exact vengence in Canada.
But that said, I fully support armed guards and large walls along the borders. Not because I wish to prevent people from getting into America. I simply want assurances that if and when i leave, there will be something tangible to prevent people like you from leaving.
And Tom, there is more involved in getting a US passport than what you list. You have to have pictures taken, sign several forms, submit several forms of identification, and it takes several weeks to process.
I have had no trouble getting my passport, I don't see why that should be a problem, and passports only have to be renewed once per decade.
When travelling between Mexico and California, a US citizen declares that they are a US citizen. No id is required, at least that was always my experience a few years ago. But whatever.
Would you want me to go into your bank and withdraw money from your account, and before the bank hands me your money, they ask me for ID and I tell them, I'm Clark and that's good enough for them?
I don't think so.
Tom, grow up. Why don't you answer exactly how old you are. Your comments obviously demonstrate you're not that mature. I could ignore stuff like that if the politicians in the US didn't adhere to such drivvel. Canada is a sovereign country, we aren't going to join the US but do wish to be friends. The US invaded Canada twice in our history, twice that I know of, but we got over it and our countries became good friends. Why ruin it now? Why piss off your friends?
If you like your seperateness, then why do you complain about the border?
What you seem to require of us is that we give up some of our security to accomodate you and get nothing in return.
If you want to travel from the United States to Canada as if you travel from one part of your country to another, you seem to want some sort of unification.
If you want two governments, but no border between them, then what you'd have is Canada loosining up our customs and immigration policy and Canadian authorities aren't accountable to the US people. What is it you want, us to just forget about the terrorists menace and let them kill us to satisfy you Canadians?
In order to have homeland security, our government has to control it, we can not farm it out to other governments. I don't understand how you can just wave the problem away and pretend it does not exist, that is just plain stupid. If you don't want to have a border, that means you want unification; if you don't want unification, that means you want the border. All countries have borders and all countries regulate them. If you don't like my solution, tough, then stop the whining!
The US now requires their own citizens to have a passport to re-enter their country, which means if a US citizen enters Canada without one they can't get back. This is adversely affecting tourism and trade. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, yet George W. is bent on pissing us off.
I got a passport, they are not hard to get, you just have to show a birth certificate and pay a nominal fee, I don't know what problem you have. If we didn't require US citizens to show their IDs before reentry into the United States, how are we supposed to know that they are not actually Canadian citizens? We don't want Canadian citizens voting in our elections, just like I'm sure you don't want millions of American citizens pouring into your country and voting the Conservatives into your Parliment, do you?
Dictice, you asked how soon they would begin arming the border. This article is in this morning's local newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press.
Grand Forks to get Northern Border Air Wing branch in JulyI notice the article mentions North Dakota senator Byron Dorgan. He opposes free trade with anyone for anything. He fought the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization, a bilateral agreement with China, and now the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA). Free trade has its flaws, but it's all or nothing, you can't do it part way. US businessmen wanted access to Canadian markets, and access to Canadian resources. The price is free trade both ways; Canada gets access to American markets. Without free trade you don't get access to Canadian oil, natural gas, electricity or the ability to export goods to Canada, operate business within Canada, or buy Canadian businesses. The US government has demanded all that but complains every time a Canadian business succeeds in the US market.
As you said, its not perfect, but you sure do complain. Its unnatural to expect a country to give up control of its borders or not to guard them, it doesn't mean we can't have free trade, but we do have to inspect them. There are products in Canada that are legal there and not legal here. Do you want Americans brining in their legal Assault rifles into Canada to go hunting? We don't want your people bringing in Pot either as that is illegal in our country, you can complain about protectionism if we don't legalize pot when you legalize pot, but that is just an example of our requirement that we control our border.
Byron Dorgan also complains constantly about the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason is his state has a lot of farmers so it's easy to blame Canada. Reality is Canada grows wheat with high gluten, that makes great pasta but sticky/mushy bread. The US grows wheat with low gluten; makes great bread but pasta crumbles. Ok, sounds like a great reason for trade. Well, it turns out it's more complicated. North Dakota can grow the same varieties of wheat as Canada, but US federal trade subsidies ensure all the high gluten wheat goes to Europe. US pasta manufacturers buy Canadian wheat because they can't get any of the domestic stuff. You could stop exporting to Europe, we would export to Europe instead. The result would be the same total from North America, but the US wants to engage in a trade war with Europe. Rather than dealing with all that complication, Byron Dorgan likes to claim the Canadian Wheat Board is responsible for all North Dakota farmers' woes. That's a cheap, underhanded way to buy votes. So now he's behind this move to arm the border. Uh huh.
If you want a North American Union, when we'll need something like Europe has, which is a North American Union government, if you don't like that, then the US/Canada border will never be as free as the borders in Europe. The price you pay for open borders is reduced sovereignty of the National governments in favor of a supernational one or at least supernational organizations. I gave you an example of a Supernational organization that uses the double veto system, but you complain about it and call it imperialism. I've explained that it would go both ways but still you complain. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to become less secure in my country in order to accomodate free trade and open borders, if there is to be free trade and open borders, then their must be compensatory agreements to prevent outsiders from entering Canada and thus gaining access to the United States without out permission. I'm sorry we can't just trust the Canadian government to always do what's in our best interests, we need a formal agreement, and that's all I'm asking for, so will you please stop calling me a racist or an imperialist without cause, at least listen to what I'm saying for content before you automatically berate me.
Tom, that's damned generous of you to cross off 3,100 lives of your GI's, not to mention the crippling casualties and the economic costs "that are not that high either." You should rush right down now, and join up before those yellow-bellies in Congress vote to pull out of IRAQ and spoil your fun.
Don't look at me, I didn't kill them, the enemy did! I don't think the enemy ought to be able to kill 3,100 US soldiers and get off for it scott free. You standards for how to conduct a war are historically unprecidented. George S. Patton couldn't meet that standard for casuality avoidance that you seem to demand for our modern troops, Douglas McArthur could not meet that standard. If you are a World War II vet, I don't know how you can expect our generals to meet that standard in modern times when it couldn't be met in yours.
Try to win a war without significant casualities on your own side, that is an almost impossible standard to meet for any war that is of significant duration. I'll tell you what 3,100 means, it is the population of my high school in 1985 when I graduated. I know there are many thousands upon thousands of high schools in this country, and the War in Iraq has only taken out the equivalent of one. If the lives of our soldiers are too precious to risk, we might as well discharge them all into civilian life, as they can be of no value to this country or its defense if they are too precious for us to risk. and without an army we are vulnerable to other foreign armed forces that do not value the lives of their individual soldiers a as much as we do, they will conquer us and we will cease to exist as a country. The new foreign occupiers would then draft us into their armed services as much as they please, and will not care if our Johnnies come home on their own two feet or in a casket, as government will not be responsive to popular opinion or the antiwar crowd. I would think a World War II vet would understand this.
Out of curiosity: do you think there's time to complete it before Bush is out of office? Would it be torn down after he's gone, I wonder? What must the Mexicans think? Could it happen up here along the northern border? Naw--that'd be crazy, right?
Do you want to tear it down and unite the three parts of North America into one country?
As a matter of fact, if you have a country, you also have a border, and that country will want to control that border regulating who and what comes and goes, why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
Seems obvious doesn't it?
The money will come from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact if we win the war in Iraq, Iraq will be better able to pay since it has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East, but Iraq will only be able to pay if we win the war there and don't cut and run.
If we cut and run, we'll be left holding the bill, since the insurgents we left there will be messing thing up for Iraq and preventing the flow of oil. If we want to be paid back for the Iraq War effort, we have to put Iraq back up on its feet so it can pay us. Isn't that obvious, or is there some flaw with that logic?
Obviously we need some change in tactic, and George Bush is trying, but the only tactic the Democrats will consider is cut and run, and that will leave us holding the bill and Iraq incapable of paying it.
Tom you are trillions in debt and Iraq will never pay you back. For every $10 you spend on Iraq the most you will ever get back is 10 cents. This is due to Iraq being an economic disaster zone everything has to be rebuilt and repaired and im not just talking about the Goverment. The Oil industry is rapidly getting up to speed but the rest of the countries infrastructure is a mess.
Afghanistan has but one major product and that is Heroin. So count that out.
That depends on what terms of repayment we set. If we just abandon Iraq, we will get nothing back and that's guaranteed. The cost is not that great when put in relative terms, the 3,100 soldiers we lost amounts to the number of sailors crewing a large capital ship that gets sunk in the Battle of the Atlantic. Economically the cost is not that high either. Look at the sacrifices our grandparents and great grandparents made during world war II, they had to endure rationing and high taxes, and we endure neither, the Iraq war is not that costly, it is just the media that is protraying it as such because they would like to see us lose.
Another form of repayment is the imporved situation we see in the middle east, if the countries are democratic and the people more moderate, we would have to worry less about terrorism than if we simply hide under our bed and abandon them.
Re. "... if we cannot stand to lose 300 of them, does that mean that civilians are more expendable than soldiers? ..."
As a former GI/Dogface infantryman, I remember the shock of disbelief at the death of FDR, and another shock of relief at the Truman approved dropping of the A-bombs. My mind was made up then--having survived to non-invasion of Japan--that war is dumb to the point of insanity, and that noncombatant war-lovers are cowards at heart.
That's a very convenient time to come to the realization that War in general is dumb, especially with the enemy already defeated and all. Oh, I agree with you, World War II was a dumb idea, and if given a choice, I would not have started it...
But I didn't start it did I, Hitler did, and Tojo joined in along with Musolinni, they thought World War II was a great opportunity to get in on the groud floor of Hitler's grand scheme to build his Germanic Empire, and the other two wanted the scraps and a share of the spoils from his conquest, and you know what, Hitler would have loved it if there were a number of men who thought resistance was futile and didn't put up a fight allowing Hitler to accumulate his grand Empire cheap and easily.
The people who start wars are not us. If the enemy comes to conquer my civilization or destroy my way of life, I would put up a fight, is that a waste, or should we give up our freedoms easily and without much struggle?
Sink a battleship or an aircraft carrier in World War II and you lose 3000 sailors right there, that is the amount of troops that we lost in the Iraq War over the last 5 years. I find it unfair that the standards the liberals apply to George W. Bush are much higher than what were applied to FDR. If 3000 is too many casualities for right now and we must pull out, what are the standards that will be applied for tomorrow, 300? If we cannot stand to lose 300 troops in armed combat what does that imply for the usefulness of our armed forces in the future, how will they protect us if we cannot stand to lose 300 of them, does that mean that civilians are more expendable than soldiers?
Yes, I have noticed that. The Media seems to want the government to take over and spend billions of dollars on the problem with a "bull rush" solution, they want the government to raise taxes on gasoline increase fuel economy standards arbitrarily, and basically try to force society to make great changes at enourmous cost. A little research and technology development isn't nearly as costly as forcing changes on society and the economy through government taxation and regulation, and further technological innovations might make the transition to a carbon neutral energy source less painful, if we are simply patient and wait for technology to pan out. By pretending that "Doomsday" is just around the courner, we could really hurt the economy, it mostly provides an excuse for the government to collect extra revenue. Just look at Europe, their gas taxes are higher than ours, in theory this should spur development in more fuel efficient vehicles and alternate energy, well where is it? All I see is Europeans made poorer, driving smaller cars, and driving them less frequently. I am not interested in reducing my standard of living, I am interested in reducing my countries dependence on imported oil, especially from the Middle East, we have alot of coal and there is technology to produce automotive fuel out of it and to burn it cleanly.
Reducing CO2 emmisions is not my number 1 priority right now, my priority is to get off dependence on imported oil from the middle east, because some of that money gets siphoned off to terrorism. I think nuclear fusion reseach ought to be funded, and when it arrives, it ought to do alot to solve the global warming problem, there is no point in which its too late to reverse global warming. The Earth has experienced warmer climates than now in the past. There were periods when the Earth had no ice caps at all and the tropics covered most of the globe.
The thing to ask is which is more costly, the oceans rising half a meter over the next century, or doing something drastic to combat global warming with what we know now?
Robert started this post complaining about American Protectionism at the US Border here:
A number of Americans have asked why there appears to be criticism from Canada. The war against Iraq is one reason, trade is another. Trade is a sore sticking point. But here are a couple news articles of really offensive actions that can only permanently break down relations.
US is building a wall along the Canadian-U.S. border:
1,800 towers along the border, anywhere from 24 to 60 metres high
unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, big ones such as Global Hawk and Predator
blimps, able to launch small UAVs
seismic sensors capable of detecting a tunnel being dug
infrared and motion detectors
a border fence in highly populated areas is still a consideration
machine-guns on coast guard vessels in the Great Lakes
U.S. to create 'virtual fence' for borders
Blimps over the border
U.S. puts machine-guns on Great Lakes coast guard vessels
Great Lakes machine guns raise ire in Canada
::Edit:: The last news article now requires a subscription. Here is a copy that doesn't.Who does the US government think Canada is? We are not Mexico, we are not like Mexico, we are not a third world country. It's highly offensive to treat Canada like Mexico. If you think there’s illegal immigration from Canada, you’re dreaming. Welfare pays more than illegal unskilled labour jobs. The only reason for a Canadian to move to the US is a highly paid professional job, and that requires income tax. Filing income tax requires either a work visa or landed immigrant card (green card). That paperwork is what’s important, not building an iron curtain along what was the longest undefended border in the world. If the U.S. really wants to crack down on illegal immigration, require employers to send a photocopy of the employee's Social Security card with the income tax paperwork for every new employee. When I worked in the U.S. my Social Security card prominently stated "requires INS approval" or something like that. This is a clear indication that a work visa is required. I had a TN (Temporary Nafta) work visa. A photocopy also ensures the Social Security number is valid, not just made up to fill in boxes on a form. Arming the border is dangerous and offensive. It's only a matter of time before a gun happy guard itching to use his new big gun shoots someone.
I have tried to address Robert's grievances, but when I do, he just gets offended. I agree with him, I too would like to get rid of that pesky old border that stands in the way of free commerce and travel, but it appears that ole Robert just wants to complain and needs something to complain about, if I attempt to find a solution to his problem, he just gets mad. Some people just like to whine and complain about America, I don't know why. I've noticed too that Jimmy Carter was much more beloved by the World when he was out of power than when he was in power, when they just considered him weak, curious that. So many people in the world say they want the United States to do this or that for them, but when the United States tries to address their issues, they are never satisfied, they just love scapegoating America and that's it.