New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#3626 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate » 2007-02-03 13:59:23
I think they should flip a coin.
As George S. Patton said, "Americans love a loser, and they will not tolerate a winner!" :x
#3627 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate » 2007-02-03 13:57:46
a majority of americans supported a war against Afghanistan with the goal of seeking out the agents directly responsible for 9/11.
a majority of americans supported a war against Iraq with the goal of preventing a similar attack being peretrated by agents supplied with WMD's from Saddam.
There were no WMD's.
Are you God? How do you know there were no WMDs? There were chemical weapons, 500 canisters of nerve agents, and Saddam was working on nuclear weapons, the IDF bombed a reactor. Better to be safe and assume the worst and get rid of a dictator, than assume the best and have the dictator surpise us.
So should we assume the best when we launch a mission into space? Lets just design the vehicle and launch it with space probe on board without testing any of the components, we just "know" its going to work because we assume the best.
Saddam was not involved in supporting the terroirsts who have an interest in attacking america. Saddam is now dead.
Your like those two guys crying over that slain monster in Return of the Jedi. Oh boo hoo hoo! Has that mean old president slain your favorite dictator? He was just having some fun gassing those Kurds with those chemical weapons he didn't have, chalk it all up to flatulence I guess. :twisted:
A majority of americans support getting out of the war. A majority want the troops to come home. A majority think Bush is an ass.
Isn't it interesting that the Democrats chose the Ass as their party animal.
#3628 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate » 2007-02-01 12:50:09
It appears the French president has the same position I do, although someone in the United States doesn't like that.
Chirac pooh-poohs Iran nuclear threat, then backtracks
French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview with three newspapers that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb wouldn't be "very dangerous" and that if it used the weapon on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed."
It doesn't immediately follow that he wouldn't use them anyway. We could just as easily dismiss the threat of suicide airplane attacks and terrorism by that same reasoning. "If they deliberately crash and airplane or blow themselves up, they would be killed, so they wouldn't do that." I guess Jacques Chirac has never before encountered Muslim extremist fanatics and assume all human beings are rational and interested in their own self-preservation, what is the one place where that does not necessarily hold true? The Middle East of course and the Muslim World, they brainwahs alot of people into commiting suicide with promises of 72 virgins, I don't want these nuts getting anywhere near a nuclear weapon, much less building one. If Chirac trusts in deterrence to deter them then he is a fool. We've protected such fools and suffered them for too long without letting them face the consequences of their own foolishness. When one superpower becomes strong and protect the rest, those others under protection, often have foolish notions, they think that War is something that could be simply wished or protested away, because they have been protected from it for so long, they start to blame anyone wearing a uniform for the existance of War, and they figure that by defunding the military, they thus ensure no future wars, forgetting that it is usually the foreign enemy that threatens their society not the soldiers protecting them that they accuse of starting wars.
Instead, Chirac said, the danger lies in the chances of proliferation or an arms race in the Middle East should Iran build a nuclear bomb. Possessing the weapon would be useless for Iran — whose leader has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" — as using it would mean an instant counterattack.
So he's more worried about others reacting to Iran rather than Iran itself, thus giving Iran an instant pass for its behavior. The most obvious way to deescalate the nuclear arms race is to attack Iran and destroy its ability to produce nuclear weapons before it has them rather than have endless discussions with them that go nowhere while giving them time to further their nuclear projects. Talking with Russia did not stop it from gaining nuclear weapons, talking with China, or France did not stop them from getting nuclear weapons either. Talk is cheap, why does he expect talk to work this time when before it has not?
'Tehran would be razed' before nuclear strike, Chirac says
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked.
Most Israelis live in Tel Aviv, If Iran destroys that, most of the Israelis will be gone. The Israeli military that was not in the blast could retaliate against Iran and destroy a few cities with its missiles, but Israel itself will be effectively destroyed before that happens. The Israeli military units that retaliated would be a stateless military force as most of those people it was charged to protect would already be dead.
"It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."
Of course Tehran is just one city in a much larger state, millions of Iranians live outside ogf the major cities in the countryside. Who knows, Iran may just be willing to accept the loss of several of its major cities in order to get rid of Israel, 70% of whose population lives in Tel Aviv. Many muslim fanatics are willing to die and accept tremendous losses in order to realize their goals. When you realize that Israel is effectively a city state with a surrounding countryside much like Kuwait is, this makes Israel alot easier to destroy with a few nuclear bombs than Iran is. After Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is gone, the surrounding Arabs can effectively move in with little resistance, once the IDF expends its nuclear retaliation on Iran. Having a small population that's concentrated vs a large population that's spread out is a disadvantage that makes one not want Iran to have nuclear weapons and to prevent them from gaining them in the first place. More advanced cultures tend to be city centric, while the more primitive ones like Iran are more rural.
In the second interview with the same newspapers, Chirac retracted his comment about Tehran being razed. "I retract it, of course, when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,"' he said.
Chirac also said other countries would stop any bomb launched by Iran from reaching its target.
"It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately," he said. "We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb."
This puts alot of faith in untested missile defense programs, that alot of liberals have opposed in the past.
Don't get me wrong, it is good to have a missile defense program, but it is better still not to have to need to use them, if one can prevent one's enemies from having nuclear weapons, one should rather than rely on the last line of missile defense once the missiles are already on their way.
#3629 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate » 2007-02-01 10:22:58
War with Iran has not been declared. War against Afghanistan and Iraq was. This does not permit declaring war on everyone on the planet. Trying to claim war in general permits the President to declare war on any country he wishes is a obvious and blatant violation of the constitution, and that is grounds for impeachment. The American people have come to realize war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the majority of the current Congress agrees. They want a way out as soon as possible. I believe the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan should never have stopped or slowed until all of al Qaeda neutralized. Iraq is a distraction, and permits terrorists to grow their organization. Declaring war on Iran as well would further weaken the effort against terrorists, and create more ire in the Islamic world that would only recruit more civilians into terrorist organizations. I think the Democrat congress is beginning to realize this. It isn't about loosing or backing down, but understanding how it works and adopting a winning strategy. Iran has not taken action against America or its allies since 9/11, debate all you want what happened before, but they have behaved themselves in recent years.
Does 9/11 wipe the slate clean between the US and Iran? What Iran did in 1979 was an act of War, taking 44 US diplomatic personell hostage for over a year is clearly an attack against the United States. The President of the United States does not need a declaration of War to respond to an attack against the United States. The latest attack by another country doesn't erase previous attacks, and Congress has also not approved any peace treaties between Iran and the United States so technically we're still at War. The Iranians still say, "Death to the United States" so from their end, they are sill at War with us. Iran has also attacked US troops through Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran is helping the Iraqi insurgents to kill US soldiers, this gets them involved in our current war in Iraq. What your attempting to do is divide up the War into a number of smaller wars, and then say Congress has declared War here but not there, and if somebody from over there attacks US soldiers, then those US soldiers are not allowed to defend themselves until Congress declares war against those people over there.
Declarations of War only Apply when the United States wants to initiate hostilities and start a War on its own. The lack of a declaration of War does not tie the President's hands when a foreign enemy initiates hostilities and it does not prevent him from defending the American people when they are attacked by a foreign enemy. The American people include American soldiers fighting in Iraq. If some new foreign element gets involved in the current conflict, we are allowed to fight those new belligerents regardless of what Congress thinks.
It is also very dangerous when Congress says, the US soldier can't defend himself as it has not declared war against the guy who is shooting at him. As it happens, the new Congress does not wish to see George Bush succeed at this War effort, the previous Congress authorized him to use force against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the new Congress cannot force him to sign a peace treaty with terrorists. Congress can take away the spending authorization for next year, but then the buck only stops with the President if Congress does not tie his hands. If Congress prevents the US President from fulfilling his duty to protect the American People, then the responsibility clearly shifts from the President's office to the US Congress. The Congress authorizes all government expenditures, this is clearly stated in the US Constitution, so despite what Harry S. Truman has said, the "Buck stops with Congress" because Congress has control of every buck that gets spent.
I think that if Congress does not allow the President to fight the War, he and the vice President should resign and let Nancy Pelosi assume responsibility for the wars, this would likely happen at the beginning of 2008 since the current funding for the Wars authorized by the previous congress expires by then. I see no purpose in George Bush becoming a figurehead and losing the War for the Democrats. I'd let the Democrats lose the War all by themselves with no Republicans taking part in it. Nancy Pelosi will then have one year's incumbancy and she can run onm the record of losing the War in Iraq instead of George playing her "Gerold Ford" and falling on his sword. I don't think Hillary, Obama, and several other Democratic hopefuls who are now Senators and Congressman, would be very pleased if Nancy Pelosi were to suddenly be made President by succession. If Congress makes the President's job impossible, the President and Vice President can always retaliate by quitting. I'd rather have Nancy Pelosi for one year in office than have some other democrat for the next four years, it would be much easier for a Republican challenger to beat her if Nancy is the incumbant and is responsible for the war and keeping the American people safe ad she falls down on the job because she doesn't want to succeed.
How they choose to build their national military within their own borders is an internal issue. Only the UN has jurisdiction over any say in that. Europe is handling the issue of uranium enrichment, and they're doing so non-violently, without an invasion.
They are not doing so nonviolently, they want to keep on trading with Iran despite what it does in developing nuclear weapons, especially if they think Iran will attack the United States and not them. Europe has not trouble trading with our enemies, it has been doing so with Iran ever since their revolution when they took US hostages.
Remember, invasion or covert military action is what angers people to form terrorist organizations against you.
Lots of people get angry with us without mounting terrorist attacks against the American people. If the US tries to stop terrorists through covert action and you say that our trying to stop them only creates more terrorists, that is a self-defeating statement, because if we do not stop those terrorists, they are still around to hurt us and if we do stop terrorists, that only creates more terrorists that go on to hurt us, so which is better action or inaction? I think if we do not stop the terrorists that we know about, and they attack us, it is more our fault because of our inaction than any new terrorists groups that we may inadvertantly create by attacking the terrorists we see. We do not know what all the side effects of attacking a known group of terrorists may be, but we do know what is going to happen if we don't stop the terrorists that we know about. 9/11 happened in part due to our inaction about intelligence on the activities of Al Quada. Ever since that attack, the Democrats have done nothing except issue one self-defeating statement after another and consul inaction, because what they most desire to see is the Bush administration fall down on its face so they can get back in the White House. Of course the failure of the Bush Adminstration means more American's dying. It is interesting that about 3000 Americans died fighting terrorism over the last several years and also 3000 Americans died not fighting terrorism in a single attack during 9/11. The Democrats make a big thing about the number of soldiers who died in the War exceeding the casualities in the 9/11 attack, but the 9/11 attack occurred in a single day, while the US casualties in the Iraq War occured over several years. I'd rather have more US soldiers die slowly in a war of attrition than have more 9/11 attacks where thousands of American civilians who cannot defend themselves die at once. I think we have kept the enemy off balance by fighting them on their home turf, there have been no more 9/11 style attacks since we started fighting on their home ground. If we pull out now, they can plot more massive attack against us unmollested by us or by fear of our army getting them, I'd rather not do that. The US Media has been dishonest in portraying the War; 3000 casualities over 6 years is not the same as 3000 casualities in a single day, and having one exceed the other is not a significant event. The US casualities in Fighting World War II easily exceeded those who died in the Pearl Harbor attack. The US Media has been constantly chipping away at out will to fight ever since the War began, with their dishonst Anti-War propaganda.
It's also amoral (not moral). Killing people just because they do something within their own territory that you don't like has to be the worst violation of morals possible. You want to be a right-wing, bible thumping Christian, then I remind you of the ten commandments: "You shall not murder". That's commandment number 6 by the Jewish or Protestant count, number 5 according to the Catholic/Lutheran/New Church. The latter combines the first two commandments together, then splits the last one in two. Where you split the sentences really doesn't matter, it still says the same thing: don't murder. When I was a kid in Sunday school they taught the King James Bible translation: "Thou shalt not kill." Since Iran has no intention of attacking the U.S., they just will not be cowed into bowing down before yet another military dictator (as they see the United States when you threaten war), the sane civilized response is to find a non-violent resolution.
Non-violent resolutions don't always exist to be found! That was the mistake of the allies before World War II, they kept on looking for non-violent resolutions to Hitler's agression for way too long, they were searching for something that wasn't there. If Iran doesn't want peace with us, we can search for non-violent resolutions and peace forever and not find it, all this does is give the advantage to the enemy, and allow Iran more time to develop its nuclear weapons for instance.
At one time the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, treated him as an ally. When Iran was at war with Iraq, they saw the United States as an ally to their enemy. Well, Iraq isn't an ally anymore so that is over. All that's left are a lot of hard feelings, fear, and posturing in an attempt to get those they fear to back down. And I do mean both sides. Iran is posturing in an attempt to get respect from the United States. Americans like you are sabre rattling because you fear Iran. Admit it, you're scared. Well, they're scared too but they can't afford to back down so they posture just as much. The obvious, adult response is to have a third party negotiate a resolution, to get both sides to calm down. That means leave it to Europe. They can impose sanctions and other non-violent means to get Iran to abandon nuclear weapons. But remember, American doesn't respect anything short of nuclear weapons so as long as you rattle the sabre you convince them that they have to develop nuclear weapons. Relax, calm down, stop goading them. Your actions have the exact opposite effect from your intention. Conclusion: shut up and stay out of it. Let Europe do the negotiating. And for God's sake stop undermining Europe's efforts by threatening Iran.
#3630 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate » 2007-02-01 01:47:35
The U.S. Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war. This power is not shared with anyone, not even the President.
Again I have to ask: Why do I, a Canadian, have to lecture you on your own nation's constitution?
War has already been declared. That provision in the constitution deals with Wars initiated by the United States only. If someone else starts a War with the United States by initiating the hostilities themselves, then War does not have to be declared in order for the President to exercise his duty to defend the United States of America. If you really think the legislative body can exercise executive duties in a time of War and direct the movement of troops as commanders in chiefs, then we don't need Generals, we can simply have an Army that consists of 100% privates. Have all the privates come to a consensus on how to fight the war, through debate and discussion and then they can vote on their orders and carry them out. Most armies that have been led by committees and debating societies have faired poorly on the Battlefield. If you want the Congress having debates on which tactics to use and where to deploy the troops, then that's a guaranteed strategy to lose the War. The reason why we have a command structure is that in a time of War, there is no time for debate. If a soldier receives an order he carries it out, he doesn't ask why or discuss strategy with his commanding officer, unless said officer asks for his opinion. In a battle their is no time for an Army to vote on what's its going to do. The duty of Congress is to enact laws, not direct troops. If you suggest that the Congress can ursup executive authority and exercise that authority successfully through debates and votes, then I suggest the office of President be abolished and we simply have Congress vote on orders for the troops.
Give me an Army led by a single leader vs an Army led by the legislature and the single leader led army will win every time.
#3631 Re: Civilization and Culture » Christmas on Mars » 2007-01-31 09:33:53
I wonder what Yang considers Christianity anyway? If you compare the two religions, Christianity seems more successful. There are two billion Muslims, most of whom live in the Eastern Hemisphere or what used to be referred to as "the Old World", The "New World" in which we live is the Christian Hemisphere. The New World is much more peaceful when compared with the Old World, which is troubled by Islam.
You seem to forget about the dark ages.
Yes, that has alot to do with religion taking over political power, like in the Middle East today.
#3632 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Pack of Fools in our House and Senate » 2007-01-31 09:30:31
I always worry when the legislature tries to take over the Executive Branch. As incompetant as George W. Bush may seem to some people, having the entire legislature attempt to take over the government is even more incompetant. Even having Jimmy Carter back as President would be a better idea than having the Congress attempt to do the President's Job as it is now trying to do! And What do they want the US to do? Negotiate with terrorists, that's what. Read the following that I copied from the Associated Press:
Senators Warn Against War With Iran
Wed Jan 31, 12:25 AM - Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Republican and Democratic senators warned Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over next-door Iraq.
"What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told John Negroponte, who is in line to become the nation's No. 2 diplomat as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's deputy.
Obama, a candidate for president in 2008, warned during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that senators of both parties will demand "clarity and transparency in terms of U.S. policy so that we don't repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in the past," a reference to the faulty intelligence underlying the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate, asked Negroponte if he thinks the United States is edging toward a military confrontation with Tehran. In response, Negroponte repeated President Bush's oft-stated preference for diplomacy, although he later added, "We don't rule out other possibilities."
Separately, the Navy admiral poised to lead American forces in the Middle East said Iran wants to limit America's influence in the region.
"They have not been helpful in Iraq," Adm. William Fallon told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It seems to me that in the region, as they grow their military capabilities, we're going to have to pay close attention to what they do and what they may bring to the table."
The Bush administration has increased rhetorical, diplomatic, military and economic pressure on Iran over the past few months, in response to Iran's alleged deadly help for extremists fighting U.S. troops in Iraq and the long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
Bush said Tuesday the United States "will deal with it" if Iran escalates military action inside Iraq and endangers American forces. But, in an interview with ABC News, Bush emphasized this talk signals no intention of invading Iran itself.
A day earlier, the president acknowledged skepticism concerning U.S. intelligence about Iran, because Washington was wrong in accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "I'm like a lot of Americans that say, 'Well, if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know it's right in Iran,'" the president said.
Washington accuses Iran of arming and training Shiite Muslim extremists in Iraq. U.S. troops have responded by arresting Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and the White House has said Bush has authorized U.S. troops to kill or capture Iranians inside Iraq.
The United States also accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons - an allegation Tehran denies. Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment lead the U.N. Security Council to impose limited economic sanctions.
Senators including Hagel, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., sounded frustrated with the administration's decision not to engage Iran and fellow outcast Syria in efforts to reduce sectarian violence in Iraq.
Negroponte, a career diplomat who is leaving a higher-ranked job as the nation's top intelligence official, gave only a mild endorsement of the administration's diplomatic hands-off policy toward Damascus and Tehran.
Negroponte would lead the department's Iraq policy if confirmed, as expected. He said Syria is letting 40 to 75 foreign fighters cross its border into Iraq each month and repeated the charge that Iran is providing lethal help to insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Iran and Syria are not helping promote stability and peace in Iraq and understand what the United States and other nation expect of them.
"I would never want to say never with respect to initiating a high-level dialogue with either of these two countries, but that's the position, as I understand it, at this time," Negroponte said.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to approve Negroponte quickly for a job vacant since July.
There you have it, we've elected a pack of fools. Iran is a well known terrorist sponsor, it oppresses its women, and the Democrats who claim to be liberals and pro equal rights want to force the President to negotiate with them. The warn of sliding into a War with Iran. What is worse, getting a few thousand more troops killed in an action against Iran or having them nuke one of our liberal cities? Democrats are so myopic that they can't see the threat Iran represents, all they care about is Bush Bush Bush. If there is any subject that doesn't involve defeating the Bush Administration, it is not part of their Universe, they certainly can't prevent the Iranians from building nuclear weapons and planting one in an American City. The Democrats believe the enemy of their enemy is their ally, and Bush is their enemy so they help Iran in whatever way they can. There is only one sort of negotiation with Iran that makes any sense to me, that is an ultimatum to Iran either they stop developing nuclear weapons or well go to war against them to stop them. If the Democrats are going to hobble the Administration and prevent George Bush from safeguarding the American people, then I don't know, what's it worth to save millions of people from Nuclear terrorism. The Democrats would have us surrender to the forces of Islamic Conservatism in order to defeat American Conservatism in the name of Liberalism?
#3633 Re: Civilization and Culture » Christmas on Mars » 2007-01-30 15:49:26
There will be no big Chirstmas celebration, Christianity is dying out in the West for Capitalist Santa Claus, radical Islamics are growing and seem to be keen on promoting their religions and celebrations but their society are going backwards into the darkages
If it wasn't for Ronnie Raygun trying to upstage the Soviets, yeah the Russians got the first man, first space walk, first woman
but Ronnie beat them with his Royal Muslim in space
Sultan Abdelaziz AlSaudI don't think Christian celebrations will be big on Mars
instead the new Mars Calendar will be adapted for the Chinese New Year.Interesting. That is an odd bit of history I didn't know:
http://www.astronautix.com/astros/alsaud.htm
I wonder what Yang considers Christianity anyway? If you compare the two religions, Christianity seems more successful. There are two billion Muslims, most of whom live in the Eastern Hemisphere or what used to be referred to as "the Old World", The "New World" in which we live is the Christian Hemisphere. The New World is much more peaceful when compared with the Old World, which is troubled by Islam.
#3634 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2007-01-26 12:07:46
CBC: Arar will remain on watch list: U.S.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who last week grilled Gonzales over the Arar affair, said Monday that the letter does not "clear up the confusion as to why Mr. Arar remains on a watch list or why he was sent to Syria in the first place."
"The reason the Arar case is such a sore point and such an offense to American values is that he was sent to Syria, on the Bush Administration’s orders, where he was tortured," Leahy said.
Uhhhhhh (deflation), just when we were getting somewhere. At least Senator Leahy is doing the right thing.
And the Democrats want us to send diplomats to Syria where they'll be tortured after all the Syrians torture everyone we send there, we should have known.
#3635 Re: Not So Free Chat » Books You've Just Read? » 2007-01-22 01:26:53
Yeah, and it has been suggested that colonies inside rotating miles-long cylinders could create their own individual heavens and hells without messing up planets with their bloody differences. Hallelujah!
I agree. Space is a big place! If we can put enough distance between ourselves and an O'Neill Colony full of Marxist/Leninists, or that Taliban colony, then we should have no trouble living in peace, as they would have no physical capacity to impose their crazy ideas on unwilling subjects at the point of a gun.
This is a great use for Interstellar Ark ships, get a bunch of revolutionaries and subversives and say, "How'd you like to go to Alpha Centauri, then society pays for their voyage to the stars which takes hundreds of years, and thus doesn't have to worry about them anymore. We could set them off on a journey where they are incapable of slowing down and coming back here until their destination is reached.
I have an interesting idea. Suppose we sent 3 arkships to Alpha Centauri, one is full of Communists that adhere to central planning, one is full of religious fanatics that adhere to their "Great Wise One" Spiritual leader and do whatever he say, and the third is full of Capitalists/Entrepenuers, so which colony ship is most likely to arrive their successfully?
#3636 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism - Just like Star Trek » 2007-01-21 09:01:12
Yep no 5-year plans and no goose-stepping soldiers in a Mayday parade, no "dear Leader" to worship either. 
#3637 Re: Civilization and Culture » Christmas on Mars » 2007-01-21 08:58:10
There will be no big Chirstmas celebration, Christianity is dying out in the West for Capitalist Santa Claus, radical Islamics are growing and seem to be keen on promoting their religions and celebrations but their society are going backwards into the darkages
If it wasn't for Ronnie Raygun trying to upstage the Soviets, yeah the Russians got the first man, first space walk, first woman
but Ronnie beat them with his Royal Muslim in space
Sultan Abdelaziz AlSaudI don't think Christian celebrations will be big on Mars
instead the new Mars Calendar will be adapted for the Chinese New Year.
If you want to convert to Islam go right ahead. I guess the giving of presents has no appeal to you over the prospect of blowing yourself up. The Chinese Year is based on the Lunar Calandar, since the Moon does not orbit Mars, I see no sense in using it. Mars needs its own calandar, not one based on Earth's Moon, which isn't even good for the Earth, its a simple matter of the lunar month not dividing evenly into one terrestrial year. I prefer a calendar where the seasons stay in one place.
#3638 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2007-01-19 13:42:39
Thank you Senator Leahy.
Maybe he was just keeping an open mind about Arabs and Arab governments. If you wanted them to keep an open mind that not all arabs are terrorists, then the cliche about all Arab Governments wanted to torture people is another prejudice that was dispensed with. Saying he should have know that the Arab government was going to torture people is like saying, you should have know that black man was going to rob you.
We are finally making some progress to resolve the friction between the governments of our country, but you just had to open your mouth. Let Senator Leahy's statement stand, let him finish his work.
Well which way do you want it? If we have a blanket assumption that all Arab governments are going to torture their people, how is that different from assuming that a muslim is a terrorist until proven otherwise. One could just as easily say we should have known that any muslim that crosses the border between Canada and the USA could be a terrorist, both assumptions about arab individuals and arab governments are prejudices aren't they? Why is it right to make a prejudiced assumption about one and not the other?
#3639 Re: Human missions » The Race with China » 2007-01-19 13:37:35
Re. China's latest space exploit, a quote taken from today's Google, regarding weapons in space:
... In addition to introducing a renewed military dimension to space, the destruction of the Chinese satellite created a large "debris cloud" that could seriously damage other satellites in nearby orbit, and possibly even spacecraft on their way to the moon or beyond. Analysts said that based on computer models, as many as 300,000 pieces of debris may have been created. While many would be very small, they said, hundreds would be large enough to create potentially serious problems. The US and the former Soviet Union tested anti-satellite technology in the 1980s, and the US shot down one of its orbiting satellites in 1985. Partially as a result of the debris problem, both sides stopped the programs ... [Unquote]
My own reaction is a sense of violation of a vital natural resource of Earth: the unique Geostationary Orbit. The Chinese really should have conferred internationally on how better to extract their unwanted comsat from GEO without "fouling their nest" with random-velocity debris--if that was their true objective. Much worse: if they have the eventual military destructiom of vulnerabile other GEO comsats in mind they should at once be taken to task--as a pariah space-nation, without honour for having allowed such an irresponsible experiment even to take place!
Wait a minute, if you blow up a satellite in Geostationary orbit, how will that harm other satellites in Geogeostationary orbit? Do not all satellites in Geostationary orbit in the same direction at the same velocity around the Earth so each can stay above a fixed spot on the Earth's surface? Seems to me that if a satellite in such an orbit blew up, the fragments would only hit other satellites at the relatively small velocity of the initial explosion relative to position of that satellite in geostationary orbit. I don't see how any of the fragments could end up in a wildly different orbit so as to impact with other satellites in that same orbit with orbital velocities such as that of two objects hitting each other in significantly different orbits.
#3640 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2007-01-19 07:47:13
Thank you Senator Leahy.
Maybe he was just keeping an open mind about Arabs and Arab governments. If you wanted them to keep an open mind that not all arabs are terrorists, then the cliche about all Arab Governments wanted to torture people is another prejudice that was dispensed with. Saying he should have know that the Arab government was going to torture people is like saying, you should have know that black man was going to rob you.
#3641 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canada / U.S. relations » 2007-01-19 07:41:07
While you're childishly chatchatting, Congressmen are taking care of balancing free-trade" dirtorsions, and US jobs...
With all the extra workload a new tariff law could throw on me, I can't conceive that this will actually cost US jobs. :evil:
Less money, less jobs, its as simple as that.
What taxes, tariffs, and regulations do is force companies to create unproductive jobs just to deal with the authorities. The money spent hiring people to cut through red tape and regulation is thus unavailable for producing product. With less product to sell, there is less profit and with less profit there is less money to hire new people with. The government imposes all sorts of burdens on business, businesses then can't expand so fast and hire new people, that is the price that is paid.
#3642 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Mars Homesteads colony plan to recycle waste » 2007-01-17 10:23:00
I think you've been watching Disney's Mars "2001-wannabe" movie too many times
Carrying two full missions worth of supplies will easily weigh less than a greenhouse and the ancillary equipment. Plus the ISRU plant can produce unlimited Oxygen.
A living plant doesn't require as much maintenance as a mechanical plant for generating oxygen does. Somebody has to be on hand to repair the airplant whenever it breaks down and the necessary spare parts must be available to keep it in operation for the entire duration of the Mission, this has happened on the ISS and on the Mir. Spare parts and repair crews can't be flown to the Mars base as often as they can be to the ISS. Living Plants, on the other hand, continue to grow and produce oxygen so long as the right environment is provided for them.
#3643 Re: Life support systems » Mars first crew greenhouse » 2007-01-17 10:17:18
Multiple layers with a space between them. Pump the space full of a little Argon from Earth for insulation. UV and IR coatings for Mylar are available now.
The Martian atmosphere is a fairly good insulator already, not for nothing is it called a laboratory vacuum. If you were to place a greenhouse in Antartica the insulation requirements would be quite strenuous, as you would have a much thicker atmosphere carrying away heat from the greenhouse surface. I think any greenhouse you built in Antartica would have more than sufficient insulation than what would be required of Mars.
#3644 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. air strikes in Somalia » 2007-01-17 10:09:39
I was wrong!
Tom is not a monkey!
He is a Turtle!
Oh what a fragile shell it is,
This Confederacy of his!
Whoever said it was my Confederacy? The comparisons I was drawing is that both the Confederate Army and terrorists were operating in the United States. If you are going to extend civil rights to terrorists operating in the USA, then you must also extend those same right to Confederate Soldiers operating in the USA which was just about everywhere they operated in any case with the possible exception of the Confederate Navy.
You realize of course that Tom is ever mindful to draw on historical precedents that are neither apt, or must be viewed in a very speific manner in order to establish and strengthen his view point on contemporary matters. It is a cheap ploy, making the actual argument about history, instead of about the actual point of debate.
I see you don't believe in drawing lessons from history, you'd rather just make the same mistakes over and over again.
#3645 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. air strikes in Somalia » 2007-01-17 10:00:03
You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though you have Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.
All of that is a lot more sane than shooting people, truck bombs, launching rockets from some stranger's back yard, or a suicide airplane hijacking. The peace rallies I've attended have been gatherings in a park, a march with an official parade permit and police escort down the street, then people making speeches and waving signs either on the lawn of the provincial legislature (early 1980s) or recently on the square at city hall. I'm not sure what to call it, there's a pedestrian square with a fountain between the city administration building and city council building. During the peace protests last summer, we even had one group hold a rally on that square to protest Israel's invasion of Lebanon, while another group protested on the sidewalk in support of Israel. There was a hundred yards or so between the groups despite the fact they were protesting on opposite sides of the issue, but no scuffle broke out.
I was a child in the 60s, too young to participate in any of that but I did see it. Don't call me a retread. I didn't get Clark to do anything, that's all your own doing, but if you don't like being called a monkey then don't call me a retread. The "flower power" peace movement was all about democracy, people taking control of their own government peacefully, non-violently. The U.S. constitution grants the right of people to assemble. Protests are a means to tell politicians what they the voters want. The more intrusive measures, called civil disobedience, is only necessary when politicians take extreme measures in contravention to the will of the voters. Things like drafting people to fight a war that they strenuously disagree with. If George W. reinstituted the draft for Iraq, you could expect to see that same civil disobedience.
did you ever see the movie The Gangs of New York? Part of that story involved an antiwar movement. The peace protestors in that exercise of civil disobedience attacked black children in the streets and murdered them, the War they were protesting was the American Civil War, they protested the draft, and those protests were quite violent, bigoted and racist and included numerous lynchings of black people in New York City, its Ironic when peace movements become violent isn't it? Yet the protests in the Streets of New York were a bonifide peace movement in every respect that the protests in the 1960s and 1970s were. The 1860s peace activists felt that black people were inferior and not worth sacrificing their sons over, and they protested the draft as well, and wost of all many blamed black people for the Civil War.
People criticise me for drawing examples from the Civil War, yet I have also used World War II for comparisons and the American Revolutionary War. World War II, the Civil War and the American Revolutionary War were probably the three most important wars in American history. The Revolutionary War established this country, the Civil War preserved it, and World War II saved the World for Democracies, I don't know what other example's you'd have me use. The Civil War was an apt comparison in that it was an unpopular War with most Americans during most of the years that it was fought. Lincoln was an unpopular President during most of the time he served as President, but did he listen to the "throw in the towel" people who by the way were also Democrats? I think one of the things the Congress didn't try to do at the time was to defund the American Civil War, they didn't try to take control of the armed forces away from the President or to direct military movements the way the present Congress seems to be trying to do.
#3646 Re: Human missions » Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized » 2007-01-16 09:26:00
The problem is not the capacity to create sea colonies we have that now. And with the improvements in structural concrete and as you said dehumidifiers etc they will not really be damp or clammy. The problem is like Space colonies trying to find a real economic reason to create such a structure.
Like the Moon treaty the oceans have a treaty that stops certain economic development further than a countries legal borders. This Treaty is the Law of the sea. Frankly for a binding docuement it is as leaky as a sieve, it stops developed countries from creating anything including mining the sea beds as it puts them open to a legal challenge that could easily be won by any country that has a sea shore.
Again it is not the lack of technology that would allow the creations of cities under the sea its will and a good reason. It also does not help any building in the Sea of an ocean habitat is likely to get you the permanently anchored prescence of the Eco warriors screaming any time you slightly do anything.
Ah yes the formidable UN, it has a big nast army that will stomp on anyone who violates its rules, We saw that in Kosovo, didn't we.
#3647 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. air strikes in Somalia » 2007-01-15 11:11:14
Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.
At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbour terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defence. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?
It's not war by proxy. There is no national government behind this. It's just a bunch of guys who got together over an issue they feel passionate about, and chose to take action. That means there is no country you can attack, because this isn't a country.
We in Canada have many people with passionate ideas, but Canadians are a bit more sane about political activism. You know: protests, carrying signs at a rally, speeches, newsletters, and lobbying politicians.
You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though there is Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.
In other parts of the world they're a lot more brutal, but that's partly because of the environment they live in. What do you expect when the Soviet Union invades to conquer their country, the United States stirs up some religious fanatics who had no influence before and gives them guns, and local citizens get killed over it all. It's ironic that the Mujahideen were created by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, a proxy war that they deliberately intended to be a mirror of Vietnam.
Hardly, we didn't make them into fanatics, they did it themselves. They wanted to fight the Soviet invaders, so we provided them with weapons. Would you prefer we sent the US army instead into Afghanistan and attacked the Soviets directly? Perhaps we could have bombed Moscow, blown up highways, bridges, railroad tracks supplying the Soviets in Afghanistan. Gee Robert, I didn't know you were such a gung ho militarist!
Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are off-shoots from Mujahideen, but al-Qaeda is bent on stopping all foreign involvement in any Islamic country. To ensure the Mujahideen would be an effective weapon against the Soviet Union, the U.S. deliberately promoted the value that dieing in a battle against your enemy is honourable, and such an "honourable" death is used to recruit more individuals into the cause.
Oh sure, we trained them to attack us! we sent them to Madrassas and taught them to kill Americans! How dumb do you suppose we are? They are not a bunch of robots misprogrammed and then turning around to attack their creators like some cheezy 1950s science fiction movie.
It created an effective guerrilla war against a superpower. Those values were created by Islamic warlords long before the U.S. was founded, but was actively promoted by the U.S. to create the Mujahideen. Now al-Qaeda is using those same values to fight the U.S. and any other foreigner who tries to assert influence in the Islamic world. The U.S. wanted a guerrilla force that could defeat a superpower; congratulations they succeeded, now the off-shot is fighting the U.S.
You love those gorillas, don't you? To tell you the truth, i think they belong in cages and should be displayed at the Baghdad Zoo.
#3648 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. air strikes in Somalia » 2007-01-15 11:10:21
Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.
At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbour terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defence. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?
It's not war by proxy. There is no national government behind this. It's just a bunch of guys who got together over an issue they feel passionate about, and chose to take action. That means there is no country you can attack, because this isn't a country.
We in Canada have many people with passionate ideas, but Canadians are a bit more sane about political activism. You know: protests, carrying signs at a rally, speeches, newsletters, and lobbying politicians.
You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though you have Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.
In other parts of the world they're a lot more brutal, but that's partly because of the environment they live in. What do you expect when the Soviet Union invades to conquer their country, the United States stirs up some religious fanatics who had no influence before and gives them guns, and local citizens get killed over it all. It's ironic that the Mujahideen were created by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, a proxy war that they deliberately intended to be a mirror of Vietnam. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are off-shoots from Mujahideen, but al-Qaeda is bent on stopping all foreign involvement in any Islamic country. To ensure the Mujahideen would be an effective weapon against the Soviet Union, the U.S. deliberately promoted the value that dieing in a battle against your enemy is honourable, and such an "honourable" death is used to recruit more individuals into the cause. It created an effective guerrilla war against a superpower. Those values were created by Islamic warlords long before the U.S. was founded, but was actively promoted by the U.S. to create the Mujahideen. Now al-Qaeda is using those same values to fight the U.S. and any other foreigner who tries to assert influence in the Islamic world. The U.S. wanted a guerrilla force that could defeat a superpower; congratulations they succeeded, now the off-shot is fighting the U.S.
#3649 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. air strikes in Somalia » 2007-01-15 11:03:05
Who your friends are determine who you will become?
Citing a movie to make a point (and a bad movie at that)?
If you don't send in troops to shoot people, why give them guns?Oh, and Tom is still a monkey.
Hey Clark,
I often wonder if Tom’s arguing does more to discredit his position then it does to strength it.
Why do you wonder that? Have I made any flawed arguments?
I don't know who Clark was responding too. He says he wasn't responding to anything that I said, but he did mention my name. I did not mention any movie. So who the heck is he responding to, voices in his head? Calling me a monkey is rather immature and childish.
#3650 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. air strikes in Somalia » 2007-01-15 10:58:18
Was the Confederate Army of the Confederate States of America a Criminal Organization?
There you go again acting like the Confederacy was evil and an enemy. The Confederacy was American states, following the principle of freedom and self determination. The Confederate army shouldn't have invaded Fort Sumter, and President Lincoln shouldn't have sent reinforcements from the north into that fort. Mistakes on both sides. If you want to continue to harp on about the Confederacy, please do so in Richmond or some place in Georgia.
Splah! (spitting out the words out you stuck in my mouth) When did I say the Confederates were evil? I merely said their government and armed forces were illegal. Slavery is evil of course, and the cause they were fighting for was not good. Most people in George and Richmond don't believe is slavery. I suppose your willing to live with it considering all the dictators you like.
The Confederate Army was an illegal army, they had no right to disobey the law, and in a democracy all citizens must adhere to majority rule, the Constitution states clearly that Congress and the Senate have the right to make Federal Law and Federal Law supercedes state law. The soldiers in the Confederate Army were not foreign nationals but US citizens according to the laws of the United States. Rebellion is by definition illegal, therefore everybody who paid taxes to the Confederate government instead of the Federal government is guilty of tax evasion. Confederate Army soldiers who shot police officers who tried to arrest them are guilty of murder. Union soldiers who are held in Confederate POW camps are kidnapped etc. Legally Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson had to pardon all the Confederates of these crimes before we could get over the war, these are all legal matters if you want to nit pick about them. You want to nit pick about terrorists that we are fighting, all I'm saying is that the Confederates we fought in the Civil War establishes the precident of how to deal with domestic enemies. in other words you don't charge them all with crimes and put them on trial, you fight them and defeat them instead.