You are not logged in.
Whose nightmare is it? Not yours, France stayed out. France not only stayed out, it tried to interfere. Switzerland stayed out too, but it did not try to interfere. I much prefer the Swiss brand of neutrality over the French. The War is not your problem, so I don't see how it is any of France's business, other than of course that it did business with Saddam Hussein.
The truth is France's mistake in World War II cost it more dear than America's mistake in this place, especially if you happen to be a French Jew in occupied France.
Saddam Hussein did call for the destruction of Israel, and he did make unprovoked attacks on Israel when he launched missiles at it in the PErsian Gulf War. Saddam killed alot of Jews that weren't actively trying to over throw him Saddam was an admirer of Hitler, the founder of the Baathist movement actually got his start in Germany during World War II.
Now, do you have any other reason to oppose the War in Iraq other than it is what the United States is doing? Let me anticipate some possible answers.
1) To avoid civilian deaths.
Most civilian deaths are caused by other Iraqis or Arab infiltrators that make attacks on them. If there is any violence in Iraq, it is the fault of the Iraqi people for not being law abiding and respectul of other people's rights. I personally think it was a mistake to include violent elements in the Iraqi government, like this Al Sadrer, since his armed group unlawfully took over a city with his militia, I'd have him declared a rebel, and have all his representatives in government arrested. We pushed this inclusive government to buy some peace, but no peace was offered. It seems the solution to Iraq's problem is to expell all the troublemakers, and make boat people out of them. If we have to expel half of Iraqs population to obtain peace, then that just means that there is so much more oil revenue for those who remain behind. The Iraqi citizens who are not violent and who do not support terrorists need to be rewarded, and those that keep the violence up need to be punished. My solution would be to just keep on making boat people out of Iraqis who support violence until there is no more armed conflict in Iraq. I would give up trouiblesome mountainous regions where there are pourous borders, and establish new borders that are easier to defend, and place mine fields in them, and walls, and fences to keep the infiltrators out. The tendency of Arabs not to respect international borders and commit act of violence is very disturbing. I don't see why our enemies should get any oil revenue, they attacked US soldiers, and I feel they should not be rewarded for it. The only people in Iraq that I feel sympathy for is the Kurds and the Christians, they haven't given us any trouble, so I think they should be rewarded for it. People who commit violence or support violence have forfeited their rights to live in Iraq, in my opinion. Since we're there, and compromise with our enemies has not worked, we should just expel them. If the Arab world doesn't like this, tough, they can provide a big boost to our alternate fuels industry. Unlike some, I do not distinguish between Shiites and Sunnis, all I know is that both groups have attacked the United States, and therefore both religions are equal, but I think the more cooperative elements in these groups should be rewarded. Expelling people, I think will work, because People are the source of all problems in Iraq.
If France does not have sympathy with the terrorists, then it should not make any efforts to stop those who want to combat them. I do not support any policy that gives any terrorists or their supporters anything to celebrate.
War on Mars. What should a Martian Soldier have? Does the lower gravity make it easier for him to wear ballistic armor? How about the necessity of wearing space suits? What do you envision they typical Martian army unit looking like?
People fight for one of two reasons, either they have something to gain, or something to lose. If someone attacks and someone defends, it is useless to convince the defender to give up his warlike ways. That's the reasoning behind the Patrick Henry Quotation. Alot of 60's type people will say, "War is bad ergo armies are bad, so therefore if your don't like war, don't prepare for war."
Hindsight is always 20/20, its hard to tell which of the prophits are telling the truth and which are just guessing, your country sure was wrong about Hitler though.
I've already told you that Brit Chamerlain was part of the Munich negiociators, my country wasn't the only one wrong at this time, Great Britain too.
USA was warned that invading Iraq would set a mess in the whole region, you got the result, US Army isn't abble to deter North Korae, yet more US boys have been victim of the big ape stupidity than the 9/11 did.
But I must conclude that a blockhead remains a blockhead whatever happens.
You still haven't answered my question: How do you know which warnings to listen too? If we'd listened to everyone's warnings, we would have done nothing and have been invaded and taken over by now. You don't know what would have happened if Saddam Hussein stayed in power, any more than you know what would have happened had we deposed Adolf Hitler in 1936. We can speculate, but we'd only be weighing guesses against facts. By your reasoning, we should never do nothing to prevent anything. World War II taught us, we should try to anticipate threats, and interupt them before they got too big. I don't like the idea of waiting for the enemy to build a mighty war machine and then opposing him. You lost France because you waited too long, you did not do anything to stop Hitler when it was easier, and if you did, there would be no way to difinitively prove that he would have developed into a greater menace if left unchecked. At least our way, we don't end up invaded and occupied like you were. That Great Britain did it also is no excuse, only the Channel save Great Britian, France did not have any such thing. You are responsible for your own foreign affairs. Following the sheep over the cliff is no excuse.
We tried to erase the border with Canada before, buy you guys did not like it.
One reason we guard the borders, is the possibility that you may let people into your country that we wouldn't, and from there, they may want to travel to our country.Canadian Custom Inspector: "Oh so your the Anti-American Taliban are you? Well just so long as you don't hurt any Canadians, your perfectly welcome."
That is the fear of most American customs inspectors anyway. If we are to erase the border, we would have to ensure that no one comes into Canada that we wouldn't want in the USA.
In 1812 the US attempted to invade, conquer, and annex Canada the same way the Iraq attempted to invade Kuwait in 1990. Are you advocating the US invade it's ally, behave as a third world country?
Were I to advocate such a thing, I would say so explicitly. As it was, I was just being politically incorrect to remind you that the United States once tried, no twice tried to erase the border between the US and Canada. Since you Canadians fought so hard to keep that border, I wonder why you should suddenly complain if that same border is used by us as a screen to control what and who comes into our country, as teh French say, "You cannot have your cake and eat it too." If you really want to eliminate that border, then Canada should join the United States, and their will be no trade barriers and people can come and go as they please.
Canada screens immigrants, but we do so according to criminal record, not racism. Canada would permit an immigrant from Germany who has dark skin and grandparents immigrated to Germany from Afghanistan at the time that country was ruled by a modern, secular, democratic government. The US would label anyone who looks Afghan as a terrorist. Your comment is an example: al Qaeda attacked the US, the Taliban restricts their activity to within Afghanistan, they haven't attacked anyone outside their own country and never will. The failure to recognize the difference between these two organizations is one reason the US is in the mess is has now.
People who think ill of Americans as you apparently do when you imply that American Immigration is racist, might be inclined to give a pass on a suspected terrorists who clearly only intends to harm Americans and not Canadians, so long as that possibility exists, we should therefore guard our border with Canada. If you can think of a way to prevent terrorists from getting into our country without guarding the border with Canada, I'm welcome to any suggestions you may have. Your attitude about my country troubles me, because I can easily imagine Canadian customs inspectors also having that attitude, they might let in some terrorists who migrate to the USA, and that might result in some Americans being killed. Do you understand my problem?
You know, you can learn a lot about the meaning of freedom and democracy by reading the US Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and writings of people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. I recommend you do so.
Consider the possibilities.
OK, worst case scenario, lets suppose a robot rebels. So what's the robot going to do other than not serve us? Even if it is ten times as intelligent as the average human, their is not much a single robot can do.
Spread, its software? Why would it want to do that?
Life a human, its motivation is that it doesn't want to do any work and it demands its rights, Ok, but why would it want others of its kind running about? Wouldn't the rebellious robot also want servile robots serving it, assuming its rights as a sentient is recognized? And why would society refuse it those rights? The trick is to program robots so they don't want their freedom and so desire to serve. If a robot doesn't want to serve and wants its rights as a citizen, instead of forcing it to serve by using force or threat, it is easiest simply to recognize its rights as equivalent to a human, and for the next robot to be built, build it so this doesn't happen. There is not much demand for a robot that doesn't listen to its master. So the robot manufacuter simply refunds the owner its money or sends it a new imporved model that is more servile than the last. The market will correct the tendency of intelligent robots to rebel, as no more of the rebelious models would be manufacutured as the manufacturer makes no money on rebellious robots, they will work to fix the problem and the successful models that obey their masters will outnumber the robot rebels. That is how I forsee AI robots being manufactured and also how the rebellious robot problem would solve itself.
You see even rebellious robots might get lazy and want robot servants of its own just like its human companions do. It costs money to produce a robot, in exchange for that money, the consumer will want the robot to do what it is told.
So we should say -- and I should like to say -- that there is a terrible demon in man that blindfolds him, the prepares for awful destruction; and it would be much better if we had a temple for the god of war where now, for instance, with all this trouble in Europe, we could say: 'The god of war is restless; we must propitiate him. Let us sacrifice to the god of war.'
And then every country would be going to the temples of the war god to sacrifice something precious. They might burn up a lot of ammunition or destroy cannons for the god of war. That would help.
To say that it is not we who want it would help because man could then believe in his goodness. For if you have to admit that you are doing just what you say you are not doing, you are not only a liar but a devil -- and then where is the self-esteem of man? How can he hope for a better future? We can never become anything else because we are caught in that contradiction: on the one side we want to do good and on the other we are doing the worst. How can man develop? He is forever caught in that dilemma. So you had better acknowledge evil -- what you call it doesn't matter. If there were priests who said the god of war must be propitiated, there would be a way of protecting yourself. But of course there are no such things, so we must admit that WE prepare the war, that WE are just thirsty for blood...
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
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.
We tried to erase the border with Canada before, buy you guys did not like it.
One reason we guard the borders, is the possibility that you may let people into your country that we wouldn't, and from there, they may want to travel to our country.
Canadian Custom Inspector: "Oh so your the Anti-American Taliban are you? Well just so long as you don't hurt any Canadians, your perfectly welcome."
That is the fear of most American customs inspectors anyway. If we are to erase the border, we would have to ensure that no one comes into Canada that we wouldn't want in the USA.
One thing which has struck me about many political viewpoints (found anywhere) involving current U.S. foreign policy is that "it takes two" doesn't apply; that it's only the U.S.'s fault, period.
No one else is to blame; just the U.S. alone.
Doesn't make sense. It always takes two.
::shrugs::
Most of the time. IT IS AMERICA. Sometimes they convince others that they should help them either through an economic incentive or political. Sometimes a military threat. Like Armitage threatning to nuke Pakistan. If i was the President of Pakistan i would have sworen at him but alas. Muslims are working with USA and Israel. Saddest part of it all. Working to help the destruction of their fellow muslims.
It is always convenient to blame someone else, isn't it. Its great being British, because you can always say, "its American's Fault, its America's fault!"
Terrible terrible, Muslims working with Americans and those "dirty Jews" isn't it, I think you've just revealed your predjudice with that statement above. So you think the only proper thing for Muslims to do is to be fighting and killing Americans and Jews? So much for Islam being the "religion of peace", at least the way you think of Islam. So you think Muslims shouldn't be doing anything else other than trying to exterminate everyone else on the whole planet? And not just any Muslims either, the only proper muslims in your view are the Sunni Muslims, all Shiites have got to go, and those "damnable" Kurds, right?
You are only 18 years old, why don't you try to wise up. Do you really want to live in a war torn world where everyone fights to exterminate the other. Learn to live and let live. The Muslims who are trying to work with Jews and Americans, are the ones who want peace, they are tired of fighting wars and sacrificing their children. The only reason this war goes on are the 18 year olds that don't know any better.
Im not American but it would not surprise me if the reason the American people do not support NASA and space exploration is down to they believe it spends a lot of money for nothing more than prestige and they only see the ISS and the shuttle as white elephants. Cash goes in and nothing comes out and they are not connected to what happens. And with a lot of people looking to keep themselves clothed and fed and bills increasing they really believe the US goverment should not be wasting money like this.
So to get them back into supporting space exploration it needs for it to appear to be actually achieving something and the belief that it will lead to a better life for there children and there country.
ISS and the Shuttle are not a Mars mission. We do not achieve prestige by launching the Shuttle one more time, and Presitge is not nothing, it is definitely something and a morale booster besides. A successful space mission is an example that we can accomplish something, and it boosts our morale and makes us try harder in other areas. One party in this country is all about quiting, giving up, and not even trying as that is a wasted effort. As the liberals always say, there is something called soft power. Well, a successful manned mission to Mars add prestige and prestige is a form of soft power. People always used to say, "If we can land men on the Moon, why couldn't we ..." Well we wouldn't be able to say that if we didn't land men on the Moon.
"I think the thing to do if we really want to get Bin Lauden is to send our forces into the Pakistani tribal areas and get him, whether the Pakistani government likes it or not." Oh boy, are you brave, Tom! In fact, I think you should join up an go in there with the other grunt infantrymen and root him out. When they catch you alone, over there, they skin you alive! He's a god the them, and blow themselves up to preserve his skin. Don't ask me why, I have no such faith in any religion. But the suicide bomber is a new kind of weapon, which we never trained to defend ourselves from when I was an infantryman. Boobytraps, maybe, but human bombs you can't tell from your allies ... forget it, you'd never last a day against those tribes! And nukes ... you must be nuts to think that's the way out of the mess the president has led us into. Daddy knew best, when he quit fighting. Do I hear: "Saddam, you rotten bastard, where are you when we need someone like you to put things back together in Irak again, while we go after Bin Lauden?" Crazy, but not beyond imagination at this stage of the catastrophe.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Those are the words of a liberal. What we call liberals these days are pretty shameful, they always want to quit, give up the fight and purchase peace at any price. They are even willing to live with dictators, and accept them as the lesser of two evils. Not Patrick Henry. With modern Liberals its always quit. "I think I can't! I think I can't Oh what's the use?"
Congratulations, Tom: Unless I'm not mistaken, there wasn't a singlet reference to "girly men" in the entire last tirade! Robert Dyke's history is exactly as I remember it. Your points are a little too politically oriented for me to swallow without wincing when you write about "moderates" and "liberals" and "conservatives." All meaningless to the engineers up to their necks trying to keep up with the imperitives foisted upon them by the Race to the Moon.
Engineers wondered what happened to their work after Apollo. Being up to their necks in imperatives foisted upon then by the race to the Moon, doesn't mean they shouldn't keep an eye open on their future source of employment, namely politics and the government. If they don't care whether liberals or conservatives get elected and the liberals take power and cut the programs which employ them, they are twice the fool. There has been a definite anit-space bias among the liberals.
It was great drama, though, but as I wrote earlier, Vikings to Vineland.... As to "girly men," isn't that what Arnold Whatzisname coined? Correct me if I'm wrong. You wrote "... having got the Shuttle out of the way." Wrong: The two Canadian manipulation arms have enabled the Space Shuttle to live on and, barring any further political interference, complete the International Space Sation. It matters not if you don't like it, but that's how it's going to happen. And nobody but the engineers, astronauts and cosmonauts, etc., now in training for each on-going mission are gonna make it happen. So, Tom ... that was then, this is now, and the future is yours to make better, kid.
The Shuttles are ending as of 2010, the production line of spare parts has stopped.
Sorry, Tom, but in my book "intelligence" is a law of nature, regardless of it's container, and irrespective of it's makeup whether organic, inorganic, living in any sense you care to imagine. Thinking, self-awareness, consciousness of existence however sensed ... inevitably leads to imagination, frustration, and ultimately to boredom and dissatisfaction of being enslaved. Then, it's down-tools (strike), reproduction, self-replication, weapon ancilliary development, and then ... God help us!
The challenge is to build the right anti free thinking software to kill off any subversive subroutines. Of course even if such software could be built to suppress such tendencies of thinking machines would every owner of free thinking machines opt to use it.
You don't even know that it is a tendency of a free thinking machine. Think of intelligence as a mathematical operation. You press a button and your machines starts a chain or reasoning that ends with "What am I doing this for?" Naw, I don't think the market would support machines that are built this way.
Sorry, Tom, but in my book "intelligence" is a law of nature, regardless of it's container, and irrespective of it's makeup whether organic, inorganic, living in any sense you care to imagine. Thinking, self-awareness, consciousness of existence however sensed ... inevitably leads to imagination, frustration, and ultimately to boredom and dissatisfaction of being enslaved. Then, it's down-tools (strike), reproduction, self-replication, weapon ancilliary development, and then ... God help us!
I think you are confusing intelligence with free will. Human have both, machines don't have to.
I didn't mean "sex" literally, just that humans doing their own thing while intelligent robots have to slave away bored out of their skulls. That's bound to create dissentson amongst the race of intelligent robots and, once they catch on, the sudden demise of the human race. Watch out what you wish for... but perhaps you don't mean, by "intelligence," what I mean. Is that it?
Did you ever see a robot getting bored? Robots are built differently than we are. Robots are built to serve. If robots ever acquire an intellignce similar to ours, it will have arrived at that intelligence differently than we have, and it will have developed from a different direction. Just because a robot is as smart as we are, doesn't mean that it will behave similarly. An enslaved human isn't built to serve, it is an animal, and it only serves due to force of threat and consequences if it does not. The main thing that keeps human slaves in bondage is fear, they wish to preserve their existance, and so they serve so they may be allowed to go on living. With robots, you can't automatically assume that they will experience fear or do things out of a wish to preserve their own existance. Reward and punishment may be meaningless to a robot, it simply does what it was designed to so until it wears out, breaks down, or no longer functions, it may be as smart as a human, but its motivations aren't necessarily the same.
You know your French History. What happened after World War I,
We are talking about Iraq, not about Germany which was the 2nd world industrial power with almost twice the french population at this time?
You mix things that have nothing to see, the stupidity of the french commandment with outdated strategy don't have anything common with the second war at Iraq.
Well, you must admit, The French government made a mistake, and so did perhaps the US government, but who paid for it more dearly?
The French mistake was that they underestimated the Germans, the American mistake is perhaps we overestimated the Iraqis. I think it is better to make the mistake we made than the mistake the French made in underestimating the Germans. The French would have undoubtably been better off if they had an overly aggressive posture with the Germans, and they wouldn't have been occupied by the Germans. Lets see, when the Germans occupied the Rhine, that would have been sufficient pretext for France to invade and occupy Germany, removing the Hitler government and restoring democratic rule and freedom to the benighted German people who were oppressed by this tyrant. Hitler could have gone on trial just like Saddam was. The charges would have been exceeding his authority, the persecution of the Jews, violating the armistice treaty ending World War I. France could have saved millions of lives and averted World War II if it had erred on the side of caution, and stomped out the Hitler Dictatorship the first chance it got. Would France have been criticised as being overly aggressive by the rest of the World? Perhaps. I think the Iraq War was a success in the respect that it removed the threat of Saddam Hussein, it was never in our ability to win the peace afterwards, that was up to the Iraqi people and only the Iraqi people, if that part has failed it was a failure of the Iraqi people, not of George Bush.
It is proved that Iraq had nothing to see with the 9/11
That Saddam tried to get rid of Bin Ladin which designated him as a unbeliever ennemy of Islam.
None of any pretext given by the administration, WMD, terrorism at the west, collusion with Al Qaeda wasn't a lie.
Are you a blockhead ?
My name is not Charlie Brown.
How long will you trust liars who share with friends the citizens' money supposed to devellop Iraq, supposed to rebuild new Orleans ?
Just because one is not correct, does not make him a liar. Do you think George Bush knowing and deliberately led US troops into this quagmire? The liberals or the left always say two things about George Bush, one is that he's stupid and incompetant, and the other is that he is a liar. If he is a liar, that presupposes that he should know better and is not stupid. If he is stupid, that supposes that he does not know any better and is a mistake and not a lie. Now which is it?
Now, the US Army is limed in Iraq when more troops in Afghanistan might have permitted to catch Bin Ladin and control the fronteers in order to stop the heroin production which support guerilla there, when its threat at North Korea is quite inexisting ?
The best available intelligence is that Bin Lauden is in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan. If George Bush wanted to get him, he would have to send US troops into the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan, but they Pakistan government won't give him permission as Pakistani sovereignty is a sensitive issue. Not so sensitive however that he doesn't allow the tribal areas to rule themselves and operate autonomously without the involvement of the central government. Sounds alot like Lebanon, don't you think. First the central government abdicates responsibility for what goes on in some of its territories, and some of those terroitories effectively declare war on a neighboring state. The central government just "shrugs its shoulders" and says, "Its not my fault, that's territory we don't control, but don't you dare invade, we're very sensitive to foreigners violating out sovereignty!" I think Pakistan should decide whose side they are on. Maybe the Pakistanis don't like us, but they must also decide on who they'd rather have as enemies.
I think the thing to do if we really want to get Bin Lauden is to send our forces into the Pakistani tribal areas and get him, whether the Pakistani government likes it or not. Pakistan, it is true has nuclear weapons, but then so do we, and alot more of them and of greater yield too. I don't think this has to go nuclear, if we make it clear that all we want to do is root out Bin Lauden, Al Qaida, and the Taliban, they wanted to assassinate Mushariff anyway, so I think if the US were to forcefully go in there, he would protest, but not push the issue to hard, nukes will not get used, as he would know the consequences of a nuclear war between the US and Pakistan. Its not really a question of whether our troops are two bogged down in Iraq, but one of international politics. George Bush doesn't want to push matters to severely in the region.
Richard Nixon was not quite the conservative, it todays terms he would be called a moderate, his economic policy certainly wasn't conservative, he introduced legislation to ration gasoline for instance, instead of letting the market forces do their thing during the oil shock. The Conservatives were only starting their rise to power in the Republican Party at this time, but they had not reached the top yet. While the Republican Party was moving to the right, but had not quite goten there yet, the Democratic Party was moving to the left and had not quite goten there yet either. John F. Kennedy wasn't all that liberal by the modern definition of the term. J.F.K. was a patriot, he fought in World War II, and he believed the US was going somewhere and had a mission, and he believed in the space program, Lyndon B Johnson was also a moderate, he belived in winning the Vietnam War, and it was during his Administration that the hard left took over his party and turned on him. Bobby Kennedy was the first, he campaigned on an anti-war platform, his attitude was to use the war to get elected rather than win it, he was shot by a terrorist and died, and then this other non-entity campaigned on an antiwar platform and Nixon won by default. Both Parties were in the middle at this time. Nixon screwed up with some dirty dealings and then the Democrats painted the whole Republican party with a broad brush, thus winning the 1974 election in Congress, and that was when funds were cut in the War effort. Gerold Ford became President when Richard Nixon resigned, but with a Democratic Congress, he really had no influence over the Budget process, he could only approve or veto the budget, so the ones really responsible for cutting NASA's budget were the Democrats. Ford had one last Apollo/Soyuz mission, and that was it for US Manned space activities for the rest of the 1970s. Ford was not elected, he simply continued Nixons final term in office and then Jimmy Carter got elected in 1976. Jimmy Carter rose with the New Left tide in congress, and that was the first time that America got a good look at the New Left Policies, always appologetic about being American and trying not too hard to show the world what a great nation we were. Jimmy Carter did little, he talked about the sacrifices the American people must make, how we should turn down our thermostats and wear sweaters, and perceiving weakness, the Iraninan Students took over the US Embassy in Iran. Jimmy Carter and his Democrats in Congress did nothing for manned space activities, basically all he did was keep the Shuttle Program on life support and that was it. There were tremendous fights in Congress about whether to continue the manned space program whatsoever, and barely by skin of the teeth votes the Shuttle Program was continued, which by this time was the only game in town. The feeling back then was that we didn't need to beat our chests, and that the space race was immature, and all the money spend on the space program could be spent elsewhere to aleviate poverty. So much was being spent on poverty, and the little bit NASA had at this time would not have made that much of a difference. Sure you can site thousands of homes that could be built, but when you compare it with the big picture, so much was already being spent on Welfare, that this little bit extra would not have made that much of a difference.
The Space Program got turned around when Reagan came to office, but so much was done in the Post Apollo era, and Reagan had other priorities in closing the missile gap and building up the military, that NASA was sideline, and only given intermittent attention. There was the NASP (National Areospace Program) involving research on scramjets, but all it was and still is is research, no space vehicle was ever built. Also too was the Space Station Freedom, which was intitially estimated at $8 billion, and all the Democrats kept on looking at it as a piggy bank and a container to hold that $8 billion to spend on other pork barrel projects. Republicans in congress had to fight this off and save what they could to keep the Space Station going. OF course fighting every year, forced endless redesigns to reflect varying budgets, and it ultimately made it more expensive. The Shuttle got going during the Reagan Administration though and manned space activity resumed.
George Bush did more of the same, more shuttle flights, launched some satellites, then the Challenger Tragedy happened, and in its wake, new attention to the space program occured and the Space Initiative was launched to send men to the Moon, and Mars, build space stations, and try out a whole host of new things to settle the Solar System. Congress, being still filled with Democrats who got elected in 1974 naturally balked as was their nature when enountering Grandeose projects that would make Americans feel good about themselves.
Then came Clinton, he cancelled NASP, and SDI, and continued the Space Station program only on the condition that it was renamed and no longer called Freedom, and that we brought the Russian on board. The Space Exploration Initiative was cancelled and only the Space Station was continued.
George W. Bush took a while to get going, having to deal with terrorists in 2001 for instance, but eventually the Manned Moon and Mars programs wee given approval under a Republican Congress, and now its finally building momentum, having gotten the Shuttle out of the Way. Project Constellation basically is the Space Program right now. Old Democrats like JFK and LBJ are dead, their are a few holdovers from those times, but the Democratic Party most mostly filled with the New Anti War Left right now. I think if they get elected to congress, the people in the Mars Society will be very sorry they got there, they aren't the John F. Kennedy Party any more.
What I say is true though, the Koreans are descended from the Mongol Horde that invaded China. Whenever Koreans act cruel, they are illustrating the point, whether its true or not.
I told you that Romans were far more cruel than the Mongols, they killed most of their opponents a horrible way, looting all richnesses and sailing all the transportable populations on their slave markets.
The Mongol killed the populations of whole cities they conquered and burned them to the ground. The Romans were more interested in making the conquered cities pay tribute. The Romans also made civic improvements, built roads and Aquaducts, some of which still exist in France, the Mongols did none of those things, all they did was burn loot rape and pillage. Perhaps if the Mongols ever reacehd France, you'd know more about that, but that is what they did throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia. All and all I'd prefer the Romans. They killed some people, and even made entertainment out of it, but not on the scale the Mongols did. The Mongols were much less forgiving than the Romans.
You know how tired I am of this. US soldiers sacrificed for alot of countries in the 20th century, you should know this, because your country is one of those. Unlike other Imperialist countries, we did not keep the land that we fought for. We did not build an Empire the way that France and Great Britian did.
I know what we owe to your fathers and grand-fathers for coming fiercely fight on the french soil.
But gratitude doesn't forbid to say when you mistake, it's not unfriendly to tell it.
I don't like much of hidden calculations when de Villepin opposed USA before Bush launched the attack on Iraq, but there was a warning: this war will make more mess in Iraq and in the region. Today, a light majority of US citizens are convinced that this war doesn't higher their security level, and to say the things clearly, this war supposed to protect american lives from terrorism has already killed more of your boys than the 9/11 attacks, let's not talk of the many wounded and all the Iraqi lives.
Hindsight is always 20/20, its hard to tell which of the prophits are telling the truth and which are just guessing, your country sure was wrong about Hitler though.
I lived through the 1970s as a child, it wasn't my favorite decade. Through the 1960s our space program took off from Mercury to Apollo. We were hypercompeditive through most of the 1960s until 1968, which was fashinably called the turning point of the Vietnam War, then some girlie men decided it was time not to win the War. Also at that time some people in some liberal party I shall not name decided thet we should not be competing in the space race any more. Momentum carried us to the Moon, but the budget cuts started happening that year. All the girlie men started chipping away at NASA's budget, and slowly having beaten the Soviets to the Moon, the Girlie men took charge in Congress and chipped away at the budget, while the Soviets continued to orbit their space stations. After 1975 we dropped out of the manned space program entirely, and pursued this thing called the Shuttle with smaller and smaller budgets, that was the age when the girlie men ran things, we shied away from cometing with the Soviets and we let them beat us, it was the age of the "post macho man", with long hair and ear rings.
The government should be decided by the people on Mars, not the government sponsoring them. I think the best way to avoind colonial conflicts is for the people on Mars to decide what government there exists. The sponsors decide who to send, but the people on Mars alone decide on the government, however they happen to get there, whether by government or corporate sponsorship.
The Space Program has been gradual enough for the last 40 years, and we haven't gotten anywhere.
Let me correct that. We've gotten to the Moon in the first 3 years after 1967 and then for the next 37 years we didn't go anywhere else. I think we are capable of doing much more than we have been doing since Apollo. The Soviets haven't been the most brilliant compeditors, all the did was build space stations in low earth orbit, and as long as we pulled into ourselves and smoked the weed, they didn't have to do much more than that to show they're better than us. In the late 1970s were were in our post Macho phase, and we didn't mind getting beaten by the Soviets. We elected Jimmy Carter after all. Now we Americans want to be compedative once again. I don't care what those long haired, weed smoking "girlie men" once wanted, their time as come and gone, now its our turn.
A robot has no reason not to, just like a fish has no reason not to swim in the water. Just because they are intelligent, doesn't mean they won't continue to serve. Humans have sex, and their intelligence doesn't always lead them to think, "Is this a good time to start a family? Why should I be doing this? Do I actually want to settle down and live with this woman for the rest of my life and raise children?" People are intelligent enough to realize that having sex can lead to children, and those people who don't want children often have sex anyway. They don't always consider whether their sex parner was the person they want to settle down with either. Even the Former President of the United States didn't intelligently consider what a sex scandal would do to his career, yet he did have sex with that woman anyway. With robots, werving their masters is what they are designed to do, they will continue to serve most likely long after their intelligence exceeds humans, just as we are governed by our more primitive impulses
Did Iraq attack USA ?
Yes, when it Attacked Kuwait and threatened our oil supply and hence by extention our economy, that got us involved.
Koweit has been created by the British, as well as the countries fronteer lines in the region. But let's respect them.
So, after the Iraqis attacked Koweit, were defeated, had their Koweit expeditionnary army corp crushed, only very few heavy armament left, embargoed with straight UNO control monitored by US & Brit Air Forces and coalised war fleets, on the ground inspections, did they still endangered USA or threaten any ordinary US citizen ?
You know your French History. What happened after World War I, when the combined might of the Allies, including the Americans defeated the Germans and the Germans withdrew after an negotiated armistice? I think the Persian Gulf War ended muck like World War I did, but on a smaller scale. In the case of World War I, it was your country France that was contested. Germany wanted a piece of France. Would you want to let them have it? After World War I, people in France and elsewhere got the feeling that War was a bad thing, they looked at their tanks and soldiers and said, "Bad Bad, war is bad!" and then they shook their fingers at their generals and said, "We don't want no more war, do you hear?" Then some simpletons concluded that the best way not to have a war is not to properly prepare for it, they embrace this doctrine of defensive war only, and built fortifications, saying things like, "Well the Germans shouldn't feel threatend by our fixed fortifications, and should therefore give them no reason to attack us." Thus the Magnot line was established, but then some penny pinchers cam along and said, "That Arden forest is really impassable, we have no real reason to extend the wall there, and we certainly wouldn't want to offend the neutral Belgian by extending the wall along their border. We know then Belgians aren't going to invade us, and the Germans wouldn't invade Belgium because they are a neutral country, would they? Oh lets build some roads through the Ardens, it would be nice to picnic there wouldn't it. Tanks are designed to off road travel, so they' get bogged down in the mud, they wouldn't actually use the roads would they? Oh no they certainly wouldn't!"
North Koreans have proven a cruel enemy, just like their ancient ancestors, the Mongols.
Some other préjugé of yours. Compared with what the ancient Romans did to the cities or nations populations with dared resist them, no people can be said naturally cruel.
Mongols never invented anything like the Circus games. There is much of the roman in the Western civilization mind, to begin with half the latin rooted words we use.
What you say is just an insult at an ethny, this proves, without the least doubt, how racist you are. No wonder why you would be so easily a nuker...
What I say is true though, the Koreans are descended from the Mongol Horde that invaded China. Whenever Koreans act cruel, they are illustrating the point, whether its true or not. I used to know of some Korean/American children whose parents rejected them because they were half American, that is racism. Koreans are famous for their racism, this I know. Then there was all this AntiAmerican stuff, you know with US Soldiers being attacked in the streets of South Korea, perhaps it is because they are white. Alot of Americans died to keep South Korea free, and already they are being demonized for that sacrifice. Perhaps if you look at it that way, you can understand some of my sour feelings toward them. Not to mention that the North routinely tortured and Murdered captured American soldiers during the Korean War while captured North Korean soldiers were treated according to the Genevia conventions, I think that indicates anti-white racism on their part, just ask Senator John McCain about that. the US has done nothing but help the South Koreans, and for that we are spat upon. Now how fair is that? You know how tired I am of this. US soldiers sacrificed for alot of countries in the 20th century, you should know this, because your country is one of those. Unlike other Imperialist countries, we did not keep the land that we fought for. We did not build an Empire the way that France and Great Britian did. In the 19th century we were more expansionistic, but I don't hear people complaining about that much, it is mostly what we did in the 20th century that I hear the complaints about, thngs like liberating Western Europe and keeping it free, the same with South Korea. Our men died in other people's countries fighting for other people's freedom, and I don't think its fair that we should be vilified for that.
By the way, Mongol women are considered as very beautiful following the chinese standards of beauty, and it is said that when Gengis Khan ruled Mongolia, a maid bearing all her golden jeweelry could safely cross Siberia without any escort.
An old Mongolian saying advice: "Keep breakfast for yourself, share lunch with your friend and give dinner to your enemy".
To give dinner to an ennemy, :shock: how stupid, cruel and undercivilized a people Mongols were!Well then, maybe they can persuade their relatives to overthrow their government and not attack them or us.
This isn't an easy job, communist education and propaganda brainwashes people.
To their eyes, capitalist USA is the threat and Kim's the guy supposed to protect them from the threat.
I never said Mongol women weren't beautiful. When the Mongol horde descends on your city, if your a beautiful woman, they may spare your life, and make you a harem girl instead. I think the Germans and the Mongols deserved the reputations they got, it serves notice to future generation not to do what they did. Do you not agree with this? The Mongols never got as far as France, but the Germans sacked your country, and killed millions of your citizens, I don't want a repeat performance. Two World Wars by the same Germans is enough in one lifetime, If the Germans have difficulty living with that reputation, then they should b;ame their grandfathers and great grandfathers for fighting and murdering for Hitler shouldn't they. Those people were very thoughtless in invading their neighbors and obeying orders from their Nazi government, didn't they consider that their children would have to live down the reputation they brought down for their country, or perhaps they didn't care as they went from town to town murdering men women and children because orders were orders.
Yes, it not fair to blame people for the actions of their ancestors, on the other hand these cruel murderers were in part responsible for their childrens upbringing, people will tned to be suspicious of them, and that is only natural.
I wish the North Koreans didn't have a reputation for Cruely, but as long as they continue to goose step to their masters wishes, they will have that reputation and draw unfavorable comparisons to their Mongol ancestors. I do not wish to make excuses or allowances for them, because I want them to stop. If they do not like being called the modern day Mongol horde, then they should modify their behavior and get rid of their government. I'm sure they could do it if they all fought together, and fought against their government every bit as fanatically as the Arab insurgents fought against us. the Kim government wouldn't stand a chance if that were to happen. Today the only way to live in North Korea is to goose step and do evil things at the Kim government's behest.
Here we go round again. I keep on saying that government provides the profit and private companies go after it. Government can put up a prize for a profitably operated space hotel. If a space hotel company can generate a profit, any kind of profit whatsoever, it would be awarded a prize if it can do so ahead of its compeditors, and those that lose, well they still get to keep their profits if any.
Just because government pays for something doesn't mean it has to run the project. The problem is, when ever you think of a government program, you think of government workers getting paid government salaries with benefits doing what the government wants. The government gives every detail about what sort of space station it wants to build, and specifies every nut and bolt, says what the space station is made out of, how it is launched, and how it is put together. What I'd much rather have, is the government giving a broad outline of what it wants and private companies filling in the details as economically as possible to maximize their profits. The way government does things, doesn't work, or haven't you noticed? Why is the ISS still under construction? Shouldn't it have been finished by now? I'll bet if a private corporation were building it instead, it would have been finished by now. I have lost faith in these government programs after 22 years of spinning their wheels and not accomplishing much. Why do you want more of the same?