New Mars Forums

Well then, maybe they can persuade their relatives to overthrow their government and not attack them or us. So far the North Korean Government is making them goose step off a cliff. North Koreans attack South Koreans, familial relations don't seem to stop their northern relations from doing so? North Koreans have proven a cruel enemy, just like their ancient ancestors, the Mongols. if the North Koreans are too afraid of their own government, perhaps they ought to consider what we can do to them if they attack us, and whether to obey such an order to attack us, they must know its national suicide if they do.

Apparently not enough, Carter was more concerned about the Hostages than about reversing the Iranian Revolution. If I was President back then, I would have given those students one chance to release those hostages, just once chance, and if they didn't release them, I would send the Marines over to rescue them, and if the hostages were killed, I would declare War on Iran and launch a full scale invasion for this outrage. I would fight to win and to overthrow the Revolutionary regime, what ever follows the Ayatollah would learn not to mess with the United States. I would offer assistance in rebuilding Iran, but I would not try too hard in offering it, nor would I put US soldiers in disadvantageous positions with restrictive rules of engagment. They attack US soldiers, they will be punished. We hold quick and dirty elections, get a government elected under a constitution we impose on them just as we did on Japan, and if that regime collapses and another dictator rises to power, we serve notice on him that if he messes with us like the Ayatollah did, he could share his fate. I'm not overly concerned with nation building. My approach is more stick and less carrot. It turns out that the Muslim world doesn't respond very well to carrots, they interpret it as a sign of weakness and use it as an opportunity to attack our troops, that is the real lesson of the Iraq war, as far as I'm concerned. I'm always more concerned about our own troops than I am about the welfare of the conquered former enemy.

South America is quite peaceful when compared with the Middle East, it seems most denzens of South America seem to prefer a condition of peace over a state of war, they don't have the relentless Jihad thats driving them to sacrifice their lives for that "piece of heaven" that their leaders are always promising them if they obey. I like the Western Hemisphere much better than the East. In the west, most wars are a dictator's idea, and people here don't enjoy fighting and dying as much as Middle East Arabs seem to do.

Its fairly logical. Unlike you I remember who started the war between Lebanon and Israel, it was the Lebanese. Never mind that the Lebanese government protested its innocence, it really didn't try very hard to dislodge Hezbollah, it let them operate unmolested, and it even let Hezbollah participate in its own government. In terms of the United States, that would be like the US government letting Confederate legistators continue to vote in Congress and the Senate even as their states continue to rebel against the Federal Government. The Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to continue to operate as a means of evading responsibility for attacking Israel. I'm sorry well reasoned logical arguments make you so sick.

Great Britian killed many German Children when it bomber Berlin, Dresden, and many other places, it was a fight for survival, just like Israel is fighting now. Aerial bombing is designed to soften up the enemy so they can't fight as well. How can you demand that Israel fight in a way that even Great Britian didn't use during World War II? If Great Britian is allowed to bomb German cities and kill German children while defending itself, why shouldn't the Israelis be allowed the same thing, is it because the Israelis are mostly Jews and therefore less worthy f survival than the Anglo Saxon upright Christian British?

The difference is Israel was already at war, which was started bysomeone else, and we weren't Al Qaeda just attacked us literally out of the blue, and we weren't attacking Al Qaeda, we didn't have much to do with Afghanistan either, we minded out own business, and as the Soviets were no longer in Afghanistan we let the Afghan people mismanage their own affairs however they liked. Al Qeda was just mad because our ideas of equality, and religious pluraism was invading their region, and we weren't letting them kill enough Jews besides. they attacked us without provokation. Israel was just fighting a war it hadn't started, it tried very hard to get peace with its neighbors and find a satisfactory solution for the Palestinians, and what do they get? The get attacked, and then slammed by the rest of the world for defending themselves, they defended themselves precisely the way we would defend ourselves. There is nothing special about Jews that makes them especially deserving of being kicked and beaten up in the streets. Just because they belong to a religion you don't share, doesn't mean we shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt that we would afford ourselves in self-defense.
But I imagine that this whole argument would do nothing but make you sick.

What do you care? A Muslim is a Muslim. I don't read the Koran, so I don't give a damn about those petty 1300 year old differences in doctorine they are fighting and murdering each other over, it might as well be over which side of the egg to crack open. What I do care about is their tendency to attack Americans, both Shiites and Sunnies have done that, to me they are both the same, a black box that trains terrorists to kill Americans. The Kurds haven't bothered us so much, so I tend to favor them. if Iraq is partitioned, I think we should see to it that the Kurds get the largest and most valuable piece, as I don't believe in rewarding out enemies.

The destruction of Seoul is not the end of the World, but merely the beginning of North Korea's destruction. The US should respond massively to an unprovoked attack by North Korea, and I do not consider, not forking over billions of dollars to the North Korean regime as "provoking" it.

North Korea decision is simply, the USA is not going to meet with its government one-on-one, and if the North Korean leader has a temper tantrum about this and launches a missile attack, the USA will respond massively and North Korea will die. Now Kim will have to think carefully about this, will he attack if the USA doesn't meet his demands or will he not. The USA should simply wait and see what he decides and respond accordingly. I doubt he'll do what he threatened to do, that is launch a nuclear missile attack on the United States. Good old-fashioned Cold War deterrence will work, and if it doesn't that will mean the end of North Korea, South Korea can probably move in and take over what's left at this point.

Frankly I'd give the pourous mountain regions to the Sunnies Shiites, and give the rest of Iraq to the Kurds, that's how I'd partition Iraq. I'd redraw the borders so that the ones of Kurdistan are all on flat terrain, so you can put up a wall and lay mine fields to prevent insurgents from sneaking through, with no rocky crags to hide behind they would be completely  exposed to machine gun fire as they traverse the mine fields. I'd also make Kurdish the official language of Kurdistan, and anyone caught speaking Arabic would be arrested on suspition of terrorist activities and expelled from the country, that way anyone who wants to sneak into Kurdistand and blow some things up, would first have to learn Kurdish, and then probably would end up speaking it with a bad Arabic accent, thus drawing the attention of the Police. Also Turkey and Iran could then dump their Kurdish populations into the new state of Kurdistan, thus cleaning out their Kurdish minority problems. They'll say, "You wanted Kurdish independence, well here you go - your independent! Now get moving to Kurdistan, Go!"

Many 18 year olds think that, and as they grow older and wiser, other 18 years olds who take thei place think the same thing. Much of what you have learned was in school and by reading books in history class. You learned about the Iranian hostage crisis from a history textbook, I actually live those years, I saw each news show, the video tapes of the blindfolded hostages and their captors day-by-day as it happened. I think I learned that particular episode better than you could of through a high school history book. When you live through history, you learn it very well.

It won't work, it was tried by President Jimmy Carter, and I remember Jimmy's noninterference policy, and that resulted in the Iranian Hostage crisis, and it drove him out of office. When you a first world super power, you have to interfere. We learned that with the rise of Nazi Germany. The world we want to shape is one that's friendly to democracy, this policy doesn't always make us popular with other countries, but it is necessary to prevent resort to World War III.

Procrastinate then? Kick the can down the road and let the menace get bigger until you can no longer ignore it and dealing with it becomes costlier. You need to experience life more, rather than get it second hand through textbooks and the author's opinion about what is. You need time to form your own opinion as does every 18 year old. I do not hold the same opinions I did when I was 18 years old, and I don't expect you to do so either.

Oh poor innocent Lebanon, they didn't seem to mind Hezbollah occupying their country and ruling part of it without their permission, and they did not try to assert control either, but when the "Dirty Jews" defended themselves from attacks and occupied the parts of the country Hezbollah held, suddenly they were outraged by foreigners on their soil, soil they did not govern or contest with Hezbollah for. The government of Lebannon was responsible for that attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, this after Israel gives up land to the Palestinians. That you would so quickly swallow this slick Arabist propaganda just shows how young and naive you are. not that I blame you, many 18 years olds are this way, they learn with time, but by that time they are no longer 18 years old.

Is it in the best interests of Lebannese to have their land as staging ground for attacks on Israel and thus subjecting themselves to Israeli retaliation. Many innocent Berliners died when Great Britian retaliated for the German bombings of London, those were cluster bombs. Since Great Britian used cluster bombs to help win World War II, they have no place criticising the Israelis from using cluster bombs as well.

Reagan had a Cold War to fight, the Soviets were a real menace and he also had to defend Europe and your country too. We don't want to mess with the middle east, we gain no benefits from doing so other than preventing bad things from happening. We pay alot of money out for expensive imported oil, and that is a major proportion of our trade deficit this year. We are basically preventing bad from becoming worse, not reaping benefits and cheap oil from our involvement.

We'll speak more of this later, i have run out of time for today.

I believe its a package deal, they hate us, and as an added bonus, they have us as their adversaries, they can't have one without the other. If they really want us as their enemies, then they should watch out! We should not give them the benefit of using us as their punching bag. If they hit us, we hit back! let them know, if they want bad relations, then the world is going to become a more dangerous place for them and us. All this effort for peace, the end of the Cold War, and what does it bring us, our former allies searching for new enemies to defy. If they choose us for an enemy, we should let them know that they can expect to pay a price for it, and that its not cheap rhetoric.

Says: Wikipedia doest have an article of this exact name.
I don't feel guilty about that. We were trying to contain Soviet influence in the 1950s and the opposite case occures in Venuzualia where we didn't attack a democracy and allowed the Venuzualians to elect their own dictator. What has that dictator done since? Collaborate with Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, we haven't done a damn thing to Venuzualia, yet the leader their, who got elected by democratic vote, has seen fit to help our enemies, and attempt to undermine the democracies in neighboring countries. if we keep out hands off, things still go bad. The Iranian government at that time was getting friendly with the Soviets. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What happened in 1979 had nothing to do with that socialist government in Iran in the 1950s.

And we can see how the Ayatollahs are so much more enlighted, with their head choppings and their constrained roles for women as babymakers and slaves to their husbands and fathers. As a male you probably don't appreciate the constrained role of women in that society, as a left wing liberal you just conveniently ignore it, when you can get a good America bash out of it. French society and Islam also clash, but it just bridles the French too much to make common cause with the Americans when fighting it. I saw the riots in Paris, and believe me my sympathies do not lie with the rioters. The French bash America, yet still they get their cars burned by unappreciative French Muslims, who thing the other French are infidels for not converting to their religion

The Shah was Pro-Western, he didn't ask to be over thrown by religious fundamentalists, whatever it was they were fighting for in the Shah's overthrow, it wasn't increased liberty, that's for sure, they traded the lash of one master for the harsher lash of another, just like the dumb old Russians did when they got rid of their Czar.

We didn't ask for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor either, just like you French didn't ask the Germans to invade and occupy your country. The Japs were cruel, they were harsh, they chopped off many heads, they tortured people, and they fought like fanatics, we nuked them, oh yes we did, but only because we had to. Surely you don't equate Japanese occupation of many surrounding countries with America's influence with the Shah's Iran.

They say they do, they say, "Death to America!" all the time, they use American flags as welcome mats and they wipe their feet on them. I have trouble believing their intentions are peaceful. Maybe if they said, "Death to the French!" you'd understand much better.

I would love to, if only they would leave us in peace, but they don't.
I have better things to do than mess with Iran, but the Iranians leave us with no choice. We spend so much money on the middle east, and all because of a few trouble makers like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and Al Qaeda. If they would live and let live, not attack us or our allies, not even by proxy terrorists, then I would be glad to do the same.

Ignoring your own country's non-aggressive stance toward Hitler. I think Hitler could have used a little aggression against his country in 1936.

Those Iranians aren't the ones who matter though. We try to bring them democracy, but they don't help us, and so the extremist rises to the top of their society instead of staying in the insane asylum where they belong.

Which is the price they paid for taking Americans Hostage in the US Embassy in Tehran, and then becomeing our enemies and chanting death to America and supporting terrorists against us. Before those 1.5 million Iranian victims, they made us their enemy, and thus we supported their enemy. Why shouldn't we? They gave us no reason to do otherwise. Also France played a role in giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni, if the Shah was simply allowed to execute him, none of this mess would have happened.

I don't give a damn what the Iranians do with their oil fields, but if they use that oil revenue to help finance nuclear bomb projects, that is another thing. Iran has always been calling for our deaths. Do we have to wait for them to blow up one of our cities before we get rid of them? Russia is playing a role, playing interference with the UN as Iran develops its nuclear weapons and then makes good on its threat to kill Americans. The North Koreans already threatened to launch a nuclear missile at us. I'd say right now the Second Cold War has already begun, I hope all the liberals are happy about it, that seems to be what they wanted all along. The French Government is going to have a field day with this New Cold War, they can play one side against another, a dangerous game, and then someday there will be a miscalculation and a full scale global thermonuclear war will occur and France will be engulfed in it too, all because some in the UN wanted to play a game of balance of powers and they wanted to democratize the spread of nuclear weapons so everyone can have some, and it only takes one nation to set the fire going. Religious fanatics with nukes, people who don't fear death won't fear nuclear retaliation either, so the only choice we have is to destroy them if they get some. Is that the world you want?

What do you call the Muslim Conquests prior to the first Chrisitian Crusade to retake the Holy Land? You know the ones where Islam started as a small Cult and spread to the Whole of Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Spain? They used armies and the Natives did fight back. Before their was Islam, their was Christianity. Of the two, I find Islam not to be much of an improvement, it oppresses individuality and enslaves humanity into rigid cultural roles divided by sex. Freedom of speech is sharply curtailed, and democracy is undermined by radical clerics seeking power for themselves and using the Koran as their justification. In France you have modernism, style, and culture; in Islam culture has undergone a deep freeze, its like history is frozen, people wear the same clothes and styles as their forefathers and their fore fathers, every aspect of life is rigidly defined with a rigid unbreakable mold for women and another one for men. New ideas, unless the further a military cause to spread the faith, are rejected.

Does Moscow want Iran to have the Bomb? Do they or don't they? Do they want North Korea to have the bomb too? Has Moscow lost all interest in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons? Do local concerns override their global ones of staying alive? Russia gave up the Soviet Republics freely and of their own choosing, they have no say in whatever alliances these new countries may choose to have.

What is more important, maintianing control of their ex-empire which they gave up, you know the French have a saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too, or do the Russians want to avoid a global thermo-nuclear war with us where they might get killed? You know two can play at this global proliferation game. The United States can spread nukes to countries that Russia doesn't like, and then when nuclear weapons are all over the place, someone may lose control of a few, some cities may go up in nuclear fireballs and then comes the retaliation, and all the nukes will get used up in a chain reaction of retaliation. But preserving their ex-empire is more important to typical Russians than their personal survival. If a country is independent, then Russia can't go around telling it what to do as if it was not. Russia ought to mind its own business, its making the World a more dangerous place by proliferating weapons to our enemies by blocking sactions. We can give nukes to Russia's enemies as well, would it like us to do so? This is the path to World War III. I for one am not fooled by Russia's strategy to nuke us by proxy. If the Iranians and North Koreans nuke us, then I blame the Russians and the Chinese, since they used their power at the UN to thwart all attempts at stopping these rogue states from acquiring these nukes, as such I consider both Russia and China as our enemies, they are working to kill millions of US citizens by proxy in letting our enemies develop nukes! If Peace means war by other means, I'd rather go back to the Cold War if you don't mind. I don't like any of this pretending to be friends with the Russians and the Chinese when by their actions, they show themselves to be nothing of the kind.

It is interesting that the Russians are suddenly so terribly concerned about the Iranian people, especially considering how the leveled Grozny in Chechenia. Why is the murderer of hundreds of thousands of Chechens suddenly concerned about the Persians. Russia certainly is not an Islamic country. Russian troops happily murdered thousands and thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan, and all of the sudden Russia considers itself the protector of Islam? I wonder how much the Russian People would like to fight World War III with us over Islam? Imagine the hundreds of millions of Russians and Americans dead that comes from a nuclear war springing from Russia protecting Iran as it develops an independent nuclear weapons capacity, while the USA tries to destroy such. Do the Russians truly feel safer in a World with more nuclear powers, or are they just a bunch of knee-jerk anti-American idiots willing to take it all the way to global thermo-nuclear war?

I think we are more interested in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and are more willing to risk a nuclear war over that than the Russians are willing to risk nuclear war with us white trying to spread them, this happened before when they tried to spread nukes to Cuba. I think we should call the Russians bluff.

Things are expensive because of their labor content. Gold for example is around $500 and ounce more or less, because each ounce requires a certain amount of labor to extract it from the ground. A certain number of people need their salaries paid to extract this rare metal from the earth, and that is why its expensive.
But what if you replaced all the human laborers with robots?

You might say, then you will need humans to maintain and repair those robots.

and I say, not if those robots are a perfect substitute for humans, in that case any human job can be roboticized. That is an ideal situation.

Less than ideal would be to have robots replace humans mostly, in other words the number of humans and salaries paid to maintain the robots is less than the number of humans and salaries the robots replace. In this second case AI Robots act as a labor multiplier, but you only pay the humans. There has been a general trend in the economy where automation replaces human labor. Automation can make all kinds of goods and services cheaper by replacing the human labor that ordinarily goes into the creation of these goods and services, and like anything else, space travel can be made cheaper with automation as well, including the mass production of buckytubes.

But buckytubes is only one way to make a space elevator, the other way is to use kinetic circulating pellets to transfer force from the ground and distribute it throughout the space elevator. The space elevator pushes down on the circulating pellets slowing them down as they travel upwards and speeding them up as the travel downwards. The Earth then turns around this stream of pellets at the bottom and send them back up for another go. Space elevators of this kind don't have to stretch all the way to geosychronius orbit, but they can, and if they did't it would make sutting things into orbit and taking them out again much simpler.

I think their are two different approaches to making a space elevator:
1) One approach is to make a super strong material such as buckytubes and use centrifugal force to hold the elevator up against gravity.

2) the other one requires the development of high temperature superconductors that are cheap to manufacture in order to make this space fountain elevator practical.

If one is trying to build a space elevator, it might be a good idea to try both approaches at the same time, or you could even build a space elevator that is a combination of the two. If the elevator material isn't strong enough to reach the surface of the Earth from Geosynchronius orbit, you can build it instead so it only goes part of the way, and have a space fountain elevator bridge the gap with superconductor propelled pellets.

Maybe your right about nanotechnology not working. From my vanatage point all I see is one group of experts saying they will work and another saying they won't. I do know that nanotubes are ceing created in bulk quantities, so the trick may be simply seleting the right sizes efficiently, now a full scale mass production method may be more efficient than laboratory synthesis. Artificial Inteligence might bring down the labor costs too.