New Mars Forums

Word of http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 73080]this was just relayed to me.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

WTF?

The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.

(Supreme Court Justice) Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.

Previous statements against armed uprising may have been premature.

:angry:

Well, Griffin smackd T/Space around.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … ml?id=1034

What are some characteristics of the deal that we might be willing to make? Despite the wishes and entreaties of those who would like me to dump $400-500 million on their enterprise (hopefully) - or on some enterprise - and then just stand back and wait to see if the results come in - that's not going to happen.

If you are familiar with true commercial space arrangements, both sides have to have "skin" in the game. If I am a provider of a communications satellite capability to a firm that really only wants to make money, and, from their point of view, the satellite is just a transponder on a tall telephone pole, there is a very healthy tension that operates. The satellite owner has to pick a satellite provider. It doesn't have the money to go out and pick two or three. It might have a leader-follower - or be carrying a couple [of companies] along, but by in large has to pick one in fairly short order and get on with it.

But, having picked a provider for a couple-of-hundred-million-dollar procurement, even in commercial terms it is a little bit like the joke about owing money to a bank i.e. if you owe $10,000 to a bank you've got a problem; if you owe $10 million to a bank they have a problem. Once I bet on you, if I am a commercial communications satellite procurer, I am now stuck. So I need to make sure that both sides have skin in the game.

But this was good to hear:

[You should] look for us to conduct such a competitive procurement - and [you should] look for us to pick a "leader" with whom we will get started - and also to fund a couple of "followers" at the study level in case the leader falls off the track. Because, the leader is only going to continue to get his money if progress continues to be met. We will set up verifiable milestones, agreed upon in the deal, the way that any commercial deal would be done. When the terms and conditions are met, the money will be provided.

[You should] look for us to conduct our contracting on a fixed price basis. This is the way people buy things out in the world. I don't go out and buy a car or an airplane or (pretty much) anything else on the basis of "why don't you build me this car - and tell me how much it costs when you are done." That's not the way we are going to do things.

In exchange for that [you should] look to be required to provide a commitment to sell at a specified price if I provide a commitment to buy - at a specified number. Those are the kinds of commercial terms that people insist on. When you close a deal you usually have an option to buy a certain number of units at a certain price. There won't be balloon payments at the end and there won't be "get well" arrangements if you screw up. On the other hand, there will be fairly substantial rewards for people who can deliver.

Okay, now how do we hold Iraq together without Saddam-like brutality?

*Why ask us?  No one here has any political power or an office on Capitol Hill, etc.

And then there's the viewpoint that America -will- fail, no matter what.

Seems pointless, doesn't it?

--Cindy

Oh brave new world...

http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php]2056

Since the US military seems incapable of winning the guerrilla war in Iraq either militarily or politically, someone else will have to do it if we are to avoid Gulf War III and its consequences.  The Europeans cannot do it.  They only have a surplus capacity of about 10,000 troops for deployment outside the continent, and they are already in Afghanistan.  You could argue that they should reform their militaries so that they did have more troops for external deployment, but that would take time we don't have.

That leaves a United Nations command leading troops from the global South, with perhaps, one or two remaining US divisions.  The  Southerners are culturally better suited to negotiating an end to the Iraq hostilities anyway, and some of them have excellent militaries.  Gulf War III and Very High Oil Prices would hurt them more than it would hurt the US and Europe, so they have every interest in intervening. Moreover, they will be richly rewarded with billions in future Iraq contracts, which they need more than Texas does.

Some are construing this proposal as me having the poor people in the global South suffer for Bush's mistakes.  But at $60 a barrel they are already suffering for Bush's mistakes.  Do you know how many factories will have to close over this, or will never open in the first place, in Pakistan and India?  Factories are very sensitive to energy costs, which have tripled, and could go even higher.  Iraq is adding $10 to $15 a barrel to the current price because of uncertainty and speculation, and the removal through sabotage of about 1.5 million barrels a day also contributes to the problem. 

I am saying that the UN and the global South can solve the problem, that they have every incentive to solve the problem, and that they will be richly rewarded for solving the problem.

Bill, are you saying we should pull out immediately? Like we did with Afganistan? I don't like it, but the US has no choice to pull out until after the Iraqi government is truly in place. You saw how bad the voting was the first go around (like how many Sunni's, I think, sorry, get the various factions confused, didn't vote for fear of retribution).

Now, how long that will be is anyones guess, but I do think the insurgency is dissipating to some extent.

We weren't mugged by Saddam.

No, but if I get mugged and I find some other mugger, I'll gladly kick his ass too.

And take his wallet. 

9/11 got us stirred up and alot of people out there are in need of a pummeling.

Okay, let us suppose Saddam was in violation of UN resoltuions. Frankly I'd say yes he was in violation.

Why does Dubya get to choose the penalty?

Because no one else would act.

If the cops you pay for won't catch the bad guys, someone else has to step up. Most likely it'll be the guy that just got mugged.

Most likely it'll be the guy that just got mugged.

In the run-up to the Iraq War, I had two values. One was justice I believed that the Saddam regime was genocidal and that the international community had a responsibility for doing something about it. That is why I said that removing Saddam would be a noble enterprise. In and of itself, it was, and I stand by that.

But the other value is the rule of law. The United States is signatory to the UN charter, and can't just get up in the morning and decide to go about invading other countries. I all along maintained that an Iraq war would be legitimate only if there were a UN Security Council resolution authorizing it.

Up until early March of 2003, I was not forced to choose between Justice and the Rule of Law because it appeared entirely plausible that the UNSC would pass a resolution authorizing the war, or that a majority, at least, would vote for it. It was during that period that I said I could not bring myself to protest the building war. It was because I knew Saddam's mass murders, and thought there was still a chance that he could be removed within the framework of international law.

When the UNSC declined to do either, very late in the game, it became apparent that I could have either justice or the rule of law. At that point I chose the rule of law. I did not see the invasion, the war, or the subsequent occupation as legitimate.

Just because I chose the rule of law over justice, however, does not mean that justice as a consideration had evaporated. The US troops who gave their lives to depose Saddam and free Iraqis from his yoke were helping achieve justice, which any Kurd or Shiite in Iraq will tell you. I stand by that, and I assure every grieving parent who has lost a child in the Iraq war that it was a meaningful sacrifice, because the Baath system was monstrous. But this achievement was deeply flawed (and may yet be undone) because it was done illegally.

Bush's turn to illegal aggression contained the seeds of the failure of his Iraq policy. If he had remained within international law, he would have either had to give up the invasion or he would have gone in with the full support the international community, which would have given him the kind of troop strength and administrative expertise that might have made a success of it all.

Hey, I didn't say it would be easy. I merely pointed out that a long trip to the Moon is not a deal breaker.

As for the logistics for a 6 month trip, I think it is manageable in some unspecified future. 

Anyway, the thing to remember is that while most here want to get *there* (wherever there happens to be for you) as quickly as possible, many people don't need to travel at a sprint.

And if lunar fuel is cheap, use lunar fuel. Hell, use both, I'm sure there is room for synergy.