New Mars Forums

I also liked what said Thomas Friedman. He's far to be pro-french, he called "de Villepin and his boss" (I guess Chirac)  : "cynics". But he has a deep understanding of the middle orient. He would be a wise adviser for G Bush.
Anyway, now,  alea jacta es. Good luck for everybody.

We all decides of something according to the informations we have, and basically the american opinion is submitted to a flux of informations supporting the war.
The last one was on history channel, about Saddam Hussein and his relations with the french. From the show it clearly ressorts that the frenchs supported the Irakis and that Jacques Chirac was a personnal friend of Saddam Hussein. That the Iraki nuclear ractor was build by the frenchs, in exchange of oil. Follows a show with that former Irakis nuclear scientist on how the Israeli destroyed it.
It's amazing to see at what speed History Channel can produce those propaganda-show. In the show, The defunt Isreali pilot/astronaut Mr Ramon is mentioned as he died in the space shuttle, so that this show has been produced in 2 or 3 weeks at best, which obviously doesn't leave the time for the journalists to investigate thouroughly about the topics they are talking about. I called it propaganda because if you mention only part of the truth and you ommit certains facts, then you can greatly deform the reallity.

So frenchs and Chirac a personnal friend of Saddam Hussein ?
Let see what Chirac says about that (I copied from CNN.com news, an interview by Ms Amanpour ):

"...   AMANPOUR: The fact is, Mr. President, that in America many people think it's just because you are a friend, a pal of Saddam Hussein. That you have had long contacts with him, that you help build the nuclear reactor there, that there are the oil deals. You invited Saddam Hussein to France. There is a famous picture of you toasting him. They think it is about a personal and a business relationship.

CHIRAC: (laughter) That's myth, so to speak. Or controversy, if you will. I did indeed meet President Saddam Hussein when he was vice president in 1974 and '75, or '75 and '76. Never since. But in those days everybody had excellent relations with Saddam Hussein and with the Baath party. In those days it was seen as a modern party. Everybody had contacts with them.

I have not had any contacts ever since, and that is not something that everybody can say. Some important figures of the current U.S. administration had contacts with Saddam Hussein as late as 1983. I haven't. So we should not delve into controversy.

As for our interests, let us be clear about it. The trade of France with Iraq accounts for 0.2 percent of total French trade. So basically we have no economic interests in Iraq. Iraq isn't even in the list of the 60 largest trading partners of France. Not even the 60 largest.

As for oil import, they only account for 8 percent of Iraqi exports. The U.S. is importing five or six times more Iraqi petrol and Iraqi oil than we are importing. So these alleged motivations are clearly not serious motivations.

AMANPOUR: There have also been persistent allegations that Saddam Hussein put money into one of your electoral campaigns. How do you respond to that?

CHIRAC: (laughter) It's preposterous, really ... Anything can be said about anyone. As we say in French, "The larger it is, the more likely people will believe in it." I think really that is what we are talking about.

AMANPOUR: The New York Times has reported that there is evidence that French companies [are involved] in transferring materials for use in long-range Iraqi missiles. Are you aware of any French companies being involved in such an effort, and if so, what would you do to them?

CHIRAC: The New York Times is a serious newspaper, so as soon as I read this I led an inquiry into it. I will confirm the official statement, as published after this inquiry by the French foreign ministry. France and French companies have never endorsed or even provided such material to Iraq. So I am clearly dispelling this allegation. This too is insecure information. Or again, maybe controversial.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you again about the nuclear reactor [built by Iraq with French assistance and destroyed in an Israeli air raid in 1981] at Osirak? You know, a lot of people called it "Os-Chirac", as you know. In retrospect, do you regret that it was destroyed, given that it could have been used to form nuclear weapons?

CHIRAC: Well, this reactor was a civilian reactor. It was a civilian power plant and it was only going to produce energy. I don't think it could have been the link or the basis for nuclear technology or a military nuclear program. This being said, events such as we know them, it was destroyed, so the issue is no longer.

But in those days, all of the major democracies, all of them, each and every one of them, had contacts and trade and exchanges with Iraq, including on weapons. Even weapons of mass destruction sometimes, including bacteriological, biological weapons.

So we shouldn't come back to the past on these issues. But we shouldn't either pinpoint France or point the finger toward France, that had limited its actions to helping Iraq to produce the energy it needed to light the country.

AMANPOUR: Which countries are you specifically talking about?

CHIRAC: All the major democracies. Each and every one of them.
..."

Clark, if I misundestood completely what you said, I have to apologize to you too.  But something in your first post in this thread give me the feelling that you were speaking for yourself. Maybe you could be more precise when you expose something like a political opinion. First, specify if this is, or not your position, or if you are just reporting the facts, like it was obvious in your last posts.  As you point out, english is not my primary language but since other people get trapped in similar cases, I don?t feel that bad. That would avoid people to misunderstand my posts and think that I am the worst newmars member after...no I am not gonna start here.
Anyway, no one really enjoyed my jokes ? I cannot believe that.
Regarding space militarization, I gave my opinion to answer your posts. But we got the point, space gonna be like another battle field soon.

You mean, a lunar base with missiles and lasers to crush the russkoffs, right ?

As for the chinese, they might dream of that base and claim to make it for 2010, I'll believe it when I see it.

Clark, you're not funny, I thought you would like my plan to fool the russkoffs, with the 1 dollar bill left in the ISS. You really react like the frenchs, with grand gesture and grand passion. Ok, I'll try to spare your sensitivity now.
What's your plans to deny the lemon faces access to Mars ?

(maybe I should stop before he get mad, but I'm sure everybody here enjoy the posts )

Denying the access to space to China is already too late, it seems. But really, even if I ignore the rest of your post, I think you exagerate grossly the issues:
China might be able to send in orbit a soyouz-like vehicle and crash something on the moon, but a base ! I don't think they have the technology to set up a lunar manned base soon. 

That they represent a possible thread in the future is possible but actually the chinese invasion of sensitive US technology has already started. If you could visit some University labs 10 years ago, you could barely see a lab without chinese techs. That was the past. Now you see US labs with chinese boss AND chinese staff exclusively. This is easily verifiable by reading the papers author's names: chinese from the first to the last (the boss) author. Like:
Hu Chen, Li Hu, Mike Li, Wang Fu,
University of Alabama !!!

Gosh !!! It seems the KKK focused too much on the blacks and not enough on the lemon faces, but anyway. The US cannot deny the chinese to access the US labs, i don't see how they could deny the access to space. And they reproduce like rabbits !
what are we gonna do ?

mistake !
One of the reason why the Iraqis have relocalized their troops inside civilian areas is because they have been convinced that their military forces are useless against the powerfull US technology. Thus, by convincing them that fighting in the battle field is useless, we made them thinking that the only usefull weapon available is the mediatic weapon: the picture of dead civilians abundantly broacasted worldwide.

The choice to display the US mighty power creates and encourages the civilian human shield strategy ! Because the Irakis know that the US won't shoot on military target if civilians are present, like a school or an hospital, and are on the path to the bullets. What safest places do they have ?
Yes, big mistake for the US to claim they have a quasi alien supertechnology, this convinced any Iraki soldier that anywhere, anyhow, it could be easily killed, even in a deep underground blockaus.
And so, the US face now the big problem to deal with the human shield + cameras strategy. A problem that they have created themself. 

Wouldn't be better to encourage the Irakis troops to feel confident ? at least to make them thinking that the battlefield is still a place for them. That would, maybe, encourage Saddam to make some strategic mistake, like moving and concentrating the republican guard in a civilian free area, where the US troops, and only the US troops, know that they could vaporize them in a picosecond.
Everybody jokes about the french surrending during WWII, one of the reason the blietzkrieg was so successfull was the surprise effect, the german troops certainly did not broadcast their plans and latest Me109 characteristics in the radio. The french were also too confident in the Magino line, if they had knew this defence line would have been useless, certainly the french army would have been dispatched differently (as suggested by De Gaule) and the issue of the war could have been different. The french overconfidence served the german plans.

By the way, I saw a report, with a neutral tone and without parti pris, of the MOAB in Yahoo France News, so it's wrong to think that the MOAB show has been  restricted to the USA. I guess that it is also available in other countries, but probably not so neutral.

In short, The MOAB show, and all shows of that sort are just stupid, criminal mistakes. If you want to make the war, try to make it clean and fast by fooling your opponent.

Hi Josh, no, I am sure it will be internationally broadcasted, and transformed and manipulated by the media in all possible ways.
This is why I think it' s a mistake to make such show now. What is merely a technical explanation for the US public can become a mediatic weapon for those who want to represent america  negatively. But to be sure I'm gonna check the french news tomorow.

Donald Rumsfeld saying that he wants to use that huge bomb to terrorize the Iraki ? smart words, he should think twice before speaking. That sentence can be repeated thousands of time on otherTV  channels with the picture of the atomic mushroom "made in USA" of the MOAB in background.

It's a mediatic war ! we know that. We can see a lot of  show on Discovery, prepared "upon request". Last time that was "being a prisonner". Nest time will be about Sadam the murderer escaping in the forest while holding his leg. It has already be done, but so what, that's the basic of propaganda. Repeat repeat repeat, and it will become true. Goebels knew that 50 years ago.

Hi all,

My comments about the last show on CNN on the Mother of All Bomb, the MOAB: it will be perceived as just another american arrogancy over seas. First, I warn you that you gonna read some transatlantic papers saying that "american want to use weapons of mass destructions against Iraki's civilian."
How come that the US military don't see the stupidity to publicize such a nuclar-like bomb ?
That the US military forces intend to use this bomb is fine, it's just part of the stupid game of the war, but that they make a big show on it is really stupid. It just feeds the antiUS opponent arguments.

Second, did Mr Rumsfeld said that he wants to use this bomb to TERRORIZE the Irakis ? please, don't use the terrorist language and methods or the word "terrorize", that's just akward.

The terrorists terrorize, the US troop free, not fry, the people of this terror. Not the reverse, OK Mr Rumsfeld ?

Because what's next ? will the US forces declare loudly, through a good CNN show, that they give themself the right to use small nuclear bombs, chemicals or neurotoxic against Irak soldiers if the war goes too long or too tough ?

The military don't see the immense irony of the situation ?

Maybe it's not all that stupid after all, maybe the US wants to FORCE the Irakis to use nuclears or other WMD in the battlefield and to do so, they menace to use weapons so powerful that anything else than nuclear or neurotoxic is useless.
That the Irakis would make that mistake would justify the war.
This would explain why CNN publicized the MOAB with a picture of an atomic mushroom cloud.
Can the military be so diabolically smart, like Dr Evil ?
I doubt.

Hi all,

I have read a little bit more about the Labelled Release experiment onboard Viking. I have some concerns about the initial sterilization: The nutritive liquid which was sprayed on the martian soil into the chamber was sterilized before launch. I have not doubt about that. However, some part of the viking lander might have contain some resistant spores which at one moment might have been in contact with this nutritive radiolabeled liquid.

Those microbial contaminant would not represent an initial mass big enough to be detected by the Gaz exchange experiment. Indeed, one bacterial spore would not be able to grow during the transit to Mars and would be undetectable.

From what I have read ("Life on Mars the complete story" from Paul Chambers), the conditions inside the LR incubation chamber were not 100% martian, the pressure was higher in particular, so some terran bacterial contaminant introduced inside the chamber might have been, if not able to growth, at least able to re-ignite their metabolism, and that would explain the radioactivity released.

Comments about that contamination hypothesis ?

Shaun,

What you suggest is amazing ! but I am still septical. Since you have the book of Dr Levin, can you also mention (briefly) the Viking and other experiments and scientific results which suggest that there is NO life on Mars ?

I always thought that the possibility of life on Mars was rejected because the experimental results against life were much stronger than the results suggesting life. However I have been confused when I read that the organic material detector experiment in viking was incapable to detect organic material in antartica soil, suggesting a possible false negative result on Mars. Things are not so clear now.

The war in 2 weeks hmmm,
Today I asked my colleague, a very smart woman, "what do you think would be the consequences in the long term of the war in Irak ?, a new cold war with china and russia ? "

I particularly worry that after the war, the message adressed to the world is that ultimately, the military force always prevails and this would will trigger a new armamament race, a new cold war, but this time with other countries like China.

she answered "nope !"
she is a kind of always optimistic person, while I am the reverse. She based her judgment on the fact that China has accepeted to host the next olympic game and visibly wants to integrate the world wide market.
so, no consequences....
Then I remembered this:
What are the expected consequences of a light piece if foam falling on the wing of the space shuttle ?., officially "notin". I just read the last spacedaily.com.

So, when you talk about people's life, better be sure of the consequences of your actions. Once the people start to die, you don't come back.

It's out of question to have a normal presidential election. Say the US troops stay OUTSIDE Irak to survey the operations, like in Koweit or Turkey, during and after the elections.
The presidential elections would be under control of the UN to insure no interference from  Irakis soldiers.

The Irakis would have to choose between different Saddam Hussein opposants and why not Saddam Hussein himself. Then the elected president could form a new government.

Because, don't you have the feeling that we hear a lot about Saddam the "villain", the arrogants Robinhood like french, the imperial US and their obedient "vassaux", and nothing about the Irakis people themself, poweless to change their own destiny ?

Give them some responsability, they are also responsible for this mess. So here we could tell the Irakis " come on guys, here you have the opportunity to vote freely, even for saddam if this is really what you want"
At least one UN soldier would be present in each voting office and would report.
I would take the guess to include Saddam in the list of applicants by the way, because he deserves to be defeated by his own people.
after the election and the governement is formed, part of the US troops contingent stay to survey the region stability for a couple of months.

This is the way to deal with problems in the 21st century, this way, I can believe we have a chance to settle on Mars one day.