New Mars Forums

Heh! Good point.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur … r.html]The draft - - now lets see if we can have an honest national debate on why we need this.

As for the United Nations and the rest of the world, I point to this, ignoring the UN:

Bush goes to Europe and meets with Putin. Immediately afterward, Russia confirms a deal to sell the fuel Iran needs to start up its 1000MW nuclear plant and the EU passes a resolution to approve the deal.

China's interests are materially harmed by the US tipping over the Tehran regime, and India just signed a huge new petrochemical deal with the current Iranian regime.

(I see an outside chance that before June Russia and China supply Iran with advanced air defense capabilities and a more remote chance that China gives Iran a couple of nukes but finds a way for North Korea to take the blame.)

The US, Britain and Australia (sans Canada, by the way) can go about doing the right thing all we want. But, we are horribly outnumbered by the rest of the world. Korea just agreed to join Galileo, which is a French scheme to counter US supremacy arising from GPS.

So, we are looking to fight WW2 again except we add France, Russia & China to the Axis side and Japan goes neutral. US, UK & Australia versus the freaking world with Canada saying "Uh, guys, we are not so sure about this. . ."

I just think all that is rather imprudent.   

= = =

I agree, of course. So stop all this UN whining. :;):

The UN is a puppet of the member states. Even more so today. It has NO army, so to blame the UN for Sudan is really rather ridiculous. Lets look to the underlying member states and the underlying power politics.

Edited By BWhite on 1109816918

Okay then, suppose I agree with you. Make a new rule, member nations MUST comply with UN calls for troops or be penalized.

The US also? If Kofi Annan says send US troops, here or there, do we do it?

Who is the commanding general?

Or, if we wish the UN to follow us into Sudan, what nation should send troops to supplement 50,000 US soldiers?

Even 20,000 US soldiers plus 2,000 Brits & Aussies and some Indians and Pakistanis would do some good.

We do need to deploy US forces to Sudan for two reasons. (a) End the horrific violence and (b) deny al Qaeda another failed state, like Afghanistan, to base their operations in.

But here is my objection to the hypocrisy of many of the foregoing posters - - it is more important to you to bash the UN than to seek a genuine solution - -  which can only involve the deployment of US troops. And for that we need a draft.

= = =

Never forget, I have never denied that Saddam regime change was good.

My criticism has been the Bush desire to do it on the cheap, with too few soldiers and too little financial investment and to stick his middle finger in thr world's face while we did it.

Ian, don't you remember the SS1 video tape?

The pilot tossed a bunch of M&Ms in the air while they were at zero-gee. Kinda stupid, what if one got jammed in an instrument, or something.

Anyway, Volvo pretty much did the golden ticket thing at the Super Bowl, right?

Edited By BWhite on 1109796289

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/]Link

Share your favorites.

This one is http://www.despair.com/achievement.html]good, IMHO.

http://www.despair.com/ambition.html]Ambition

Even Valentines]http://www.despair.com/demotivators/bittersweets.html]Valentine's candy

Edited By BWhite on 1109790208

Sounds like a http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … rt=0]crazy idea - - orbit a constellation of reflective inflatable mirrors and focus sunlight on a football field during nighttime.

You would need a constellation of mirror sats lined up to allow the lighting needs to be passed from sat to sat as time elapsed.

Might make a wacky publicity stunt =IF= you could rapidly focus and re-shape the inflatable lenses in real time. A cluster of reflectors feeding a parabolic mirror might work to simulate a full moon. Use gossamer spacecraft and the launch weights would be modest. 

Hmmm. . .

Remember the movie 2010 where computer graphics were used to simulate two suns shining on Earth?

Maybe Hollywood would pay for a second "moon-rise" - - not for filming purposes, CGI would be cheaper but for a real life PR stunt.

Humanity watches two moons rise - - side by side - - on April 17th to correspond with the release of that new sci-fi epic.

Any answer typed here must be superficial. That said, what comes first to mind is how he willfully abuses language to distort truth is a top contender. A shameless disregard for truth.

Democrats lie and are usually embarrassed when caught.

The whole Swift Boat thing left me with a deep emotional disgust. Bush said in public "I honor Kerry's service" and allowed his backers to funnel millions into the anti-Kerry smear campaign. A serious escalation of unscrupulous political rhetoric.

Had Bush had the courage to say with his own lips, "I believe John Kerry does not deserve his Vietnam medals" I would have far more respect for Bush.

= = =

On the Kos diary, what are the odds a similar Democratic diary would be deleted from Free Republic within 30 minutes? Or less? The odds approach 100% IMHO.

In general I agree with you.

As for my specific rage over the Rove-ian handling of 9/11, I make reference to my usual practice of being even tempered and moderate on the vast majority of issues. 

If "I" believe the Bush handling of 9/11 is analagous to Marc Antony waving Ceasar's bloody cloak (from Shakespeare) - - in order to practice demagoguery - - that suggests to me this is an extreme case.  :;):

Like I said once before. we need to discern an incoming alien invasion fleet, scheduled to arrive in about 30 or 40 years. Failing that, we need a meta-narrative, a uniting storyline that transcends the current partisan agendas.

= = =

Part of America's problem is that the world is becoming increasingly globalized, we are but 5% of total world population, and we have a tradition of one person = one vote.

I believe Americans should adopt a Musketeers attitude, all for one and one for all, since we will need it in the decades to come.

Since the Bush social security "proposal" is nothing more than political manuevering (and since he as zero track record of negotiation or good faith compromise) we have stalemate.

Deadlock. So be it.

Cutting taxes? Okay, that was the Bush platform but by how much? IIRC, it was the Goldilocks formula. He (and only he) knew how much of a cut was too much and how much was too little and how much was "just right" :;):

Personally, I would love to see a cut in the employee share of the FICA tax and an increase in the top tier income tax (1040) with a net reduction in overall taxation. This would funnel money to people who would spend it rather than invest it in euro demoninated mutual funds. :;):

In the abstract, lower taxes are good however rising interest rates from dollar devaluation offset the benefit of lower taxes. Deficits also cause (a) inflation & (b) higher interest rates.

Higher oil prices also offset the benefit of lower taxes. This is best solved by doing everything possible to leave behind the petroleum era ASAP.

Finally, I do believe that the bell curve of income and wealth distribution is a legitimate societal concern. Massively increasing concentration of wealth in the top 1/10th of 1% with stagnation or reduced wealth for the remaining 99.9% will - - IMHO - - be very bad for the long term societal health of our nation.