New Mars Forums

Why do you want cargo ships to come back?

Liberty ships were a success if they survived one voyage.

Sending cargo in a multi-billion dollar nuclear ship is simply daft. Using nuclear propulsion to accelerate cargo is an excellent idea, but cut the stuff loose and let it coast, cruise to Mars, aerobrake and pop the airbags.

Goof up once or twice and call the mistake Spam Crater.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. One BIG nuclear tug able to navigate cislunar space can throw payloads to Mars as fast as we can get them to LEO.

= = =

Like I said, crew needs another road. Send crew via Mars Direct =AND= have mountains of cargo waiting for them.

On a theoretical level I have much sympathy for this position.

But remember, rapid elections were the consideration paid al-Sistani for his willingness to denounce violent opposition to the occupation. And even President Allawi readily bowed to Sistani's call not to eradicate Sadr in the Najaf standoff. (Edit: After Sistani conveniently went to London to make it easier for us to eradicate Sadr.)

A massive Shia uprising much larger than anything we have yet faced is the threat if we do not have prompt elections.

All of which goes back to the initial formulation of strategy for the post-Saddam aspects of the campaign. And why our listening to Chalabi has played right into Iranian hands.

= = =

Did President Bush trade long term success in Iraq for the short term illusion of calm? The promise of January elections is conveniently after November.

= = =

Hmmm. . .

Maybe its treasonous to even have an election in 2004.

Substitute sects and its my plot in a nutshell. Why go to Mars when the Rapture is imminent?

Therefore, those who do go to Mars will own the future.

Remember, Cindy, that the British officers have complained from the beginning that the American occupatipn tactics were too macho to be effective.

That runs head-on into the pride of the Islamic male.

Kick down a man's door, rummage through his bedroom, terrify his wife and daughters, prove that he cannot protect them from strange foreigners (which destroys his pride, false pride perhaps but pride nonetheless) and then leave the house in shambles after finding nothing and then be surprised he hates you afterwards?

Islam believed itself the "one religion" and eventual master of the world. In a world, global dominance.

Now, we require that they submit to western secular or Christian values, including the equality of women.

When men believe its their duty to submit only to God, asking them to submit to us (an immoral people who drink, do drugs, openly condone homosexuality and free sex) its a head to head conflict.

Think its not a macho thing? Name a dozen prominent Islamic female leaders.

= = =

One reporter claims the whole Najaf fiasco started when a mid-level Marine officer decided to buck an informal agreement (forged by the "wimpy" Army guys) and drove a Hum-vee convoy past the front of Sadr's house.

Sadr got pissed and kidnapped a few Iraqi policemen as payback.

The mayor of Najaf got pissed and asked the Marines to "get tough"

Weeks later Najaf is in ruins and Sistani steps in to end the fighting.

Yes, I agree with Cobra. Yet my agreement is why I also believe our military power will not prove sufficient for victory.

When someone owns the world's best hammer, they tend to see lots of nails, even when they are screws. Driving a screw with a hammer is counter-productive.

In other words, the Right is fighting the wrong fight.

In my opinion, much of the rage that fuels radical Islam is the erosion of a patriarchal society. We are fighting male pride and we seek to use tanks and guns to coerce submission to us.  (Its the same rage that fuels the popularity of Rush Limbaugh's phrase "femi-nazi" - an unwillingness to accept the radical equality of all humans.)

Good luck using guns to suppress male pride. ???

= = =

And yes, many on the traditional Left are blame-America first while many on the Right believe they are the Earthly incarnation of God's Will.

As Abe Lincoln said, "A House divided cannot stand" and if we are to prevail the "West" must seek out and emphasize what we all share in common rather than what divides us.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juan … 62124]Juan Cole offers a persuasive rationale (IMHO) as to "why" al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks.

Bottom line? al Qaeda seeks to replace the current nation-state system with a system where all Muslims exist under a single religious government.

The world comes later, but Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey come first.

Comments?

Not you, Cobra, only 90% of the right wing talking heads on cable TV. 

Larry Kudlow is the guy that pulls my chain the hardest. ???

Back on topic. Without the UN how do we stop the Iranian bomb? Are the Iranians meddling in Iraq today? How much more so after we support special ops to destroy their nucelar facilities?

clark asks why we need to occupy Iran. What if we destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and the Iranians then send thousands or tens of thousands of fighters into Iraq, openly?

How do we counter that without turning Iran into rubble?

Weakening the UN and the EU weakens our leverage against Tehran. The UN may be ineffectual but what other choice is there?

By the way, what if Iran does withdraw from the IAEA or the non-proliferation treaties? Then its no longer illegal for them to build a bomb.

George Bush showed the way by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and Kyoto negotiations.

Shaun, here in America its obvious George W. Bush has been spreading pious platitudes about "staying the course" without any intelligent discourse as to what course he is staying.

During the whole "Mission Accomplished" episode, Karl Rove was crowing about how the Iraq war would be a club to pummel the Democrats with in 2004.

My problem with Bush, Condi Rice, etc. . . is that they woefully UNDERESTIMATE the threat al Qaeda poses and insist on playing chess while bin Laden plays GO.

Thus the GOP gleefully bashed the French and the United Nations and now when we need to reign in Iran, Bush is like the boy who cried "wolf" and the UN credibility is significantly deteriorated from already its low level two years ago.

= = =

PS - - the culture war is between evangelical Christians (who also are creationists) and the secular humanists who believe in such evil doctrines as evolution and public schools.

I read last year that some Hum-vees in Iraq had a bumper-sticker that read: "One weekend a month, my a$$"

Setting world opinion aside, the United States does not have any soldiers (infantry) to go into Iran with.

Especially if the Iraqi Shia choose that moment to rise up.

Sadr has caused plenty of trouble even with Sistani encouraging the Shia to stay calm. If an Iranian invasion caused Sadr to gain popularity the consequence will be chaos in Iraq and Iran, an inability to occupy either country and a major reduction in world oil supplies when Iran and Iraq both stop exporting oil.

Can we get special forces in Tehran? Sure. But then what?

= = =

PS - - the Iraq domino theory was to create a stable Iraq and then use those same soldiers to go into Iran. But until Iraq is stable, going into Iran is beyond foolhardy unless we are ready to draft 500,000 new US soldiers.

= = =

PPS - - Actually John Kerry has articulated the ONLY long term strategy that will allow us to win the War on Terror.

End the dependence of the Western economys on petroleum.

Then we can risk extended chaos in Iran and Iraq and we do not need to kow-tow to the Saudi royal family.

A gas tax where all the money goes to either more soldiers or accelerating the hydrogen economy would be one avenue to explore.