What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-30 11:22:26

Apathy? No, i'd prefer "historical perspective"

It is naieve to believe that there won't be any more wars even if the US became an ultrapacifist state. Someone, sometime, somewhere will eventually decide that their will must be done... or else. Preparing for that day is a wise, responsable thing for a state to do, lest it risk injury or even destruction, and in preparing well we may even prevent a war or two... I would like to point out that the war in Iraq is not yet finished either, and I am glad and proud that we destroyed the reign of the murderer Saddam, which has saved the lives of about 56,000 Iraqis in about a year and freed 27 million people, with an extraordinarily small amount of collateral damage for an invasion.

And I find it offensive that you would dare to state that the US starts wars to test our military capability.

I also don't take kindly to being called "uninformed" so readily... The launch industry is primarily about BUILDING rockets. And I said that Nasa does not build rockets. Therefore, Nasa isn't a major entity in the launch industry... Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg where many Deltas & Atlases are launched are infact USN and USAF facilities if memory serves.

And apparently you are not familiar that the amount of data you can move to and from a satelite is proportional to the power of the transmitter. Solar pannel and transmitter efficencies have reached an plateu, so therefore you still need and will continue to need fairly large ones to transmit large amounts of data. So, you need a big satelite, and this isn't going to change. The "LEO satelite constellation" business model has also thusfar been a spectacular failure too. And please point to any reuseable launch vehicle currently under development privatly or publicly that can place signifigant (>2MT) payloads into a geostationary orbit.

Rocket technology resembles that of the past because rockets have reached the performance limits of their fuels and materials, with Shuttle's SSMEs at ~95% of the best fuel available. Of course new rockets resemble old ones, because the old ones are about as good as it gets too. There are no better fuels available until we develop air-breathing engines or a creepy metastable fuel or somthing.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are about the only ones left standing because business isn't too good. There isn't a large need for satelites in general, nobody is launching anything much outside of SeaLaunch/Zenit. And now that the Cold War is over, that many of these companies were built on... the market has shifted. Simple economics.

JammerG55 · 2004-04-30 11:35:09

Well one of the ways that we can become a better country is if we stick together because face it, we are the worlds police force.

Dook · 2004-04-30 11:35:24

I disagree that the country, and the world in general, has gone downhill since WW2. We have achieved great things since that time. Germany did not attack the US but we went to war against them for the same reason we went to Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, and Iraq: to try and help others and give them democracy. If you don't think afghanistan was a threat you might take a trip to New York.

And the military doesn't start wars, the civilian leadership does. The military just ends them.

As a super power the US has an obligation to the rest of the world. If we allow ethnic cleansing in Bosnia then we are responsible. If we allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons and he uses them against Isreal, we are also responsible. We had the right intentions in every case of war we entered into, just not the right outcome sometimes.

deagleninja · 2004-04-30 11:39:38

GCNRevenger, there is no point in holding a debate with you. Again, you continue to misinterpert or misrepresent what I have said.

You support this war and probably all wars, this much you have made clear. I won't respond to things you say, please don't respond to what I say.

JammerG55 · 2004-04-30 11:51:30

You sound like bickering politicians

deagleninja · 2004-04-30 11:55:36

We are the world's police force? Who made that decision? The main point to a democracy is self-rule, so how is going into a country and setting up 'democracy' self-rule? You can't give a country democracy. Believing that you can is absurd.

Afghanistan is a country in the middle east and it didn't do anything to New York. If I make a trip to England and blow up Big Ben, should america be bombed for it? Of coarse not, now turn the situation around.

And this belief that we are obligated to spend our money to help people, who all too often don't want our help, is absurd. Do you people actually think that the people of Iraq want us there? Who do you think we are fighting right now? Citizens of Iraq that's who. Is every single person that raises a gun against our troops a Saddam supporter? No. These people are pissed off that months after Saddam has been captured, we are still there. And they are pissed off that we are going to still be there after June 30th. So why are we there? Because these people are stupid and they can't build their own government.

If Iraq nukes some other country why are we responcible? This makes no sence.

JammerG55 · 2004-04-30 12:02:17

We are the world's police force?

Ok, but if we arent the world's police force then who will be?

Dook · 2004-04-30 12:05:43

It does make sense. If you are a strong man and you stand and watch as another man beats a child to death, YOU are responsible. The United States has the power to make the world a better place and we are trying our best, the best that human's can, to do just that. We tried to avoid the problems going on with the rest of the world and it brought Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We are involved whether we like it or not.

Afghanistan's taliban government harbored the Al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for 9/11. If you remember the President asked them to turn over Osama and they refused. Only then did we attack.

JammerG55 · 2004-04-30 12:07:07

agreed

clark · 2004-04-30 13:42:00

And none of this has anything to do with taking to long.

Take it to a politcs thread in free chat.

Ninja (for brevity), if America is a democracy, we get the government, and society we deserve, no? By proxy, we get a space agency that we deserve and want. This is more than apparaent because, unfortunetly, most people in America could give a rats ass about space exploration. I see people with their eyes glazed over everytime someone explains what we spent 1 billion dollars to find out about a possibly wet mars. 1 billion dollars?!

Now try for 50 billion to get 6 people on Mars. Most people just laugh- those are the nice ones.

I don't think GNC meant you to take offense, just like I'm sure you didn't mean to offend him either. His take is rather apt on the issue though. Our previous space agency and exploits were the result of the Cold War. The cold war is over, and with it, the main reason for us to be involved in space.

Bill White · 2004-04-30 13:56:57

I am as guilty of discussing politics as anyone - - maybe more than most - - but clark is correct, this is the wrong thread for Iraq discussions, or discussions about the relative merits and demerits of the Unoted States of America.

Now try for 50 billion to get 6 people on Mars. Most people just laugh - - those are the nice ones.

Exactly.

PLIND · 2004-04-30 14:13:32

I feel a little hesitant to add to this thread, some heated comments in some of the replies.

However, I must add a few thoughts as I would dearly love to see someone from the planet heading for Mars.

It's an unfortunate time for the Mars endeavour, US is stretched too thin with the wars and security concerns (just or unjust wars as that may be). The chinese have a big advantage, they don't seem to get entangled in any outside affairs. That's not to say that the chinese have the right attitude but that is an advantage. If they plan to go to Mars they will do it according to their time schedule, regardless of anyone else's plans. In addition, I believe, they are more willing to gamble (for good or bad) then anyone else.
If a plan was in the works where, again this is my opinion, the chances of a successful outcome were 70%, NASA wouldn't touch it whereas the chinese probably would go for it? This is certainly debatable but that is how I see it. The chinese will trod forward and eventually get to Mars. If it is before or after the US is of no consequence to them. I don't think the US will get to Mars until they HAVE TO (the chinese have a spacecraft on the launchpad, ready to go)!

There's no need to dump on me, this is just my opinion. If the rovers discover lakes of platinum, humans will be exploring Mars within ten years. That's just the way it is.

One final comment. There's an incident in history that may apply here. Scott vs Amundsen in 1912 on a journey to the South Pole. Scott's team had heavier, more robust equipment. More supplies, had been planning longer etc, etc. Amundsen travelled very light (and thereby much quicker). The approach taken by Amundsen appeared riskier then Scott, however, Amundsen won out (got there first) because they travelled fast and light, got back fast as well (travelled with minimum supplies). Scott and his party perished. Nasa appears to be taking the Scott approach, try to cover all possible scenerios, have more supplies then you need , bigger, hardier crafts etc. They may end up taking too long to get to Mars, who knows?

Cheers,

PLIND ???

deagleninja · 2004-05-01 05:14:54

My intention was not to discuss Iraq. However, my question was/is what is taking so long. I feel that there is no end to military spending increases in sight and this disturbs me.

All I am going to say about the issue is that people must learn and do things for themselves. True change only comes from within. I know that this attempt to give the people of Iraq has already failed because we have gone about it the wrong way. It makes me furious that we can't even accomplish this simple task, which is costing half a trillion dollars so far, and the effort won't be noticable in 10 years.

I would just like to see the people of this country hold their military accountable. We waste so much money with it and everyone seems to feel that it's a sin to question the status quo. I have had to personally fight for my freedom. On 4 seperate occasions I have been attacked for my opinions so naturally I feel quite strong about it. It shouldn't be this way.

From now on I will not bring up our military. It seems the problem is too far gone anyway to change anything anyway.

Dook · 2004-05-01 11:48:26

People see what they want to see. If you look only for bad things in any situation then that's what you will find. The world and the Iraqi people are better off now and even more importantly they have the possibility for a better future. What really happens to them depends more upon the choices they make rather than those made by the US.

There was nothing at all simple about this task. You cannot simply impose democracy on a place that has never had it and knows nothing of it's real worth. Add in religious fanaticism and division and you have a volatile mixture. I'm not sure about the 'half a trillion dollars' cost. Where did you get that from? Maybe over the course of ten years it will cost that much.

The military won a war in two months with 115 deaths on our side. That's about as good as anyone could have expected. As far as the military wasting money I won't argue. They are not efficient because they have no reason to be and nobody with power expects them to be. I know one medium sized military unit that spends $5,000 a month on office supplies: paper, pens, staples, copy machines, fax machines...

A forum is a discussion board. People are not expected to agree on everything. It seems to me that if you are a member of any group and you have a different opinion then you are obligated to express that idea because you might just show it in a new light and change some minds. If you don't and the group goes in the wrong direction then you are just as guilty.

deagleninja · 2004-05-01 14:09:33

Dook- I get the half trillion figure by adding what congress has requested for this plus what our armed forces get normally when there isn't a war. The figure actually goes over 500 billion but who's counting.

I didnt mean to imply that imposing 'democracy' is a simple task, for it is an impossible task. You cannot give a people freedom, they have to earn it. The simple task I refer to is killing/capturing Saddam. this could and should have been accomplished by teams like the Navy Seals who are much better suited to take out a man than an army.

We live in a country where 6 in 10 people think Saddam had something to do with 9-11, this alone shows how ignorant the average person is when it comes to world affairs.

I have a voice too in this so-called land of the free and I choose to call things as I see them. Do I support our troops? No, I don't. This doesn't mean I want them to come to harm, but I can't support anyone that kills or assists in killing. It is wrong in the eyes of the law and nearly all religions. Would I allow someone to kill me? No, this is called self-defence and it is the only time it is reasonable to kill. What we are doing in Iraq is not self-defence, it is murder. I don't understand how so many Christians can support this war. It boggles my mind.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-01 15:01:15

I have to chime in on this one.
By the way, this war stuff has everything to do with this topic because it is wasting money that could go toward space exploration.

Here's a figure: The "Iraq liberation" has killed about 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

If I understand correctly, that is on par with Sadaam Hussein. I know he killed many many more, but the people he killed could at least see it coming (and therefore take precautions) -- they were Kurds, Shiites, or political targets. (Someone correct me if my facts are wrong.)

The people our "liberators" are killing are different. They are women, children, Sunnis, Shiites, American, British, etc., etc. And, to call them "collateral damage" is just plain wrong. If we would publish the names and pictures of every Iraqi civilian that was killed by U.S. bullets, maybe we wouldn't be so willing to go to war.

What we have given to Iraq isn't freedom or democracy; we have given them terror. Let's remember for just a second -- did you ever hear of a suicide bomber or a car bomb in Iraq before the Americans "came to the rescue"? I don't remember one, not one.

Now about democracy. Why do we, as Americans, automatically assume that democracy is the best kind of government. Sure, I think it's best, and you think it's best, but frankly, many people don't. If I knew a wonderful person who really cared about people, I would consider him/her a perfect candidate for King/Queen. The point is this: it is not our right to impose our way of thinking at gunpoint.

I'll let you chew on that for a while...gotta get back to work.

Oh, just to help tie this in with space exploration...If we put the $150 billion or so towards Mars exploration instead of a war with Iraq just imagine...

Dook · 2004-05-01 16:53:54

10,000 deaths is nowhere near what Saddam is guilty of. The actual figure is in the millions but, as you say, "at least they could see it coming". Maybe Kurdish women and children saw the chemical weapons falling toward them, the Iranian soldiers as well. And of course Kuwaiti women had time to prepare before being raped by the invading Iraqi soldiers. I'm sure that made it somehow easier for them to accept. Maybe you prefer that type of world to the type that American forces are trying to provide.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html]http … mical.html

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterro … error.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A … 25449.html

The remark that the 'liberators' (US forces) are killing women, children, American, and British is impossible for me to believe. American's use M16's with scopes and precision guided weapons while the insurgents fire AK-47's from the hip on full auto. The coalition does not launch indescriminate mortars into the air nor does it fire off roadside bombs that kill and maim civilians passing by in their vehicles. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out who is actually killing the innocents. But you see what you want to see. Al Jazeera does not show the pro-American side so you may not have seen this yet:

http://www.cfpeople.org/military/GOTTA% … -13-03.htm

I'm not saying the coalition forces have not killed any civilians but that we go to great lengths, even placing ourselves at increased risk simply to limit the number of innocents harmed. So that is why it is impossible for me to believe. By the way, our medic's give care to injured captured insurgents. Could we hope for the same kind of humane treatment for American's held by the insurgents?

We haven't given Iraq terror, the fanatic's have. The majority of Iraqi citizens simply wish for the lights to stay on, food on the table, and work. They would just as soon have the insurgents leave along with the American's.

Nobody likes war but there are times when it is the best option. What if the United States could have won World War Two in two months?

Maybe democracy is not the best or only type of government but Saddam's type of government was definately not it either. $150 billion to stop Saddam is a bargain.

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 06:33:35

Just as you can't count fuel as the only cost of operating the shuttle you can't count only what Bush has requested from Congress as the only cost of this war. The shuttle has been sitting on the launch pad for over a year and yet over 300 million of the proposed SEI budget increase needs to go to it to fix it. We have a military that sucks down half a trillion dollars a year out of the 2.2 that the government pulls in. It is the largest expenditure for our government folled by social security. By comparison, NASA gets less than 1 percent of the budget.

That last time we defended our borders was the Cuban Missle Crisis and that was back in the 60's and a major deployment was not needed. So why are we spending trillions when our borders are not threatened? We are at peace with all our old enemys and no one would dream of invading us. Do we really need to spend more than the top seven militarys in the world combined? Does anyone ever wonder how they would feel if China spent 3-4 times what we do on its military? Scared. And that's how the world feels. That is why people like Bin Laden can attract follows because it does look like we are posed to take over whole continents.

I'm not saying let's toss out national defence altogether, but current levels of spending are insane. Where is the peace dividend? Anyone ever hear that term? When our country is not at war we are supposed to see that money channeled into domestic spending. The Pentagon solved that problem by keeping us at war constantly.

Speaking of the Pentagon, why was it attacked? Why did terrorists pick those targets to strike. Because the WTC is the symbol of our greed and the Pentagon the symbol of our sword. Yes, a lot of good people died at the WTC, but also a lot of greedy sobs that never helped anyone in their lives.

I really wish that we could help everyone but we can't. People need to help themselves and think for themselves. And the sad truth is that for every country we help, we make yet another enemy.

Saddam was a bad man that did horrible things, but the reason we went after him and not a dozen other worse world leaders is because his country has oil. Lybia asked for our help and what did we do? Park navel ships off their coast.

'Nobody likes war but there are times when it is the best option.'
If only this were true. There are people in this administration that LOVE war. We live in a capatilist society where nothing is not done if it doesn't make a buck. Why should war be any different? Is it coincidence that Halliburton, Cheney's old company, is getting the lion-share of work in Iraq?

This was taken from their website:
'Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industries. The Company adds value through the entire lifecycle of oil and gas reservoirs and provides and integrates products and services, starting with exploration and development, moving through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure and abandonment'

Republicans are masters of selling poverty to the poor. Better educated people tend to be democrats, support equal rights, and programs like NASA, this is a fact. George W had no plans for this country before 9-11, and so this was the best thing that could have happened for him. He has based his re-election on a war on 'terror'. The idea being that as long as people are scared, they will vote for bush to keep them safe. On his watch, we have the worst tragedy since Pearl Harbor, and he's using it get re-elected, that is skillful manipulation of the masses. We have been sold this war, enjoy your purchase.

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 06:48:45

By the way Ian, thank you for your voice of reason. We often talk about what NASA could and should be doing, and the reason is always a lack of funds.

I believe too, that this war, and the many before, and the many sure to follow, are sucking this country dry. NASA isn't the only program feeling the squeeze. Our power grids need updating. Our highways need more money. Our school spending keep dropping while colleges make more. Our vetrans almost never get the benefits promised to them. Drug costs are sky-rocketing.

All the signs point to a capitalist system out of control. Companies are starting to tell the government what it can and can't do and this is very bad. If we think that the government doesn't care enough about us, how are companies going to treat us when they are totally in charge? They already lobby to reduce EPA and FDA restrictions. To make a dollar, there are people out there that would pump our bodies full of trash.

Dook · 2004-05-02 11:30:07

If ever the United States wanted to take over continents we surely could have done it after world war two when we were the only country with nuclear weapons. What do you think would have happened to the world if Saddam's Iraq was the only country with nuclear weapons? Also, we took over Japan and Germany and instead of stealing from them we helped them rebuild and they have prospered. And they are not our enemies. If we really wanted to take anyone over we could, even now. Anyone who is afraid of the United States is doing something they should not be doing, and they should be afraid.

Again, the pentagon does not keep us at war the civilian leadership, voted in by the public, starts wars. The pentagon simply ends them.

A lot of greedy sobs died in the world trade center attack? I guess you knew them then because if you didn't then you are a disgusting piece of s*** in my book for thinking that in any way justifies their deaths and the destruction of two buildings. You don't see the terrorists building anything. Those people only know how to destroy and yet you praise them for killing people just because they had desk jobs. Also, there was a day care center in the WTC but I guess since those were probably children of greedy sob's then it's okay that they were crushed by tons of steel and cement.

http://www.wnbc.com/anniversary/1665276 … etail.html This is just one of the greedy sob's that died that day.

Sigh...the old war for oil argument. You complained about how much the war was costing, what sense does it make to spend $150 billion to make war against a country to steal their oil when you can just buy it? That's ridiculous. If we were really that desperate for oil we could invade Venezuela or ALL the oil producing countries and have free oil until it ran out. Korea did not have oil. Hmm, neither did Vietnam, or Panama. Bosnia. Haiti. Sigh...you see what you want to see. The reason we went after Saddam and not the dozen other bad leaders was because he was the most reckless and the easiest threat to eliminate.

Libya, hmm, lets see, Lockerbie! And that Berlin club bombing. Libya's government didn't just support terrorist attacks THEY committed them! Notice how friendly they suddenly have become since we caught them trying to get nuclear bomb materials. They let inspectors in almost immediately. A benefit of the war in Iraq.

Going from the paragraph you chose to post it sounds to me that Haliburton is the best choice to fix things in Iraq.

I sense someone angry with college educated people who have desk jobs and make more money than you. You are obviously upset about the amount of taxes that you pay but likely do not pay nearly what those with the college education make. Also, what proof that veterans almost never get the benefits promised to them? I'm a veteran and I know that is not true.

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 16:13:38

Well with a mouth like that, its a shame you weren't in NYC on that fateful day lol. Civilian leadership starts wars, not the pentagon, hmmm, I thought Bush was spending over 200 million this year to stay in power, where did that money come from?

You probably also buy the propaganda about terrorist hating us because we are free. They hate us because we can't stay out of their business. Just because we conquered some Indains and have gotten fat using resources that they saved for generations doesn't give us the right to tell others what they can and can't do. Why can we have a nuclear arsenal and Iran can't? POP QUIZ: what is the only country to have dropped not one but two nuclear weapons on another country.

It makes sense to spend much more than 150 billion on a war to secure more oil because you see my small minded friend, they aren't spending their money. They are spending OUR money and our children's money.

And for your information I do have a desk job and an education. Do some people make more than me, well of coarse. I bet you aren't the richest man in the world yourself, and you are far from the smartest person I've meet. You are probably somewhere between 25-35 and had to get Uncle Sams money to pay for your education, so maybe you feel you owe Uncle Sam a reach around?

Dook · 2004-05-02 18:35:22

The shame is someone like you who finds it so easy to laugh at the WTC tragedy. A truly american tragedy but I guess only a loyal american would feel that way.

Since you are obviously misguided about where President Bush's campaign for re-election money comes from I have provided a couple of links. By the way, campaign contributions are a matter of public record. Once again you are not only completely wrong but show an incredibly closed mind towards real facts.

http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.ex … 03335*2004

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/co … 003335.htm

The terrorist's don't hate us because we are free they hate us because of the following:
1) We support Israel, primarily because it is a democracy surrounded by dictatorships but also because of biblical ties.
2) Jealousy. The arab world has never held any power.
3) Religious differences. Fanatical religious leaders preach that the US is anti-Islam to easily gain support from relatively uneducated people.

We will NEVER stay out of the terrorists business. We are in a war against them and they are on the run and we will not stop until they all get a visit from a Hellfire missile or the AC-130.

You still do not see the point. The primary reason for having a powerful and capable miltary is to SAVE LIVES! If we could have ended world war two in two months we would have saved MILLIONS of lives! Those two nuclear weapons saved twice as many lives and if you don't think so then ask yourself this, why did we have to drop two? Because the Japanese were as fanatical as the terrorists nowdays.

WE did not conquer any Indians. I certainly did not fight them and I do not think you were there either. Maybe your ancestors were involved but mine were not. Regardless of who is responsible for the Indian's cause this country is the brightest light of freedom the world has ever known and although we are not perfect we have responded to the worlds cries with money, medicine, food, and fists when needed. We have given the world technology: aircraft and the entire air transportation system, vaccinations (we were the major contributor to the elimination of small pox), computers and the internet, vehicles, clothing, genetically engineered crops that resist drought and insects and produce much more. I could go on but you will still attempt to change the subject and look for some bad thing, some error the country made at some point in it's long history. Instead of being hopeful and involved with improving anything you are the type who sits back and complains about how little you have and how much others have. It's easy to sit there in the stands, looking through your negative glasses, watching, and complaining about the mistakes others make while they play the game of life. All the while you refuse to take part because you know you really can't compete above the level of minimum wage or think for yourself. You are just repeating what you've heard on the streets and at the bus stop.

Ah, how again does it make sense to spend $150 billion to secure more oil that we could just buy? Iraq was selling oil to us even while the first Persian Gulf War was going on. The leaders of this country pay taxes as well, probably much more in taxes than you do. Your response is ignorant and shows once again a lack of research and education on the subject matter. You simply change the subject when you do cannot remember anymore information to support your opinion.

Sure, I owe, I owe so much that I could never possibly hope to repay it. I owe for my freedom and the freedom of half the world which I have visited. I owe respect for those who gave their lives for that freedom. I owe for a society that rewards hard work and provides a home and prosperity. I owe for having religious freedom that so many do not have. I owe for having a voice to freely argue, agree or disagree with anyone.

I think you are a person who owes nothing to anyone. In your mind everyone owes you.

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 19:29:07

Wow, so much anger in this one. What are you so angry about? You say you love freedom yet you don't love my freedom because I don't agree with you. This is exactly what I am talking about here. I make a perfectly valid statement and you try and go put words in my mouth. You keep saying that I hate people when I hate no one. If I hated someone, I would ruin their life or kill them, I don't use the word hate lightly like some.

I never laughed at the victims of the WTC. What I said is to terrorists, the WTC is a symbol of greed. It is a symbol of all that is corrupt and wrong with this country.

I suppose you think I hate America too? If I hated America, why would i be trying to draw attention to matters that i think need some work?

Now let's both take a deep breath and try to be more mature about this.

Now the most disturbing thing you have said, to me at least, is that dropping two nuclear weapons on civilians saved lives. I can't fathom how you reached this conclusion and I would like you to go into further detail.

Secondly, I disagree that the arab world has never had power. There was Alexander the Great who ruled, what was at the time, the whole world. The middle east has been home to many great and glorious empires.

Third, Israel isn't a democracy in the same vein that we are a democracy. And as far as humanitarian rights go, they have a lot of unfinished buisness.

Now to answer some of your questions. I believe, and so do many republicans, that going ahead with this war without UN santion sends a strong message to our would-be enemys. I believe that this administration is hoping that OPEC will think twice before raising the price of oil on us.

Oops, that was the only question. I hadn't read all the way through your responce and didn't realize the rest is personal attacks.

Well for starters, I make $10.50 an hour at my job, not minimum wage. I know it isn't much and you probably make more but I work hard for it. I also have an internet buisness, struggling to make profit, to be honest but I'm learning and getting better at it.

I wish you would realize that terrorists don't magically pop out of thin air. These people are made by situations similar to this prisoner abuse scandel. By the way, have you been keeping up with that? Seems some of our boys are acting more like Nazi than liberators. Now I know that it's probably no more than a dozen or so abusive soilders, but the point is things like this make people really mad at us. Mad enough to kill and to be killed.

And WW2 was a just war in my opinion. Hitler was an evil man that was conquering his neighbors. However, Saddam was no Hitler in the respect that he was a threat to the world. The one country he invaded used to be part of Iraq until the UN redrew the boundaries and made Kuiwatt. The point is that even subconciously supporters of our military and it's spending habits use WW2 as justification because it was the last just war in many eyes. You never hear people sing the praises of Korea or heaven forbid Vietnam.

I suggest we try and keep things civil on this forum. We have gone way off subject here. I appologize for some of the off color remarks I made. I respect your opinions even though we disagree and hope you will respect mine.

Euler · 2004-05-02 19:53:47

We have given the world technology:...vaccinations...computers...vehicles...clothing

Weren't these mainly British (unless you want to count clothing as Neanderthal) inventions?

I disagree that the arab world has never had power. There was Alexander the Great who ruled, what was at the time, the whole world.

Alexander the Great was from Macedonia.

The one country he(Saddam) invaded used to be part of Iraq until the UN redrew the boundaries and made Kuiwatt.

Saddam also invaded Iran, which is why the US decided to give him his WMDs.

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 20:33:37

Ahhh, okay ya got me, bad example. I guess he would be a foreign conqueror. And bravo, I was going to bring up Iran. Okay, question is, would Saddam support the SEI, if he were in power.....poll time.

:bars2:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-04-30 11:22:26

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#52 2004-04-30 11:35:09

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#53 2004-04-30 11:35:24

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#54 2004-04-30 11:39:38

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#55 2004-04-30 11:51:30

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#56 2004-04-30 11:55:36

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#57 2004-04-30 12:02:17

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#58 2004-04-30 12:05:43

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#59 2004-04-30 12:07:07

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#60 2004-04-30 13:42:00

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#61 2004-04-30 13:56:57

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#62 2004-04-30 14:13:32

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#63 2004-05-01 05:14:54

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#64 2004-05-01 11:48:26

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#65 2004-05-01 14:09:33

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#66 2004-05-01 15:01:15

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#67 2004-05-01 16:53:54

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#68 2004-05-02 06:33:35

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#69 2004-05-02 06:48:45

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#70 2004-05-02 11:30:07

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#71 2004-05-02 16:13:38

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#72 2004-05-02 18:35:22

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#73 2004-05-02 19:29:07

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#74 2004-05-02 19:53:47

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#75 2004-05-02 20:33:37

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

Board footer