Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Adrian · 2003-03-21 14:10:21

There has been a significant number of postings on politics and war that are completely unrelated to Mars in this forum lately. I fully understand that Free Chat is supposed to be about topics that are not necessarily related to Mars, but it is *not* supposed to be about politics or war exclusively. Please bear in mind that there are plenty of other weblogs, discussion sites and newsgroups on the Internet that are much more appropriate places to discuss politics and war; I'm sure that readers here can recommend some.

I am not about to ban discussion on politics and war because I do think that there can be worthwhile discussion here that has a special Mars or space related perspective. But consider the fact that most people do not come here for politics or war discussion, and that there are many better places to do that.

Palomar · 2003-03-26 09:43:04

*I thought this might be the best thread to insert the following, which is a list for the Coalition War Casualities. This site is continually updated. If not already registered with findagrave.com, you will have to register, and then can pay your respects by leaving virtual flowers, ribbons, flags, etc.:

http://www.findagrave.com/index.html

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-26 16:10:18

I think the worst thing about this debacle is that the news can't really get a grasp on facts, and it takes up to a day to actually go through the garbage they say to find anything remotely factual. I won't list things that have gone reported one way but turned out differently (I promised to stay out of political discussion- and I know, almost assuredly, that it would create one in this very thread which semi-condemns it), but it's quite disheartening, especially when you have your own family members over there.

::one very worried man::

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-27 02:53:52

My heart goes out to you, Josh. We don't always see eye to eye on everything, but that is of absolutely no consequence here.
I very much hope and pray that your brother (I believe it was your brother you mentioned) is returned safe and well to you at the earliest possible date.
Hang in there, Josh, old pal!!

PaganToris · 2003-03-27 22:26:34

well everyone says this is all about oil but mexico has more oil if it was for oil wouldnt the us just invade mexico?
its about a rude crusim man who failed to disarm! and we the us will disarm him by force!
Also yes i hope that yer brother is returned home saftly from the war! i have numrous amount of friends that have family over there!
my word goas out f0or U!

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-27 22:49:43

Thanks for the kind words Shaun. And as far as I know we only disagree on stuff where I self admittedly have no idea what I'm talking about.

And Pagan, dude, you are just begging for enlightenment, it's about a lot of things... but... I gotta refrain.

But thanks for the kind words, also.

Number04 · 2003-03-30 18:12:36

OK, to shift the conversation here.

Since this war is going to cost ALLOT, where is this money going to come from? Since the Columbia tragedy has cast a black cloud over the space program, will it be scrapped to pay for the US war hunger? Or is this a time for other nationalities to shine?

dickbill · 2003-03-30 21:23:40

NUmber 04, we can make scenarios. Lest's imagine the best: the war ends soon, no other war follows, no cold war follows with no new race to nuclear weapons and the world come back to an almost normal state, more peacefull and secure as whished By Mr Bush. Then the cost can stay cheap, like 100 billions $, all the immediate mars projects status are bussiness as usual.
Now imagine better, the US administration intends to recover its international prestige and wants to show the world that the USA can be the first in something else than military power, so NASA decide to set up that mission to MArs earlyer than we expect, maybe before 2010.
Wouldn't be great and logical ?

But in the worst case scenario, rampant wars everywhere, astronomical military credits rising, ecological disasters due to the global warming, the next mission to Mars might be in 50 years.

clark · 2003-04-03 07:08:25

I wish to share two things, a report I have just read, and a fear I am having:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld....635.htm

The link is to an article which I have no reason to doubt. The implications though seem frightful.

And for those unfamiliar with the people quoted, they are the people the US president listens to, who help him make policy decisions.

There is increasing aggressive rhetoric coming from the US administration regarding Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya.

There is increasing accusations by the US administration that these countries either possess, or are secretly building WMD's

The US administration views all of these countries as illigetimte regimes who oppress their native populations, while threatening their neighbors.

We currently have some 250,000 US troops in the Gulf now. We are deploying another 130,000 US troops, which will be operational in mid-April. All told, with the addition of coalition forces, we will have nearly half a million troops in the Gulf.

So my fear, what happens after *this* war is over? Syria and Iran both pose the same level of threat that Iraq does, at least by the definitions of threat used to legitimize this war.

dickbill · 2003-04-03 07:32:41

(...President Bush last year tagged Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" that threatens world order, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has unnerved Iran and North Korea.

Rice defended the Bush administration's constant warnings that rogue regimes are acquiring evermore lethal weapons.

"Sometimes people think we're a little bit `the-sky-is-falling, the-sky-is-falling' on these regimes that the president called the axis of evil," Rice said. She added, however, that recent evidence shows that "they certainly belong" on the list.

Rice voiced frustration that the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hasn't been more aggressive with Iran's nuclear program and suggested the need for shaking up the way weapons monitoring programs function.

"Once we have a better atmosphere after Iraq, one of the things we're going to have to look at is how the world gets itself better organized to deal with issues concerning weapons of mass destruction," Rice said.....)

I want to remember Ms Rice that Dr Evil has already applyied for the job of Master Of the World, and If you remember well, Dr Evils's weapon, his "preparation H" described by Scott as being good "on the whole", was very little usefull to get the job done. Dr Evil's evillness was due to his traumatism in his infancy, it might be the case for Ms Rice. Maybe she want to proove that despite the fact of positive selection she can do better than those stupid blond babes who are supposed to have her position normally ?
Does Ms Rice's Preparation H will be more efficient to fix Iran and North Corea ? I doubt but she can try. When the world has been completely fixed, and no axis of evil are left, she gonna claim loudly on TV:
"now that the world is more peacefull and secure, we can give to the US space exploration program 2 millions dollars this year ! because we saved a little bit on our 20 trillions military funding"

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 14:29:09

dickbill

dickbill · 2003-04-03 15:30:49

dickbill

yeah, I think I'm gonna specialize in the "joke telling". There is not much else to say right now.
Sorry Adrian, I'm sure the forum will be back to normal, if and when the world comes back to normal.

dickbill · 2003-04-08 10:18:09

dear martian compatriots, I pick up this from a link provided by Clark in the moon base forum:

"TSA Supports Congressional Restrictions On Computerized Airline Passenger Screening
By Harvey Simon
Congress is considering putting restrictions on the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new, high-priority system for reviewing background information on airline passengers. But TSA chief James Loy says he welcomes the oversight.

TSA is replacing the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) that airlines now use with a more sophisticated second-generation model, known as CAPPS II, that will be government owned and operated.

When passengers make reservations, they will be asked for their name, address, date of birth and phone number. That information will be used to search private databases to determine if a passenger is a "rooted member of the community."

Each passenger will be assigned a score representing how likely the person is to pose a security threat.

The Senate Commerce Committee has approved a measure proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that is designed to enable Congress to closely monitor CAPPS II for potential abuses. Wyden's amendment to legislation for improving cargo security, The Air Cargo Security Act (S. 165), would require the TSA to report to Congress on:

* how long the TSA is retaining information on passengers and who will have access to the information;

* how long the TSA will retain security scores assigned to passengers and under what conditions those scores will be shared with other agencies or outside the government;

* the extent of private-sector access to CAPPS II data;

* safeguards to protect against improper use of the data;

* appeal procedures for passengers who have been barred from flights.

Wyden "is trying to make sure we get it right," Loy said in a March 27 interview. "I'm delighted with Sen. Wyden's interest."

CAPPS II has raised privacy concerns, similar to the controversy that enveloped another anti-terror database program, Total Information Awareness (TIA).

TIA would comb hundreds of databases to look for patterns of information that might indicate if a person is involved in terrorist activity. Unlike CAPPS II, it is not being developed for use at airports.
"

frightening !

Where are we going ?

Are we sure the Mars forum doesn't fall inside those database representing a thread for the national security ?
Can we trust these information database ? they say that any passenger can be denied to flight if he get a bad score ? bad score ????? what if the computer make a mistake ? allright , they say the passenger can appeal the decision, from his jail I guess.

Are we assisting to the creation of a politburo, KGB or similar ? in america ! then everything is possible. I am glad the congress put some restriction. It seems so obvious to restrict that, that you should even not ask the congress.

the link was:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow....023.xml

clark · 2003-04-08 10:33:26

US case law as precedent, and US law- any illegal electroic activety that uses US computers, or is routed through US computers, can be pursued by law enforement, even if the person commiting the crime never actually was in the US, or is even a US citizen.

The short and skinny of it is that US laws apply to anyone who does anything on a computer that somehowe interacts with any US electoric system.

80% of all internet traffic passes through Virginia (a US state).

Precedent also allows for law enforcement to seize evidence outside of the US, bring it to the US, then they can get a search warrant to search the seized evidence.

US law does not protect the individual privacy of non-US citizens. Us citizens lose any privacy protection if the US government determines that the citizen MAY be a terroist. Broad warrants can be given in secret, with little oversight, based on the US governments determination of your status as a terroist.

So: If they think you're a terroist, they can obtain a legal warrant to invade your privacy to determine if you are a terroist, without informing you. They can also detain you INDEFINTIELY under guise of terroist, or as material evidence related to other investigations.

dickbill · 2003-04-08 11:00:15

So: If they think you're a terroist, they can obtain a legal warrant to invade your privacy to determine if you are a terroist, without informing you. They can also detain you INDEFINTIELY under guise of terroist, or as material evidence related to other investigations.

Gosh ! I thought that the US defines you as a terrorist only if you look like and arab, or a devilish indian (from India, our indians are good).
Well, I am sure that when in Jail, all my roomates will be interested to know about mars terraforming and the perfluorocarbon strategy, like, "hey buddy, is that a tatoo of mars on your... ahem... ?"

dickbill · 2003-04-09 12:42:31

When you read stuff like that in the new mars forum:
"You sound like a closeted frenchman to me. Can you tell me if any french people share guilt in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs at the hand of Chirac's "Close personal friend" saddam hussein? How about the massacres of tens of thousands of Kurds at Saddam's hands? Do Frenchmen support torture? ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....chamber )
Do Frenchmen support the imprisonment of children? ( http://www.rense.com/general37/jailed.htm )
I guess genocide, torture, etc are OK, as long as the dictator is a "close personal friend" of France's president? "

Nobody can pretend that there is not an anti french sentiment developping in the US. It's easy to manipulate information to make people angry against an ethnic or national group. so here again the interview of Chirac by Amanpour. I know this is just a drop into the ocean of antifrench propaganda inside the US media, but I'll do it:
Please, feel free to proove that chirac lies or that he is incompetent.

"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.
....
"

link in :

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

tim_perdue · 2003-04-09 16:16:37

Nobody can pretend that there is not an anti french sentiment developping in the US. It's easy to manipulate information to make people angry against an ethnic or national group. so here again the interview of Chirac by Amanpour. I know this is just a drop into the ocean of antifrench propaganda inside the US media, but I'll do it:
Please, feel free to proove that chirac lies or that he is incompetent.

Did you read the NY Times (Safire) response to Chirac's denials?

As for anti-french propaganda, isn't it fair to have some of it in the US after anti-american propaganda has been rampant in france for decades? How many mcdonald's restaurants have been burned down in France, for example? How many tourists have been attacked or spit on in the streets of Paris?

Clearly it makes you uncomfortable when the propaganda is turned back on France. Why? I have never cared if French people attach american tourists - I just don't visit france.

I have 3 very good friends in the south of france, and they are quite level-headed and politically savvy. They know Chirac is as big of a sleezebag as any politician, certainly not a heroic "champion of peace" as he is being portrayed in france today.

dickbill · 2003-04-09 16:43:15

Nobody can pretend that there is not an anti french sentiment developping in the US. It's easy to manipulate information to make people angry against an ethnic or national group. so here again the interview of Chirac by Amanpour. I know this is just a drop into the ocean of antifrench propaganda inside the US media, but I'll do it:
Please, feel free to proove that chirac lies or that he is incompetent.
Did you read the NY Times (Safire) response to Chirac's denials?
As for anti-french propaganda, isn't it fair to have some of it in the US after anti-american propaganda has been rampant in france for decades? How many mcdonald's restaurants have been burned down in France, for example? How many tourists have been attacked or spit on in the streets of Paris?
Clearly it makes you uncomfortable when the propaganda is turned back on France. Why? I have never cared if French people attach american tourists - I just don't visit france.
I have 3 very good friends in the south of france, and they are quite level-headed and politically savvy. They know Chirac is as big of a sleezebag as any politician, certainly not a heroic "champion of peace" as he is being portrayed in france today.

I just read part of it or the abstract. I remember that most of it was not online and then I forgot to buy the journal. Safire is supposed to be "tough", I prefer much Thomas Friedman analysis as you can guess. Anyway, what did he say ?

About the antiamericanism in france, yes, it's true. First, France is much more leftist than the US, like 30% of the population, those guys systematically oppose capitalism and free entrepreneurial, so they opose the US capitalism model. I guess at least, since I am not in these 30%. Inside these 30% you have a bunch of 5% or less diehard anarchists-like who like to use violence. But 50% of the french is right side, like the democrate or moderate republicans here. Those have never been violent and will never be and they are not anti american.
Then there is a 15% of far right side guys, Front national, equivalent to the most conservative of the republicans here, who promote the good old way of french living, and of course antiglobalisation, so they oppose the US for different reason. I am sure that no more than a small minority of them are really antiamerican.
About Mc Donald, if a french company install a garlic, snail and frog degustation shop in New York, and nobody ever come, does that mean that the New Yorkers hate the french ? The violences have been perpetred because of an anti-OGM (genetically modified organism) famous union leader (leftist I think) who is now in jail. This guy is a burn headed charismatic big mouth and it takes what, 10 guys to put a Mc Donald in Fire ?
I am sure you can find 10 crazy guys here to put the fire in a french shop in the US.
About chirac now, I have to say, he has been elected by default. He is a good guy, like G Bush, but he has no charism. I am sure he can be abused. Sometimes that happens.
And yes, I care about the anti french sentiment in the USA, why ? hmmm.
What shocked me most in your post, is that you pretend that the french sold a nuclear central to saddam Hussein in order to destroy Israel. I cannot leave that passed. I think that DeGaulle was a pretty good support for Israel in the past, that this support has decreased time after time, probably true, but it might be the fault of the Israeli politic too.
But you might be right, the only point about that nuclear central that I would like to know is: did the french knew that this central could have been used to produce an atomic bomb, or did they think that it was impossible to produce enriched uranium. In later case, your grave accusation of indirect attack against Israel falls flat.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-09 21:06:26

I just read part of it or the abstract. I remember that most of it was not online and then I forgot to buy the journal. Safire is supposed to be "tough", I prefer much Thomas Friedman analysis as you can guess. Anyway, what did he say ?

The gist of the followup from Friedman (or Safire??) was that Chirac lied in his interview - in fact France did sell rocket fuel illegally. The editorial was available free on the NYTimes website, you can probably still locate it.

What shocked me most in your post, is that you pretend that the french sold a nuclear central to saddam Hussein in order to destroy Israel... In later case, your grave accusation of indirect attack against Israel falls flat.

I did not claim that France's intention was an indirect attack on Israel. France's intention was to ingratiate itself to a brutal dictator so France's business interests would be enhanced. Saddam spoke openly about creating the first arab bomb for the sole purpose of destroying israel. Do you think Chirac really believed that Iraq needed nuclear power when iraq literally floats on top of oil? Of course it was for nuclear weapons.

dickbill · 2003-04-09 22:15:00

I did not claim that France's intention was an indirect attack on Israel. France's intention was to ingratiate itself to a brutal dictator so France's business interests would be enhanced. Saddam spoke openly about creating the first arab bomb for the sole purpose of destroying israel. Do you think Chirac really believed that Iraq needed nuclear power when iraq literally floats on top of oil? Of course it was for nuclear weapons.

well, it could have been for the technology. But that's right, even if the central itself was not designed to produced enriched uranium, it would have been a matter of time for the Iraki to figure out how to improve the system. I have to say that the french policy in this issue is not clear. I think it was under president Pompidoux and I also think that france official policy was to support Israel. But then, it was like playing double game. I guess it was the reason why it was not a big scandal in france when the Israeli blow it up.
OK so then the french were the bad guys, but it was 30 years ago. Now, according to Chirac, France has little bussiness with Irak, if he lied or hided something as big as a financial rewarding for his electoral campaign from Saddam hussein, that will be a big scandal. He won't be reelected anyway.
Chirac also said that the US had pretty good relation with saddam's regime until the 80's. The US probably helped Saddam against the Iranian, you might be less clean than you think.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-10 06:14:13

The US probably helped Saddam against the Iranian, you might be less clean than you think.

Here is the link again for who armed Iraq:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

The piece of the puzzle that you are missing is the Realpolitik piece. Geopolitics. For France and Russia, Saddam was "their man". They had influence there, that's why they wanted to keep Saddam at all costs.

Now Saddam will be replaced with a pro-US government and France and Russia will have no influence, making them even weaker and the US even stronger.

That's geopolitics.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-10 17:02:19

Save your breath, Tim.
You're using statistics to support your argument. Your argument contests the position of the students of International Socialism that Chirac and Putin are peace-loving defenders of the innocent. (They must be .. they opposed America! ). The statistics you use will therefore be attacked and 'proven' to be out-of-context, incomplete, distorted or otherwise incorrect.

What amazes me about the left is their incredible ability to prove to their own satisfaction that statistics opposing their viewpoint are necessarily false, while never seeming to question the statistics fed to them by their commissars!
And they are being spoon-fed by a hierarchy whose structure is vague and largely faceless and not normally investigated by the press. There is an awful lot of string-pulling going on but our well-meaning leftist friends, good-hearted but analytically challenged, don't seem to detect it.

My view is that a middle course should be charted. By all means question statistics. But don't stop with the statistics of your opponents - question those given to you by your 'own side' too!!
Unfortunately, Tim, that's not likely to happen. But keep up the good work anyhow!

Phobos · 2003-04-10 19:22:21

It doesn't appear Shaun has been paying attention at the re-education camp.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-11 01:53:43

Personally, I find that this thread is full of strawmen (and indeed, the link tim gave was full of them by even more leaps and bounds, read the responses by Gary to get a reasonable position). But thankfully I have promised not to get into these silly discussions.

Phobos, it doesn't appear that anyone paid attention to the original topic of this thread. I mean, talk about irony...

dickbill · 2003-04-11 08:54:16

The topic is about war and politic. The "typical scientist politically correct attitude" is to be apolitical, but many scientist have political opinion, why not ? the politic strongly impacts their work, they would be dumb to be passively submitted to any decision taken by other people.
Why I care about antifrench propaganda in the US ? because I am french, I guess If I was russian or german I would desperatly try to convince the american right wing people here that to destroy the russkoff is not the best solution. This morning again, I've heard in Fox that the french are responsible to build the mobile chemical or biological buses/truck in Iraq.
Proof please ?
Anyway, it has been said, it 's like a truth imprinted in a stone now.
I don't deny the bad french behaviour at all cost. I am convinced that the sale of a nuclear central to Irak, 20 years ago, was a bad decision. It was definitevely playing double game and maybe just not in the only purpose to make money. Like saling MirageIII to Israel, Nuclear power to Iraq and gaz masks to Iran. So I'll take it. French have a part of responsability in the mess in Iraq right now, maybe Chirac personnaly, but he will never recognize it. In 10 years maybe, we'll know everything.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-21 14:10:21

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#2 2003-03-26 09:43:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#3 2003-03-26 16:10:18

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#4 2003-03-27 02:53:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#5 2003-03-27 22:26:34

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#6 2003-03-27 22:49:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#7 2003-03-30 18:12:36

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#8 2003-03-30 21:23:40

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#9 2003-04-03 07:08:25

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#10 2003-04-03 07:32:41

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#11 2003-04-03 14:29:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#12 2003-04-03 15:30:49

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#13 2003-04-08 10:18:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#14 2003-04-08 10:33:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#15 2003-04-08 11:00:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#16 2003-04-09 12:42:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#17 2003-04-09 16:16:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#18 2003-04-09 16:43:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#19 2003-04-09 21:06:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#20 2003-04-09 22:15:00

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#21 2003-04-10 06:14:13

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#22 2003-04-10 17:02:19

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#23 2003-04-10 19:22:21

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#24 2003-04-11 01:53:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#25 2003-04-11 08:54:16

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer