Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

Bill White · 2004-06-02 15:30:14

If Bush really gets behind this for the next four years and NASA is on the ball showing real progress it will be difficult for a DemPres to axe it outright.

If CEV is only man-rated for Delta IV and Delta IV is waaay expensive and/or Boeing decides to shut down their production line there will be nothing left to cancel.

Bill White · 2004-06-02 15:32:32

Edit: Smurf, Moonbase ain't no colony.

Read the Aldridge transcripts. Fascinating stuff.

The President of the National Space Society talked about permanent settlement and the Commission basically said:

"Thanks for coming. . .

Next!"

:;):

clark · 2004-06-02 15:33:35

Impossible.

EELV is the main stay of DOD. Those birds have as much chance being cancelled as the Army has of being disbanded.

Bill White · 2004-06-02 15:36:11

Impossible.
EELV is the main stay of DOD. Those birds have as much chance being cancelled as the Army has of being disbanded.

Fair enough - - but suppose Boeing can only manage X barrels per year and DOD needs them all?

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 15:39:08

Shifting the bulk of NASA's budget to human space exploration is major as well.

Read the article? The budget increase is mostly going toward Shuttle/ISS spending. From the horses mouth, man.

O'Keefe exists in a world of scientists/acedemics/etc, he cannot snub them by aggressively going after the whole "manned space initiative." Heck, the Hubble concession (he said that they are now looking into upgrading the Hubble via a robotic mission recently) just proves it; he gets more pressure from the scientific community than anyone in NASA really. So when people go "oh, woo, Bush is good for manned spaceflight" I sort of scoff. I don't see the evidence.

To coin Bills comments on this, "Emperor's new clothes."

clark · 2004-06-02 15:41:04

Alternative providers will step in, as unlikely as it might be that DOD needs more barrels than can be produced. EELV is a make works project mandated by Congress (national security reasons). Getting NASA into the deal takes some of the pressure off of DOD to purchase a certain number per year to keep the operation going.

The only reason they might need more rockets though would be because of some need to replace a *lot* of sats up there. If that is the case, NASA and exploration isn't a priority to begin with.

clark · 2004-06-02 15:45:42

Scientific community ain't much of a constuientcy, and make for poor lobbyists. Congress is O'keefe's boss, and he has a lot of experience playing the politcal game. There wasn't any Hubble consession as O'keefe is doing what he has been saying all along from DAY ONE! No humans are going, but we will try a robotic solution. That isn't a consession Josh, that's drawing a line in the sand against a public outcry and two-bit two second soundbites from the various pundits.

If you read the between the lines, Plan Bush needs 100-200 million to get started- they can scrap some other program to find the money. the message is, give us this money to fix the Shuttle so we can save face by packaging it up as a new exploration intitive.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 15:53:25

C'mon! He never even said anything about robotic missions early on, he got majorly bad publicity from the news media, causing him to begin to say "that's an option" until finally admitting that they were actively looking in to it (just recently) that's the darndest truth. The outcry was because he said fixing the Hubble wasn't happening.

I don't see them saying anything about "fix[ing] the Shuttle so we can save face by packaging it up as a new exploration intitive." The money going into fixing the Shuttle up is being mispent. It is extremely naive to think that a few hundred million is going to effectively create some new manned initiative. You have to essentially cut out costs (ie, the Shuttle) to fix your budgets.

clark · 2004-06-02 16:01:44

C'mon! He never even said anything about robotic missions early on, he got majorly bad publicity from the news media, causing him to begin to say "that's an option" until finally admitting that they were actively looking in to it (just recently) that's the darndest truth.

Maybe he fumbled and corrected. Or perhaps he let the outcry grow to force public support to force Congress's hand. It's hard to say no now when he asks for half a billion to fix the Hubble. Some call that playing the politcal game. [shrug] You see what you want, but he NEVER ruled out robotic missions when they were mentioned. He said it was begin investigated. And it's being investigated. And it's being evaluated. He said no people, no shuttle, is going to Hubble, And that is exactly what is happening. O'keefe said it was risk, not budget related- and this is born out by him ruling out human servicing, yet allowing for the exploration of robotic service missions. If he came up and said, "No humans, robots instead" he would have been held responsible if the robotic options didn't pan out. He risked nothing because he didn't have to.

I don't see them saying anything about "fix[ing] the Shuttle so we can save face by packaging it up as a new exploration intitive."

When they ask for a major increase in a non-defense related budget request during cutbacks for everyone else, and then say, 90% of the request is going to fix the Shuttle the way Aldridge said it should, and Congress demanded, they are effectively saying "we need to save face". They don't get that money, Congress just killed the Shuttle. Get it? Read between the lines dude.

It is extremely naive to think that a few hundred million is going to effectively create some new manned initiative. You have to essentially cut out costs (ie, the Shuttle) to fix your budgets.

Which is why they are introducing a 5 year budget, and a new mandate for NASA that cements Plan Bush as the reason for NASA's exsistence. Shuttle goes away in 2010, and NASA won't need to ask for large sums from Congress- it will already have it!

smurf975 · 2004-06-02 16:07:04

Russians killed their space shuttle program a long time ago. At least they have their priorities straight. And they of course are smart enough to let the US pay for the Russian part in the ISS .

Euler · 2004-06-02 16:17:22

And they of course are smart enough to let the US pay for the Russian part in the ISS .

The US can't pay for the Russian part of ISS (Iran Nonproliferation act).

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 16:40:08

Therein lies the problem, Shuttle doesn't go away until after Shuttle is fixed. Unless you're saying that they're not going to fix the Shuttle, clark.

It's like fixing my junker car, new painjob, rebuilt engine, the works, and then taking it to the junk yard and trashing it. It's wholly irresponsible.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-02 16:57:23

Holy crap! What have I set in motion here? Jeez, this election is ripping America apart everywhere it's possible, I just hope that everything can get back to normal once it's over with.

There are way too many posts here in between when I last posted (18 hours ago), so I'll just say a few things. The Bush "plan" should not be expected to shift any paradigms too much. It will have to pass through the House and Senate first, and if one of them allows NASA any extra money the other will definately shoot that down, regardless of who happens to be president at the time. Neither of the two candidates are going to give any sort of big push to NASA, so in the long run it's really not going to matte who's president this term. In the other issues, however, deep impacts can be made these next four years.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 17:17:24

The Bush "plan" should not be expected to shift any paradigms too much. It will have to pass through the House and Senate first, and if one of them allows NASA any extra money the other will definately shoot that down, regardless of who happens to be president at the time.

But it does. If Bush is in office, and Republicans retain control of both houses, wavering members of Congress could end up getting the old "Look, the President really wants this" talk.

deagleninja · 2004-06-03 05:59:43

I don't want to debate partisan politics here but I must say a few more things in responce to Cobra (love ya buddy really).

Historically, Republicans have proven themselves to be horrible economists. Let's take a quick look at the last century's Rep/Dem leadership.

The Great Depression began late in Hoover's administration, he was a Republican.

Reagan accumulated over 3 trillion dollars over our current National Debt (sum of deficits) in his eight years. Carter left office with the National Debt at 800+ billion.

George Herbert Walker Bush Sr. had his own personal recession that cannot be blamed on Democrats because his administration followed Reagan's.

George W. Bush Jr. had his own recession. This one is largely blamed on Clinton. However, I remember the news well because I was still in a state of shock that he was even in office. Economists all over the country were shaking their heads saying 'what recession?'. I believe that the constant claims of an inherited recession actually caused consumer confidence to drop and created it.

I don't believe that anyone will argue that this country's two greatest achievements were landing on the Moon and helping win WW2 afterrecovering from the Great Depression. Who do we have to thank for that? FDR and JFK, two Democrats.

Unless you count Vietnam a great achievement, thank you Mr. Nixon, or Watergate, again thank you sir, it is easy to see who is best for the country.

Democrats want to pour money into social programs? Is that so terrible? I mean, we only spend 1/6 of the budget, our tax dollars, on domestic programs maybe it could use a little more. I don't see my standard of living improving due to Iraq unless paying over $2 a gallon for gas is an improvement.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-03 07:21:15

I don't want to debate partisan politics here but I must say a few more things in responce to Cobra (love ya buddy really).

Uh oh, here we go...

Your examples rest on the assumption that the President can directly dictate economic policy. He can't, if the President had the power to make the economy boom or bust singlehandedly we'd almost always be booming. Bush 43 didn't cause the recession any more than Clinton created the boom of the '90's. Both are the result of economic forces outside the control of a sitting President. Reagen didn't create the prosperity of the '80's (he couldn't if he wanted to) nor did he create the huge budget deficit (Congress controlled the purse strings)

As for the WWII/Apollo examples. If one looks at the record of the Democrats of Kennedy's day they look remarkably like today's Republicans. If one looks at the Democrats of FDR's day they look far to the right of today's Republicans. American politics have been on a steady leftward shift for at least the past century. Party labels aren't static.

You aren't seriously blaming Nixon for Vietnam are you? The dates just don't add up.

Democrats want to pour money into social programs? Is that so terrible? I mean, we only spend 1/6 of the budget, our tax dollars, on domestic programs maybe it could use a little more.

Now we're into an issue of genuine differences of philosophy. You may think we should be spending more socially. I think less would be better. Unlike discussions of fact or data, (which tend to show that government social programs don't do much good, BTW) there is no hope either of us will convince the other.

But I ask this, if two nations want to colonize another world and one has a population of hardworking self reliant people while the other has a population used to the government taking care of them at all stages of life; who do you think is going to get there first? Who's going to be better able to adapt to harsh and unforgiving conditions?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-03 08:15:34

Its true, the whole political spectrum has been marching to the left for decades... republicans now more like democrats were, and democrats are.. well.. socialists of a color.

History has shown time and time again that socialism doesn't work, and will very likly be so weighed down by its nanny-state inefficency that there won't be any money or political will for sustained beyond-Earth manned spaceflight.

clark · 2004-06-03 09:00:25

Therein lies the problem, Shuttle doesn't go away until after Shuttle is fixed. Unless you're saying that they're not going to fix the Shuttle, clark.

Okay, think about it for just a moment, will ya.

A five year budget request, with a majority of new funds going towards returning the Shuttle to flight. Now, when would the saftey upgrades take place for the Shuttle? Over five years, or at the begining of the five years? After the first year, NASA still has the budget request that gave it all those new funds, plus, NASA dosen't have to fix the orbitor anymore.

Now here is another thought- NASA asks for more money from Congress to fix the Shuttle as mandated by Congress to finish the ISS on a Congressionaly approved timetable that NASA knows cannot be achieved. What happens? Ditch the Shuttle in lieu of another alternative, or ditch ISS all together and go full bore for CEV and the Moon.

Or, NASA hopes for the best, waits for the worst, and when the next orbitor fails (which is statisticaly likely), retire the Shuttle immediately in lieu of another alternative, or ditch ISS all together and go full bore for CEV and the Moon.

Or, finally, stare down Congress on the budget, and if they do not give the requested funds, scream bloody murder and point the finger that Congress is the one that caused the next orbitor failure (they didn't give us the money to make it safe). The voters hate dead astronauts. Then what happens? Retire the Shuttle in lieu of another alternative, or ditch ISS all together and go full bore for CEV and the Moon.

Ever read those "choose your own adventure" books? Sometimes, no matter which page you turn to, the story ends the same way.

Congress will give NASA the money. CEV will be developed. Who knows what's going to happen to the ISS.

clark · 2004-06-03 09:36:44

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … r]Analysis: New moon shot not so costly

To get Americans to the moon by 2020, the CRS analysis said, NASA would need another $53 billion to cover the distance between the $11.6 billion saved through cuts and the total $64 billion needed to build the CEV and moon lander. That additional funding would be required between 2010 and 2020 to keep the project on schedule.

2012 is when it counts.

If Congress and, ultimately, the public, decide not to support the space plan, "a reasonable case" might be made to cut the $11.6 billion anyway, according to the document. For example, NASA officials have said the only reason for continued U.S. participation in the space station is to fulfill the agency's international partnership agreements and perform only research that supports the plan. If the plan falters, the CRS document asks, are the agreements that bind NASA to the station worth the estimated $6.7 billion they will require in FY 2005? Could O'Keefe produce a new rationale for station participation in the absence of the exploration agenda?

This is a little inflamatory. While I can agree with the assessment, NASA is a gravy train for quite a few states, and for national moarle in general. I doubt they would cut 11.6 billion out of it (unless they redirected those same funds into a newly minted space department to replace NASA...) I think this is more of the same though: Give us the money, or else. :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-06-03 10:31:50

'Your examples rest on the assumption that the President can directly dictate economic policy. He can't, if the President had the power to make the economy boom or bust singlehandedly we'd almost always be booming.'

Yes, but Presidents do have a LOT of influence over the economy. As I said earlier, Bush Jr helped create a consumer confidence crisis when he and his administration went on and on about an inherited recession.

'As for the WWII/Apollo examples. If one looks at the record of the Democrats of Kennedy's day they look remarkably like today's Republicans. If one looks at the Democrats of FDR's day they look far to the right of today's Republicans. American politics have been on a steady leftward shift for at least the past century. Party labels aren't static'

Yes, party labels aren't static. However, I wouldn't say that Bush Jr., Sr., or Reagan have invested as much in infastructure as FDR or JFK for that matter. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are too deep in the pockets of defence contractors. Throughout history you don't see Democrats waging as much war as Republicans. Contrary to popular belief, war is not good for this country. Is it not a good buisness to get into as the growing ranks of terrorists demonstrate.

'You aren't seriously blaming Nixon for Vietnam are you? The dates just don't add up.'

Hmm, perhaps my history is a little fuzzy here. I know that Nixon presided over the end of Vietnam. I had thought that he ran for President under statements that he would withdraw troops and then committed even more troops to the area, but like I said, I could be wrong.

'Now we're into an issue of genuine differences of philosophy. You may think we should be spending more socially. I think less would be better.'

Actually, I believe we agree here. I don't support unemployment benefits for people who are not actively seeking a job. I do believe in a 'hand-up' not a 'hand-out'. I have never drawn unemployment in my life and don't intend to unless I should be hit by extremely hard times.

When I speak of domestic spending, I am speaking of infastructure mainly. Our highways and power grids are sorely in need of modernization. We need better water sanitizing facilities, more public transportation, etc.

Many of these needs are being provided by the private sector these days at a fee when they used to be 'free' (paid for by government dollars). I don't have a problem with this trend as long as the government takes in less tax revenue, but they aren't. My point is that your average joe and jane are paying for services that are no longer provided while at the same time paying more in taxes.

It is often quoted that we spend more on education these days than any point in history, but this is deceptive. There are more students today than any time in our history so spending more is natural. What matters is the quality of the education.

By raising the standard of living for all Americans we provide our buisnesses with quality employees that can compete in the global market.

You don't build a house from the roof down. You must have a strong foundation. This is why 'trickle-down' economics (a staple of the Republican party) hasn't and will never work. It is also called 'trickle' because a trickle of benefit is all the average person ever sees....

.....gets off soap-box

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-03 11:18:21

Relunctantly climbs up on soapbox...

Yes, but Presidents do have a LOT of influence over the economy. As I said earlier, Bush Jr helped create a consumer confidence crisis when he and his administration went on and on about an inherited recession.

President's have some power over the economy, but not that much, at least not within their own terms of office. The major factors behind the (relatively minor) recession are independent of Presidential policies. It doesn't make sense to blame Clinton for the stock bubble bursting and it doesn't make sense to blame Bush for the downturn that followed, from that and several other factors.

Yes, party labels aren't static. However, I wouldn't say that Bush Jr., Sr., or Reagan have invested as much in infastructure as FDR or JFK for that matter.

In FDR's time there was more infrastructure that needed to be built. Some was legitimate building, later some was war-related, and in the interim there was alot of, essentially "busy work." Back then Americans were real cagey about accepting government handouts, many wouldn't. So all kinds of "make-work" was dreamed up from public works construction to sweeping streets.

If you want to talk about infrastructure, how 'bout Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway system?

Point is, we can throw examples back and forth all day and it won't really accomplish anything. Both parties have made their contributions, both have changed over the years. Looking back to party heroes of the past really serves no purpose.

Though I would like to see a Democrat invoke James Polk. We need to get that guy on some currency.

Unfortunately, today's Republicans are too deep in the pockets of defence contractors.

Perhaps, but strictly staying to the space program topic, that's not a negative. Defence contractors just happen to be the same people that build big honkin' rocketships.

Throughout history you don't see Democrats waging as much war as Republicans.

Oh, I just can't resist.
WWI Wilson, Democrat.
WWII Roosevelt, Democrat
Korea Truman, Democrat
Vietnam Opened by Kennedy, escalated heavily by Johnson, Democrats.

Gulf War, Bush 41, finally a Republican.

Looks like the Dems take the 20th century for American butt kickin'. Of course most of those Dems would be considered "Republican" today, so the whole issue is clouded. Again, kind of a pointless exercise, but amusing in its own way.

I don't have a problem with this trend as long as the government takes in less tax revenue, but they aren't. My point is that your average joe and jane are paying for services that are no longer provided while at the same time paying more in taxes.

I agree, for the reason that private industry provides most of the services you mention better. And I'm the first to say that we should do some hackin' to the tax rates.

It is often quoted that we spend more on education these days than any point in history, but this is deceptive. There are more students today than any time in our history so spending more is natural. What matters is the quality of the education.

You've hit on the central truth of the matter. What matters is quality. Many on the Left tend to equate quality with spending, this mindset is the cause of many ills in our nation today.

You don't build a house from the roof down. You must have a strong foundation. This is why 'trickle-down' economics (a staple of the Republican party) hasn't and will never work.

Depends on what you mean by "trickle down." The old 'cut taxes for business and that will trickle down as wages' is essentially what you describe. Some helps the economy, some is invested, some just seems to disappear. However, many consider Bush's tax cut to be "trickle down" economics, it isn't. It's a tax cut. When you have a progressive tax code, the rich will always get a large dollar amount in cuts than the poor.

Hmm, urge to rant rising. Stepping down from soapbox...

Gennaro · 2004-06-03 11:45:34

Oh, I just can't resist.
WWI Wilson, Democrat.
WWII Roosevelt, Democrat
Korea Truman, Democrat
Vietnam Opened by Kennedy, escalated heavily by Johnson, Democrats

One should maybe add to this list:

Vietnam, exit and peace - Nixon, Republican.
Detente with China, completing the wedge driven between Communist super powers - Nixon, Republican.

On Socialism: It's a lot about what you put into the word. If it means spending copiuos amounts on social security because of some metaphysical hang-up about the nature of man and her rights, that's one thing; if it means organizing the nation and re-allocate resources to optimize functions (including max trade-off well-being of the most miserable), for example overriding private property and stuff, it's something else, and the general social results will differ widely.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-06-03 14:59:58

Oh, I just can't resist.
WWI Wilson, Democrat.
WWII Roosevelt, Democrat
Korea Truman, Democrat
Vietnam Opened by Kennedy, escalated heavily by Johnson, Democrats
One should maybe add to this list:
Vietnam, exit and peace - Nixon, Republican.
Detente with China, completing the wedge driven between Communist super powers - Nixon, Republican.
On Socialism: It's a lot about what you put into the word. If it means spending copiuos amounts on social security because of some metaphysical hang-up about the nature of man and her rights, that's one thing; if it means organizing the nation and re-allocate resources to optimize functions (including max trade-off well-being of the most miserable), for example overriding private property and stuff, it's something else, and the general social results will differ widely.

Sorry I must strongly disagree that's a silly list

Kennedy- Vietnam, the old JFK inherited the left overs of a war between French and vietnamese, a corrupt CIA covert war againt vietnam villagers.

So don't say Kennedy started vietnam, the vietnamese were fighting the CIA, the defeated the Japanese occupiers in WW2, the kicked out the Chinese rulers and Emperors, and they beat the French. When the USA went into vietnam they thought they were fighting an evil Empire of Vietnamese, but they weren't . The vietnamese only wanted their own country, even if it was a socialist-communist system, it would still be their system their own freedom to choose this system , vietnamese wanted this choice, this freedom to choose their won nations path, that's why they fought. And don't go say Nixon ended the war!
That tricky dicky was the most devious and corrupt ruler to ever come into power in the USA, hurt the dollar and sold American gold reserves on the open market, watergate scandal and bombed the hell out of vietnamese children at Christmas.
He bombed them into a bloody mess on Christmas eve for cripes sake!!
Tricky dicky was almost as bad as Mao and his tyranny.
The only reason Tricky dicky Nixon pulled out of Vietnam was because the body bags started rollin home, and even then many vets were left stranded in weeks of extra duty by their own government and had to fight for their way home. Even loyal republicans admit Nixon was nothing but a slimey cockroach!

I can't believe some of you people are still knocking Kennedy, yes he was corrupt at times
but he helped put a man on the moon!! He helped the unfortunate get jobs and settle the economy
And he's dead for goodness sake!
Plus he saved your as ses from getting nuked!!

When Bush says he is going back into space and putting a man on the moon, the world can tell he's not serious. He slurs his words, he jabbers about nothingness, and his pronunciation of the English language may be worse than mine. When Kennedy said we will go into Space you knew this was little to do about elections, Kennedy wanted the American space industry to take off and show it greatness and make America better itself, Kennedy he was serious about space. With Bush I'm afraid it could be an election stunt.

???

I completely agree with John Glenn. That is exactly what will happen to the ISS if and when we pull out of the program early. It has taken us years to build an infrastructure here to support the ISS. Most of the partners are still scrambling to build an infrastructure to support ANY manned space mission. Some are requesting expertise to learn from the mistakes of others that have been there. Most are not.
When the orbiter stops flying, as far as I know, the Russians will be the only ones capable of orbital reboosts. The HTV will be the only vehicle capable of delivering payload racks. There will be no capability of bringing entire payload racks back down. If large equipment like the Control Moment Gyros fails, there will be no way to deliver a replacement. ESA will no longer be able to use the MPLM. Unless the Hab module is completed, crew compliment will remain at a maximum of 3.
Bush's speech, though the word got out and we expected it, totally pulled the rug out from under us. The effort into Orbital Space Plane is archived, but cancelled. Basically, the mission totally changed.
Personally, I don't really care too much about sending man to Mars. I don't even mind putting a base on the moon. I would rather put effort into improving technology and lowering the cost of space flight. The Orbital Space Plane was a step in that direction. The CEV, or whatever the name is now, is two steps back.

Well I would guess that the spaceman Glenn would know a whole lot more about Space than Bush.

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."—Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"A surplus means there'll be money left over. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called a surplus." Bush
"In an economic recession, I'd rather that in order to get out of this recession, that the people be spending their money, not the government trying to figure out how to spend the people's money."—Tampa, Fla., Feb. 16, 2004

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/]http://s … /id/76886/

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library … shisms.htm

What are the bets that I Yang LR would get a higher score in an English proficiency test, than baby Bush.

I sometimes have doubts Bush is serious about Space and returning men to the moon, could just be a re-election stunt..florida

http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection. … -court.htm

clark · 2004-06-03 15:04:38

Kennedy didn't care about sending people to the Moon. There are recorded transcripts of conversations with the NASA director at the time, Webb, where Kennedy says as much.

It was all about beating the Russians and maintaining strength during the Cold War. Kennedy didn't care about space exploration. But the camera's loved him.

Gennaro · 2004-06-03 20:40:58

Kennedy- Vietnam, the old JFK inherited the left overs of a war between French and vietnamese, a corrupt CIA covert war againt vietnam villagers.

I agree, Kennedy didn't start Vietnam, only inherited the situation. However, he didn't act on it in an appropriate way (disengagement from the entirely hopeless South Vietnam regime) because he feared his re-election, although he probably would have done so later on.
Then comes Johnson blundering along and expands it into a full blown war, even more mindful of his rep.

Nixon earnestly meant to end the war, he actually ran for president on that accord. He was transfixed by the idea of disengaging "with honour" however, which basically meant trying to make South Vietnam lose the war instead of America with as little geopolitical impact as possible, but since Thieu's regime was so spectacularly inept even at getting this much strengthed, it made the war drag on. I don't agree he was the most corrupt president of the United States, keeping ourselves to the period, LBJ should be your choice elect for that title.
The peaceniks really hated him though, but in a way that was possibly even due to Nixon taking some wind out of their sail. Johnson was an easy target, but Nixon's entire presidency aimed at stopping the war in Vietnam, so this, if carried through successfully, would actually make the entire counter-culture prerogative redundant.
They simply had to make him into "Tricky Dick" just to assure themselves of the meaning of their lives.

Yes, the entire idea of fighting world Communism in Vietnam was wrong from the outset. No American administration, from Truman to Nixon actually realized that south-east Asian Communism was essentially about Nationalism and wanting an Indochina free of colonialism. There was really never any significant difference between Uncle Ho and Chiang Kai-shek, only who filled their coffers.
If the US had understood this early on and sided with the independence movement rather than the French, say in the wake of WWII, the Viet Minh could probably have been 'vaccinated' and made into a titoesque Socialist buffer against China and Russia.
However, this was not done, partly because of ignorance, partly because the French were regarded as such 'goodies' having fought Hitler and all, and, after all, France was an important ally against Communism in Europe. She had to be supported.
To justify its actions, the US then went on with inventing the domino theory, the idea that a lost Vietnam would mean a "withdrawal to San Francisco" etc. Excuses that morphed into prisons of the mind all on their own and made America take over where the French left off in 1954.

Hence, America started threading down that path of folly, which would end in the dismayfull pull-out of 1972.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-06-02 15:30:14

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#52 2004-06-02 15:32:32

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#53 2004-06-02 15:33:35

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#54 2004-06-02 15:36:11

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#55 2004-06-02 15:39:08

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#56 2004-06-02 15:41:04

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#57 2004-06-02 15:45:42

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#58 2004-06-02 15:53:25

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#59 2004-06-02 16:01:44

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#60 2004-06-02 16:07:04

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#61 2004-06-02 16:17:22

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#62 2004-06-02 16:40:08

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#63 2004-06-02 16:57:23

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#64 2004-06-02 17:17:24

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#65 2004-06-03 05:59:43

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#66 2004-06-03 07:21:15

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#67 2004-06-03 08:15:34

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#68 2004-06-03 09:00:25

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#69 2004-06-03 09:36:44

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#70 2004-06-03 10:31:50

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#71 2004-06-03 11:18:21

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#72 2004-06-03 11:45:34

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#73 2004-06-03 14:59:58

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#74 2004-06-03 15:04:38

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#75 2004-06-03 20:40:58

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

Board footer