New Mars Forums

Gonna put ush old Jabberersh in our plashe, eh?!
    Jusht typical o' you juvenile delinquent typesh to get the wrong end o' the ol' claypipe. Hell! We ain't talkin' 'bout shafety ya danged ornery li'l whippershnapper ... we're talkin' 'bout a little common shense!   :rant:

    I'd whip shome o' that shense into your hide if I got the chanshe, you dishreshpec'ful l'il varmint.
                                              :angry:

Hi DonPanic!
    Those are very practical and sensible laws you have in France. I'm impressed.
    [Except for the marijuana bit. I'm afraid I disagree with its use and think it should be strongly discouraged by the law. Just my opinion, though I have powerful personal reasons for feeling that way (nothing to do with religion either).]

    As is so often the case, I've found that most of us here are actually closer to each other in fundamental wants and desires than it may appear.
    You and I have significant differences when it comes to politics and how the world situation should be handled; in fact, some of your earlier posts led me to think we were poles apart and probably irreconcilable. But, the more I've come to know you, the more I've grown to like your Gallic logic!   
    Your latest posts are indeed very realistic and pragmatic and I admire that kind of unemotional and down-to-Earth attitude when the situation demands it.

    I remember another of your countrymen, Dickbill, whom unfortunately we've heard too little from just lately, with a similar mindset to your own, I think. He and I have different politics too but I couldn't help but grow to like him as time went on. (Not sure if you're familiar with his contributions to New Mars but he has a great sense of humour - often quirky and zany.    )

    What with you and Dickbill showing me aspects of the French character it's impossible to dislike, I might just start to develop a soft spot for the French people after all.

    But don't worry, I haven't lost my rightist tendencies and I'm sure I'll find good reason to disagree with you about things in future!
    However, just because we can't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't stop arguing now and then and maybe have a few beers and chill out together. Right?
                                         

That "Coronal Rain, Solar Storm" picture is amazingly detailed.
    I think I've touched on this before but it still amazes me how constant the Sun looks from here, without visual aids. It's only when you see it in shots like this one that you're reminded of the titanic struggle which goes on there between the powerful gravitational field and the furious energy of thermonuclear reactions.
    It's really beyond our comprehension - or at least it's beyond mine!
                               

I have a nasty suspicion that to some extent we're "screwed" anyway, to use Bill's colourful colloquialism! Regardless of Iraq or anything else, the West is marked for continued death and disruption by Islamic extremists. Why .. because we're too rich, too greedy, too arrogant, or too technologically advanced? No. Because we're infidels.

    Did it start with Bush Jnr.? No.
    Did it start with Bush Snr.? No.
    Did it start with Clinton? No.
    Did it start with Reagan? No.

    If it's possible to pin down a moment in history when aggressive Islamic religious elements first made their presence felt, you might choose 1979, when meek and mild Jimmy carter was (Democrat) President of the U.S.A. Although the Shah had long since fled the country in January of the same year, angry young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4th and took more than 60 Americans hostage for 444 days.
    In fact there had been confrontations between authorities and Iranian Islamic clergy as early as 1963, on Kennedy's watch (another Democrat, incidentally); and this despite a prolonged period of unprecedented stability and prosperity, albeit under American influence.

    This all took place before the Mujaheddin's American-backed struggle against the Soviets, before the evil Bush family came to power, before Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam, before Cheney had a chance to aggravate the Arabs. All was not peace and light even long before the Left's latter-day anti-heroes graced the stage!

    This clash between the secular West and extreme Islam has been coming for a long time. According to OBL, it all started when the Moors were driven from Spain, hundreds of years ago!
    We're the enemy, we're infidels, we must be converted or slain and Pan-Islamic Superstates must be established across the Middle East and South-East Asia, present-day borders notwithstanding.  U.N. negotiations won't stop them, E.U. negotiations won't stop them, and being careful not to offend Islam's delicate sensibilities won't stop them.
    When they finally get nuclear weapons, nothing will stop them.
    I'm afraid Election '04, U.S.A., is just an interesting but relatively insignificant interlude along the way, regardless of the outcome.
                                              ???

MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY, BOLBUYK !!   

    29, eh?  A very fine age to be ... enjoy!

:laugh:  Ha-ha !!  Classic response, Stu.

What's everybody talking about?
    Stu understands the importance of science experiments on MERs, don't you Stu?
    Now now .. come on Stu. You can't use language like that in front of a lady ... !
                                      :;):    :laugh:

I think the Iraq war has been misreported here in Australia by a biased media ever since it started. I remember it was going to be a protracted and bloody war lasting months, with hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Baghdad.
    None of that happened, of course, and the mobile strategic phase of the war only took, what was it, three weeks in the end?

    Up until recently, even anti-war activists never seemed to put the Iraqi civilian casualties any higher than about 20,000. Many thought the figure probably never got much higher than 10,000.
    Now, out of the blue, (strangely close to the U.S. election) it's a nice round figure of 100,000. It's very hard to know how these statistics are compiled and how accurate any of them are. Considering the bile being generated by the upcoming election in America, I'm put in mind of the old "lies, damned lies, and statistics" axiom.
    In any event, you have to subtract from that figure the number of Iraqis routinely butchered by their illustrious leader during an equivalent 18-month period, and the number of Iraqi children who would have been casualties of the endless U.N. sanctions in that same timeframe. (I notice there are figures in the 100s of thousands, 500,000 was it?, for child deaths from the failure of the oil-for-food program, which the most raucous of the anti-war protesters were curiously much quieter about at New Mars before 2003.)

    There are various numbers bandied about for the hard line terrorists thought to be active in certain areas of Iraq, too. I've seen figures of 2000 and, in some of the more wild-eyed leftist press, even 20,000.
    However many are involved, if we keep killing them, we'll eventually make progress. In this regard, I agree with Bill and CC that mistakes have been made and we need to be much more aggressive. We really have no alternative but to go in hard, despite the risk to civilians. The terrorists hide behind the ordinary people who, consequently, are partially to blame for their own predicament in that they don't inform on these murderers or rise up against them. It's their war, too, after all, and they have the biggest stake in its eventual success.

    The biggest problem at present, of course, is the support being given to the terrorists inside Iraq by Iran and Syria. Although we should be able to give Iraq its democratic freedom by early 2005, stability is constantly endangered by those two pariah states, together with extremist Saudi elements.
    Sooner or later, that problem will have to be dealt with. And, as I've mentioned in another post, the Iranian question is becoming more urgent day by day because of their imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons. In retrospect, I think it may have been more desirable to liberate Iran first, before turning our attention to Iraq, but that's just idle speculation at this point in the game.

    Anyhow, once Iraq is returned to Iraqi rule next year, and security is largely in the hands of its own police forces and military, Coalition forces will be freed up and available for other tasks.
    Assuming President Bush retains office, and perhaps with an increased mandate (still the most likely outcome according to the bookies - and they don't often get it wrong), how do you people see the Iranian situation being dealt with?
    As I understand it, no progress has been made in persuading Tehran's mullahs to abandon their nuclear weapons aspirations, so we can soon expect even the duplicitous Europeans to back U.N. action of some sort. Surely, even the self-interested U.N. equivocators club will realise economic sanctions are pointless and that much more decisive action is vital.
    With Coalition forces available, with U.N. backing, and perhaps with NATO reinforcements contributing, how quickly do you think we can neutralise Iran?  Bear in mind, we haven't much time to solve this problem.
                                         ???   

[P.S. Is it true that Iran is seeking to acquire three nuclear submarines? I read it somewhere but can't find the article now.]
[P.P.S. The West is a target for terrorism now, and has been for some 20 years, so I'm not concerned any more about stirring up Muslim extremists. I don't believe this is a valid reason or excuse for soft-pedalling our actions in the Middle East. I think it's time to take off the gloves and I just hope the Europeans will abandon their extraordinary anti-Americanism and wake up to who the real enemy is. If they imagine they can somehow curry favour with Islamofascists by opposing the U.S., I'm afraid they will have a very much ruder awakening to look forward to. The terrorists have stated they're not looking for concessions from the West, their aim is to destroy us - simple.]

It sure is amazing.   
    I suppose it'll only be a decade or two until we have detailed maps of every planetary and satellite surface in our system. Haven't we come a long way in the last 40 years?
                                                       

I'm really trying hard to avoid this depressing slugfest between diehard Democrats and red-neck Republicans(! ) but then again it's almost over now anyway, so ...

    This 350 tonnes of high explosive material was almost certainly there after the Coalition troops arrived, so at least some of the blame for its disappearance must be laid at the doorstep of the military. I believe it's unconscionable that such material could be left unguarded and end up commandeered by the enemy; somebody needs to be censured for that.
    But, having said that, I know enough of what went on during WWII to say that this sort of thing does happen in time of war. The most incredible foul-ups have been perpetrated by German, French, Italian and British forces - not just by Americans - and it doesn't just apply to comparative incidentals like ammunition dumps either. Even the main strategic initiatives of whole army groups are prey to the vagaries of fate as battles unfold. In fact, Field Marshal Helmuth Von Moltke, German Chief of Staff 1906-1914, wrote: "No operation plan extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy."
    The difference then was that people like CNN and other news agencies weren't trailing around with cameras to anything like the same extent. And undermining the credibility of the command structure with revelations similar to this, while the lives of our troops were still on the line in an ongoing conflict, was regarded as treachery. Plenty of time for recriminations after the job was done.
    But things have changed, I guess.

    However, in addition to the above, I'd like to make the point that Iran and Syria have access to rather more than 350 tonnes of high explosives and have been supplying Islamic murderers with all they need to kill innocent people for many years. While losing that much explosive material was an appalling lapse, it's nothing new in the annals of war, and it's of limited importance in Iraq when you view the big picture. If the terrorists have access to unlimited money, arms, and explosives, 350 tonnes extra isn't going to make two cents worth of difference.

    I'm afraid this is just another tawdry example of politicking as the U.S. election approaches. But judging by a similar campaign against John Howard, Australia's incumbent at our election a few weeks ago, the desperation of this line of attack probably bodes well for President Bush. It looks like Kerry and all the anti-Bush contingents worldwide might really be scraping the barrel with this one.

    Thank God it's nearly all over!       

I hope Huygens doesn't sink into all that "primordial slush".
                                     

Helluva picture!   :up:
    I suppose we could drop the Moon into one of those 'black holes'.   

[Yes, the global warming thing was veering a little off-topic, I agree. I just hate to see the scientific method being usurped for political purposes, that's all. Science is too important to me - and to you, too, I know.
End of digression. Back to the facts.     ]