(US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

MarsDog · 2005-01-08 15:12:40

http://www.gsinstitute.org/resources/ex … storically, military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments -- both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce,
nations built navies to protect and enhance
their commercial interests. During the westward
expansion of the continental United States, military
outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect
our wagon trains, settlements, and railroads.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-08 16:30:39

The people behind George Bush may try to make the US the Empire of the Solar System, but they will fail.

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-01-08 17:13:54

Gentlepeople, I enjoy a rousing political argument as much as anyone, however this thread may well belong in Free Chat.

Once I figure out how to move it, I think I will.

No suppression of free speech (or chat) - - just maintaining some decorum. Fair enough?

= = =

Edit: Sorry for the "gentlemen" I used earlier. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1105226115

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-08 18:52:13

Moved from "Science and Technology"

Carry on.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-08 19:17:43

The people behind George Bush may try to make the US the Empire of the Solar System, but they will fail.

Being an American and an imperialist myself, I would hope such an effort would succeed. Being a bit of a cynic, I don't believe such an effort exists.

That said, an American expansionist drive into the solar system would be the best thing that the space advocacy community could hope for whether or not they share in the ideology behind it. If we want mankind to live off-world someone is going to have to make an enormous investment in bringing it about. Since the prospects for near to mid-term financial gain from such endeavors are dubious at best, other motives are required. Empire has long motivated men to greatness, building on what was before and advancing us all. On a deeper level, by striving to expand our nation and culture we increase the odds of leaving a world in which our descendents can thrive.

Do it for the children! :;):

Taking a more patient view, empires are not eternal. If you want countless independent communes scattered across the stars, let the empire grow and wait for its inevitable implosion. If we are to live on other worlds, someone must first build on them. Exploration, cooperation, these are fickle motivators, but pride in the greatness of one's nation and the belonging to such an entity greater than oneself can motivate people for generations.

But again look to Rome, long after the Empire's end its legacy affects us profoundly even today. I suspect this is the real objection to American "space imperialism" in any form, not loathing of empires but of America itself.

Or perhaps it's merely a knee-jerk reaction against the very idea of hegemony in any form? Would not any nation with a position seek to maintain and strengthen that dominance? And if not America, then who? Who would you prefer shape the future of humanity?

Commodore · 2005-01-08 21:39:13

Would you all rather have a Communist Chinese Empire of the Solar System?

Seriously, you could do a hell of a lot worst.

But by the time you can talk about interplanetary settlements as an empire, I'm sure that our govermental differences on Earth will be largely sorted out.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-08 23:00:54

The people behind George Bush may try to make the US the Empire of the Solar System, but they will fail.
Being an American and an imperialist myself, I would hope such an effort would succeed. Being a bit of a cynic, I don't believe such an effort exists.
That said, an American expansionist drive into the solar system would be the best thing that the space advocacy community could hope for whether or not they share in the ideology behind it. If we want mankind to live off-world someone is going to have to make an enormous investment in bringing it about. Since the prospects for near to mid-term financial gain from such endeavors are dubious at best, other motives are required. Empire has long motivated men to greatness, building on what was before and advancing us all. On a deeper level, by striving to expand our nation and culture we increase the odds of leaving a world in which our descendents can thrive.
Do it for the children! :;):
Taking a more patient view, empires are not eternal. If you want countless independent communes scattered across the stars, let the empire grow and wait for its inevitable implosion. If we are to live on other worlds, someone must first build on them. Exploration, cooperation, these are fickle motivators, but pride in the greatness of one's nation and the belonging to such an entity greater than oneself can motivate people for generations.
But again look to Rome, long after the Empire's end its legacy affects us profoundly even today. I suspect this is the real objection to American "space imperialism" in any form, not loathing of empires but of America itself.
Or perhaps it's merely a knee-jerk reaction against the very idea of hegemony in any form? Would not any nation with a position seek to maintain and strengthen that dominance? And if not America, then who? Who would you prefer shape the future of humanity?

To begin with you make several false assumptions about setting up a space empire. When Rome took over, Europe went technologically backward and could not advance until Rome fell, because of there backwardness and the way they were thinking. Rome stop being a productive society and became leach that suck the life out of the physical economy and left a bankrupt colapsing society in it place. Your wrong thinking is listed below.

1. We will not be setting up an Empire in space or in the immediate solar system, because there is no other Earth type Planet in the solar system. That important because Empires don't create wealth they steal it from other countries and they loot the natural resources instead of developing things. Since there is no Earth type ecological system that can be looted in this star system other than the Earth, USA going out like an Empire is dead issue and will not happen. With the signing of the Nixon 1971 floating exchange Act that ended Brenton Wood/Gold Reserve standard that pretty much ended any ability by the United States to colonize space. It was right around that time that they started canceling those NASA programs, because all of the sudden it was too expensive to finance and do.

2. There polices for the United States are eliminating jobs in American and are off loading them overseas so we won't have the industrial base at home to build that colony in space. We lost about three million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. We are scheduled to lose another million or so jobs almost immediately.

3. George Bush want to privatize Social Security not because it broken, but because Wall Street needs the money so there going to steal the money out of Social Security and cheat the people that are being paid benefits. That means there going to have to decrease what there getting paid and there also going to have to take a two trillion dollar loan out to cover the short fall when they take the Money out to privatize it. This will cause the Stock Market to rally one last time and most foreign investors will get out because Washington is getting ready to default on there debt and they will dump the dollar while the dumping good. The US Dollars will basically disintegrate along with the debt and what left of the Social Security money.

4. If the United States continues with these illegal foreign wars of aggression against other nations, the United States will be destroyed either through economic collapse or because the rest of the world ganged up on the United States and destroys the United States. The United States is in the process of starting world war III and we will be destroyed in this war we are starting too.

Such is the life of an Empire and what will happen to the United States if it continues along this path. We either destroy ourselves or we will be destroyed by other nation out of self-defense, because we are acting like some rabid dog that got rabies.

Now if we go back to being a Republic according to the U.S. Constitution and we follow those rules, then we might be around to build those colonies on both the Moon and Mars. But, if we continue our current path, the United States is not going to be around to build those colonies. We will destroy ourselves and we won't be in any position to build much of anything in space. You remember me, I’m the guy that want the United State to commit to a great enterprise of building a City of a hundred thousand people on Mars in forty to fifty year time frame. So I have no problem with the United States owning stuff in space.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-09 09:39:47

1. We will not be setting up an Empire in space or in the immediate solar system, because there is no other Earth type Planet in the solar system. That important because Empires don't create wealth they steal it from other countries and they loot the natural resources instead of developing things.

Largely dependent on how one defines "empire". Your definition is colonialist in the classic sense, while I'm using a broader sense of the word, meaning simply a large and growing swath of territory under the control of one entity.

There polices for the United States are eliminating jobs in American and are off loading them overseas so we won't have the industrial base at home to build that colony in space. We lost about three million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. We are scheduled to lose another million or so jobs almost immediately.

Here's the dirty little secret about the decline of manufacturing jobs. American consumers want cheap goods and manufuacturing becomes ever more efficient through automation. We not only have market forces directed by the purchasing decisions you and I are making driving some jobs to countries with cheap labor costs but also much higher productivity due to automation. Even without imports we'd be losing manufacturing jobs on a massive scale simply because it takes fewer people to make any given item. Even with fewer people, we actually have a much greater industrial capacity should we decide to fully utilize it.

George Bush want to privatize Social Security not because it broken, but because Wall Street needs the money so there going to steal the money out of Social Security and cheat the people that are being paid benefits. That means there going to have to decrease what there getting paid and there also going to have to take a two trillion dollar loan out to cover the short fall when they take the Money out to privatize it.

No one is trying to privatize Social Security, Bush has proposed aloowing those paying in to invest a small percentage of their money in private stocks. It remains a big, bloated government program. One that remains likely to implode regardless of the accounting voodoo used to make it appear solvent.

If the United States continues with these illegal foreign wars of aggression against other nations, the United States will be destroyed either through economic collapse or because the rest of the world ganged up on the United States and destroys the United States.

Are there legal wars, and what makes them so? It always comes down to whether you agree with it or not. War is what happens when "legal" means fail, the very idea of berating a nation for an "illegal war" is nonsensical, particularly when dealing with an example such as Iraq in which the legal justification was overwhelming, whether it be a dozen unenforced UN resolutions or a violated cease-fire agreement, human rights abuses, support of terrorists, or conspiring to assassinate a former US President.

We either destroy ourselves or we will be destroyed by other nation out of self-defense, because we are acting like some rabid dog that got rabies.

:laugh:

Now if we go back to being a Republic according to the U.S. Constitution and we follow those rules, then we might be around to build those colonies on both the Moon and Mars.

If only it were so simple. There are many other factors at play besides the rampant fudging of constitutional law, contrary to popular misconception it isn't all our fault, it's not just because the dim-witted American people can't see the god-like wisdom of Lyndon Larouche. <wiping sarcasm> You want to blame it all on rich Republicans conspiring with European bankers to keep us down with a screwhead monetary system, go ahead. But it just isn't that simple. Colonizing space will require generations of dedication and tremendous effort, it requires a change on a cultural level. Gold-backed currency and an act of Congress just won't cut it.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-09 17:13:11

Cobra Commander,

Here a real good article for why we don't want the those bankers to control our money supply. I don't know if you claim to be a Christian or just claim to be an American. He also references the U.S. Constitution and show that it also is in agreement that only the US Government should have the power and authority to create money or credit.

http://www.rense.com/general61/bbil.sht … /bbil.shtm

There is more information than this on the web site and many other beside, so the information it out there if you look for it.

The question is:

Do you really want to know that truth?

Now that the question and only can answer that question. Do your own independent study and find out if what I say is true or not.

Larry,

Euler · 2005-01-09 19:35:09

The military has a lot more resources than NASA, so if the military increase it's interest in space that could greatly increase the rate of space-related technological advancement. China is also starting to take an interest in space, so we might end up with a Space Race 2.0.
Obviously, that would be very good for space enthusiasts.

No one is trying to privatize Social Security, Bush has proposed aloowing those paying in to invest a small percentage of their money in private stocks. It remains a big, bloated government program. One that remains likely to implode regardless of the accounting voodoo used to make it appear solvent.

The problem is that the money that people are paying into Social Security is not "thier" money, it goes to pay the people who are already retired. Social Security is basically a pyramid scheme, so it will only work if there are a lot more workers paying into it than there are retired people. If people instead save there own money, then the government will have to borrow trillions of dollars to make up for the shortfall.

Commodore · 2005-01-09 20:03:17

Social Security was designed from the beginning to work there were more people to pay into it than are recieving payment.

In the 1930's that was easy because because few were expected to live that long.

Thats no longer the case. The only solution I see now is an income limit. Those below it get there payment as ussual. Those above it get some other benefit, like being excempt for paying any for any kind of taxes.

Ian Flint · 2005-01-10 10:27:08

Exactly.
Social Security is only needed by the poor. Those with enough retirement funds shouldn't get any money back. This has always been a welfare program, and just like any other welfare it only need benefit the poor. The main problem with SS is that the government sold it as a savings plan and then ran it like a welfare program.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-10 11:13:36

Martian Republic: On some level I actually agree with you in that I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve system, in fact I've bashed it on several occasions in these very forums. However, the institution of a monetary system based on fiat currency does not prove a conspiracy by international bankes.

And if it were true, I'd have to give these banking swine credit. Anyone who can orchestrate a scam on a global scale lasting for generations without anyone blowing it is far more competent than any government or body politic, elected or otherwise. :;):

So sure, the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing and regulates it on a whim allowing for all sorts of mischief. The same would apply if Congress were to go about "creating" credit as you often advocate. The major problem with our present financial system is that our currency is backed by nothing and artificially manipulated, regardless of who does the manipulating.

The problem is that the money that people are paying into Social Security is not "thier" money, it goes to pay the people who are already retired.

It's their money when it's taken to pay for the benefits of people who had their money taken long before to pay for others. Our parents paid benefits for our grandparents in the good-faith belief that we'd do the same for them, but running the numbers it becomes clear that no one is going to do the same for us. Which generation gets totally shafted? Or do we implemented a compromise equal-opportunity screw?

Thats no longer the case. The only solution I see now is an income limit. Those below it get there payment as ussual. Those above it get some other benefit, like being excempt for paying any for any kind of taxes.

That could be useful so long as the revenue lost from income and other taxes is less than what would be lost in paying benefits. It doesn't really address the problem. On the most basic level we either need to reform the system to one in which each participant pays in for themselves or we need a constantly and rapidly expanding population to compensate for extended lifespans. This leads to exponential population growth as a necessity, and empire as a byproduct.

But we're talking about the US government here, so the money will be borrowed to save the failed system for another generation, passing the buck... :hm:

Martian Republic · 2005-01-10 11:38:02

Exactly.
Social Security is only needed by the poor. Those with enough retirement funds shouldn't get any money back. This has always been a welfare program, and just like any other welfare it only need benefit the poor. The main problem with SS is that the government sold it as a savings plan and then ran it like a welfare program.

Actually Social Security was sold as an insurance plan if you should be so unfortunate to lose everything before retirement, you have a fall back plan. But, when you specify the poor who are to talking about anyway. About 80% or better of everyone that retires receive Social Security as there primary income. That means most of middle America depend on Social Security too and not just the poor. But, for those that are depending on there 4 oh 1K plans to save them or there Union Benefits or retirement plats to save them, which are currently going broke. It also beat George Bush’s Pinochet Plan for privatizing Social Security. For those of you that don’t know who Pinochet is or what Chilean Model of Privatization is. Pinochet is a Dictator in Chile that took power at gun point and he had to implement his privatization at gun point too. What happened was they raided there Social Security plan and replaced it with I.O.U’s which they later defaulted on, leaving most of the Chileans without a retirement program. But the Chileans Government still had to pay the debt that they incurred when they Privatized there Social Security program and have to pay more for it and get less out of it for the people of Chile. This is the type of program that George Bush is saying that we should go into for our Social Security, which is basically a ripe off for his Wall Street buddies. Even with the earlier raids on Social Security by George Bush and company or otherwise the trade deficit would appear to be over five hundred or even over six hundred billion dollars a year. George Bush, basically put an I.O.U for a few hundred billion dollars, but there still few trillion dollars left in the Social Security plan, which there trying to steal now. So they going to use the Chilean module to steal money out of Social Security and put worthless I.O.U’s in it place. The people in Wall Street know there several trillion dollars in Social Security in the biggest block of money out on the entire planet and want to charge commission on bringing that much money into there greasy greedy hands and any other service charges that they can think to add in the cost of privatizing Social Security. These guy’s are bandit looking for the mother load of all thefts to commit. Depending on what percentage of commission that they choose to charge, we could be looking in the neighborhood of paying these guys hundreds of billion of dollars just to tough the money as it get put into the Wall Street Crooked Crap Table at the expense of everyone else. This is the ultimate Pyramid Scheme, with these Wall Street being at the top of this Pyramid getting the commission and charging for other services that are being peddled by George Bush to ripe the American People off. The Government guaranteed Social Security in it present form, before George Bush messes with it, looks real good. Social Security is not broke, but if George Bush touches it, it will be broken and it will be broke as in out money too, because of this theft. There not going to just take the money from Social Security, that can not be done, because there will be borrowing two trillion dollars to be able to privatize Social Security and some say it may even have to go as high as five trillion dollars so George Bush can Privatize Social Security. Now remember we are going to be paying interest on this loan and that interest will be in hundreds of billion dollar range. With George Bush’s plan, we basically are give the wealthy people of the United Stated around five hundred billion dollars and taking on a two trillion dollars debt or more as a nation. Now within this system as it is, there is only two ways the that the United States can come up with that much money. Raise taxes, which George Bush is against, especially if it against his supporter who are those wealthy people. George Bush other choice is to cut government services like healthcare for our military men, state projects that are funded by the Federal Government and government projects like NASA. NASA has sixteen billion steal and they will too. I remember that old saying: a bird in hand, beat's two in the Bush. If you know what I mean?

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-01-10 11:43:31

Cobra, I will dispense with making any moral argument for having a social safety net, such as social security or unemployment benefits or food stamps and rather repeat a blunt argument clark once made in these forums. (For the record, the moral argument is important to me, however self interest will be easier to argue with Cobra <wink>)

A social safety net merely is a less expensive option - - overall - - than the costs associated with increased security and prisons. A form of bribery to leverage the poorest elements of society to act within reasonable bounds of behavior.

Denzel Washington already made a movie about an angry father holding a hospital hostage because insurance wouldn't pay for his son's heart transplant. If we privatize social security, I daresay some future son or daughter may take similiar actions if their parents lack money to eat or are being evicted from the family home and a son or daughter cannot attend college because Granny blew her retirement money investing in Enron.

You and I can debate the ethics of someone being poor because they freely choose to invest their social security money in Enron, but sooner or later some angry person will seek "revenge" - - whether justified or not.

In my opinion, we all benefit by having an assured retirement safety net, even if it is less than perfectly fair.

clark · 2005-01-10 11:51:17

Social stability gives you electronic bliss. "Doom", anyone?

Careful when you invoke the Imp, Bill.

BWhite · 2005-01-10 11:58:06

Social stability gives you electronic bliss. "Doom", anyone?
Careful when you invoke the Imp, Bill.

Boo - rah! Caught ya ' lurking. . .

clark · 2005-01-10 12:00:49

What do you want? My pot of gold or my one eyed hobo?

BWhite · 2005-01-10 12:20:47

Never ask me either / or questions since you should know I always answer: Both!

clark · 2005-01-10 12:38:53

A man who wants his cake, and to eat it too...

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-10 12:40:26

In my opinion, we all benefit by having an assured retirement safety net, even if it is less than perfectly fair.

A valid point, but the question in this case isn't so much whether to have a safety net but how to maintain it. Going as we are, with increasing lifespans without a balancing population growth, the system will implode. It requires a balance, the more people paying in for each taking out the more stable it is, already it's straining.

Either we need more young workers or fewer old retirees. Breed more or die faster. If the former, we need living space; if the latter we need to euthanise. I prefer the former, being an imperialist and seeing great value in the unsolicited ramblings of my elders.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1105382461

clark · 2005-01-10 12:48:04

Living space? Breed faster?

And the mouse goes on the wheel till a massive coronary, or gay and canibal, dying in a mass of mouse feces in its own cage.

There is a certain sanity in population management. But don't listen to me now. :laugh:

How about this, not using social security for things it was not intended for. That might fix it. You know, being upfront with the population about what scheme you want to implement on society, and paying for each individualy.
Of course that takes leaders, not imperalist polico's and their party hacks.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-10 12:53:24

How about this, not using social security for things it was not intended for. That might fix it. You know, being upfront with the population about what scheme you want to implement on society, and paying for each individualy.
Of course that takes leaders, not imperalist polico's and their party hacks.

I'm being perfectly up front about what scheme I want to implement on society. :;):

With social security we only have two decisions. First, do we turn it into a private investment account, in which case population doesn't matter, or do we keep it as a government program. If we choose the second option, back to breed more or die faster.

clark · 2005-01-10 13:17:01

With social security we only have two decisions.

Where to start with that statement...?

Only two decisions? Don't tell Bill, he will want both. :;):

There is more than one way to make an imperalist facist say uncle.

As for who makes the decisions, well, we can always vote the SOB out next elec... oh wait, yeah, better pretend that we have a say.

First, do we turn it into a private investment account, in which case population doesn't matter, or do we keep it as a government program.

It is a public trust account for private individuals. Don't go making it something ti isn't- we are in this mess because it has been used for things it wasn't intended for.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-10 14:45:23

Well we have all seen mother natures natural way of curbing the population.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-08 15:12:40

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#2 2005-01-08 16:30:39

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#3 2005-01-08 17:13:54

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#4 2005-01-08 18:52:13

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#5 2005-01-08 19:17:43

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#6 2005-01-08 21:39:13

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#7 2005-01-08 23:00:54

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#8 2005-01-09 09:39:47

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#9 2005-01-09 17:13:11

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#10 2005-01-09 19:35:09

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#11 2005-01-09 20:03:17

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#12 2005-01-10 10:27:08

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#13 2005-01-10 11:13:36

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#14 2005-01-10 11:38:02

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#15 2005-01-10 11:43:31

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#16 2005-01-10 11:51:17

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#17 2005-01-10 11:58:06

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#18 2005-01-10 12:00:49

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#19 2005-01-10 12:20:47

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#20 2005-01-10 12:38:53

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#21 2005-01-10 12:40:26

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#22 2005-01-10 12:48:04

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#23 2005-01-10 12:53:24

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#24 2005-01-10 13:17:01

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#25 2005-01-10 14:45:23

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

Board footer