Slashdot Mirror

What's it going to take, them coming on TV and just announcing it?

Just be careful whose dogma you are accepting. For the same reason that accepting a single encyclopaedia article as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - just because you saw it on CNN or PBS doesn't mean it is reality.

This story offers an alternative to Moore's take on the modern world. While I don't know EPPC from a bar of soap, they have provided greater context on items in Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 - particularly in light of your apparent agreement with many of his assertions at face value.

If you have patience, you might read the entire article. If you are already emotionally committed, you might get only as far as the second paragraph before closing it up in disgust. Or if you're like me, you might read the intro and conclusion, and skim parts of the rest - particularly the bits on actual vote counting versus exit polls.

You fail to be able to take into account all the other information out there?

I don't accept all the conclusions of this EPPC report, but the context is helpful and, as you pointed out, more information is good.

Given Japan's demonstrated commitment to defense in Saipan including the famous mother with babe mass cliff jumps and the crazy mass assaults in the face of overwhelming fire are important considerations in judging the morality of US actions in the Pacific. We were consistently reading Japanese communications and knew that there was no inclination to surrender (though there were some feints done to try to confuse us). The projected death toll to actually take Japan was 1 million allied forces dead and multiple millions of Japanese dead including a massive civilian death toll. Cowing Japan into submission by demonstrating that we could exterminate them without losing large casualties probably lowered the overall death toll for the war.

There is no US equivalent to Saipan. The aims of Islamists in restoring a caliphate, if advocated nonviolently, are actually more likely to come to fruition under GWB's "imperialist" foreign policy than the preceding decades of bipartisan realism. They aren't going to come to power because what they want is monstrous and we'll step in to ensure that peacefully elected Islamists will get peacefully unelected when their inevitable screw ups make the people angry with them.

Finally, no, we didn't train the Islamists as they didn't even exist as a unitary force. We certainly didn't train them in terror tactics. There were veterans of the Afghan war of liberation against the Soviets on both sides of the subsequent civil war. That war of liberation did immense damage to the USSR and was an important factor in the end of the Cold War. The end of the Soviet threat is an important victory and should be recognized as such even as we still deal with the messy cleanup afterwards.

What eventually was the Taliban formed sometime between 1990 and 1994 and took power in 1996. We'd been aiding the mujahadeen since the 1979 invasion (at first just to bleed the Soviets and then to actually win). But all that aid to the non-Taliban groups doesn't exist in the Left's popular imagination. The complexities of Afghani tribal politics and the nuances and shifting sands on which alliances are built there are completely absent in their analysis. We're at fault for everything. We sent money "over there" and "what came back" were the Taliban. Pakistan, Iran, Russia, all these real world actors in Afghanistan just disappear in the left-wing mind and all that's left is US action and bad consequences.

• http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2199/pub_de tail.asp
• http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

What is a "vacation" like for the president? Here is a week from a week of Bush's vacation time in 2001:

Monday, August 20
- Spoke concerning the budget while visiting a high school in Independence, Missouri.
- Spoke at the annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
- Signed six bills into law.
- Announced his nominees for Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Agriculture, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management, member of the Federal Housing Finance Board, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Disabled Employment Policy, U.S. Representative to the General Assembly of the U.N., and Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development for the Bureau of Humanitarian Response.
- Spoke with workers at the Harley Davidson factory.
- Dined with Kansas Governor Bill Graves, discussing politics.

Tuesday, August 21
- Took press questions at a Target store in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on the matter of free trade and tariffs on Canadian lumber.

Wednesday, August 22
- Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other staff (more than one meeting).
- Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International Monetary Fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
- Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series of immigration policy meetings.
- Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and budget.
- Announced nomination and appointment intentions for Ambassador to Vietnam, two for the Commission on Fine Arts, six to serve on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, three for the Advisory Committee to the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, one to the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and one to the National Endowments for the Arts.
- Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown for Tunisia.
- Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.

Thursday, August 23
- Briefly speaks with the press.
- Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

Friday, August 24
- Officials arrive from Washington at 10:00 a.m. Briefly after this at a press conference, Bush announced that General Richard B. Myers will be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General Pete Pac will serve as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He also announced 14 other appointments, and his intentions for the budget. At 11:30 a.m. these officials, as well as National Security Council experts, the Secretary of Defense, and others, met with Bush to continue the strategic review process for military transformation (previous meetings have been held at the Pentagon and the White House). The meeting ended at 5:15.
- Met with Andy Card and Karen Hughes, talking about communications issues.
- Issued a proclamation honoring Women's Equality Day.

Saturday, August 25
- Awoke at 5:45 a.m., read daily briefs.
- Had an hour-long CIA and national security briefing at 7:45.
- Gave his weekly radio address on the topic of The Budget.

Sunday, August 26
- Speaks at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
- Speaks at the U.S. Steel Group Steelworkers Picnic at Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. He also visits some employees still working, not at the picnic.

There's a reason the Democrats in this country lose to people like Bush. Look in a mirror to see it.

I know its offtopic here, but there are devastating, point-by-point rebuttals of Moore's lies here and here.

I'm sorry, but Zubrin laid the smack down all over your robotic-exploration-favoring butt. Check it out.

People go because they're better at doing things than even the best robot. Maybe not at mining, but definitely at science related stuff, like studying rocks and searching for life.

Untrue. Roughly one third of NASAs budget (5 billion of 15 billion) is devoted to manned space flight.

Quote: After the former President Bush announced a similar initiative in 1989, NASA estimated that the cost of sending astronauts to the moon and Mars would be either $471 billion or $541 billion in 1991 dollars, depending on the method of calculation. This is roughly $900 billion in today's dollars. Whatever cost may be estimated by NASA for the new initiative, we can expect cost overruns like those that have often accompanied big NASA programs. (In 1984 NASA estimated that it would cost $8 billion to put the International Space Station in place, not counting the cost of using it. I have seen figures for its cost so far ranging from $25 billion to $60 billion, and the station is far from finished.) Let's not haggle over a hundred billion dollars more or less--I'll estimate that the President's new initiative will cost nearly a trillion dollars.

Quote:Compare this with the $820 million cost of recently sending the robots Spirit and Opportunity to Mars, roughly one thousandth the cost of the President's initiative.

And roughly one-thousandth the utility of a manned mission (for a summary of the humans versus robots debate please see robots versus humans Not to mention that the program of Lunar Base plus Manned Mars program will be unlikely to be anywhere near one thousand times the price of Spirit and Opportunity.

Quote: It had been hoped that the shuttle, because reusable, would reduce the cost of putting satellites in orbit. Instead, while it costs about $3,000 a pound to use unmanned rockets to put satellites in orbit, the cost of doing this with the shuttle is about $10,000 a pound. The physicist Robert Park has pointed out that at this rate, even if lead could be turned into gold in orbit, it would not pay to send it up on the shuttle.

Indeed, the shuttle is the least cost effective vehicle for space travel. Unlike, for example, Soyuz. I also agree that manning the launch of payloads that can be unmanned is not at all essential.

(Skimming through, because I have to get back to work)... Quote: After NASA had pushed the Apollo program to the point where people stopped watching lunar landings on television, it canceled Apollo 18 and 19, the missions that were to be specifically devoted to scientific research.

Which implies that no other Apollos were specifically dedicated to scientific research. Apollos 15, 16 and 17 were dedicated to scientific research; when NASA had to cancel two landings originally, it cancelled the original Apollo 15 (which wasn't dedicated to scientific research) and Apollo 20. 18 and 19 were chopped later, after the "J-series" missions (scientific research) were in full swing. No other missions could be cancelled.

Oops, gotta go. Boss is coming ...

You have made some excellent points (as an amusing sideline, from the figures I've seen, a human would easily have survived the airbag landings. Not sure that it would be a popular choice, however ...)

However, the "killer" point to me is that humans are so bloody adaptable . As a quote from the linked article says:

"DR. BRENT BOS: Thank you. I'm Brent Bos from NASA Goddard. This is a question for Dr. Park. I've heard you tonight and in other various venues talk about how our robotic landers on Mars are superior geologists to a human. As a graduate student I worked on Mars Pathfinder and have also had the opportunity to go on various field exercises with geologists. I was very surprised to find out that a geologist was about a thousand times more effective on site -- when he can examine the rocks, pick them up, have that dynamic interaction with them ..."

We can climb inclined surfaces, clamber down sink-holes, manipulate fine objects, shove large objects, use a huge variety of tools, change what we are doing on a moments notice ... and most importantly, run experiments that were not foreseen. Which is the whole point of exploring.

As you accurately highlight, this has to be weighed against the extra cost and the very real risk to the astronauts and to NASA if they are lost.

and the humans won.

They did bomb Dresden.

135,000 Germans killed as compared to 120,000 Japanese. Funny that few people agonize over that.

And here comes Baghdad:

Pressures to bring the war - and the Iraqi regime - to a quick end are now so intense that General Franks is not even waiting for the 4th infantry division to join the battle, although it is probably the best mechanized division in the American army. Having been rerouted from Turkey, its troops have only just started arriving in Kuwait, and will not be ready to fight for another two or three weeks. Yet, in the desperate hope of a quick victory, the US is pressing ahead with the attack on Baghdad. There is clearly immense anger, frustration and impatience at Iraq's continued resistance to the invasion. Arabs were not meant to behave like this! They should have surrendered or run away! In its arrogant expectation of a decisive outcome, America may once again have created mirages in the sand.
* Secondly, the US is adjusting its military means to cope with the new situation. Reinforcements are being flown in and greater firepower - giant bunker-busting munitions and carpet-bombing by B-52s - is being used to attempt to destroy Iraq's Republican Guard divisions defending the capital. As a direct consequence of the new strategy, the toll of Iraqi civilian casualties is rising rapidly. The trumpeted 'concern' to avoid civilian deaths is now being abandoned by a desperate United States.

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

For those interested:
this is that the parent refers to.