Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Moon Base by 2012 - or 2006?
apsmith writes "Former congressman and House Science chairman Robert S. Walker has written some rather striking conclusions about Chinese intentions in space over the next few years, based on information received for the recent Commisison on the Future of Aerospace. Walker is convinced the Chinese are going all-out for a permanent settlement on the Moon within 10 years; apparently some closer to the situation in Japan think the first landing will be in only 3-4 years. Meanwhile the Economist says IT people are starting to focus on space as the next high-tech venue. Fortunately, despite NASA's neglect, we do have a few private missions to the Moon in the works."
Succinct translation: "Watch Fox News."
I consider acts of terrorism and twenty something direct violations of international law and cease fire treaty reasonable fucking provocation.
Please list the "acts of terrorism" toward the US proven to have been committed by Iraq.
We're painfully aware of the Bush administration's attempts to link Al Quaeda to Saddam Hussein using the "intelligence sources" that are now under so much scrutiny in light of the puffed-up WMD argument. Our intelligence also told us Saddam was in that bunker on night one: yesterday the soldiers searching on the scene admitted they could find no evidence of a bunker at the site. Alas, the Ansar al Islam group is now completely off our radar as a result of the war, having scurried across the border to hide, so we can't question them about this subject... Leaving alone the 9/11 hints Condy Rice so quickly disavowed.
Please also contrast this policy toward Iraq's violations of international law with the US policy toward Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and South Africa over the last 50 years.
FWIW, I agree with you that "without provocation" is an overstatement. The questions for me, and a lot of other people, are whether the war was justifiable and whether it's going to accomplish what it intended to. Right now we're taking it on the chin internationally for having "spun" our pretexts for going to war when we did. I see no evidence that the Bush administration is emerging from its determined solipsism with respect to international opinion; we keep right on acting like right-wing domestic supporters are the only audience for our policies. The jury is very much out on Iraq's reconstruction and the volatility of the middle east -- they're both supposed to become peaceful and stable as a result of this war and its aftermath, but that's a damn tall order, and this was an extremely high risk policy.
Oh, excuse me, I guess all those questions are just "ignorant," so why should we expect answers? You're brave, you're strong, and Fox is the only voice you want in your ear. Never mind.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Amen to that. Wiser words were never spoken.
The UN was intended to serve the purpose the League of Nations never did: provide an infrastructure of 'cooler heads' to keep the global breakout of war from ever happening again after WWII. It is too bad that the very explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki that signalled the end of that war, also made the UN itself obsolete.
The brushfire conflicts of the Cold War were intractable to the UN, and those in the post-Cold War world have also proved intractable, save with US intervention, without exception!
The 'cooler heads' missing from 1910's Europe and 1930's Europe are provided by the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed across oceans at various powers. The UN as a peacemaking (or peace-keeping) force is a waste of time.
That being said, the work of WHO and other social services bodies within the UN is very worthwile and would be appropriately continued in a body which no longer had notions of being a world government.
The ultimate US withdrawal from the UN is long overdue.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Moderators, the parent is off-topic. Please re-read the guidelines.
(yeah, and my little rant here is also off-topic to the thread -- how oh so meta-ironical)
Oh, so now you are not on the WMD high horse anymore? Is the US inspectors doing anything? Or are they stuck between nothingness and bureacratic propaganda? An irony I always find amusing is project of UN from the hawks. Are you for or against UN resolutions? If you are for it, explain why US voids UN resolution and conduct military operation without UN approval. If you are against it, then stop bitching about Saddam voilating resolutions. Hint: pick one side and stick to it. The way I see it, be it Bush or Saddam, "evil" has little intention of letting others get in their way I consider the adjective evil could be apply to someone who oppose landmine ban. Are you the supporter of evil now? Damn, Saddam is such a puppet, that he's implemented when he's needed, and now he's deposed when he's done? I wonder how much time Rumsfield spent washing his hands since he shake hands with Saddam. I would be quite happy to see a change of leadership in Iraq, but I in no way would agree a country could invade a country base distaste of leadership. Simply put, there is little moral highground(the only one I could think of is "we want to clean up our own mess"), no holy reason in this conflict. And since the conflict(there is still no formal declaration of war) is over, I guess we all have no choice but to seat and wait. However, should things go wrong, the Iraqis could care less your vote, and you couldn't carry any of their pain either. Isn't it nice to exercise your "responsibility" to determine other's fate? Mind you it's not a game where you can start over if things are screwed up.