Slashdot Mirror
Weapons in Space
SWG_Eddie submits this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space. We've done a few previous stories on this, such as this one. Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sure the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) has a low-orbit only kill-vehicle now, but how long before it has an Electron Beam Device that can annihilate a person playing golf or taking a shower (possibly with company)?
...is it could be the start of a new cold war, or at least cause some countries to get a little nervous about the U.S.
Specifically, China.
not forbidden, but looks like it may be:
" In concluding, I would like to stress that efforts to achieve a ban on the weaponization of outer space must continue so as to protect the space assets of all nations in the interests of international peace and security."
Rather than do the typical knee-jerk US-Bashing, lets examine this. China is wanting to go into space. Do we REALLY want China to be the first ones with space weapons pointing back at us?
Honestly think about it for a bit.
That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this
.technomancer
Who cares? Even if it were, we all know by now that international treaties and international law are null and void. They can do whatever they please.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Last November, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Outer Space Treaty, reserving space for peaceful use only. But the United States abstained from the vote. The region beyond the stratosphere is seen by the Pentagon as a theater of engagement. A 1996 Air Force report predicts "space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness [will] effect very many kills ... This technology [is] advanced at Los Alamos National Lab and other nuclear weapons labs" (Air and Space Power for the 21st Century).
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
NASA and the USAF have joined forces to place two hundred Spud guns in orbit! GotSpud
Someone really should search the U.S. fro WMDs.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
whenever I see "[whatever] in Space" of the old Muppets "Pigs in Spaaaaace!" .
Is this what it's going to take to get a space elevator built? Maybe this is the push it needs..
We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.
It is forbidden to put nuclear weapons into space but in the end we still dont know if the US is going to respect international treaties.
No International Law YET governs the deployment of arms in space. In the even that space tourism & travel catches on, I'm sure we'll see more regluation on where such devices may fly, much like warships on the seas now.
My question is, should such travel become common, do my State & Federal (SD, US) rights to carry arms permit me to carry my OWN arms into space on my own craft?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I guess therell be for instance space-to-space and space-to-air and space-to-ground weapons. We should be mostly worried about those aimed space-to-ground since their development are directly targetted to humans and their privacy, even at the peaceful time. Wether we can prevent the militarization of space is more like "Kioto" kind of question ... so Ill say not possible at the moment.
There have been persistent rumors that Salyut-3 had a 23mm autocannon mounted, and occasional denials.
On another level, any reaction drive is useful as a weapon in proportion to its efficiency, which was the topic of a Larry Niven story some years back.
-- Jeff Paulsen
I'll start to get worried when those wacky americans decide that the best way to fight terror is to put deadly lasers in sharks... Let's not forget the lessons from tv people!
Kinetic energy weapons are probably useful, but testing and re-use are extremely difficult things in the harsh space environment.
If you have a manned presence in space, the most effective weapon to take out an enemy satellite is probably a shotgun.
So, pretty much any military activity in space is banned by THAT treaty. Okay so not everyone accepts it, but then the US not accepting the Kyoto agreement doesn't mean no-one else is going to uphold it.
... is going to end up like Nazi Germany and The Roman Empire, if they keep going against the UN. This weaponizing of space is clearly in violation of this UN treaty; and Slashdot missed this? I for one recommend Mr Rumsfeld step down from his administrative duties at Slashdot! And this could be the start of the next cold war. *sigh*
"Mars has recently sought significant quantities of urainum, from Africa."
blech
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
How would we defend against the Gouald? The Asguard weren't arround last time they attacked, and the only help we got from the rebel Jaffa was Bra'tac. The Tok'ra were naturally ignoring us, if it wasnt for the F302 and X303 (And a little help from O'Neill) we'd have been deadified. The no weapons in space or Antarctica agreements work against the whole world.
The Soviets have already deployed offensive weapons in space. A large calibre cannon was included on the Salyut-3 space station. In tests, it is reported to have destroyed a target satellite during testing.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
From the link in the post itself, for the article, which claims to demonstrate that weapons aren't prohibited in any way in space...
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Clearly a clever tin-foil-hat joke! Good on ya!! :-)
I don't think the militraization of the space could be prevented until ballistic missiles outlawed. If ballistic missiles, including medium-range forbidden there wouldn't be exuse for space based weapon. While a lot of ballistic missiles are around space based antimissile system coud be considered a legitimate defence.
That should sort out the Brotherhood of NOD. How cool was Kane by the way.
Frankly, I say why not? To say that putting weapons in space is "disrespectful of other cultures" is just stupid. Why is it that every culture has a right of respect but the U.S.? If this will deter some maniac from shooting an ICBM over my way I'm all for it. Further, if it means we can pluck Bin Laden off the shitter, I'm all for it.
Only if you're prepared to fly backwards rather uncontrollably for a while...
Isn't a sattelite used to track enemy postitions and guide other weapons considered part of a "weapons system"?
Well, our enemies already have ill-tempered sea bass with frickin' laser beams. Seems the next logical step is for us to put weapons in orbit capable of neutralizing this horrible threat.
The problem I see with weapons in space (and was wondering if someone here could help me) is that when you shoot a bullet in orbit the gun goes backwards relationally to the bullet it sends foward. So how can any reasonable weapons system maintain accuracy if it moves several miles between shots?
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Clinton: Good
Bush: Bad
It is that simple. Restore Integrity my ass.
If somebody violates such a treaty or law, what are you going to do about it -- shoot down the offending weapons?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for the unprecedented weaponization of space.
This guy must not have been alive during the cold way. I don't care what the nuclear space ban treay says, I am positive both the USA AND USSR put nukes in space during the cold war. That also includes ani-satelite satelites.
"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already"
I get the feeling I have heard this before. Mainly from people who believe something to be impossible right before someone else goes and does it. Besides, at some point someone will put some form of weapon in space, I just don't know what kind. The question I have is, who is going to be the police?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Vaporizing a human target from space? and all this time I thought 'Real Genius' was just a movie
VBJonC
You might be right! :-)
Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
I thought it was forbidden by the Brannigan's law and the Democratic Order of Planets.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Humans are naturally antagonistic. Violence is our nature. Peace is universally sought after, but it is always only a temporarily-reachable goal, because the only way to achieve it is to make the consequences of attacking too severe. Then somebody discovers a way to lessen those consequences, so another "preventative measure" must be found...
Realize that benefits other than protection will almost certainly come from this as well. Advances in technology, science, etc. will be made.
Typos... that's just how I role.
I suspect we've had weapons in space for some time. Reagan cut the Star Wars project budget at a time of its exponential growth ... why? Probably so that we didn't have to keep public all the vast improvements we were making in the field of lasers.
Why go back to the moon? Because in military conflict higher ground gives you an advantage. Why build a space station when we're already got a natural space station that orbits us already?
rant,rant,rant..
*DrugCheese rants*
> They'd investigate for 3 years, and come back and say that they saw nothing wrong there.
if(WMDs == 0) $US = 'fullashit';
We know that other nations are getting to be space-capable. Are we just to trust that they won't put weapons up there? Has China really got that great a record with respecting human rights? And do we really think that Pakistan/India wouldn't put a weapon system up if the other was suspected of having one?
The Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. Who loses space, loses any war.
You mean, there gonna send all the politicians and lawyers into space?
BTW, IAAL
What about if i put a giant "Laser" on the moon??
I plan to turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star"
c - a blessed +5 grain of salt
Seems to me this would be pointless if any other country launched a weapon-destroying weapon, which, of course, will be the next progression in the arms race. I say stop this now before there's so much exploded space junk up there that we can't launch any more spaceships.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
How about common sense?
Anyone else remember that episode of cowboy bebop:-)
"Fire the laser!"
Clinton: Tax dollars from dot-com bubble that later bursts because he failed to reign in corrupt corporations with inflated values.
Bush: See above for deep dive in supposed "surplus". Though I disagree with many spending policies.
Clinton: UN backing? What are you smoking Go read news articles from back then.
Bush: 40 nation coalition just isn't enough? Only if France says go?
Clinton: Did nothing to keep the Reagan era policies that allowed such expansion to take place. Failed to enact policies to prevent overinflated corporate valuation leading to inevitable collapse of the market.
Bush: Present when Clinton-era corruption collapses, then post-9/11. Enacted tax cut policy that stimulated growth. Economy bounces back from terrible scandal and god-awful attack on home soil, a decade shorter than Roosevelt policy ever did for the Depression. Last 7 months, economy sees 765,000 new jobs created.
Clinton: Did nothing
Bush: Does everything.
> Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden
> by any treaty or law.
Even if there was a law, the US would not abide
it. Just have a look at the invasion in Iraq.
Its just one stack of lies.
In my opinion the US needs yet another Vietnam
humiliation. The last humiliation is more or less
30 years old, so we might need a new one.
Cheers!!!
50 countries... but many of those countries are actually offering no support and simply put their name on the list as to not offend the USA. I don't have the list offhand, but it includes countries that simply cannot offer support, such as Ethiopia.
> Ahem. The large coalition has more than 50 countries in it. It is larger than the first Gulf War coalition. It has a lot of international support.
You. Mus. Be. Kidding.
US/UK have no coalition behind. War in irak have no international support.
The "50" countries is just PR from white house. Only US vessels.
"Just have a look at the invasion in Iraq.
Its just one stack of lies."
The US told the truth about Iraq. You are the one lying.
"In my opinion the US needs yet another Vietnam
humiliation"
The country most humiliated at that time was Vietnam. The USSR took it over and raped it, despite the efforts of the US trying to help this small country from being bullied.
"Anything worth doing in space can be turned into a weapon" -Larry Niven, N-Space
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
"US/UK have no coalition behind. War in irak have no international support.
The retaliation against Saddam's terrorism and aggression has large international support. You need to check out which countries are in it. Count them up.
"US/UK have no coalition behind. War in irak have no international support."
You can't even spell Iraq. No doubt you know nothing at all about it otherwise.
"The "50" countries is just PR from white house. Only US vessels"
US vessels? there are 50 navy ships there? News to me.
the US Coalition will dominate the world with ION Cannons from space, while terrorists will be stuck in the stone age firing nuclear weapons.
What about the famous "Star Wars" project under Reagan? Sagan led the charge against it even making fun of the concept at one point. The point still standing that, when all is said and done, it's simply impractical to implement military deployment, of any kind, in space especially when considering the cost:
WHY STAR WARS IS DANGEROUS AND WON'T WORK By Carl Sagan, Hans A. Bethe, Henry W. Kendall, Kurt Gottfried, Richard L. Garwin, Victor F. Weisskopf
The following statement by six prominent scientists on the dangers of Star Wars appeared as part of a letter to The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 1985
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5561
A nearly impermeable strategic defense system would indeed have the capability to "save lives" rather than to "avenge them," to replace strategic deterrence by defense. But such a system is not in the cards, as even the program's director, General James Abrahamson, readily admits. Anything short of an impermeable system tends to undermine, not improve, US national security. Here are some of the reasons that we consider the Star Wars scheme unworkable and a grave danger to the United States:
-- Underflying: Star Wars does not defend against, or even address, low-altitude delivery systems--bombers and cruise missiles, and "suitcase" nuclear weapons. By themselves, they are able to destroy both nations; Star Wars would accelerate their development.
-- Overwhelming: The number of strategic warheads in the Soviet arsenal (as in our own) is about 10,000. If even a few percent of these warheads exploded on US territory it would represent an unparalleled human disaster and effective collapse of the United States as a functioning political entity. The Soviets could keep ahead of any American Star Wars system because it is cheaper to build new warheads than to shoot down old ones (and easier to shoot down orbiting defensive systems than incoming missiles).
-- Outfoxing: It is cheaper to build countermeasures than to build Star Wars. Some decades in the future when a (still highly permeable) US Star Wars system might be deployed, the Soviets would have added tens or hundreds of thousands of decoys and other penetration aids to their arsenal. Their objective would be to fatally confuse the American Star Wars system, which can never be adequately tested except in a real nuclear war.
-- Cost: Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, and senior Pentagon spokesmen of this Administration, have all estimated the full Star Wars cost as hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars.
-- Soviet preemption: Despite US reassurances, the Soviets perceive Star Wars as part of a US first strike strategy, allowing us to launch a preemptive attack and then to destroy the remnant of any surviving Soviet retaliatory forces. In a time of severe crisis, this may tempt the Soviet Union to make a preemptive first strike against the United States.
-- Institutional momentum: When a trillion dollars is waved at the US aerospace industry, the project in question will rapidly acquire a life of its own--independent of the validity of its public justifications. With jobs, corporate profits, and civilian and military promotions at stake, a project of this magnitude, once started, becomes a juggernaut, the more difficult to stop the longer it rolls on.
We do not oppose defense in principle. We are in favor of carefully bounded research in this area, as in many others; we are also concerned that the line between research and early deployment of key Star Wars components not be blurred. Several of us have devoted considerable effort to research on missile defense. Some of us have advocated missile defense for individual missile silos. But we agree with Department of Defense experts who make it clear that cities cannot be so protected. Mr. Schlesinger has said "in our lifetime and that of our children, cities will be protected by forebearance of those on the other side, or through effective deterrence."
Hans A. Bethe
Richard L. Garwin
Kurt Gottfried
Henry W. Kendall
Carl Sagan
Victor Weisskopf
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
List of Countries With Troops in Iraq
By The Associated Press
November 13, 2003, 4:40 PM EST
Countries besides the United States that are assisting in postwar Iraq:
Albania -- 71 non-combat troops in northern Iraq.
Azerbaijan -- 150 troops for law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.
Bulgaria -- 485 troops patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 are to be sent.
Dominican Republic - 300 troops
El Salvador - 360
Honduras - 360
Nicaragua - 120
Czech Republic -- 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.
Denmark -- 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.
Georgia -- 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.
Estonia -- 55 troops.
Hungary -- 300 transportation troops.
Italy -- 3,000 troops.
Japan -- Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.
Kazakhstan -- 27 troops.
Latvia -- 106 troops.
Lithuania -- 90 troops.
Macedonia -- 28 troops.
Moldova -- Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.
Netherlands -- 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.
New Zealand -- 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.
Norway -- 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.
Philippines -- 177 troops.
Poland -- 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.
Portugal -- 120 police officers.
Romania -- 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.
Slovakia -- 82 military engineers.
South Korea -- 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.
Spain -- 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.
Thailand -- 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.
Ukraine -- 1,640 troops.
United Kingdom -- 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned
These are two different things. Space has been militarized almost from the get-go.
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
what makes you think China wants to put weapons in space?
China's actions
oh yes- racism.
Governments don't have races.
How is that racist?
I figure that ANY society that gets sufficiently advanced will eventually put weapons into space.
You're reading a slashdot story about how the US is putting weapons into space. Wouldn't china, or any other country do the same exact thing had they the capabilities?
or, just call 'racism', if thats easier for you than thinking.
btw, i am not the grandparent
treaty:
1. no weapons in space
2. any and all installations & equipment in space to be subject to inspection by anyone who can get themselves there (supervised by the owner providing they don't waive their right to do so by not showing up for the appointment - so reasonable advance notice required for unmaned installations of course)
yes it'll cost the military for the supervisory visits, but it's not like they don't have the money, and diverting some of that to get some experience in rapid-turnaround space missions can only be a good thing...
"Ronnie Ray-gun"... that reminds me of a game I used to play on the Amiga. I wish I could remember the name. It was all about nuking eack other. It had parodies of all the main end of cold war leaders. I seem to remember being quite amused by the game and I wish I could play it again - it balanced up the more serious Conflict Europe that I used to play at the same time on my PC.
something called the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space" or something
Or is this another treaty that Bush has decided to ignore (like the one with the russians banning Defensive Missiles and such)
If I had a nickel for every unfounded cry of 'racism!' I would have enough to buy a SCO/Linux license.
Go read some history and come back when you have a clue.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I need to get the government to give me millions of dollars to figure out how to deliver a flaming bag of dogshit onto someone's front porch...from orbit. Think of the applications...
"Psst! That's Saddam's house! Do it!"
"No way!"
"Don't be a chickenshit!"
"I'll do it if I can do it from orbit!"
blog |
you suck at trolling give it up
gun on spacecraft invented first. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuzvi.htm Sorry tinfoil hat crowd, you're decades too late.
...ever read Stanislaw Lem's "Fiasco"? >:\
When Orbital Weapons Platforms Are Outlawed....
only Outlaws will have Orbital Weapons Platforms!
You are George Bush and I claim my 5 pounds.
"Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change."
But there is no evidence of human involvement with this.
"But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources."
No, it is not. Did you know that Kyoto asks that some countries actually increase their use of fossil fuels?
If it really was about so-called "global warming", it would consistently reduce emissions.
the United States of America, in its quest to isolate itself from the rest of the world.
P Why space should be untouchable to some strikes me as weird. The US has the most advanced space technology right now. Continuing research on using this lead in defending our country is a valid goal. There's plenty of legitimate applications here. China, North Korea, Iran would think twice if they knew they could get zapped as soon as they launched a missile at us or our friends.
This Slashdot crusade by michael against space weapons is getting tired. It seems to come up once a month.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Us: Puts some space defense.
Them: Shoots it down.
Us: Finds a way to protect a new one
Them: Finds a way around it.
Us: Send more Man Flights to Protect them.
Them: Sends more Man Flights to Protect them.
A small to mid size war.
After the war.
Both sides: Now have affordable, safe, and High Tech space equipment.
The sad part is that most innovation only occurs in conflict. If it wasn't for the cold war we probably have never been to the moon. If it wasn't for WWI And WWII we would not have Commonly used airplanes and Jet Plains. Or the electronic Computer. Many of our technology that we use today originally came from warfare.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"You are George Bush and I claim my 5 pounds."
Thanks for the compliment. However, it makes no sense that you gain weight based on this.
The reason we developed the first nuke was that we believed that Germany was well on their way to developing their own nuke during WWII. Who were the nuclear physicists who made this possible? German jews fleeing the Nazi regime.
The concept was out there, we had to develop it and have it ready before anyone else. Who would you have preferred to develop the first nuke? Russia? Germany? China?
It was going to happen, with or without us. Sure, we could have stalled for another 50 years (maybe), but would that really have put the world in a better position for the long term? Not really.
Remember kids, these White House soundbites from the same people who brought you :
"We know Saddam Hussein has vast stockpiles of WMD. We know he has them and we know where they are"
"We are here to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people"
We have watched you for millions of years. We have watched you grow and advance and learn and war and love and die.
We have viewed you babarity with curiousity that a race of such intelligence could ravage its own. We have seen you let your own starve when your Earth produces more than enough for all. We have only watched.
Whilst you have been left alone, we cannot allow you to bring your babaric ways into the vastness of the universe. Your weapons will not be tollerated above your atmosphere.
You have been warned.
Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
That doesn't mean one should do it...
We've also learned in the past day or so that a Pentagon agency has set aside about $68 million to spend on something called the Near Field Infrared Experiment. This is an experiment in how to identify rockets launched from the earth and, if need be, destroy them from space.
... which country do you want that to be? Would you prefer China to be the first with a weapons system in space? How about Russia? Me? I'm voting for us ... the good ole US of A. Like it or not, we're the good guys ... and I want us to have the edge -- not somebody who might use that edge against us.
Now it's that "destroy them from space" thing that is upsetting some on the left. The evil United States is going to (gasp!) "weaponize" space. We're actually going to place honest-to-goodness WEAPONS out there!
OK, my illogical, fact-challenged friends. Look at it this way. China is in space now. China isn't exactly what you would call a cuddly friend. Russia is in space also. So, that leaves three strong military powers with a presence in space. You can bet your bottom dollar that one of these countries is going to be the first to place weapons in orbit around the earth. Tell me
Stop SDI -- Make the World Safe for Nuclear Weapons.
"Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law."
....
Well it damn well should be an quickly. We need a World moratorium on this to declare that the development of any form of weapons in space is illegal under international law and for it to take effect sooner rather than later. If not, we'll end up with the same situation as for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, where they've already proliferated an awful lot with or without any treaty, leaving us with a few countries, like the US, France, UK, Russia that all happily using nuclear complaining about other countries developing it or having it.
Weapons and war are not the answer, dialogue is the only way to peace. Or do we really believe that you can only bring reconciliation by pointing guns at people. Mr Bush and his cronies certainly seem to think so
Since when did the united states feel obligated by any treaty or law?
"Remember kids, these White House soundbites from the same people who brought you :"
The sound bites, by the way, are both true. Check the facts next time. As for the large international coalition, please count the countries. Even look at what Spain is withdrawing from.
Bah!!! You can argue these kind of facts all day!
All I know, is that I have respect for a guy that uses the position of the most poweful man on the planet to get an illicit blow job and also has the good sense to lie about it!
Mitch: This is coherent light.
Mitch's dad: Oh, so it talks.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
OK. Read your own quotation. Military activity in space of the sort being discussed in the article relates specifically to satellites orbiting the earth.
The quotation you provided refers to the placement of military bases and structures on other celestial bodies. So no bases on the moon or mars. Military activity in space has been around since the very first ICBMs. Read your own damn quote please.
--Kevin
there is some stuff about it here:8 .htm
http://www.astronautix.com/details/sal3167
That list is from November 2003; after UN called for rebuilding of Iraq. When the war started the troops came from US, UK, Australia and Polen IIRC. All the other countries in the "coalition" had only small teams.
I have a dad who works in the DOD/IG office. THey had to audit all of the EConomic reports Clinton released that stated they had a budget surplus...wanna know how they got that budget surplus? They underfunded every program htey could get their hands on, took the money from that and called it a "surplus". It is not a surplus when you cannot fund your government across the board. It's all an accounting hoax, and unfortunately no one knows that.
"If knowledge is power... explain George W. Bush! "
He's certainly a lot smarter than his political enemies, and smarter than the guy (Gore) who lost the election.
The wording of that paragraph indicates that WMDs are banned in space, and military activity is banned on the surface of planets and moons, but I don't see where applies to Weapons of Less Than Mass Destruction in free orbit. So we are free to put up a pinpoint weapon that can take out just The Terrorists (tm) from outer space, while leaving the surrounding area unharmed.
However, I think that this kind of "silver bullet" thinking is a waste of money until they figure out a better way to choose targets. It was clear from the latest Iraq war that when they used smart bombs and cruise missiles to precisely wipe out a target, they often had little clue as to what was actually inside the target, and they often had no idea where the people they really wanted to get were located.
I would prefer if they used the $Billions that they're sinking into these high-tech boondoggles to hire and train old-fashioned spies instead. If we had only had a few reliable high-level moles in Iraq, we could have avoided that whole war altogether. We would have known that WMDs weren't an issue, and the pissing match between Saddam and the Bush clan could have been handled by just killing Saddam & sons. (This could have been accomplished an off-the-shelf cruise missile if we had actual accurate information about where they were. There would have been some international protest about "illegal assasination", but that would have blown over much quicker than the current quagmire.) This would have saved thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
are then renamed The State...
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Last 7 months, economy sees 765,000 new jobs created.
Yes, but are you moving to India to work at one of these new jobs?
There you go trying to make a joke, and those damn idiot mods ruin your day by marking it up insightful. Never underestimate the intelligence of slashdot. Mainly because you can't.
Clinton: War in Iraq without even alerting the UN (remember 1999 around the time of the Lewinski scandal??)
Bush: 2 more UN Resolutions and a war that actually deposes Saddam as opposed to only blowing up buildings with smart bombs.
The Difference: Moveon.org approved of Clinton's war, but didn't approve of Bush's.
Integrity on Slashdot my ass.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
True, but if you RTFA, you'll see that there are no nuclear or other WMDs involved. You see, at orbital velocities, you can just toss some ball bearings or other inert objects into a satellite/missile's path to destroy it. Sometimes low-tech can be pretty effective.
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
You know how you see a word for the first time, and then you keep seeing it for the following week? Over the weekend I saw the movei "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and the evil brainwashing company was Lacuna Inc. Now, this UN document also uses lacuna - it means "A gap, an empty space, spot, or cavity"; applicable to both cases.
"Money aside: think of those 600+ US soldiers and thousands of Iraqis killed so BushCo can get their greedy paws on their oil."
Saddam and his terrorists killed these people. Oil has nothing to do with anything there at all. Don't believe the lies. You seem rather gullible.
"George W. Bush and his cronies are war criminals and should be tried as such."
They'd be acquitted, since they committed no crimes. Your pro-Saddam side is so full of lies.
That would be Nuclear War. Such a morbid, hilarious game.
detailed information about any death machine you could possibly think of.
Also see missile defense (Condi's favourite),
or nukes
or conventional weapons.
Tons of material there...
Especially those who have done the most harm to the USA in the last 50 years? What was it again? Nukes? Anthrax? Laser guided super bombs? Oh no, that's right...Stanley knives!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
"Ah yes... that American military plane that was hanging around China for some strange reason"
Because the Beijing government is constantly threatening to engage in unprovoked aggression by crossing an international boundary and invading Taiwan. Taiwan is a good global citizen and friend and does not deserve this. If mainland China was not imperialist, there would be no need to spy on it well outside of Chinese borders as the US was doing.
I was wondering why Bush was so keen to get to Mars.. Now its clear.
He needs a big civil budget he can hide militaty funding under.
Please prove "We know Saddam Hussein has vast stockpiles of WMD. We know he has them and we know where they are" is true. If you can do that, maybe you could help remind everyone where those Weapons of Mass Destruction are, because the U.S has clearly forgotton.
The fun thing is to go down that list and tick 'em off like this (in no particular order): Bribed, bribed, bribed, invaded by US a few years back and still scared, bribed, bribed, needs to keep Americans sweet because of scary neighbour to the north, bribed, bullied, bribed, still under US occupation, bribed, bribed, Prime Minister actually believes in weapons of mass destruction even the 45-minute thing and had nothing whatsoever to do with naming of Dr Kelly and didn't lie and anyone who says otherwise is a lefty, bribed, bribed, now pulling out after unpopular pro-war Prime Minister lost election, bribed, bribed...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"What are you doing with a gun in space?" - from Armageddon movie
One of the most potent weapons we have uses the GPS network orbiting the earth to assit targeting.
Those satellites are themselves a very important part of a weapon system that allows us to hit any position on the globe with a sub 4 meter accuracy in almost any weather. ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, etc etc ). IMHO that makes those GPS satellites weapons.
Also, what about near space? That scram jet test the other day would lead the way for a very impractical airliner. It would lead the way to an excellent strategic bomber. The ability for an agent/Special Forces troop, put a modified 2000lb JDAM on someones head anywhere on the globe within a few hours sounds mighty handy. Like calling out for pizza.
"Please prove "We know Saddam Hussein has vast stockpiles of WMD. We know he has them and we know where they are" is true"
It was proven long ago. Saddam had large stockpiles (unfortunately, the US had a role in providing some of it). The locations were documented, as well. However, crafty Saddam had them moved elsewhere by the time his aggression forced the US and numerous allies to retaliate against him a year ago.
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years) Uh...that was bogus...also keep in mind that the Gov't's own figures on growth during much of his years had to be revised. Why? They were inflated.
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support Uh...can you count?
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history Where are these figures? Bush: Most job losses since great depression Yeah, more people are in the job market. Very few women worked in the 20's and 30's compared to today. Oh, and the bad 5.7 unemployment rate? yeah, they called 5.6 "low" during the Clinton years.
Move along, folks, don't stare at the liberal idiot he's sensitive! Dork.
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
The Federal Government shouldn't have anything to do with education beyond handing money out to the states.
There is no need for a Department of Ecuation beyond that role of handing out some of the funds taken from the Federal Taxes. Education should be handled by the States, Counties, School Districts and Cities.
Seriously - if he can't pocket money from something, he's not interested. It sounds like a typical bashing of an unpopular politician, but it's true. 100%. He's the epitome of the professional politician. His wheels are greased by cash. He doesn't care about America. I mean, he's dealt with the Bin Ladens and the Taliban, all for money.
Bush = very, very bad for everyone. Even those he says he's standing for.
"and anyone who says otherwise is a lefty, bribed, bribed"
You forgot "fooled". The facts have never been on the pro-Saddam side.
Wow ... thanks for the tremendous amount of information with no facts to back them up. What did that take, 10 seconds scrounging half-truths and innuendos?? You use the same logic that you accuse the current administration of using.
..the US has a history of opposing dictatorships..
At least, not the ones you helped to install directly or indirectly. Well, some of them. Especially the disobaying-order-ex-CIA-agent dictators. You've always apposed them.
"Bush = very, very bad for everyone. Even those he says he's standing for"
He's standing for the entire country (his constituents). The only people he is bad for is Enron, along with Saddam and the other terrorists.
"Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five."
We're not #1 yet, but we'll definately overtake Soviet Russia soon. They've only had 2 vetoes since the collapse.
"the disobaying-order-ex-CIA-agent dictators. You've always apposed them."
Hahaha. Nutty conspiracy theories about the CIA. And Elvis shot J.R.Ewing too!
(If the CIA did not exist, you'd likely take your silly false accusations and blame the US Postal Service instead)
I don't think any treaty or law will stop any nation to put weapons in space. I was hoping that we could be mature enough to resist the obviously very strong temptation we have on bringing death and violence wherever we go. I'm such an idealist. I hope I'll never grow out of that. :)
Secondly, I'm assuming when you say "international support" you mean France, Germany, and Belgium. Because they were the only countries we care about that didn't support us. One of them, france, was making a ton of money dealing with Saddam ... don't we discount any possible good intentions when greed is in play? Anyway, the heaviest lifting any of them did in 1998 involved running away from ethnic cleansing.
Finally, here on earth we measure unemployment with percentages. Bush's 5.6 is the same as Clinton's first term 5.6. Considering 9/11, and that Clinton inherited a recovering economy while bush inherited a wilting economy (that clinton buggered, nonetheless), Bush is actually doing pretty well.
Funny about that whole "NO international support" thing. I participated in the war (I wasn't in danger of getting shot, so I can't really say I "fought" in it, especially since I have friends who did), and where I sat at the Northern Command Center, there was a British officer on the other side of the common desk, and usually two or three Turkish officers just to my left. I would also regularly talk with Italian, Bulgarian, and Greek allies over telephone, coordinating missions. Guess those are just provinces of the US in your worldview, huh?
As for the economic things you list:
1) The recession started on Clinton's watch, and is the fault of the dot-com implosion. An implosion which wouldn't've happened if Clinton hadn't encourage a short sighted bubble economy to develop.
2) That projected surplus went away once all the income from dot-bombs went away.
3) Same with the jobs.
4) Clinton (thank God, 'cause he would've screwed it up) didn't have to deal with 9/11. Bush did, and did so as a leader, not a poll reader.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
from those criminal states WMD...
Luckely, the US has a president with his prio's straight..
"/Dread"
So, he's only representing rich white straight christians. Hardly representative, is it?
The war in yugoslavia DIDN'T have a UN security council resolution. You need to check your facts.
From article: But the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another orbiting satellite.
Sounds to me a lot like the "kinetic harpoons" described in the "Night's Dawn Triology" by Peter F Hamilton.
A recommended SF read too, if you like the genre.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
>>Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
>>Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
>>Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
>>Bush: Most job losses since great depression
These are one and the same. Umm... Bigest bubble since the great depresion. Linux.com having a greater value than SGI??? A lot of that expansion was pure bubble. The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Lets not forget that what real growth was caused by a little thing called the Internet. Giving Clinton credit for the growth durning his term is kind of like giving the King of England credit for the Industral Revolution.
>>Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
>>Bush: War in Iraq with NO international suppor
What about Hati? What about the Cruise Missle attack on the Sudan? What about Somalia?
And as far as Terrorism what about the first World Trade Center Bombing? The Federal Building bombing?
What about no increase of funding for NASA even though there was a huge surplus?
As far as Gay rights what about don't ask don't tell and the defence of Marrage act?
It is just that simple????
Clinton Good? Sorry I just do not see it.
I am not all that thrilled with Bush but Clinton was a NIGHTMARE!!!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
And it's all going to be the United State's fault. Seriously. Think about it. We were doing just fine for about 1,000,000 years until some asshole in the U.S. built a nuke. Then it all went down-hill. Can you guess? I'm Canadian. Hate me!
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
welcome our new federal orbital overlords.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
that would be an incredibly useful military weapon. Remeber when Bill Clinton "wagged the dog" during Lewinskigate and tried to kill Osama by lobbing a few missles at him? The time it took for the missles to travel to their destination gave Bin Laden ample time to escape.
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
Here is a link to the same story that does not have a bunch of ads and click-throughs.
There are hundreds of billions of dollars in military and commerical devices in LEO.
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/almpart1.htm
For the longest time NATO and the Soviets kept systems out of orbit because they didn't want to expand thier military spending out there, not because of some higher reason like space was to be a DMZ. They were afraid someone would get the initative from up that would allow a decapitation strike.
But even then the US and Soviets worked on FOBS and other systems for combat and bombardment in space
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ogch.htm
Since so much of the military and commercial sectors for the United States, NATO, EU rely on space, it's just sensable from a defense standpoint to have systems to defend them. Maybe it's from China, maybe it's from a resurgant Russia it doesn't matter.
Um.. Opposing dictators by.. Selling illegal arms to Iran to fund guerillas in Latin America?
Opposing dictators by.. Providing them with chemical/bio weapons and failing to get angry when they are used against the Kurds? (ok, fine, the US only provided one of the two, sue me for not remembering which)
Opposing dictators by.. Supporting the Taliban when it was fighting a civil war against the Soviets?
I could go on, but I feel no need to. You already reached -1. Of course, you probably think to yourself "AHA! -1, they are SCARED OF THE TRUTH!"
Go back to wanking. Half the reason there are terrorists breathing down your neck is post-WWII US foreign policy. The other half is that ignorant fucks like you actually believe you're right.
The USA likes to have the biggest guns, but gets all worried when someone else might have a weapon.
What is it that makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to ignore a worldwide ban on weapons research / deployment? What makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to use weapons of mass destruction if they had them?
Let's just say no weapons in space, full stop.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I saw bright light appear at night 2 or 3 years ago, and I thought -- damn that's gotta be a new supernova. Then a few seconds later it fizzled out, and I said. Damn, that had to be a close man-made explosion. A few days later I read (probably on slashdot or wired or the bbc) that the first test of a space weapon had occurred by the U.S. Anybody else remember that? I have been looking for independent confirmation since then, and see no reference to it in this article.
You just don't pay attention. The fact that you don't think he represents *you* doesn't mean jack.
"Um.. Opposing dictators by.. Selling illegal arms to Iran to fund guerillas in Latin America?"
The US was engaged in the arguably wise policy of trying to keep Iran and Iraq from either one taking over the other. And the guerillas were fighting against a dictator in Latin America. Next...
"them with chemical/bio weapons and failing to get angry when they are used against the Kurds?"
The US did get angry. Next...
"Opposing dictators by.. Supporting the Taliban when it was fighting a civil war against the Soviets?"
The Taliban did not even EXIST during the Afghan-Soviet war. It was founded in 1994, years after the USSR lost this war. In fact, there was not any USSR then. Next...
" could go on, but I feel no need to"
What you need to do is hit the books.
Please help me understand why this is news?
The U.S. Government is charged with "providing a common defense" in the Constitution. If a satellite can detect a missle attack and respond to it, how is this a bad thing?
During the Cold War that was the case, but times have changed. The US military is getting to the point where it is dominated by information systems rather than hardware platforms. The hardware platforms are merely modular components that are the eyes, ears, and fists of the network.
It's essentially impossible to export an all-encompassing data-driven warfighting structure. The US can still export individual components such as planes and tanks, but even then hardly anyone can afford the most up-to-date American equipment. So yes, we often do face American equipment on the battlefield, but combatting soldiers who wield M-16s and drive M60A3 tanks isn't in the same league as fighting an opponent that has laser-guided munitions, ubiquitous night-fighting capabilities, and GPS down to the squad level.
If you're worried about our enemies getting a hold of space weaponry, you're barking up the wrong tree. Just remember that our most sophisticated aerial and space reconnaissance equipment hardware has never been sold to anyone, even during the height of the Cold War.
For fiscal and geopolotical reasons I'm not sure that we need to militarize space, but the argument that such technology will be used against us is a bit far-fetched, given the technology imblance between the US military and the rest of the world.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
the Alan Parsons Project.
I'm amazed that anyone cares about weapons in space. Defensive weapons make sense, but not the other way around.
Who needs a laser, or an atomic bomb once you have a ship in space? Find the nearest big rock (eg. an asteroid) and give it a little push torwards the planet. Just a little mathematics to figure out where you need to push it to get it to impact, and you've got the most powerful weapon known to man.
Who needs an atomic bomb when you can wipe-out whole hemispheres just by throwing a rock at them?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Imagine you have some weapon installation in orbit. How are you going to protect it? A small orbiting fleck of paint could tear a hole in it... or I could atleast claim that it wasn't my fault your weapon system blew up.
Big waste of money. Big freakin waste of money. God it's been a long 4 years.
The president of the US can't even get "serviced" in secret. I think you're over-estimating it's ability to conduct a large project (one which would, of necessity, be known about by a large number of people) without any kind of story escaping.
High powered laser, eh? Even back here on Earth -where there are no real limits on size, weight or power - nobody has a laser that's going to cut a car in half in the dramatic fashion you're imagining. Perhaps the US could put a laser up there you could feel the warmth of. And then it would take 3 weeks to recharge.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
So, he's only representing rich white straight christians.
As a fairly well-off white straight Christian who happens to believe in gay rights, social welfare, and equal treatment of citizens and immigrants, I take offense at your claim that Bush is representing me. He isn't. I can't off-hand think of a single major Bush policy I agree with.
Looks to me like another boondoggle to Protect Us From the Soviet Union. A bunch of Republican campaign contributers get a whole pile of tax money and the military gets some more expensive, useless toys.
...
All the serious analyses of future warefare that I've seen have third-world "rogue states" and semi-organized terrorists as opponents. How do space weapons help here? I don't think we have to worry about some future Saddam Hussein's space capabilities.
Note also that, given high-tech opposition (from who? I dunno.) the US has a *lot* more to lose than anybody else. Check out what a Keyhole satellite costs
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
Notable absence: Israel, the only US client state in the region which was potentially under any threat from Iraq.
Sure, they have their hands full keeping up their policy of provoking Palestinian terrorism to justify their own illegal occupation, but you'd think they could spare a token soldier or two to show willing.
(1981) The Reagan Administration begins the contra war against Nicaraguan civilians,
and puts a serious dent in the volume of cocaine being traffiked thru Nicaragua bound for the US
(1983) The U.S. invades Grenada to overthrow a popular government,
The real reason why Grenada was invaded was to put a stop to another drug operation. Bernard Coard who was Grenada's newest dictator, had been getting rich running an operation providing massive quantities of 3,4-methylenedioxyallylbenzene (aka safrole, distilled from oil of nutmeg) the primary precursor to making MDMA (street name Ecstasy), to clandestine labs in the US and Europe. Grenada is world's largest grower of nutmeg. MDMA was not yet illegal in the US until 1985, but it's rapid rise to popularity in the early 1980's was scaring the hell out of the DEA as well the European drug cops. That's the REAL reason why the US stomped on Grenada. Funny how Grenada's drug story has *never* made the mainstream media.
(1989) The U.S. invades Panama to arrest accused drug dealer Manual Noriegaa
Cocaine again (yawn).
OK.
New revised Slashbot ideals:
#1. Republicans suck.
#2. Democrats suck.
Mix with reality:
#3. There is no alternative to the two.
The only problem with this is that it puts all of us into that category of people called 'radicals'. After all, even if both sides are total shit, you *have* to support one of them or else noone listens to a word you say.
Try to bash Bush and you get people attacking Clinton, saying he was no better.
Try to attack Clinton and you get the anti-Bush rhetoric that started this thread.
Try to say that the whole system sucks and you get people labelling you a tin-foil mad hatter.
Politics make me want to cry.
If you think the US had a "war" in Iraq during the Clinton administration, your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Guess they don't have any.
Tell you what though. We could work out the level of commitment by the percentage of troops from each country from the total number of troops.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
care to list what we bribed Poland, Great Britain, Spain or Australia with?
I hope it wasn't reduced trade barriers, because they lose.
Last post!
Let's not forget the devastating effects of one of the first big space-related treaties: the Outer Space Treaty, which prevents any nation from laying claim to any celestial body. While it may theoretically have done us some good by preventing wars on the Moon, the negative impact is far more profound: by taking away the major incentive for a country to rush into space, i.e. resource ownership, it set the cause of space exploration back decades. Remember all of those Heinlein stories full of humans in outer space by now? They were there because the government went there, and those governments went there to *own* what they found.
Now I admit that I'm not a fan of the large-scale militarization of space...I think that would be a terrible thing, especially since we're finally getting close to a point where private citizens/enterprises can really blast into space exploration. I just would hate to see a rush on the other side of the coin from militarization that held us back as bad as the Outer Space Treaty did.
How To Get Humans To Mars
Everything not expressly forbidden is mandatory.
"Bush: 2 more UN Resolutions and a war that actually deposes Saddam as opposed to only blowing up buildings with smart bombs."
Yeah, can't wait for Bush to start enforcing the UN resolutions against Israel, so that he doesn't appear to be a hypocrite.
Oh, wait...
The gist of the matter is that it's apparently okay to simply blow buildings up at will with "smart" bombs rather than just get the whole matter done with by deposing the tyrant that is causing the problem.
Quite what got the Poles and the Aussies in I'm not sure. The Spanish I mentioned specifically; their new PM can hardly be listed as a partner in this poss^H^H^H^Hcoalition. As for the rest, America's influence behind the scenes has been fairly well documented. You think El Salvador joined up because they felt threatened by Saddam?
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Coa lition_of_the_willing
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Am I the only one who sees this as no big deal?
IMO, weapons in space are a given. At a minimum, we want to be able to stop someone else from shooting down our own satellites.
A good example would be the GPS system. This system is responsible for not just military navigation, but civilian aircraft landings and navigation (w/ WAAS), and synchronizing both our communications networks and our power grid.
A loss of the GPS satellites above our country could be a VERY big problem:
blackouts, plane crashes, network and telephone outages (both wired and cellular), and probably some more issues I'm not aware of.
And that's never even considering the consequences it would have on our military.
Although it would have less shock value, losing a bunch of satellites could possibly disrupt this country MORE than 9/11.
Am I the only one who isn't yelling: "OMG weapons in space! We're all gonna get zapped by lasers like in Real Genius!"
I just don't see weapons in space as a big issue. They're only going to be used for very specfic applications because they're going to be really fucking expensive.
Weapons is space will be used for protecting valuable assets (satellites and space stations) and shooting down ICBMs.
If we want to rain death from above on some earth-based taget, we're going to use an airplane. The only real offensive use I see for space-based weapons would be to shoot down someone else's satellites.
Life is too short to proofread.
We can also speculate about the intentions (Saddam's oil, not offending France, Germany, Russia etc) of the nations that did not support us. The knife cuts both ways.
Saddam used chemical munitions (last I checked these were classified as WMDs) against the Kurds. This fact is undisputed. So, he has had WMDs in the past. There is no evidence according to Hans Blix that Saddam has destroyed his chemical stockpile.
We've had them for years.
d 6. html
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/conceptengine/i
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Anyone who believes they don't have a military objective with space is only deluding themselves.
The question is, do you want to wait till it IS a problem or do something now?
Kind of like the questions asked about our lack of reaction to the bombing WTC in the 90s... we know how that turned out.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Was that Bill Clinton while he was smart bombing random buildings to get the heat off Monica and himself?
Oh, never mind.
"You can only stay awake so long, and when you blink, when you drop the barrel of the gun for the shortest moment, hell breaks loose"
I'mmmmm...
Rolling down the hill I'm snowballing getting bigger
An explosion in the chamber the hammer from the trigger
I seen him get stabbed I watched the blood spill out
He had more cuts than my man Chuck Chillout
24 is my age and 22 is my gauge
I'm writing rhymes on a page I'm going off in a rage
Cause I'm out on a mission a stolen car mission
Had a little problem with the transmission
3 on the train in the middle of the night
I have this steak on my head cause I got into a fist fight
Life comes in phases take the good with the bad
You bought the coins on the street holmes... and you got had
Because it's all high spirit you know you gotta hear it
Don't touch the mic baby don't come near it
It's gonna get you it's gonna get you
It's gonna get you girl it's gonna get you
Looking down the barrel of a gun
of a gun
of a gun
-beastie boys
I find it interesting that there's been no mention of it.
Um, there are no chapter 7 resolutions against Israel, and those are the only resolutions that can be enforced by the UN.
the world, or how i enjoyed to eat more rice.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I'm working one of those new jobs right now in the suburbs of Minnesota, and it's the highest-paying job I've ever had.
It's annoying that the media and now Congress are saying that the Bush administration didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, but they give those Clinton do nothing's a pass on their 8 years in office. The only decisive thing the Clinton administration ever did was in Waco, and we know how that turned out.
There are all these folks saying that the war in Iraq was not needed or that it was premature. Then the same people fault Bush for not going after Bin Laden before 9/11. Can you imagine the uproar if he had!!
It boggles my mind that Clinton was offered Bin Laden on more than 1 occasion and turned it down because he couldn't figure out what to charge him with. Now the Bush administration is supposed to have known, in the first few months of their term, that they needed to take pre-emptive action to remove Bin Laden, when 8 years of Clinton policy was to ignore him. What are the liberals in our government and media thinking ? How does this make any sense at all?
I understand the liberals buying all this, because they already live in some alternate reality, but surely the average citizen of the US sees the duplicity in this.
I'm sorry if I offended - that was never my intention.
Clinton: War in Iraq, zero American casualties and cost less than a billion dollars. Its a real stretch to call one retaliatory strike a war in this day and age.
Bush: Nearly six hundred dead American soldiers and counting, thousands of soldiers wounded, many with permanent burn scars and lost limbs, thousands of dead Iraqi civilians(the provisional authority wont let anyone even count them). Cost at least a $150 billion dollars and counting. The end result is a country that is teetering on the brink of a civil war. If we pull out it will explode. If we stay it will probably cost us $100 billion and hundreds of casualties a year, indefinitely. And, of course, we don't really know why we did it. Everyone in the Bush administration has admitted the WMD charges were at best wrong, and at worst intentional deception. Bush recently made jokes about the missing WMD's during a speech in Washington. The families of the dead and wounded soldiers weren't laughing. There have been no proven ties to Al Queada or 9/11. Fact is Saddam was only Muslim out of convenience and Islamic extremists for the most part hated him.
Saddam was a bad man but there are a lot of bad men ruling countries around the world. If we are going to take it on ourselves to get rid of all of them we will be very busy, very broke and our military will be broken. As General Shinseki said before the war it takes a big army to occupy a country. Bush fired him for saying it, he's been proven to be correct.
If we are going to take down governments the minimum we should except from our government is for them to think about the day after the tanks rolled in to Baghdad. This administration clearly didn't. Bush #1 could have rolled into Baghdad in the first gulf war, there was justification then. They said they didn't because our allies wouldn't support it. I wager its more likely they considered the consequences of deposing Saddam and realized Saddam if nothing else held Iraq together. Without him the Kurds will seek independence which will start a war with Turkey. The Shia's will seek the power that is their right being the majority, and they will institute an Iran friendly Islamic republic. The Sunni's being pushed out of power will be shit on by the Shia's, turnabout being fairplay, and will generally get pissed off and start blowing things up which is what they are doing.
The only country that is probably really happy about all this is Israel. They managed to get the U.S. to, by proxy, take down one of their bitterest enemies without firing a shot.
@de_machina
In short, the very fact that he has mentioned these aspects of his life (and lets them encroach on his political life) means he doesn't represent everyone.
the internet was originally a military project to devise a computer network capable of surviving a nuclear war by routing around missing nodes.
the original version of it was eventually passed on to university researchers which later become what we have today, and a separate, more secure military one was created.
-
You're a little late. ICBMs travel through near earth space, and therefore come from "space".
I seem to recall the Clinton administration actually stopping a terrorist plot pre Y2k. Remember the higher security/threat level that got the guy coming in from Canada at the border (trying to blow up LAX).
If Bush weren't living in 1980 (see weapons in space article) maybe he would have seen a real threat instead of focusing on a missile shield. The funny thing is now we will need a missile shield since this asshole we call a president is sending weapons into space.
I am more disappointed daily at the stupidity of the American people believing the propaganda they are fed. Pull your heads out morons, this administration is horrible. But what do I know, spending on domestic programs is more important than killing Iraqi citizens to me. I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
If you're for Bush you're a fucking fool. The one nice thing is every stupid Republican is enjoying the victory at the polls.
Unemployment 5.7%
500 Billion Dollar Annual Deficits
Higher Crime Rate
Significantly Higher Animosity from Foreign Countries
I think my dead dog could run the country with more success. Oh wait, Interest Rates are at a 50 year low (note: this is an artificial low to keep the recession from getting worse).
FYI to every dipshit that says the Surplus was bogus: Why did your genius president use that as a justification for lowering taxes? Morons you cannot have it both ways.
Pathetic really.
I'm late to this one, I've got to do a little work sometime...
But I would only pass along three well known words as comment on this post: "Get Over It"
Best Regards,
Reports of my deaf have been greatly exaggerated.
"Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law."
Even if it were in a treaty, that means nothing to the US. We have broken most of the treaties we've signed. If one were proposed to prevent the militarization of space, we'd refuse to sign it. mIf a later, more enlightened administration were to sign such a treaty, another administration would break it whenever it was convenient for them to do so.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Yeah, that'll really calm the terrorists down won't it. We can all be certain of global peace and happiness now.
BTW, if you can't find them now to shoot at them (OBL still at large IIRC), what makes you think that having a bunch of shooters in space is going to change this? And do you think that having a bunch of shooters in space is going to make anti-American sentiment (a) weaker or (b) stronger, particularly when (NOT if) they misfire and zap some perfectly innocent soul. (Clue: the answer isn't (a).)
If you think the war in Iraq ended at any time in the last 10 years your hat is on a bit tight...
In point of fact there was no period longer than 3 days without shots fired on both sides and likely Iraqi military casualties. The only reason it didn't make the news was that there were no "allied" casualites... primarily due to the technological advantage.
but Iraqi forces fired AA weapons at the aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones as quickly as they could rebuild/resupply the AA sites and just as quickly they were bombed to pieces... perhaps the sanctions weren't working.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Oh, for crying out loud! I am just as unhappy with some of Bush's choices as the next person, but anyone who believes a president has anything to do with the economy is delusional.
Clinton didn't give us the wealth and prosperity of the late nineties. The Dot Com bubble did that.
Bush didn't destroy the stock market, cause bankruptcies, or otherwise put the economy in it's current state of despair. The burst of the Dot Com bubble did that.
Honestly, you would think grown adults would understand simple economics by now. Are we still blaming Hoover for the depression? As if he had anything to do with the years of build-up and over-speculation that preceeded him?
Also interesting: The same clowns who blame Bush for the economic slide seem to have forgotten whose term it started under. If you're going to completely screw up your logic on who affects what in national economics, at least be honest about who fits into the blame box under your faulty model. Even our favorite chubby intern could figure this one out.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
If you think the US had a "war" in Iraq during the Clinton administration, your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight.
I believe he meant Serbia.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Russia holds the record for most vetoed.
Shotgun? Maybe I'm a little ignorant on the subject as I am not yet possessing a degree in physics (Or the wit to detect the sarcasm). But wouldn't a shotgun be a little inefficient? You've got a lot of energy over a wide spread concentrating very little to any one small area. In contract, a precise strike would require less overall energy. All forces are equal and opposite, so a satellite firing a weapon would be moved itself according to the proper equations. It seems like it would require less corrective maneuvers (and thereby require less fuel) if it did a precise less-powerful strike.
Holy shit. An insightful comment from a Coward! Maybe there is hope for the world after all... :)
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Not to bash theories of global warming, but there are also theories out there that we are heading toward another ice age (ice ages go in cycles) and the global warming will soften the impact.
"Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space. As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space."
And everyone always obeys U.N. mandates and treaties, right? Face it, the U.N. is completely worthless and powerless except as a means to distribute humanitarian aid.
Theism of any kind should automatically disqualify anyone from office. If you want to believe in God, or aliens, or pixies, you should do so strictly in private, and certainly not from a position of power.
Think about it: Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews all have different, and incompatible, ideas about the nature of God. At most one of these conflicting groups can be right, and at least they can all be wrong. But whether or not God exists, and whatever God is like, there are still certain things that will be right and wrong.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
> You're forgetting 1812 - US invades Canada. Possibly the only Canadian military victory ever.
v imy.htm)
/ index.html)
Not by a long shot.
Vimy Ridge is one of the more obvious examples - Britain and France had been trying to take the German strongpoint for _years_, and the Canadian Corps took it in a _day_.
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW
A second obvious example is D-Day. Canadians were given the second most heavily-defended beach (Juno), but penetrated farther inland than any other force, and were the only ones to fulfill all their objectives.
(http://www.stormpages.com/junobeach
That we don't fight often doesn't mean we aren't damn good at it.
Idiot
If you look at the very top of that post, it says "ASSIDE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
Maybe you're trying to be funny, maybe you just didn't read. Maybe you're trying to make some kind of statement about America's commitment to a free and democratic Iraq.
You have failed.
Space defense has all the appearance of a Maginot line. Its very expensive to build and very easy to defeat, especially in an age of asymmetric warfare. When the most devastating attack in U.S. history was done with civilian airlines explain to me the value of fixating on missile defense. Its a relic of cold war thinking when the one true threat the U.S. had was a missile attack from the U.S.S.R.
Missile defense is also very lucrative to the big aerospace companies who want to get the multibillion dollar contracts. You can be sure they are lobbying hard and spreading around campaign contributions to make it happen. A sympathetic Republican administration and big defense companies lobbying for them is an assurance these programs will continue for the forseeable future and will expand.
The only attack this system might prevent is a rogue state, with a few primitive missiles, like North Korea launching a missile at the U.S. If they know the missile defense is there they can just put their nukes on tramp steamers and sail them in to the harbors of major U.S. cities. They only way to deal with states like North Korea is to disarm them, one way or another. If there is any state that deserves to be taken down for WMD's and repressive dictatorship its North Korea, not Iraq. Only prolbem is if we try they will probably devastate Seoul and may retaliate with nukes against South Korea and the U.S., if they have them. The Bush administration will never be able to explain the rational for leaving North Korea in tact, taking down Iraq, and letting Pakistan get away with proliferating nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a few million dollars. We took down Iraq for a vague suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. North Korean has them and Pakistan has been really proliferating them, wholesale, and we haven't done much since we caught on.
If you turn to Russia, they had largely stopped developing strategic weapons. Thanks to the Bush administrations saber rattling they are now going to resume the arms race. They've already announced plans to develop warheads with manuevering capability to defeat ABM's, massive decoy strategies are also inevitable, and they are resuming work on their own missile defense. Another way to beat missile defense is to deploy massive numbers of new missiles. One reason the U.S. and U.S.S.R signed a treaty banning ABM's is because they had the foresight to look ahead and see the consequence of deploying them. Both countries would have dramaticly escalated missile production in order to be sure they could overwhelm the new defense. As bad as the arms race was Mutual Assured Destruction kept it in check. When you start deploying defenses and start planning to try to win a nuclear war it leads to two things:
A. A greater risk of a war happening if one side thinks they can win without significant damage thanks to defenses.
B. The arms race spirals out of control, as countries build massive numbers of new missiles to overwhelm the others defenses, and then massive new defense to counter the huge numbers of new missiles.
All in all the world would have been a better place without restarting the arms race. Thank you again, little George.
@de_machina
Of course there aren't... any such resolution would get vetoed by the US in the first place.
I can just see it now.... Some alien species is going to see this and wonder "WTF, they have space weapons, and they're pointed at themselves!?"
Just wondering how being Anti-Israeli makes someone Anti-Semetic? Kinda like if you think the Saudi Arabian Government is evil, that automatically presumes you think Islam is evil??
Ok. Lets for a sec presume thats EXACTLY what Clinton was doing. What's GWB's excuse? All the reasons he gave for the war were untrue (and dont say removing Saddam cuz that wasnt the reason we were given pre-war). Somehow seems killing less then a hundred iraqi's (number pulled outta my ass) vs killing 600+ US Soldiers / maiming thousands / killing tens of thousands of Iraqi's, both essentially having shitty reasons if any. Hmm what's worse?
It noteworthy that Poland, with one of the of the larger contingents, flat admitted they are there because they wanted a cut of Iraq's oil wealth and all the other lucrative contracts being let to rebuild Iraq, largely funded by U.S. tax dollars.
I really wish my tax dollars were being spent to rebuild the U.S., to create jobs in the U.S. and were not being pouring them in to a country that is likely to explode in civil war anyway,
@de_machina
... I expect the Yanks to mod this post down to Flamebait and Troll status.
The decline of the American Empire will be interesting reading when the smoke clears.
Weapons in space have been in existence for some time. If you call a duck a duck, then a satellite with a sole response of killing another satellite is a weapon. The Soviets demonstrated their capabilities quite some time ago to perform this maneuver. To be honest, Star Wars scared the beejeesus out of the Soviets and they tried every measure possible to stop us from developing it. When we "won" the cold war, there wasn't a reason to keep the measure alive since no other country was so capable of putting a nuke on our doorstep in minutes.
This is why Cuba was such a huge issue for us. No time to counter a first strike. If you'll note, we always strike with a heavy first blow, because it's strategically important to do so.
Getting back on-topic. Given the facts above, I really question the credility or motives of the "Expert" cited in the article. Anyone involved in Space, and most certainly any Air Force related personnel, would know about the previous weapons. I've got a copy of the USAF Space Handbook (issued to AF Officers in Space Command), dated over 10 years ago, which outline the Soviet's program in good detail.
The rest of the posts on here seem to really stray off topic, but I'll entertain a few. The problem the US has had is that we see things differently than a good number out there. Conversely, they each see things differently than every one else as well. So there's two foreign policies you can follow:
1. Isolationism
2. Work with the other governments to further your agenda
I'd say anyone even remotely familiar with history would agree that option 1 is no option at all. We tried ignoring Osama Bin Laden, the Japanese and German agression in WWIII and others, yet we eventually get sucked in anyway. We can engage in the "chicken and egg", or cause and effect conversation until we're each sleepy or bored, yet neither of us will ever have the definitive correct answer. The key to courage is to make the best of what you have today and move forward.
This is why we've changed our posture. Is it aggressive? Sure. But so have our enemies...
Before we outlaw wars fought with spacecraft, surely we should first outlaw wars fought with 747s.
Oh yeah, that's right, that already is illegal. So noone would ever do that...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
"He has
EMPLOYMENT
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002
Employed (mil)
125.8 132.3 142.6 143.7 144.9
Unemployed (mil)
7.0 7.4 5.7 6.8 8.4
Unemployment rate (percent)
5.6 5.6 4.0 4.7 5.8
You read that on indimedia didn't you ?
Cause sure like hell I never seen any of this being discussed anywhere and , unlike you, I can read Polish newspapers.
I am Anti-Israeli AND Anti-Semetic, you insensative clod!
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you NOT notice that the biggest corporate scandals came from close Bush supporters - namely Enron (whose CEO had an office IN THE WHITE HOUSE) or Worldcom, who after fucking over the entire telecom industry, still got the contract to build the cell phone system in Iraq (without bidding, of course)?
These companies are responsible for both the popping of the dotcom bubble and the subsequent depression. If you can't see that, there's no fucking hope. Keep believeing that the cokehead from crawford is a great president, even though he took more vacation than any other president in history, or that he actually has international support in Iraq. Wow, a bunch of third world nations and other oil whores followed along. Big fucking do. All that means is that those countries didn't want to alienate their business partners, or lose aid.
Check your facts. Stopping blaming Bush's mistakes, that happened while he was in office on Clinton. Clinton's administration supports more "republican" values than this asshole's - he had FISCAL RESPONSIBLITY! Look that up!
And in case you forgot, check your history books. The dotcom bubble didn't pop until after the cost of bandwidth + energy was manipulated by Worldcom (the biggest raw bandwidth provider at the time, after buying UUNET) and Enron. Enron caused "spot" increases of the cost of electicity to go up by as much as 1000% in California, the place where many dotcoms were hosted. They manipulated the cost of fuel as well, meaning that shipping costs went up, even a dollar or two per package eroded profitability from new businesses. Add this with the willful manipulation of the telecom market, and there you have it - all the services that dotcoms depend on, fucked over by Enron and Worldcom - two huge Bush supporters and partners in many side businesses.
If you think your president is so good, how come there are no new computer jobs? Why is the value of the greenback so depressed on the international market? Why? Because he is LYING COCKSUCKER who lied to go to a stupid fucking war for no other reason than some petty revenge. OUR COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACK FROM SAUDI ARABIA and he responds by attacked Saudi Arabia's enemy. THAT MAKES BUSH A TRAITOR! By giving support and comfort to the enemy (Saudi Arabia) after they attacked us. And, in case you forget, 15 of 19 of the highjackers were Saudi, their leader is Saudi and the money came from Saudi (although the training was provided by the USAF).
So screw you and your fucking cokehead president. My life, and the lives of countless other people in this sector of the economy have been ruined by this prick and his friends. Don't give me the "go get a job" bullshit. I used to command a near six figure salary, now I can barely get $20 an hour.
Fuck you Bush supporter, and all Bush supporters. Thank God you represent less than half the country. That way, after Bush steals the next election, there will be still more of us than you, so we can kick your asses for completely fucking the world up.
Potential rivals to the US need not concern themselves with space-based defenses because there are so many easy pickings that can be taken out for very low cost. Place radioactive dust in the NYC subway. McVeigh-bomb a nuclear power plant. Shoot down airliners with thirty-year-old missiles.
Remember that the US economy was plunged into recession for the cost of ten box cutters and some unconventional thinking. Space based weapon truly are a Maginot Line. US taxpayers will wonder how a nuclear weapon could find its way into the US when they have spent a trillion dollars circling the globe in death satellites...yet the same money could have been used on the ground, in the "theater" of terrorist tactics to detect and deflect incursions.
Terrorism is the future of war. Until you grasp and understand that there is no point discussing military tech.
And the US is fascist dictatorship that has a history of invading...
I won't dispute the second part of your assertion, the USA has indeed done some immoral shit over the years, but as for the first, there's no way you can argue that US is either fascist or a dictatorship. A capitalist oligarchy maybe, but even that's stretching it.
You're lucky that the USA invaded and overthrew the governments of certain countries (Germany, Italy, and Japan to name a few) so that you have the liberty of being confused as to the actual definition of fascism.
Here is a LINK to a pro israeli site on the 6 day war.
I couldn't have said it better my self.
Personally though given the choice between being a factory worker or a rich white man, I'd chose the 2nd option. That's why I'm a republican fuck the blue collar workers.
Of course thats what They want you to believe, They even made an episode of SG1 where there was a TV show about SG1. The truth is that the Stargate is real, it's pure brilliance not only to haev a TV show to point to and say "thats where all the conspiracy nuts got their idea from", but also document the real Stargate so accuracy there's a TV series about it!
If he has to lie about it would that make his wife the most powerful person on the planet?
For crying out loud, geeks everywhere watch Star Wars, Star Trek, and all sorts of other War in Space related sci-fi subjects. So this might be real, how is it a hard concept for you to get?
Like all DOD advancements that are publically released, if it is of any significant strategic value, the project is probably complete or so close to completion, that the news is really kind of a tool of intimidation. Intimidation has its uses. Some people complain about the cold war, but I for one am glad it stayed cold, reletively speaking.
How is Space considered 'unmilitarized' these days anyways? With ICBM's that leave the atmosphere, Military satelites that spy on your enemies, GPS satelites that give positioning data to military navigators and weapons guidance systems, Military communications satelites that give secure communications links between battelfields and command centers, and ICBM launch detection satellites to give early warning to SAC, the only think left out is a space based weapon. It was probably left till now, or a few years ago, if it is there now, because of cost/effectiveness/application issues.
Terrorism is the future of warfare. Repeat it until you believe it. The next attack on the US will cost less than the fuel for one US missile.
RUN AWAY!!!!!
That's right. All your base.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/charlie/chinavietna m1979.htm
Nope. It was reported by BBC and all the major U.S. news outlets last summer. I have to give your foreign minister high marks for truthfullness, if nothing else.
Here is the BBC on it, thanks to 30 seconds in google:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm
"The Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields."
"He was speaking as a group of Polish firms signed a deal with a subsidiary of US Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton."
"The US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, has already won million-dollar contracts to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq."
"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency. "
@de_machina
Sure, but don't kid yourself about how they got there.
It's less of a coalition and more like paying for the boss' birthday present. Even if they think he is a jackass, most people put in a few bucks and write a phony greeting on the card. Especially, as in this case, if the boss has made it clear that anyone who doesn't contribute will face problems in the work place.
Some governments decided that good relations with the US was more important than other considerations, and ponyed up some troops. But the population of every single country in the "alliance" is/was strongly against the war, including the UK. All in all, a pretty funny way of fighting for democracy, IMHO...
Some of those countries received quite substantial monetary favors in exchange for their support, which is why it's been called "The coalition of the billing'.
Flamebait??? So, stating "inconvenient" facts is flamebait? Gimme a fscking break!
> Maybe you could give specific examples of this rampant US aggressive of which you speak.
S AEBB8/nsaeb b8i.htm)
t ors8703.html, and includes 15-20 incidents since WWII. Excluded are a similar number of incidents elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa.
Allende?
Chile's democratically-elected government was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup on 9/11/73, leading to many years under a brutal dictator.
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/N
A list of US support of dictators in Latin America can be found at http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladicta
If Americans would simply admit that the US needs to improve the way it interacts with other countries and work towards a less bullying foreign policy, the attempt itself would make great strides in solving America's foreign-policy and foreign-image problems. It's mostly the dogged insistence that America has nothing to apologize for that further alienates the rest of the world.
Everyone makes mistakes, but if you don't apologize for them, we can't forgive you. Even when we really want to.
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
I think you ment to say a $10 trillion dollar budget surplus, which most certainly did not translate into a real surplus. Why else would the national debt go up from $4.4 Trillion to $5.8 Trillion during the Clinton years, and never go down from year to year?
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Um, the Bosnia/Serbia conflict never had UN backing, and the war with Iraq had 17 UN resolutions authorizing it (in fact, requiring it from the UN Charter).
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Just like the fabled Clinton Budget Surplus, the so-called economic growth and expansion of the late '90s was FAKE. If you will recall, we had company after company finally admit that they actually had not been making money during the late '90s. Economic growth and expansion isn't measured by astronomically high PE ratios on stocks, you know.
Also, Here is the national employment summary for March 2004. Compare to the national emploment summary of Jan. 2001, when Bush took office. Current civilian employment is 138,298,000, which is 2,200,000 more than Jan 2001 (135,999,000). How is this the biggest job loss since the depression when we have 2.2 million more jobs now than we did when he took office?
One correction though. We did not take down Iraq for vague suspicion of developing nuclear or other weapons. That was merely one of the many public justifications for war.
We did it as part of the neoconservative's grand vision of remaking the world with a pro-western democracy in the heart of the middle east. Trouble is, we're finding it's hard to spread democracy with the end of a gun.
Haiti was run by the US Marines 1915-1933.
Of course, most US territory was a neighboring country before it got incorporated to it...
There goes my fantasy that the Cold War was over!
I guess the Jews were jealous of Hitler's violence. Now they are doing it themselves.
I am tired of US military nuts!
I regard the US a rogue state in as much as North Korea.
You european slashdoters better get out of the US pretty quickly... things are about to get hot!
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
looks like they had a space war in 2007 and in doinf so surrounded themselves in debris which is spinning at 30,000 mph so even if they wanted to get off their planet
yep gotta love watching those stupid humans
God???
Argggghhhhh!!!
(sudden 'lightning bolt' comes from the sky setting my testicles on fire)
"Yeah, can't wait for Bush to start enforcing the UN resolutions against [the Jews], so that he doesn't appear to be a hypocrite."
If Bush supported these antisemitic resolutions (all of which amount to "Die Jews!" he truly would be a Nazi.
Israel already has nuclear tipped missles in orbit, on a satellite, aimed at the USA. The code name for this weapons platform is "Sword of Damocles"..
Do the research. They've had them in orbit for several years now. I became aware of this back in 1996. Brazil also has space based weapons in orbit. Yes, Brazil..
Ever heard of "Janes" ?? Do the homework..
The Spanish people elected a much more fascist and greedy government than they had before. The terrorists won, evil-minded totalitarians in Spain won, and the Spanish people lost.
Iraq loses too. The new Spanish government has said "f*** you" to the Iraqi people "We won't help you anymore"
I know it's fictitious, but has anyone else seen the episode of Stargate SG-1 "Absolute Power," wherein Daniel helps to design a satellite weapon system using Goa'uld technology and it winds up firing on Moscow? Granted it was due to a lust for power on his part and, if implemented, would most likely be subject to some pretty extensive checks and balances, but the thought is a bit unsettling either way. And why did it fire on Russia, by the way? As a means of silencing the questions they were asking.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
But oddly enough the economy started to falter the last year of the Clinton Administration. When Bush got it he was already in the middle of an economic slowdown. And part of the problem of this slowdown was a realization that the New Economy didn't exist. Although the president and politics actually very little that they can do to help a slumping economy. One could possible fault Clinton for not trying to slow down the economy earlier. But everyone thought that this New Economy will never end. (Kinda like what the people in the 20s thought as well). As well with clintons weak issues on terrorism. Caused many of the issues of today.
I am not saying the Bush Administration is great but there are always variables that cause things and often they may not be direct.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"I wouldn't for a minute expect Bliar to say stuff like "um, George, you're not thinking this one through...""
Because Blair, unlike some, is smart enough to have thought things through, and he thus realizes that Bush is doing the right thing.
This is in big contrast to France, which outright supported Saddam: "Never mind thinking. He bribed us to support him".
"Because one thing you can say for 11/9 - it changed America"
You have your numbers backwards. Nothing happened on November 9.
When you look at the euqations for the optical properties of metals, all of them do well in reflecting long wavelength light (such as IR or microwave) with near perfection. Foil hat would work great.
:)
Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston.
I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.
My two cents
-Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Clinton was not involved in that (I think he was humpin Monica at the time). It was the intelligence community and border police we have to thank for that. The 93 WTC bombing did kill people, on Clinton's watch. Why wasn't he more proactive? Was he distracted ? Where is the congressional hearing on that, huh? Oh, it's OK because he's a liberal.
I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
Clinton and his cabinet were absolutley convinced that Iraq had WMD's. There are lots of quotes to prove that if you look a bit.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of. You have shown zero compassion for the Kurds (who were in fact the victims of WMD's) or the Shites (brutally massacred after the 91 Gulf War), but your heart bleeds for the enemy soldiers at Gitmo. Give me a break! This isn't about being right or compassionate, it's about getting power back from the Republicans, any way you can. For liberals, the ends justify the means, and if that means you have to wish for a bad economy to get back in power, that's what you do. So wish away, but the economy looks like its coming back quite well, good news for the average American, but bad news for you liberals who have positioned yourselves to only benefit from the misfortune of America. No wonder you're so incensed that Bush is doing a great job, it makes your gloom and doom stories so much less believable. Sad really.
Who's pathetic and racist? You and your egostistical cronies. If you don't like the way America is, why don't you emigrate to France? They will welcome you with open arms since you think like their politicians (If it makes us rich and powerful, it must be OK).
How come none of those bumper stickers say "Free Tibet from China" instead of just "Free Tibet"? I guess because you can't say "Free Tibet from China" if you also endorse the govt of China. Liberals are just flat out retarded.
With all of 'what could happen' all aside, is there anything that could be done to prevent such a decisions as this, from being manifested into reality? I know you can't stop anyone from launching what they want into anywhere, be it space or another country but political legislation usually helps somewhat when it comes to 'officially' combating issues as such. Could the UN possibly have any say in this matter? No one 'owns' space that is over their country do they? I think this is absolutely crazy, but the snowball has already started rolling down the hill.
I know this is flame bait to the highest degree, but this has been the most irrational, maniacal, budget busting term of republican presidency that I have ever witnessed in my life, and I do not base that comment based solely on this issue, but this is definitely just another ripple of the kind of behavior we can look to the future for, from this political party in the near future. Defense is a very important aspect of governing a country, do not get me wrong, but there are MUCH more important issues to be dealing with, and spending money and time on than putting magic missile destroyers in outer space.
Yes, it's all just talk / plans now, but how much money and time will be wasted on making sure this thing works, and how many human lives will have to be lost while testing it's 'kill-vehicle' ability? We're talking about putting weapons in outer-space, OUTER SPACE, why is this idea not SHOCKING anyone? Is it the desensitization from the movies, the media? This is authentic insanity, and we the American people, are entertaining this garbage AND paying for it all at the same time.
What about the idea of shooting it down because for (IIRC) 23 miles around the WTC is restricted airspace? You can't tell that it is on direct course for the WTC, but you *can* tell that it is illegal to be where it is, heading the direction it is, and all commercial pilots know with no question that if they enter that airspace they will be shot down.
t ml / septembereleventh.org/airdefense.phps tanddown.net/911commissionsubpoenasnor ad.htm
A quick google turns up these interesting sites:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HUN311A.h
http://www.coastalpost.com/02/06/02.htm
http:/
http://www.
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Aren't most of the aussie troops special forces types? I was under the impression that they were one of the first groups in (along with the american SEALS), and thus _should_ hardly be noticed...
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Coming soon to the friendly skies of North America... Russian Flying Saucers.
l
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/04/05/ufo.shtm
(Moscow News)
Article has photo of the thing
Russian "Flying Saucers" to Grace American Skies
Created: 05.04.2004 20:12 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 20:14 MSK
MosNews
You might not have to go to New Mexico to see a UFO-flying saucers are coming to your home skies, thanks to Russian aircraft designers. The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command has signed an agreement with Russia's EKIP Aviation Concern to cooperate in the production of unique flying saucer-shaped aircraft developed in Russia, perfect for putting out forest fires and monitoring oil pipelines. Originally developed in 1992, the alien-looking aircraft failed to secure funding from the Russian government. Twelve years later, the U.S. and China are very interested in making it work.
Obviously, the unusual round shape in itself makes such a vehicle exciting-but what are the practical applications? "This is a radically new craft," Alexey Konovalov, EKIP's executive director, explains. It doesn't require a long runway and can land on sand, but most importantly, the shape of the aircraft is a brilliant solution for getting rid of vibration, a long-time problem in aircraft design. EKIP plans to build first unpiloted vehicles that could be used for monitoring in hard-to-reach areas and then move to building larger craft weighing up to 100 tons. The unpiloted EKIP "ships" could aid in putting out forest fires as well as collecting information that could be transmitted to a land base, Konovalov said.
Originally, the Russian government had promised funding for the project, but in 1995, three years after the construction commenced, all funding was cut off. Private investors couldn't be persuaded to commit the millions of dollars necessary to continue work on the craft, Konovalov laments. Now, with the agreement between EKIP and the Naval Air System Command signed, EKIP is waiting for the funds to come in and in the meantime, negotiating with China to discuss a possible joint venture.
Russian designers will keep the rights to their unique work, but the vehicles might be produced either in Russia or the U.S. Currently, the plan is to test the aircraft in 2007 and launch it into mass production in another five years. Until then, any strange shapes in the sky are certain to be flown by little green men.
Of course there is one, they wouldn't ditch a good way to do reconnaissance missions if they didn't have a better way to do so. Because when you know what your enemy is doing, you've already won the battle.
2 91 998_bt327-98.htm
Of course, how can you improve a near-undetectable plane? By making it pilotless of course.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/docs/b06
They also have Predator drones they can use for convenient battlefield recon.
Here is a link to a 1997 Washington Times article about a letter Boris Yeltsin sent to the Clinton administration regarding the Soviet Anti-satellite program and a demand for the US to stop developing one. http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/wt971 107_asat.htm
In the late 70's and early 80's the Soviets had a strong Anti-Satellite weapons program. So the US Air Force designed and tested an anti satellite missile in an attempt to have a counter weapon.
I wish I could find some of the old news stories from back then, but they are all pre internet. While surving in the US Navy in the late 80s there was a case where we lost a satellite that was sent in close (10km) to check out a suspected Soviet anti-satellite satellite.
It was common belief, in military circles, at the time, that the Soviets had taken the opportunity to "live test" the technology on our conveniently placed satellite.
Um... no.
Israeli soldiers + Arab country = gasoline + fire. It's the same reason they stayed out of the first Gulf War as well (though Saddam tried really hard by shooting SCUDs at them).
If you want to start a major war that spans across the entire region, one that would probably answer the question "Who has WMDs?" with absolute certainty, this is how you would start it.
Aren't we libertarian geeks, not "liberals"? Weapons in space is very cool. And it shouldn't be regulated. I want to rent a space laser to zap anyone who tresspasses my perimeter.
-I am an elective eunuch.
"(1973) Assasination of Allende during CIA supported coup"
This was not a bad thing. Allende was a nasty fascist dictator who enforced his reign of terror with stormtroopers from old Soviet East Germany.
"(195?-1977) Probably CIA involvement and support of the Emperor in Ethiopia leading up to the coup overthrowing Haile Sellasie, violation of international law regarding Eritrean self-determination, and mass starvation. "
This was actually a Soviet action.
"Not to mention the whole Viet Nam thing."
The main thing wrong here was that the U.S. failed to help South Vietnam defend itself from invasion.
"The neocon fantasy of ruling by pure force just doesn't work"
Of course it is a fantasy and does not work. The so-called "neocons" don't even believe it, which is why they have a policy of using force only as a last resort.
"The BushCo people got rich because they were greedy and wanted more"
Translation from socialist greed-speak: they got rich because they worked for it.
"What's next, maybe to claim Kerry is a nazi since he has a German grandfather?"
You mean, act like the Democrats when they called Schwarzenengger a Nazi during his campaign, due to his relatives?
"I guess if you don't have anything to run on, smear the opponent with anything you can find."
That is just what the left did in California.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of.
Damn skippy. And don't forget about the Rwandan genocide, which Clinton tacitly supported. But I guess that one was ok, because they were just poor blacks.
Liberals are such hypocrites. They want the world to be a nice, safe place, but aren't willing to risk their necks to make it happen.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
OK, so you are modded """insightful""".
Please then, explain this to me:
>These are one and the same.
So Bush and Clinton are one and the same? Does not parse.
>The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Reference, please.
>Giving Clinton credit for the growth durning his term is kind of like giving the King of England credit for the Industral Revolution.
Doesn't compare at all, Clinton had real power, real influence, royalty in England (or britain if you want to be more precise) had less direct influence on society in the 1750's.
So, what is your hypothesis on why things went up, up, up under CLinton but faltered as soon as Bush was in power? To be more precise: pharmaceutical shares did a brief rise on his ascendancy.
"So, what is your hypothesis on why things went up, up, up under CLinton but faltered as soon as Bush was in power"
The Clinton recession started in Bush's last year. Had Gore been elected, he'd be saddled with it too.
Man, that's awesome! ~2.3million more jobs since Bush took office. I'm soooo glad Kerry has made jobs a core focus of his campaign. :D
Thanks for the links, I'll be sharing those with all my friends.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I guess that I'd better start building a prototype Zaku before it's too late.
"If you think bombing is the way to win any war, you have much to learn."
Interesting that you talk about WW2, but then seem to totally forget what ended it in the Pacific theatre. A hint: it was BOMBING.
Bombing also stopped the Serbian invasions of Bosnia and Kosovo; pretty much bought the 1990s Serbian wars against the Balkan countries to an end.
I agree. By the books I'm sure I count as a "rich" (upper middle class, anyways) straight Christian (non-practicing) but this guy makes my skin crawl every time he opens his trap.
But when I look at the alternatives I'm left with a sense of hopelessness. The world is going to hell in a handbasket... in fact we're already mostly there I think.
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
"Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing"
s /panorama/transcripts/dividedworld.txt ]
"Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support"
That's a disingenuous statement, given that the Clinton Administration did not have U.N. approval for its war on Serbia during the Kosovo conflict.
Your comment recalls this amusing exchange between Edith Cresson, John Reid, and Richard Perle:
EDITH CRESSON: No, the problem is not to know if Saddam is a bad chap or not. Of course he is and
nobody doubts of that. The problem is, is it allowed to enter a country with arms and make war outside the
legal framework of the United Nations who has two conditions very clear. Either you are attacked and then
of course you can respond or there is a resolution with a majority that delivers the authorisation to make a
war. Outside of those two conditions you are not allowed to make a war.
REID: Bonsoir Edith. Isn't it the case that you joined us in Kosovo without a resolution in the face of a
Russian veto precisely because we thought the danger was so great that people had to be protected?
CRESSON: But everybody agreed then.
REID: No, no, everybody didn't agree. The Russians didn't agree, there was no UN resolution. We went
into Kosovo through NATO because the United Nations wouldn't agree but we thought the moral
consequences of not going in were so great that we should take that action, and the French agreed with us
on that occasion and this occasion they don't think that the consequences are so great.
CRESSON: There was a big problem inside Kosovo, people were killing each other and we of course... the
intervention was quite normally taken.. the decision was taken so we agreed on that aspect. Nobody has
said that there has been a majority to get inside Iraq, there was no majority, there was not even a vote.
PERLE: Well I am listening to this discussion and there is no question that John Reid has demolished
Madame Cresson's argument. When France thought it was a good thing to use force outside the United
Nations, France did so, didn't complain, didn't say this is illegal and outside a legal framework. In this
case, where the French President believes that it is not in France's interest to use force, she is invoking a
legal argument that was irrelevant the last time. Let's not be hypocritical about this.
[I've edited out the moderators comments. The full transript appears here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programme
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Moscow knew about the economic problems, but the reform interests in the Kremlin had to circumvent the old guard. This circumvention happened as a result of two incident, first the shooting down of civillian flight KAL007 by the Russian military and the second was the landing of a Cessna in Red Square by Mathias Rust. Essentially this discredited the old-guard in the military and allowed the economic reforms.
Last time I heard, nuclear weapons need a service from time to time to keep their ability to detonate - this would certainly hamper any country's wish to hold a nuke in space. If such a weapon was launched in 96, it would have been useless by 2000.
>The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Reference, please.
Simple the classic reaction to an over inflated stock market is to raise prime lending rate. That was never done in the Clinton Administration. Was the stockmarket over inflated??? I think Linux.com having a larger market cap than SGI is a good example.
Clinton did nothing to influence the development of the Internet. If anything Linus , the developers of BSD, and the Apache developers had more to do with it than Clinton. They provided cheap software that turned cheap hardware into good servers. Would the Internet have caught on if to start an ISP or hosting service you had to pay hundreds of dollars for NT, Solaris, or SCO Linux per machine? I know some hosting compaines did but alot of the big sites. Hotmail, Yahoo, Google... all started with BSD or Linux.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Since war is "merely" the extreme end of diplomatic tools used by countries to interact with each other, how does this change a thing? I'm sure that US soldiers will appreciate the enhanced ability to do their jobs more effectively with less risk, and their opponents will experience the benefits of being on the receiving end of a much more precise application of force. Compare the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo to the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq... Those horrible horrible modern weapons allowed the US military to take a major capitol city with a fraction of the civilian and military casualties that would have been required even 20 years ago. The weaponization of space is just one more step along that road.
Whether or not you agree with the application of that power is a personal decision, and as the 2000 US Presidential elections proved, your vote might be more important than you think. It's a matter of time before all modernized nations have the ability to create these types of weapons, so you're a fool if you think your own country should allow others to capitalize on your own sense of right and wrong. Give your military the best tools, but TIGHTLY CONTROL the government that authorizes the use of those weapons. Vote the power away from the central government if necessary, but cast your vote for the people you'd trust with these weapons that each country is going to have anyway.
hoa! [good god yall]
what is it good for?
absolutely nothing!
say it again!
woo hoo! lets hear it for insta-gib from space. seriously though, pretty neat technology, really crappy purpose.
|plastic....or gasoline?|
If Bush supported these antisemitic resolutions (all of which amount to "Die Jews!" he truly would be a Nazi.
Ignoring, of course, that the Palestinian Arabs are a Semitic race as well, of course. I mean, we couldn't have Israel's policy of bulldozing city blocks, shooting at children, and firing missles into populated civillian areas to hit single targets actually face any condemnation, could we? After all their ancestors suffered in the Holocaust, they deserve a Free Genocide on us!
The only people he is bad for is Enron...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HAA!!! That's funny!
Next thing, you'll be telling us he's been bad for defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies. What a comedian!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"Everyone's committed horrible crimes in their past. That doesn't mean nobody will ever do anything else"
The German government is not anywhere near the same as the Nazi government. In fact, it thoroughly and frequently repudiates the Nazis.
Contrast with the Chinese government. They celebrate Mao (the worst mass-murderer in history) as their hero.
Thanks for the antisemitic lies.
" mean, we couldn't have Israel's policy of bulldozing city blocks"
Why not, since these blocks are used as bases for terrorists?
"shooting at children"
Never happens, except on rare occasions when the terrorists cajole children into engaging in attacks.
"and firing missles into populated civillian areas to hit single targets "
A last resort. The terrorist leaders use these civilians as human shields.
"they deserve a Free Genocide on us!"
That is exactly: what you want: genocide. Extermination of the Jews. Why else do you lie in support of those who are trying to exterminate them?
"As long as you don't worry about the thousands of people, mostly black men, who were "accidentally" labeled as felons and were turned away from the polls."
This is a racist myth, actually. The felon list cleaned without regards to race or party. It was put into place and run by Democrats.
Sorry, you are going to have to resort to another lie to try to justify claiming that the sore loser really won the election.
I have a friend who went to school with the current President of El Salvador. They went because George Bush and the Spanish PM called the guy on the phone asking for help. Most of the Central America countries are on good terms with the US because of their citizens are working in the US. El Salvador's offical currency is the US dollar.
Bribed, not really.
If I remember correctly, a few months ago I read about a space weapon developed by the U.S. govt. called MILES in the LA Times. Supposedly, it launches a capsule from space, explodes above it's target spraying trillions of small, super flammable droplets within a hundred-something mile radius, and a second little ignitor sparks a chain reaction that creates a devastating explosion more powerful than a modern thermonuclear bomb!
<Recovers breath.>
When I read that to a friend who happens to be in an Air Force ROTC, he said that that would go against international space laws... Maybe he got that idea from a Sci-Fi book, but it makes sense...
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
In the good old days. The enamey use to have to spy to get trop deploment and numbers, now all thay have to do is read a news paper.
JP
Most of the Central America countries are on good terms with the US because of their citizens are working in the US
And the US was helping El Salvador out when it was besieged by a proxy Soviet army (the FMLN) in a war that cost tens of thousands of lives.
The FMLN candidate lost badly in the very recent election. I guess campaigning on "Yes, we sold out to the Soviets and tried to destroy this country during the 1980's but we REALLY ARE nice guys" platform didn't work.
Addendum: remember that earthquake in Iran? They refused the aid that Isreal offered. Now think about Isreal actively attacking a Muslim country...
(from a link in the site you linked to)
..."
..."
... In those three weeks of mounting tension people throughout the world watched and waited in growing anxiety--or in some cases, in hopeful expectation--for the overwhelming forces of at least Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to bear down from three sides to crush tiny Israel and slaughter her people."
"#
May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.
May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.
May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")
May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united
May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."
May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.
My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two
May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.
June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
June 10: Israel and its enemies accepted UN Security Council cease-fire demands. The war ended, leaving Israel in control of the Sinai peninsula, eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip. (The Sinai was returned to Egypt between 1978 and 1982, as part of an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.)
#
"Never in human history can an aggressor have made his purpose known in advance so clearly and so widely. Certain of victory, both the Arab leaders and their peoples threw off all restraint. Between the middle of May and fifth of June, world-wide newspapers, radio and, most incisively, television brought home to millions of people the threat of politicide bandied about with relish by the leaders of these modern states. Even more blatant was the exhilaration which the Arabic peoples displayed as the prospect of executing genocide on the people of Israel
- Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine"
If you mean, who shot first, it looks like Israel did. If you mean who was the aggressor... it's pretty clear that it was NOT Israel
You quote Nassir as demanding the extermination of the Israelis. With the annoucement of a massive pogrom like that, there is nothing Israel can do in striking back that can be called "aggressive", "pre-emptive", or "first strike".
Egypt's dictator clearly fired first with his announcment of immediate intent to exterminate the Israelis.
Nassir was a rabid and loathesome imperialist. Egypt has grown beyond this, thankfully.
LOL.
;
<?php
echo "<table>";
global $lame;
$lame['scripting_language'] = 'php';
echo '<tr><td>A nice advantage of ' . $lame['scripting_language'] . ' is that it lets you mix style with logic so easily!'
echo '</td></tr>' . "\n";
?>
[...] this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space.
What do you MEAN "beginning"? It's been military since day one.
The whole POINT of the satellite program was that a rocket capable of orbiting a satellite can launch a bomb to hit anywhere in the world - and that an orbital base could watch AND hit anything it wanted to.
Early satellite launch attempts and rocketry development were done (and still are done) by the military. (That's what Vandenberg Air Force Base is about.) In fact they were the whole show before what became NASA had its mission expanded from researching aircraft issues.
One of the first uses of satellite technology was spy satellites, to replace high-altitude aircraft such as the U2 (which was no longer invulnerable to interception).
The space shuttle design is extremely inefficient (heavy LARGE wings - with their weight coming straight out of payload) because it was co-developed for handling civilian and military missions. The wings are oversize so the shuttle can do a "pop-up" single polar orbit mission, and have enough cross-range ability to manouver eastward by the amount the earth has rotated while it was up, landing where it took off. A strictly military mission - to do a quick-look or take a shot. (And it mostly hasn't happened because going polar with such heavy wings reduces payload to just a few hundred pounds above crew and consumables.)
Shuttle missions have been used to test several "Star Wars" systems.
Various space-based military systems beyond pure observation have been under development for a while.
So what's new? Just that they're thinking about actually deploying one of these other systems.
Whoop-tee-doo.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The U.S. didn't start the war in Bosnia/Serbia. The U.S. did start the war in Iraq on fradulent claims no less, stoked the fires of anti-U.S. movements worldwide, and alienated many of our oldest allies to boot. Yeah, that's great leadership. Bush thinks leadership means dictatorship. Clinton was a jerk, but he didn't piss off the whole planet either, mostly just the neocons. The U.S. is mostly going it alone now and for no reason other than Bush is a hard headed fool. A true leader would have told the people that our troops our going to fight in the desert and spill their blood on the hot sands, all for the freedom of the Iraqi people, and the people would have supported him. Bush couldn't do that, because he's not a true leader, and he knew that the American people would not have supported the war, so he came up with some bullshit about WMD and bogus Uranium transactions to scare enough people to swing the favor. He is a very dangerous fool, and the U.S. is now in a precarious position as a result.
It's all here : Rebuilding American's Defenses.
The U.S. did start the war in Iraq on fradulent claims no less
Both are not true.
The US did not start this war. Did you know that Saddam had ordered 2,500 attacks against British and American peacekeepers in the no-fly zones, previous to the US retaliation a year ago? Also, the US and UK told the truth about Iraq: nothing fraudulent.
stoked the fires of anti-U.S. movements worldwide, and alienated many of our oldest allies to boot.
The ignorant haters would still be ignorant and still hate us. As for "allies", the US did not alienate any real allies. France was not an ally: it sided with Saddam.
The U.S. is mostly going it alone now
Words mean thing. Alone, with more than 50 allies in the coalition? A coalition larger than that of the first Gulf War?
A true leader would have told the people that our troops our going to fight in the desert and spill their blood on the hot sands, all for the freedom of the Iraqi people,
He did say that. Perhaps you were too busy listening to the lies of the pro-Saddam protesters to hear it.
so he came up with some bullshit about WMD
You are lying again.
He is a very dangerous fool, and the U.S. is now in a precarious position as a result.
No, we are in a much better position, as is the world: a major terrorist threat has been stopped.
"Since the Supreme Court sealed the records"
The records were not sealed. In fact, major newspapers had access to them for quite some time.
"any speculation about what an accurate result would have been is futile"
We knew what the accurate result was within hours after election day.
"And the event that you are pointing to is but one of many that cast doubt upon the honesty of the election"
There are no doubts except among a "sore loser" minority who would not be happy even if Gore lost 95% - 5%. As for the rest of the country, everyone knows that the winner won.
"Right, because an educated population is in no way beneficial to the state or society as a whole. Only the wealthy deserve the best educations. Keep the rest ignorant, they're easier to control."
I beg to differ. We need to keep the inferior lower clases under control by government-mandated public education. Over time, we'll ensure generations of idiots through use of outcome-based education, social promotions, and teaching condom usage instead of literacy. Only in this way can the ruling class indoctrinate the ruled.
We'll fight to the death to thwart those who are trying to make public education truly educational and accountable to the public through the use of vouchers. We'll also push for exhorbitantly high teacher wages in order to force layoffs of teachers and gain unmanagably large class sizes.
We already have something to celebrate: the illiteracy rate of high-school graduates is increasing. A lot. Even better, no one cares. We could not have dared to graduate people from the public schools who did not even know how to read 40 years ago. Progress, my friends!
Thank you. We are the NEA.
while never publically admitting it, it's common knowledge that israel is a nuclear state (with our help, of course), with 50-200 boosted fission bombs (~2-400kT yield).
now - if we just drop israel and "let that problem sort itself out", how long do you think it would take for them to decide that their very existence is in mortal danger and use that as a convenient, as-near-to-morally-justifiable-as-possible excuse for unleashing the fires of hell on the surrounding countries? i don't agree with what israel is doing and i think they do need a firm slap, but just ditching them would be one of the worst things we could do.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
WHY IN THE HELL?
In a treaty or not.. what's the use?
Really.. I wonder these days..
Larry Niven once pointed out that "Anything worth doing in space can be turned into a weapon". When you consider the kinetic energies involved, any small fleck of paint can cause significant damage. A mere bucket of sand placed in the path of an orbiting spacecraft will destroy it. Drop something from orbit and you also get damage.
Really, this is just a logical step for humanity. Every new frontier has been weaponized: the seas, jungles, the Arctic, the tremendous volume of water under the surface of the ocean, and now space. It's going to happen weather or not we sign treaties. I'd prefer there not to be weapons in space, but eventually, someone is going to do it and it might as well be a country that is in theory free (as long as we don't keep socializing everything).
We need to have something in our arsenal to defend ourselves against the PIGS IN SPAAAAACCEEEE...
Parent and Grandparent, you are both wrong, the truth is somewhere in between.
Good for the US 'cos it ain't neccessarily good for the REST of us
"So what's the myth...that the list was cleaned of black felons unfairly?"
The racist myth is that it was cleaned of black felons.
"Here is the article giving the data on..."
You did not give an article. You provided a link to Greg Palast, who is an opinion columnist, not a journalist. He's a blindly partisan one, at that. He is as trustworthy for facts on Bush like Limbuagh is for facts on Clinton.
"It's a demographics and percentages game to see how this disenfranchised...."
It is a nutty tinfoil helmet myth. So kooky that not even legitimate pro-Democrat political interest groups like the NAACP would support it. The NAACP gave no credence to this crackpot fiction. I suppose you think that they are part of the vast right wing conspiracy now because they are too smart to take the ravings of an opinion columnist as news.
I didn't realise that Australia had withdrawn its troops! Geez, you'd think that the papers would have mentioned it.
"Since the terrorist's main real claim is our abhorrent treatment of other nations, the best way to stop the terrorists is to stop mistreating the various nations they come from."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The terrorists indeed want abhorrrent behavior. They want extermination of the Jews in a global and complete final solution. They want to force everyone to worship the Muslim god (and any country that does not force this is considered "abhorrent").
It really is true that the terrorists hate freedom. That is what drives them to be terrorists.
"How about we just leave Israel alone for a few years, and let that problem sort itself out?"
In other words, cut them loose so the mad dogs can finally do some good ol Jew killin'.
I see what you are getting at. If only we would help wipe out the Jews, there would be no terrorism.
The Late Michael Hutchence of INXS saw this coming, hence the song "Guns in the Sky" - INXS, KICK.
"However, the 5-4 SCOTUS was able to render the "will of the voters" reality moot."
Despite 4 of the 9 justices voting "party first" instead of law, it really made no difference. The votes had been counted a few times: Gore lost. The specific redundant vote Gore asked the Court for? Guess what. It was checked. He lost that too.
After it was all over, yet another recount was done. It was found that Bush had a slim majority of all the actual votes cast. The only way to get Gore to win is to count voteless ballots (sometimes misleadingly called "undervotes").
"
You are perceptive enough to see through populist "I love the poor!" rhetoric and look at the actual actions of the man.
It is sure telling of Chavez view of what government in Venezuela should be like when he says many times that he wants to make Venezuela like Castro's Cuba (that is, a totalitarian dictatorship).
It is also clearly not a democracy when the dictator has had pro-democracy protesters shot.
Yeah, every country in South America is soo anti-Semitic. No wonder they voted against Israel's illegal assasinations and illegal wall, they just want another holocaust, is that right? [/Sarcasm] Come on, are you going to say that the entire world, even the Pope, is against you?
Most early "weapon" design for space falls into only two category, surveillance and defense. And most weapon that will actually reach space (example ICBM) are actually just massive rocket artillery that got fired into a long trajectory, who still have a weapon platform (where the weapon can be fired from) on the ground. The article was talking about was actually put weapon platforms in space. Platforms that can stay in space for a long duration of time and strike and any time of it's controller's choosing. Plus several earth based weapon that can knock down said threat when needed.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Yeah, every country in South America is soo anti-Semitic. No wonder they voted against Israel's against illegal assasinations and illegal wall
Perhaps this is true. There is no other reason for such strongly anti-semitic and stupid voting. You seem to share this hatred for Jews, too, as you posted some tired anti-semitic lies (which I corrected rather than have in my message). At best, they did not think about their votes.
Specifically, come on! If an enemy country is constantly sending soldiers in to kill your citizens, why not build a wall to keep them out? And since they forced you to do this, why shouldn't they give up their land to make way for the wall?
As for the assassinations, the "victims" are ticking bombs who have refused to submit to arrest.
Come on, are you going to say that the entire world, even the Pope, is against you?
The Pope is feeble anymore and thinks little about what he says. It is quite a shame that he has defended the priests caught in the big homosexual child rape scandal in the United States.
Do you believe anything else you see on television? Why is it when an patriotic artist with something to say (that the united states promotes violence, as a macroscopic entity, for various reasons), when it turns out that he created an illusion to do so, is shocking somehow?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The only policy changes that are going to make those organisations change their minds are the ones that get rid of the freedom, secularism and prosperity of westernised nations
Don't you realize that it makes them angry that you do not worship the Muslim god?
Israel also makes the Arab imperialists very angry. Not because of human rights abuses against Palestinians (the Arabs are in fact even worse at this). It just galls them that the Jews protected in Israel are free to worship as they see fit without submitting themselves to the approval of Islamic clerics.
This does not fit in with the Islamic ideal of "shariah", in which Jews and other non-Muslims are punished and demoted for not worshipping the Muslim god.
It is quite ironic that Muslims have the most freedom as Muslims in Israel, of all places. It is not just Jews who have freedom there. Muslims in Israel can worship as Shia, or Sunni, with various degrees of orthodoxy. They can even convert to another faith if they want. No other country in the area allows freedom on all of this.
"The terrorists" say one of the reasons they don't like my country (Australia) because we supported the independence of East Timor
Indonesia is one of the overlooked imperialist powers. It believes it has dominion over all the East Indies, even if the islands don't want it themselves. East Timor is but one of many islands that does not want to be governed by the Indonesian empire.
"The terrorists" say one of the reasons they don't like Spain is because of something that happened five hundred fucking years ago
Are you referring to Spain finally throwing off its brutal Moorish Muslim occupiers?
Well. My two cents follows... A year or so ago I was listening to NPR and heard an interesting talk given by a retired Air Force officer about the weaponization of space. Now, he was against it, but that's not why I'm bringing it up. Thusly: some of the stuff he described was pretty run of the mill as far as what people think of when they hear the phrase, "space weapons--" beam weapons, space-nukes, etc.
But he also mentioned the use of specially-shaped orbital slugs. Basically such a device would be like taking a solid Apollo or Gemini capsule, heat-armor and all, intended to be dropped from orbit and used like a pinpoint meteor strike. Far from being a pie-in-the-sky "now we can shoot down the enemy missles with this brand new laser satellite. Oh crap, they've loaded a nuke on a tramp freighter," it would really be a very useful tactical weapon once you could get the system refined soas to actually hit the intended target (always a nice thing for a weapons system to be able to do). I mean, this sort of thing could bust bunkers, missile silos, and pretty much anything that sits on the ground (as long as you can tell where it will be, generally, when your slug hits), and it would be (fairly) cheap to make in comparison to a laser cannon, being the space equivalent of dropping a rock on your enemy's head. A very, very fast-moving rock, with incredible amounts of kinetic energy.
Speak up if I'm wrong, but I would think that the only really good way to deflect one would be to try to hit it with a powerful laser-- but considering the size of the slug and the fact that it's basically a large, quickly-falling object, that would have to be one heck of a laser array (or it would have to start hitting it from very far out). You wouldn't have to worry about an enemy anti-missile hitting propulsion or blowing up the warhead prematurely, because there wouldn't need to BE a warhead or (unless you wanted to manouver it mid-fall) propulsion.
So in effect, space-based weapons don't have to be Buck Rogers ray guns, or big nukes, or huge anti-missile nets. There's a definite niche for space weapons as a sort of long-ranged tactical artillery with awe-inspiring accuracy and devestating effect. As to the numbers you'd need to support a full military campaign, I'll leave that to the people actually trying to make the things.
-Flakbait
Temporary Minister of Propoganda for the Assyrian Empire
You're a fucking retard - has the US's veto power ever stopped them from making a resolution before? No. Some of them got vetoed, some didn't.
When our oil needs conflict with theirs, we're going to be in one hell of a lot more trouble than terrorists can put us in.
What we need to put in space is infrastructure (orbital and lunar factory sites) and a powersat project which will allow us to replace Middle East fossil fuel, and eliminate our need to be in the Middle East.
This won't make the Islamics love us, but if our economy (and that of China and India) is growing to take advantage of space-based resources, who will it matter to? If we aren't buying oil from the Middle East, anyone who's been previously getting that oil money will be too busy either trying to keep the locals happy with dwindling resources or getting the hell out instead of supporting terrorism financially.
The other point is that if we find out that space does have to be militarized in order to use it safely, if we have an infrastructure up there, big enough launch vehicles to build it or a Space Elevator or railgun launch facility, we'll be able to do this cheaply and quickly.
For more information, click here
Tech Public Policy stuff
The only thing space weapons are really good at is taking out countries. You could crash an asteroid into a country, totally descimating it, and say we didn't see it coming. It was an act of 'god'/nature.
/ po sts
It isn't terroists that are going to be able to wipe out billions. It is space-based weapons (rocks) with rockets attached.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967960
The THOR project in the 80's investigated this and other falling object weapons.
Heads up...
That would be difficult considering that we had a queen on the throne from 1837-1901 which cover most of it.
From memory Bush promised the Australian Prime Minister a blow job if he went to war.
I don't see Australia in the list. I doubt it's accurate.
Thanks to your illustrious (NOT) president -- Americans now enjoy the distinction of being the most generally hated people on the planet. Having the only weapons in space and the will to use them against anyone who generally farts in your direction isn't the way to improve relations. Former US Military personell who served in Iraq reported that the oil fields were secured within MINUTES of the beginning of the so-called war. No question about where the priorities are... The only question is -- WHO'S NEXT?
The Australian SAS forces were rotated out shortly after the conflict 'ended', they've been replaced with about 1000 regular Army troops doing patrols, some Air Force personel handling the Air Traffic Control and Naval units doing coastal interdiction stuff. So far there have been no casualties for Australia. None of the 3 Occupying Powers (Aust, UK or US) was in that list, who were of course the only ones who provided combat units in the actual war, regardless of the list of 'Allied Nations'.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Specifically, come on! If an enemy country is constantly sending soldiers in to kill your citizens, why not build a wall to keep them out?
How is the 'Palestinian country' sending soldiers? Is Hamas a government organization? Is the government of Saudi-Arabia guilty for having their soldiers fly into the twin towers? Can you take the property of random Saudi's in retaliation?
Furthermore, Israel has also send soldiers to kill civilians. Can the Palestinians now build a wall in Israeli territory?
And since they forced you to do this, why shouldn't they give up their land to make way for the wall?
Many Palestinians feel that they are forced to attack Israeli's. Your tactic of eternal retaliation is never going to bring peace in the region.
As for the assassinations, the "victims" are ticking bombs who have refused to submit to arrest.
No, most victims are people around the target who have not been charged. Secondly, I haven't found any evidence of an arrest warrant issued by Israel. Lastly, they are not ticking bombs themselves.
"How is the 'Palestinian country' sending soldiers? Is Hamas a government organization?"
Assuming that Palestine is a country, Hamas is a branch of its military.
" Is the government of Saudi-Arabia guilty for having their soldiers fly into the twin towers?"
Do you know anything? That was Al Quada, which at that time was part of the Afghan government (Taliban).
"Furthermore, Israel has also send soldiers to kill civilians"
No, it has not.
"Many Palestinians feel that they are forced to attack Israeli's"
They are sadly misinformed and hateful. Yes, you are right, many of them believe that "we must wipe out the Jews." This is what forces them to attack Israelis.
"No, most victims are people around the target who have not been charged"
Every one of these people is being killed by the terrorists who use these people as human shields.
"Chavez has some economic ideas that are unusual, but you don't have to go alluding him to Hitler and Stalin"
He is very accurately compared to Stalin. He has announced his plans to model Venezeula after Castro's Cuba. Castro's Cuba is a Stalinist (not Hilterian) system.
Just because Chavez is also strongly antisemitic does not make him a Hitler. Stalin and Castro are also antisemitic figures (Castro even ordered the expulsion of Jews during the 1980s)
Mr, you are running a 20% truth rate, not 100%.
- The deaths in Nicaragua resulted from the Sandinista war against that country. One example is the Miskito Indians. The Sandinistas tried to herd them into concentration camps. They rebelled, and joined the Contras. Most of the Contras were in fact peasants forced off their lands by the Sandinistas.
- The "Democratic" governments you described as being overthrown by the US were in fact dictatorships. Not one of them was an actual democracy.
- You have Panama all wrong. The US assisted Panama in 1989 because Noriega was opposing the actual democratic government there. It had nothing to do with "orders from Washington".
- 1977 is all wrong, too. Here is the reality: The Soviets created the FMLN army and invaded the country. The US supported Salvadoran self-determination. The FMLN killed 70,000 in their war. When the Soviet Union folded, the war ended, since the root cause was gone."
There are several other errors/goofs/lies on your list. The worst is the one on Southeast Asia, 1963-1975. The Killing Fields were run by Pol Pot and the North Vietnam (Soviet) government, and not the US. The "Facts" on your list are for the most part entirely disputable and do not match actual historic events.
stop smoking that crap.
not bribed, pussy whipped.
"Let me continue for you; I've heard Zinn is a godless commie, gay and drunk therefore his books are lies"
I don't know his life. I only know his lies. The problem with his work is that he views things through an utterly invalid ideology (Marxism) and twists facts to fit it, or leaves out the overwhelming facts which do not match the simplistic Marxist worldview.
In this, he is rather like Velikovsky, who explains all of history from the actions of a magical comet. Or, imagine if Jerry Falwell wrote a book of history.
His work is as much "A People's History" as China is a "People's Republic".
"Look, it doesn't matter what BS [the terrorists] say out loud. Their real motivation is discontent, which arises from shitty living conditions, which arise from us being asses to other nations"
This would be profound if there were anything true to it. However, there is not. Osama has always been a very rich man. The 9-11 "pilots" were middle/upper class. The terrorists have had excellent living conditions. Their "discontent" is one of ideological intolerance, not one of need.
"which arise from us being asses to other nations."
For those who have shitty living conditions, this arises because the countries are very poorly run, too often by socialist dictators.
"I bet you think the cold war was all about capitalism vs. communism, too."
It was about the Soviet imperialists vs the world. To say it was about "communism" vs freedom is not the most accurate, as China was communist during the Cold War, but was not really part of the Cold War.
Now it's all niggers, wetbacks and spics coming over for the free healthcare. And breeding like crazy when they get here.
It looks like we have an American "National Socialist" among us.
I bet your grandfather would not have agreed with this KKK-speak. You probably say "but the Irish/Italians/Germans are DIFFERENT from spics!"
know that's Pollitically Incorrect to say, but it's TRUE.
It is not even true. The vast majority of immigrants (legal and illegal) come here to work. When they come here to work, they help build America, and they build a better life for themselves.
We do need immigration reform, yes. We need to drop all limits on immigration, and have vigilant screening to keep out terrorists (Al Quada, Zapatista, etc). If they are coming here to work, why not let them? The problem of some of them lazing on the welfare hammock is a problem with the native-born Americans too, and this is taken care of with welfare reform.
Are you a troll yourself? You objected so strongly to the characterization of the terrorists' goals as "entirely outrageous and evil-minded.
Here is one of the foremost the Al Quada goals:
"the elimination of all infidels and polytheists as well as the resurrection of an Islamic Caliphate"
You find this reasonable?
the rich pay a larger percentage of their income than the non-rich
the rich pay more in actual dollar amounts than the non-rich
the rich pay a very large slice of the tax pie related to total numbers.
This is after Bush's tax cuts (most of which went to the non-rich). If the rich really did control government, they would not be overtaxed as they are under the tax plans. They'd be taxed less than the non-rich.
"and bush? WTF? he knew there are no WMD in iraq. saying otherwise is sheer ignorance at best."
We know there were WMDs there before. To deny this is to lie.
This shows an incredible ignorance of the U.S. foreign policy
...the "record" you listed was full of falsehood.
That is a perfect summary of your message. You get so many of the facts wrong. One by one, correcting the lies:
Even now, the U.S. has invaded Iraq in the name of world security from WMDs, despite the fact that they had no credible evidence
There was overwhelming proof. Starting with the well-known fact that Saddam used them against the Kurds, and refused to document what he did with those that remained.
the U.N. weapons inspectors were doing an effective job of weapons inspections
Proven false. Hans Blix's own report documented how Saddam made them wait at installations while sensitive documents were carried out the back door.
the U.S. basically pissed off it's allies by telling them "You're either with us or against us" and punishing them if they didn't come on side.
Also false. No allies were pissed off. France was not any sort of ally: they were in lockstep with Saddam.
the U.S. has become an occupying entity without an exit strategy, exactly what Bush's own father would happen and why they didn't invade in the last Gulf war.
There is an exit strategy. It starts June 30, when the governance is turned over to Iraq. (compare this to Clinton's 6-week intervention in Bosnia).
the U.S. is "selling" the Iraq war as part of the "war against terrorism"
That is not selling. It is telling the truth.
despite the fact that there is no link with Iraq (including Saddam Hussein) and terrorist activities,
Saddam provided millions in funding to terrorist groups year after year: proven links to terrorist activities. That is just for starters.
stopping doing the wrong things (see above history) which happen to coincide with their demands.
There are no wrong things to stop. Next....
Refusing to do something because it is a demand is just dumb, spiteful, and dangerous
I agree. That is why we refuse to do these things not because they are demands, but because the demanded actions themselves are dumb, spiteful, and dangerous.
"Their demands are entirely outrageous and evil-minded." This is just classic propaganda-esque that it's hard not to laugh
"Propaganda" in this case meaning facts you'd rather ignore. I got into specifics of their outrageous demands. Again, you deny that they are outrageous. I guess you think that killing off the infidels is a good thing?
Given the history lesson above, "their" demands are basically "leave us alone". No, their demands are based in expansion and imperialism, not "leaving us alone"
Yes, this does not excuse the actions of terrorists. There is no question that their type of thinking and action needs to stop Why do you say this, when you say earlier that their demands are so reasonable?
and suffering from U.S. foreign policy in the region The only ones suffering are the terrorists, and only because of their actions.
They are quite tired of the U.S. "pissing on their roses". Since it hasn't happened....
However, this does not excuse the U.S. policies and actions What excuses the US's actions is because they are in the region's interest, in the global interest, and in the US's interest.
The U.S. hasn't learned from its mistakes
The US has made plenty. However, you failed to list any in your pro-terrorist rant.
despite the overwhelming historical and current evidence to the contrary.
It amazes me how some people are so ignorant of these things
It amazes me too.
But I guess that's not surprising when probably the most powerful leader in the world is about just as ignorant and stupid
The President, unlike his predecessor, is a man of truth, vision, and intelligent policy.
And it certainly doesn't mean that the U.S. should intervene even more
If there is any mistake here, it is in lack of intervention.
If it is, you're making the common mistake of mistaking copyright versus encryption. Geeks hate copyright and love encryption, got it?
-I am an elective eunuch.
BANG!!
- patent.h tm
Just a couple of days later and just look at the score!
http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm
652 dead `good guys`! Those evil Iraqis! What's their problem? We're only freeing them from tyranny and oppression! I thought they'd be welcoming us, and bringing us food and sweets and toys and stuff!
Hey - is that a mosque over there, full of civilians praying for a speedy end to this immoral invasion? Well, what are you waiting for? Time for a clinical, laser targeted strike!
Let's hope they don't know how to make Ricin:
http://www.infosecwest.com/cryptome/ricin
And how many Nobel Peace Prizes have you won, my guess is less than one, so that would put you exactly one behind Arafat
How many Jews have I killed for the crime of being Jewish? 0. That puts me many hundreds behind Arafat.
http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm
Thanks for the link, by the way. These outrageous deaths ordered by the terrorists only prove the point that the terrorists must be stopped.
Better that these deaths of the good guys are occuring over there than on America's soil (which is where they would have occured if you had had your way and Saddam had been left in power and left able to launch his attacks).
As for "Vietnam II", there is no way you can call something a "quagmire" that is 13 months long. I suppose you would have pulled our troops out in late 1943 during WW 2 because we had not overthrown Germany and Japan yet? After all, we had been there for 13 months and had not won. Quagmire, right?
I didn't blame anything on the Jews. There are plenty more Christian supporters of Israel than Jews in the US.
Nice and misleading, toward whatever pointless point you were trying to make. Christians greatly outnumber Jews PERIOD. There are more antisemitic Christians who hate Israel than there are total Jews in the US. There are more Christian supporters of Israel than there are total Jews in the US.
You remind me of an editorial I read that accused a certain denomination in the United States of beign racist bedause its membership had more whites than it had blacks in it.
Don't call me a Nazi, of course the Israelis have a right to live
They have a right to live, as long as it is in concentration camps, right? Or as long as they convert to Islam? (Hamas would be OK with that).
I ask you to back your wild claim that the US nukes whoever it pleases, and you call it "patridiocy" reflex conditioning? Why do you assume that I am an American just because I question your claims?
The person you are responding to is rather like Osama, who has a long (and almost entirely false) list of US transgressions. One of the foremost is his claim that the US has nuked countries with the hydrogen bomb.
"Just a couple of days later and just look at the score!"
It is truly the unpatriotic ghoul who rejoices and cheers when soldiers die, because soldiers dying might help make certain politicians look bad.
I really wish the right would cut the crap and just be honest. They want to fuck the economy and then tell the unemployed people, "it's [insert non-white race here] fault. They want to fuck public education to make certain that the people on the bottom aren't smart enough to figure out what they're doing. And then they want to pit them against each other: "Those illegal immigrants/indian insourcers are taking jobs you should be having! Hate them!" They want to get us divided by saying, "Gay marriage is a bad thing. As soon as you allow them to get married... blah blah blah... slippery slope..." Then they want to distract us once one of the following happens in November:
1. Another "terrorist attack" that this administration miraculously "saves" us from
2. Pop! We found Bin Laden!
3. A "terrorist attack" succeeds and we suddenly need to suspsend elections for national security.
4. Bush loses like Gore did, and Kerry wins like Bush did, then the G.O.P. cries out for recounts and howe unfair it all is
Damned lying sins of bitches. And that include you.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o