Saddam was mostly contained. The sanctions were flawed on many levels, but they did have the positive effect of basically containing Saddam and limiting his ability to make WMD. The other thing that helped was that we prevented him from killing Kurds, a group that was a major target of his back in the 80's. Nevertheless, I still think there are actions other than war that would have been more helpful:
1. Work on strenghening resistance movements. The CIA has a long history and lots of experience with this; they have successfully overthrown governments in Nicaragua, Panama and other places. This still may not have been enough to lead to Saddam being overthrown from within, but at least it would have prepared the way for an invasion later on, if it became necessary. As I stated above, Saddam was basically contained and was not killing near as many people as he had been in the 80's.
2. Invade only the Southern (mostly Shiite) Iraq. Of course this has notable drawbacks in that you may be pitting one ethnic group against another, but this solution has seemed to work well for the Kurds who enjoyed relative peace and autonomy after the Gulf War. At least it would have reduced Saddam's power and influence and would have minimized his access to oil. Additionally, the Shiia population has suffered considerably under Saddam and they stand to gain much more by supporting the US than the Sunni do, so presumably, that would have been easier than what the US has done in invading all of Iraq.
3. Overhaul the whole sanctions program. It's fairly well documented that the sanctions were mostly a failure in that they prevented food from getting into Iraq (yes, the Oil for Food program did help somewhat, but it was rife with corruption and it had a huge backlog that really reduced its effectiveness). Saddam capitalized on this failure and thousands of Iraqis starved because of them. If we had done what we could to minimize the humanitarian situation in Iraq, Saddam would have had less of an excuse for the condition his country was in and pro-democracy movements would have had a much better chance.
Of course, it's very possible that none of these measures would have been necessary if we hadn't supported Saddam in the '80s against Iran, but that's for another post.
I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but I don't think you can call the CSU a "political artifact" when they consistently get 60% or more of the vote in Bavaria, and recent trends are up rather than down. I don't think your characterization of the CSU being at "nuisance-level" is very accurate either, considering that Edmund Stoiber, the leading opposition politician in Germany is CSU, especially now that Schroeder and the SPD have sunk to unprecedented lows in elections and popular opinion polls lately. The CSU may be a nuisance, but, like 'em or not, they are not unimportant. Let me say again that I don't necessarily agree with the CSU -- I'm just trying to clarify some points.
At least the CDU can be considered semi progressive, whereas the CSU is nothing more than a bunch of anti-foreigner, anti-modern old fuddy duddy's.
That's really an unfair overgeneralization. I mean, I'm pretty liberal myself, but I would never generalize to say that all Republicans are anti-foreigner, for example. Having lived in Bavaria for nine years I know that, yes, there are some people who may think that way, but as a whole, it would really be a stretch to call the CSU "anti-foreigner".
These folks make Bush look semi liberal!
Uhh, no. Of course it depends how you define "conservative" -- by the true meaning of the word Bush is not conservative, but if you look at issues like environmentalism, for example, the CSU is waaaaay more liberal than any Republicans in the US and probably even more liberal than most Democrats. The political spectrum is just shifted; what people think of as liberal in the States would be considered conservative in Germany.
How could the things you mentioned fight poverty? There is a difference between improving crop yields, health, reducing mortality, etc. and fighting poverty, and neither the scientific fields you indict or religion were tasked with such the last I checked.
It was not meant to be an exclusive list, nor do I necessarily believe that medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods, are the most effective tools against poverty. I do assert, however, that they can be used to fight poverty and that they are examples of scientific progress.
Please don't assume I'm some right-wing fundamentalist nut when I say the following (in fact, you shouldn't even assume I'm a Christian): From my perspective, religion is tasked with fighting poverty. It's just a shame most religious people don't take that task seriously. Here's the Christian perspective (the way I see it): Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)
I apologize I didn't cite examples from other faiths, but as I understand it, most faiths (certainly Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) have similar calls to help the poor and to actively pursue social justice.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, but I think I basically agree with you. When I asked why the Third World is worse off than ever, I was implying that this question has very little to do with science and is essentially a moral problem. I was arguing against the parent's disdainful attitude for a real hero (Mother Teresa).
Finally, if science isn't being used to do all the good it could do, is that really the scientist's fault?
No, of course not, and that's essentially what I'm arguing. Some people (the grandparent) seem to ignore the need for a moral vision. They apparantly argue that scientific activity can be a replacement for discourse on morals. Let me quote what s/he said again: "On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint."
Of course religion's track record is poor, when you only think that religion is some kind of illegitimate substitute for science. It's not--religion addresses a very different set of questions.
This must be the rant of a troll, but since it somehow got modded up to (5, insightful), it needs to be responded to.
Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science? Where does it say that we shouldn't credit science with all the things you angrily listed? What evidence can you provide that the parent has anything but the utmost respect for science and scientists? Maybe the parent shouldn't have singled out scientists as uncompassionate, but to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial (on your part).
On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.
I know you must be trolling here, since without the efforts of Mother Teresa and others that followed in her footsteps, a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums. But science is the answer to all of the world's ill's, isn't it? Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?
Sure, give science the credit its due, but don't assume that it can deal with moral problems. That is exactly where the visionary leadership and compassion of moral leaders such as Mother Teresa is needed.
The US is famous for not playing fair with trade. Take the story of Vietnamese catfish, for example.
Vietnam, a relatively poor country compared with other WTO members, is hoping to join next year. PovertyThe Catfish Farmers of America decided they weren't getting the profits they used to; Vietnam was supposedly dumping catfish on the market. Since they knew that they had no proof for any of this, they decided to claim that only American catfish could be called "catfish". Tariffs ranging from 37 to 64 percent have been slapped on Vietnamese catfish with nothing more than allegations.
The US really claims the WTO can help poorer countries. Well, the Vietnamese are well on their way to climbing out of poverty, but this catfish story has been a huge blow to the country. The US wants it both ways; I wonder how long it will take before the US starts paying a price for crimes like this.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we're talking orbital mechanics, what matters most is whether you're falling towards earth or escaping from its gravity. Sure, distance has an effect on the equation, but if you want to create any kind of partial gravity, you need to be falling towards earth, or in this case, orbitting at 0G and creating artificial gravity by spinning the craft.
Weightlessness is established by maintaining an equilibrium between falling (gravitation) and escaping (centrifugal force), so you can have complete weightlessness in LEO, (like the space station) or at geostationary orbits (like TV satellites).
One way to do it would be to establish a fairly high orbit, and then allow the craft to slowly fall towards earth. The problem there is that it would continuously accelerate and would regularly need to be slowed, hence requiring large amounts of fuel.
Their method is to put it in near earth orbit (weightlessness) and make it spin to create artificial gravity. Not only would it not help to put it in a higher orbit, but they would be wasting precious fuel to get there. This experiment can just as easily (more easily, actually) be carried out at low altitudes.
I lived in Cambodia for a year and I remember reading a story about the largest ever film-based photograph created. I googled and found the story here.
The printed photograph itself (according to this link) is 1.25 meters tall and 62 meters wide. I wonder how this would compare (in resolution and otherwise) to the gigapixel image mentioned. It's an interesting story to read in any case.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't wait until they release this thing, you can always try this.
> However, if anybody is willing to advocate a servicing mission, I can help.
A group advocating a Hubble servicing mission has already been formed.
Ok, I'll give this question my best shot.
Saddam was mostly contained. The sanctions were flawed on many levels, but they did have the positive effect of basically containing Saddam and limiting his ability to make WMD. The other thing that helped was that we prevented him from killing Kurds, a group that was a major target of his back in the 80's. Nevertheless, I still think there are actions other than war that would have been more helpful:
1. Work on strenghening resistance movements. The CIA has a long history and lots of experience with this; they have successfully overthrown governments in Nicaragua, Panama and other places. This still may not have been enough to lead to Saddam being overthrown from within, but at least it would have prepared the way for an invasion later on, if it became necessary. As I stated above, Saddam was basically contained and was not killing near as many people as he had been in the 80's.
2. Invade only the Southern (mostly Shiite) Iraq. Of course this has notable drawbacks in that you may be pitting one ethnic group against another, but this solution has seemed to work well for the Kurds who enjoyed relative peace and autonomy after the Gulf War. At least it would have reduced Saddam's power and influence and would have minimized his access to oil. Additionally, the Shiia population has suffered considerably under Saddam and they stand to gain much more by supporting the US than the Sunni do, so presumably, that would have been easier than what the US has done in invading all of Iraq.
3. Overhaul the whole sanctions program. It's fairly well documented that the sanctions were mostly a failure in that they prevented food from getting into Iraq (yes, the Oil for Food program did help somewhat, but it was rife with corruption and it had a huge backlog that really reduced its effectiveness). Saddam capitalized on this failure and thousands of Iraqis starved because of them. If we had done what we could to minimize the humanitarian situation in Iraq, Saddam would have had less of an excuse for the condition his country was in and pro-democracy movements would have had a much better chance.
Of course, it's very possible that none of these measures would have been necessary if we hadn't supported Saddam in the '80s against Iran, but that's for another post.
I agree with a lot of what you had to say, but I don't think you can call the CSU a "political artifact" when they consistently get 60% or more of the vote in Bavaria, and recent trends are up rather than down. I don't think your characterization of the CSU being at "nuisance-level" is very accurate either, considering that Edmund Stoiber, the leading opposition politician in Germany is CSU, especially now that Schroeder and the SPD have sunk to unprecedented lows in elections and popular opinion polls lately. The CSU may be a nuisance, but, like 'em or not, they are not unimportant. Let me say again that I don't necessarily agree with the CSU -- I'm just trying to clarify some points.
At least the CDU can be considered semi progressive, whereas the CSU is nothing more than a bunch of anti-foreigner, anti-modern old fuddy duddy's.
That's really an unfair overgeneralization. I mean, I'm pretty liberal myself, but I would never generalize to say that all Republicans are anti-foreigner, for example. Having lived in Bavaria for nine years I know that, yes, there are some people who may think that way, but as a whole, it would really be a stretch to call the CSU "anti-foreigner".
These folks make Bush look semi liberal!
Uhh, no. Of course it depends how you define "conservative" -- by the true meaning of the word Bush is not conservative, but if you look at issues like environmentalism, for example, the CSU is waaaaay more liberal than any Republicans in the US and probably even more liberal than most Democrats. The political spectrum is just shifted; what people think of as liberal in the States would be considered conservative in Germany.
How could the things you mentioned fight poverty? There is a difference between improving crop yields, health, reducing mortality, etc. and fighting poverty, and neither the scientific fields you indict or religion were tasked with such the last I checked.
It was not meant to be an exclusive list, nor do I necessarily believe that medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods, are the most effective tools against poverty. I do assert, however, that they can be used to fight poverty and that they are examples of scientific progress.
Please don't assume I'm some right-wing fundamentalist nut when I say the following (in fact, you shouldn't even assume I'm a Christian): From my perspective, religion is tasked with fighting poverty. It's just a shame most religious people don't take that task seriously. Here's the Christian perspective (the way I see it): Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)
I apologize I didn't cite examples from other faiths, but as I understand it, most faiths (certainly Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) have similar calls to help the poor and to actively pursue social justice.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, but I think I basically agree with you. When I asked why the Third World is worse off than ever, I was implying that this question has very little to do with science and is essentially a moral problem. I was arguing against the parent's disdainful attitude for a real hero (Mother Teresa).
Finally, if science isn't being used to do all the good it could do, is that really the scientist's fault?
No, of course not, and that's essentially what I'm arguing. Some people (the grandparent) seem to ignore the need for a moral vision. They apparantly argue that scientific activity can be a replacement for discourse on morals. Let me quote what s/he said again: "On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint."
Of course religion's track record is poor, when you only think that religion is some kind of illegitimate substitute for science. It's not--religion addresses a very different set of questions.
This must be the rant of a troll, but since it somehow got modded up to (5, insightful), it needs to be responded to.
Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science? Where does it say that we shouldn't credit science with all the things you angrily listed? What evidence can you provide that the parent has anything but the utmost respect for science and scientists? Maybe the parent shouldn't have singled out scientists as uncompassionate, but to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial (on your part).
On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.
I know you must be trolling here, since without the efforts of Mother Teresa and others that followed in her footsteps, a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums. But science is the answer to all of the world's ill's, isn't it? Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?
Sure, give science the credit its due, but don't assume that it can deal with moral problems. That is exactly where the visionary leadership and compassion of moral leaders such as Mother Teresa is needed.
The US is famous for not playing fair with trade. Take the story of Vietnamese catfish, for example.
Vietnam, a relatively poor country compared with other WTO members, is hoping to join next year. PovertyThe Catfish Farmers of America decided they weren't getting the profits they used to; Vietnam was supposedly dumping catfish on the market. Since they knew that they had no proof for any of this, they decided to claim that only American catfish could be called "catfish". Tariffs ranging from 37 to 64 percent have been slapped on Vietnamese catfish with nothing more than allegations.
The US really claims the WTO can help poorer countries. Well, the Vietnamese are well on their way to climbing out of poverty, but this catfish story has been a huge blow to the country. The US wants it both ways; I wonder how long it will take before the US starts paying a price for crimes like this.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we're talking orbital mechanics, what matters most is whether you're falling towards earth or escaping from its gravity. Sure, distance has an effect on the equation, but if you want to create any kind of partial gravity, you need to be falling towards earth, or in this case, orbitting at 0G and creating artificial gravity by spinning the craft.
Weightlessness is established by maintaining an equilibrium between falling (gravitation) and escaping (centrifugal force), so you can have complete weightlessness in LEO, (like the space station) or at geostationary orbits (like TV satellites).
One way to do it would be to establish a fairly high orbit, and then allow the craft to slowly fall towards earth. The problem there is that it would continuously accelerate and would regularly need to be slowed, hence requiring large amounts of fuel.
Their method is to put it in near earth orbit (weightlessness) and make it spin to create artificial gravity. Not only would it not help to put it in a higher orbit, but they would be wasting precious fuel to get there. This experiment can just as easily (more easily, actually) be carried out at low altitudes.
I lived in Cambodia for a year and I remember reading a story about the largest ever film-based photograph created. I googled and found the story here.
The printed photograph itself (according to this link) is 1.25 meters tall and 62 meters wide. I wonder how this would compare (in resolution and otherwise) to the gigapixel image mentioned. It's an interesting story to read in any case.