This is crazy

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Soccerman771
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
Contact:

Re: This is crazy

Post by Soccerman771 »

[quote=""rufio_eht""][quote=""Macabee""][quote=""IndyBrit""]

We may be able to steer mineral-rich asteroids into the earth relatively cost-effectively, but who is going to play catcher?

[/quote]

LOL, Great idea! What could go wrong?

Mac[/quote]

we could kill two, maybe even three birds with one stone (no pun int) if we direct it at russia's miles of ice covering those massive oil deposits

man, i should be the next president, you guys can be my advisers since i couldnt have pulled this one out withoutchya.[/quote]

You got my vote, just so long as you don't change our military spending to mass-produce LB's and pikes like your good at doing... ;)
jtackel@hotmail.com

"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga

"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th

User avatar
Soccerman771
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
Contact:

Re: This is crazy

Post by Soccerman771 »

[quote=""luukje""]I'm not saying halliburton started the war. But they were part of the George Bush SR en JNR inner circle. Where a combination of old Saddam grudge, persian gulf oil interests and a tendency to military action got you a war. An inner circle that jumped on the 9/11 events to start this war.

Yes maybe some democrats believed in the war because they were desinformed by your own intelligence agency or they just went with the flow. Yes armericans supported the war, but sometimes politicians have to look beyond that. In the 1930s France, the UK and the US population didnt want a war so politicians let Hitler get his way. [/quote] I love conspiracy theories. I think most of them (if not all) are written by nut-jobs. If Bush used all of that to start a war and duped not only the American people, Congress, and all of our allies, then he's smarter than anyone gives him credit. He got the same intelligence that many foreign intelligence agencies received and we all acted in the same interest. The world is a better place that Saddam is not in it (or his sons). Sometimes it's ok to take a stand.


[quote=""luukje""]What have the US got out of the war? Freed a country from a dictatorship? There a dozens of countries with even worse regimes. Are you gonna take them all on? Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Kabila in Congo, Israel in Gaza, Syria, N.Korea?

What have Iraq got out of the war? They are in ruins, divided by religious and etnical differences. I would rather live in Iraq with saddam than in present Iraq where you dont know if the your neigbours wife is pregnant or carrying boms. Maybe in 20 years, maybe.... Just lets hope something changes. [/quote] All countries are in ruins after wars. Especially those where the war was being fought. Why do we have to get something out of a war to fight it? The war was started because Saddam was in violation of a UN treaty and we called his hand. He thought we were bluffing until those strategic bombs levelled his palaces. I agree, all rogue terrorist nations should be dealt with. However, there is no accountability. I mean Slobadan Milosevic killed how many people and he got to die in prison.. woo hoo.. How is Israel in Gaza lumped in with the rest. That's a touchy subject and maybe one we should stay away from, though I wouldn't mind discussing over P.M.

One last note on this. I had a friend that served over in Iraq and was killed by an IED at the end of 2005. I have pretty strong feelings about this Iraq war and it needs to be won, not abandoned. Look at what happened to Vietnam once we left and abandoned hope and those people. The war was kinder to those folks.....

[quote=""luukje""]@soccerman: yes you are correct: humans are violent from nature. So lets not make to many weapons. I rather have a fist fight than two polical leaders fighting with strategic nuclear weapons. We are a violent race, so lets not make to many weapons.
It's just so crazy.

My neighbour has a knife, so I will buy a gun.
My neighbour has a gun, So I will need a bigger gun.
Ok then I will buy a bazooka.
Ok then I will buy a Tank.
Just crazy. More weapons doenst mean you are safer.

Yes you need to be able to defend yourself.

But The US are military wise head and shoulders above all the rest.
The whole discussion was about Obama questionning the level of military spending. Does it need to be that much. Not about putting all military in the trash can. Im pretty sure the US will remain the number 1 military force the next 20 years. [/quote]

If rogue nations and terrorists stop trying to kill us, then we'll put our weapons down. But as long as N Korea, Iran, and terroristic nations may have or get nuclear weapon technology then we'll keep our ability to defend ourself high. Also to note, the countries were it is law to have assualt weapons in your house have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. e.g. Switzerland.


[quote=""luukje""]alawys nice discussing with you guys[/quote]

Well, we agree on something :)
jtackel@hotmail.com

"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga

"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th

User avatar
Palehorse
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:17 pm

Re: This is crazy

Post by Palehorse »

I have worked for the Pentagon all my adult life (Since GHW Bush).

I witnessed the planning for both Gulf wars, and how, in one case, sage military advice was followed (Schwarzkopf, Powell, et al), and in the second case it was dismissed as "old, outmoded thinking" by fools (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kingman) who wanted to bootstrap corporate efficiency metrics to warfighting. At one point in 2002, there were Battalion and Division level commanders playing the "Conquer that Country": I can conquer that country with 5 divisions; I can conquer it with 4 Divisions; I can . . . .

Corp and Fleet level officers old enough to know better filled out retirement papers before they found themselves butting heads with civilians who could wreck their careers.

The Powell Doctrine was ignored, we were not in the business of nation building or occupation anymore; well we are now.

Conclusion: It is not what we did; but how. Given the fearrful state of the country, the spectre of WMD being smuggled into the US was too great a motivator. We were going to push the issue.

But when the Joint Chiefs wanted a starting force of 500,000, with a potential of 1.5 million occupying troops, it was a non-starter. We did not have them to spare, and there was no consensus among allies to provide them.

So we went off half-****, failed to secure vast areas of the country beacause we lacked troop strength to do it, and handed over a strategic victory.

We cannot unlose the strategic victory. We have crippled ourselves financially, much like Britian following The Great War (WWI)

Israel: Read "Khirbet Khizeh" and "What Price Israel?"
Image

User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: This is crazy

Post by Macabee »

[quote=""Soccerman771""]
If Bush used all of that to start a war and duped not only the American people, Congress, and all of our allies, then he's smarter than anyone gives him credit. He got the same intelligence that many foreign intelligence agencies received and we all acted in the same interest. [/quote]

Actually, it was the US that provided the mined bad intelligence to them, which makes it less than independent. For reasons I can't explain, people want to believe the President of the United States.

[quote=""Soccerman771""]
If rogue nations and terrorists stop trying to kill us, then we'll put our weapons down. But as long as N Korea, Iran, and terroristic nations may have or get nuclear weapon technology then we'll keep our ability to defend ourself high. Also to note, the countries were it is law to have assualt weapons in your house have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. e.g. Switzerland.
[/quote]

Well, let's take the case of Iran (the same country that Reagan and Bush Sr. funneled weapons to). A while ago, Bush inc started jumping up and down about Iran's nuclear program. Got the UN to pass a resolution for sanctions. The US though, ignored the sanctions. Last year, Bush Inc started jumping up and down again about Iran's nuclear program. Got the UN to pass sanctions against Iran. Again, the US ignored the sanctions. March of this year, Bush inc jumped up and down again about Iran's nuclear program. Again, got the UN to impose sanctions. As far as I know, The US continues to ignore UN sanctions against Iran.

I think I see the logic here. The US needs to build a bigger army to go after those people who ignore UN sanctions, right?

Mac
Image

User avatar
Cyclohexane
Honorary Officer
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: This is crazy

Post by Cyclohexane »

@cyclohexane: Quite right - I would certainly kill public education - at the Federal level in any case. For maybe 7% of educational funding, the Feds grab 100% of the control - and screw it up as far as I'm concerned. People talk about an educated electorate being the key to a vibrant democracy. However, if the people are taught by the government, what will they learn except to perpetuate that government? To use an example some seem to sympathize with around here - would you trust Halliburton to train your children to be skeptical of Halliburton?

Did you ever notice that our middle and high schools, which are free, are middle of the pack (at best) in the developed world, but our universities - where students pay a much more significant fraction of the cost - remain the top institutions in the world?

Walk me through how a lunar base pays off. There would be spinoff technologies, no doubt, but even if we could pick up gold nuggets on the moon it wouldn't be worth it to ship them home. The spin off argument is weak, also. There is no question we have had spin off technologies, but where is the evidence that accidental byproducts of space projects are more efficient than directly researching better technologies? You still have the whole space craft to pay for, and many of the technologies, being designed for space, don't have much practical application here. We may be able to steer mineral-rich asteroids into the earth relatively cost-effectively, but who is going to play catcher?

"We spend more on beer and cigarettes than the NASA budget." Exactly. Space is not prohibitive for the private sector. There are offshore oil rigs that cost over $2 BB each. We can go to Mars for 5 offshore oil rigs, and have a Mars probe for maybe 1/4 offshore oil rig. Not exactly out of reach. If the offshoot technologies really did pay off, then GE or any other number of big companies would develop these projects and sell the offshoot technologies for a profit. We can't know if they would ever do this, though, because NASA preempts the field and ensures that only one model (governmental) will be attempted.

While I agree public education has it’s problems, they are mostly disciplinary. When you tie the hands of the educators, how can you expect results? This is a result of left wing liberalism at its finest kicking God out of schools and making spanking immoral. Public schooling, while flawed, does provide an opportunity to everyone. But I’m not going to argue with you here, I’m not a fan of the Federal government in school, I think it should be controlled at the local level of government (i.e. cities) but minimum requirements need to be established at the Federal level.
“The spin off argument is weak, also. There is no question we have had spin off technologies, but where is the evidence that accidental byproducts of space projects are more efficient than directly researching better technologies?”
You’re play on words is crafty but completely skipping the point. You said NASA is not profitable, I proved it was. You said NASA does not benefit society, I proved it did. You say that private industry can do it better. That is possible, but it is impossible to prove a negative. You say all there is the government model but the government model works with industry directly and helps make it affordable to industry to perform this research. NASA does not work against industry. If outside industry is performing a task (i.e. a certain form of testing), we are not allowed to duplicate, we must go through them.

Is there waste in NASA? Sure, there is waste in all companies but the point to take home is that the pennies on the dollar invested in taxes are returned in more ways than one (as discussed before).
ou still have the whole space craft to pay for, and many of the technologies, being designed for space, don't have much practical application here. We may be able to steer mineral-rich asteroids into the earth relatively cost-effectively, but who is going to play catcher?
No practical application? Even the most simple devices like Velcro have found a home in the market. Some of the most complex find their way into the aircraft you use to fly to that next vacation. Until you take a look at the thousands of spin off technologies developed, I don’t know what else to say to you. So satellites providing GPS, satellite TV, military defense, etc. have no application? Yes building rockets are expensive, that is why not many small business try. But guess what, NASA does provide funding to small businesses to kick start this endeavor to. Space tourism will not be the work of science fiction, it is coming, whether guys like you like it or not and it will not be from the work of industry alone, NASA is helping through grants and expertise. So I can make the argument that oil research is not needed because it doesn’t benefit the public? I mean who needs horizontal drilling techniques in their home right? Who needs better batteries that can withstand high pressures and temperatures in a harsh environment? We just want cheap oil, not any of that waste on research and development.

I know that’s not what you’re saying, you’re trying to say that industry can do it better, but it’s just not true. Industry would not take the risks NASA, a non-profit organization, would make. My point is that NASA routinely works with private industry in the form of grants, cooperative agreements, innovative partnership programs, etc. NASA helps private industry take risks. I made the point that small businesses cannot afford to get into the market, NASA makes that possible. Sure when all Americans buy beer and cigarettes, it adds to a lot of money, but even the worst alcoholic in American does not spend $17 billion in beer. The same analogy is true for small business. The high risk, high start up technologies are not going to be attempted until the risk is lower. No one wants to lose their money and as you know, engineering something to be 100% successful is not only impossible, it is wasteful.

Without the drive for space exploration, we may not see much of the technological advancements we have today. Sure I can’t prove this (can’t prove what didn’t happen), but I can prove that NASA helped drive these technologies forward. All those major multi-billion dollar industries I listed above have made America powerful, safer, and smarter. NASA does not turn a profit, it works for the benefit of the American public.

There are many reasons to return to the Moon. Once a permanent presence is setup through developing lunar engineering, the limitations are endless and become cheaper. Yes helium 3 as a nuclear fuel is a possibility but not a guarantee. Yes lunar solar panels (100% sunlight all the time with no atmospheric and unlimited real estate) beaming power to earth is possible (via microwave to receivers) but not developed. All the minerals that make up the Earth also make up the moon except for the lack of water bearing minerals (latest theory is the moon spawned from the Earth in an ancient planet size collision). Mining is possible, but not now. A science lab on the far side of the Moon could unlock secrets that not even the Hubble telescope can find. A moon base would also make interplanetary travel cheaper (1/6th the gravity of Earth). But if you are missing that basic human instinct to explore, to answer questions as old as mankind, I don’t know what else to say. I do, I believe science can fix many of today’s issues and I believe increased funding to NASA, and other research oriented government facilities, can make this happen faster while working with industry.

There is no one company that could afford to invest the amount of money it would take to kick start with the high risk involved. Not just monetary risk, but also risk to human life. It is the role of the government to make this possible and open the door to industry, just like what is being done now. I think you completely ignored the fact that the majority of NASA is contractors and I do not know the actual percentage, but all of the money in our division is sent out to industry based on competitive contracts, many of those are small innovative businesses.
Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell out of the way!

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON:
AOE3 TWC TAD Quick Reference & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON

User avatar
Soccerman771
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
Contact:

Re: This is crazy

Post by Soccerman771 »

[quote=""Palehorse""]Conclusion: It is not what we did; but how. Given the fearrful state of the country, the spectre of WMD being smuggled into the US was too great a motivator. We were going to push the issue.[/quote]

That pretty much sums it up. I agree that it was not handled proper, yet I agree with the premise for the war and still support the troops.
jtackel@hotmail.com

"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga

"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th

User avatar
Soccerman771
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
Contact:

Re: This is crazy

Post by Soccerman771 »

@Macabee -

I see where the logic is flawed. However, I'm not for reducing the military budget/funding. I want our troops provided the best armor and equipment. I'd rather us be able to defend ourselves rather than be ill-equiped should the need arise. You do make valid points.

Much of the intelligence that the US provided was confirmed by secondary intelligence agencies. Nonetheless, the US Congress was convinced enough to vote on it rather overwhelmingly.
jtackel@hotmail.com

"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga

"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th

User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: This is crazy

Post by IndyBrit »

Cyclo:
I wasn't just exercising a clever play on words. You have not proven that NASA is profitable, because although you have shown benefit, you have not shown that the cost:benefit ratio is better than competing methods of developing technology, i.e. a net gain in technology for the cost.

If someone were to develop a better telephone, ordinarily they would develop a better telephone. If a person were in private industry and a better telephone was needed, that person would generally be shown the door if they said "build a space ship and a better phone will follow". What I'm saying is that although ancillary technologies are developed from NASA, how can you say that those 200 scientists wouldn't have come up with cool, beneficial technologies, and possibly more of them, if they had been employed in private industry somewhere?

I'll get out of the way and cede you NASA, because you are obviously more in support of it than I am against it. I'm really primarily against it in principle, although much of what they do is in support of military applications so I think that stuff is probably appropriate. I just think that saying the things that have come out of NASA would not have happened otherwise, or that private industry cannot engage in large projects, is probably overstating the case.

User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: This is crazy

Post by IndyBrit »

Macabee:
What is your evidence that the U.S. is ignoring the sanctions against Iran?

User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: This is crazy

Post by Macabee »

[quote=""IndyBrit""]Macabee:
What is your evidence that the U.S. is ignoring the sanctions against Iran?[/quote]

There are articles if you google it. Just ignore the ones that claim to pass sanctions or advocate them. It takes action to enforce sanctions. Often this action includes, but may not be limited to, passing laws and going to court. The US did announce sanctions against the revolutionary guard late last year which is interesting given the US's lack of compliance with the sanctions the US itself sought and were passed at the UN. Not sure if the announcement of sanctions in that case were followed up with actual action.

Mac
Image

User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: This is crazy

Post by IndyBrit »

OK, Google showed me that 31 CFR 560 covers Iran sanctions, administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).

The penalties for violating the sanctions include:
"Corporate criminal penalties for violations of the Iranian Transactions
Regulations can range up to $500,000, with individual penalties of up to
$250,000 and 20 years in jail. Civil penalties of up to $50,000 may also be
imposed administratively."

Miscellaneous, also found H.R. 2347: Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007; and this http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPAC ... n_Iran.pdf ; and HR 6198 ; and a plethora of articles titled "U.S. warns of more sanctions on Iran"

I could not find a single piece of evidence that the US either ignores the Iran sanctions, or condones their violation.

User avatar
Palehorse
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:17 pm

Re: This is crazy

Post by Palehorse »

I am not sure where this falls, but Turkey, Iraq, and Iran have cried foul after Seymour Hersh uncovered the US support of Kurdish groups in Iran, one of which (the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK)) is on the US state department, Turkish, and EU list of terrorist groups.
Image

User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: This is crazy

Post by IndyBrit »

[quote=""Palehorse""]I am not sure where this falls, but Turkey, Iraq, and Iran have cried foul after Seymour Hersh uncovered the US support of Kurdish groups in Iran, one of which (the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK)) is on the US state department, Turkish, and EU list of terrorist groups.[/quote]

Sounds relevant to me.

User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: This is crazy

Post by Macabee »

[quote=""IndyBrit""]OK, Google showed me that 31 CFR 560 covers Iran sanctions, administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).

The penalties for violating the sanctions include:
"Corporate criminal penalties for violations of the Iranian Transactions
Regulations can range up to $500,000, with individual penalties of up to
$250,000 and 20 years in jail. Civil penalties of up to $50,000 may also be
imposed administratively."

Miscellaneous, also found H.R. 2347: Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007; and this http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPAC ... n_Iran.pdf ; and HR 6198 ; and a plethora of articles titled "U.S. warns of more sanctions on Iran"

I could not find a single piece of evidence that the US either ignores the Iran sanctions, or condones their violation.[/quote]

It seems to me that 31 CFR 560 is Clinton era. The AIPAC memo in late March states that "The United States has taken a number of steps in recent weeks to increase pressure on Iran.", which is nice to see after so much foot dragging on this. About what has happened since the last of these 3 Bush requested UN sanctions I think I said "as far as I know". I still don't see any action on freezing assets as called for in the UN resolutions.

On the other hand, prior to the recent activity apparently noted above check this pattern of Bush Admin inaction following the first and second round of sanctions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/world ... tions.html

http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratco ... 291107.htm

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=813

Have fun,
Mac
Image

User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: This is crazy

Post by Macabee »

[quote=""Soccerman771""]@Macabee -

I see where the logic is flawed. However, I'm not for reducing the military budget/funding. I want our troops provided the best armor and equipment. I'd rather us be able to defend ourselves rather than be ill-equiped should the need arise. You do make valid points.

Much of the intelligence that the US provided was confirmed by secondary intelligence agencies. Nonetheless, the US Congress was convinced enough to vote on it rather overwhelmingly.[/quote]

I can't think of any secondary intelligence sources. I do recall though, that when Bush gave his State of the Union Address, some of what he said was known not to be true at the time he said it. The aluminum tube story is an example. Another untrue Bush quote was "he wouldn't let them in", referring to wmd inspectors. Everyone knew at the time they were in Iraq performing surprise inspections. The President was believed by a lot of people in the face of facts available to everyone at the time, not just in hind sight.


Mac
Image

Post Reply