i think that your information is verry hellpful for everybody

I saw Powell's PowerPoint Presentation and I am left wodering.....

Is that fucking it!

All your bullshit, all your unsubstantiated claims of links with Al Queda, WMD, He tried to kill my daddy, he's a threat to the world etc etc etc all the blustering about technology and big bird being able to read a newspaper headline from space, the much vaunted CIA - FBI Dynamic Duo and Powell presents a 7th grade assignment to the Security Council??? Im astonished that Powell thinks anyone other than ignorant red neck hicks from the deep south would consider that evidence enough to go to war.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Your kidding mate.

absolutley Zer0 credibility now.

Anyway, "Space Shuttle Columbia breaks out in descent".

.Dan

Assuming the Korean peninsula is still there…

Perhaps the U.N. should get busy passing resolutions. And, after about 17 of these resolutions, and after about 12 years, maybe France will take the lead and sell them some long range missiles to put their warheads in.

"International concerns over North Korea's alleged nuclear weapons program have increased, with the communist state reactivating nuclear facilities that were frozen in 1994.

The North has now also withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and warned it may drop its self-imposed moratorium on ballistic missile tests.

Pyongyang says these are self-defense measures forced on it by the 'hostile' policy of the United States that branded the North part of an "axis of evil."

Although the war of words shows little sign of abating, diplomatic efforts continue to strive for a peaceful end to the crisis. "
Funny the United States does not take the "Diplomatic" stand with Iraq, the same way they are doing with North Korea.....hmmmmmmmmm

158,

As I recall, it was a coalition of countries against Iraq in the Gulf War. The coalition did not have a directive from the U.N. at that time to remove anybody, just liberate Kuwait.

159,

I agree. Germany would have been a far greater adversary if they only had to focus on one front during WWII. In addition, it would have given them plenty if time to develop all kinds of nasty stuff, since the Allies probably would not have been able to penetrate so deep into Germany with pressure from both fronts. Given a couple of extra years, they could have developed a nuclear weapon and a method to deliver it (e.g., V-2, long range bomber, etc.)

This stuff should really be discussed in another thread. I apologize.

I should note that during WWII, Russia lost something like (this is just from memory, might be wrong, but it's a number within an order of magnitude of this) 12 million people fighting against the Germans. That's right. They lost [b]million/b] of soldiers. They repelled the German invasion and chased them all the way back to Germany, at the cost of a great many lives, and most people here in the United States don't give them the credit they deserve for drawing a large amount of Germany's fire. This is especially important since, had Germany not been forced to devote so many resources to fighting the Soviets, they would have been much better prepared for our invasion of Normandy. Troops that could have been in France defending it and awaiting the invasion of Britain were instead forced to sit in the cold misery of Poland and the Ukraine and into Russia itself, in what was a total bloodbath of a war.

The United States did win WWII. But they most certainly did not do it alone. We should never forget that. Though I was hoping that this thread would be more dedicated to, you know, the memory of Columbia and her crew.

--The poet

If anything, missiles will be fired towards Isreal. And that would be the end of Iraq. So just let him build weapons of mass destruction then and let Isreal do the job the Americans botched in the first Gulf War....lol

Countries don't trust the United States as it is for their foriegn policy. So they should adopt a policy like they had before of assainating head officials. Remember the old CIA days? Isreal has the right Idea. They come out and say it out right. And it is easy. But that's not the goal of the United States. They want more. And the reason bagdad was not destroyed in the first gulf war was they were told to pull out and not proceed after Iragi forces retreated from Kuwait.

151,

I guess you must have missed Secretary of State Powell addressing the U.N.

I’ll break it down for you.

Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolution 1441. Now, you may not believe obfuscating the efforts of the U.N. weapon inspectors constitutes a material breach. You may even believe that if we give the U.N. inspectors more time, they will one day stumble across the mother of all destroyed WMD stockpiles that the Iraqis forgot to list in their declaration. Hell, you may even think Saddam Hussein means well and that he is just misunderstood by the rest of the world. If this is the case, have a nice day.

However, if you agree that Iraq is in violation of resolution 1441, should the consequences for a material breach, which are clearly identified in the resolution, be enforced? You may want to give Iraq more time to come clean, but to what end? What in the past leads you to believe that they will change their ways? Anyways, the original resolution does not state that as an option. How about another resolution? Well, how many resolutions do you want to pass? What if Iraq violates the provisions of each succeeding resolution? When do you say stop! Do you even believe the U.N. has the right to enforce the resolutions it passes? If so, how do you propose to get Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolution if you are not willing to enforce it?

I guess we should just wait until Saddam decides to test the range of his NBC missiles. Remember that Europe is a lot closer to Iraq than the U.S.

Doesn't America pretty much have a policy of NOT assassinating other governmental leaders? It sounds like such an easy answer, but tell me how many other countries are going to trust us after that?

[quote]So getting him out of power(Saddam) requires the destruction of Iraq??? Becuase that is what will happen.[/quote]Who said Iraq will be destroyed? was it destroyed in the gulf war? no.[quote]Just Assasinate him.[/quote]Its not as easy as it sounds.

So getting him out of power(Saddam) requires the destruction of Iraq??? Becuase that is what will happen. And the people most effected will be the innocent population. Saddam is a mad man. No hard thinking there. But their are so many other Madmen in the world also. And i dont see Bush with a hard-on to get rid of them. If the Americans want him out so badly. And they are the ones pushing it hard. Just Assasinate him. Well maybe the Bush Administration would want to get the Isrealies or the S.A.S to do it as American Special Forces have not been too successful in that department in the last few decades..... Take the man out. Save millions. Just a thought. It's no hard guess the Bush Administration wants a puppet regiem in place when Saddam falls. Nothing else will do. So maybe just Assainating him would not tickle the fancy of President Bush and CO.

[quote]Can the same people who shed genuine tears for seven fallen eagles really feel nothing but contempt for whole flocks targeted for annihilation in another of America's temper tantrums?[/quote]What kind of madman (coward is a better word) puts military assets next to civilian assets? What kind of madman (coward) hides in bunkers below civilians? The kind of person who cares for his people so little that he will sacrifice non-military citizens by placing them in harms way is the kind of person who needs to be put out of power.

Is it possible for Americans to be so compartmentalized in their emotions that seven deaths by fire will trigger an appropriate human outpouring of grief, but a man-made catastrophe intended to consume thousands of human beings amid the ruins of one of the world's oldest cities is eagerly anticipated as a cause for national pride? Can the same people who shed genuine tears for seven fallen eagles really feel nothing but contempt for whole flocks targeted for annihilation in another of America's temper tantrums?

What kind of people are you? What kind of heart is it that grows heavy with the news of seven brave adventurers lost in an accident of experimental technology, but that swells with hubris over news of the technological prowess that will soon enable your button-pushing technicians to sit at their remote control consoles and condemn thousands of men, women and children to a painful, flame-broiled death?

What kind of people are you? What can you be thinking? What kind of mind, having just witnessed your technology's limits in the face of great unforeseen forces, arrogantly dismisses the probability that the war you are so eager to launch might unleash forces which your technology cannot control?

"sanguis innoxius acceptissimum sacrificium hosti generis humani"

Innocent blood is the best sacrifice to the enemy of humankind"

[q]However it is America with it's great and undamaged industrial base which really helped push back the Nazis.[/q]The Soviets had a decisive industrial advantage over the Nazis in terms of production of armor, which I'm sure is a big factor in their win on the eastern front.

[quote]For a nation that is the true only Super Power and wealthiest country in the world. It cannot offer ALL it's citizens the same level of care. That is just plain flawed.[/quote]
How do you offer all your citizens the same level of care, when "haves" will insist on better conditions than the minimum levels that would otherwise be offered? An example that came up in the forums was private rooms. The idea of having a private room in Canada is laughable. In the United States, the wealthy expect not only a private room, but quite a list of amenities with that room (such as a private phone line, cable TV, etc). The poor expect to be released as soon as possible after sharing with as many others as could be fit in the same room.

Just because the United States is called the wealthiest country in the world does not mean the majority of citizens can afford (or even want to afford) to pay enough taxes to provide the minimum level of care that the wealthiest would expect. So, no matter how you shake it, not everyone will receive the "same level of care".

Also, I have not had medical insurance in four years. Neither have I needed to see the doctor. Should I be forced to pay for my good health because I am needed to balance against a hypochondriac who goes in at the slightest sniffle or ache? Not if I have any choice in the matter.

Health insurance companies and HMOs and such are probably more responsible for the problems in the United States than the real cost of medical treatment. Every middle-man between me and the doctor who treats me is in it for the profit to be made. The United States can afford to send doctors to other countries, medicine, vaccinations, equipment, and so on. But, to use it here would require somebody missing out on their opportunity for a profit.

Before arguing about who won the war (WW2), it might behoove a few to read "Why the Allies Won" by Richard Overy.

Google on Richard Overy to see who he is and his credentials.

Some analysis of his work
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis82.htm

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/overy.html

FWIW, I believe that the Soviets could have defeated Nazi Germany without any Allied military support - other than the bombing campaign and Lend Lease.

The Pacific conflict only consumed about 15% of the U.S. war effort.

This is not to denigrate the U.S. effort - I am sitting in Australia at the moment, and if things had gone differently, I might be speaking Japanese. But I don't believe that the U.S. saved Australia's bacon for any reason other than they needed a forward, industrialised supply base with the necessary infrastructure to support their strategy.

I hope no one is losing sight of the fact that many millions of men and women died so some of us can sitting around discussing the pros and cons - some of them from countries that until only a few short years ago were "the enemy". Never forget the sacrifice of all the servicemen and servicewomen then and since.

[q]First off. ALL countries around the world were effected by the great depression. Not just the United States. And the U.S during the conflict in Europe had the resources to build a military. And sustain it. So why did they not enter the war? And you point out that Americans always get involved in foreign affairs because of internal aggression. Where where they when Rawanda was in great peril and hundred of thousand of people lost lives? No interest there. No gold. No oil. No strategic stand-point. Oh and 138. Yes you can send them to Canada where they will get health care and they won't have to mortgage their lives for it. As it's free for all Canadian citizens. It might not be perfect. But ALL is guareenteed service regardless of status. I have seen and been to public run hospitals in the U.S. What a joke that is. No wonder people don't want to go to the hospitals if they have to go there. And it was a collective effort amoung all nations to defeat the Nazis. But by how many Americans percieve it. They have done it almost by themselves. Little test. Ask grade school to junior high school kids who won the 2nd world war. And how many of them will say the Americans as opposed to the allies...... Even many adults. I have done it. And i did not say the Soviets defeated the Nazi's. It was a collective effort. That's my point. And my other point is. Why won't they invade North Korea for building weapons of mass destruction??? They have been cited as the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and the rest? They are a greater threat then Iraq. But if Americans would have the same stance as the one in Iraq. Would America go ahead and fight a battle in North Korea again? Because North Korea is no Iraq. They will fight back. That's hypocracy. "IRAQ, COMPLY OR ELSE......" "North Korea...we are sadden by your descision to build weapons of mass destruction. But we will discuss this diplomatically."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Kill millions of Iraq's. Because it would be a easy military victory. But North Korea on the other hand would see MANY Americans killed.........[/q]

Yes America was not the only victor in the WWII. Allies were a multinational group. However it is America with it's great and undamaged industrial base which really helped push back the Nazis. Their uboats could not sink the supply convoys fast enough to starve England out of the war. We also were able to augment our carrier fleets and overwhelm the Japanese. So the American contribution was important if not vital to the allies success in WWII.

How you combat public misconceptions is with knowledge. However what is important is to state the truth and not try to overcompensate in the name of fairness.

In terms of North Korea one reason we have not invaded is because first off they HAVE a nuke and the ability to deliver it to the west coast of the US. Iraq is just a wanna be. Furthmore last that we vanquished the North Koreans a million chinese 'volunteers' came flooding across the Yalu. China is also a nuclear power, furthermore a much more signifigant threat then any of the 'axis of evil' countries. Where as Iraq is a isolated easy target. Also there are no outstanding UN security council edits out against North Korea while Iraq has pleanty. It works out that Iraq is much easier to deal with militarily now then North Korea is. recently we have sent 2 carrier groups to the western Pacific and also sent more bombers to Japan. If North Korea tries anything funny they will see more of what happened /will happen to Iraq. Now if it ever gets to that point is anyones guess. It is one thing to knock off the annoying little pest out in the open. Quite another to deal with a paranoid maniac holded up in a bunker with a rocket launcher pointed out of it.

The government should provide a minimum state of living for its people. This is what every Candidate running for the highest office always says when it's election time. There must be some form of responsibility also by the people in that nation every to take care of themselves. This is a given. If both work cohesively, that system can work for the better. However, just to leave the system for the 'haves' and to say to the "have nots"...sorry. You can't get this type of care......this is where the problem is. For a nation that is the true only Super Power and wealthiest country in the world. It cannot offer ALL it's citizens the same level of care. That is just plain flawed.......

While I wouldn't say the Soviets defeated the Nazis, wasn't it Germany's inability to advance on their eastern front (into Russia) what turned them around to focus on their western front? The Russians let their incredibly harsh winters do a lot of their work for them, but did indeed prevent most of the German attempt to invade.

It isn't much use asking a lot of American high-schoolers about history or geography. Too many graduate without being able to point to Canada on a globe. Our education system could stand some serious improvement, but that isn't the point of this high-jacked topic.

A few things I find interesting:

Why should the US be involved in so many wars so far away from its own borders? The United States has not been involved in any local border disputes for over 100 years (about half the 227 years since their revolution).

If there were convincing evidence that the war helped pull the US out of the Great Depression, why on earth would they resist a war that could pull them out of the current economic mess?

What should be considered the bare minimum of medical treatment and quality of care and condition of hospitals for those who cannot pay? Most Americans expect a clean doctor's office with private rooms for examinations -- and an M.D. performing that exam. Most Americans expect to be able to get tests and X-rays back quickly (next day or within the week). Most Americans expect life-extending options such as life-support to be continued as long as the possibility of a person recovering exists.

Should a government be relied on to provide a minimum state of living for its people? Or should it only provide a safe environment for its people to achieve their own state of living?

First off. ALL countries around the world were effected by the great depression. Not just the United States. And the U.S during the conflict in Europe had the resources to build a military. And sustain it. So why did they not enter the war? And you point out that Americans always get involved in foreign affairs because of internal aggression. Where where they when Rawanda was in great peril and hundred of thousand of people lost lives? No interest there. No gold. No oil. No strategic stand-point. Oh and 138. Yes you can send them to Canada where they will get health care and they won't have to mortgage their lives for it. As it's free for all Canadian citizens. It might not be perfect. But ALL is guareenteed service regardless of status. I have seen and been to public run hospitals in the U.S. What a joke that is. No wonder people don't want to go to the hospitals if they have to go there. And it was a collective effort amoung all nations to defeat the Nazis. But by how many Americans percieve it. They have done it almost by themselves. Little test. Ask grade school to junior high school kids who won the 2nd world war. And how many of them will say the Americans as opposed to the allies...... Even many adults. I have done it. And i did not say the Soviets defeated the Nazi's. It was a collective effort. That's my point. And my other point is. Why won't they invade North Korea for building weapons of mass destruction??? They have been cited as the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and the rest? They are a greater threat then Iraq. But if Americans would have the same stance as the one in Iraq. Would America go ahead and fight a battle in North Korea again? Because North Korea is no Iraq. They will fight back. That's hypocracy. "IRAQ, COMPLY OR ELSE......" "North Korea...we are sadden by your descision to build weapons of mass destruction. But we will discuss this diplomatically."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Kill millions of Iraq's. Because it would be a easy military victory. But North Korea on the other hand would see MANY Americans killed.........

[quote]Remember that America is not in the UN just to HELP poor Europe.[/quote]Every country in the UN is there to benefit the world, which includes themselves. With instant global communications and world-wide markets, what benefits Europe benefits the US and vice-versa. What is wrong with that?

EuroGerbil Dan here,

First of all, I like the fact that this thread is not completely related to the Columbia; instead of sad commiserations we are exchanging opinions and this is a little good ("caothic" :) side effect of the disaster ([iis-, pejorative pref. from Latin + astro, star from Latin astrum[/i] ...no pun intended).

Going back to Columbia, i suggest you read the NASA mission overview at:

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/STS-107_PK.pdf

Read the mission purposes and then tell me if that was worth "for humanity".
The overview is a pretty huge (13 MB) but - why - even if we've lost the WW2, we've got broadband! so i can report a short, non exhaustive list of the experiments:

[i]
2-DK, Effects of Microgravity on Total Peripheral Vascular Resistance in Humans /
DSO 635 & E118, Spatial Reorientation Following Spaceflight /
7-S, Cardiopulmonary & Muscular Adaptations During & After Microgravity /
Astrospiders—Spiders in Space (NO, THIS IS NO MOVIE) /
E057, Renal Stone Risk During Spaceflight /
MEIDEX, Mediterranean Isreali Dust Experiment /
APCF, Crystallization of Photosystem I under Microgravity /
AST 10/1, Astroculture(TM) 10/1, Plant Growth Experiment /
RAMBO, Ram Burn Observation, USAF Space and Missile Center /
[/i]

Indeed interesting, but:

0) This is not exactly about the great discovery of new worlds.
1) Most experiments are identical to the ones we could make on earth but for the presence of microgravity and astronomic cost.
2) If, say, a new medical treatment is found that requires microgravity, this would require ill persons to be cured in space (no way even for european health-care :).
3) What about, say, cancer ? We can live without Mars, we can't live with cancer.

Again, tell me if this was worth the price.
And Bush is planning to increase the NASA budget to more than $10 billions in Y2003.
That huge amount of money will be spent.. i wonder who gets it.

Lastly, some quick comments:

[q]
#118
What a happy day it will be when we withdraw from the UN and leave the rest of the world to fix itself. Fix your Yugoslavias, your Afghanistans, your Argentinas and Venezuelas, your Iraqs, and your Koreas. Good luck. You're gonna need it.
#134,
I will pay to send the people that can't afford health care here to your country on a one way ticket. Let me know how that works out for you.
[/q]

Remember that America is not in the UN just to HELP poor Europe.
And wake up! Countries are Joining. This is evolution.
We need to join forces to solve bigger problems.
Do you want to return to the medieval era ? Perhaps you don't know what the medieval era is ...
You don't like non-americans ? Well, Hitler either didn't like non-germans...

[q]
#119
DAMN STRAIGHT ! Leave them all alone..they don't likes..f#ck em!
Tony
[/q]

How do you do, Tony ?
Always a shining example of american politeness.
I hope you are a teen.

[q]
#119
You know what? It doesn't matter what you think about the U.S or it's system of government. You aren't a citizen, you don't pay our taxes, therefore you have no say. Your opinion is worthless.
[/q]

We are men, and we all are free to express our opinions as you are free to ignore us (i assume no reply :).

Every time you flame me, i learn something.

Cheers, expecially to Front de Boef!

Dan

[q]US only joined the war because Hitler declared war on them and the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany.[/q]

Exactly what war are you looking at? The Soviets defeated Nazi Germany? You might want to read up on your history.

[q]Wake up. We don't have to thank you for anything.[/q]

No, you don't *have* to thank us for anything... But it would be the civilized thing to do.

[q]You helped rebuild Europe.[/q]

Yes, and you're welcome.

[q]You benefited from that too.[/q]

Ah, I see... So it's wrong to do good for people if it somehow benefits you?

[q]That simplistic "we freed Europe" view is bullshit. [/q]

You're right... We also freed Africa, China, and much of the South Pacific.

Give this a read, to bad the United States doesn't have 400 more like him in the House of Representatives.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

#134, your completely uninformed opinion is whats wrong with the world. please, please, learn the facts.[quote]And they knew full well before this that the rest of the free world needed their help. And the atrociaties that were taking place in Europe by ethnic cleansing and genocide.[/quote]First of all, no one knew that Hitler was attempting genocide until he had already killed hundreds of thousands. Second of all, the reason we didn't enter the war sooner was because of this thing called THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

Before you spit off your mouth sooner, take some European and American history classes. Sound informed, for your own sake.

Its kind of funny how you critisize the US for not entering foreign conflicts sooner when the rest of Europe critisizes us for entering them AT ALL. Damned if we do, damned if we dont huh?[quote]Everyones country of birth in some way is fucked. Even the "perfect" United States of America.[/quote]Who said the US is perfect? Everyone should have some sort of pride when it comes to their home country, but obviously utopia doesn't exist yet.

[q]Americans are always last to enter a war. First to say they won it. Last to enter a conflict. And first to say they done it all by themselves. Hmmmm....asking the S.A.S. to search the Afgan mountains and terrain first to locate terrorists. And once they did the ground work, then they went in. And i thought the Green Berets and the Navey Seals were the best in the world. (Sarcasim big time) Funny how the S.A.S. and Mosad trains most of them.............Funny if you look in American History books regarding the 2nd world war and the first. You would swear the Americans beat the Axis all by themselves. Considering in the 2nd world war they never entered the conflict in Europe only after Hitler declared war against them. Moreover the crys from Britian and the rest of the allies did not sway the Americans to enter it either, If it were not for Japan attacking. The Americans would be sitting on the sidelines eating apple pie. It took them until late 1942 to enter. And they knew full well before this that the rest of the free world needed their help. And the atrociaties that were taking place in Europe by ethnic cleansing and genocide.They like to pick their fights. But you got to love them. They have a lots of cash to throw around when needed.(You know. The kind of money that is needed to bribe a dictator in some small African or South-American country to bestow some form of democracy there. Opps, did i forget to say puppet? Then leaving the poor bastards high and dry when the sht hits the fan. Or turn the classic blind eye when they heavily deal in narcotics to fund some 'sanctioned war'. All in the name of democracy. Better then Communism i say.....) And still can't give the majority of their citizens affordable health-care......i have to ask.....what the fck is Medi-care??? And how does it work. Because i don't see it working for 50 million of the citizens there. Thats all i hear from every administration. "Affordable health care for all." I have yet to see it in the United States. I pity the souls who cannot afford medical insurance and have to go to the hospital for routine operations or emergencies.....THIS POST IS TO BRING TO LIGHT ALL WHO ARE FLAG BEARERS, AND PISS ON OTHER PEOPLES COUNTRIES BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS "MINE" Everyones country of birth in some way is fcked. Even the "perfect" United States of America. [/q]

You know it is rather funny how the only country left standing in Europe was England and the Soviet Union. Without American aid both of tose countries probably would have been overrun by the Nazis and then you wouldn't half to deal with whiny blundering Europeans because they would all be under the totalitarian heel of the successors to Hitler and Mussolini. I guess you also would not have minded if, had the Soviets won over the Nazis, you and everyone else who had a high school level of education would be carted off to hard labor in Siberia because Stalin and all his enlightened paranoia would have believed you were a threat because you were literate. I suppose America is a pretty worthless country 20th century history would have pretty much been the same if they were there or not.

Realistically the only reason on Earth you have a world even remotely capibile of having countries with social equality and free markets is because of the US's historical interventions around the world. You might be so blinded by anti-american sentiment to realize that Hitler did intend on ruling all of Europe either directly or by vassalization. There used to also be a little group called Communism International whose primary purpose was support and install Communist dictatorships in every nation on Earth. North Korea invaded South Korea and North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. Dispite how much you try to distort the facts to suit your ideological view of the world the fact is American unilateralism is directly the related to international aggression. American involvement in Niceragua, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Grenada, etc.. has been to deal with this aggression to the world order which enables democracies be they capitalist or socalist to exsist.

The health care situation is not perfect here in the US. Insurance companies and health care providers have let the situation spiral into one of complete idiocy. However dispite how decrepit the health care system in the US is, it is still better then the nationalized burecratic systems in many socalized countries. What is needed here is for the costs to come down deflate the costs associated with health care not to have politicians decide who gets what medicines and who gets to die off from waiting too long on a damn list.

Finally the flag pissing will stop as soon as the other countries of this Earth stop either oppressing, terrorizing, intimidating, or simply just being a bunch of elitist coward princesses who have their heads jammed so far up their collective arse that they have lost anything remotely close to being realistic.

Originally Posted by xylker
134,
I will pay to send the people that can\'t afford health care here to your country on a one way ticket. Let me know how that works out for you.