On 2002-05-25 14:32, firemind wrote:

I thought you said that was what 9/11 was. How much more "political capital" is required then 3000 Americans dead in one day?

And the big question is what the hell did Iraq have to do with killing those 3000 Americans? The Bush administration has adamantly denied any connection despite that piece of intelligence from Prague. So if Iraq had nothing to do with 911, then we have no more moral authority to go after them than we do the friggin' British. For what after all???? Does an attack on us launched by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban somehow allow us to play "Pin the Tail On the Donkey" with the world map? Ummmmm, who do we want to take over now? Paraguay? Sweden? French Polynesia?

And American's have already died in the provoked response. Servicemen in Afghanistan have died, Daniel Pearl was killed, etc.

Yes, but again the administration denies any Iraqi connection and the world community does not honor one.

Perhaps the Bush administration already has enough political capital, and something else is stopping them.

Obviously not. This nation is deeply divided about Iraq. The Europeans are opposed. And that Arab "alliance" would dissolve. The Bush administration does not yet have the political capital to go after Iraq but they have been doing their damnedest with the "Axle of Elvis" speech and all the sabre rattling to provoke an Iraqi response which would give them that political capital. I think this is pretty obvious. You don't put the lives of millions of Americans at risk of terrorist attack here at home with that "Axle of Elvis" speech unless you fully intend to deal with one or all of the countries named. And we would do well to remember that the Bush administration put us at risk with that senselessly provocative speech. If Americans die now of an Iraqi-sponsored attack in the wake of the "Axle of Elvis" speech, the Bush administration should be held responsible (speaking as an American who might well die in such an attack).

But, if you are so sure, can you tell us what could happen to prove that you're wrong? For example, if the Bush administration ends without a U.S. attack on another nation, would that prove you are wrong now?

Yes.

Stonewall Patton wrote:
These people in the Bush administration know exactly what they are doing...









From The New York Times today, comes this tantalizing headline:

<FONT SIZE="+1">Ashcroft Learned of Agent's Alert Just After 9/11 but Bush Was Not Told</FONT>

Quote:
"The disclosure is certain to magnify criticism of the F.B.I.'s performance, including its failure to act on the memorandum before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."


Ah, yes! "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" The juicy plot thickens... :smile: Well, today in my local paper, The Columbus Dispatch, comes this little gem...


Capital Notes
<FONT SIZE="+2">Ashcroft's plane finally found correct airport</FONT>
Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Quote:
"The security was in place.

The greeting party was all there.

The only thing missing was the guest of honor: U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

He was at the wrong airport.

For reasons that still are unclear, Ashcroft's jet landed at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base southeast of Columbus last week when the attorney general flew in for a speech before a crime-victims conference Downtown. "


Anybody out there, besides me, think this is kinda funny? :lol:

"But, Marc, we've covered this. (Don't be like Eric, please!) I have argued that the economy is not neccessarily relevant, and you have agreed."

Ok.

On 2002-05-24 23:30, Tristan Jones wrote:

With the right methods we can turn the Arabs into a pacifist, secular people who have great respect for human rights.

This is a Joke, right? Check your history, they were bloodthirsty before they 'found allah', then they became peaceful and held much of the knowledge of the anchient world safe while Europe became a cultural backwater. Then the crusades hit and the Europeans (who were pretty bloodthirsty themselves at the time) went down there and invaded. They won, showing the Arabs that 'might made right' in their eyes.
Adabic culture declines, and degenerates into what they have today.
Funny that WE are blamed for western culture being 'evil' in their eyes when it was the Europeans that started the whole mess with the crusades. And even more funny is the current European attitude that we hear about where we are the war mongers. Seems to me we are dealing with more fall out from the old world, as we did in WW2.
Your idea is a good one, and I don't mean to pick on ya man, but I just don't see them becomming secular humanists any time in the next few hundred years. If they do turn into that kind of a culture, I don't think it is us that will do it. It will need to come from within.
Maybe that is the big issue to be worked out in this 4T. It certainly is more Global than even the Great Power Seaculum was.

I suspect that fending them off will be one of the issues/goals of the Crisis period.

On 2002-05-26 08:52, Tim Walker wrote:
I suspect that fending them off will be one of the issues/goals of the Crisis period.

Same here - and not just for us.

Oh, I think there is a substantial humanist tradition in Islam ... though not a secular humanist. I think the Western way of thinking about religion is getting in our way here. In that part of the world there *is* no appreciable secular anything. God cannot be separated from anything else, much less humans.

You know, all this civilizational stuff only explains so much. There are other reasons why a more moderate Islam isn't taking hold. There's been 100 odd years of British and then American finanical and military support for nasty despotic regimes in the region especially if they happened to be anti-communist. A lot of this is just plain political.

For change-for peace, if only a cold peace-in the long run (like as in the grandchildren of those now coming of age) we should decisesively reject imperialism, disengage from the Middle East, clamp down on immigration, and shift to alternative energy. In the near and intermediate future I see a need for a defensive stance.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-05-26 10:22 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-05-26 19:04 ]</font>

On 2002-05-26 10:21, Tim Walker wrote:
For change-for peace-in the long run (like as in the grandchildren of those now coming of age) we should decisesively reject imperialism, disengage from the Middle East, clamp down on immigration, and shift to alternative energy. In the near and intermediate future I see a need for a defensive stance.

If you're referring to an isolationist international stance, behind a powerful defense, and undergirded by an at least partially autarkic economy, I can also see some merit to that plan. Although I firmly believe that Canada would have to be included in this system, for it to work.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-05-26 10:55 ]</font>

I do indeed have something like that in mind.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/756847.asp

Moon development and the next High?

<center>
No offense to anyone, but this is pretty standard 3T stuff, folks!</center>


And also, the truth is... the so-called liberal Democratic party is the the new home of America's isolationists like Mr. Walker; And have been since 1972. :smile:

An interesting flip flop from 1920, huh?

The Moon should be developed to the fullest extent possible. It is a barren, lifeless rock bathed in solar radiation. The fact that some people oppose its development just proves where their minds are really at: they hate humanity.

Humanity has outgrown this planet. The development of space resources is the most environmentally sane thing to do.

I hope to live to see lights on the moon.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-26 20:03 ]</font>

Eminem dresses up like Osama bin Laden in his new video. In the video he also shocks Dick Cheney (literally).
Also pretty standard 3T.

Actually, I'm not affiliated with any political party.

Firemind:

The Moon should be developed to the fullest extent possible. It is a barren, lifeless rock bathed in solar radiation. The fact that some people oppose its development just proves where their minds are really at: they hate humanity.

Once again, I REALLY have to ask where you're getting this stuff. Who the heck opposes lunar development for environmental reasons, apart from the diversion of resources? Obviously the moon has no ecosystem to despoil.


However, that in itself means that your main point is invalid:

Humanity has outgrown this planet. The development of space resources is the most environmentally sane thing to do.

No it's not. Space simply cannot provide the type of resources needed to replace the life-support services of the earth's biosphere which we are currently undermining. It can perhaps provide mineral resources and energy, but not cheaply.


We have become so accustomed to civilization and to thinking in terms of human efforts and creativity that we easily forget they are built on a foundation of non-human life. The planet provides life-support services that are irreplaceable. We cannot survive except as part of a biosphere. Any human colonies planted on other planets will require extensive support from earth, more support (due to distances involved and necessary transmission inefficiencies) than they would require if they remained on earth.


There is only one way to expand the biosphere-imposed limits on human numbers through space development, and it is neither cheap, nor quick, nor technically feasible at present (though it is theoretically possible). That is to terraform other planets, create full, self-sustaining biospheres on those planets, and build human civilization as part of those extraterrestrial biospheres just as it is part of the terrestrial biosphere.


Full development of space is not a solution to our environmental problems. Rather, it is our reward for successfully finding other solutionsl. Once we learn to live within our limits as part of the earth, then we can begin to expand those limits by expanding the life of the earth itself.

One has to make a distinction between "diverting resources" and making an investment. There are concepts for importing energy or materials from outer space. These would help support human life here on Earth while easing some of the industrial pressures on the biosphere.

Obviously a lot of work has to be done before these become practical. And as one of the enthusiasts, G. Harry Stine pointed out, it will be possible to make Earth a utopia (or as close to it as we can given human nature) long before space will even be comfortable.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-05-27 08:52 ]</font>

Tim:

One has to make a distinction between "diverting resources" and making an investment.

True. So here's a clarification: When we invest in the wrong thing, so that the most important needs are not met, that is a diversion of resources. Better?

There are concepts for importing energy or materials from outer space. These would help support human life here on Earth while easing some of the industrial pressures on the biosphere.

The problems we face are much more basic than that. It isn't just a matter of industrial pollution. That's important, but more fundamental is the explosive growth of human numbers and of the aggregate economy.


We do not face intractable shortages of energy. There is a lot of room for improvement in energy efficiency. (And in resource efficiency generally.) If we were to implement those improvements, and stabilize and reduce the human population, we could quite easily meet our energy needs with renewable resources on earth; there would be no need to import energy from space (say with orbiting solar collectors). Nonrenewable, nonorganic minerals are also quite abundant for the moment; we are in no danger of running out of iron or copper or aluminum. Eventually we will, but that is not the threat to civilization we face at this time.


No, the problem we face is that we are consuming natural capital at a ferocious rate. By "natural capital" I mean the ability of the planet to produce, on a sustainable basis, the necessities of civilization. We are eroding soil fertility, degrading fresh water supplies, destroying biodiversity. And there is no way to replace this natural capital from resources in space.


The shortages we face are organic, not mineral. Organic resources come from only one source: earth. We cannot, therefore, make up the shortfall by developing space. We have no choice but to develop a sustainable society on earth. After that, space becomes our prize.


But not before.

The old argument that we should ignore space till all the problems on Earth are solved. Ignore that it can be help life on Earth now. Shall we shut down the global positioning system? Also, there is a myopia or tunnel vision-that the solution to a problem can only be what one sees now. Actually, there may be other problems that you are ignorant of. But don't try a diversity of avenues that look promising. So the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer-what do you do when you need pliers?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-05-27 09:54 ]</font>

According to the Washington Times, "Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle "yesterday recanted his May 16 charge that President Bush had advance warning of the September 11 terror attacks, the latest example of a top Democrat backing off from such a claim."

It appears that the 9/11 conspiracy and cover up have entangled the Democrats as well as the GOP, FBI, CIA and INS. This vast consiracy obviously has very strong tenacles stretching out just about everywhere. The Bush folks have been at this sort thing for over two generations now, and it's finally paying off in spades for junior, who just last week was finally let out of his playpen by daddy George to go play over in Europe while the unlerlinges workover Daschle and the Democrats here.

This 4T suff, folks. :smile:


p.s. How's that for a Stonewall Patton impersonation?

Tim:

The old argument that we should ignore space till all the problems on Earth are solved.

That's NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that space cannot be the solution to our problems on earth ITSELF -- especially not BY itself.


Can you see the difference?


I have no problem exploring space and, insofar as we can afford it, developing space. But to think that's going to save our butts, when the problems we face are intrinsically impossible to solve that way, is ostrich thinking.

Also, there is a myopia or tunnel vision-that the solution to a problem can only be what one sees now.

Well, there are likely to be unforeseen technical solutions to many of our problems, and others that have been foreseen but not by me. But space ain't it. There's no life in space, and our problem is life. We cannot expand the limits of the terrestrial biosphere in space, no matter what, no way nohow, and that is what we would need to do in order for space to provide a solution.

Actually, there may be other problems that you are ignorant of.

I'm quite certain of that, but so what? I do know we face problems that can result in the end of civilization, for which space cannot provide solutions. Perhaps there is another problem that can also end civilization, for which a solution is to be found in space -- e.g., potential asteroid collisions. But that doesn't change the fact that space CAN'T be the solution to our environmental problems.


The statement that "we've outgrown the earth and need to move into space" is scientifically naive. It demonstrates ignorance about just what would be involved in "moving into space."

But don't try a diversity of avenues that look promising.

I'm happy to try a diversity of avenues that look promising. But for this purpose, space does not look promising. It looks hopeless.

So the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer-what do you do when you need pliers?

Use pliers. But don't try to use them to pound a nail.


Actually, it's worse than that. You can pound a nail with pliers, if somewhat clumsily. But you can't fertilize a garden with them. That's what you're proposing here.

On 2002-05-27 08:11, Brian Rush wrote:


Once again, I REALLY have to ask where you're getting this stuff. Who the heck opposes lunar development for environmental reasons, apart from the diversion of resources? Obviously the moon has no ecosystem to despoil.

I was responding to the article linked by JayN right above my post.

As for the rest, you are arguing with a straw man. I never said most of what you responded to.

I am aware that the Earth's biosphere is unique and that we will not be replacing it in the near- or mid-term. My point was what you agreed with, that the Moon has no environment to despoil. If you read JayN's linked article, you would have understood my post better.

Space has already been exploited for our communications infrastructure with no need to replicate the Earth's biosphere in space. The article JayN posted largely concerned an attitude that it is somehow "wrong" for us to "despoil" the moon, and that it should be set aside as Antarctica is.

Granted, schemes of economically mining the Moon or moving industrial processes there have huge hurdles. However, if somehow those hurdles are overcome, there is no environmental reason not to proceed. Whole categories of industrial pollution that are a big problem within the Earth's biosphere become no problem at all if they occurred on the Moon.

The article includes references to the "natural beauty" of the Moon. The "beauty" of the Moon is of a kind common in the universe. That being the case, preserving the Moon's beauty is not a valid reason to not build factories or mines on the moon. Rational cost-benefit analyses are valid, but the loss of the "beauty" of the Moon should be considered to be a "cost" of nearly zero.

Again, I would love to see lights on the moon. That would be beautiful to my eyes.

A lot of your later posts did not really address the real possibilities of space development. Space is filled with resources and energy that are not being used. Given very good planning, a negligable investment of the Earth's resources would be needed to get things moving, after which the resources of outer space alone would be used to continue further development, at no cost to the Earth's environment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-27 15:57 ]</font>

On 2002-05-27 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:
I'm happy to try a diversity of avenues that look promising. But for this purpose, space does not look promising. It looks hopeless.

I disagree strongly.

On 2002-05-27 13:51, Brian Rush wrote:
We cannot expand the limits of the terrestrial biosphere in space, no matter what, no way nohow...

This is the kind of quote that a century hence will look silly, like "The whole world has need of only four or five computers."

It's not that hard, Brian! You only feel this way because successful space development would challenge your worldview too much.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mmailliw on 2002-05-27 16:21 ]</font>