President Bush To Call For Return To Moon? 1496
Brian Stretch writes " According to the National Review: 'When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation.' Here's hoping. The article also includes talk of nuclear engines and using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars."
I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you China! (Score:5, Interesting)
The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5, but (I think) the best solution would be to leverage a Space Station (one in the "right" orbit) and use that as a way station. That way you could reuse a moon obiter lander repeatedly.
Wow.. I don't know if I'm happy about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I suspect that by the time we actually figure out what this new plan is, it will turn out to be utterly unambitious, re-doing what we've already done (um.. let's go to the moon! yeah!) for the sole sake that we feel like we have to one-up the Chinese. I hope I'm wrong, but this appears it is going to be politics driving science, not the other way around, and I question its usefulness if it is going to be implemented in the same closed and uninclusive manner it's being planned.
I mean, the direction of these plans look like they're being guided directly by NASA. I want to say that's a good thing. But NASA lately has shown a distinct lack of vision. NASA as of late has almost been more about lip service than anything-- being able to say, "Yup! We can get into low earth orbit!" or "We've got a space station!", but then not not actually caring what interesting or forward-looking things we can do as a result. This leads me to worry that if NASA is deciding what we do next, it will be the same sort of lip service-- just going to the moon for the sake of going to the moon, and not exploring what revolutionary or groundbreaking things that we could do in the process.
On the other hand, this looks like it would involve an increase in NASA's budget. I've heard it charged the problem with NASA's lack of ambition of late is not the leadership, but just that they don't have enough money to do anything more than the bare minimum. An increase in funds might mean they would have breathing room to do great things again. And most of NASA's such problems-- the aimless floundering that's characterized the attempts to replace the Shuttle, for example-- have been due to a lack of direction. A clear set of direction and goals, any of them, no matter now small, could once again cause NASA to streamline and orient itself toward getting positive work done. Bush's plan would very likely provide that sort of orientation.
Anyway, I just don't know what to think here. Am I being too pessimistic?
I thought we couldn't stay on the moon (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
If we gotta go to space at all, lets build a city on the fricking moon. Why not, budget's shot to hell anyway.
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Interesting)
Like Mars? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
First Iraq, now the Moon (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing for sure: if there is any life on the Moon, they better pray that there is no oil there, or they will have to be 'liberated'.
Promises trustworthy? (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, Texas has this big space center, so this might be a way to spread some cash around back home. So it's possible he doesn't have any motives other than the obvious ones. O, and he has this brother who's governor of Florida. They might be in for a cash infusion too. OK. He has "legitimate" reasons. But the first paragraph stands. (He's so far welched on most of the promises that I thought important.)
Re:I thought we couldn't stay on the moon (Score:2, Interesting)
Scientific advances always have their naysayers. People who say "Sorry! Can't do that 'cause... x". Given the above statement it's reasonable to assume you would've told the Wright brothers "Heavier than air flight? No way!" had you been alive during those times.
Well, to establish a permanent moon base, they'll have to do things a little like the way they did on the USS Enterprise [barnesandnoble.com]. They will have to recycle [go.com].
Re:Where are we getting the money for this again? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I thought we couldn't stay on the moon (Score:2, Interesting)
Having abundant supplies of water that dosen't need to be recycled is also very important for a settlement (i.e. for rocket fuel in the form of liquid hydrogen and oxygen).
Re:Thank you China! (and Russia) (Score:5, Interesting)
International organisations such as The Artemis Society know a lot more about this kind of thing than you realise. I work for TransOrbital, so I know what I'm on about. I speak here in an unofficial capacity, by the way.
Resurrecting Saturn V won't work. The teams are disbanded or dead of old age, the buildings re-used, the launchpads were demolished for the shuttles, and they don't make the tools to make the bits anymore.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
Vik
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Interesting)
If he appears to support the space programme, it will be to shuffle a few Billion$ into industries located in states that are expected to support him in 2004. Plus, he can't let the Chinese steal all the "Moonshot headlines".
This administration has done more to undermine resarch, exploration and sound scientific inquiry than any more than 200 years of the Republic. Look what's happening to funds in NIH and NSF!
If Bush praises your programme, lookout for the axe! I will quote from Molly Ivins' latest here:
Don't be fooled.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Money? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is all off topic - but then again you received moderation to "insightful" and I disagree, your incorrect.
Technology is the core "product" of the United States. The United States businesses (yes, the top ten) are mainly technology based and we make a large amount of money trading this technology. Therefore I believe pushing space flight can bring nothing but good things to the United States.
Did you know that the oil business in this US is not getting oil but rather producing technology for finding and refining oil?
Re:What's the real reason (Score:5, Interesting)
This can't possibly be a coincidence; it doesn't seem likely to be a bug; and it damned sure isn't a legitimate search result. What it is, is the first instance of overt politicization I've seen in Google's ranking system.
I'm not a Bush defender, but this deliberate bogus query shows a lack of professionalism on Google's part that isn't the least bit cool. Google does not represent itself as a subjective editorial site. Search engines, like armies, are valuable public resources with the potential to do a lot of good or a lot of harm. They both work best when they keep their politics to themselves.
Good... (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA needs to *know* that the cash will be available to fund crazy stuff, stuff that's way out there. We'll have to rebuild/repair quite a bit, launch facilities, bigger rockets, a massive hiring spree (NASA's hemorrhaged quite a few talented people in the last decade).
If this is for real, perhaps I'll switch my major (from cs, of course) to someone more related to space....
Re:Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans? (Score:1, Interesting)
I wonder, though, are you averse to massive government spending in general, or only when it is implemented by Republicans?
Me? I favor less taxation and less spending, no matter what particular side of the American political coin is heads up. I'm crazy like that.
By the way, you'll never get modded down as a troll here when you have negative things to say about $REPUBLICAN.
Re:Baby Steps (Score:5, Interesting)
All materials required for the survival of men living on the moon would have to come from Earth.
If men can live on the ISS for many months at a time, I am sure they could at least do the same on the moon. Basically, you need food, water, and air. Two of those can be recycled. Food would be the only issue, but I imagine it would not be tough to find room to build a big enough kitchen on the moon ;-)
I agree that a Mars mission is far more promising in terms of advancing our species and science. But the moon has advantages. Like I said, its proximity makes travel easier, especially in an emergency. I forget the mission number but one of the Apollos had a ruptured oxygen tank and barely made it back to Earth safely. On a Mars mission, with a year or two travel time, they would have died for certain. Refilling supplies is a much shorter trip. This means it is cheaper and emergencies are easier to handle.
The government will find ways to screw this up. By going to the moon first they can make their mistakes and learn from them before going to Mars. Mars is for sure a much more important goal. My point is just that the moon is a step along the way.
Re:Saturn V does is no more, what rocket to use? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what rocket can be used instead?
Probably one that is launched from space, possibly the ISS. In the past there has been talk about a space launch platform in orbit. It is potentially much cheaper and easier to go from Earth to orbit to the moon than straight from Earth to the moon. Of course, this depends on us developing better propulsion systems.
The basic idea is that we can use existing technology to get into orbit, then have a new spacecraft that does not need to be able to enter the atmosphere and land -- it only "flies" in space. This allows extreme flexibility in design and mission capability since it doesn't need wings, those pesky tiles, huge engines, etc.
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Interesting)
What's puzzling is that there is no rational reason for that kind of growth. The deficit is getting bigger, the trade deficit is getting bigger, the dollar is getting weaker, and the stock market is limping along. I for one am not convinced that those number are for real nor am I convinced that this kind of growth has any legs at all.
Time will tell.
"Bush's approval ratings are still extremely high-- and as long as the democrats can't figure out what their agenda is, none of the nine dwarves are going to beat him."
Approval ratings or not slightly more then half of this country are democrats. He may get re-elected but like the last time it will be by the skin of his teeth.
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is true, but there are other benefits to TLI (trans-lunar-injection) orbits that are based on an existing LEO (low earth orbit) station, rather than an earth-based launch:
1. Orbital inclination. If the station is at the same inclination (which a station used exclusively for TLI would be) as the moon's orbit, it's a very very easy shot. No inclination burns/azimuth adjustments at launch.
2. Orbital windows. TLI windows based on LEO are "wider" and there is no chance of atmospheric/meterological conditions screwing the window up.
3. Large payloads. As you indicated, the bulk of spent energy is to get into LEO. However, for large mass projects, they can be ferried to an LEO station, assembled, and then (relatively) cheaply injected to the moon. Currently, delivering large-mass to a lunar orbit is impossible, we don't have a rocket or "space transport system" large enough to deliver both payload and TLI/Lunar Orbit/Descent propellent from an earth based launch site in one go.
Re:Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, space exploration falls under the constitutionally duty of the federal government to fund science. Bush is perfectly within his party's vision and the bounds of the constitution in proposing this. I want my tax dollars to fund this.
It's all about the Military (Score:3, Interesting)
Quote: To increase their
effectiveness,
ground-based
interceptors like the
Armys Theater
High-Altitude Area
Defense System
must be networked
to space-based
systems. pg. 64
as will be discussed below, space dominance
may become so essential to the preservation
of American military preeminence that it
may require a separate service.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAme
If you've never heard of the NAC website, it's a think tank with all the leading NeoCons behind it. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfield...etc..
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofpr
The PDF was 2000 and if you read it, is become American policy.
Wasn't the 60's moon program a money maker? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it would have been a better investment to take that money and put it in the stock market. I don't have those numbers, and even if it was, who cares? It was a wonderful program because it advanced basic science, created high paying jobs, gave us something positive to look forward to, and "grew" the economy. For a government program, it was a hat trick and then some.
I have no idea if a modern moon or mars program could do that again, but wouldn't it be worth trying? Even if it only broke even economically, wouldn't we be ahead in science and national pride?
Personally I'd like to see more private investment in space, but I think that there is going to have to be a core of federal money to get the ball rolling.
- doug
Re:$500 Billion in debt. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thank you China! (and Russia) (Score:5, Interesting)
They tested their moon rocket, the N-1, several times in the 60s and early 70s. Each one blew up, mostly due a combination of bad luck, design bureau infighting, and a design that used 30 engines on the first stage alone. (What are the odds of no problems with that?)
They had better luck in the 80s with the "Energia" core booster for their space shuttle clone, the Buran. It was designed so that it could be launched without the heavy shuttle and with extra booster units to achieve very impressive payloads. It successfully launched their shuttle for one unmanned orbital flight, but IIRC the project was canceled after that.
Re:Why do you want to go to the moon? (Score:4, Interesting)
The moon mas plenty of resources, such as it's LACK of atmosphere. Do you think in any way the air on earth, or it's magnetic field, or it's clounds or airplanes or radio waves bouncing around inside it make it easy to use radio telescopes and such? The moon has little to none of that interference. Much less than low earth orbit, even. Solar power collection? 24-hour free solar energy beamed to earth? Yea, the moon is SO overrated.
And if you think that they're going to cancel space flights and deny someone taking off to return from the moon then you must be trolling. Let's leave them up there to definetly fir as opposed to taking the chance they might survive...good call.
The reason we don't go there now for cheap is we haven't done it in 30 years. Think about 30 years ago: big bulky unefficient cars, clunky appliences, computers the size of your house.
I'd say we're about ready for another wack at it.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
Banks are middle man that simply takes a cut by facilitating you, the taxpayer, borrowing from Feds.
I wonder if we can cut the banks our of the loop and have a nonprofit organizations facilitate taxpayer borrowing from the government.
Seriously there might be oil there.... (Score:2, Interesting)
So im not saying its the reason for going there, but imagine if deep test drilling did reveal 'solid' oil or oil mixed in the rock in the form of lots of hydrocarbons.
read some of these
http://earthsci.org/newsop/opinion/asteroid.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetear
http://unxmaal.com/mt/a
interesting though it is.
Not a conspiracy, just the power of blogs (Score:2, Interesting)
Leave it to private enterprise (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, he won't do that. Any government's worst nightmare is about people flying around the space freely, out of their control. After all, the colonization of North America occured due to high taxes (and their consequences) in Europe. Nowadays, the taxes are much higher than then, so there is even more incentive to flee from them. Travelling in space may be dangerous, but at the current level of technology, it is probably not more dangerous, than going from Europe to America on a ship was in the 17th century.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Interesting)
Bunch of people end up on a deserted island without any money (which would be useless cause there aren't any stores). Say Joe Banks is one of them. He happens to have some gold nuggets, which he lends to everyone else for a year for use as a monetary system. After the year, he demands all of his property back plus 1% interest. In one sense you could say "well he was without his gold for a year, so he deserves something in return"....but where are the people going to get the additional 1% of gold (assuming there was absolutely none on the island)? They don't have it, so now they're in debt.
If by some miracle some gold is found by one of these folks in debt, they owe some back to Joe Banks...but Joe Banks didn't do an ounce of work to deserve it! It's slightly exagerated I know, but the point is this: if you can convince someone they are in debt to you even though they weren't, then they are now in debt to you.
Here's another absurd thing about debt: if A owes B $10, and B owes C $10, and C owes A $10, is anyone really in debt?
What's really funny is how the U.S. ditched the sole backing for it's monetary system (gold, something physical) for just T-bills (not really physical, just a printed image). Years ago, a sale involving cash transaction says "this $1 bill I'm handing you is a representation of the gold I personally own...being physically held in the fed". Now it just means "the fed says this $1 I'm handing you is worth something...or so they tell me...not sure what it really represents".
What's even more funny is that the U.S. convinced a lot of other countries to buy into the "world bank"....which happens to be backed by...get this: U.S. T-bills! Every country that put its "money" into the world bank effectively "paid off" that much of the U.S. debt! As long as those countries don't pull out their money, the U.S. is not currently in as much debt as you think.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Interesting)
You hate the fact that the economy is getting better don't you? The truth is you have such hatred for bush that you hope with every bone in your body that the recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections. You actually hope for a bad US economy. That's funny considering what the principles of being liberal are SUSPOSE to be. But that's the problem, being liberal isn't what it was. Being liberal is now just hating Bush and hoping for another disaster so liberals can be in power. Now let's look at some FACTS; the economy is out of recession, and it is growing at rate of which we haven't seen in over twenty years.
Prescription Drugs
You mean the watered-down piece of shit that not even some Republicans wanted to sign because it held no real benefits for the majority and was actually just a step closer to privatization of Medicare?
Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.
War on Terrorism
Are you even still in the room?
What do you think this is, AOL? I'm not sharing a room with you. This is a forum.
We totally forgot about Osama (a real live admitted terrorist)
Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.
so that Dubya could go spend billions of our dollars destroying Saddam (a bad guy, but no terrorist [and don't even START that bullshit about his hosting Al Queda because the evidence does NOT support that]).
I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.
So now, instead of making the world safer by taking out a very dangerous terrorist group he has scattered them to the winds (think cancerous metastasizing) and has gone to great (and expensive) lengths to further destabilize the Middle East by creating a desert-style Vietnam situation.
There hasn't been another September 11th yet has there? the terrorists have never been such a target before, Have you seen the AC-130 gunship video? the terrorists looked to be a little terrorized themselves. Also, for you to compare a conflict where the largest casualties occurred on September 11th, to a war which 58,000 Americans gave their lives, is a stretch at best, and an insult at worst.
Instead of using the political and sympathetic capital showered upon us by the world post-9/11 he has squandered it to the point where we are now feared and reviled like never before in history.
I didn't know the whole world consisted of the US, France, Germany, and Russia. We have more support with the war on terror than any previous War in WORLD HISTORY.
Oh, and did I forget squandering what was a budgetary surplus, creating the fastest-growing budget deficit this country has ever seen?
Reagan ran deficits with big defense spending and look where that lead us, The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. Now your children won't have to learn "Duck and Cover!". I bet the fall of the Soviet Union really chapped your ass.
Bush promised smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a foreign policy of global cooperation. So far we have double the size of government, destroyed any sense of fiscal responsibility (all the while mired in a preventable recession) and bullied the rest of the world into hating us (even our allies are nervous these days).
Bush has brought this country out of recession, and stood up to terrorism where pink panty wearing pussies like yourself would of stated "I for one, welcome our new terrorist overlords".
Not only is this off-topic, but it is false (Score:4, Interesting)
Conservatives are against runaway spending on principle, and because they figure libs won't give them any credit even if they do spend:
Federal spending soars under Bush's watch [bayarea.com]
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II
Notice this isn't just on defense and homeland security (you know, the common defense that the Constitution actually calls for), but also for entitlements.
I'm still looking for AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, or job training expenditures mentioned in the Constitution.
Anyway, Bush is spending a lot. Why bother? He's being attacked by both sides. He might as well cut cut cut.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections.
Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus) and an economy so hopeful that one of Bush's campaign ideas (thankfully swept under the rug) was to make Social Security based on the stock market (incidentally an idea that Clinton, Gore, and anyone with a fiscal brain said was a *BAD* idea). In fact, as late as last year Bush still floated that Social-Security-based-on-stock-market balloon during a speech. There's a real fiscal genius running the White House... The bubble was sure to burst at some point. But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state. Instead, because Junior wants to run apeshit through the world like some coked up playboy, we are grasping for economic straws during a time of incredible unemployment. Instead of paying attention to the problems at home, Junior wanted to go create problems in the world so he could show how just like his daddy he could be (and I voted for Bush Sr.). Junior can't hold daddy's jock.
Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.
But what you conveniently left out was that the AARP "supported" this legislation because, in their words, it was "better than nothing". In fact, they were pushing all the way for it to be brought back to the original proposal before the Republicans destroyed it in committee. In fact, in the AARP commercials their "support" is explained in this light.
Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.
How about asking the troops in Afghanistan if there are enough of them to do the job required of them? How about asking if they really were thrilled about their numbers being diverted to Iraq? How about asking how busy the CIA is trying to track down the Fedayeen leaders so our troops stop getting cut down a couple of soldiers at a time on an almost daily basis? How about asking why, after a campaign promise of "smaller government", the government was almost doubled in size by the addition of a single (IMHO unecessary) Cabinet (your "Homeland 'Security'")?
I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.
Here's where you can really get yourself in trouble. Let's keep this simple. Saddam, in his effort to maintain his self-image as a big player in the Arab world, made a large public speech where he promised payments for Palestinian "martyrs". In fact, such payment has *YET* to be made (even well before Gulf-II). Saddam was a tempest in a teapot, easily contained by the UN actions post-Gulf-I. As for your point regarding the Kurds... well...:
1. Bush Sr. urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam post-Gulf-I. They did, expecting US support. US support did not come, they got slaughtered by an injured and vengeful Saddam.
2. Iraq is not a "country". It is a confederation of disparate ethnic and religious parties who are quite frequently at bitter odds with each other, where the word "compromise" is not in their mutual vocabularies. A strong brutal leader is sometimes the only way to make all those parties behave. Is that a nice picture? Hell no. But it does accurately describe the shitstorm that is now present-day Iraq and why Western-style democracy probably won't work so well there. The biggest part of what makes our democracy work here is that the St
Re:You ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, are yo (Score:2, Interesting)
Facts, please? Now, just think. The state education budget is $5 billion in Oregon. In an ideal world, we could take all of that money and give it to teachers. However, in the real world, there is overhead. So, let's assume that 50% of the money goes to administrative overhead. That leaves $2.5 billion for teachers. Assuming I haven't added a zero and an average salary of $60000 (which is high) that would pay for 41,666 teachers. Again, assuming a classroom size of 20 (which in CA is the law for 3rd grade and under if you want certain state funds) that would educate 833,320 children. I don't know ratio school-aged children are in the population, but let's assume 30%. That means we can support a population of 2,499,960 citizens (Oregon has a population of around 3.5 million [npg.org]. That's just with the state money funding education which is FAR less than the county money funding education via property taxes. You say "There isn't enough money in education". I say, "Bullshit!"; In California the average cost per student is around $7000 per year. You mean to tell me that it can't be done for less providing a damn good education? Please...; Just read this [sacbee.com] if you really want to get pissed off.
The deficit is over $500 Billion AND CLIMBING.
No, the defecit is almost $7 trillion. The budget defecit for 2003 is around $500 billion. I don't disagree that it's way too high. Where do you propose making cuts? I'll start with the federal Department of Education. States can fund their own education (and they do -- the federal money is a drop in the bucket (a little over $50 billion spread across 50 states.)) That saves $53 billion [ed.gov] right there. The rest can easily be found in cuts in social programs which is 59% of all federal expenditure (granted Social Security is a huge part of that.) But why is the federal government doing welfare (personal and corporate)? Do you think it can be at all efficient at it. It should be a state/county issue so that monies could be spent more effectively. And those welfare programs should have a sunset date. BTW, the "War on Poverty" that was launched by LBJ, when is that war going to end? There was a 10% poverty rate in the US at that time and guess what, it's about 10% now. So can we declare that war as over and benefit from the "peace dividend" by giving back the monies that would have been spent on that "war" as more tax cuts? Or, hell, pay down the debt with it. I'd prefer the former, but would support that latter. I'd also like a constitutional balanced budget amendment but I don't think it will ever happen...
There is a difference between losing money in the stock market and having those funds looted.
Absolutely. I think all of the bastards that purposely over-valued their companies and hosed investors should live a life with just two pennies to rub together while being Bubba's prison bitch.
C'mon, be honest, you like Bush because you don't understand basic economics.
I don't particularly care for Bush. He's spending way too much money and growing the federal government at way too high a rate for my tastes. But there isn't a viable alternative out there that is going to do better and can win. BTW, I do understand basic economics. I also understand "government economics" where a 3% cut is only 7% growth vs. the 10% growth that was baselined in. I also know what I would do if I were king for a day (as I'm sure you do too.) But the reality of the situation is that congress sees no need to not spend money like it's going out of style (regardless of the party in control, but I do suspect that the current Republican spending binge is in large part to take away all of the Democrat issues -- education, healthcare, etc.)
BTW, you migh
space terror target? (Score:1, Interesting)
Theyve got the car bomb but need to get their own space program...
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Interesting)
We already have. They're called Credit Unions.
Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4 FUD and LIES (Score:1, Interesting)
On 14th June 1940, the German Army occupied Paris. Paul Reynaud, the French prime minister, now realized that the German Western Offensive could not be halted and suggested that the government should move to territories it owned in North Africa. This was opposed by his vice-premier, Henri-Philippe Petain, and the supreme commander of the armed forces, General Maxime Weygand. They insisted that the government should remain in France and seek an armistice.
Outvoted, Reynaud resigned and President Albert Lebrun, appointed Petain as France's new premier. He immediately began negotiations with Adolf Hitler and on 22nd June signed an armistice with Germany. The terms of the agreement divided France into occupied and unoccupied zones, with a rigid demarcation line between the two. The Germans would directly control three-fifths of the country, an area that included northern and western France and the entire Atlantic coast. The remaining section of the country would be administered by the French government at Vichy under Marshal Henri-Philippe Petain.
Other provisions of the armistice included the surrender of all Jews living in France to the Germans. The French Army was disbanded except for a force of 100,000 men to maintain domestic order. The 1.5 million French soldiers captured by the Germans were to remain prisoners of war. The French government also agreed to stop members of its armed forces from leaving the country and instructed its citizens not to fight against the Germans. Finally, France had to pay the occupation costs of the German troops.
Over the next four years Henri-Philippe Petain led the right-wing government of Vichy France. The famous revolutionary principles of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" were replaced by "Work, Family, Fatherland". Prominent figures in the Vichy government included Pierre Laval, Jean-Francois Darlan and Joseph Darnand.
The Vichy government kept troops in Syria during the Second World War. Its position on the Eastern Mediterranean coast made it strategically important for both Britain and Nazi Germany. The Allies also feared that Henri-Philippe Petain would allow the Luftwaffe to establish air bases in the country.
On 8th June 1941 the British Army and Free French forces entered Syria from Iraq and Palestine. After facing tough resistance from the Vichy forces the Allies captured Damascus on 17th June. The armistice was signed on 12th July and pro-British regimes were maintained in Syria for the rest of the war.
In January 1943 Darnand became head of Milice the secret police in Vichy. Darnand was given the Waffen SS rank of Sturmbannfuehrer and took a personal oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler.
Joseph Darnand expanded the Milice and by 1944 it had over 35,000 members. The organization played an important role in investigating the French Resistance. Like the Gestapo, the miliciens were willing to use torture to gain information.
After the D-day landings took place the Maquis and other resistance groups emerged to help in the liberation of their country. Henri-Philippe Petain and his ministers fled to Germany where they established an exiled government at Sigmaringen.
In 1945 the leaders of the Vichy government were arrested and some, including Pierre Laval and Joseph Darnand, were executed for war crimes.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:2, Interesting)