Sir Bandelot

I try to never get emotional around here. What's the point? It's much more interesting to discuss ideas. Interpretations are more subtle, showing how complicated issue become. If someone outright disagrees with me, I don't care. But I don't feel particularly compelled to make them look stupid either. Everyone's entitled to do their thing. Incessantly nattering and arguing about every detail is not what I come here for. But pickin on 'Merikans? Oh Yeah The space shuttle discussion is somewhat interesting, if you're so inclined.

True, I figured on the computers. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that the shuttle had flaws. Hell of course it did, people were killed. I'm disappointed that they ended the program before they had something else ready to go. I guess cost cutting is ultimately what forced them to do it. Sometimes it's harder to resurrect a stalled program than it is to keep it going through continuous evolution of new technology. Hope that won't be the case for NASA. I enjoy keeping up on the latest news of ongoing NASA missions to Mars, Mercury and the outer planets.

No, because forum rules were not broken. Your ad hominem on the other hand does qualify as reportable.

When I heard that the Soyuz blew up, I immediately became suspicious. You think the Russians are sincere and trustworthy to America? They still have their interests, and covert ops. And I'm sure they would be quote pleased to see bad things happen to America. Failure of the ISS would be a loss for Russia as well but overall wouldn't be so bad, from a perspective of global power politics. So it's ok to delay the next launch, stall, and create problems. There are elements in this game that might even sabotage a rocket. I guess I just have a suspicious nature.

If I had a fight with somebody, and next thing they wanted to be my friend, it would take me a while before I believed them. 200 years might be enough.

What technology was outdated though. I mean, we're talking about NASA here. It's not like there's thousands of companies making products in competition. How many companies make shuttles, rocket boosters, and massive gantries to support the whole thing. The Thiokole rockets with leaky gaskets could have been replaced with something better. The fuel tank had its problems. The vehicle had some issues, like with the ceramic plates. But those were being managed, finally, after the disaster by doing careful inspection with a TV camera mounted on the Canadarm. If a problem was found, they had an n-board repair kit with a few extra tiles and some glue. But on the whole, there is nothing else in the world like it. I for one am disappointed to see it go. There is still quite a bit of valuable work to be done up there, and it should be done by a vehicle like the shuttle. As for objective like the Moon and Mars, I always thought they were just a pipe dream used as propaganda by George Bush. Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen, but what I read is, most scientists think it's a waste of time to send humans to Mars. It would be so tremendously expensive that it would eat up most of the available budget for scientific research in astronomy. And their view is, what could be accomplished by putting people back on the moon or mars, that can't be done with robotic probes and orbiters? Look at the success of recent missions to Mars. There are currently something like 5 orbiters going round the planet. Plus the ground based rovers, spirit and opportunity. Phenomenal success, for minimal cost. Sending a person does not make sense from the perspective of economics, or science.

Perhaps, but it's one thing to have a few successful demo flights, and another to have an intensive program with hundreds of successful missions. With these private companies I'd be concerned about robust designs and quality control. I do find the cancellation of the shuttle program baffling. To me it was a fantastic program. But of course the two accidents were tragic and disastrous. Maybe that is ultimately why they decided to end it. But I doubt that... these missions are inherently risky by their nature. What I find most strange is why there is a discontinuity in shuttle service, even if for a few years. To be reliant on ones former enemies is usually a bad idea.

I did not modify your post. Your post is still there. And I was clear about the change I made, in my post. So don't worry, your intentions were not at all obscured. Are you going to report me now

That's because your elections are actually a "racket" in themselves.

From the people with the really big money.

I was wondering if you had a sense of humour too, since the point went beyond a mere childish or provocative post, as others did. Rather than engage the point, you chose an ad-hominem and invoked the mods. And you support MDancer's right to expression, eh? A la Voltaire, no less. Too bad for you that you don't get that.

There, I fixed it for you.

Now it is your sense of humour that is lacking! For some of my posts are intended to be provocative as well. But I'm glad you admit that. Although we clearly differ on some things, it shows you never really know who you're dealing with, until you reach out to them a little.

From what I understand Obama has dropped the goal of US-sponsored nation building for Afghanistan. That was one of the mission objectives under Bush, but is no longer a primary goal. Sure, they would love to see Afghanistan become a democracy, complete with Hedonism II resorts on lake Hamun. But Obama does not feel compelled to make that happen, using US "blood and treasure". Rather, as he point out in the speech in June 2011, the time as come to invest in Americas own nation building. And rightly so, IMO. Meanwhile the mission objective over time drifted from defeat of the Taliban, to diminishing the Taliban, to reconciliation, and finally to acceptance. With some attempt at face-saving caveats, yes, but try dealing with them when you've already left the country.

What? The far-right ultra nationalist extremist is not so far right? Now I believe in miracles

If you want that, then please read the CNN page linked to in post # 300. Then go and find President Obama's speech in June 2011, I believe it was, in which he says things such as allowing the Taliban to participate in the government. He outlines the goals that he believes are achievable. He is not going after the goals that were set out by President Bush at the start of the war. I found the transcript for you. It's a long speech but see Page 2.

Actually it is known that the Taliban have strong supporter in the current Afghanistan government. They never completely lost their power. And this is part of the reason why things are so difficult over there for us, due to lack of cooperation on their part.

As linked, it is the US president who said so. he did it in his speech in June 2011. I'm not making this up. It hasn't happened yet, so maybe there will be a better, alternate plan? I doubt it. It looks like the US led coalition has spent all they are willing to spend in Afghanistan, in terms of lives and dollars, and they now want to move on. The exit plan is already made. So at the risk of repeating myself I conclude, they didn't accomplish much of real worth to the people of Afghanistan. The people didn't get a better society, at least not in the short term. With groups like Mujahideen and Taliban in power, I don't see a reason to feel optimistic about their future. But at least Al-Qaeda is on the run. Bin Laden is dead. Those are accomplishments, yes, but the notion that things are/ will be better for Afghanistan as a result of this is not believable. Turning to Iraq, I don't believe they are better off. Iraq is now ruled by the Shiites, who adhere to Sharia law. They voted to adopt sharia law into their constitution. US relents on Islamic law to reach Iraq deal Iraq: Beheading up. Constitution accepts Sharia Please read this article: Fighting for women's rights in Iraq Under Saddam there was no sharia law. It was secular. Everybody, including girls went to school. Women even held positions in high government. (CNN June 26 2005) Under Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist party, citizens were declared equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion, and they were allowed to vote and run for office, the HRW said. Even after Hussein rolled back women's rights to curry favor with tribal and religious leaders after the first Gulf War, women were spared the level of violence they endure now, according to Amnesty International. According to a United Nations report, the kidnapping, rape and murder of women is on the rise. Honor killings, or the killing of a woman who brought perceived dishonor to her family, is up also. Women -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- are warned to adhere to the strict dress code, the United Nations said. Again, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The bad news that Bush's goals for the war will not be accomplished. Afghanistan will remain de-centralized, and the Taliban will still be in power. You did read my other more thoughtful posts, didn't you?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Suggest y'all take it up with your President!

Doing the same failed things over and over again, leads to the same failed results. And history teaches us that. We learn from history about the root causes of things, why things are the way they are now. We're partly responsible for what happened in Afghanistan beginning with the British empire, then on to supporting, training and arming Mujahideen against soviets, which helped to give power to the Taliban and even create terrorist training camps. If I am pessimistic, it's only because I read the news. "I think our fundamental security interests in Afghanistan are that the country not become a base for terrorists to attack us or our allies and that the country not become a base for destabilizing its neighbors and especially Pakistan. Those are the two interests the President has articulated for Afghanistan. The second is the more important of the two. Neither require the end state that the Bush Administration was aiming at. We could accept a substantially less centralized Afghan state and we could accept some legitimate legal and political role for the Taliban in the governance of that less-centralized state as long as we assure that Afghan territory is not used to destabilize Pakistan or attack us." America must negotiate with the Taliban The US Presidents speech which followed shortly after echoed these points. Many of us who knew the history of Afghanistan when the war started knew that it was being done in angry retaliation for 9/11. Not for the express purpose of making Afghanistan a democracy. The US was content to leave Afghanistan under Taliban rule for ten years after the soviets pulled out. But if you recall, GWB wanted them to deliver Osama bin Laden. And when they didn't, it was off to war. It leads me to conclude, those ideals of improving things for the people in Afghanistan, noble though they appear to be were just an excuse to placate the US public into supporting the war. And lots of people bought that line. But lots of others said no, it was impossible as we've seen so many times before. They will resist any attempt of an outside, particularly western or non muslim forces to change their society. And now the movement is toward cutting our losses, pull out and accept a minimum result. But even the Taliban will not be gone, we are forced to concede they will have a hold on Afghanistan power. This support also comes from the government of Afghanistan. And what I have said nd what the coalition/ military leaders are saying is, as long as they are not a problem for us or anyone else in the region, let them have it. It's what they want. Hard for you to believe, perhaps.

Indeed a number of nations during WWII preferred to align with the Nazis rather than the communists, as choosing the lesser of two evils. Some of those in the Baltics.

Life in Afghanistan was no different under the Taliban than it ever was. They, the Afghan people, want to live that way. If they don't, they would have changed things for themselves by now. But the fact that several empires have marched through their in the past 100 years or so and waged war on them did not help them to develop a better society. I doubt that as many would have been killed by the Taliban, as have been killed now in this war. In any case, what's been seen before as the typical pattern will now likely repeat itself. The war will come to an end, lots of people died and the place is even more in ruins than it was before the war. And life will be more or less the same. At least that's the sound of it coming from our leaders now, as the Taliban are once again being invited to participate in government. Result? Negative, negative, negative. Want to improve things for the people of Afghanistan? An absence of war would probably be a good start.

We've been talking about that for so long, it will never happen. Rather the reverse, the peoples tax money is given to the rich in the form of bailouts when their business ventures fail. And the fail, due to excessive greed. Yes, we have reached that point of absurdity in the system. In the past there was at least an attempt to portray a modicum of fairness, but with the coffers now bare there is no time for that illusion anymore. Today we see the elite unabashedly taking public money for themselves, in a frenzy to grab whatever is left. They legislate for themselves the right to steal. As we continue down this road it won't surprise me to see riots such as we've seen in London and elsewhere, with the disenfranchised performing their own garish version of smash and grab.

Yes you can thank your god, which is, you know, down...