RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


$850 million gets us to Mars, $85 BILLION gets us...?(20 posts)

$850 million gets us to Mars, $85 BILLION gets us...?joe friday
Jan 4, 2004 10:49 AM
it's awe inspiring to me to see what can be accomplished.
it's also pitiful to see how/why we choose our leaders.
and they keep cutting nasa's budget. nmrufus
Jan 4, 2004 5:57 PM
Yeah, a couple of snapshots of mars, real helpful (nm)TJeanloz
Jan 5, 2004 6:23 AM
Only to the human spirit. nmOldEdScott
Jan 5, 2004 8:05 AM
human spirit benefits?DougSloan
Jan 5, 2004 8:28 AM
Following the point of the original post, yes, I can see that some photos of Mars are worth $85 million. How can the benefit to the human spirit of that compare to freeing a country from torture and genocide from a ruthless dictator?

The misguided bias of some people is astounding (not you, Ed). To imply that money is better spent on Mars than freeing people from a dictator who has murdered and maimed his own people into the hundreds of thousands is just plain goofy. What would any great Liberal leader say about that, other than in the pure context of political hacking of the President?

Doug
Ooops. I forgot. nmOldEdScott
Jan 5, 2004 8:39 AM
Sycophantic adoration makes a nice start to a weekPdxMark
Jan 5, 2004 9:12 AM
If purging the world of genocidal psycopaths is the objective of GW BuSh's foreign policy, then perhaps he ought to explain why only Irag deserves the benefit of such compassionate activism. OK, since GWBuSh won't be giving us that explanation, how about one of our right-wing RBR bleeding hearts. How many people must a ruthless government kill or torture before we decide it's time to save the population? I doubt that anyone on the Right will admit that Iraqi freedom is the only after-the-fact pasty that provides even a remote justification to GWBuSh's Iraq wank. (Well, except for enforcing resolutions of a body that the BuSh admin openly dismisses and disdains.)

Maybe GwBush, or one of his slavish sycophants can explain why Iraqi human rights was not raised EVER by the American Rightwing before GWBuSh straining the truth about WMDs, al Qaeda/Iraq contacts, threats to US security, etc. Did GWBush mention it during his 2000 campaign? I don't think so. How about in the sleepy months of his presidency before 9/11? Nope. Maybe it was the groundswell of Republican protesters urging active rescue of the oppressed Iraqi people. Nope.

As for the $85B spent on Iraq relative to $85M spent on the Mars mission, our Rightwing friends this morning seem to be saying that spending 1/1000 the cost of GWBuSh's Iraq wank on scientific knowledge is of no value. OK, I can accept that knowledge to the Rightwing is not of value. I think a Mars mission for $85M is a pretty good deal. It beats, oh, say, giving an extra $65M to Halliburton just because...

How about spending a few of the Iraq billions on helping to stabilize the one place where terrorists actually flourished sufficiently to coordinate an attack against the US? Naw, because our Great Leader hasn't told his sycophants that that is what they should, to use the term loosely, think.
PDXMark, who is straining the truth ?bill105
Jan 5, 2004 9:27 AM
Here you go PDX Mark, what has changed since these quotes by your "leaders"?

Feb. 17, 1998: "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." – President Clinton.

Feb. 18, 1998: "[T]he risk that the leaders of [Iraq] will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face." – Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Oct. 9, 1998: "[We] urge you ... to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Kerry and others.

Sept. 23, 2002: "We know [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." – Al Gore.

Fall 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." – Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Dec. 8, 2002: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has ... a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." – Sen. Bob Graham of Florida of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Further, al Qaeda is in Iraq and alot of other countries. They arent sitting in a HoJo conference center somewhere waiting on us to attack them.

As for Haliburton, you need to keep up. They havent made as much in Iraq as you imply.
Who is straining the truth? The Right and the Left....Dwayne Barry
Jan 5, 2004 9:40 AM
both strain credibility, the Right (e.g. Doug) when they say we went into Iraq to remove an "evil" dictator for the benefit of the oppressed Iraqi people, and the Left when they say we went into Iraq to get the Iraqi oil, etc.
we have beaten this to death, but I did post proof of thisDougSloan
Jan 5, 2004 10:12 AM
I posted plenty of proof, for example, from the last State of the Union speech, that part of the expressed rationale for Iraq invasion was human rights; in fact, it was not only partial, but very significant. Sincere or not, it certainly was expressed *before the fact." Mark is wrong on this, and there is unequivocal proof.

Fact is, there were many expressed and probably a few secret motives for the invasion. It's far too simplistic and narrow-minded to focus on one reason. However, there was one that was good enough for me, and good enough regardless of whether we police the entire planet.

Doug
That's it. I declare SHENANIGANS!dr hoo
Jan 5, 2004 10:38 AM
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Get the brooms! If you can't play by the rules ON THIS DAY that is CLEARLY shenanigans!

Kyle: That does it! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!!!
Booth Man: What are you doing?
Kyle: I'm declaring Shenanigans on you. This game is rigged.
Booth Man: Shenanigans?
Barbrady comes along
Barbrady: What's all the hoo-hah?
Kyle: Officer Barbrady, I wanna declare Shenanigans on this carnival operator.
Barbrady: Why?
Kyle: This game is fixed. The balls are bigger than Jennifer Love Hewit's mouth!
Barbrady: If that is true, then your declaration of Shenanigans is just. What do you have to say Carnival operator?
I'm so confused.OldEdScott
Jan 5, 2004 11:11 AM
I'm not sure what to argue here.
It's about the money.Starliner
Jan 5, 2004 11:37 AM
We're supposed to be arguing about the money. Doug thinks spending $85 billion is worth the effort to topple a dictator and ... (you complete the sentence). As if it's an either-or issue.

However, we who oppose this $85 billion (+) adventure think we might have been able to achieve our objectives for less money. But, that might have meant putting a little more thought into the plan and maybe a little more patience, and a bigger alliance.

So, that in a nutshell is the argument.
not necessarilyDougSloan
Jan 5, 2004 11:51 AM
I don't necessarily agree that it was "worth the money." But, what are human lives and freedom worth? I don't know. However, I do believe that if you are going to take a stand on something, and you want to be taken seriously, then you must follow through and do what it takes to finish the job.

In hindsight, possibly the job could have been done for less. Who knows? We all could "what if" this all day long.

Doug
Spirit of First MondayOldEdScott
Jan 5, 2004 12:42 PM
??
sommbit... forgot nmDougSloan
Jan 5, 2004 1:50 PM
When I am confused, I just ask myself WWCD.dr hoo
Jan 5, 2004 11:45 AM
What would Cartman do?

So, it could be about the money (and how to get it), or it could be about auth-or-i-tay (and how to respect it), or it could be about paaahh.

There are no problems out there so big that they do not fall to a strict and literal interpretation of the sacred cartoon texts.
"i'm gonna pistol whip the next guy who says the word .......rufus
Jan 5, 2004 1:30 PM
'shenanigans'"

"hey farva, what's the name of that restaurent that you like, with all the goofy stuff on the walls and the mozzerella sticks?"
what we sent to Mars isn't coming backmohair_chair
Jan 5, 2004 8:51 AM
Hopefully that $85 billion we sent to Iraq will pay off in some way, just like the Marshall Plan did after WWII. I still think it should have been a loan guaranteed by their oil, but it's not my money. Hey, wait a second, it IS my money!
Sitting in front of more computing power than NASA hadBowWow
Jan 5, 2004 11:16 AM
when they put Armstong on the moon and you say what we sent to Mars isn't coming back? Silly boy!