02-04-2003, 04:28 AM
well, the shuttle leads to more than just 7 people, though any time someone dies it's a tragedy. this is going to slow down majorly any progess in the space industry, which has more commercial implications than you might drink. the shuttle launches satellites, repairs satellites, performs experiments and pours funding into new technologies which extend much farther than space exploration (take for instance, the microprocessor in your computer), not to mention providing tens of thousands of jobs while keeping business like boing and mcdonald douglas. Right now, you're looking at nasa loosing an 11-digit figure, which puts a major halt on this powerhouse, and it will affect thousands, if not millions, of people.
iraq: i dont think there's a person here that believe saddam is an evil man. nor does anyone not believe he's tested chem. weapons on his citizens or would love to get his hands on nuclear weapons. but think about it: we wouldnt be fighting saddam. he wouldnt be holed up in a palace we could storm or at waterloo to surround. what would happen is is we'd kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis fighting in a ground war because they've been raised from birth to believe saddam is their savior, like the millions of russians sent to die in wwii under joseph stalin (anyone else notice a stunning similarity in physical appearance between those two?). In the end, we'd probably win, or at worst be forced to leave like in vietnam. but saddam will live. he will escape, he has those means and the followers to support him. just look at the taliban in afganistan. bin laden is still alive, and i have no clue on the mullah. they have been replaced by what is called a democracy, but in reality a decaying loose alliance between warring clans (for lack of a better word) that dragged helpless people to death accross the streets and recently suffocated two hundred people. and that's just what's on camera. no, war is not the best solution, though i can see how it would appear that way.
hitler was a mistake, an awful one that is still hitting hard today. but dont too readily jump to the conclusion that this is the same as the appeasement churchill gave to allow hitler to take over the polish corridor, as many people do. we will not allow him to expand militarily to avoid war, we dont need to come to that. the best solution, while the u.s. has military power is to simply keep him weak, keep up with the military aggression that we used in the late 90s. make him another petty weak leader and his people will take care of the rest. but in a time of crises the masses turn to their leader for support and put him on pedestal (e.g. bush). and if we go to war, that's exactly what's going to happen.
iraq: i dont think there's a person here that believe saddam is an evil man. nor does anyone not believe he's tested chem. weapons on his citizens or would love to get his hands on nuclear weapons. but think about it: we wouldnt be fighting saddam. he wouldnt be holed up in a palace we could storm or at waterloo to surround. what would happen is is we'd kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis fighting in a ground war because they've been raised from birth to believe saddam is their savior, like the millions of russians sent to die in wwii under joseph stalin (anyone else notice a stunning similarity in physical appearance between those two?). In the end, we'd probably win, or at worst be forced to leave like in vietnam. but saddam will live. he will escape, he has those means and the followers to support him. just look at the taliban in afganistan. bin laden is still alive, and i have no clue on the mullah. they have been replaced by what is called a democracy, but in reality a decaying loose alliance between warring clans (for lack of a better word) that dragged helpless people to death accross the streets and recently suffocated two hundred people. and that's just what's on camera. no, war is not the best solution, though i can see how it would appear that way.
hitler was a mistake, an awful one that is still hitting hard today. but dont too readily jump to the conclusion that this is the same as the appeasement churchill gave to allow hitler to take over the polish corridor, as many people do. we will not allow him to expand militarily to avoid war, we dont need to come to that. the best solution, while the u.s. has military power is to simply keep him weak, keep up with the military aggression that we used in the late 90s. make him another petty weak leader and his people will take care of the rest. but in a time of crises the masses turn to their leader for support and put him on pedestal (e.g. bush). and if we go to war, that's exactly what's going to happen.
i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry