THE SHUTTLE.... !!!!!

[na_th_an]

So you don't care if innocents die? It is easy for as to launch a war against Iraq, 'cause we won't suffer the war in our countries. We will be attacking a poor and desperate country. Yeah, be sure that Saddam will be defeated, but we'll be comfortablely sat down in our armchairs watching war on TV while the people in iraq are being eviscerated by "collateral effects".

I'm sure than people who are for the war wouldn't be if the war were in their countries, not in such a far away nation.

I know that people have to die in wars, that's why I don't like wars.

But why are you blindly confiding in Mr Bush? Why do you believe him, and not Saddam? Saddam is an arsehole, of course, but Bush is another one. Saddam is mad, he is really insane and should be taken away from the government. But Bush ain't the most sane person on earth. I would be afraid of him also.

Iraq is settled down. The inspectors haven't found a clue. To build nukes or chemical weapons you need big industries than can't be hiden so easily.

[red_Marvin]

Right nathan
Bush with a nuke and paranoia: SCARY

[wildcard]

na_th_an: Of course I care, I'm sure Jocke does too and others. But Saddam has a proven record of torture and other atrocities. There is no simple solution to the problem. There are people in Iraq who want and don't want the war, there is no such thing as a good or clean war. But how else is there going to be peace restored to the area(or better said more peace)? At the moment there is no definte war, but the threat of war is better than an actual war(hence a strong build of troops).

[toonski84]

look, to settle here we've all made our points, and we're just repeating ourselves now. there's obviously nothing we can do as individuals to affect this, (inspired people say what you will, but be realistic), so really the only thing to do now is wait and see what happens.

[relsoft]

is Saddam Gay?

:*)

[SJ Zero]

I don't understand why these people are being hailed as heroes though. I mean, people die in industrial accidents all the time, and to be honest, the space program has a pretty good track record in terms of safety. Three accidents since it's inception is pretty good. Any death is a tragedy, but not every dead person is a hero, and not every death truly deserves to be mourned by the entire nation.

(Don't mind me. I've been questioning the social order for a few months now... Do we deserve to be privy to the lives of actors just because we liked them in a movie? I don't think so. They're just people doing their jobs. They deserve as much anonymity as the rest of us. Same with the above. It's a tragedy, but does the entire nation have to mourn? Are these people, who are just doing their jobs, heroes? I don't think so. They are scientists who died in a tragic accident, who knew of the risks before they signed on. There are far more dangerous jobs in science, and unless there was some unsung heroism I haven't been told about(like them blowing up the rocket because it was about to hit a population center, though they might have escaped if they hadn't), it was just a statistically improbable event the nations of the world shouldn't dwell on.)

As for the war, I honestly think that if it were Mexico being attacked, we'd see a lot more ambiguity. To me, it's disgusting that war has become the sunday night football of the 21st century -- an event whose violence is detached... cold... callous. "Hey, there's this crazy guy killing his own citizens in a country half way across the world. Wanna send our boys in?" "Oh yeah! let's send our boys in!". This isn't war, it's bloodsport. Innocents be damned. They are mere human shields for the politicians.

toonski: I had never considered the economic ramifications of the accident. That gives me something else to think about. NASA funding has been on the decline in general though, just as you said, and I think a cool project like sending someone to mars and possibly establishing a colony(now THAT would be cool!) could increase public support and likewise funding.

Jocke The Beast:WWII was defintely a special circumstance if there ever was one. Nobody could have known that hitler was the responsible for the massacre of millions based on his military actions -- that was a different aspect of him altogether. Tell me, if hitler wasn't evil personofied, if he didn't have the appeitite for blood and massacre he did, would WWII have been so black-and-white? Besides which, I think trying to use your army to shape the world like that is a fools game. For every nation you convert to democracy, you create an Osama bin Laden plotting to destroy the nation he has a vendetta against. For every gun used to kill an enemy soldier, there's a bomb used to kill an innocent. For every person whose life you improve, you destroy one, either literally through guns and bombs, or figuratively, like economic sanctions in Iraq are doing. Sure, it's not a zero-sum game, but in trying to police the world, you put your own people at risk, and 9/11 is a very real example of that. The final question is whether you're willing to put the lives of your people in jeopardy because you want to shape the world. Personally, I think these are things a country has to deal with for itself, otherwise it falls back into the same habits, and is doomed to repeat it's mistakes, only to be saved again, costing more lives.

[Jocke The Beast]

Toonski: You're right (WE can't change anything) but I think it's interesting to discuss theese sort of issues. And since the discussion seems to be serious and there's no hard feelings I don't see what's wrong if we continue talking about it.

Nathan: I care Nathan... I really do. And if it sounds like I'm cold-blooded or something like that it might be that english isn't my first-language and it's hard to get the right words when expressing myself.

But why are you blindly confiding in Mr Bush? Why do you believe him, and not Saddam?

Well, Sadam has proven that he's capable of evil-deeds (chemical attacks in north iraq for example) and he's been lying to UN ever since 1991. I hasn't received any information that shows that Bush is in the same "league" as Sadam. I know many of the guys from USA here (no names said) don't like Bush. But for me (Swedish guy) it seems like Bush is a "normal" president without any "evil habbits". But as I said, I base this opinion through what I see on TV,read in newspaper and so on.

One question though: What's wrong with Bush? I know many of you dislike (or should I use the word hate) Bush, but I don't really understand what he's done that's so bad. But please tell me...

SjZero:

I think trying to use your army to shape the world like that is a fools game. For every nation you convert to democracy, you create an Osama bin Laden plotting to destroy the nation he has a vendetta against.

Well said, but I don't agree with you. I don't think we can (or should be allowed to) sit back while people suffers cause a nations goverment is un-democratic and hostile against it's own people. If we leave theese countries without help, what's the point we have UN? Why not let all countries do exactly what they want? No, I don't belive in that. But I do think that the world-community can sometimes be wrong and not use the right priority. It sometimes feels like not all people have the same value. Why not "get invloved" in Africa where many countries have "bad-goverment" and the people is suffering alot.