Fairweather

Are you fucking dense...or just another brain-dead undergrad? How did you come up with your reply when I clearly posted this: "...a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable..."? If you're simply trying to annoy, you are succeeding - but if you really want to be Foraker's lap-dog you should be getting a paycheck....or at least a moist towlette to clean off your chin.

Nice dodge, but you're the one who seems to be against a missile defense system that, if/when reliably operable, would likely negate the need for massive nuclear retaliation against a small state. Who wants dead bodies? Sounds like you do vis a vis your knee-jerk reactionary opposition to any and all military programs defensive or otherwise. You may not believe this, but there are actually scientists and engineers who are smarter than you. BTW, you still haven't addressed a question I posed to you and Murray on another thread - and I've never seen any nuance in any of your politcal views whatsoever. Just left-wing spew.

Hmmm. Liberals that support MAD theory over a defensive missile system. Interesting.

Actually, there was a successful test conducted today just north of Kauai. But I think trying to intercept NK's rocket would be risky politically. Risk/benefit odds seems a bit off. I would love to see it though!

Fair enough. But I think the republic will survive yet another crooked administration.

OK Matt. Here it is: Re: The invasion of Iraq For the most part you were right and I was wrong. Is that better? I suspect you've had problems at certain points in your life with this, so here it is... Just graciously accept my acquiesence regarding this issue and move on. If you wish to discuss any aspect of the Frontline show in any greater detail I am more than happy to do it with you. Or, if you want to discuss future prospects for Iraq, the Bush Administration's ongoing duplicity, whatever, I'm OK with that. But your last two posts have been smarmy at best. Again; you were right, and I was wrong. Yes, I know, you told me so. I get it now.

I don't believe this is true. Many of the ex-intel folks interviewed for the piece were just recently "retired" in 2004 and 2005, and it is/was their revelations that I found most damning of Cheyney & crew. Regardless, there were many pieces of this puzzle laying in a heap on the table - but until this Frontline story, nobody to put them all together in a manner that didn't smack of politics or outright hysteria. IMO.

Yes, but did he lie to take us into war? I'm still waiting to hear what Fairweather thought of the TV show the other night. And, in a similar vein, has anybody here read this? OK Matt. I did watch the Frontline report (although I missed the first 15 minutes getting back late from my evening run). As I've said - I consider Frontline good, down-the-middle reporting - and I've been digesting what I saw this past day and a half. Sometimes our disgust for one's social ideology renders their message inaudible, and this has been a case where I did not clearly hear...until now. I have concluded that yes, we were lied to about the stated reason for the invasion of Iraq. And while the interviews with Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke were about what I expected, I was, frankly, stunned by the parade of corraberating interviewees from the political, military, and intelligence communities. I still can't believe many of these men have the balls to speak up. Again, I was stunned by the daily visits to CIA headquarters made by Cheyney's entourage to intimidate analysts. Analysts! What gall. What has me most bothered is the (apparently solid) allegation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and to a lesser degree Rice - when they could not convince Bush to go along - badgered Tenet and Powell into joining the choir....and, sadly, that they did. The fabricated story about the Prague meeting between Atta and Iraqi intel...a lie. The virtual state of war (ongoing!) between the CIA and the administration is shocking - and terrifying. WTF is going on? Matt, as I've stated before, I believe there were plenty of valid reasons to invade Iraq. Why the administration chose to pick a lie as the reason, I can only guess. But they obviously figured it would be easier to play on public fears about WMD's than to claim a violation of the cease-fire agreement/attempted assasination of GHWB/ongoing human rights violations. Hell, maybe they actually believed that Iraq was somehow complicit in 9/11! - something I have never subscribed to. The implication that administration claims of ongoing WMD production in Iraq was, in fact, a fabrication DOES mean that the invasion was not urgent - it means that it was an optional war. Yes. Also exposed in this report, at least insomuch as it has changed my view of the history, is that we probably did sacrifice capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora while men and materiel were being diverted to a build-up for an optional war in Iraq. The CIA ex-field chief in Afghanistan (I can't remember his name) is pretty clear about this. Bush took his eye off the ball. Please spare me the Oil/Halliburton bullshit. I'm still not that cynical. And no, I'm not jumping on the peace train with you at this point! We need to stay and finish this....somehow. But I do now believe that both Cheney and Rumsfeld should be replaced. Maybe even investigated. Maybe even put on trial. Bush should finish out his term and try to make the best of this situation. Ammends. Yes, he is/was ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates...but it's not too late to save this thing and I still believe he is a good man. No longer do I Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Still waiting, Murray. You usually seem pretty moderate, but did you just make this up?

North Korea is nothing more than China's Minature Schnauzer. The PRC could pull Kim's chain any time they wanted, but right now he serves a purpose. Arch, you're right about Korean angst regarding Japan. I've listened to it dozens of times in my work and would say it's at least on a par with Arab anti-semitic sentiments. Have you read "Flyboys" by James Bradley? Some good history about the roots of Japanese militarism and history of WWII in the Pacific. Also read "The Rape of Nanking" if you have the stomach. I'm not down on Japan though. IMO, they represent a clear case where democracy has freed a people from the same militarist/dictatorial oppression that now enslaves North Korea.

Frontline usually presents down the middle when appropriate. I'll watch it tonight, Matt. Let's see if we view it through the same glasses.

Don't look like anything I've ever worn. You sure you're not "confused"?

I'm not seeing the 'negative impacts' of global warming in your graph.

A simple, "You're right. I made it up." will do.

Actually, Matt, if you were capable of even a moderate degree of reading comprehension you would know that in my rants I often provide links to support my claims - and I don't believe I've ever cited FoxNews or Limbaugh. Usually it's BBC, MSNBC, or a straight AP link. I am thoroughly versed of the whole GWB/National Guard/Bill Burkett-phony document scandal. And I believe that the administration has denied the claims. I also believe that the claims made against Kerry by his fellow sailors are much more credible than anything I've ever seen/read about Bush's National Guard service. Try stepping out of that box you're trapped in somtime. Geeezz.

Cat got your tongue, Murray? Foraker?

After that, please feel free to explain how Republicans killed the supercollider in 1992 - before they were in power.....

Of course, such a proposal is an outrage. But you still haven't provided the complete context or conditions under which a small group of Republican senators thought it might be useful. In the name of Peace perhaps? Now, feel free to answer my question in turn.

Murraysovereign says: "Nope, it was Newt Gingrich's House of Representatives. True, Clinton was President at the time, but it was a Republican-controlled House that cancelled the project." This simply is not true. I should point out to you that it was a Democrat controlled House and Senate that killed the collider in 1992 and 1993. The "Republican revolution" takeover of congress didn't happen until 1994!! http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree....AResult&ao=

Post deleted by Fairweather

Not so fast there my Canadian Friend, but I think your history is a bit fuzzy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider ....The project was canceled by Congress in 1993. Many factors contributed to the shutdown of the project, although different parties disagree on which contributed the most. They include rising cost estimates, mismanagement by physicists and Department of Energy officials, the end of the need to prove the supremacy of American science with the collapse of the Soviet Union, belief that many smaller scientific experiments of equal merit could be funded for the same cost, Congress's desire to generally reduce spending, and the unwillingness of Texas Governor Ann Richards [1] and President Bill Clinton, both Democrats, to support a project initiated during the administrations of Richards's Republican predecessor, Bill Clements, and Clinton's Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The closing of the SSC held drastic ramifications for the southern part of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, and resulted in a mild recession made most evident in those parts of Dallas which lay south of the Trinity River. [3] At the time the project was cancelled, 22.5 km (14 mi) of tunnel were already dug and nearly 2 billion dollars had already been spent on the massive facility.

Get it while you can! The road will be permanently gated as of November 2006 by the USFS - at the behest of the environmental fringe groups, 'ALPS' and 'Mountains to Sound Greenway' and radicals like Harvey Manning. Your short trip will now be only for the super-fit 1%, or those with days to spare. Nice pictures, BTW!

Hell yes! But there's that whole speed-of-light-limit thing that doesn't bode well for a traditional approach. I'm confident that we'll figure it out someday, and yes, we should continue building the foundation for future explorers. Part of me thinks the real answers to getting off this planet lie more in the physics lab than "out there" - but both paths compliment eachother regardless. (Hey foraker; wasn't it Clinton that killed funding for the proposed new super-collider in Texas?) Happy Father's Day to you too.

Exactly! But then again, if the (this) universe expansion eventually stops and collapses back into a singularity, it won't matter what rock the human race is hangin' out on. But I've also read one theory holds yet another Big Bang then occurs and we get to do this all over again - exactly the same way!

...While scientists interviewed for this story said they do not believe the earth science cuts are a deliberate attempt to stall science on climate change, they say it comes at a time when more research, not less, is needed.... ...The exact amount of cuts to earth science programs could not be determined because they are not listed separately in the budget proposal.... ...Another key satellite, the $10 billion National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, is over budget and has been delayed at least 18 months.... God forbid ! scientists be held accountable to the taxpayer. Foraker, I'm a big proponent of NASA - their space monopoly notwithstanding - and I hate to see anything in their budget cut. But they need a clear mission over there - one the public understands - and dumping billions into a flying dinosaur, aka the space shuttle, takes money away from more urgent needs, such as those you've listed in your post. I would also point out that $$$ spent on space exploration is quite often derided by near-sighted liberal activists who cite feeding the hungry here on earth as a more important task. I recall Ted Kennedy proposed suspending NASA funds altogether in his primary run for the presidency back in 1972 for this very reason.