backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 124 comment(s) - last by BoxCutterLou.. on Apr 20 at 4:48 PM
The intrepid Cassini spacecraft has been hurtling around Saturn for four years. Look forward to at least two more.

The Cassini  spacecraft, which successfully made a seven year journey to Saturn after its October 15th, 1997 launch, has been vigorously orbiting Saturn since its arrival in June of 2004. The data sent back from the probe has been an incredible boon for planetary scientists studying the second largest planet in our area of space, its rings, and its seemingly limitless number of moons, large and small.

"This extension is not only exciting for the science community, but for the world to continue to share in unlocking Saturn's secrets. New discoveries are the hallmarks of its success, along with the breathtaking images beamed back to Earth that are simply mesmerizing," said Jim Green, director of the Planetary Science Division at NASA headquarters of the highly regarded space probe Cassini and the recently announced extension of its four year mission to explore Saturn and its solar system-unique vicinity.

The extension to the original four-year mission, scheduled to end in July of this year, was decided after several successful tests and the nearly flawless operating condition of the craft to date. Three instruments of the twelve aboard the probe have suffered minor failures, but the amount of data still able to be gathered by the craft is immense by the standards of space probes.

Cassini has, to date, made 62 orbits of Saturn and 55 flybys of its moons, 43 of which were dedicated to Titan, Saturn's largest and very earth-like moon. The orbiter most recently made a very close approach to the moon Enceladus to study a large water-ice geyser, ejecting material from the moon to a distance of three times its diameter of 500 km.

The two-year mission extension will see the craft perform another 60 orbits of Saturn, 26 flybys of Titan, seven of Enceladus and one for each moon; Dione, Rhea and Helene. The recent Enceladus flyby brought the craft within 50 km of the surface of the moon, and the new mission may bring it even closer, to a daring 25 km.

Based on past performance of the incredible Cassini, we can probably expect another two years worth of extraordinary data and images beamed back for analysis and wonderment. Should the two-year mission see successful completion, NASA predicts the craft will have enough propellant left for what may become a third phase, dedicated to missions centered on Titan and Enceladus.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hopefully
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 10:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
Someday I hope we'll actually be able to go to Saturn. Of course if the Democrats get elected, I have doubts of whether even NASA will stick around, much less accomplish anything.

Federal budget priorities should be:
-Defense
-Education
-Roads
-Space program
.
.
.

In my mind Welfare and Medicare should be around the bottom of the list.




RE: Hopefully
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/17/2008 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 1
No argument from me. Although Defense and Space Program can be one in the same :)


RE: Hopefully
By bldckstark on 4/17/2008 12:15:19 PM , Rating: 4
This is the second time in two days that I saw a DT blogger use the term "one in the same". The term is actually "one and the same". As in these two items are so much alike that they could be one item.

Not nitpicking though. It doesn't pain me or bother me to see it that way, I just thought you might like to know.


RE: Hopefully
By amanojaku on 4/17/2008 10:56:31 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
In my mind Welfare and Medicare should be around the bottom of the list.


Welfare and Medicare assist more people than just deadbeats. I know a few people who needed one or the other at some point in time and managed to turn their lives around. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who don't mind taking free money no matter their position in life (Paris Hilton gets paid to GO to parties???) I have too much pride to use welfare and medicare as crutches, but I've never been in a situation where I needed a helping hand so desperately.

Bottom line: don't assume that everyone on these programs is a leech (Republican viewpoint) or a person down on their luck temporarily (Democrat viewpoint.) Besides, you assume the money not spent on assistance programs would be better elsewhere (I won't disagree about defense and education.) What's the practical use of a visit to Saturn?


RE: Hopefully
By Xenoterranos on 4/17/2008 11:31:10 AM , Rating: 3
er, Education?


RE: Hopefully
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 12:56:33 PM , Rating: 5
Bottom line: If social programs only helped those who truly needed them instead of those who just are too lazy to work or made bad decisions which have caused them to have a low quality of life, then they wouldn't be as massive as they are today.

If you want to be stupid and get pregnant at 16, that's your decision. It isn't the government's job to take care of you.


RE: Hopefully
By therealnickdanger on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully
By phil126 on 4/17/2008 1:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
Mistakes do happen and sadly there are no perfect solutions. But in the case of teenage pregnacy would you prefer the mother and child live and die in the gutter? Just go spend some time in a less industialized country of the haves and have nots.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 5
> "Mistakes do happen and sadly there are no perfect solutions"

But some solutions are better than others. For many people, the welfare system we have now actually rewards bad behavior and disincentivizes education and hard work.


RE: Hopefully
By dever on 4/18/2008 2:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
This is exactly the point. Any government program that redistributes wealth has economic effects. Welfare effectively separates the vital feedback mechanism between productivity and reward, short-circuiting the foundation of the price system.


RE: Hopefully
By Cybesq on 4/18/2008 10:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ohhhh, you mean like the corporate welfare of bailing out Bear Sterns to the tune of one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee the banks' mortgage-backed junk bonds? Let's reward the bank's bad behavior of engaging in predatory loans, contracts of adhesion, and pure unregulated greed. Typical republican finger wagging as they rob the store.

"Hey you, look at this shiny welfare mother while I stick my hand in your pocket." I get it. Vote McSame in 2008. Four more years of it.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ohhhh, you mean like the corporate welfare of bailing out Bear Sterns to the tune of one-fifth of a trillion dollars "

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all, the Bear Stearns bailout was indeed an egregious misuse of governmental authority and a very poor idea overall. But lets not make up figures to suit ourselves. The bailout was accomplished by guaranteeing $29B of Bear Stearn's $30B in high-risk loans (J.P. Morgan underwrote the remaining $1B). So that's the *maximum* potential cost. The actual cost will likely be considerably lower, as the transfer is technically a very low interest loan to JPM.


RE: Hopefully
By BansheeX on 4/17/2008 11:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
So someone else's bad decision means that government should forcibly take money from everyone else and redistribute it to them? Voluntary cooperative action is the only way to morally solve problems like this, and we'd have more charitable action if people got to keep the money that the government is taking from them. Ever heard of 19th century America and the industrial revolution when the government was small and of ill importance? At no point was charity higher in American history. So not only is the welfare state philosophy morally repugnant at its core, it is rife with fraud and waste, it incentivizes failure, and it fights poverty by creating it. As usual though, socialist Democrats and Republicans alike are totally blind to costs and ethics.


RE: Hopefully
By gramboh on 4/17/2008 3:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a very Christian attitude FITCamaro, or are you one of those self-interest only me-me-me Republicans.


RE: Hopefully
By Ringold on 4/17/2008 9:34:53 PM , Rating: 1
Which state gives more as a percentage of income then any other to charity?

Let me give you a hint. It's very Red, and very Christian.

Republican's arent against lending a helping hand, they're against the mob using the government by way of the voting booth to use the police power of the state to confiscate from one person and give to another, particularly when the other person may or may not deserve it. Understand the inherent difference?


RE: Hopefully
By Cybesq on 4/18/2008 10:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Generosity Index is based on the behavior of people who itemize. Because of differences in state tax rates, income levels, and housing prices, the fraction who itemize varies a lot across states. In general a higher fraction of people itemize in the "blue" states than in the "red" states. Thus the groups very possibly are not comparable. There may be real differences between the charitable giving behavior of people in different states, but the Generosity Index viewed in isolation is potentially highly misleading.

Stop repeating Michele Malkin talking points and think for yourself.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Stop repeating Michele Malkin talking points and think for yourself."

That's rather ironic, considering your entire post was cut-and-pasted directly from a blog comment by someone else:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/ge...

Midway down the page, comment posted Nov 2005.

In any case, the objections raised in "your" post are all nonsense of course. The rankings are based on averages -- if you don't itemize, you're not counted in the average.
As far as income levels, Mississipi scored dead last...but came in 5th in charitable contributions. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, South Dakota -- all red states also at the top of the list. Red states dominate the top half utterly, in fact.

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New Hampshire are all high income states -- yet are the three least generous stats in the union. Nearly all states on the bottom half of the list are blue.

The reasons for this are, I believe, obvious...but a bit different than the OP suggested. People who believe the government should solve all problems are obviously less willing to fund charities directly. They'd rather increase taxes, forcing themselves (and their neighbors) to all pay alike.


RE: Hopefully
By Chudilo on 4/17/2008 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why does everyone assume that a medical reform makes Welfare and Medicare universal.It can be done the other way as well.
It can require everyone to pay for it instead (with the gov't picking up the bill for the under-priveleged)

There was a special on PBS about medical coverage around the world. We pay almost 3 times the amount of most other developed nations for medical coverage.
Billing accounts for more then 20% of our costs it's only 6 for them. They do have private non-profit insurance companies competing for business. This CAN work here if only the gov't had the guts to finally say no to insurance lobbies.


RE: Hopefully
By Azzr34l on 4/17/2008 5:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't much much about the current state of affairs with healthcare in the US.

First off, your insurance company works on your behalf to negotiate rates for you. Do you think you could walk into a hospital and try to negotiate your own rates for an ER visit or surgery? They'd laugh you out the door and bill you 100% of retail.

Second, insurance companies don't set medical chargemasters - that would be your doctors and medical facilities. Why do US patients pay so much? Ask your hospital why they charge so much the next time they bill you $72.50 for a couple Tylenol + $800 for the ER visit.

Big Pharma has a lot to do with it as well. They make more money off US patients than anywhere else in the world - why? Bush was unwilling to slap the hand that feeds him by eliminating the ability of the CMS to regulate prices for brand name drugs to Medicare members in the Medicare Reform Act.

Do yourself a favor, go read the earnings reports or SEC filings of large health insurance companies - they operate with earnings in the single digits. That's not exactly spectacular performance. Then go look at large hospital corporations like Sutter or Tenet or Big Pharma or other players in the healthcare delivery model and look at their operating profit margins - most are in double-digits. Believe me, as much as poor Dr. Smith likes to complain about his patients' health insurance companies keeping his chargemaster rate hikes in check, don't feel too bad for Dr. Smith, he's probably not hurting. How many doctors do you know living in trailer parks or apartments?

Anyone that thinks the FEDS would be able to administer universal healthcare in the US is plain nuts. They continuously botch just about every dollar we already give them - and now you want THEM administering your healthcare plan? Many Canadians and British see their state-sponsored healthcare as a token of national pride and many defend it vigorously - even though they're in worse shape than the US's model. Try being sick and actually needing healthcare in a state-run healthcare system. Wait, wait, wait. Sure, some people may genuinely be happy with it, but many are not - it's not the solution.


RE: Hopefully
By hp540 on 4/17/2008 7:09:06 PM , Rating: 3
Azzr34l, if only you knew what you were talking about.

There's a few points you hit that are correct, namely as a Canadian, I'm damn proud of our system: we try our best to provided necessary medical care when necessary. As for your wrongheaded claim that our single payer system is in worse shape than the US: take a look at ANY published data gathered by the WHO/CDC and you'll see that in every measurable and relevant population health category (whether it be infant mortality, life expectancy, obesity, etc), Canadians fare significantly better than Americans. Did I forget to mention we also spend significantly less? So how is our single-payer system in worse shape if we get better value for every dollar we spend on healthcare?

The fact is: Americans spend A LOT of money on healthcare but are not getting their money's worth. You hit on some good points where you guys are getting ripped off: your government continually plays into the hands of big pharma. Instead of reigning in the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs as we do in Canada, you allow it and in fact encourage it when you allow crafty patent extensions that keep generics at bay. Untold millions get lost in administration overhead because in a multi-payer system, multiple layers of beancounters and people dedicated to rejecting insurance claims multiply costs. Not to mention the headache to healthcare providers who have to deal with this administrivia. There's also the problem of an overly litigious environment, where medmal suits, defensive medicine, and skyrocketing insurance are the norm.

Yes, I can go on about how problematic the US medical system is. I would know seeing as I studied medicine at a top US school and got the hell back to Canada for residency and never looked back.

As for your comment about the Feds being incompetent administering universal healthcare: medicare/medicaid is already, if not the largest universal healthcare system in the world.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 8:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "As for your wrongheaded claim that our single payer system is in worse shape than the US..."

I know quite a few Canadians who have sought medical help in the US, due to either excessive wait times, poor care, or other reasons. I don't know of a single case in reverse.

> "Instead of reigning in the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs as we do in Canada, you allow it..."

First of all, the total of all pharmaceuticals in the US is a tiny fraction of total medical costs, less than 6% last time I heard. Meaning, even if all drugs were entirely free, total medical costs would barely change.

Secondly, the US could indeed "reign in" drug prices. But doing so would cripple research into new drugs. Other nations don't mind artificially restricting prices, because they know the US market will still foot the bill.

US citizens finance drug research not only for themselves, but for the entire world. It'd be nice if other countries picked up their share of the tab, but for the US to follow their lead would make things worse, not better.


RE: Hopefully
By Azzr34l on 4/17/2008 11:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather buy my health insurance on the open market as we have in the US 100% of the time rather than take some state sponsored system - even if it costs me more.

I really wasn't trying to pick Canadians out (or the Brits for that matter), they are just two examples of social medicine. First of all, the societal landscape of the US is nothing like ANY other country in the WORLD. What works in the Netherlands or Germany or Canada is almost guaranteed not to work in the US. Making any other assumption is both asinine and nieve. We could go round and round about Canada's or the UK's sytem versus the US's, but in the end, I feel the evidence supports their models are less efficient than the open market model the US has. Does healthcare cost more in the US than most other developed countries? Yes it does, but it's not because of the lack of socialized medicine. Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant to the facts or has an agenda.

I feel your angst as a medical practitioner as well. No problem. I think some medical practitioners are the biggest crooks in the world when it comes to business. Not all are the same, but I can pretty much bet the farm everyone reading this has had an experience in a doctors office that goes something like this: Arrive, wait 45 minutes, talk to doc for exactly 72 seconds, get a prescription, get charged $85, leave feeling like I was being rushed out the door. Healthcare practitioners are in the very delicate business of providing very personal care to people at very impersonable rates and timeframes. I'll say it again - the healthcare delivery industry, by and large, gouges the market. I suppose they have to cover those thousands of dollars of medical school bills somehow.

I find it very interesting you left the US to practice medicine in Canada when everything I read (not DT comment crap but in industry journals) is exactly the opposite - Canadian healthcare professionals leaving Canada en masse to come to the US because it's a much more lucrative market.

And I'm sure you've not heard of the tens of thousands of Canadians that flock to northern US border cities (Detroit ring a bell?) seeking healthcare because they either can't get seen by a provider before waiting for 6 months or because they can get much more effective healthcare from an open market model.

I'm not trying to pick on Canada, but please, give me a fricking break. Canada's model has a lot of problems. The US model has a lot of problems as well. I'm just sick of hearing how "wonderful" the socialized medicine model is. It's flawed as well, and IMO, moreso than an open market model.


RE: Hopefully
By BoxCutterLou on 4/20/2008 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Welfare and Medicare assist more people than just deadbeats.
Welfare and Medicare assist more people than just deadbeats.

You sir are absolutly correct.

quote:
Bottom line: don't assume that everyone on these programs is a leech (Republican viewpoint)


I was raise very poor and in a democratic household. I always felt like the government owed me. Although my family was never on welfare and we never got any assistance whatsoever. I didn't think the government owed me that. The government owes me freedom and same with you. Now as i grow older and have maid some wise discions in life and the right discicions at that as far as morals go I'm not poor. Infact I worked for what I have. These people that except these programs are leeches, not the ones that take temperary help when having down on there luck, we all need help at some point. But the ones that stay on for a year or longer, the ones that have a good job and a girl don't work so there girl applies for section 8, and welfare. There is no need for it. Get out, get two jobs if needed. People need to learn that when they take the governments "HELP" we are selling our freedoms. Do you really want health care to be mandated so they can subsidise the "POOR". I don't, why should my government tell me what I have to buy. But I got off my ass an am trying my best. These people don't becuase there already too aclimated on the idea of government help. What they fail to realize is that me and you, whom worked for what we have are the ones suffering. Why should we pay for the lazy man. I'll pay for the sick man, I'll pay for his sick children, I even give the bum on the street a coulple bucks here and there. Us REPUBLICANS do have compasion and empathy, you just never hear about it in the news.


RE: Hopefully
By TwistyKat on 4/17/2008 11:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are already on another planet.

Defense spending the #1 priority? The cold war is over my mis-guided friend. Fighting terrorism, which I'm sure you are very scared and worried about because you are a conservative, involves people and intelligence - not B2 bombers and nukes.

We could cut the entire military budget in half and still be just as safe...but of course, the military/industrial complex would never allow that.


RE: Hopefully
By DrKlahn on 4/17/2008 12:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Right because the Iranian nuclear program is for green power. One of the most oil rich countries in the world, who executes homosexuals, and quashes women's rights is all about being green. Not to mention their presidents denial of the holocaust and promises to destroy Israel. Sounds like the President and Supreme Leader just need a hug and some energy bars. That should do the trick.


RE: Hopefully
By FITCamaro on 4/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hopefully
By seraphim1982 on 4/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Hopefully
By callmeroy on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/2008 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Right...
We aren't talking about you, we're talking about the friggin president. Someone who should be held to slightly higher standards then you maybe? If he wasn't ready for the job he never should have ran for office. Simple as that. Even an idiot understands that it's no picnic, and several presidents have had to deal with similar situations before. Funny, I don't remember FDR (far from a perfect president by the way) pulling this crap during Pearl Harbor.

If the truth hurts and the most you can do is tell someone to shut up without presenting facts to the contrary (only some whiny crap about well... what would you do...) you're adding nothing.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 4:13:12 PM , Rating: 3
> "If he wasn't ready for the job he never should have ran for office. "

In the first five minutes, no one had any inkling this was anything but a horrible accident. Given that, what did you expect the President to do? The federal government doesn't get involved in local disasters until or unless requested by local government...and even then, such requests don't go through the President.

When we actually had the facts, and the time for action came, the federal government ordered an immediate grounding of every plane in the nation, and shortly thereafter, Bush began mobilizing to invade Afgfhanistan. That's real action that counted...and it did a lot more good than a PR move to "address the nation" in the first 10 minutes of a random accident.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/2008 5:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
You're kidding me...
The president's job is to be presidential. It wouldn't have mattered if it really was an accident like some old ICBM that exploded in it's silo. He'd still have to react, and at the very least notify the public that the matter is being investigated. Sitting there frozen with a "god what the hell do I do" expression on your face is not being a leader. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be explained. In fact had it been a democrat I'm 100% sure most of the republicans would be asking for his head.

The decision to invade Afghanistan didn't come until much much later by the way. I don't understand how anyone could cut any president so much slack on this.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 5:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "The president's job is to be presidential"

The president's job is to be effective . Anything a president does in the first five minutes of a major accident is just a photo-op excuse, and gets in the way of those actually trying to do their jobs.

> "The decision to invade Afghanistan didn't come until much much later by the way"

Err, what? We began the actual attack on Oct 7, barely over 3 weeks from the actual 9/11 attacks. That's the fastest mobilization for war in all US history. Some commanders called the speed of the mobilization nothing short of "miraculous" in fact.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 8:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yeah and his response sure was effective... "

In the case of Afghanistan, it most certainly was. The nation is now controlled by a government to the US, and Bin Laden is no longer running massive training camps and visiting the presidential palace, but living in a cave, having food brought to him by goatherders.

> "Ah but by your own logic the speed of the invasion doesn't matter..."

Now you're just being childish. I said no such thing...and you were the one complaining the response was too slow.

You were wrong, plain and simple. Bush's response was in fact blindingly fast. Thank god he didn't waste time doing photo-ops and trying to "act presidential".


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "And this makes us safer how exactly?"

re you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have taken retribution against Afghanistan?

As for how much safer we are now-- in the five years BEFORE we invaded, Bin Laden was responsible for the bombings of US embassies in two different nations (which killed hundreds), a massacre at a tourist hotel in Egypt frequented by Americans, and the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

In the half-decade since, he's been responsible for...none. Zero. Iinvading Afghanistan, shutting down those terrorist training camps, and forcing bin Laden into hiding in a cave was VERY effective, a fact that's clear to everyone it seems other than yourself.

I realize how desperately you want to 'win' this argument, but you're losing credibility fast with such fringe positions.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 10:10:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
re you seriously suggesting we shouldn't have taken retribution against Afghanistan?


I'm saying that we should have finished the job! Is that so hard to grasp? You totally ignore the fact that Bush has failed according to his own metric, he did not bring Bin Laden to justice as he said he would. The threat is still there, it may be dormant, and hidden, but that does not mean that it could not resurface 10 years from now, a year from now, or even tomorrow. This has been the failure of US foreign policy for decades... always thinking short term, always thinking of right now... not taking into account that sometimes you have to think about what could happen 10, 20 years from now. Bush has failed, and no amount of posturing from you will change that fact. The job is now going to be in the hands of a different president.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 10:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
> "I'm saying that we should have finished the job!"

What specifically do you think he should have done that he isn't? Invade Pakistan, one of our staunchest allies in the region? Or do you think he should have saddled up a horse and captured bin Laden himself? Or maybe fired everyone in the army above the rank of Sergeant, since they failed in their duty?

Fact is, you simply want to blame Bush for something that isn't his fault, and something that from a safety perspective (what you claim to care about) really doesn't matter anyway. Bin Laden's bases and terrorist camps are destroyed, his network has been decimted, his assets frozen, and his operational capacity is near-nil.

When Bin Laden bombed US embassies and killed hundreds, Clinton did nothing but drop a couple bombs on an aspirin factory in Sudan. Bush, on the other hand, ordered the fastest war mobilization in US history, toppled a government, installed friendlies in its place, and turned bin Laden from a figure of power to a nonentity hiding in a cave.

That, sir, is success . Not 100% success...but 99.9% so. It might be emotionally satisfying to capture bin Laden and fill in the last 0.1%, but the fact remains Bush did an excellent job here, and much more than any other recent President or candidate would have done.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
So you understand the difference, here's an example of an ineffective response to bin Laden:
quote:
After the embassy bombings...President Clinton [announced] the planned strike in a primetime address on American television...

In Sudan, the missiles destroyed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, where half of Sudan's medications were manufactured. The Clinton Administration claimed that there was ample evidence to prove that the plant produced chemical weapons, but a thorough investigation after the missile strikes revealed that the intelligence was unreliable


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What specifically do you think he should have done that he isn't?

How about sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Afghanistan instead of starting a completely worthless war in Iraq? Aiding the CIA operations on the ground when the fighting just started? (To appease the idiots in the cabinet he decided to hand over control from the CIA to the Pentagon, and that's where things went down hill). How about sending sufficient troops to tora bora when we had sufficient intelligence that Bin Laden was actually there? Securing the border with Pakistan?

quote:
Invade Pakistan, one of our staunchest allies in the region?

Why do you have to invade it? Seems you could focus on the no mans land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And by the way, supporting an unpopular government sure did us a lot of favors in the region.

quote:
Or maybe fired everyone in the army above the rank of Sergeant, since they failed in their duty?

Are you shifting blame to the army now? They can't do their job if they don't have the proper resources... who's fault is that? Oh I don't know... the idiot that sent all the forces to Iraq?

quote:
Fact is, you simply want to blame Bush for something that isn't his fault

Right, nothing is his fault... At least in the past presidents had the brains to not run for re-election when the botched something (like Johnson)... not this guy!

quote:
Bin Laden's bases and terrorist camps are destroyed, his network has been decimted, his assets frozen, and his operational capacity is near-nil.


This means nothing as long as the organization still exists. They can always recruit new people (and may be doing just that in fact).

quote:
When Bin Laden bombed US embassies and killed hundreds, Clinton did nothing but drop a couple bombs on an aspirin factory in Sudan. Bush, on the other hand, ordered the fastest war mobilization in US history, toppled a government, installed friendlies in its place, and turned bin Laden from a figure of power to a nonentity hiding in a cave.


Saying something like "well Clinton sucked, so Bush is better by default" is silly. Installing a puppet government and sending terrorists on the run is not success. The soviets had accomplished that as well, in the 80s. They had taken control of Kabul and installed their own government. It did not stop the radical fanatics from scheming to overthrow them. All Bush has done is put a bandaid on the situation, not resolved it.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Oh I don't know... the idiot that sent all the forces to Iraq?"

Oops -- We invaded Afghanistan two years before Iraq. The entire resources of the army were at the full disposal of the task for two years. Long before we invaded Iraq, bin Laden was already in Pakistan.

The idea that the Iraq war had any bearing on the hunt for bin Laden is silly, plain and simple.

> "Why do you have to invade it? Seems you could focus on the no mans land between Afghanistan and Pakistan"

Err, that's exactly what we've been doing the past 5 years. But it's not called a "no man's land" without reason...and the fact remains that bin Laden is almost certainly on the Pakistani side of the border.

Ignorant westerners who live their entire lives within 50 meters of a road have no idea how incredibly large, wild, and remote some parts of the planet really are. An army 10 times larger than we have now wouldn't even come close to covering all the badlands of the region...even assuming we were given free reign in Pakistan.

> "sending terrorists on the run is not success"

It most certainly is. What terrorist operations has bin Laden been able to pull off since 9/11? None.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 12:32:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oops -- We invaded Afghanistan two years before Iraq. The entire resources of the army were at the full disposal of the task for two years. Long before we invaded Iraq, bin Laden was already in Pakistan.


Yeah, and 150,000 troops were deployed in Afghanistan... oh wait, no they weren't! What do you mean full disposal? It was a relatively limited engagement, relying more on the northern alliance then anything else. It was also less then a year and a half actually, and at that point planning for Iraq was in full swing.

quote:
The idea that the Iraq war had any bearing on the hunt for bin Laden is silly, plain and simple.

Then I guess the "wanted: dead or alive" thing was silly too...

quote:
Err, that's exactly what we've been doing the past 5 years. But it's not called a "no man's land" without reason...and the fact remains that bin Laden is almost certainly on the Pakistani side of the border.


He was allowed to escape to the Pakistani side. And no pressure was put on Pakistan to do anything about it. Nor was there an attempt to fish him out of there. Yet we kept supporting a government that allowed this...

quote:
Ignorant westerners who live their entire lives within 50 meters of a road have no idea how incredibly large, wild, and remote some parts of the planet really are. An army 10 times larger than we have now wouldn't even come close to covering all the badlands of the region...even assuming we were given free reign in Pakistan.


I hope you're not talking about me here, since my wife is from India, and my ancestors from Russia. But moving on... you don't need to cover all the badlands. You need to hit your target when you get your chance, and while Clinton blew it, Bush blew it as well. it's not like no one knew roughly where this guy is. I don't think the attempt was serious enough. It was botched.

quote:
It most certainly is. What terrorist operations has bin Laden been able to pull off since 9/11? None.


Uh, you mean like bombings in Istanbul, Madrid, and London? grandted this is smaller scale stuff, and it's not on US soil, but considering that big attacks take years to plan a lack of them is not in an of itself proof that nothing will happen.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 2:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yeah, and 150,000 troops were deployed in Afghanistan... oh wait, no they weren't! What do you mean full disposal?"

You're all over the map here. Your original claim was that we lacked troops to hunt bin Laden because of the war in Iraq. That claim was clearly incorrect. We began the Afghan operation long before the war in Iraq...and no amount of boots on the ground would have enabled us to search half a million sq. km of badlands, much of which was in a nation which wouldn't allow troops in.

Furthermore, your position keeps continually morphing. Originally, it was that Bush shouldn't have even run for office, simply because he didn't leap up for a photo-op in the first five minutes after 9/11. After realizing how ludicrous that claim was, you shifted it towards blame for bin Laden escaping.

Now, you're trying to shift once again into the war in Iraq. What's next? I can't keep up.

> "And no pressure was put on Pakistan to do anything about it."

Ok, you've lost all credibility with this one. You either wholly missed the events of the last 7 years, or you're intentionally playing obtuse.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 3:43:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Your original claim was that we lacked troops to hunt bin Laden because of the war in Iraq.


Way to twist things. My point was that the operation in Afghanistan was not a success, it was botched. You then claimed that it wasn't Bush's fault, and I pointed out that it was, because instead of focusing on Afghanistan he sent the bulk of the army into Iraq instead. Those troops should have been in Afghanistan.

quote:
no amount of boots on the ground would have enabled us to search half a million sq. km of badlands, much of which was in a nation which wouldn't allow troops in.


You don't need to search the entire area, this is a straw man. And not let our troops in? Since when do we ask?!

quote:
Furthermore, your position keeps continually morphing. Originally, it was that Bush shouldn't have even run for office, simply because he didn't leap up for a photo-op in the first five minutes after 9/11.


Again nonsense. someone here was trying to say his response is no big deal, and that we're all human or something like that. I said that Bush knew it would be a tough job before running for office. Hence you can't cut him any slack. He's not a victim. His weak actions are entirely his fault. If you run for president you can't whine when things don't go well.

quote:
Now, you're trying to shift once again into the war in Iraq.


All I said was that it distracted us from the real problem in Afghanistan. Even many in the military believes this to be true, but not you apparently.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 3:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "And not let our troops in? Since when do we ask?!"

So now you're back to advocating a military invasion of one of one of our closest allies? Are you insane?

> "You don't need to search the entire area, this is a straw man"

You do if you don't know exactly where he is. And if you DO know, then you don't need hundreds of thousands of troops...you just need a single unit to go in and extract. Meaning your point about Iraq interfering with the hunt for bin Laden is doubly incorrect.

> "Way to twist things. My point was that the operation in Afghanistan was not a success"

Err, I "twisted" nothing. Your first point was that Bush was a bad President, simply because he didn't leap up within the first five minutes of 9/11. When pressed for justification, you switched to blaming Iraq for situation in Afghanistan. When that failed muster, you switched to blaming Bush for failing to capture bin Laden.

The Afghan War was a success. Was it 100%? No...but then nothing in life ever is.


RE: Hopefully
By Tsuwamono on 4/18/2008 11:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
I am canadian and i agree with you. Finishing the job in Afghanistan is important. Right now the only two countries doing anything but peace keeping is Canada and the US. I find that completely retarded. Meanwhile countrys like Germany and france with a far larger population and defense spending then canada are sitting around in safe zones "peace keeping".

Everyone knows Canada prefers not to get involved in Wars. We will peace keep, no problem but we havent been in a full war since the Korean war. Personally i think its good that we arent just sitting on our asses over there but it would be nice of the other countries would smarten up and do a surge like in Iraq and just obliterate the remaining resistence in Afghanistan so that we can finish this and let Afghanistan take care of itself so we can move onto more important things like helping the US in Iran if it comes down to it.


RE: Hopefully
By barjebus on 4/17/2008 5:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Do you honestly think 3 more military bases in the middle east would have prevented this??? Clinton was already hunting Bin Laden when Bush came into power, and the records show that he paid absolutely no attention to the Bin Laden issue until 9/11 happened. But ignore that for now, I want to address what you're insinuating here:

Your single sentence places the blame for 9/11 at the feet of Clinton just because he cut military spending? What does the military have to do with 9/11? Does the military guard the airports? Are they on airplanes ensuring nobody takes them over? Were they in Afghanistan hunting down Bin Laden? NO!

It completely ignores the fact that the West has given the shaft to the middle easy for the past century. First colonizing them, and then abandoning them while drawing arbitrary borders that completely ignore religion, race, and culture. Then, after we discover oil there, the West takes a huge interest in the area. The Saudi royal family gets propped up by Roosevelt and promises protection to the Kingdom in return for cheap oil, thereby creating an oppressive regime that is protected by the U.S. military. Why do you think there has been no positive or progressive change in that nation for the past 50 years? Because no one can do anything about it and they love to lay it at the feet of the Americans!

Then we go to Iraq, and the installation of the Baath party, a secular political group who installs Sunni leaders over a mainly Shia population simply to create friction with Iran who is a mainly Shia country. Then, the instigation of the decade long Iran/Iraq war wherein the U.S. helped Iraq obtain chemical weapons, and sold them weapons and delivery systems that kept the war going for years. Those debts piled up and in need of more money, good old Saddam invades Kuwait!

Then lwe go to Iran where the Shah of Iran was a slave to American interests and sold the countries future away along with it's oil to international oil companies. Then the Iranian revolution happened, which was the reason Iraq was pushed into it's war with Iran!

Toss on Israel and Palestine and the troubles that have been brought, and you FINALLY get a clear picture of why 9/11 happened.

Don't simply ignore America and the Wests actions over the last 50 years and pretend to not be guilty of the crimes committed by past leaders.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 5:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why do you think there has been no positive or progressive change in that nation for the past 50 years?"

Err, most of the "change" advocated by those in Saudi Arabia would make the nation even less "positive and progressive" than it is now. The US has long pushed -- softly, but still -- to liberalize and modernize Saudi society.

Blaming us for the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the region is pretty far-fetched.

> "Then, the instigation of the decade long Iran/Iraq war wherein the U.S. helped Iraq obtain chemical weapons, and sold them weapons and delivery systems that kept the war going for years"

Now you're being even sillier still. The amount of weapons the US provided Iraq were less than 0.1% of what the Soviets provide. Even the French provided more than a dozen times as many arms as did the US.

The Germans sold Iraq entire chemical weapons plants, and even trained Iraqis on their operation, and verified the actual efficicacy of the output product for them. The French sold them nuclear reactors even after obtaining intelligence that they would be diverted for weapons use.

The US was the first nation in the world to call for action against Iraq, when it was discovered they had used chemical weapons. Why not look up the UN vote on the issue, and see all the nations that voted against action?


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/2008 5:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US has long pushed -- softly, but still -- to liberalize and modernize Saudi society.


Uh... you mean like supporting an antiquated royal family?! How is that liberal or modern?

quote:
Blaming us for the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the region is pretty far-fetched.


Yeah, sure, the CIA never aided the region. Nope, never happened. Just like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam never happened.


RE: Hopefully
By barjebus on 4/17/2008 6:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies for singling out the U.S. I used the term "the West" a few times, but should have been more explicit with regards to the Iran/Iraq war.

500 million dollars of "dual use" materials being exported to Iraq hardly seems to be the 0.1% that you're speaking of. That would mean, what, 500 billion dollars of weapons or material that directly financed their war effort? It should be noted that "dual use" wasn't necessarily weapons, but certainly helped them continue the war for many years.

Israel seemed to be the only one concerned about the whole affair with the nuclear reactor and nuclear material being sold to them by various European nations, when they bombed their first (and only?) reactor back in 81.

As to the Saudi situation. I agree with you partially...regardless of what change their society wanted, it was, and is not possible because of American interests in the Kingdom. The same can be said for other Middle Eastern nations, like Pakistan (are they considered part of the Middle East or part of Asia?). That can make people really pissed off when you have a foreign power propping up a dead or corrupt regime.

I'm not really sure how much more fundamentalist the Kingdom could become (moral police already exist) other than perhaps taking moral stances against others with regards to trade and oil revenue and how it's spent.

From what I've read, I've seen no evidence of Saddam turning to the Soviets for aid after 1980 (I assume they were the Soviets patron prior to this). The U.S. restored diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1984, long after they knew Iraq was deploying chemical weapons actively. People more inclined to conspiracy or less than factual accounts tend to believe that as far back as 1980 the U.S. was complicit in assisting in the planning on execution of the Iran/Iraq war with the Iraqis and that they restored diplomatic relations further along merely to hide the fact that the U.S. was a major motivator for the war.

/shrug, anyways, my apologies for the inaccurate depiction. And I was also unable to find any UN votes from that time period, if someone has links to the votes, it would be nice to have a read!


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 8:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "500 million dollars of "dual use" materials being exported to Iraq hardly seems to be the 0.1%"

The Iraqi Army was built almost entirely of Soviet weaponry. All their T-72/T-62/T-55 tanks, anti-tank weapons, towed and self-propelled artillery, troop carriers, rocket launchers, most of their air force (Mig 21/25/29 fighters, Hind attack helicopters, Tu-22 bombers, tankers ) all their air defenses and light arms (AK-47s), most of their navy (missile boats, minesweepers, fast patrol craft), command and control/radar/ communications gear, etc, etc. Ballistic Missiles (SCUDs), etc, etc. The Soviets also performed vast amounts of training for the armed forces.

France contributed a great deal to the Iraqi air force (Mirage fighters, helicopters) along with much of their A2A missile capability. France and Germany both conributed greatly to Iraq's NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) program.

The US provided a bit of counterinsurgency training, and a small amount of comm gear. I believe we also sold them a handful of utility helos (NOT combat helos).


RE: Hopefully
By MaulBall789 on 4/17/2008 6:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blaming us for the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the region is pretty far-fetched.


But that's not to say it isn't true.

Pushing softly on Saudi Arabia to change its ways toward modern western philosophy while at the same time handing over unimaginable sums of cash in return for their natural resources has had only one effect so far as I can see. Namely, the family of Saud now have several generations of Paris Hiltons for children, ridiculously rich and living the celebutante lifestyle. Swimmin pools, movie stars. American influence all the way. Does the family of Saud share the oil revenues with their country, enabling stability and prosperity for all? Nope.

Outside of the royal family and its close friends, around 80% of the country is living in poverty. The family of Saud lives flamboyantly, sinfully so to the eyes of local traditionalists. Those in abject poverty turn to the local religion and are either content with what they have or envious of what others have. Those few rotten apples spoil the bunch and over 50 years of few, if any, improvements, we have ourselves an uprising. Who, to their eyes, enables such massive inequity?

Well, that'd be us.

It's more complicated than that, of course, but our government has traditionally preferred working with kings/dictators willing to do business and get rich(er), regardless of how they treat their own subjects.

Now that other countries are getting as oil hungry as we are maybe they can take some of the heat off of us, at least temporarily.


RE: Hopefully
By Ringold on 4/17/2008 10:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Outside of the royal family and its close friends, around 80% of the country is living in poverty.


Got any data to support that, or have you created your own definition of poverty? Not having an ipod, while painful, is not a state of poverty.

I checked Wiki, CIA, and dug through some research papers, and no one seems to have poverty statistics. It would seem that if you strip out oil entirely from GDP-PPP, reducing it by 45%, you're still looking at around $10,000, which isn't bad. Even that artificially low number (especially considering a chunk of that excluded money goes to providing for some degree of a welfare state) puts it above many countries with poverty rates VASTLY lower then 80%. The government is roughly 60% of GDP. Unemployment seems to be estimated between 10 and 25%. Nutrition data suggests poverty absolutely exists, but again, not even close to 80%.

I've spent time in the non-tourist parts of Jamaica, which has its corruption and crime, and only $4800 GDP-PPP, and even it didn't have that sort of poverty. I've also been to Trinidad, which has an almost identical HDI ranking, and again.. no 80% poverty rate. It's also got a higher HDI ranking then Russia, in 2005.

Certainly the royal family lives pretty nicely, but no need to manufacture numbers.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "But that's not to say it isn't true."

But it's not true simply because you say it is. And you haven't provided any proof for your claim...whereas all the evidence points against it.

Yes the US is pushing softly...but it is pushing, which is more than most other nations are doing. And pushing harder would simply result in the end of relations, which would end our influence entirely. Would that bring Saudi Arabia into what we consider a modern, liberal society? Far from it.

> "but our government has traditionally preferred working with kings/dictators."

Stuff and nonsense. How many times has the US toppled a democratic government and imposed a king or dictator? None. Not once. But many times we've done just the opposite.

> "while at the same time handing over unimaginable sums of cash in return for their natural resources"

Err, oil is a global market. We buy less than 1/6 of the Saudi's oil...and if we bought none from them at all, our increased purchasing from other nations would in turn force their customers to buy more from Saudi to compensate. Changing nothing at all.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 10:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would that bring Saudi Arabia into what we consider a modern, liberal society? Far from it.


And you know this how? It's completely possible that the people of Saudi Arabia could attempt to change their government. But as long as we're providing that government with protection, that can never happen.

quote:
How many times has the US toppled a democratic government and imposed a king or dictator? None. Not once.


Are you kidding me?! There have been dozens of coups aided by the CIA! Do some research before you say such nonsense. Talk about credibility...


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "But as long as we're providing that government with protection, that can never happen."

I think a peaceful transition is far preferable to the bloody civil war you're advocating. Face facts...your romantic notions aside, if the US withdrew support entirely and a new faction came to power, it would certainly be far more oppressive and brutal than the Saud monarchy.

> "And you know this how?"

Past history. As just one small example, look at China. Clinton's policy of "engagement" has actually worked out quite well. Instead of breaking off ties as some sort of symbolic protest that only makes matter worse, we engage China in trade and economic growth.

The China of today is a far more modern and free society than it was just 30 years ago. Is it up to Western standards? Of course not...but much progress has been made.

> "There have been dozens of coups aided by the CIA! Do some research before you say such nonsense."

Do some research yourself. Nane one instance of the US toppling a democratically elected government, to replace it with a "king or dictator" to ease our dealings with that nation.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 11:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
Iran. 1953. Operation Ajax. Overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, a democratically elected prime minister, and replaced him with a Shah.

Got something else to say?


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "Iran. 1953. Operation Ajax. Overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, a democratically elected prime minister, and replaced him with a Shah....Got something else to say"

Oops -- this doesn't even come close to qualifying. First of all, Iran's government already authorized both a Shah and an Prime Misister...and the Shah had the constitutional power to dismiss the PM at any time.

Mossadegh, in an attempt to retain power, assumed emergency powers, dissolved the democratically elected parliament (the Parliament which appointed him, in fact), and engaged in tactics such as halting voting in areas except those which supported him.

The CIA "overthrow" of Mossadegh was really no more than convincing the Shah to exercise powers he already had. The Shad did so, and not only retained the democratically elected Parliament, but within a few years, also took the following steps:

- Gave women the right to vote
- Abolished the Feudalism system in Iran
- Made education both free and compulsory for Iranian children
- Introduced social security for all Iranians.

The notion we toppled a benevolent democracy and replaced it with a dictatorship is just plain silly.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 12:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter who it was, or how benevolent. The fact still stands. We interfered in another nations government, a fact you denied. There's no qualification process here, we interfered, end of story. Mind you this is one example out of quite many.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "The fact still stands. We interfered in another nations government"

Good god, man, get a grip. The US did nothing but convince an already-in power leader to do something he was already constitutionally enabled to do. That's the entire POINT of diplomacy and international relations...to convince the leader of some other nation to do what you want them to do.

If you define that as "interfering in another nation's government", then yes, we certainly did so. And every nation on earth does that, every single day of the year.

The fact remains that we DIDN'T topple a democractically-elected government to replace it with a dictatorship. The Shah was already in power. We talked him into something that made Iran a *more* democratic nation.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/18/2008 1:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good god, man, get a grip. The US did nothing but convince an already-in power leader to do something he was already constitutionally enabled to do.


This is a blatant lie. The CIA memos themselves disagree with you. But no... the great Masher obviously knows better then the CIA. Priceless.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 6:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "This is a blatant lie. The CIA memos themselves disagree with you"

It's not a lie, and the memos don't disagree. The Pahlavi Dynasty had ruled Iran since 1925 , long before the US got involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_Dynasty

The US certainly didn't "put the Shah in power". All that happened in this particular incident was we helped convince the Shah to dismiss one particular prime minister, an act he had already taken for other PMs, both before and afterwards:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezash...

In fact, the Shah had even dismissed Mosaddeq himself once previously, then chose to reappoint him. When Mosaddeq dissolved Parliament and attempted to become a dictator himself, the Shah once again dismissed him.

End of story.


RE: Hopefully
By MaulBall789 on 4/18/2008 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Name one instance of the US toppling a democratically elected government, to replace it with a "king or dictator" to ease our dealings with that nation.


Ask and you shall receive.

From Wikipedia,

"The United States has intervened in Chile's politics several times, including before and after Salvador Allende's election. The Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende was a top contender in the 1964 election, and the U.S., through the CIA, spent millions campaigning against him, mostly through radio and print advertising. Allende was defeated. Allende ran again in the 1970 presidential election, winning a narrow plurality (near 37%). U.S. president Richard Nixon stated his fear that Chile could become "another Cuba", and the U.S. cut off most of its foreign aid to Chile and actively supported Allende's opponents in Chile during his presidency, intending to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.[1] To this end, the Nixon administration clandestinely funded independent and non-state media and labor unions as well as promoted a military coup to restore order and remove Allende from the power that he had acquired."

"The CIA was notified by contacts of the impending Pinochet coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup. On September 16, 1973, after Pinochet had assumed power, the following exchange about the coup took place between U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon:

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.[11]"

"The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.[12]"

"Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA concluded in a report issued in 2000 that:"The CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." "

Pay particular attention to this one
* "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger [17]

* "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970.[19]

Sorry masher. Allande might have been a Marxist politician, but he was democratically elected. And Pinochet, well we won't go there.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ask and you shall receive. From Wikipedia..."

From your own link:
quote:
claims of [US] direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence.

In other words, it's a bunch of conspiracy theories that, even if they were true, doesn't constitute the US "toppling a government".


RE: Hopefully
By MaulBall789 on 4/18/2008 1:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a bunch of conspiracy theories that, even if they were true, doesn't constitute the US "toppling a government"


Oh come on, it's beneath you to reach like that.

Again from the Wikipedia:

"Revelations from declassified documents

Among the revelations in the formerly secret documents were the following:

* Handwritten notes, taken by CIA director Richard Helms, record the orders of President Richard Nixon, to foster a coup in Chile[1]

* In the first meeting between Helms and high agency officials on the secret operations codenamed "FUBELT", a special task force under the supervision of CIA Deputy Director for Plans, Thomas Karamessines, is established, headed by veteran agent David Atlee Phillips. The memorandum notes that the CIA must prepare an action plan for National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger within 48 hours.[2]

* Henry Kissinger, Thomas Karamessines and Alexander Haig (military assistant to Henry Kissinger), in a meeting in October 15, 1970, discuss promoting a coup in Chile, known as "Track II" of covert operations. Kissinger orders the CIA to "continue keeping the pressure on every Allende weak spot in sight.[3]

* In a secret cable, Thomas Karamessines conveyed Kissinger's orders to CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup."[4]

* The CIA ran a series of secret operations intended to push President Eduardo Frei Montalva to support "a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November."[5]

* After Salvador Allende's election, the United States considered trying to get Chile expelled from the Organization of American States.[6]

* Embassy officers and the State Department Policy Planning office called for the cutting off of economic and military assistance to Pinochet's government on human rights grounds, but were overruled by the Ambassador and officials of The Pentagon and Treasury Department.[7]"

Yep, great big conspiracy. You must have had a hell of a time with connect-the-dots as a kid.

This is a little akin to a cop finding a bag of weed on a stoned hippie and the stoner says/slurs "that's not mine, man"


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 7:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again from the Wikipedia"

This is from the same Wikipedia that admits there is zero documentary proof of direct involvement in the coup?

All your points, even if true, only point to very indirect involvement. It certainly doesn't correspond in any way, shape, or form to us putting Pinochet into power.


RE: Hopefully
By MaulBall789 on 4/17/2008 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, JFK never mentioned anything about a space program accomplishing something. Too busy getting laid. LBJ had nothing to do with any space travel to an orbiting satellite made of cheese. Too busy killing Charlie. F'n Democrats!

<end sarcasm/rant>

On to reality. The war is sucking dry every last bit of cash that would be used for any extracurricular activity like space exploration and travel. The Bush tax cuts aren't helping to fund that cause either and McCain has vowed to keep on keepin on with both. And the Democrats would be at fault for killing NASA? I don't think so. Religious right wing nuts would rather not fund space travel at all (not God's plan), unless it's to get rid of-> Secular left wing nuts who only want space travel if it means preserving the earth for animals and trees, while not altering celestial objects with impact satellites and/or getting away from-> Religious right wing nuts.

That leaves all of the rest of us in the middle (to varying degrees) who just want to explore the universe for the same reason as always, because it's there. The more dangerous it turns out to be, the more awesome it gets. And, if at all possible, to blast into space extremist nuts - from all sides - directly to the nearest black hole.

Which political party has a better shot of keeping NASA around? Money's tight at the moment and the belt's going to have to come way in to keep NASA on its current mission, no matter who gets elected.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yeah, JFK never mentioned anything about a space program accomplishing something....<end sarcasm/rant>

As has been pointed out by several political commentators, JFK's original speeches sound much more like Republican platforms of today. Both parties have migrated substantially in the past half-century.


RE: Hopefully
By MaulBall789 on 4/17/2008 3:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
JFK's original speeches sound much more like Republican platforms of today. Both parties have migrated substantially in the past half-century.


So is that why Pat Buchanan refers to Vietnam as a "liberal war?"

I'm aware times were different but the overall fact remains, they were still Democrats.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 3:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm aware times were different but the overall fact remains, they were still Democrats."

By that logic, you might as well blame the Democratic party for its vehement support of slavery and apartheid during the 1800s. They were "still Democrats", as you say after all.


RE: Hopefully
By MaulBall789 on 4/17/2008 5:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
And I completely agree with that statement. The old southern Democrats and their Jim Crow laws are something they had to live with up until those with better hearts among them started supporting Civil Rights as a party platform and Republicans started to use the so called "Southern Strategy" to get those old racist southern Democrats to vote Republican and ultimately change sides. Freed slaves were majority Republican backers after the Civil War up until then.

I'm sure Abe wouldn't be too proud of his party anymore either yet for some reason they still refer to themselves as "the party of Lincoln." An ugly twist to be sure.

The point is JFK was way more of a modern Democrat than an old Dixiecrat. Strom Thurmond pops to mind as an example of and old Dem that changed to Republican, not because he had a change of heart, because the Dems did.


RE: Hopefully
By FITCamaro on 4/17/2008 1:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Defense and the war in Iraq are two completely separate things. We had a defense budget before Iraq you know.

And political parties have changed you know. Plus it was a different time.

Yes McCain wants to keep the tax cuts considering 50% of American's already pay 97% of taxes. All Hillary or Obama will do is raise your taxes and increase social welfare programs. The war will continue whoever is elected. I don't know about you but considering gas is going up and will continue to, food prices are going up and will continue to, do I really want my taxes to go up too? Which would even further erase the raise I got?

And not all conservatives are religious nuts. I'm certainly not. If nothing else, a space program is business, business means jobs, business means money, and everyone says conservatives only care about money so how could we be against a space program?


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/2008 2:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defense and the war in Iraq are two completely separate things. We had a defense budget before Iraq you know.


And where do you think the bulk of that defense budget is getting spent now?! The war is sucking up the bulk of that budget. If you really value defense so much you should be protesting the war, as it's only making defense weaker.

quote:
And political parties have changed you know. Plus it was a different time.


Ok, so in recent years what have the republicans done for NASA?

quote:
I don't know about you but considering gas is going up and will continue to, food prices are going up and will continue to, do I really want my taxes to go up too?


Um HELLO! Did you pause for a second to think about WHY gas prices are going up and things are getting more expensive? It couldn't have anything to do with the falling value of the dollar could it? Or the republican "economic policy" if you can call it that? Nah....
So we shouldn't be fiscally responsible at all... we should just pretend that there's no problem, print more money, and send checks to people... yeah... brilliant idea... NOT!

Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand...

I love the cassini mission, in part because the people involved really care about getting the word out and sharing their findings with everyone... the imaging team leader Carolyn Porco even answers her e-mails and likes to interact with those of us who are simply curious and following from the sidelines. How cool is that?


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 4:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "And where do you think the bulk of that defense budget is getting spent now?!"

Oops -- the US spends some $620B per year on military expenditures. The cost of the Iraq war is running about $75B/year, or a little more than 1/10 of that.

> "Ok, so in recent years what have the republicans done for NASA?"

Well, Bush expanded their budget, and proposed manned exploration of Mars, a return to the Moon, as well as several other new programs.

Clinton gutted NASA's budget...and his wife is already on record as saying she'd drop Bush's programs, in favor of more funding for climate change here on Earth.


RE: Hopefully
By maven81 on 4/17/2008 4:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cost of the Iraq war is running about $75B/year, or a little more than 1/10 of that.


This is nonsense and you know it. Such numbers only take into account only upfront costs, usually just of military operations. They don't take into account the long term costs of helping the veterans or refurbishing the military, which are significantly higher.

quote:
Well, Bush expanded their budget, and proposed manned exploration of Mars, a return to the Moon, as well as several other new programs.


Please... making bold proclamations is easy, putting your money where your mouth is is not. Even though the budget is slightly larger, the money for the moon agenda would come at the cost of cutting existing programs. This is lip service, nothing more. I agree that Clinton was no friend of the space program though.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 5:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "This is nonsense and you know it"

It's the official GAO figures, which DO take into account depreciation of military equipment and many other factors besides "upfront" costs. Claiming the Iraq war is costing more than 50% of the military budget is sheer fantasy, plain and simple.

> "This is lip service, nothing more"

Now you're simply setting up straw men. What Bush did is more than any president has done for the space program in the last 50 years. The fact is, his proposals met with severe resistance, particularly from the Democratic side of the asile, who refused to fund a nuclear-based manned Mars mission.