straydog
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
Re: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
On Sun, 25 Dec 2004, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> Date: 25 Dec 2004 21:53:53 -0800
> From: Kamal R. Prasad <kamalp@acm.org>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
>
> From: straydog (advocacy@sdf.lonestar.org)
> Subject: Re: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
> View: Complete Thread (15 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Date: 2004-12-25 13:42:14 PST
>
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
>> Date: 25 Dec 2004 10:14:46 -0800
>> From: Kamal R. Prasad <kamalp@acm.org>
>> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
>> Subject: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
>>
>> From: R. Martin (russell.martin@wdn.com)
>> Subject: Re: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
>>
>> View this article only
>> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
>> Date: 2004-12-24 10:40:18 PST
>>
>> BMJ wrote:
>>>
>>> R. Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> How can it hit its target when it can't get off the ground? :-)
>>> It waits for the incoming missile to hit it and destroys it that
>>> way. :-) I think the plan is to put one in every major city. So
>>> what if it doesn't work? To quote our illustrious Sec. of Def.,
>>> "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want
>>> to have."
>>
>> My counter woould be :- Why did you go to war,
>
>> You should be asking Rummy, Bushie, Connie, and the rest that
> question,
>> not anyone on this newsgroup.
>
> My question wasn't "why did you go to war?"
Well, who was it that wrote, above, ":- Why did you go to war"?
or "why did you kill so
> many civilians in Iraq for the sake of cheap oil?".
Why are you stating a question when, in the same sentence you are denying
that you are asking it?
its really not
> work asking a morality laced questions to the above, and if I had to
> give a fair answer -it would be that bringing Iraqi oil to the world
> market would improve the demand/supply ratio which is important given
> that China and India have started importing huge amounts of oil for
> their economy.
What you _think_ is a fair answer may be irrelevant.
>
> > if you didn't have the
>> army to win the war?
>
>> Lots of people in the world go into debt buying things that they
> cannot
>> afford.
>
> It is not feasible to colonize a country at the pt of a gun,
Fidel Castro did it (at least while he is still alive)
Hitler did it (at least until enough people fought back)
The USSR did it (at least until it collapsed)
Europeans that came to the US did it to the "indians" a couple hundred
years ago.
Shall I name more?
as they
> must have envisioned. Any fool would have given it in writing that an
> invader would have had to face a querilla war -no matter which country
> and which invader you are referring to.
There are examples (a few, at least), from ancient history of people who
gave in when soldiers came and their lives were spared.
>> It is something of a given that americans don't
>> make diehard soldiers.
>
> You would have to give: i) a reference to back up that statement,
>
> Some statements I read on rediff.com about american troops escorting
> Indian truck drivers/contractors in Iraq indicate that the escorts
> scoot at the first sign of trouble.
I read, just in the last few days, of serious moral problems on the part
of US troops, and in some cases refusing to follow orders. There were
desertions during the Viet Nam war. Alexader the Great had problems with
his own troops back in his day...they made him turn back west when he
wanted to keep going east.
> In Afghanistan, the US army rained
> dollars
This is Rummy's idea.
on adversary positions to achieve a quick victory. The Powell
> doctrine is about using overwhelming force at the right place/time to
> achieve an objective.
This has been the Pentagon's idea for decades. It is also Hitler's idea if
you think about the "Blitzkrieg" and "Stormtroopers".
When using overwhelming force, it doesn't
> require any courage -meaning its like swimming downstream with the
> tide. Its also a case of having a ton of resources to achieve a small
> objective.
So, am I right or wrong?
>
>> and ii)
>> discuss a fair number of cases for comparison. I can do this, can
> you?
> go ahead.
One example: from when Iraq was in Kuwait; the Iraqi army just gave up and
presented themselves to the US to surrender. Not so long ago that you
should not know this.
>> They win most of their battles with moneypower
>> -raining dollars instead of bullets on enemy soldiers.
>
>> In all of history, the favored party was usually (but not always),
> the one
>> with the superior forces or resources. When there were two superior
> forces
>> (eg. USA and USSR) present, each developed their followers
> (satellites?
>> client states?).
>
> Americans have a ton of resources -no doubt about that.
>
>> The good/bad
>> news depending on whether you are liberal or conservative is that the
>> US is closer to pulling off the occupation than it would like to
>> admit.
>
>> Its really too early to say. Really. Besides you would have to define
> the
>> criteria for success as well as list the criteria you would like to
>> ignore.
>
> I never said they succeeded or failed.
You got the words, above, "...the US is closer to pulling off the
occupation than it would like to admit" from somewhere. Either you or
someone else came up with them.
I just said that they came in
> with the idea of installing a puppet regime -
The US installed lots of puppet regines, mostly with CIA bribes and
foreign aid bribes. In Granada (before Kuwait), the communists were swept
out by the Marines and a puppet democracy was installed. To name one.
but have more or less
> given in to the idea that such a thing is not feasible.
I have heard zero pronouncements about this, and all the pronouncements I
have heard (from our Whitehouse) is that the war will continue, the
election will take place, and that "we" will win.
Allawi will
> remain in power till americans hang around -and they cannot hang
> around for ever because they are seen as occupiers and not benefactors
> by the Iraqi people (which is what drives the insugency in the first
> place)
It all depends on who you talk to.
>
>>> There
>>> have been allegations that many of the previously "successful"
> tests
>>> were actually orchestrated by following pre-determined trajectories
>>> rather than completely random which a full-scale strike would
> likely be.
>>> They wouldn't be completely random, unless the attacker can control
>>> gravity. ;-) Yes, I've heard that, along with the incoming target
>>> having some device that sent out a signal that the interceptor
> could
>>> track.
>>
>> I have also seen allegations that Neil Armstrong could never have
>> walked on the moon, and it was faked out.
>
>> There are people who are sure the earth is (still) flat.
>
> think no human has landed on any planet to date because of tech
> problems. How come the US did it in 1969 and never before/after that.
>
> To date, no country has been
>> to land an astronaut on the moon (for a technical reason which I don't
>> remember].
>
>> You should remember these things.
> most likely te satellite won't be able to withstand entry into the
> planet's atmosphere.
>
>> One of the astronauts also filed a court case about the inhumane
>> tests done on astronauts -and was mysteriously killed in a car
>> accident (around that time).
>
>> Such thoughts remind me of "conspiracy theories" which are very often
>> nearly impossible to disprove (and sometimes also nearly impossible
> to
>> prove, too).
> fine.
>
>> You should read some books on our system of justice and how often it
> is
>> wrong. Do you have justice in India?
> Yes -and we have judicial activism too, because educated people expect
> more from the judiciary than from populist politicians.
Here is a quote from a book in which the author says what he was told by
an Indian:
"Do you want a position at the university? You bribe the registrar for
fifty thousand rupees. He'll give you a lectureship. Then you charge the
students for their grades. The students strike for the right to cheat, and
they win. If you call the police to stop a demonstration on campus,
they'll beat you unless you give them money. That place is a sewer."
The above quote is on page 175 of "Voyages to Utopia" by William McCord,
c1989, ISBN 0393026418, and I just finished reading the book (cover to
cover) a couple of days ago. The quote is from a Indian professor as told
to the author who was going over the history of India approximately during
the times of Ghandi and reviewed some pre-Ghandi history of India.
I think before you claim any justice in India, that you face some
realities about India that are not so nice. I can face many realities
about the USA that are not so nice, but they are facts.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-26-2004 03:02 AM
