The US space program in decline?

[Coito ergo sum]

No, I did not equate leadership with military might.

US world leadership didn't really begin until after World War 2. Before World War 2 our military was tiny and ill-equipped

You seem to forget what you write as quickly as you write it.

Quote mining is unbecoming.

You cut off your quote of me in mid-sentence, and I stated that "...and we tended toward isolationism, and a belief that the problems of Europe and Asia were not our problem. In the 1950s and 1960s, the US was dominant and the Americans were far and away ahead of the rest of the world in technology, standard of living, industry, economy, etc."

There is no "equating" of leadership with military might. Quite the opposite is true. While military might is part of the equation, it was only one of many factors I discussed. And, you knew that, obviously, since I responded to you in only a couple of sentences, one of which you decided to splice in two to make a false point.

What is causing the US decline is our modern aversion to industry and manufacturing.

Capital will happily invest where there is a profit to be made.

Of course, and when government imposes obstacles, barriers to entry, too much regulation, and too high taxes, then capital's incentive is reduced. Further, the government may wish to help domestic industry when there is an imbalance between our economy and an overseas economy.

Many of your big industries are losing money, because they can't compete with china and india.

Well, right, when you can build a plant in india for a fraction of the cost, and hire workers at a fraction of the cost, then the attractiveness of that location becomes greater.

They make money on the same products american companies would make a loss on.
You seem to think it's a policy. It's not, it's good old capitalism.

You are ignorant of what American regulatory policy, taxation policy, etc., does to impact the free market.

Actually, to anyone who knows any history at all, the US has done far more good with it and been more successful at it than most of the "rest of the world." I love how you credit the "rest of the world" with the moral authority to "judge" what the US does. Which countries are these moral authorities

I think I must have missed all that 'good' that the US has done with it's military. I did notice Vietnam though,

Sure, we also helped people in World War I, World War II, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia and Hercegovnia, the Persian Gulf War, and Grenada.

and how the US stole Palestine from it's inhabitants, [/quote]

The US doesn't have any control over Palestine, or any troops there.

and Afghanistan.

We were attacked.

Or is this the 'good' that you meant? It doesn't seem to be going too well.

Name the country which has done better militarily.

Nobody referred to moral authority but you.

You said the rest of the world was "judging" the US. What did you mean, exactly, if not the rightness of our actions (morality)?

But everybody is entitled to an opinion, that's what "judge" means.

In this instance, I wouldn't accept the "judgment" of someone who has not themselves done any better. It's easy for countries who sit back and watch to sit and express opinions.

And if you talk about world leadership, then world opinion is entirely relevant.

That doesn't logically follow. Because we have leaders doesn't mean that opinions are irrelevant.

And the US has never stood lower in world opinion than now.
.

Really? We're lower than we were in world opinion than in 2007? Interesting....must be all that "change" we've had, dropping us in world opinion.

[Coito ergo sum]

When I referred to money I was really thinking of something that Arthur C. Clarke once said, that humanity had reached the point where anything it wanted to do boiled down to money. With enough money, the technological and engineering problems of any project could be solved

True.

As for the "Imperial commitments", well, the US does not have an "Emperor" or formal colonies but does have bases in about 150 countries. Its an "informal empire" but its an empire all the same. Ideas about "Imperial over-stretch" apply IMO.

It would only be an empire if we ruled those countries. Most of the countries in which we have bases like having those bases there.

We've had groups in Europe oppose them, but the European countries in which we have bases are not really in any hurry to have them leave.

But, to agree with you, yes, obviously the more money we have to spend on these things, the less money we have for other things.

[Feck]

I think we should stay off other planets ..This idea of the human race colonising the galaxy and avoiding our obvious demise is nightmare stuff IMHO.
a potent mix of humanism, science fiction and a warped version of manifest destiny .

We are bacteria in a petri dish ...consuming our resources poisoning our environment with our waste .

[Coito ergo sum]

I think we should stay off other planets ..This idea of the human race colonising the galaxy and avoiding our obvious demise is nightmare stuff IMHO.
a potent mix of humanism, science fiction and a warped version of manifest destiny .

We are bacteria in a petri dish ...consuming our resources poisoning our environment with our waste .

Well, it is through technological development that we can learn to clean the environment and salvage our waste.

It is not likely that society will go back to an agrarian lifestyle, and less likely that we would go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, absent some gigantic catastrophe. Therefore, the only choice we have is to get off this rock or perish forever.

"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." - Carl Sagan.

[Feck]

I think we should stay off other planets ..This idea of the human race colonising the galaxy and avoiding our obvious demise is nightmare stuff IMHO.
a potent mix of humanism, science fiction and a warped version of manifest destiny .

We are bacteria in a petri dish ...consuming our resources poisoning our environment with our waste .

Well, it is through technological development that we can learn to clean the environment and salvage our waste.

It is not likely that society will go back to an agrarian lifestyle, and less likely that we would go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, absent some gigantic catastrophe. Therefore, the only choice we have is to get off this rock or perish forever.

"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." - Carl Sagan.

True but I'm betting on extinct .

[Coito ergo sum]

I think we should stay off other planets ..This idea of the human race colonising the galaxy and avoiding our obvious demise is nightmare stuff IMHO.
a potent mix of humanism, science fiction and a warped version of manifest destiny .

We are bacteria in a petri dish ...consuming our resources poisoning our environment with our waste .

Well, it is through technological development that we can learn to clean the environment and salvage our waste.

It is not likely that society will go back to an agrarian lifestyle, and less likely that we would go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, absent some gigantic catastrophe. Therefore, the only choice we have is to get off this rock or perish forever.

"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." - Carl Sagan.

True but I'm betting on extinct .

We ought to try....

[Feck]

I don't think we should exploring space ..telescopes ,probes etc fine but this bias towards getting humans onto other planets I'm not really keen on

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think we should exploring space ..telescopes ,probes etc fine but this bias towards getting humans onto other planets I'm not really keen on

That's not a "bias."

There's the opinion that we should explore space through telescopes and probes, and the opinion that manned space travel is important, but neither one is a "bias."

If there is any trend right now, it's against manned space flight. I had hopes five years ago, but the new administration is not keen on it.

[mistermack]

Quote mining is unbecoming.

You cut off your quote of me in mid-sentence

I quoted the relevant bit. You said you didn't equate leadership with military might, I proved you did. I never claimed you equated it ONLY with military might, so what you said after didn't in any way reverse what you said first.

Of course, and when government imposes obstacles, barriers to entry, too much regulation, and too high taxes, then capital's incentive is reduced. Further, the government may wish to help domestic industry when there is an imbalance between our economy and an overseas economy.

Taxes are going to be high, if you want to pour money into something that doesn't make money. Which includes space programs and military adventures. And maybe you want the US to be less regulated like India? You could have your own Bhopal then. Or is it that labour costs are less there and education is advancing that is their real competitive advantage.

The US doesn't have any control over Palestine, or any troops there.

I'm sure you're sincere in that, but I still find it amazing. The only people on earth who don't realise that Israel is a "United State" are the gullible US voters.

We were attacked.

You were attacked by Saudi terrorists, who wanted their country back from the gangsters who run it for and on behalf of the US.
W just attacked Afghanistan to save what 'face' he could, and people are still dying today to save his 'face'.

Or is this the 'good' that you meant? It doesn't seem to be going too well.

Name the country which has done better militarily.

You don't seem to understand what I mean't by the word 'good'. Might be a language thing.
However, taking your meaning, I can mention Vietnam. Played one, won one. Or Afghanistan. Shortly to be played one more, won one more.

In this instance, I wouldn't accept the "judgment" of someone who has not themselves done any better. It's easy for countries who sit back and watch to sit and express opinions.

Nobody cares if you accept it or not. That's the thing about opinion, it's the one thing you can't change by force.

And if you talk about world leadership, then world opinion is entirely relevant.

That doesn't logically follow. Because we have leaders doesn't mean that opinions are irrelevant.

I said relevant.

Really? We're lower than we were in world opinion than in 2007? Interesting....must be all that "change" we've had, dropping us in world opinion.

I would take a five year average on world opinion. And it's abuse and humiliation of prisoners, massacres going unpunished, and torture by drowning that hasn't helped. As well as being massively mortgaged to the 'commies'.
If only we McCarthy could see it! Surely that's 'unamerican'?
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Quote mining is unbecoming.

You cut off your quote of me in mid-sentence

I quoted the relevant bit. You said you didn't equate leadership with military might, I proved you did. I never claimed you equated it ONLY with military might, so what you said after didn't in any way reverse what you said first.

Of course what I said IN THE SAME SENTENCE and the succeeding sentence has everything to do with the meaning. By quoting only one part of a sentence, you quote mined. I never "equated" military might with leadership. I explained it as one part of the equation. Your logic boils down to be saying X+Y+Z=50, and then you claim that I equated X with 50. You're dead wrong. I never equated military power with leadership. Period.

Of course, and when government imposes obstacles, barriers to entry, too much regulation, and too high taxes, then capital's incentive is reduced. Further, the government may wish to help domestic industry when there is an imbalance between our economy and an overseas economy.

Taxes are going to be high, if you want to pour money into something that doesn't make money. Which includes space programs and military adventures. And maybe you want the US to be less regulated like India? You could have your own Bhopal then. Or is it that labour costs are less there and education is advancing that is their real competitive advantage.

It's a combination of those things. Taxes are high when the government makes them high.

The US doesn't have any control over Palestine, or any troops there.

I'm sure you're sincere in that, but I still find it amazing. The only people on earth who don't realise that Israel is a "United State" are the gullible US voters.

The only people who think that Israel is a "United State" are idiots and racists.

Further, you said "Palestine," not Israel. There isn't a country called "Palestine," and there has never been one.

We were attacked.

You were attacked by Saudi terrorists,

....based in and harbored by Afghanistan.

who wanted their country back from the gangsters who run it for and on behalf of the US.

What they wanted doesn't change the fact that they were based in Afghanistan.

W just attacked Afghanistan to save what 'face' he could, and people are still dying today to save his 'face'.

Crock of shit. The US attacked Afghanistan because we were attacked from there, and we were going go to war over that act of war. It doesn't matter who was President - war would have been waged.

In this instance, I wouldn't accept the "judgment" of someone who has not themselves done any better. It's easy for countries who sit back and watch to sit and express opinions.

Nobody cares if you accept it or not. That's the thing about opinion, it's the one thing you can't change by force.

I wouldn't try. But just because someone expresses an opinion, doesn't mean it is of any value. And, folks in certain European countries tend to overestimate their own knowledge and intelligence.

And if you talk about world leadership, then world opinion is entirely relevant.

That doesn't logically follow. Because we have leaders doesn't mean that opinions are irrelevant.

I said relevant.[/quote]

Then we're agreed. World opinion is relevant, although some of those opinions are uninformed and stupid...

Really? We're lower than we were in world opinion than in 2007? Interesting....must be all that "change" we've had, dropping us in world opinion.

I would take a five year average on world opinion. And it's abuse and humiliation of prisoners, massacres going unpunished, and torture by drowning that hasn't helped. As well as being massively mortgaged to the 'commies'.
If only we McCarthy could see it! Surely that's 'unamerican'?
.

Overhyped nonsense.

We prosecute our criminals, and massacres have not gone unpunished. And, the stuff the US has done is nothing more than what the Brits, French and others have done for decades and decades. If you haven't checked out some of the judicial opinions of, say the European Commission on Human Rights, and taken a gander at what the Brits did to prisoners (example, IRA) and the French, and the Austrians, etc., then you're missing the big picture. You think the US invented this stuff? You think the "rest of the world" is so enlightened and good? Talk about "uninformed".....

[Rum]

Prototype Mars Mission.

[mistermack]

If you need to get mathematically semantical, or semantically mathematical, to kid yourself, then be my guest. I know, that YOU knew, exactly what my post meant.
But for the sake of pedance and precision :

You seem to link world leadership to military might, which is sad, but typically american :

I hope that that makes you feel better.

It's a combination of those things. Taxes are high when the government makes them high.

That's right. And govornments are there because they get elected by the people. So the voters set the taxes. That's the democratic way.

The only people who think that Israel is a "United State" are idiots and racists.

That's pretty much the rest of the world then. Isreal was started by the US, built up by the US, financed by the US, armed by the US and protected by the US.
Like I said, it's only the gullible US voters who don't see it.
And does a land having no name mean you can just take it and force the natives to live on a tiny reservation? Oh, I forgot, that's the American 'dream'.

The US attacked Afghanistan because we were attacked from there,

Crock of shit. You were attacked from the US by Saudi terrorists.
It seems Osama is in Pakistan. Does that mean you can invade Pakistan?
The US did exactly the same as Afghanistan to Cuba. Harboured terrorists and attacked a foreign country. That was apparently ok?
It's ok when America does it, that's what you really mean.

Then we're agreed. World opinion is relevant, although some of those opinions are uninformed and stupid...

Like anyone who sees it differently to you.
There's a lot of self deception going on here. No wonder you need so many psychiatrists and analysts.

We prosecute our criminals, and massacres have not gone unpunished.

You really are incredibly gullible. Or totally in denial.
You do nothing of the sort, you just change the name, and the gullible US public believe it, because they want to believe it.
Torture becomes 'rough interrogation', and massacres become 'errors'.

Your level of self deception is so high, it's like debating with a fundi christian. Waste of type. So you're welcome to the last word.
Bye.
.

[colubridae]

Mistermack you are priceless. Only you could possibly come up with this. After pages and pages of utter uncompromising twaddle you come up with this.

Again I implore you with all my heart - please may I put this gem in my sig. pretty please

Your level of self deception is so high, it's like debating with a fundi christian. Waste of type. So you're welcome to the last word.
Bye.
.

[LaMont Cranston]

As somebody who was "Born in the USA," I'd like to believe that my country always makes the right moves. Yeah, I'd like to believe that, but I don't. We may not have a military empire upon which the sun never sets, but we most definitely do have an empire that furthers the interests of American corporate and business interests around the globe, and it is often supported, when necessary, by our very armed forces.

I've heard Bill Maher ask on several occasions "Why the fuck do we still have 50,000 troops in Germany, not to mention having a large military presence in Korea, Japan and lots of other places?" It's a very good question, and I wish I could come up with a better answer than the obvious, to further our economic interests.

When it comes to the space program, I have rather mixed feelings. Sure, there's something quite intriguing about going to Mars and other places, and, yes, it would create jobs and a sense of adventure. It also seems like a rather huge waste of money.

What we spend on our military, the space program and other things really is about how we define our priorities, and it often seems to me that we do a piss poor job of doing that. When Obama was elected, I was hoping that he might initiate a huge push on getting us off of sucking on the tit of imported oil. I was hoping he might initiate programs that would create energy from solar, wind and other non-destructive sources. If we are looking to create jobs, putting together that infrastructure and all that goes with it would create many more jobs than the space program. I'd also like to see programs that would put people to work growing food for the needy in our country and in other parts of the world.

All those people who thought that Obama was some sort of wild-eyed liberal who was going to lead us down the road to socialism have little to worry about. From what I can tell, Obama is about as middle-of-the-road as they come, and the first clue he gave was when he picked a hack like Biden to be his running mate.

Is our space program in decline? Yes, and it's just fine by me if it stays that way until we address more important priorities.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you need to get mathematically semantical, or semantically mathematical, to kid yourself, then be my guest. I know, that YOU knew, exactly what my post meant.
But for the sake of pedance and precision :

You seem to link world leadership to military might, which is sad, but typically american :

I hope that that makes you feel better.

You seem to not understand English. Military might is part of world leadership, although it does not equate to world leadership. When England was a world leader, it also had superior military might. Same goes for France, Spain, the Soviet Union, Portugal, etc. It's sad that you can't recognize that, or understand it.

I

It's a combination of those things. Taxes are high when the government makes them high.

That's right. And govornments are there because they get elected by the people. So the voters set the taxes. That's the democratic way.

That's a gross oversimplification, but so what? That doesn't change the fact that our tax policy stifles industry. Of course our leaders are elected in a representative fashion, and then make laws. I never said otherwise.

The only people who think that Israel is a "United State" are idiots and racists.

That's pretty much the rest of the world then.

That's not true. It seems you overstate the prevalence of the view that Israel is a United State. But, yes, much of the rest of the world is populated by idiots - being European or Asian doesn't make people smarter. Europeans certainly think they are smarter, but I've spoken to enough of them to know that their arrogance is generally not deserved.

Isreal was started by the US,

How completely ignorant of history are you? Israel was formed out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire which was defeated by, mainly, the British and the French in World War 1. The region was split into two pieces, The British Mandate, and the French Mandate. The British Mandate (that's "League of Nations" mandate), included what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as Jordan, Gaza, etc.). Britain also controlled Iraq the Sinai, etc. The French Mandate included Lebanon and some other lands. The US had nothing to do with it at the time.

With things like the Balfour Declaration, which emanated from the UK, not the US, and related international legal maneuvres, the British set the stage for the formation of a Jewish state in Israel. Iraq first became a country in the 1930s, after Britain granted it independence. Later, after World War II, Lebanon, Transjordan, Syria and Israel followed. Lebanon was a Christian country, essentially. Israel Jewish, and Transjordan Arab Muslim. The Transjordan was called that because it had land on the west bank of the Jordan river as well as to the east.

Israel, Transjordan, Lebanon, etc. were all formed under the auspices of the United Nations.

built up by the US, financed by the US, armed by the US and protected by the US.

The US has certainly been an ally of Israel's, traded with it, sold arms to it, and the US certainly has endeavored to be on its side. However, the US never sent forces to protect it during the 1948 Arab invasion. The US never sent forces to help in 1967. And, the US hasn't sent forces there during any of the intifadas.

Your understanding of history smacks more of the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist than any true understanding of what actually happened.

Like I said, it's only the gullible US voters who don't see it.

Knowing the facts, you wouldn't have a simplistic, child-like view of the issue. Think about it. You think the US "created" Israel. It absolutely did not. You think the US "built Israel up." It absolutely did not. You think the US "financed it" - other than normal trade and arms sales, which the US does with many countries, it did nothing more to "finance" it.

And does a land having no name mean you can just take it and force the natives to live on a tiny reservation?

No. But, of course, that isn't what happened in Israel.

Oh, I forgot, that's the American 'dream'.

What country are you from? Let's compare...

The US attacked Afghanistan because we were attacked from there,

Crock of shit. You were attacked from the US by Saudi terrorists.

LOL....a 9/11 truther, are you? Lovely....

It seems Osama is in Pakistan. Does that mean you can invade Pakistan?

If Pakistan harbors him or aids him, then yes.

The US did exactly the same as Afghanistan to Cuba. Harboured terrorists and attacked a foreign country. That was apparently ok?
It's ok when America does it, that's what you really mean.

No, every country has a right of self-defense. It's o.k. when any country does it. Al Qaeta, however, is not a country. It's a terrorist organization.

Then we're agreed. World opinion is relevant, although some of those opinions are uninformed and stupid...

Like anyone who sees it differently to you.[/quote]

No no - people lacking knowledge of basic history, like....who think the "US created Israel."

There's a lot of self deception going on here. No wonder you need so many psychiatrists and analysts.

? What country are you from, again?

We prosecute our criminals, and massacres have not gone unpunished.

You really are incredibly gullible. Or totally in denial.
You do nothing of the sort, you just change the name, and the gullible US public believe it, because they want to believe it.
Torture becomes 'rough interrogation', and massacres become 'errors'.

No, that's just your way of creating a moral equivalence between totally different things.

Your level of self deception is so high, it's like debating with a fundi christian. Waste of type. So you're welcome to the last word.
Bye.
.

LOL - pot calling a kettle black right there. You think that the "US created Israel"....lol.... go back to your fantasy world where the US is the all seeing eye and the puller of strings throughout all of history....yeah, buddy...whatever it is, the US did it, the US is responsible for it, the US orchestrated it.... you know, of course the US attacked itself on 9/11 - it's all powerful! Could only have been self inflicted..... Halliburton! Carlyle Group! Oh my! I bet you think OBL is a CIA operative, too, right? You know - Mujahideen! Oil! Pipeline! Bush family! Oil! In other words, Bush "did" 9/11!

Tell us another one, mistermack!