John McCain's Space Program

On Feb 12, 9:22*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 11 Feb, 19:21, Eric Chomko wrote:
: On Feb 10, 3:31*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :John McCain want to stay in Iraq on the same basis as Germany 20+
: :years. He wants it as a basis for the creation of further mess. I hope
: :everyone understands that.
: :
:
: Yeah. *Germany wound up such a 'mess', after all...
:
: Depends on which Germany after war + 20 years you are talking about.
:

Poor El Chimpko can't follow logic, as usual.

Hint: *Which one did the US occupy, Idiot?

If the first Germany + 20 years was not such a mess then why did we
have WWII?
The point is had we occupied after WWI maybe the occupation after WWII
would not have been needed. Surely, after two WWs ocuupation was
needed, IDIOT!!!


:
:yes, but that is not the most relevant thing.
:

Well, yes, it is.

lunacy snipped


Start with your own on that...

:
:There is in addition Republican religious ideology which has
:exacerbated all the underlying problems.
:

There's WHAT?????

Jesus, what planet do you live on, Ian? *

I think the interpretation iof Jesus is EXACTLY what he is talking
about.

Will you PLEASE go back there
and stop cluttering things?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

On Feb 11, 2:34Â*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:23:14 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On Feb 8, 10:16Â*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:54:03 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:03:04 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

When that happens everyone wants to
attack you, see you fail and otherwise cheers on every single failure
you have.

Do you choose to be hated? Is that your idea of a useful goal?

No. �I choose to be respected, but if I don't get the respect of
morons, I'll live with it.

Ah, so anyone that doesn't respect you must be a moron.

No. Â*That doesn't follow at all.

Once again, Eric demonstrates his idiocy and inability to employ
logic.

Yes, Rand thinks one can buy logic...

Well, no one with a double-digit IQ can buy your logic.

I guess that includes you then. Thanks for sharing...

That obviously was mean to be "*at least* a double-digit IQ."

Yes, safe to say that that includes you but that there exists no proof
of more than that...

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 12 Feb, 16:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 12 Feb, 14:22, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :On 11 Feb, 19:21, Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : On Feb 10, 3:31*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : :
: : : Ian Parker wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :John McCain want to stay in Iraq on the same basis as Germany 20+
: : : :years. He wants it as a basis for the creation of further mess. I hope
: : : :everyone understands that.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yeah. *Germany wound up such a 'mess', after all...
: : :
: : : Depends on which Germany after war + 20 years you are talking about.
: : :
: :
: : Poor El Chimpko can't follow logic, as usual.
: :
: : Hint: *Which one did the US occupy, Idiot?
: :
: : :
: : :yes, but that is not the most relevant thing.
: : :
: :
: : Well, yes, it is.
: :
: : lunacy snipped
: :
: : :
: : :There is in addition Republican religious ideology which has
: : :exacerbated all the underlying problems.
: : :
: :
: : There's WHAT?????
: :
: : Jesus, what planet do you live on, Ian? *Will you PLEASE go back there
: : and stop cluttering things?
: :
: :
: :This was from an article in the Sunday Times about Bush, it was in
: :fact the extract from a book.
: :
:
: How nice. *So the fact that paper cannot refuse ink and that people
: write stupidly misinformed things is your excuse for your own idiocy?
:
: :
: :It is undoubtedly true that conditions
: :in Iraq now are far worse than they were in the time of SH.
: :
:
: Is it? *Who told you? *What does this have to do with your idiotic
: remark about "Republican religious ideology"?
:
: :
: :You are totally ignorant about the Middle East.
: :
:
: You're a lying idiot.
:
: :
: :The ME needs help in
: :education and technology transfer, not more wars.
: :
:
: And just how do you propose to get them to educate themselves, Ian?
: Why would you want to transfer technology to a dictatorship?
:
:
:If you know so much and everone is so wise as you claim, ...
:

Please point to where I made any such claim.

Congratulations. You've graduated from 'idiot' to 'lying idiot'.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

On 12 Feb, 20:27, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:16*am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 11 Feb, 19:21, Eric Chomko wrote: On Feb 10, 3:31*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:John McCain want to stay in Iraq on the same basis as Germany 20+
:years. He wants it as a basis for the creation of further mess. I hope
:everyone understands that.
:

Yeah. *Germany wound up such a 'mess', after all...

Depends on which Germany after war + 20 years you are talking about.

yes, but that is not the most relevant thing. The fact is that after
the war Germany was divided. Now the confrontation with Communism was
non controversial. All countries were opposed to Soviet expansion. The
basic facts about Germany are the following.

1) Germany was a western country, and it was not thast difficult to
build a stable democracy.

2) Soviet expansion was the reason for staying in Germany - basically.

That and to make sure they didn't decide to create WWIII after the
ashes of WWI and WWII.



The Middle East is a much more complicated situation. and there is
little consensus about how its problems are to be tackled. What would
an occupation army in Iraq be achieving? Its only purpose would be as
a sprngboard for furher adventures. The Middle East needs its deep
seated problems tackled, not intermittent forceful interventions. In
Germany the problem was the Soviet Union - nothing else.

Not really as they were our ally in the beginning. It was only after
the Berlin Wall was built in 1961 did the focus of the split-up
Germany have more to do with the USSR than it did the Germans which
had assimilated with the West by then.

My recollection of history is subtly different. I think we have really
got to start during the latter phases of WW2. In late 1943 it was
clear who would win the way. What was not so certain was the state of
the post war world.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...a+tehran&meta=

Here are some references of the Yalta, Tehran and Potsdam conferences.
It was clear that Stalin wanted to set up his own area in Eastern
Europe. He wanted a "sphere of influence". The Americans though were
initially more afraid of a revanchist Germany than they were of
Stalin Hence the Morgenthau plan to essentially deindustrialize
Germany.

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

When Stalin made his moves this was quietly forgotten and the Marshall
plan took its place.

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

This effectively reversed everything. BTW one of the major recipients
of Marshall aid was Great Britain so the phrase, often repeated in
British circles, that Germany won the war because it got so much aid
is not in accord with the historical facts.

The Cold War was really on on June 24th 1948 when Stalin blocked the
land routes into Berlin and the airlift began.

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

The final nail in the coffin was indeed the Berlin Wall. Up to that
time you could cross from East to West through Berlin. The causes of
the CW run far deeper.

*The Middle
East, by contrast has a myriad of problems, many of which I have
already outlined. These problems cannot be solved by force alone.

When McCain talks about "no surrender" he is forgetting one or two
things. The first of these is that Iraq is a long way from the US. It
is NOT the Alamo. The only justification for being there is to help
the Iraqis. The Iraqis, together with most of the Middle East would be
far better off with an education program.

Are we going to teach Muslims about Islam or teach teach Muslims about
things non-Islamic? If the latter, then will they listen?

I think there are a number of things that can be done. In many cases
governments will have an enabling, rather than a central role. The
article I would like to draw everyone's attention to is the following.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc...s_8/49_1.shtml

This highlights the technical gap between the Islamic world and the
West, including Israel. Israel (pop 7m) produces 0.83% of the World's
scientific literature. In contrast the entire Islamic world (pop 1
billion) produces 0.55%. Professor Hoodbhoy who is a Turk by origin
and teaches in Pakistan. This is HIS analysis NOT a Western one. He is
respected in the West and gave this lecture to a Western audience.

I think that our thinking should be focussed on what the Arabs want.
They want the gap to be bridged. How? I think they would listen to
constructive suggestions.

If you look at the "clash of civilizations from the Middle East you
get an idea that it is more a struggle for the "soul of Islam" than it
is a struggle with the West. Like everyone else Arabs are individuals.
Some are deeply religious, others are more skeptical. Some think that
a religious form of government is something to be striven for. Others
feel that the only way is through secular institutions.

http://www.mideastweb.org/health.htm

Includes N Africa and highlights the problems. Professor Hoodbhoy was
talking about research and university level Basic literacy is still
important. You go first to primary school, then to secondary school
and finally to college. Every stage of the process has to be sound.
These figures are grim reading.

I believe profoundly that Western governments should encourage
contacts scientific and cultural with the Arab world. This should be
for all countries. I think the bias should be towards secular states.
The West has in fact tended to support the religious Arabs. This
includes, despite claims to the contrary OBL. This arose out of the
Cold War. Gamal Nasser wanted to establish a United Arab Republic the
UAR. The UAR consisted initially of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Nasser went
to the Soviet Union for help in first of all building the Aswan Dam
and then for arms in general. The US opposed this largely to protect
Israel, completely oblivious of the fact that the religious Arabs were
just as opposed to Israel as Gamal Nasser. We see Hamas which is
essentially a religious organization organizing constant rocketing of
Israel.

Professor Hoodbhoy bemoans, amongst other things the fact that
religion has in fact intensified rather than reduced. The West I think
should do two things.

1) Encourage literacy and culture and hope that this will negate some
of the effects.

2) Don't encourage religious forces actively. The US is amazingly
short sighted. OK the Taliban and OBL opposed Communism. Does it make
sense though to use a bunch of rabid extremists who might (and have)
turn on you at any time.



There is in addition Republican religious ideology which has
exacerbated all the underlying problems.

I agree that this cannot be treated like a crusade. This not about
Christians vs. the Muslims even if that is what they believe! How do
we go about convincing them that we want clear separation between
church and state without appearing anti-Islamic even if we succeed at
appearing not pro-Christian?- Hide quoted text -

I don't think a Crusade is the right word in any event. Al Qaeda
should never have been allowed to gain a foothold in the first place.
Saddam Hussein for all his brutality was a secularist. The US for a
bit let religious forces off the hook.

- Ian Parker

On Feb 6, 3:02�pm, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
What would space policy be like under a John McCain Presidency? Some
hint of what the course of the United States space program would be
was given recently when Senator McCain came out very strongly for the
Vision for Space Exploration.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...cains_space_pr...

he will be spending the money on the 100 year iraq war, which will
bring more terrorism to our country,,,,,,,,,,

if the war monger gets elected we wouldnt have anything but a military
space program

On Feb 13, 8:56*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 12 Feb, 20:27, Eric Chomko wrote:



On Feb 12, 6:16*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Feb, 19:21, Eric Chomko wrote: On Feb 10, 3:31*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

:
:John McCain want to stay in Iraq on the same basis as Germany 20+
:years. He wants it as a basis for the creation of further mess. I hope
:everyone understands that.
:

Yeah. *Germany wound up such a 'mess', after all...

Depends on which Germany after war + 20 years you are talking about.

yes, but that is not the most relevant thing. The fact is that after
the war Germany was divided. Now the confrontation with Communism was
non controversial. All countries were opposed to Soviet expansion. The
basic facts about Germany are the following.

1) Germany was a western country, and it was not thast difficult to
build a stable democracy.

2) Soviet expansion was the reason for staying in Germany - basically.

That and to make sure they didn't decide to create WWIII after the
ashes of WWI and WWII.

The Middle East is a much more complicated situation. and there is
little consensus about how its problems are to be tackled. What would
an occupation army in Iraq be achieving? Its only purpose would be as
a sprngboard for furher adventures. The Middle East needs its deep
seated problems tackled, not intermittent forceful interventions. In
Germany the problem was the Soviet Union - nothing else.

Not really as they were our ally in the beginning. It was only after
the Berlin Wall was built in 1961 did the focus of the split-up
Germany have more to do with the USSR than it did the Germans which
had assimilated with the West by then.

My recollection of history is subtly different. I think we have really
got to start during the latter phases of WW2. In late 1943 it was
clear who would win the way. What was not so certain was the state of
the post war world.

Yes, yes, the famous line by Patton and his desire to defeat the
Russians while we had an Army in Europe, etc.

Heck we still had the Japanese to deal with at that time.


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...a+tehran&meta=

Here are some references of the Yalta, Tehran and Potsdam conferences.
It was clear that Stalin wanted to set up his own area in Eastern
Europe. He wanted a "sphere of influence". The Americans though were
initially more afraid of a revanchist Germany than they were of
Stalin *Hence the Morgenthau plan to essentially deindustrialize
Germany.

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

Which seems the antithesis of the Marshall Plan to some degree.


When Stalin made his moves this was quietly forgotten and the Marshall
plan took its place.


No cooler heads prevailed at a time when escalation was a bigger risk
and defeating the Germans was enough at the time.

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


Heck if you Brits really thought that going after the Russians at that
time was worth, then why didn't you do it? Again, we still had a
theater in the far east to deal with.

This effectively reversed everything. BTW one of the major recipients
of Marshall aid was Great Britain so the phrase, often repeated in
British circles, that Germany won the war because it got so much aid
is not in accord with the historical facts.

Germany won the war?!? Sorry but no one said that that saw the country
in 1945.


The Cold War was really on on June 24th 1948 when Stalin blocked the
land routes into Berlin and the airlift began.

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

That was the first straw.


The final nail in the coffin was indeed the Berlin Wall. Up to that
time you could cross from East to West through Berlin. The causes of
the CW run far deeper

But the dividing up of Germany in 1945 after the war was to contain
and watch the Germans not have a strategic place to watch the Ruskies.
Yes, from 48-61, the USSR did make bold moves that made watching the
Germans diminish. The whole Iron Curtain thing is a case in point.
.

*The Middle
East, by contrast has a myriad of problems, many of which I have
already outlined. These problems cannot be solved by force alone.

When McCain talks about "no surrender" he is forgetting one or two
things. The first of these is that Iraq is a long way from the US. It
is NOT the Alamo. The only justification for being there is to help
the Iraqis. The Iraqis, together with most of the Middle East would be
far better off with an education program.

Are we going to teach Muslims about Islam or teach teach Muslims about
things non-Islamic? If the latter, then will they listen?

I think there are a number of things that can be done. In many cases
governments will have an enabling, rather than a central role. The
article I would like to draw everyone's attention to is the following.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc...s_8/49_1.shtml

This highlights the technical gap between the Islamic world and the
West, including Israel. Israel (pop 7m) produces 0.83% of the World's
scientific literature. In contrast the entire Islamic world (pop 1
billion) produces 0.55%. Professor Hoodbhoy who is a Turk by origin
and teaches in Pakistan. This is HIS analysis NOT a Western one. He is
respected in the West and gave this lecture to a Western audience.

I hope that Professor Hoodbhoy doesn't end up like Salmon Rushdie.


I think that our thinking should be focussed on what the Arabs want.
They want the gap to be bridged. How? I think they would listen to
constructive suggestions.


Some yes and many maybe, the rest, no. And until you can make the
"some" to "many", then we are wasting our time. The only way to get
that to change is within, more Professor Hoodbhoys.

If you look at the "clash of civilizations from the Middle East you
get an idea that it is more a struggle for the "soul of Islam" than it
is a struggle with the West. Like everyone else Arabs are individuals.
Some are deeply religious, others are more skeptical. Some think that
a religious form of government is something to be striven for. Others
feel that the only way is through secular institutions.

Face it, much of the success in the west is based upon separation of
church and state.


http://www.mideastweb.org/health.htm

Includes N Africa and highlights the problems. Professor Hoodbhoy was
talking about research and university level Basic literacy is still
important. You go first to primary school, then to secondary school
and finally to college. Every stage of the process has to be sound.
These figures are grim reading.

This education of fundamentalist Islam cannot be viewed as the
westernization of the religion as they won't buy into it and see it as
a trick. Science must make its own way into a religious society in
order for it to take hold. The best we can do is to make its
demonstration readily available.


I believe profoundly that Western governments should encourage
contacts scientific and cultural with the Arab world.

As long as the recipients are open to that contact, and for the
betterment of mankind not just Islam. The latter tends to be a big
problem when trying to teach tolerance in Islam.


This should be
for all countries. I think the bias should be towards secular states.
The West has in fact tended to support the religious Arabs.

They have the oil.

This
includes, despite claims to the contrary OBL. This arose out of the
Cold War. Gamal Nasser wanted to establish a United Arab Republic the
UAR. The UAR consisted initially of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Nasser went
to the Soviet Union for help in first of all building the Aswan Dam
and then for arms in general. The US opposed this largely to protect
Israel, completely oblivious of the fact that the religious Arabs were
just as opposed to Israel as Gamal Nasser. We see Hamas which is
essentially a religious organization organizing constant rocketing of
Israel.

Professor Hoodbhoy bemoans, amongst other things the fact that
religion has in fact intensified rather than reduced. The West I think
should do two things.

1) Encourage literacy and culture and hope that this will negate some
of the effects.

2) Don't encourage religious forces actively. The US is amazingly
short sighted. OK the Taliban and OBL opposed Communism. Does it make
sense though to use a bunch of rabid extremists who might (and have)
turn on you at any time.


Face it we (the US and UK) did the same thing in Iran in 1953, so
spare the lecture about how "we" (USA) when "we" (US and UK) both do
it. Face it both our countries basically want the same things. When
things go well we share the glory, when they don''t the US (bully) is
to blame.


There is in addition Republican religious ideology which has
exacerbated all the underlying problems.

I agree that this cannot be treated like a crusade. This not about
Christians vs. the Muslims even if that is what they believe! How do
we go about convincing them that we want clear separation between
church and state without appearing anti-Islamic even if we succeed at
appearing not pro-Christian?

I don't think a Crusade is the right word in any event. Al Qaeda
should never have been allowed to gain a foothold in the first place.

No doubt but we need to deal with the "what is" rather than "what
shouldn't be".

Saddam Hussein for all his brutality was a secularist. The US for a
bit let religious forces off the hook.


Well at this point we must stick it out, but I agree I put the whole
blame on Bush, his administration, manipulating lobbyists and neocons,
and those in the Power Elite (Bush's base) that fund those lobbyists
and own the Military Industrial Complex and its cousin, Big Oil. They
all caused this mess and they should be held accountabe in getting us
out of it. May the next administration tax them to the point where it
hurts them real bad, in the pocketbook...

On 13 Feb, 19:20, Eric Chomko wrote:

This highlights the technical gap between the Islamic world and the
West, including Israel. Israel (pop 7m) produces 0.83% of the World's
scientific literature. In contrast the entire Islamic world (pop 1
billion) produces 0.55%. Professor Hoodbhoy who is a Turk by origin
and teaches in Pakistan. This is HIS analysis NOT a Western one. He is
respected in the West and gave this lecture to a Western audience.

I hope that Professor Hoodbhoy doesn't end up like Salmon Rushdie.

So do I. If he does it really will be the end. He does represent a lot
of Arabs. I think his death really would be a clash of civilizations.
A clash between civilization and barbarism.



I think that our thinking should be focussed on what the Arabs want.
They want the gap to be bridged. How? I think they would listen to
constructive suggestions.

Some yes and many maybe, the rest, no. And until you can make the
"some" to "many", then we are wasting our time. The only way to get
that to change is within, more Professor Hoodbhoys.

If you look at the "clash of civilizations from the Middle East you
get an idea that it is more a struggle for the "soul of Islam" than it
is a struggle with the West. Like everyone else Arabs are individuals.
Some are deeply religious, others are more skeptical. Some think that
a religious form of government is something to be striven for. Others
feel that the only way is through secular institutions.

Face it, much of the success in the west is based upon separation of
church and state.

Yes, agreed.


http://www.mideastweb.org/health.htm

Includes N Africa and highlights the problems. Professor Hoodbhoy was
talking about research and university level Basic literacy is still
important. You go first to primary school, then to secondary school
and finally to college. Every stage of the process has to be sound.
These figures are grim reading.

This education of fundamentalist Islam cannot be viewed as the
westernization of the religion as they won't buy into it and see it as
a trick. Science must make its own way into a religious society in
order for it to take hold. The best we can do is to make its
demonstration readily available.



I believe profoundly that Western governments should encourage
contacts scientific and cultural with the Arab world.

As long as the recipients are open to that contact, and for the
betterment of mankind not just Islam. The latter tends to be a big
problem when trying to teach tolerance in Islam.

They are willing in some countries. Assad has a silk road festival
everyy September. It would be a nice gesture if some Western singers
would sing in Aleppo, Homs and Bosra.

*This should be
for all countries. I think the bias should be towards secular states.
The West has in fact tended to support the religious Arabs.

They have the oil.

Oil. I feel that both right and left are under some illusions. Oil is
sold into the spot market at Rotterdam. If you go to Rotterdam and
say, I want so many barrels and I am prepared to pay up to $100 you
are establishing a market. Oil is a fluid substance, forgive the pun.
If China has a bilateral deal with China that means that China is not
going to Rotterdam to buy those barrels. The US is a miscreant in the
World, but not the only one. China is selling arms in return for oil.
China is not really gaining buying from Sudan in a bilateral deal, the
only thing in fact which China is gaining is a market for arms (which
are not BTW of as good a quality as those of Western manufacture. The
price at which Sudan will sell and the price at which China will buy
will in essence be the Rotterdam price. If it is cheaper why doesn't
Sudan sell directly to Rotterdam, and if more expensive why doesn't
China simply go to Rotterdam? Arms are in fact the decisive factor.
The West will not sell arms to Sudan.

Mia Farrow I know feels very deeply about Dafur, as I hope we all do.
I feel that in addition to the questions she might ask, we also ask my
basic question about Rotterdam.

In fact I think it is clear that supply and demand is forcing up the
price of oil. The Iraq war has not made the running of 4*4s any
cheaper. I think I saw in one of your postings that you were looking
at about 10 other usergroups. "BONZO" is regularly posting in
sci.skeptic saying that Global Warming in a myth. Even if it is, and I
don't think it is BTW, the fact remains that oil is a finite resource.
Moreover a high price of oil is putting money and influence into the
hands of the religious Arabs, the universal baddies. The poisonous
literature circulating in Birmingham mosques, provided free by Saudi
Arabia, is the reason for conserving energy, rather than global
warming.

I mentioned that the only way to reduce the price of oil was by market
pressure, and I outlined a number of steps which I feel the West
should take. Fred McCall said that those steps contradicted what I
said about the market. I think he was under the impression that
advocating certain steps from the Government was in itself a negation
of the market. Yes and no.

No, The Government interferes a lot in our lives. For example it takes
4 years to build a new nuclear power station given that the go ahead
is given. Building nuclear power stations is in fact more a matter of
removing planning and other restrictions (only the Government can do
this) than a government instituting an N year plan in true Soviet
tradition.

Government interference in solar power would be more a matter of the
Government giving tax advantages to companies investing in renewables.
In fact Carbon Trading would cause the Capitalist system to seek out
ways in which it could gain carbon credits. A carbon credit would be a
marketable commodity and there would be real incentives in exporting
solar equipment.

If you ask the question "should the government be committing tax
revenues in any form to the achievement of a low carbon economy?".
Well the achievement of a low oil economy is vital to national
security. The right wing does not quibble about maintaining huge
military forces, which often have the effect of making matters worse.
If we achieved lower oil we could approach the Middle East with a
great deal more independence. Saudi Arabia was just have to abandon
Wahabism or face oblivion.

*This
includes, despite claims to the contrary OBL. This arose out of the
Cold War. Gamal Nasser wanted to establish a United Arab Republic the
UAR. The UAR consisted initially of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Nasser went
to the Soviet Union for help in first of all building the Aswan Dam
and then for arms in general. The US opposed this largely to protect
Israel, completely oblivious of the fact that the religious Arabs were
just as opposed to Israel as Gamal Nasser. We see Hamas which is
essentially a religious organization organizing constant rocketing of
Israel.

Professor Hoodbhoy bemoans, amongst other things the fact that
religion has in fact intensified rather than reduced. The West I think
should do two things.

1) Encourage literacy and culture and hope that this will negate some
of the effects.

2) Don't encourage religious forces actively. The US is amazingly
short sighted. OK the Taliban and OBL opposed Communism. Does it make
sense though to use a bunch of rabid extremists who might (and have)
turn on you at any time.

Face it we (the US and UK) did the same thing in Iran in 1953, so
spare the lecture about how "we" (USA) when "we" (US and UK) both do
it. Face it both our countries basically want the same things. When
things go well we share the glory, when they don''t the US (bully) is
to blame.

I think both the right and the left live under illusions. see above.



I don't think a Crusade is the right word in any event. Al Qaeda
should never have been allowed to gain a foothold in the first place.

No doubt but we need to deal with the "what is" rather than "what
shouldn't be".

Saddam Hussein for all his brutality was a secularist. The US for a
bit let religious forces off the hook.

Well at this point we must stick it out, but I agree I put the whole
blame on Bush, his administration, manipulating lobbyists and neocons,
and those in the Power Elite (Bush's base) that fund those lobbyists
and own the Military Industrial Complex and its cousin, Big Oil. They
all caused this mess and they should be held accountabe in getting us
out of it. May the next administration tax them to the point where it
hurts them real bad, in the pocketbook...

I don't know what the right solution in Iraq is now. I am frightened
both of the US pulling out, and the US staying. I must say that US can
be either a country or a quality. In Iraq it is very much the latter.

BTW - I told you that Wally Wright had done no research. Wasn't I
right! He now admits to writing under a pseudonym - always suspicious!
I have BTW been thinking quite deeply about the problem. To really
make progress in assessing the ultimate capabilities of GAs, which is
what this really boils down to, you have (ultimately) you have to
consider some quite specialized areas in modern mathematics like
category theory. You see a genome occupies a topological space, which
can become exceedingly complex. If someone had done genuine work he/
she would be proud of it. He would probably be posting in
sci.math.research. I have in fact introduced one topic there which was
on generalized matching.

In Britain you are allowed to donate a kidney to a stranger. Usually
the arrangement is that two people need kidneys and two families are
matched up. The GA scope is, like the travelling salesperson, simply
the permutation group. Nothing like the complexity of Wally Wright's
(so called!) existential problem. Existential problems are very
difficult. They tend to form Clay's $1 million category. Proof of P
NP is I think required.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...55f75d3894391c


- Ian Parker