Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:44:38 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

47% of the population of the US thinks we found WMDs in Iraq. Yes, we have a
"dunce" problem here.

My recollection of the history surrounding the Iraq war is as follows:

1) The government of Saddam Hussein was not cooperating fully with weapons
inspectors. A news report on CNN, aired shortly before the Iraq war started,
showed that people were being sent on ahead of UN weapons inspection teams to
warn their targets that they were on their way.

2) The CIA did advise the President that it was more likely than not that Iraq
did not, in fact, have WMDs. However, it could not absolutely rule out the
possibility of Iraq having such weapons.

Given this, the decision of George W. Bush to invade Iraq was entirely
reasonable: Iraq committed aggression against Kuwait in the earlier Gulf War,
and it failed to fully abide by the conditions under which it escaped the
normal penalty for aggression - unconditional surrender.

The stakes were, after all, very high: during the first Gulf War, Iraqi
missiles hit targets in Israel. Thus, even a slight risk of WMDs in Iraqi hands
was intolerable.

3) During the course of the war, while the stocks of WMDs that were feared were
not found, at one point a news report informed the American people that a few
barrels of poison gas (or something like that) were found at one Iraqi location.

So, technically, WMDs _were too_ found in Iraq, even if not in sufficient
quantities to have justified the invasion - had the U.S. known exactly what
Iraq had in advance.

So the facts as I remember them don't make it look like only idiots support G.
W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

John Savard

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Given this, the decision of George W. Bush to invade Iraq was entirely
reasonable: Iraq committed aggression against Kuwait in the earlier Gulf War,
and it failed to fully abide by the conditions under which it escaped the
normal penalty for aggression - unconditional surrender.

This assumes that you consider it the job of the U.S. to police other
countries that represent little or no direct threat to it. You may
choose to adopt that philosophical position, but it is only an
opinion, and one that is not a consensus view by any means.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:44:38 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

47% of the population of the US thinks we found WMDs in Iraq. Yes, we have a
"dunce" problem here.

My recollection of the history surrounding the Iraq war is as follows:

1) The government of Saddam Hussein was not cooperating fully with weapons
inspectors. A news report on CNN, aired shortly before the Iraq war started,
showed that people were being sent on ahead of UN weapons inspection teams to
warn their targets that they were on their way.

2) The CIA did advise the President that it was more likely than not that Iraq
did not, in fact, have WMDs. However, it could not absolutely rule out the
possibility of Iraq having such weapons.

Given this, the decision of George W. Bush to invade Iraq was entirely
reasonable: Iraq committed aggression against Kuwait in the earlier Gulf War,
and it failed to fully abide by the conditions under which it escaped the
normal penalty for aggression - unconditional surrender.

The stakes were, after all, very high: during the first Gulf War, Iraqi
missiles hit targets in Israel. Thus, even a slight risk of WMDs in Iraqi hands
was intolerable.

3) During the course of the war, while the stocks of WMDs that were feared were
not found, at one point a news report informed the American people that a few
barrels of poison gas (or something like that) were found at one Iraqi location.

So, technically, WMDs _were too_ found in Iraq, even if not in sufficient
quantities to have justified the invasion - had the U.S. known exactly what
Iraq had in advance.

So the facts as I remember them don't make it look like only idiots support G.
W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

John Savard

Do not forget that Chemical Ali used poison gas on the Kurds.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sunday, 29 March 2015 15:04:51 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 26 March 2015 15:56:19 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:27:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 2:31:23 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On the other hand, if you want to see stuff that cannot be seen with the
unaided eye, you can put together a formidable system with reasonable cost
items. A Canon digital camera, an affordable sturdy precision Losmandy mount,
a 5" aperture refractor or similar size reflector:

GPS, GOTO, Losmandy mounts, 5-inch refractors are things that most
beginners, in particular, cannot justify nor afford. A DSLR
piggybacked on a small equatorial scope might be more realistic for
the vast majority of amateurs out there.

You don't need GPS for anything.

5" refractor too expensive, then build a 6" Newt and add an inexpensive coma
corrector. Will do the job just the same.

Losmandy GM8 is quite affordable and will easily hold a 5". If not, there are
dozens of cheap Chinese that are useable, if slightly aggravating. In fact,
you can pick up a used one for under $100 on Cloudy Nights or Astromart quite
often.

The coma corrector (~$120) all by itself probably breaks the budget of most beginners.

Honestly, people need to reconcile spending only $120 on a telescope and
(probably) spending that much per month running their STUPID smartphones.

Smartphone are not stupid. With a smartphone you can have an astronomy app
which will show you what you can see and allow you to use a cheap telescope
and binoculars more easily. It also gives you access to your friends and
the internet at all times and a powerful computer.
Costs for mobile phone contracts are ridiculously high in the USA. In
Britain you would get an iPhone 6 and the phone service for 75 dollars a
month

You think the U.S. cost is high? Come to Canada. Liberal telco unions, monopolistic practices by companies and a vociferous effort to keep other companies out of the market have given us the highest phone rates on Earth.

On Monday, 30 March 2015 11:12:07 UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:41:42 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

From those that have posted about their first telescopes, we can conclude that few amateurs started out with the expensive equipment that unkaroller recommended.

The range of astronomical equipment available for purchase a few
decades ago was pretty paltry. Economics was certainly one reason for
the sort of equipment amateurs started with back then, but the fact
that you almost had to put together your own setup from simpler
components was also due to the simple fact that there wasn't much of
an amateur astronomical equipment market.

Even in the '60s there was much to choose from, certainly by the '70s the selection was quite varied and adequate. The more "high-tech" stuff that had appeared by the '90s is distorting your perceptions, severely.

NOTHING compared to today. The 60's? Junk 60mm scopes, expensive Unitron refractors, Questars and Cave Newtonians. A smattering of one-off scopes and a LOT of home-made scopes. Today? There has NEVER been a time where more scopes at cheaper prices for what they offer existed.

On 30/03/2015 16:25, wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 11:22:00 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:12:05 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Even in the '60s there was much to choose from, certainly by the '70s the selection
was quite varied and adequate. The more "high-tech" stuff that had
appeared by the
'90s is distorting your perceptions, severely.

The options in the 70's were mostly expensive, very expensive or DIY. I
remember lusting after a Fullerscopes model that was entirely beyond the
amount I could ever save up no matter how many car radios I mended. Then
after an 8" Orange Celestron after a club member who won the Pools
bought one. ISTR they have been about $1000 ever since they were first
made or £1000 in the UK which was a lot of money back then.

I don't think my perception is distorted at all. The sheer volume of
equipment available now dwarfs what could be had in the 1960s or
1970s, whether we're talking about high tech stuff or just simple
accessories and parts for ATMs.

And clubs tend to attract only the richest of the population, AEBE, while apparently doing little to cultivate the hobby.

Rubbish. Astronomy Clubs attract people who are interested in astronomy
(or even generally interested in science) irrespective of their income.
IME they also attract at least one complete nutter who claims to have
been abducted by aliens or a reincarnation of Napoleon.

Most also do regular public open nights when anyone who just wants to
have a look can come along and see the sky through a selection of
instruments with various capabilities and skill levels of operator.

I was a member of my local astronomy club since a teenager. Back then
junior membership fees were trivial and once you showed you could be
trusted there were telescopes freely available to use. Several of us
later went on to top universities aided at least in part by our hobby.

In the UK the nadir for amateur astronomy was in the 1990's when there
were more large telescope shops in central Tokyo than there were in the
entire of the UK. Now there are a multitude of them and online too.

Astronomy Now has its largest circulation at present since it started
and has become thicker and more glossy as a result. I am not sure I like
the new format but I can't fault them for growing their business.

Astronomy Now organises the European Astrofest in London every February.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 31/03/2015 00:50, Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:44:38 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

47% of the population of the US thinks we found WMDs in Iraq. Yes, we have a
"dunce" problem here.

My recollection of the history surrounding the Iraq war is as follows:

1) The government of Saddam Hussein was not cooperating fully with weapons
inspectors. A news report on CNN, aired shortly before the Iraq war started,
showed that people were being sent on ahead of UN weapons inspection teams to
warn their targets that they were on their way.

Whilst Iraq wasn't entirely helpful to the UN weapons inspectors the
latter were still getting the job done and had found nothing untoward.
UN Weapons inspector Hans Blix asked to be allowed to finish the job.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...inspector?lite

CNN were just broadcasting propaganda to soften up the US population for
a war that Dubya wanted as a grudge match. Simply because he wanted to
kick some Arab ass over 9/11 and he couldn't go after Saudi Arabia
despite the fact that they supplied the mastermind behind it, all the
hijackers and most of the money. Special relationship and all that.

2) The CIA did advise the President that it was more likely than not that Iraq
did not, in fact, have WMDs. However, it could not absolutely rule out the
possibility of Iraq having such weapons.

And they sent Colin Powell to the UN to lie about Iraqs WMD in an
attempt to get "approval" and had their poodle Bliar in London publish
the infamous dodgy dossier to give war mongers an excuse with claims of
WMD and 45 minute long range missiles capable of hitting London.

No one over here believed it but we went to war anyway because
Bliar/Bush and the neocons wanted to play soldiers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...xi-driver.html

They had no plan whatsoever about what to do after they had "won" and
Dubya declared "victory" extremely prematurely. The rest is history.

Given this, the decision of George W. Bush to invade Iraq was entirely
reasonable: Iraq committed aggression against Kuwait in the earlier Gulf War,
and it failed to fully abide by the conditions under which it escaped the
normal penalty for aggression - unconditional surrender.

No it wasn't. The whole thing was a pretext to beat the hell out of
another Arab nation to make Americans feel a bit better about 9/11.

Invading Afghanistan to oust the Taliban who were sheltering OBL and Al
Qaeda was entirely justified but invading Iraq later on was not.

The stakes were, after all, very high: during the first Gulf War, Iraqi
missiles hit targets in Israel. Thus, even a slight risk of WMDs in Iraqi hands
was intolerable.

During the first Gulf war we are pretty sure that Iraq did have WMD but
they were wise enough not to use them.

3) During the course of the war, while the stocks of WMDs that were feared were
not found, at one point a news report informed the American people that a few
barrels of poison gas (or something like that) were found at one Iraqi location.

I expect they found a few cylinders of industrial chlorine or phosgene.
Both of which are used in legitimate industrial chemical processes.

Faux News isn't called that for nothing.

So, technically, WMDs _were too_ found in Iraq, even if not in sufficient
quantities to have justified the invasion - had the U.S. known exactly what
Iraq had in advance.

The US and UK intelligence services knew full well what was there in
Iraq in 2003 but their lords and masters wanted a war to satisfy the US
need for vengeance over the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda. It was ironic that
Saddam Hussein hated Al Qaeda almost as much as America did.

So the facts as I remember them don't make it look like only idiots support G.
W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

John Savard

Your memory is both selective and for the most part incorrect.

Idiots and Neocons still support Dubya's bad decision. Which are you?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 4:42:36 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 2:03:17 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
snip crap from snelly
" If that provokes you, then you have quite a big problem indeed."

I'm certainly not provoked. It is you that has a big problem..

No, it's you who has the problem. Try to get in touch with the real world of amateur astronomy and the real world in general.

It is a sad fact that the human race has yet to develop a mechanism for removing evil leaders which does not involve civil war or an equally damaging uprising. Even the Arab Spring, which removed quite a number of despots, was derailed by yet more evil men waiting in the wings. The nutters have filled the political vacuum to murder huge numbers of REAL innocent people.

Only two corrupt dictators, those of Russia and China, still dictate that many of the remaining crooks and despots survive as completely untouchable. Weapons sales continue to the most evil despots on the planet. Assad for example should be decorating a lamp post by now but still struts like any other tinpot Idi Amin or Mugabe.

Don't billions of members of the human race deserve better by now? Why is the UN a corrupt knocking shop for despots to deal in weapons and people trafficking? Why is the EU a corrupt, unelected dictatorship and money laundering system of taxpayer's hard earned income?

Because "we" still have not developed a mechanism for removing evil men from corrupt power. While the US is as critically damaged, as it is, there is no hope, whatsoever, of them ever being able to set a good example. It would like expecting the heads of the combined world's churches to discuss morality in any meaningful way.

All of which is completely off-topic but now typical of s.a.a.

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 4:44:38 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

edit
Yes, we have a "dunce" problem here.

Yes, we call them liberals, one of which you appear to be.