ISS to be JUNKED, finally??!
Rich
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/10/09/zarrella.space.station.future.cnn
Chris.B
> The report LIES. $44 billlion? Try $150 billion wasted on it.
>
wsne...@hotmail.com
The US and its Allies also spent a large amount liberating Europe
during WW2. Maybe next time we'll just stay home.
Chris.B
>
> The US and its Allies also spent a large amount liberating Europe
> during WW2. Maybe next time we'll just stay home.
Highly profitable too, wasn't it? However belated the arrival of the
cavalry to help out the Allies who had been at war for two years. Dec
1941 following Pearl Harbour and German declaration of war on the US?
America consolidated its industrial might to emerge a superpower to
balance the evil of Russia. Fortunately, small minds, like yours, were
not involved in any decision making. They came later in the form of
your Republican leaders. ;-)
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 12, 3:23 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > The US and its Allies also spent a large amount liberating Europe
> > during WW2. Maybe next time we'll just stay home.
>
> Highly profitable too, wasn't it? However belated the arrival of the
> cavalry to help out the Allies who had been at war for two years. Dec
> 1941 following Pearl Harbour and German declaration of war on the US?
Well then, you should be glad that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor,
otherwise Germany might still be occupying Denmark.
> America consolidated its industrial might to emerge a superpower to
> balance the evil of Russia.
A good thing it did too.
> Fortunately, small minds, like yours, were
> not involved in any decision making. They came later in the form of
> your Republican leaders. ;-)
As usual the US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If
the US had taken the step of invading Nazi Germany in the late '30s,
it would have been accused of interfering with the internal affairs of
a sovereign nation. Instead, it now stands accused of not getting
involved _soon enough_ in a war that it did not even start.
gram
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:eecf4066-c94a-4db0...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So, what's the point? The space station is, for the most part, a big waste
of money. Little has been benefited and a hell of a lot lost, the same with
the $79 million moon slam recently. Wish I could do a multi-million $
experiment in the hopes of maybe finding something with a good chance I
won't. People say things like it "helps the future of mankind" when they
fail to realize that unless man does some serious changes away from greed
and corruption, the only ones space will be benefiting are the rich. Others
say we wouldn't have the computers or other technology of today if not for
the space program, but how do we truly benefit from technology. Our kids
are fatter that they ever have been. People are living longer due to
medical science, but no one wants to pay for their care when they are no
longer able to. The Internet has brought us an enormous information
resource while at the same time a new breed of addicts ie Internet porn,
surfers, etc. Technology does away with the very things that used to keep
people healthy: exercise and proper diet. So, is all of this enormous
funding devoted to space actually helping man, or will the end result of
human evolution actually be far less than expected?
Bill Pepto
news:hb1qsf$qnb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Our kids
> are fatter that they ever have been. People are living longer due to
> medical science, but no one wants to pay for their care when they are no
Of course, "Obamaha care" is going to fix it all. I feel secure now.
bill
Dr J R Stockton
000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:22:04,
wsne...@hotmail.com posted:
>As usual the US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If
>the US had taken the step of invading Nazi Germany in the late '30s,
>it would have been accused of interfering with the internal affairs of
>a sovereign nation. Instead, it now stands accused of not getting
>involved _soon enough_ in a war that it did not even start.
The US should have promptly followed Canada's example.
However, as Churchill is reputed to have said, "America will always do
the right thing - after having exhausted all other possibilities".'.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <818cc3f5-5995-4d1f-843e-9aff18114dff@m38g2
> 000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:22:04,
>
> >As usual the US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If
> >the US had taken the step of invading Nazi Germany in the late '30s,
> >it would have been accused of interfering with the internal affairs of
> >a sovereign nation. Instead, it now stands accused of not getting
> >involved _soon enough_ in a war that it did not even start.
>
> The US should have promptly followed Canada's example.
It wasn't really our war in 1939. Besides, the Sitzkrieg lasted until
well into the following year. Not much sense in joining a war if
nothing much is going on.
> However, as Churchill is reputed to have said, "America will always do
> the right thing - after having exhausted all other possibilities".'.
Lend-Lease?
Dr J R Stockton
000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:55:28,
wsne...@hotmail.com posted:
>On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply0...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In sci.astro.amateur message <818cc3f5-5995-4d1f-843e-9aff18114dff@m38g2
>> 000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:22:04,
>> wsnel...@hotmail.com posted:
>>
>> >As usual the US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If
>> >the US had taken the step of invading Nazi Germany in the late '30s,
>> >it would have been accused of interfering with the internal affairs of
>> >a sovereign nation. Instead, it now stands accused of not getting
>> >involved _soon enough_ in a war that it did not even start.
>>
>> The US should have promptly followed Canada's example.
>
>It wasn't really our war in 1939. Besides, the Sitzkrieg lasted until
>well into the following year. Not much sense in joining a war if
>nothing much is going on.
Not much harm or cost to join, either. But, 70 years ago today, the
French army was in Germany, Poland was conquered, and HMS Royal Oak was
recently sunk. And SS Athenia, with over 300 Americans on board, had
been sunk a month before. That's more, by peacetime standards, than
"nothing much".
If the US forces had set off in quantity, ostentatiously, but not
actively belligerently, across the Atlantic in early September '39 and
thereafter, Germany could well have been deterred from attacking to the
West and North in '40 - so that, being fresher in '41, they might have
driven the Reds across the Urals into Siberia ... .
>> However, as Churchill is reputed to have said, "America will always do
>> the right thing - after having exhausted all other possibilities".'.
>
>Lend-Lease?
That started, as I recall, after the USA had effectively exhausted the
possibilities of selling armaments, having already taken all available
money etc. It was in essence a way of getting US armaments into action
without them being operated by the US services. PL 77-11 was called "An
Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States".
William Hamblen
<repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If the US forces had set off in quantity ...
What quantity? In September, 1939, the United States Army was a force
of 175,000.
Bud
Dr J R Stockton
>, Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:20:00, William Hamblen <william.hamblen@earthlink
.net> posted:
You should include the US Navy. Few of those 175,000 would survive an
attempted swim across the Atlantic.
Anyway, how many did the Canadians have in arms at the time? The New
Zealanders?
It's not a matter of the instantly available force, but of a
demonstration of intent.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <ce2cb475-3d73-46dc-978f-8a144be3d838@a21g2
> 000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:55:28,
>
>
>
> >On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply0...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> In sci.astro.amateur message <818cc3f5-5995-4d1f-843e-9aff18114dff@m38g2
> >> 000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:22:04,
> >> wsnel...@hotmail.com posted:
>
> >> >As usual the US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If
> >> >the US had taken the step of invading Nazi Germany in the late '30s,
> >> >it would have been accused of interfering with the internal affairs of
> >> >a sovereign nation. Instead, it now stands accused of not getting
> >> >involved _soon enough_ in a war that it did not even start.
>
> >> The US should have promptly followed Canada's example.
>
> >It wasn't really our war in 1939. Besides, the Sitzkrieg lasted until
> >well into the following year. Not much sense in joining a war if
> >nothing much is going on.
>
> Not much harm or cost to join, either. But, 70 years ago today, the
> French army was in Germany, Poland was conquered, and HMS Royal Oak was
> recently sunk. And SS Athenia, with over 300 Americans on board, had
> been sunk a month before. That's more, by peacetime standards, than
> "nothing much".
The Great War had ended about twenty years earlier, so why would
Americans be eager to join in another conflict in Europe, between the
same countries no less?
The HMS Royal Oak was a British Navy ship. We can tell this by the
"HMS" in front of the name. When the Japanese dropped by a few years
later to sink ships such as the USS Arizona, etc. (note the "USS" in
front of name), why, the US declared war the very same day.
A U-Boat captain had mistaken the Athenia (a British ship) for an
armed merchant vessel and twenty-eight Americans were killed, not
three hundred.
> If the US forces had set off in quantity, ostentatiously, but not
> actively belligerently, across the Atlantic in early September '39 and
> thereafter, Germany could well have been deterred from attacking to the
> West and North in '40 - so that, being fresher in '41, they might have
> driven the Reds across the Urals into Siberia ... .
I doubt Germany would have been impressed.
It was probably better that the US designed and built some new
aircraft, improved the technology, launched additional carriers,
submarines and destroyers and recruited additional personnel before
entering the war.
> >> However, as Churchill is reputed to have said, "America will always do
> >> the right thing - after having exhausted all other possibilities".'.
>
> >Lend-Lease?
>
> That started, as I recall, after the USA had effectively exhausted the
> possibilities of selling armaments, having already taken all available
> money etc. It was in essence a way of getting US armaments into action
> without them being operated by the US services. PL 77-11 was called "An
> Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States".
You needed war materials, the US sold them to you. Then it loaned
some more items to you. What's the problem? Who else would have sold
them to you, the Japanese? You had a local war to fight.
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In sci.astro.amateur message <o90dd514d4abl1hlqb4s6ref19jmq9n...@4ax.com
>
> >, Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:20:00, William Hamblen <william.hamblen@earthlink
> .net> posted:
> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:33:59 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
> ><reply0...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>If the US forces had set off in quantity ...
>
> >What quantity? In September, 1939, the United States Army was a force
> >of 175,000.
>
> You should include the US Navy. Few of those 175,000 would survive an
> attempted swim across the Atlantic.
Just getting supplies and weapons across the Atlantic intact was
difficult enough. And you expected more troops AND supplies for them
too?
> Anyway, how many did the Canadians have in arms at the time? The New
> Zealanders?
>
> It's not a matter of the instantly available force, but of a
> demonstration of intent.
The intent was to stay out of Europe's war (which came about as a
result of Europe's problems) until provoked.
Nightcrawler
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6569caca-4d20-4773...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> You needed war materials, the US sold them to you. Then it loaned
> some more items to you. What's the problem? Who else would have sold
> them to you, the Japanese? You had a local war to fight.
The Brits were fighting the Japanese before the United States were bombed.
This hindsight deal is a sharp 20/20, isn't it? What if the U.S. got involved
before the Germans turned on the Soviets? Then the allies would have been
without an eastern front.
Sometimes, as hard as it is to take, it is better that the U.S. was fortunate
enough to wait, and that Hitler was fool enough not to wait. Hitler's ambition
ruined his effort, to our benefit.