geoguy

It depends on one's definition of the U.S. If you mean the people then the millions of Jews in the USA have an interest to promote something they believe in...the state of Israel. Most american jews would fund, lobby and vote one way or the other on a single issue such as American-Israeli relations if the Dems and Reps were far apart on their positions towards Israel. This isn't necessarily a negative as much as the representatives listening to their contituents. In the broader U.S. interest, Israel is the trump card militarily in the region. When the chips are down, Israel can and has squashed the Arab nations. Israel is capable of escalating to a level of violence necessary to control the region. There is a perspective of foreign policy that is seen through the eyes of various age groups and what one has experienced in life. Those of us growing up in the Cold War perhaps have broader (i don't mean better)view of potential happenings. The Iraq situation is an important issue but not on the same scale of that of imminent thermo nuclear war we experienced. The same for some of our parents or grandparents who lived through WW2...bad stuff on a grand scale can happen and isn't just in movies. Israel is a powerful ally to be able to count upon if 'big stuff' ever happens. Not to go of on a tangent but the same might be said of Blair's suport for the Iraq invasion. Blair isn't a dummy but I also don't think he cared that much about Sadam. Blair, however, is a child of the Cold War and understood the value to the UK for standing by the USA. Regardless of what a swamp Iraq has become, the UK need not doubt that the USA would stand firmly beside it if some crisis happened tomorrow. The USA and Israel would also be on the same page in the Middle East if some unforseen crisis reared its head.

I hope you are being ironic. Do you really believe that anything Clinton or any other presidential candidate says on Iraq or any other subject is based on anything other than what's best for their campaign? You may think Clinton is a great person and judge of the situation in Iraq. You have great belief in the gal. I think she is a calculating wann-a-be president who doesn't fart without measuring the impact on her campaign.

Poll Your favorite football team is: 1) Minnesota Vikings 2) Calgary Stampeders 3) Manchester United Please vote. Not picking on Paranoia. His poll is much better than the above. Used to illustrate how some results are meaningless. Re Muslims....just trying not to dogpile on the USA. The largest Muslim country, Indonesia was exploited by the Dutch...the Brits were in Malaysia, India and what's today Pakistan and Bangladesh....the French in Algeria, Morocco....etc. It's the 'West' that has its fingerprints all over the exploitation of the Muslim world. Not at all. It's one of several elements. That's why options such as 'a' vs 'b' are meaningless. the reason for a team winning the Superbowl can be a strong offense AND a strong defense....it doesn't need to be either one or the other. The Muslim world is a complicated place. Insurgency, freedom fighters, revolutionaities, terrorists, guerillas, etc. can't all be pigeon holed into simplistic boxes.

I don't see the perception of meddling heightened. It's a reality that is in their face and has been in their face since the French blasted the nose off of the Sphynx. Muslims don't need religious nuts to tell them that the USA installed a thug regime in the 1950's in Iran, invaded Iraq in the 2003, sells billions in arms to Saudi thugs. No perceptual issues. (note, polls with finite options on open-ended topics lack value). Can't vote. i

Agreed. A knockout blow at 12 seconds of the first round.

Paranoia, Some excellent postings. I couldn't agrree more with your: "One could have also made the case that the men and women in white suits are usually cast negatively in movies and TV while Psychics are almost always cast positively." I've noticed the same since I was a kid. The rational and scientific is somehow an obstacle to free thinking 'Gee, they won't believe me. ' Then we know the scientists, CIA etc. will all be shown up by some fellow, his girlfrind and a hero dog.

Good question, however: No. Technology today or in the future is still limited by the physical properties of the Universe. Here is another forum with lots of discussion on space and related issues: http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

goods ponts. However Ziionism vs Islam is a pipsqueak sideshow compared to Islam vs Hindus in India...Sunni vs Shiite and so on. A couple million Muslims were killed fighting each other in the Iran-Iraq war which was largely religious in nature. Tens of thousands have died in Iraq over intra-Muslim rivalry. Zionism vs Islam is an isue but I don't think it has much to do with the Jewish faith. Zionists, in fact, were largely socialists and atheists... race based and not religious based. It's more Israelis vs Arabs rather than Jews vs Muslims. If Israel was to disappear tommorow there wouldn't be any less killing amongst Muslim groups. Perhaps Muslim whackos are not even about Islam. Take away the religion and it would be some other issue of 'us vs them'. Christianity as a 'force' doesn't hold much sway in most of the western world outside of a segment of the USA. Jews aren't going to die for Jehovah and Brits aren't going to die for Jesus. Islamic nutbars claim to die for Allah and I don't doubt they themselves believe it but they'd be blowing themselves up for some other reason if it wasn't Islam. I'm more or less a liberal on social issues but I'm tired of the media handling violent nutbars with kid gloves. i don't agree with the Americans being in Iraq but I also don't agree with false moral equivalence. Americans are motivated, for the most part, by a desire to do the right thing even when they screw up. Islam's 'soldiers of god' are motivated by hatred.

No. The issue I have with this type of reporting is one of 'equivalence' to try and be politically correct. When it's 'Christians, Muslims and Jews' there is an agenda to not offend any one group by exaggerating comparisons. My guess is the idea for the story started out as a report of Islamic whackos but was deemed too biased so christians and Jews were thrown in. Even the concept is silly. 'Jews'? Why Jews? It's like comparing the countries of 'China, India and Luxembourg'. The scale of Jews in the world, let alone 'Jewish warriors' to Christians and Muslims isn't on the same scale. Also, I get tired of these roving 'expert' reporters. Christine gets tiring with her pedantic somber pronouncements. Societies are reduced to simplistic sound bites. They never ask the real tough questions but skirt around real issues with sappy politieness and softball questions. "Is the use of violence justified when...blah, blah,....?" Instead of 'You blew the head off of a six-month-old baby. Are you a sick puppy?" Ten to one the conclusions will be : These religions all originate in the same Bible. blah..blah...blah... Learn to come together using shared values...blah...bla...blah... Aren't we all really after the same thing....blah, blah....blah Sorry, I don't put much faith in a program that doesn't take on Islamic whackos head on and expose them as a bunch of rabid thugs.

Don't forget the liberal U.S. media that was so against the invasion! Especially foxnews What's wierd is that yesterday CNN had the same idiot, a General Grange, on for his 'expert analysis' that they've had on for over 4 years. None of these ex-general-talking heads 'experts' have got a darn thing right to date but they are still the same talking heads that feed Americans the rubbish they believe. compare it to interviews on BBC where the interviewer asks point blank 'why should we believe you when you've wrong to date?' Yesterday I watched an interview in which the BBC interviewer asked a talking-head-general why anyone should believe the Pentagon or the Secreary of Defense when they are so out of touch with reality. On CNN the interview ends with some silly fluff like 'we appreciate your expert take on things and look forward to your reports keeping us up to date with the situation on the ground'. and listen for the talking-head ex-general to intersperse tough questions with 'I have complete faith in the capability of the men and women of the armed forces'. Lou dobbs would then add 'we can all agree on that'. In contrast, the BBC reporter would jump on that statement and ask 'exactly why the confidence when after 4 years the country is in a greater state of turmoil and insurgents control the streets?

Pioneer; 'If' all that is true, then why did the USA invade and occupy Iraq? Why can you understand the obvious but the folks insisting on a war couldn't? Are you implying that Bush knowingly sent soldiers to their deaths and spent hundreds of billions only for the end result being American humiliation and a disaster in Iraq?

I don't buy any of this distinction. In the sciences one studies broad subjects in the undergraduate years. I'm a geologist and haven't cast off my ability to tell if a particular formation was formed by deposition via one type of force or via another. 'The generalist' knowledge can take in the larger situation and then focus on to the more specific. One hasn't taken the eye off the general situation but acknowledged it as the foundation for further investigation. After the undergraduate year I specialized in sedimentary biostratigraphy and narrow this to Upper Paleozoic studies as a post doc. I don't need to study 'a mountain' to know it is a mountain. I understand if it's of sedimentary origin and the origin or formation, age, etc. I don't ignore this by focusing in on a narrower subject such as the invertebrate fauna in a particular strata. A doctor doesn't need to treat you as a general entity when you have a broken finger. He knows you are a human and that as an organism you have various sytems. He fixes the finger. The very essence of science is building on the credible science that comes before. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time we do research. If you look at an accepted part of any scientific paper there are dozens of reference that lay the foundation for every assertion made. In fact, sometimes the documented references make up the largest part of the publication. This documentation places the research in a wider more general context.

When there is an issue the answer isn't 'to do something' like go off half-crazed in a jingoistic fervour and attack and occupy a country that is no threat. Presidents from Eisenhauer to Reagan understood that the answer wasn't 'what the heck, let's at least do something and attack the Soviet Union'. Actions have consequences. When you get a thorn in your finger, you don't amputate. You use appropriate means to deal with the magnitude of the problem. 'I have a thorn, I'm going to die!' is the equal to 'Sadam has weapons. We're all doomed....attack!!!! Next it will be Iran. The U.S. regime will build up a hysteria. The media will lap it up and some the people will be worked up into the United States of Paranoia. 'Must attack...must bomb....must destroy the 'evil 'of the Axis of Evil;' Fortunately most Americans are intelligent and won't buy into the frenzy. Bush will be frantic to 'do something' before his reign ends. Most won't follow the lad as he 'does something' like jump into the quicksand. The American government needs a valium. Deep breathing lessons. Somethng to lower the need to look under the bed to make sure the Boogy man isn't 'about to git ya'. Sure action is necessary at times. Action such as a dedicated effort of western democracies to wean themselves off of Middle East oil. Earlier presidents up to Reagan had the cold war on their plate and security meant making a devil's bargain with unsavoury regimes. with a freedom to act outside of the Cold War, Clinton and the Georges have ben abysmal failures on security. They did nothing meaningful on the energy issue...an issue that influences foreign policy and thus the security of the the country. Terrorist sponsoring regimes such as the Saudis are treated with kid gloves...issues of whether or not to attack Iran must take into account the energy issue...a leader like Chavez of Venezuela can declare a verbal war against the USA and isn't told to 'F...off' and sanctions made against his country. The USA needs Venezuelan oil. 'Do something' doesn't need to equate with 'invade and occupy'.

The solution is to get out. Get out now and watch it all fall apart or get out in 5 years with the same results. The crazies will fight it out until some strongman takes over. It's not up to the USA to partition Iraq into three nations any more than it's up to Iraqis to partition the USA up into political zones. The USA is in a mess because it still continues the idea of 'Whiteman's Burden'. Don't worry about the oil. Military dicatators, Royal thugs, Islamic nutbars and various other assorted Muslim whackos will sell you oil. If the Saudi thug is overthrown, the next thug will sell yoo oil 'if' you butt out and stop giving them a cause to hate you. Musims don't hate Americans for no reason. Stop fueling the fire. Stop selling billions in weapons to the Saudis, holding hands with the Jordanian king, worrying about internal Iraqi problems. Butt out. Stay home. The nutbars are little threat to the USA. Their only status is obtained by the attention they receive from the West. We can squish countries like Syria and Iran as easily as we can squish a bug. Let them have all the rope they want to hang themselves. Israels's concern when spanking the Palestinian and Lebanese is not losing the war but in minimizing the impact of their own victory on Arab civilians. The same with the USA vs Iran. The issue in any confrontation with Iran would be to what level the USA escalates the level of force. How much damage does the USA do to Iran. Iran is no threat. the West has the means at the end of the day to wipe these nations out...completely. The USA should get out of the gutter in the Middle East. Stop playing their game. Make it clear that there will be a hammer used if there is state sponsored terrorism against Western democratic nations. The reaction after 9/11 was exactly the message that was needed....destroy a regime like that in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq, in contrast, played into the hands of the terrorists and Islamic nutbars.

A question. If stars are sometimes made up of the 'stuff' of previous generations of stars (including those previous going supernova) then why wouldn't some of what you call 'normal stars' not have gold present in their spectra? They don't create the gold but it's already present. (I'm over my head in all this so the question might not even be logical)

Yes, it's speculation but educated speculation. A few atoms of heavier elements can be created in a laboratory situation with the right seed elements and sufficient energy. It's not a mystery as to what atoms need to be present and the amounts of energy needed to combine those elements into gold, lead, etc. One reason that supernovae are probably the source of heavier elements is that they are the only phenomenon with sufficient mass and energy to produce the conditions necessary to build heavier elements. 'If' other phenomena could be discovered then these might also be a source of heavier elements. To date, however, there are no credible alternatives to supernovae.

The USA is a free and democratic country. Your Congress is 'We the People'. The Congress voted to support the war and at numerous watershed points (one recently) voted to continue supporting this war. It certainly is the American people. Bush wasn't reelected in 2004? Most senators and congressmen on 2004....and 2006.?..the leading Demo candidate for President didn't vote to support the war? Going to war in Iraq certainly was the choice of the American people and the representatives of the peoplke have stayed that course for 4 and a half years.

The media will sensationalize failure? Of course it will. The media will also lap up phony stories of the 'heroism' of the blonde pixie during the invasion. The media will do anythng to exaggerate the importance of anything to fill their 24/7 news. More importantly the rest of the world doesn't tow the US line and BBC in the early days of the war were savage in exposing Yellow Cake lies, etc. What's bizarre is that the warmongers in the US government didn't get this BEFORE the invasion. Why use 'Yellow Cake' when the media would dig and dig under every rock and expose lies? Did they never learn from Vietnam? Did they think the press would go away? Did they not learn from photos of Vietnam of people screaming after napalm attacks? How could there not have been checks and balances to assure that an Abu Graib would not happen when such a event would negate the positive of a hundred thousand American troops being professional in their deportment? The USA was warned. 'Don't jump into the quicksand'. None of the consequence of the misaventure were unknowns or hiddens. Iraq had the same social divisions it has today.......Iran and Syria were border states....the vigilant world media is the same... the American answer to the warnings was 'Freedom Fries'. The irony of the US defeat in Iraq is that there are no unknown variables thrown into the mix since the debacle was first undertaken. All the cards were face up on the table. For some wierd reason the USA decided to ignore the cards and jump into the quicksand. There was no plague, no asteroid hitting the USA, no attack on the USA, nothing...no major variable has popped up that wasn't written in neon across the sky saying 'Don't invade or Iraq will become Iraqinam'.

Pat Buchanan called it a failure of the president and a result of no more credibility. As Pat pointed out: Paris Hilton gains the headlines not only in the tabloids but on CNN and Foxnews. He said the surge will not quell the demand for withdrawal when more time is devoted on CNN to what Paris was wearing when she left jail than to 5 american soldiers being killed on the same day. Americans are turned off. After all the hooplah of the invasion wore off it was ...'oops, it's not a game?' the warmongers will continue to try to stabilize a Tehran-friendly Shiite government in Iraq (the irony) but most Americans don't give a darn. You can't win a war when most folks look to September as the start of the NFL season and not an update on 'progress'.

Perhaps Americans should refrain from the lies and fake evidence to invade and occupy countries. Your baloney meter is on full. For 4 and a half years Americans have lied, fudged facts and want to continue the same 'in the name of science'. Hint: Pangloss brought up the 'science' argument...not me. americans have tried every other tactic to justify the quagmire of Iraqinam so now it is the 'scientific' approach. Well, sorry, not buying that garbage. Tough beans if you don't want the rest of the world to roll over and accept the American lies. 'Great progess'....'Yellow Cake'...'The surge is working'. Fortunately even a majority of Americans no longer buy into the scam. The USA has lost the Iraq war as it lost the Vietnam war. Fortunately americans are an intelligent people and will learn from the misdadventure. Lies to go to war....torturing Iraqis...killing thousand of civilians...lies to oneself to deny the reality.... there will be at least a decade of navel gazing in which the USA will be restrained from another attack.

The attacks 4 years ago were also considered 'political' and 'desperate acts' of a losing insurgency. It doesn't make them any less deadly or any less significant or any less likely to continue for another 4 years as long as the futility of American military policy continues. And these attacks are not primarily directed against American opinion. They are directed against internal Iraqi opinion. They are loud billboards telling the Iraqi people that they will not find security in the current central government in Baghdad. the Iraqis are fully aware that the Americans are going to leave in a year...if not in 2 or 3 and that their security will only be guaranteed in allegience to regional militias (as it is in Palestine and Lebanon). The government will be an impotent force secondary to all the other divisions that the invasion has allowed to flourish in Iraq. The Shiite leader of Iraq wasn't holding hands with the Shiite President of Iran in Tehran last week because of being best buddies. He was smiling widely because he understands that he needs the support of the Islamic nutbar to survive.

That is the practical level. The practical level takes into account the fundamental concept of E=mc2. One can use an atom of gold or lead and use that same atom in another configuration. That's magnitudes easier than building a gold or lead atom. One can take the atoms of lead in galena ore and make a lead pipe. It would take more energy than is available to man to make the atoms of lead in sufficient numbers to make the same pipe.

The USA is a democracy. Bush was elected in 2000...re-elected in 2004...every member of the Congress elected. the Congress is the people's representative. They voted to support the war and still vote to fund it. the internal ins-and-outs of domestic U.S. politics and percents of support is academic to the rest of the world. What matters is the ACTUAL policy and ACTUAL actions of the democratically elected American government. The American people had and still have the ability to stop the insanity but do not. 'Americans' and not just 'some Americans' are responsible for Iraqinam and it's still 'Americans' responsible for the continuing insanity. In WW2 we fought 'the Germans' and not just those Germans who voted for Hitler. I doubt if there was any qualms about any American in the Iraqinam debacle speaking of 'the French'...'The Iranians'...'the Sunnis'...

That makes sense if the road isn't going in a circle and you keep hitting the same potholes. 4 and a half years and Iraqinam is Vietnam. Look ahead down the road and see more American killing and being killed in Iraq with nothing accomplished. 'Stay the course'...'give it time'...

CNN: "In another attack on Tuesday, gunmen wearing army uniforms abducted five Oil Ministry officials from their Baghdad apartments, the Interior Ministry said. Abdul Jabber al-Wagga, a deputy oil minister, and four general managers were in a ministry compound along Palestine Street in southeastern Baghdad when at least 60 gunmen in 17 vehicles stormed the site, wounding five guards in the clash, the Interior Ministry said." 'gunmen'? So are these also 'bad guys'. If so, why? Are they Iraqis anting to overthrow the corrupt government of an aggressive occupier? Are these 'gunmen' any different from the French resistance in WW2....oops...Americans will call them 'terrorists'...'links to al-Quaida'. Start kicking down the doors of households and draging Iraqi men off to American 'interrogation' so that...so that what? No friggin 'surge' can't work because the Americans have no clue who they are fighting in Iraq. There's still (after 4 and a half years) no purpose now other than 'stability' when there is no society left in Iraq to stablize.