The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > New Space Shuttle returns from Secret Mission
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 12-08-2010, 02:39 PM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
"You truly are incorruptible, aren't you?"
Me incorruptabel? No way. As every other man I too have my price. But then having a price doesnt necessarilly mean finding a buyer.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-08-2010, 04:48 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Guys... I think we should be more concerned with NK and Iran's Nuclear Program. Obama Doesnt have any balls to develop a weapon, more less a space weapon. Just look at what happened to the F-22 Program.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-08-2010, 05:18 PM
JamesTKirk1701's Avatar
JamesTKirk1701 JamesTKirk1701 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 556
Default

They were probably meeting aliens and so on. They probably even had the 5 tones and the hand gesture from CE3K.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-09-2010, 07:45 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcatjosh View Post
Guys... I think we should be more concerned with NK and Iran's Nuclear Program. Obama Doesnt have any balls to develop a weapon, more less a space weapon. Just look at what happened to the F-22 Program.
And I think you totally overestimate the role a president plays in the overall longterm military strategy of the United States. Sure, on paper the president is the Commander in Chief. But in reality the military strategy is made by an incredibly humongous apparatus that not even the president has real controll over, and this apparatus is not Congress nor Senat. And if you take a look at the history of the military strategy of the US you will see a strikingly consistent continuity over the decades, regardless of the Commander in Chief. It never really mattered who was president and from what party. The president merely executes the military policy shaped by others. In the execution he can decide a few things, make some important decisions for the moment, but thats tactics (like in the Cuba Crisis). The strategy is a mashinery and its rolling and rolling. The presidents job is merely to push the button:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1DhuIuSmJU

Take Iraq as an example (regardless of what you think about it): The policy of the Obama admin is indistinguishable from the policy of the Bush government, because the policy is not made in the white house.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 12-09-2010 at 07:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-09-2010, 10:21 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcatjosh View Post
Guys... I think we should be more concerned with NK and Iran's Nuclear Program. Obama Doesnt have any balls to develop a weapon, more less a space weapon. Just look at what happened to the F-22 Program.
Ah, the good ol' Neanderthal bigger club strategy, substitute intelligence with firepower. If you are really so concerned about Iran (somehow you sound more like you just repeat pundit talk) why didn't you object to the elimination of Iran's archenemy seven years ago?
It's a simple Shiite-Sunni trade-off and yet it is obviously beyond the mental capabilities of conservatives.

By the way, I am also concerned about Iran, mainly about its pawns Hamas and Hezbollah. But I am also concerned about friendly Arabian countries who beget many Sunni Islamists. So tell me, who is the priority on your axis of evil, Al-Qaeda or the Mullahs?
If you want something a bit more sketched out than your simple-minded nonsense, I am for hard actions in Gaza and Lebanon, let the Mossad wreak havoc. Yet tough talk against Teheran would just escalate the situation down there, i.e. Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arabian countries would prepare for war and Teheran and Baghdad would work closer together. I don't wanna take sides in such a hypothetical war as I dislike Wahabists as well as radical Shiite clerics.

Perhaps we better get out of this region as our actions seem to just empower Islamism? We funded the Afghan and Pakistani Sunni Islamists directly, toppling Mossadegh led indirectly to the Mullahs and while we are not responsible for Hamas we saw the rising of a non-secular Palestine organization too late. And, last but not least, Saddam was also a secular guy. A mass murderer but at least not an Islamist. There weren't any suicide bombers in Iraq before 2003.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-09-2010, 11:43 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Well said Horatio, Botany. It's not a situation that can be solved by a bigger gun. The middle east is a multifaceted reality where there really are no us vs. them, which usually is the way the situation is presented in the news, at least here in the States. As Horatio said, there were no suicide bombers in Iraq before 2003 and Bush's insistence that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, there were no Al Qaeda there before we went in. The problem here, is usually these sorts of discussions end up becoming a liberal/conservative slug fest, at least again with Americans, I'm not sure if that really happens outside American politics, but my point is, it's not a black and white situation that can be solved with across the board military build up. Of course military action plays a part but there are many other factors at work concerning this area and all the intricate factions and divisions in Islam that come into play. One conservative politician, who's a Libertarian, I did agree with to a great deal was Ron Paul. It was sad to see him treated like some sort of class clown during the Republican Primary when he said much of our conflicts in the middle east and these Islamic Jihadists we've brought on ourselves by simply having American boots on the ground in many of these lands. It's the reality of the situation and the guy gets laughed at. If we, the US, continues to have a presence in the middle east, then we'd better accept the fact that these groups like Al Qaeda are going to be coming after us. We're hitting a hornet's nest with a stick, so let's get a bigger stick.

But I do agree, Tom, that we should certainly be concerned with NK and Iran's nuclear ambitions, especially how NK's recent military 'chest beating' against SK is going to affect the US. I'd hate to see us get dragged into a second Korean War when we're spread so thin because of the situation in the middle east. It's not easy to police a world. That was a joke, but these are the sorts of issues we're going to have to deal with as long as we continue to implement the sorts of policies we've been using since probably the past thirty years or so, ramping it up in the past decade.

Anyway in respect to the F22 program, I remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons they ended the program was that there was no other fighter produced on the planet that could match the F22 and each cost something in the neighborhood of 360 million bucks and the program itself cost billions, so they closed the program since there were no other countries capable of producing a comparable craft as of right now anyway. Of course I'm sure the military's got something far more impressive and cutting edge under wraps anyway. Who knows where the true cutting edge of our military applications are right now.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 12-09-2010 at 11:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-09-2010, 12:13 PM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
By the way, I am also concerned about Iran, mainly about its pawns Hamas and Hezbollah. But I am also concerned about friendly Arabian countries who beget many Sunni Islamists. So tell me, who is the priority on your axis of evil, Al-Qaeda or the Mullahs?
If you want something a bit more sketched out than your simple-minded nonsense, I am for hard actions in Gaza and Lebanon, let the Mossad wreak havoc.
Bad idea, really bad idea. Because its actually what Israel is doing since decades and it just doesnt work. Einstein once said, that an idiot is someone, who does the same thing over and over again and expects different results.

You see, the thing is that the majority of arabs sympathize with Hizbollah and Hammas. Sure, the arab dictators would love to see Hizbollah and Hamas be gone, because they are competitors. But if you want to really alienate the entire region even further, the people, then all out war against those organizations is the way to go. And you must accept that this war can not be won, for the same reasons a war on terror can not be won: War on Terror is a war on civilians. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Ergo, a war on terror is allways a war against the people. You kill one 'terrorist cell' and another one grows and flourishes.

Even if one suceeded in destroying the infrastructure of Hamas and Hisbollah, it would only motivate palestinians to keep fighting, found new organizations, even more radical.

Here is what should be done instead: Israel accepts a Palestinian state in the borders of 1967. Done! The rules of the game now have changed fundamentally and palestinians must make a decision. They can now live in peace or they can declare war on Israel.

If they do the first, the problem is solved. If they do the latter, the problem will be solved, because then Israel would have a clear case of self defense against a real Palestinian state, with a legal army. Now Israel could fight a legal traditional war of defense against a real army with real headquarters and all in accordance with the geneva conventions. And because now it would be obvious that this new founded palestinian state started a war of agression and because now there would be a palestinian government to capitulate and sign a peace treaty....done!
Problem solved. You're welcome.

Israel hurts itself by keeping Hamas and Hizbollah stateless terrorist organizations. Make them a legal government of a real state with a real army and the situation is different entirely. The rules of the game must be changed.

But then I think Israel allready knows all that.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 12-09-2010 at 12:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-09-2010, 12:18 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston View Post
Well said Horatio, Botany. It's not a situation that can be solved by a bigger gun. The middle east is a multifaceted reality where there really are no us vs. them, which usually is the way the situation is presented in the news, at least here in the States. As Horatio said, there were no suicide bombers in Iraq before 2003 and Bush's insistence that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, there were no Al Qaeda there before we went in. The problem here, is usually these sorts of discussions end up becoming a liberal/conservative slug fest, at least again with Americans, I'm not sure if that really happens outside American politics, but my point is, it's not a black and white situation that can be solved with across the board military build up. Of course military action plays a part but there are many other factors at work concerning this area and all the intricate factions and divisions in Islam that come into play. One conservative politician, who's a Libertarian, I did agree with to a great deal was Ron Paul. It was sad to see him treated like some sort of class clown during the Republican Primary when he said much of our conflicts in the middle east and these Islamic Jihadists we've brought on ourselves by simply having American boots on the ground in many of these lands. It's the reality of the situation and the guy gets laughed at. If we, the US, continues to have a presence in the middle east, then we'd better accept the fact that these groups like Al Qaeda are going to be coming after us. We're hitting a hornet's nest with a stick, so let's get a bigger stick.

But I do agree, Tom, that we should certainly be concerned with NK and Iran's nuclear ambitions, especially how NK's recent military 'chest beating' against SK is going to affect the US. I'd hate to see us get dragged into a second Korean War when we're spread so thin because of the situation in the middle east. It's not easy to police a world. That was a joke, but these are the sorts of issues we're going to have to deal with as long as we continue to implement the sorts of policies we've been using since probably the past thirty years or so, ramping it up in the past decade.

Anyway in respect to the F22 program, I remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons they ended the program was that there was no other fighter produced on the planet that could match the F22 and each cost something in the neighborhood of 360 million bucks and the program itself cost billions, so they closed the program since there were no other countries capable of producing a comparable craft as of right now anyway. Of course I'm sure the military's got something far more impressive and cutting edge under wraps anyway. Who knows where the true cutting edge of our military applications are right now.
The funny thing is that acknowledging the complexity of the situation like Mr.Paul did doesn't imply that you advocate pacifism. It just means that there are trade-offs and you can't have everything.
Well, political discussions get heated everywhere on the world, not just in the US. Europeans aren't any wiser, plenty of treehuggers over here who object to "get in to restore basic order" military missions * la Balkan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
Bad idea, really bad idea. Because its actually what Israel is doing since twenty years and it just doesnt work. Einstein once said, that an idiot is someone, who does the same thing over and over again and expects different results.

You see, the thing is that the majority of arabs sympathize with Hizbollah and Hammas. Sure, the arab dictators would love to see Hizbollah and Hamas be gone, because they are competitors. But if you want to really alienate the entire region even further, the people, then all out war against those organizations is the way to go. And you must accept that this war can not be won, for the same reasons a war on terror can not be won: War on Terror is a war on civilians. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Ergo, a war on terror is allways a war against the people. You kill one 'terrorist cell' and another one grows and flourishes.

Even if one suceeded in destroying the infrastructure of Hamas and Hisbollah, it would only motivate palestinians to keep fighting, found new organizations, even more radical.

Here is what should be done instead: Israel accepts a Palestinian state in the borders of 1967. Done! The rules of the game now have changed fundamentally and palestinians must take a decision. They can now live in peace or they can declare war on Israel.

If they do the first, the problem is solved. If they do the latter, the problem will be solved, because then Israel would have a clear case of self defense against a real Palestinian state, with a legal army. Now Israel could fight a leagl traditional war against a real army with real headquarters and all in accordance with the geneva conventions. And because now it would be obvious that the palestinian state started it and because now there would be a palestinian government to capitulate and sign a peace treaty....done! Problem solved. You're welcome.

Israel hurts itself by keeping Hamas and Hizbollah stateless terrorist organizations. Make them a legal government of a real state with a real army and the situation is different entirely. The rules of the game must be changed.

But then I think Israel allready knows all that.
I sympathize with the Al-Aqsa brigades, the armed wing of Fatah. They fought and blew themselves up in order to end the occupation.
Unlike the secular Fatah Hamas is an Islamist organization. They don't have a plain political goal, end of the occupation, they rather wanna drive the Jews into the sea.

I would not negotiate with racist people who want to exterminate me and I wouldn't expect any Israeli to negotiate with these b*stards.
You can't excuse antisemitism with the "they are poor" excuse and imply that they are poor savages who shouldn't be held to the same standards as we civilised folks. That's the worst form of racism.

Yet, and that's the point I was trying to make, Israel might very well be partly responsible for the rise of the Hamas as they didn't achieve peace with the secularists when it was possible.

While we talk about religious fanatics we shouldn't forget to mention the radical Jews who dream about a grand Israel, settle in the Westbank and destroy it for the Palestinians. Fundamentalism on all sides lead to this mess.

Last edited by horatio : 12-09-2010 at 12:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-09-2010, 12:28 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Well, political discussions get heated everywhere on the world, not just in the US. Europeans aren't any wiser, plenty of treehuggers over here who object to "get in to restore basic order" military missions * la Balkan.
I was wondering if discussions such as this fall along the same sort of conservative/liberal lines that we see here in the States. Yes, politics is a sure-fire way to get people worked up anywhere in the world.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-09-2010, 12:30 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

We do pretty well for ourselves here on this board though. We have a lot of different viewpoints and differing opinions, but we are all able to discuss them in a civil manner. The world could learn something from our little board.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.