backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Apr 24 at 9:29 PM

They will continue maintaining the International Space Station together, though

According to The New York Times, NASA announced yesterday that it is halting many forms of contact with Russian government representatives due to Russia's "ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Russian and American relations have become a bit strained after Russia annexed Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula with past ties to Russia. In response, the U.S. has imposed sanctions.

Despite these issues, the two space agencies have managed to maintain a normal relationship. The retirement of the U.S. space shuttle program in 2011 means that the U.S. doesn't have a way to launch astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), so it depends on Russian Soyuz capsules to get there instead. Russia also benefits because it receives $70 million for every astronaut it launches. 

But it seems even the space agencies have problems now, as NASA has decided to sever many ties with the Russian government -- except when it comes to operating the ISS. 


[SOURCE: Mashable]

"Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, NASA is suspending the majority of its ongoing engagements with the Russian Federation," said NASA in a statement. "NASA and Roscosmos will, however, continue to work together to maintain safe and continuous operation of the International Space Station. NASA is laser focused on a plan to return human spaceflight launches to American soil, and end our reliance on Russia to get into space.  

"This has been a top priority of the Obama Administration’s for the past five years, and had our plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year. With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we’re now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017. The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It’s that simple. The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same."

NASA is reportedly suspending travel to Russia, teleconferences, visits by Russian government officials to NASA facilities and even the exchange of emails with Russian officials.

Source: The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sure glad
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 8:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
We rely on Russia to get people into space.




RE: Sure glad
By superPC on 4/3/2014 8:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well maybe in the future we can rely on China. Perhaps they can do it cheaper than Russia can.

Ideally though SpaceX should handle astronaut transfer to ISS.


RE: Sure glad
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 8:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping you're being sarcastic about China.


RE: Sure glad
By ProZach on 4/3/2014 8:44:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well maybe in the future we can rely on China. Perhaps they can do it cheaper than Russia can.

Perhaps, but not as cheap as Mexico can.


RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 8:55:56 AM , Rating: 3
Russia is what got us to send people into space the first go round, it's what drove this country all through the cold war. We pushed our schools, our economy, everything we have had to outshine the communists to prove we were better.. another cold war is exactly what we need to give this country some drive


RE: Sure glad
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 9:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm not going to encourage another 30 years of being basically standing with your finger on the button of world destruction like the Cold War was.

To give this country drive we need to stop encouraging punishing those who succeed. Stop demonizing wealth. Stop rewarding mediocrity. And stop encouraging people not to work.


RE: Sure glad
By tayb on 4/3/2014 10:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
"To give this country drive we need to stop encouraging punishing those who succeed. Stop demonizing wealth. Stop rewarding mediocrity. And stop encouraging people not to work."

We literally do none of those things in the United States. You watch too much Fox News. Open your eyes to the real world. The United States provides more corporate welfare than social welfare and has some of the lowest tax rates for high income earners in the world. We don't provide well for the needy and don't offer affordable health care.

Our current tax rates are some of the lowest in United States history. If we were to dramatically increase tax rates it wouldn't be abnormal it would be normal. What we have right now is abnormal. And yet suggestions to go back to normal US tax rates are met with ridiculous comments like yours about "punishing success." What a crock of shit. The super wealthy in this country have bought and paid for the propaganda that convinced your simple mind that the status quo is good for everyone.


RE: Sure glad
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh really? So the majority of major news outlets out there aren't telling people that anyone who is wealthy (except themselves and their allies of course) is the enemy of the poor and middle class and they all need to be taxed heavily.

So we aren't providing tens of thousands of dollars in government benefits to people who don't work or who have acted irresponsibility and as such, have low paying jobs. We don't have people who are trying to raise the minimum wage to a level that is equal to the pay of starting college graduates, which discourages even going to college. Since why bother when you can make the same wage with just a high school diploma?

How many people do you see who are technically "poor" but somehow they have the money for expensive cell phones, HDTVs, cable, broadband, etc?

Just because tax rates were higher in the past doesn't mean that they SHOULD be higher. That somehow that is the "normal". Why should someone work only to give away half, or more, of what they make just so someone else doesn't have to work as hard. It's pitched as kindness when in reality it just creates enslavement to the government. How are people "free" when they rely on the government for everything in their lives? Food, shelter, health care, education, etc.

And how in the hell do we give more corporate welfare than social? Social Security alone is almost $900 billion dollars. Medicare and Medicaid are $940 billion as well. We still haven't even gotten to food stamps, Section 8 housing, and the myriad of other benefits. Then you have wealth redistribution through tax credits like the Earned Income Credit which can provide up to almost $10,000 to people who never paid it into the system to begin with.

I disagree with corporate welfare as much as anyone. However tax credits that are general and applicable to everyone are not corporate welfare. Only the ones that exist solely for the benefit of a single or a few corporations are and I disagree with those. I disagree with the idea of a company like IBM, who's CEO is one of Obama's best buddies, paying $0 in taxes.


RE: Sure glad
By sgw2n5 on 4/3/2014 5:44:55 PM , Rating: 1
You must have been beaten up on the bus by a poor kid on several occasions? Did a working class person piss in your cheerios when you were little?


RE: Sure glad
By FITCamaro on 4/4/2014 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 4
I was the poor kid.


RE: Sure glad
By Nfarce on 4/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: Sure glad
By sgw2n5 on 4/3/2014 5:36:35 PM , Rating: 1
You need to wipe the spittle off of your monitor. And maybe read a book once in a while or something.


RE: Sure glad
By cruisin3style on 4/3/2014 7:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
you my friend have been watching a little too much Fox News

In the Bush tax cuts, you had a $4 trillion dollar program. $3.2 trillion went to all US workers (legal ones presumably), but on unequal ground. So people making $20k a year got back a much smaller sum than those who make millions or billions a year. But they make more so that is okay, right?

BUT then the last $800 billion was purely for the top ~2% of the time, which was ~$250k when talks first started about killing the Bush tax cuts.

An example I saw in a magazine article was for one of the tippity top richest people, who would have received $100,000 if that bonus top 2% only tax cut was stopped and $600,000 if all of the tax cuts were kept in place.

Seems like we've been encouraging and rewarding those who succeed ever since 2001 or 2003, which i understand is when parts of the tax cuts began iirc

the debate about unemployment and all that is insane when you're throwing $80 billion a year at the richest in the country. you've been spun to death


RE: Sure glad
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 7:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
???

Bush created an entire new tax bracket to give the middle class tax relief.

No matter how you slice it, or compare it to the "rich", that's a hell of a good thing. Bush lowered taxes ACROSS THE BOARD for everyone.

quote:
the debate about unemployment and all that is insane when you're throwing $80 billion a year at the richest in the country. you've been spun to death


And here is where you Liberals completely and utterly fail.

A tax cut is NOT "giving" people money. It's letting them KEEP more of their own goddamn money.

The Government does NOT own all the money generated in this country. At least, they aren't supposed to.


RE: Sure glad
By cruisin3style on 4/4/2014 7:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
giving, throwing, not collecting from...the syntax or word choices don't change the substance of what i said...i understand perfectly that conservatives balk at terms like "giving"...it doesn't change the substance of what i said, much as talking to someone whose english isn't perfect doesn't change the story they are trying to tell.

i sliced it the correct way: factually.

it's too bad conservatives don't understand that being unhappy with republican policy doesn't mean you are a liberal. i would vote for paul ryan in 2016 if he looked as good as i think he could be. also must be nice to be right all of the time, if only in your own head.


RE: Sure glad
By atechfan on 4/5/2014 6:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
Of course tax cuts end up saving more money for the rich. They were paying so much more. Hard to save someone money with a tax cut if they are paying little to no taxes to begin with.


RE: Sure glad
By bug77 on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well we certainly profited from the war lend-lease and stole the financial center role from Great Britian, but the space program and the Nazi scientists we whisked out of Europe were over fears of the USSR. The work we did to improve our schools were to compete with the Soviets. The boom in the middle class was to show how capitalism was superior to socialism. World War II may have invigorated our industry and killed off a lot of workers to reduce unemployment, but it did very little to embolden the nation. In fact post WWII many people were cynical and it gave birth to nihilism. The cold war is what gave this country drive and purpose.


RE: Sure glad
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 12:29:17 PM , Rating: 1
We forgave nearly all those debts after the war. We profited because we were the only major nation who's infrastructure and industry wasn't decimated by the war.


RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 1:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. The UK didn't make their last payment until 2006, the USSR was still making payments in the 70's, and the Tizard Mission was invaluable.


RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, come to think of it, the main reparations that we forgave were from Germany. We wanted to re-industrialize West Germany to stick it to the Russians. We actually built the incredibly successful German engineering sector because of the cold war.


RE: Sure glad
By bug77 on 4/3/2014 3:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
So what are you telling me? That without the USSR you'd still be driving Model Ts?


RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 4:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think I'm saying that without the cold war there would have been a global great depression following World War II.


RE: Sure glad
By Jeffk464 on 4/3/2014 4:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
World War II may have invigorated our industry and killed off a lot of workers to reduce unemployment


Don't forget that Europe's industry was completely destroyed and the US's was not only untouched but completely ramped up. It took Germany about 50 years to become an economic powerhouse again.


RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Europe's industry was destroyed, but no more than their economies. The Russian industry however had been totally rebuilt during the war. The Russians moved to plunder Germany and we moved to rebuild. The Morgenthau plan was replaced with the Marshall Plan and we put our industry to work fighting the 'communist scourge'.


RE: Sure glad
By delphinus100 on 4/3/2014 7:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Another Cold War could include another Cuba...we might not be so lucky, next time.

And did the last cold War keep us on the Moon? The problem with a 'space race' is that once you win that narrowly defied goal, you aren't necessarily interested in doing more of the same. We saw that before, too. Why keep running, when the race is over, and the only competitor dropped out and pretended to never have been racing, once it was clear he could not win?

No, we need a broad policy of expanding human presence into space (including, but not limited to Mars...some people can't see past the red planet, either) for commercial and research reasons (and exploration is a subset of 'research'), at our own pace, and not go into another national tizzy over what someone else does do, does not do...or is imagined to do.


RE: Sure glad
By coburn_c on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sure glad
By delphinus100 on 4/6/2014 3:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about socialism? (You're still referring to government-funded space operations, with government-chosen goals, anyway.)

Perhaps I should have explicitly said this, but my idea of 'a broad policy of expanding human presence into space' includes, indeed emphasizes commercial manned space activities, wherever practical.

As far as I'm concerned, the Commercial Crew program (including Bigelow Aerospace leased orbital stations) will do more to this end than Orion/SLS, by ultimately being self-sustaining and increasingly less reliant on the whims of government and politics (ours or someone else's) just as aviation and seafaring in general already are. That's competition I can well live with.


Maybe NASA will finally get more money
By Zak on 4/3/2014 9:42:38 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe NASA will finally get more money so we can go to space on our own again?




By delphinus100 on 4/3/2014 7:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
You seem not to have heard of Commercial Crew...

http://delphinus100.angelfire.com/link3.htm#ccdev

...but its problem is that Congress has consistently underfunded it by about half. It's more concerned about the monster rocket it wanted, that NASA didn't ask for, and that has no clear (certainly no funded) use worthy of it.

Fully funded, at least two of the commercial Crew Partners could have had operational LEO spacecraft by 2015. As it is, they may make 2017, depending on what the FY 2014 budget holds for them.

Meanwhile, we keep paying Russia for seats on Soyuz, and recent events suggest that we can't unconditionally expect that to always be there for political reasons (not to mention any technical problem that may ground Soyuz for an unknown period.) while we don't have a Plan B that's yet operational.


The Man with a Plan
By splatter85 on 4/3/2014 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
Here's an idea, give me funding for the next 20 astronauts to send into space ($1.4 Billion) and I will find a way to do it for the next 20 after that, free of charge. Why doesn't the government offer this up to the private sector?




RE: The Man with a Plan
By mik123 on 4/3/2014 1:21:12 PM , Rating: 2

You "will find the way"? LOL.

And what about the first 20, how are you going to do that?


Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/14, Rating: -1
RE: Cold War II
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 8:18:07 AM , Rating: 5
What are you saying we should be doing?


RE: Cold War II
By aliasfox on 4/3/2014 9:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. There's not much Obama (and by extension, Kerry) can do on this issue besides for mediate.

If they go in more aggressively, they may be accused of instigating World War III. Putin's already trying that by putting troops on Ukraine's border, so it's probably best right now not to be provoked.

If they go in weaker (no sanctions, not taking a stance), then Ukraine to Putin probably becomes Czechoslovakia to Hitler (cue Godwin?).

The fact of the matter is that NATO/Western Europe and the US are trying to reason with Putin. It's just hard to talk to a bully who's already taken your ball, is eyeing your bike, and you can't use your bat and expect a good outcome.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 10:03:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If they go in weaker (no sanctions, not taking a stance), then Ukraine to Putin probably becomes Czechoslovakia to Hitler (cue Godwin?).


That seems like a ridiculous statement to me. Putin doesn't want to slaughter Ukraine citizens.

And at least half the citizens of Ukraine WANT to be part of Mother Russia again.

This is hardly a black and white issue. And I honestly question the wisdom of constantly embroiling ourselves in these very small and highly regional petty disputes.


RE: Cold War II
By DiscoWade on 4/3/2014 12:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
That is pretty broad statement: "at least half the citizens of Ukraine WANT to be part of Mother Russia again."

I was in Ukraine before the Orange Revolution. The sentiment I got was that the people that remembered the Soviet Union hated and resented Russia. And these were Russian speaking people, not Ukrainian speaking. Of course, I was in Kiev and not southern Ukraine. I think the same will still holds true, after all why was there a revolution when the former president wanted to have closer ties to Russia? I would be willing to bet that the people who remember the Soviet Union and the people who speak Ukrainian are anti-Russia, and that is the majority if only slightly.

What you have here is Vladamir Putin doing a far superior job of playing politics than Europe and the US.


RE: Cold War II
By aliasfox on 4/3/2014 1:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
I was merely referring to the German annexation of Czechoslovakia, where it was decided that it was better to appease Hitler than confront him. This led to Neville Chamberlain pronouncing "Peace in our time" less than a year before the outbreak of WWII.

Giving Hitler Czechoslovakia made him think that it was ok to try and take Poland; what's to say giving Putin Crimea wouldn't lead to him trying to take all of the former Soviet states?


RE: Cold War II
By maven81 on 4/3/2014 1:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Because Putin doesn't want all the former soviet states that's why. His mission is to make Russia as strong and as independent as possible. This means not relying on the former republics. That's why in his mind taking a naval base away from Ukraine by force is better then leasing it. That's why he's building a new space center in the far east, so that he can tell Kazakhstan to go take a hike and stop paying them for space launches.
He may be interested in Belarus I suppose, maybe eastern Ukraine. He certainly couldn't care less about western Ukraine (watch how he hiked up the gas prices, he'd rather they freeze in winter I suppose).


RE: Cold War II
By aliasfox on 4/3/2014 1:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
I can buy that, but the flip side of the fuel price argument is that Putin wants to bring the rest of Ukraine to its knees. If fuel's too expensive in eight months, what's to say Ukraine won't give itself up to keep itself warm?

I really hope I'm wrong though.


RE: Cold War II
By sorry dog on 4/24/2014 9:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's smart enough not to play that card. Right now Russia may be in a short term position to price gouge, but that won't be the case in a few years. There enough LNG plant/transport projects already financing or construction phases to make a serious dent in Russia's gas business. If they are smart, they will start trying to make 20 year deals.


RE: Cold War II
By atechfan on 4/5/2014 6:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer is 100% right. Putin only wants the parts of Ukraine that were historically part of Russia, but were given to Ukraine to placate them by Stalin. Making his desire even more reasonable is the fact that the majority of the people in the Crimean region wanted to rejoin Russia anyway.

The West is being hypocritical by not baking self-determination for Crimeans when it backed Kosovo breaking from Serbia and Slovakia breaking from the Czechs.


RE: Cold War II
By Jeffk464 on 4/3/2014 2:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can't use your bat and expect a good outcome.


Nope Putin already has all of his military assets available if he wants to invade Ukraine. It would take months for us to get a force in place to counteract any move he makes. Remember a lot of war is just pure logistics.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 9:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
This is a President who invaded Libya because....I guess he felt like it.

He violated the sovereignty of Pakistan and assassinated Bin Laden.

He authorized the selling of weapons to rebels in Syria.

And he continued military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, after promising to end the "invasion" of those lands if elected.

Yet, somehow, we apparently have a leg to stand on in the Ukraine issue???


RE: Cold War II
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 10:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
OK... What are you saying we should be doing?


RE: Cold War II
By GotThumbs on 4/3/2014 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing.

It's too late to do anything and the US position on the world platform is probably the weakest it's ever been IMO.

Under Obama's "leadership" The US has already made announcements to the world that we're reducing our military down to pre-WWII numbers. He has limited US energy production/exports (XL, CNG). He did this to keep the US out of the international market so other nations have a bigger piece of the pie. He sacrifices the US citizens/economy for others nations benefit.

Obama does not think like an American IMO and does NOT put US interests first.

What message did you you think this would send to the world?

Under Obama, the silent message to all other leaders has been less involvement from the US in international issues.

We will have to wait until Obama is out of office to repair any credibility this nation had.

~Best wishes keeping what you earned, because

Obama has said he "believes in wealth redistribution". He thinks globally and even the poorest in the US are rich compared to other nations.


RE: Cold War II
By Spuke on 4/3/2014 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how any of this is a problem the US needs to solve or even be involved in. Can someone please explain why we have any interest in this at all? It's not like Russia is raping, pillaging and raping.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 2:36:55 PM , Rating: 1
Just curious, but when America made Hawaii the 50'th state, did other countries slap us with "sanctions" for our Imperialistic behavior?

It's ridiculous that we're even involved in this.

Obama just destroyed 40+ years of Russian - US relations and has sparked a mini Cold War. Over what!?


RE: Cold War II
By Spuke on 4/3/2014 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's ridiculous that we're even involved in this.
I agree but I must warn that I lean towards isolationism. I do believe in trade but only because that creates goodwill between countries. IMO, very few things are our business to get involved in and this most certainly is NOT one of them.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 5:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
I just wonder how American's would have felt if the world decided to slap these sanctions on us whenever we decided to invade a country.

These sanctions aren't hurting Putin, they are hurting every day Russian citizens. Who have nothing to do with this. It's beyond unfair, it's abhorrent.


RE: Cold War II
By atechfan on 4/5/2014 6:15:00 AM , Rating: 2
They are not really hurting Russia at all. Russia has more that Europe needs than vice versa. If the West insists on sanctioning Russia, then Putin can virtually shut down the EU by turning off the gas supply. China and India would be more than happy to buy it instead.

The West decided to get into a poker game with a man with a deck of aces hidden.


RE: Cold War II
By Jeffk464 on 4/3/2014 2:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
~Best wishes keeping what you earned, because

Obama has said he "believes in wealth redistribution"


Anyone with a lot of wealth can always move to another country, there is no exit tax. Remember the guy from Facebook who did just that, its a new form of outsourcing.


RE: Cold War II
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
We never invaded Libya, we dropped bombs in Libya with the aid of its citizens (and the behest of France). France buys a lot of oil from Libya...


RE: Cold War II
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 12:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't exactly complain about assassinating the most wanted man in the world. My only complaint in all that was the information that we gave away AFTERWARDS that basically told our enemies how we did it so they can protect against future assassinations. All to make him look better since his image was hurting.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 12:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not complaining either, I'm making a point.

When America needs to invade a country, blow something up, or kill someone, hey, its all good?

But Putin trying to stabilize the Ukraine, oh hell no, time to go Cold War on his ass.


RE: Cold War II
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
We are certainly no saints and are as FOS as the next guy, but the last time we ignored it and let it happen, Russia damn near took over Europe. The time before that, Hitler. I am not saying that is Putin's goal, but if the world (Not just US) lets it happen, it shows that the world will let it happen.

I am not saying military action is warranted, but sanctions are probably the right step here.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 2:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how everyone becomes a Reaganite on foreign policy when the President isn't a Republican. I'm actually shocked at people quoting "peace through strength" here. Usually I'm the only 'right wing nutjob' preaching this stuff.

Going by your logic, Saddam had plans to become the next Hitler, so nobody should be upset about the Iraq war.


RE: Cold War II
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 4:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
You are making some pretty huge leaps there... I dont know how sanctions = "peace through strength". We do have history here with this very same country doing this before. It's not like we declared war, its just sanctions.

"Saddam had plans to become the next Hitler, so nobody should be upset about the Iraq war."

When he invaded Kuwait? We shot his ass down... Good. When he didnt do anything at all in 2002, including not having WMD's? That was different.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Cold War II
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 8:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Retro this Obama buttlicker game you're playing with me may amuse you, but I know what you're trying to do and I'm not playing"

1st off, I believe we had already come to the conclusion previously that it is possible to ask a question, disagree, be civil and not be an Obama buttlicker all at once. I am dynamic that way ;) . I lick no ones butt. You can joke all you want, but you are as far to the right, licking those guys nether-regions as much as you accuse others of on the left. I am in the middle, registered independant... I make up my mind on any issue regardless of what the left, the right, other independents, or you think. I really haven't made my mind solid on this. It's a tough one.

I asked the question what do you think we should do? You came out and said everything Obama does is wrong (your canned response) but have said nothing about what you think we should do about it. Unless your answer to Putin taking over part of Ukraine is to bash Obama, then by all means, that makes no sense.

- We need Jimmy back.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 8:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I asked the question what do you think we should do?


NOTHING! Didn't I make that clear enough?

This is not something that's going to destabilize an entire region, it's the opposite actually. This is not something that threatens US interests. This is not a case of people being gassed to death or massacred. As far as I'm aware, Putin hasn't fired a SINGLE shot!

This is an entirely internal Russian issue. And the more we try and "fix" it, the more we look like a goddamn monkey fsking a football.


RE: Cold War II
By retrospooty on 4/3/2014 8:46:49 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, NOW its clear. I dunno though. Still a tough call.


RE: Cold War II
By atechfan on 4/5/2014 6:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
Not a tough call at all. Crimea voted to become part of Russia. Russia did not implement a hostile takeover. They moved in because the were invited by the new Crimean authorities to protect their referendum results. So the only proper response by the West is to stay the hell out of there.


RE: Cold War II
By moremilk on 4/3/2014 1:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
dude, don't you think there's a bit of a difference between invading a country under a dictatorship that generally kills its own people without any regard, and invading a more or less normally functioning democracy?

When was the last time the US invaded any democratic country?

If you disagree with the US getting involved in libya, afghanistan or iraq, you should also disagree with US attacking germany in WW1 - technically US didn't have any beef with them (or with germany in WW2). In both cases, the germans did everything they could to prevent US from declaring war and there was no legal right for US doing so.


RE: Cold War II
By Spuke on 4/3/2014 2:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Your view of history is colored. Our president at the time said WW2 was a European problem and US foreign policy at the time was isolationism. We only got involved when Japan got us involved (Pearl Harbor). Quite frankly, I wish we'd go back to some form of isolationism (Pearl Harbor taught us that no one can be isolated from world affairs totally).


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 2:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who thinks the annexation of the Ukraine is even remotely analogous to WWI or WWII, or some foothold to begin world domination, is smoking heavy doses of wacky tobacky.


RE: Cold War II
By Spuke on 4/3/2014 3:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone who thinks the annexation of the Ukraine is even remotely analogous to WWI or WWII, or some foothold to begin world domination, is smoking heavy doses of wacky tobacky.
X2


RE: Cold War II
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our president at the time said WW2 was a European problem


A minor point, but since you have criticized others view of history...

Roosevelt very much wanted to go to war. He felt we should protect Britain at all costs. Congress would not authorize war and the public was against. We channeled money, supplies, and arms to Britain and embargoed Japan. He did everything he could get away with without congressional support, which induced the attack on Pearl harbor. When we entered the Pacific theater Hitler declared war on us, solving Mr. Roosevelt's problem.


RE: Cold War II
By atechfan on 4/5/2014 6:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the drone strikes into countries he hasn't declared war with. Obama seems to be doing his best to turn weak allies like Pakistan into full fledged enemies.


RE: Cold War II
By saarek on 4/3/2014 8:27:21 AM , Rating: 1
I think most people will agree that he has been a very weak president, not really a bad one, just a gutless one.

Still as with Bush, who was a terrible president, the American people voted him in for a second term......


RE: Cold War II
By SpartanJet on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Cold War II
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 9:07:03 AM , Rating: 3
Actually no. The people did vote in Bush. Whether you like it or not, we don't go off a pure popular vote. We go off an electoral college. Democrats in Florida were trying to violate the law because the vote wasn't giving them the result they wanted. The Supreme Court was forced to rule and it ruled that Democrats couldn't keep subverting the law until they "found" enough votes to give Gore a victory in Florida.

But hey lets not let piddly things like the rule of law get in the way.


RE: Cold War II
By SpartanJet on 4/3/14, Rating: 0
RE: Cold War II
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 12:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
There were recounts. After the recounts and military vote, Bush was still up over 900 votes. Democrats were then appealing to violate election laws that involved deadlines by which the vote needed to be certified by in order to do more recounts.

Yes the Supreme Court has liberal members, conservative members, and flip floppers. I disagree any time the Supreme Court attempts to make or change law. Or any other court. It's job is to tell whether or not something is a valid law or not. Not create law through judicial fiat. By allowing the Democrats to violate the law, they would have effectively nullified a law that was not wrong to exist. Which again, isn't their job. If the law is flawed, lawmakers can change it. But as long as a law isn't illegal in existing, judges have no say. Their job is to uphold the law.


RE: Cold War II
By GotThumbs on 4/3/2014 12:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Reagan would have taken political action earlier before it happened. His approach was peace through strength. Obama's approach has been whispers of being "more flexible" after the second election, back door deals and national appeasement/apologies.

Obama think respect comes with being liked. Fact, Respect is earned over time and Obama has not earned the respect of the world leaders IMO.

Think back to when Romney said in a debate with Obama, that Russia was or biggest Geopolitical foe.

Obama laughed it off as ridiculous....guess whos laughing now. Putin.

Once again, Obama has been caught with his political pants down.

Plain and simple.


RE: Cold War II
By maven81 on 4/3/2014 1:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think back to when Romney said in a debate with Obama, that Russia was or biggest Geopolitical foe.


Russia is not our biggest Geopolitical foe. Break down the words Geo-Political. Geo means earth. Russia is a regional power and isn't making any moves to have an earth (world) wide contest. So in those terms Romney's comment is as stupid today as it was back then. Putin is a russian ultra-nationalist not maniac hell bent on world domination.
It's this black and white mentality and inability to look at nuances that gets us into giant messes in the first place. Your guy Reagan was unstable and got us to the brink of destruction. We were damn lucky that the soviets were not as hardline as he was.


RE: Cold War II
By Reclaimer77 on 4/3/2014 2:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your guy Reagan was unstable and got us to the brink of destruction.


I believe that was JFK, who literally took us to the brink of thermonuclear war. And who certainly did as much as any President in escalating the Cold War. One might even say he started it, by threatening ACTUAL war.

Whenever you idiots talk about Reagan, it's clear you're eating from the MSNBC trough.


RE: Cold War II
By Digimonkey on 4/3/2014 2:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Geopolitical foe simply means they are a government outside our own who has interests against our government/nation. It's not a black and white thing, its simply our agenda doesn't align with theirs so we're political rivals.

Thought that was pretty simple.


RE: Cold War II
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2014 2:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
People said the same thing about Hitler.


RE: Cold War II
By Spuke on 4/3/2014 3:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We were damn lucky that the soviets were not as hardline as he was.
The Soviets were not our saviors. Again, some of you guys views on history are skewed. Our government knew the USSR could not sustain an escalation of arms. The whole point of the cold war was to bankrupt the USSR. Mission accomplished. That said, the USSR was quite capable of pissing in everyone's Wheaties. Also, the brink of war was NOT during Reagans administration, it was during JFK's with the Cuban missile thingy. The cold war ENDED during the Reagan administration.


RE: Cold War II
By Jeffk464 on 4/3/2014 4:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your guy Reagan was unstable


He wasn't unstable he was just showing symptoms of the early stages of alzheimers.


RE: Cold War II
By atechfan on 4/5/2014 6:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
Reagan literally solved the Iran hostage crisis the day he took office. He dragged your asses out of the Carter recession, spurring a massive economic growth period. He brought down the Soviet empire. Pretty good for an unstable guy. Carter, on the other hand, was remembered as your worst president, until Obama.


RE: Cold War II
By maven81 on 4/3/2014 1:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe it, but I'm actually going to agree with you Reclaimer.
This is a dumb move by NASA. The Russian federal agency may just be the one part of their government that has nothing to do with politics. In fact they function on pure capitalism, they will launch whoever, whenever as long as you pay them. Scientists are also historically apolitical, they are more interested in progress then in borders. In fact, during the height the missile crisis a team at Baikonur rolled out one of the few available ICBMs and used it to launch a mars probe. Imagine that!
I can pretty much guarantee that after the ISS is decommissioned this will mean there won't be another ISS.


RE: Cold War II
By coburn_c on 4/3/2014 1:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
What if this is a move to get deficit/war hawks in congress to fund NASA?


RE: Cold War II
By maven81 on 4/3/2014 1:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's not impossible. NASAs administration has been saying for years now about how shameful it is to rely on russia for space launches and so on.
But if this is their intention it's the worst way of going about it. Russia is intertwined with US space industry. The RD-180 powers the Atlas 5. The NK-33 derivatives are being used on the new Antares rocket.
Mostly as a fan of spaceflight in general it pains me when instead of cooperation we get "oh yeah! in your face!".


RE: Cold War II
By Jeffk464 on 4/3/2014 4:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
What are you going to do Russia came up with a superior product? Its the same reason we all drive Honda's and Toyota's instead of products from US auto companies(can't really say US cars anymore).


RE: Cold War II
By delphinus100 on 4/3/2014 7:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't confuse 'superior product' with 'only alternative product.'

When that happens, superiority is irrelevant. It's simply the only game in town. At least with cars we can still choose among imports...


RE: Cold War II
By Jeffk464 on 4/4/2014 12:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
I was talking about the engine on the atlas 5 no soyuz it seems pretty solid, but its a little dated.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki