China may get back to the Moon before we do.
Says who? Says Mike Griffin, NASA’s top banana.
Unfortunately, he’s right.
The U.S. is “more technically advanced. We certainly could be back on the moon faster than the Chinese, but we don’t have the political will and therefore the resources to do it,” said Joan Johnson-Freese, head of the Naval War College’s national security decision-making department.
I wonder if they’ll use lead-free paint on their rockets?
Anyway, it’s not really a race anymore– the reason we don’t have a base on the Moon is that we raced. Once we won, the American will evaporated. "Flags and footprints", the private space people derisively call it.
I hope NASA can actually do this, going back to the Moon, this time to stay. If we race, then we all lose.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
“I wonder if they’ll use lead-free paint on their rockets?”
I honestly didn’t get that.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Well, since we had the technology to get there almost 40 years ago, it’s obvious that technology is not really an issue in determining who gets a permanent presence on the Moon first. Given the political will, we could have done it 25 years ago, at least.
While I would prefer the US getting back to the Moon before the Chinese get there, it doesn’t really matter that much these days. Progress is progress, and there is a good chance that China and India (assuming they don’t implode) will overtake the US in the race to space in the next couple of decades. They certainly have more political reasons for doing so. Heck, even Putin’s Russia might begin to flex it’s muscles in that direction again, as it has done recently in other areas.
I would hope that all the major powers can put their nationalism to one side and cooperate closely to do this together. While no doubt there would be bureaucratic nightmares if they did, sharing the cost of the venture could make it all more viable.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
References the recent fuss over toy imports from China that contained lead paint.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Honestly, it doesn’t matter who returns to the moon since America has dominated space travel for the last 40 years. However I expect some certain news orginizations to make this out to be a big deal (FOX News I’m looking at you).
October 4th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Humans will be on the moon, that’s the main thing. As an American, I would like it to be my country…but it won’t be. The pioneer spirit that founded this country is at the mall stuffing its fat face with nachos.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I’m surprised that the BA doesn’t celebrate the Chinese spirit rather than use this as an opportunity to joke about lead paint.
Lead paint is as much the fault of Western toy buyers who insist on buying goods for the cheapest possible price and don’t much care about exploiting cheap Chinese labor.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Speaking of moon landings, I’m surprised that there isn’t anything here about last night’s Colbert Report. He now believes that the moon landing happened! Granted he was interviewing James Lovell (I have no idea if that link will work because Comedy Central doesn’t like my operating system or browser, I don’t have any idea which so I apologize in advance if it doesn’t.) and it just wouldn’t be funny if he argued with him about it. Besides, he seemed very happy to have an Apollo astronaut there, referring to them as heroes a couple times.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Personally, I would like it if we were to hold an Apollo-Soyuz like mission with the Chinese, where we both send missions to the moon simultaneously and meet together on the surface.
Wouldn’t that rock?
October 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
OK, for those that may not know, Colbert is one of us! He plays a right-wing anti-science nutjob on tv. It’s satire. And damned funny.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“OK, for those that may not know, Colbert is one of us! He plays a right-wing anti-science nutjob on tv. It’s satire. And damned funny.”
Actually, his character is a lot like Borat, he plays that character at all times while ‘in public’, not just on TV.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
For us to go *back* to the moon, wouldn’t that mean we would had to have been there already? ;^)
October 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Red moon …?
Ooh, are we in for a lunar eclipse this month?
October 4th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
We’ll go to the moon when there’s a good reason to go. The reality is that we went the first time as part of a pissing match with the Soviet Union. We don’t feel particularly in competition with China, so why should we sweat them going there 40 years after we did it.
Really things haven’t changed much since times long past. Why did Columbus accidentally stumble onto some islands near America? Because he was looking for a trade route to China. All of the exploration of what is the Americas today was driven by the fact that people could get rich from it.
Invariably if we discovered needed resources on the moon that would justify the obvious expense of hauling them back, or relocating production there, we’d do it. But we’re either not that depserate, or it’s simply not that valuable. Frankly I see the future of trying to retrieve mineral laden asteroids to be far more likely in the near future than substantial moon colonization.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Actually the USSR put the 1st SPACE STATION in orbit around earth. I think that’s a much bigger and a more beneficial accomplishment. Therefore, I declare USSR winnar! Seriously
October 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Put it this way if the Americans could land a man on the moon 40 years ago why such a long wait? Are they actually goin to go back or are they goin to another film set. Seriously if they could do it with the obviously inferior technology 40 years ago shouldnt this be a walk in te park with newer more sophisticated equipment. Dont want to be skeptical but Id say it could be another 40 years before they go back
October 4th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Phil, I know you were joking about the lead paint, but won’t they need it to protect their astronauts from the deadly Van Halen Belt radiation?
Seriously, maybe the threat of the ChiComs beating us to the moon will engender a bit of political will and Congress will find the funds.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Actually I disagree, while I do think that what we did with the Soviets was the scientific equivalent of a price war that made moon exploration worthless to the average person, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the the United States and the Chinese pushing each other along. I think competition is great for space exploration.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I like the idea of different nations launching and all meeting up on the Moon. Or, launching a single joint mission all together.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Sounds like NASA’s trying to get some more federal dollars if you ask me.
“Ooooooohhh, CHINA will beat us!!!! You better give us more $$$ unless you WANT the CHINESE to WIIIINNNNN!!!”
Maybe we should be focusing on more productive uses of time in space rather than doing another “race to the moon”.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Ashton, your ability to concieve economic scales is quite funny. Perhaps the USA should mothball a single stealth bomber and thus double its entire NASA budget. Perhaps the three or four companies that collude to control the entire agricultural budget (single largest spending item in the US) should concede that they no longer need massive government intervention to keep their poor heads above water, and thus allow a three magnitude increase in spending to increase knowledge. Perhaps you should shut up.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:39 am
I strongly prefer a multi-national effort as well. Or, none at all, as I still feel there is nothing we can accomplish with people in space that we can’t do far more frugally and quickly with machines. Why limit our scientific ROI for the purpose of planting more “flags and footprints”?
If we do send humans to the moon and beyond, we owe them the best engineering that humankind is capable of in order to provide the highest feasible probability of a safe return, and the expense of accomplishing this is astronomical (yes, of course, pun intended!). Why not swallow part of our pride and share the burden and reward?
October 5th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Hmm. What is the “defence” budget for the USA, now? Over $400 billion, excluding current wars (or police actions, nation-building, terrorist beating, whatever you want to call it - except “fruitless, disastrous quagmire”, of course).
That’s $400 BILLION dollars. And it goes up every year.
Crazy idea: why not spend money on exploration and scientific advancement that may help our ailing planet, rather than spend it on weapons to destroy large swaths of it?
I’d sooner see China, Russia, India, the USA and the EU all competing over peaceful exploration and advancement than building newer, “better” nukes. (Just as much pork in any large-scale enterprise - it doesn’t have to involve building weapons.)
Probably never happen, given the institutionalised stupidity of the political classes, but I can dream…
October 5th, 2007 at 5:52 am
That stupidity being driven by the demands of the public, even if said public doesn’t realise it. So who’s stupid?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:20 am
>>>Ashton, your ability to concieve economic scales is quite funny. Perhaps the USA should mothball a single stealth bomber and thus double its entire NASA budget. Perhaps the three or four companies that collude to control the entire agricultural budget (single largest spending item in the US) should concede that they no longer need massive government intervention to keep their poor heads above water, and thus allow a three magnitude increase in spending to increase knowledge. Perhaps you should shut up.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:24 am
“Lead paint is as much the fault of Western toy buyers who insist on buying goods for the cheapest possible price and don’t much care about exploiting cheap Chinese labor.”
Yup it’s the consumer’s fault. It has nothing to do with the fact that no one in America can produce the same things cheaply. “Don’t buy from slave laborers” someone said, but then failed for point to any relevant alternative. You’re just as likely to get the Chinese to pay their workers more as you are to take a pay cut yourself so that your friends and family can buy American made.
And the Chinese beating American’s back to the moon has nothing to do with the Gov’t fighting pointless wars or searching for WMD that don’t exist.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Thanks tacitus.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:28 am
@Ashton
“Maybe we should be focusing on more productive uses of time in space rather than doing another “race to the moonâ€.”
Interesting statement, what are your ideas?
“Perhaps you should shut up.”
Wow that was a totally convincing argument. Don’t let them get under your skin you started out so well.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Bah….sry I missed that you quoted and said nothing, thought that last part was yours but it wasn’t
October 5th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Thank you for proving my point. It’s not the fact that China might prove to have a stronger will than the United States, that it will be a “RED MOON”, or that we’re losing ground in the technological aspect of space exploration, no no, it’s about the all mighty dollar, as usual. If China
I understand living in a pollyannaish world thinking we all should get along and to put away our stealth bombers and defense systems, but alas, we do not.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of NASA getting more funding should it be deemed pertinent. But it’s just comical to see the same fear mongering from NASA, creating a means to their end, that many people on here criticize the Gubb’net of doing.
I guess what I’m saying is, don’t complain about one set of people creating unnecessary fear, when it’s done just the same by your interest group.
(I apologize for the other post, my full comment above was not posted)
To continue answering, I don’t necessarily have any better ideas than going back to the moon again, I would have just hoped that in 40 years, we would have progressed our thinking beyond the moon.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
@Ashton
“I don’t necessarily have any better ideas than going back to the moon again, I would have just hoped that in 40 years, we would have progressed our thinking beyond the moon.”
That’s fair. However, I think a lot of people (incl. NASA and the Chinese) see the moon as a sort of stepping stone to bigger better things like Mars etc…
October 5th, 2007 at 9:09 am
We less “landed” than yelled “tag” and went home.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Actually, The good ol’ USA put op Skylab first which could have carried MIR as cargo. Congress refused to OK $2M to keep it up, so the souverniers fell onto the Austrailian out back and the ocean. It was a political decision to put the one up there that we have now - botched by both parties.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I like the comments about a multi-national effort, but I don’t see the US being that serious about getting to the moon. Does anyone think the X Prize will be enough incentive that a private effort will be the next to send a mission (if not a human) to the moon? I heard on a Science Friday podcast recently that within 72 hours of announcing the prize, the foundation got requests for registration materials from 125 teams in 23 countries!
October 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Don–
Skylab predated Mir, but Salyut predated Skylab.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Tilley said:
> Put it this way if the Americans could land a man on the moon 40 years ago why such a long wait? Are they actually goin to go back or are they goin to another film set. Seriously if they could do it with the obviously inferior technology 40 years ago shouldnt this be a walk in te park with newer more sophisticated equipment. Dont want to be skeptical but Id say it could be another 40 years before they go back
I will assume the film set comment is a joke but the question is about why it isn’t easy to go back.
Physical equipment to do the job is not in hand. That means we don’t have a rocket, or a lander, available. Also, it means that parts used to build new items to the old designs are not available. They are obsolete. Also, not only do we not have critical parts, but in fact the tools, fixtures, and processing equipment would need to be rebuilt.
Furthermore, Apollo does not have the capability we want in our new program. We want a larger crew and larger payload capability, for longer stays. And we want higher reliability.
So, we are essentially redesigning anyway, and trying to take into account new materials and manufacturing processes. That puts us with some advantages over the Apollo days by building upon their knowledge and experience. But the flipside is that without the deadline and without the challenge of the Cold War and the Space Race, the funding is not being provided to work at the same pace. In fact, with the Shuttle and Station program taking a huge part of NASA’s budget, the piece available for the lunar program is something like 1/16th the money spent on Apollo (NASA has 1/4 the effective budget, and only about 1/4 of that is going to CEV.) If you don’t spend the money, you don’t do the work in parallel, you do it in series. That means it will take time.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:27 am
To Thorin:
>>>That’s fair. However, I think a lot of people (incl. NASA and the Chinese) see the moon as a sort of stepping stone to bigger better things like Mars etc…
October 6th, 2007 at 2:28 am
To Thorin:
“That’s fair. However, I think a lot of people (incl. NASA and the Chinese) see the moon as a sort of stepping stone to bigger better things like Mars etc”
I understand what you’re thinking here, but I still believe that the moon does not necessarily need to serve as that stepping stone. I heard Seth Shawstack from SETI speak the other night, and he had some very interesting thoughts about Mars and further exploration there.
I could think of a lot of things I would rather spend billions of dollars on outside of worrying about the Chinese showing up 40 years late to the dance.
1. Using the money to advance a nuclear energy program advancement in the United States.
2. Provide more funding to the TRUE war on terror in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq.
3. Provide more funding to NASA for research and discovery outside of the moon, most specifically mars.
Yeah, short list, but it’s all that comes to mind at 4:30 am
October 6th, 2007 at 5:53 am
What I’d love tosee -the first Chinese astronuat (sorry,taikonaut) jumps out onthelunar surfaceand proudly plants ..
… the Tibetan flag & claims amnesty and that h’ll fly back to Europe or the USA!
Hey what are they going to do about that!
(Inow, Iknow, they’re hardly likelytopick aTibetan Taikonaut or one from Xinjiang, Burma or non-Han Chinese generally anyhow -but its pretty funny to imagine it!)
October 6th, 2007 at 5:59 am
[& now with spaces ..]
What I’d love to see - the first Chinese astronaut (sorry, _taikonaut_) jumps out on the lunar (or better yet Martian) surface and proudly plants ..
… the Tibetan flag & claims amnesty and that she’ll fly back to Europe or the USA! Then gives away their secrets plus revealing how badly the Chinese govt. treat the Tibetans, other Chinese minorities and, lets face it, pretty much everyone else .. Then challenges them with: “Hey what are you going to do about it from down there!”
—————————–
(I know, I know, they’re hardly likely to pick a Tibetan Taikonaut or one from Xinjiang, Burma or non-Han Chinese generally anyhow - but its pretty funny to imagine!)
October 6th, 2007 at 6:12 am
@ Ashton: It is generally held that establishing a base on the Moon would be a necessary pre-requisite for a manned mission to Mars. (Possibly you could use a large space-station instead, but establishing a base on the Moon seems a good idea.)
Afghanistan is under threat of being over-run by the Taliban (again) and their assorted warlord friends. The Taliban aren’t terribly tech-savvy, nor a risk to other nations. Plus they’re based in Pakistan, just like Osama Bin Laden and his boys.
If you want to get serious about the terrorism threat then it would seem wise to back out of the Middle East and put the thumbscrews on Pakistan. That probably can’t happen until a viable replacement for oil is found. Helium 3 could be viable. Guess where there is thought to be a lot of that? (Look up.)
Quite often there are obvious solutions just sitting there waiting for people to see them.
Oh, and China doesn’t care too much about the flag-planting crapola. They need energy.
October 6th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Ashtonon said on 06 Oct 2007 at 2:28 am :
…
1. Using the money to advance a nuclear energy program advancement in the United States.
2. Provide more funding to the TRUE war on terror in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq.”
A true war on TERROR would mean arresting Stephen King & banning Halloween (Okay it ain’t that scary but y’get my drift, I hope.)
Terrorism is a tactic like kidnapping or bombing fromthe air. It ain’t possible to fight a war on a tactic, its just meaningless.
In fact, you could argue semantics by noting that “Shock-&-Awe” and Mutually Assured Destruction both used by the US military are themslves forms of terrorism.
Or perhapos more constructively you can - & I am- argue that teh best tactic to fight terror is UNDERSTANDING.
Fight Al Quaida - which incidentally is a bunch mass-murdering criminals rather than any nation-state? Sure. But you don’t need to invade ANY nation to do that ..
Elevating OBL from murderous nutcase criminal (which he is) to leader of a military crusade / jihad by attacking nations that had very little if anything to do with him was the worst mistake Bush the Lesser ever made.
The best way out of the Iraq -”War of Terror” mess is stop digging - admit we got things wrong & call our trops back - plus stop funding and arming Israel and start behaving like a decent,co-operative global citizen rather than an Empirial bully.
At present China is a rising Empire, the UnitedStates afalling one -our best bet is to join therestof theworld as one of many &control theworst excesses of the new Chinese empire rather than get into a worse and new Cold war or fall into isolationism. I suggest reforming the United Nations & giving it some real teeth! (Abolish the veto powers, make UN an independent army with nuclear capabilities & make its laws enforceable and enforced evenly on all nations - even against china and Israel &, yes, even against us - because other alternatives are MUCH, much worse for everybody on the planet.)
October 6th, 2007 at 6:44 am
# boggis the cat on 06 Oct 2007 at 6:12 am :
” … Afghanistan is under threat of being over-run by the Taliban (again) and their assorted warlord friends. The Taliban aren’t terribly tech-savvy, nor a risk to other nations. Plus they’re based in Pakistan, just like Osama Bin Laden and his boys.”
-Dubious assertion there I’m afraid. We _think_ OBL *may* be hiding inPakistanor on the border twixt there &Afghanistan. We don’t really know. We _thought_ Iraq had WMD’s, we _thought_ invading Iraq was a good idea, we _thought_invading the Bay of Pigs and Veitnam were good ideas too. We thought WRONG.
Let’s now think twice and not jump to silly conclusions as seems likely to be happening currently with Iran … (Ooops, they weren’t threat either .. gee, sorry! Shame about sparking WWIII…)
It strikes me as quite possible OBL is already deceased or captured. There were reports last year if I recall stating he’d died of typhoid.
Boggis : “If you want to get serious about the terrorism threat then it would seem wise to back out of the Middle East and put the thumbscrews on Pakistan. That probably can’t happen until a viable replacement for oil is found. Helium 3 could be viable. Guess where there is thought to be a lot of that? (Look up.)”
The atmosphere? The Sun? NearEarth Asteroids .. Wait no I’m guessing the Moon! In fact, I know its meant to be. Again, lets find out - send a few missions up there & see! Please lets do it!
As for pakistan, its one of our best allies with alotof internal problems. Its under a lot of pressure already. Abitmore and it - & its nuclear arsenal -could fall into the hands of the fundamentalist extremists. Not a pleasant scenario - but Dictator Musharraf (”our son-of -a-B-”) has already survived several attempted assasinations & is horrendously if understandably unpopular for siding with ‘The Great Satan’ as the average Pakistani views us. We need tobe very, very careful and cautuious indeed.
Pulling our trrops out of where theyshould never have been -GREATY idea betas me why it wasn’t done much earlier. End support for Israel and start being more respectful of the values and views and soverign rights of Muslim nations - even better.
Lets think laterally and sell New York to the Jewish lobby and use that and its surrounds as “Israel” - evacuating them from their unendurable current circumstances which are corroding away the true peaceful and intelligent Jewish spirit whilst treating and thus turning the Palestineans into wounded, furious animals.* If we charge enough to bankrupt them but move the Jewish state from being aself-made national ghetto surrounded by people who hate it (& always will now -with good reason) to a nation that benefits from and already works with them great .. If we make the Jewish lobby less malignantly influential on US foreign policy (tothe detrimentof America and the wider world) then 5000 x better!
——-
* We are ALL animals actually. There is, I think, a Newtonian “every action has an equal & opposite reaction” effect in human pyschology too. Dehumanise the Palestineans & we dehumanise ourselves. Attack and slaughter them & ,surprise, surpise, they’ll do that to us.
I don’t want Israel destroyed nor do I wish the Palestineans crushed and destroyed either as the Jewish lobby would have it.
I do think creating the Jewish state where it was, was one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century & moving it would be a great idea ..
October 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am
@ tacitus
“Well, since we had the technology to get there almost 40 years ago, it’s obvious that technology is not really an issue in determining who gets a permanent presence on the Moon first. Given the political will, we could have done it 25 years ago, at least.”
If I remember correctly, 25 years ago we have not found any water deposits on the moon. A permanent presence would require astronomically expensive resupply missions!
October 6th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I didn’t intend on turning this thread into a political discussion about the Middle East, so my apologies to the BA. I will respond to the points made by Boggis and Steve and will be finished. I hope that doesn’t bother anyone too much?
To Steve:
I believe you’re arguing a semantic issue here when I reference terrorism. I hope I did not lead you to believe that I was referencing a tactic, but rather a movement of terrorists in the form of Al Qaeda and other such groups.
…Fight Al Quaida - which incidentally is a bunch mass-murdering criminals rather than any nation-state? Sure. But you don’t need to invade ANY nation to do that …
I would contend that Al Qaeda is indeed a nationalist group within the Middle East, who sees the United States as an obstacle to their ends. I surely do believe that an invasion of Afghanistan was absolutely essential to bring down the Taliban (a chief supporter and funder of Al Qaeda)
While I believe that empathy is an absolute in understanding foreign affairs (look at our Latin American relations in the 20th century), the very definition of a terrorist organization, or a fundamentalist group is that they are not accepting of any opinion differing from their own. How does one deal with such a group? Yes, I can see posts now about how the United States under that definition could be considered just like Al Qaeda, but any person with knowledge of American foreign relations would not subscribe to that.
I also cannot subscribe to the notion that we are fighting a war for Oil. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were the chief suppliers of oil to the United States, and all reports from the White House is that they have a planned draw down in troops planned within the next year or two. If we wanted Iraq’s oil, why draw down troops?
to Boggis:
Pakistan is one of the largest supporters of the United States in the Middle East and if we were to turn on them, it would be disastrous to our relations in the Middle East.
I do not believe there is an “obvious solution” to the Middle East right now, there are tough decisions, and bad decisions. I believe we are still sorting out what the difference in these are.
To Both:
That’s very interesting indeed that there could be an alternative fuel source on the moon. I WOULD consider that a viable venture to go back to the moon. I hope I didn’t seem unmovable on the issue of returning to the moon. Like I said before, if we can provide a good reason to go back, I’m all for it; but simply racing the Chinese… eh..
I heard Homer Hickum talk about the potential for large amounts of fuel to be found on the Moon. Interesting to see it mentioned now.
October 11th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Don’t want to hijack this thread either but it does need to be said that :
Al Quaida (a.k.a. “The convenient boogeyman”) is NOT a nation but criminal gang driven by ideology.
I think an attack on Afghanistan could possibly, just possibly, have been avoided with enough diplomacy. Then they may - just potentially - have even handed over the probably Late & not-so great Osama bin Laden.
You make war against nations - countries like Iraq or Vietnam or Argentina.
AQ ain’t no nation - just a bunch of whacko bigots much like your own Ku Klux klan or Mcveigh-type militias. They are a criminal problem and best treated as such NOT elevated to warrrior status.
Invade a country and you’re at war with that whole country .. & thats bad enough when its the _right_ target - Let alone when its the *wrong* one!
Sadly, again America does have a record of fighting unwinnable “wars” against lots of things that aren’t “war-able”, eg. drugs, poverty, etc …
The sooner the US learns this is just plain dumb and NEVER going to work the better.
Seems we’ll have to wait until Bush is impeached (which shoulda happened years ago) or when the religious Wrong & their “Tyrant~ican” party (to name them correctly) finally get voted out of power.
We can just hope they do less damage to everyone else on the planet rather than more in the interim ..
——————————————
Sir Lancelot : Hail King Arthur, I’m back triumphant from raping and pillaging your enemies in the South!
King Arthur : Lancelot you moron! I told you to rape and pillage my enemies in the North not the South! I don’t _have_ any enemies in the South!
Sir Lancelot : You do now, Sire!
October 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I’m willing to concede that Al Qaeda is not a nation. But they are a nationalist group. I do believe that they want a bastion in a nation with which to operate. It was no secret that the government of Afghanistan funded, supported and concealed Al Qaeda in their nation for years. And nationalism
“is a term that refers to a doctrineor political movement that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.”
Al Qaeda was using that definition of Nationalism to push their radical agenda in Afghanistan. There was no hope in negotiating with the government of Afghanistan and I fully support the invasion of Afghanistan. So to say that Afghanistan was the wrong country is just erroneous.
I’m also not interested in turning this into a bash Bush thread, but every military movement that’s been made under the Bush administration was okay’d by Congress. Even under the current Democratic control, there has been no real movement to end the war. And yes, the Congress could end the war tomorrow if they cut the funding to it, so don’t tell me the left doesn’t have the ability to end it.