Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Halts Non-ISS Work With Russia Over Ukraine Crisis

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

NASA 291

An anonymous reader writes "The Verge reports on an internal memo from NASA indicating that they've suspended all contracts and activities with Russia that aren't involved with operating the International Space Station. Quoting: 'Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, until further notice, the U.S. Government has determined that all NASA contacts with Russian Government representatives are suspended, unless the activity has been specifically excepted. This suspension includes NASA travel to Russia and visits by Russian Government representatives to NASA facilities, bilateral meetings, email, and teleconferences or videoconferences. At the present time, only operational International Space Station activities have been excepted.' NASA Administrator Charles Bolden argued recently that our dependence on Russia for putting astronauts into space needs to end."

cancel ×

291 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642063)

It's really too bad these have to get in the way.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 4 months ago | (#46642107)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642143)

No, Russia looked the other way. They did not care.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1, Flamebait)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 4 months ago | (#46642237)

Most people look the other way when a roid-raging bully crosses their path, especially when you have to do business with that bully. It doesn not mean they do not care. At least Canada had the guts to reply to bush's "your either with us, or against us." with a slightly peeved "whatever".

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46644057)

Oh, I agreed with Canada on that one. Personally, I think that what W/neo-cons did was horribly destructive. I was opposed to how he handled Afghanistan, AQ, Iraq, etc.
BUT, while the west hates that we do this, Russia did not care, or actually enjoyed the fact that we were doing this.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642435)

No, Russia looked the other way. They did not care

That's an absolutely stunning degree of revisionism you've got there. Actually,

Russia provided intelligence to Iraq's government on US military movements in the opening days of the US-led invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report released today said.

Source (there are many): http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10374415

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643295)

No, Russia looked the other way. They did not care.

That is substantially naive. Russia loved that the US invaded Iraq; it got the US bogged down in the middle east in the same way that the US got bogged down in Vietnam and Russia got stuck in Afghanistan. What they did instead, as pointed out below, was provide intelligence to the Iraqi military, allowing them to refuse to give battle to US troops and instead form numerous militias to start a major insurgency, ensuring a US quagmire. This in turn gave Russia room to rebuild and strengthen it's economy and military, allowing them to regain a stronger regional position that they did not have previously, and allowing them to be the regional power they are today.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 4 months ago | (#46643937)

And now the Russians are burdened with propping up Syria and tying up resources in the Ukraine for little or no gain while scaring the European countries into breathing life back into NATO. Not to mention they have kicked off a mad dash for Europe to come up with alternative natural gas sources because they don't want to be at the Russians mercy. That will hit the Russians where it really counts. It seems the Russians are no better than the US when it comes to entering into pointless and ultimately unproductive foreign policies.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46646073)

Hmm.
Actually, I think that the real reason for putin to go after Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is that is where large quantities of oil/nat gas is. Enough that it would enable Europe to quit Russia.

Europe really needs to get off that imported energy.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46647553)

Taking Crimea as Russian territory gives Russia control of both sides of the Straight of Kerch so that does provide an increased margin of safety for shipping traffic to Russian ports on the Sea of Azov.

I doubt that's the primary reason though.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 4 months ago | (#46648749)

And who exactly was threatening their shipping traffic? Even the most idiotic countries understand that attempting to interfere with international shipping traffic gives any maritime power all the authority it needs to correct the situation. Even supposedly allied countries frown upon any disruptions of the established shipping lanes as the US proved when it refused to support England, France, and Israel from taking control of the Suez canal from Egypt in 1956. The Egyptians and surrounding Arab countries paid a steep price when they tried to deny Israel the use of the Suez canal in 1967. Just a few poor fishermen hijacking shipping off the coast of Africa resulted in a multi-nation modern task force being formed to secure shipping through the area. If Iran was to ever attempt to follow through with their threats to close the Strait of Hormuz they would give the US, SA, Israel, and possibly China all the justification they need to correct the problem.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#46647129)

Putin -- a tactical genius. And a strategic dunce.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 4 months ago | (#46648561)

You have that exactly backwards [twitter.com] . He'd be a dunce not to see a US-supported junta setting up another future NATO base on his doorstep.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#46649807)

You're saying that his peeling Crimea off Ukraine isn't a master stroke? Most people would. Very few leaders would have finessed that at such incredible speed. OTOH, he had goaded NATO into tooling up, and pushed Ukraine itself out of Russia's orbit. Putin's made Western leaders look like dickheads often enough these days that they're determined to avoid a repeat.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 4 months ago | (#46686751)

You're saying that his peeling Crimea off Ukraine isn't a master stroke? Most people would.

Well, lets see. Before the coup, Russia had a military base on the Crimean peninsula and a secure route for transporting energy. After the vote in Crimea, Russia has...a military base on the Crimean peninsula and a secure route for transporting energy. But slicing Crimea out of the Ukrainian electorate is going to make it easier, not harder, for the junta to maintain power.

Not sure that's an outcome Putin would have wanted if you'd asked him about it six months ago.

OTOH, he had goaded NATO into tooling up

Again with the utterly-backwards-from-reality stuff. Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has expanded into former eastern block countries which is a naked act of aggression. Then there's the whole matter of the illegal, fascist, western-backed coup against Ukraine's elected government less than six months before the next elections that American Exceptionalists keep ignoring.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Insightful)

jafac (1449) | about 4 months ago | (#46643935)

I think that Russia sure as hell DID care.

Russia's ally, Syria, is currently in the midst of a civil war, partly due to the power-vacuum created when the US invaded Iraq. (Syrian salafists, who were previously a pain in the ass to Assad, but "kept down" - went into Iraq to fight the US. Those experienced veterans came back after the "awakening", and are now back in Syria, fighting to overthrow Assad. If Syria falls to jihadists/salafists, it is conceivable that access to the black sea is cut off.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

fonske (1224340) | about 4 months ago | (#46646811)

Agree, veterans mean trouble unless they have too much to lose.
I always like to think that our European welfare system was a strategic choice after the experience with WWI veterans in Germany's catastrophic economy of the 30's.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

phayes (202222) | about 4 months ago | (#46647267)

You're going to have to explain how Syria, which doesn't come within hundreds of miles of the black sea, affects Russia's access to it. Methinks you're confusing Syria & Turkey.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46647567)

Well. Crimea and Russia had the shores of the Straight of Kerch which lead from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov which the latter has a number of Russian ports. However I don't think Syrians militants were in a position to take control of Crimea....

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

Uberbah (647458) | about 4 months ago | (#46648335)

Russia's ally, Syria, is currently in the midst of a civil war, partly due to the power-vacuum created when the US invaded Iraq.

Actually, it's almost entirely due to fighters trained or funded by Syria's enemies: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United States, etc. What's funny is how some of those fighters are Al Qaeda affiliates. What's funnier is how the U.S., which has unleashed a Global War of Terror over the last 1.5 decades to fight the boogyman of Al Qaeda, turns around and insists that the possibility that these Al Qaeda guys could get their hands on some sarin gas is some insanely implausible conspiracy theory. After a handful of cultists in Japan managed [wikipedia.org] to make some on their own to release into a subway.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46650185)

I think that Russia sure as hell DID care.

Russia's ally, Syria, is currently in the midst of a civil war, partly due to the power-vacuum created when the US invaded Iraq. (Syrian salafists, who were previously a pain in the ass to Assad, but "kept down" - went into Iraq to fight the US. Those experienced veterans came back after the "awakening", and are now back in Syria, fighting to overthrow Assad. If Syria falls to jihadists/salafists, it is conceivable that access to the black sea is cut off.

Who's access to the Black Sea will be cut off? I'm looking at the map and Syria doesn't have access to the Black Sea now. Which map are you looking at?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1, Insightful)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 4 months ago | (#46642159)

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Most of the world didn't care that much about our previous president...

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

galloog1 (3433335) | about 4 months ago | (#46642267)

Would you rather war? Economics also has nothing to do with politics except that it involves cooperation between countries to further mutual benefit. These sanctions are a temporary issue but serve severe medium term benefit.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

neonKow (1239288) | about 4 months ago | (#46642465)

There are plenty of other things we can sanction. Scientific progress is a stupid one to choose.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46642283)

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory. So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one. They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it. Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE. Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to the people we took it from. Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

Now if the USA was out capturing territory and then annexing it into the US you could make the comparison. But we don't do that, and haven't acted like an imperial power, increasing our borders though military force, for a LONG time.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642409)

but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory

Not only wasn't it "obvious," but it still isn't. Iraq is still controlled by a U.S. puppet government to this day.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642477)

Russia annexed the part of Ukraine which was part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964. It was done by force and it was done at the moment when Ukraine was at the lowest point. But it happened without any casualties from both sides and Russia will be subsidizing Crimea for foreseeable future. USA invaded Iraq, killed over 100 thousand people, caught and hung Saddam, put in place controlled government that gave all oil contracts to US companies, now profiting from high oil prices. No need to annex Iraq in such scenario.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 months ago | (#46642797)

It's not about the individual conflicts. The world has seen what modern wars of conquest look like, last time we had one tens of millions of people were killed. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, while undeniably terrible, don't escalate to the world stage the way wars of conquest do. The fact that relations are currently described as being as poor as they have been since the cold war is a bad thing, we were supposed to have gotten paste the specter of world powers directly clashing against each other. I understand that we did it by proxy anyway for the past 30 years, but proxy is a lot less messy than outright conflict which has become a serious possibility over the past couple of months.

As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (3, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46643277)

As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.

Lots of people disagree with you, including famous liberals like Sean Penn, who think the Falkland Islands should be returned to Argentina because they used to be part of Argentina until Britain took possession of them about 200 years ago.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Alioth (221270) | about 4 months ago | (#46643441)

The Falklands never belonged to Argentina. The first landing and claim on the Falklands was British. The Spanish name for the Falklands (Las Malvinas) isn't even Spanish in origin - it's French (derived from the city St Malo). By Sean Penn's argument, the Falklands are very much definitely British since they laid the first claim (and subsequent claim was by the French, who gave it to Spain. Later on, Argentina tried to take it and failed, then the British came and re-asserted their rule. It's from this that the Argentinians erroneously think that the Falklands are theirs).

In any case not a single Argentinian lives in the Falklands, they are all British, speak English and drive on the left. They have the right to self determination, and wish to remain British. Even the Argentinians can see that so they deny the population's right to self determination so as to continue their claim.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46644027)

Yes, but Sean Penn and other radical liberals apparently think that Spanish-speaking people should get priority over English-speaking people, so the Falklanders' right to self-determination is moot.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644505)

I mean, we go that far and the Americas were under different possession approximately 300 years ago as well, and countries have been carved apart into other countries within that time.
LOTS has happened in that time span... should we take all Roman territories and give them back to the Romans simply because they owned them 1000 or more years ago?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46645633)

Exactly. But I'm just some weirdo who believes in self-determination for people, and apparently this is an extremely unpopular mindset these days, at least in the US. Just look at what happens when anyone proposes secession. (And when I do it, I'm advocating the secession of the west coast tech states, so they can get away from the red states (and also the crappy northeast states like NY where the banksters are). But the liberals always get upset about this, because they think we need to forcibly keep all the states together no matter what, so they can bitch and whine when the voters in those states vote in ways they don't like. So I'm starting to come to the conclusion that many liberals (of the American variety) generally abhor self-determination and favor corruption of the government by the financial industry.)

Re:Politcs vs. Science (3, Interesting)

stoploss (2842505) | about 4 months ago | (#46646923)

Exactly. But I'm just some weirdo who believes in self-determination for people, and apparently this is an extremely unpopular mindset these days, at least in the US. Just look at what happens when anyone proposes secession. (And when I do it, I'm advocating the secession of the west coast tech states, so they can get away from the red states (and also the crappy northeast states like NY where the banksters are). But the liberals always get upset about this, because they think we need to forcibly keep all the states together no matter what, so they can bitch and whine when the voters in those states vote in ways they don't like. So I'm starting to come to the conclusion that many liberals (of the American variety) generally abhor self-determination and favor corruption of the government by the financial industry.)

This is great to hear. I'm in a red state and my friends and I are sick of liberals forcing their policies on us. I'm even willing to let you think it is your states "getting away from" our states, if that matters to you (haha). Essentially, it has come to the point where both sides look at the other and shake their head because the culture is so foreign. I don't think a compromise culture is desirable for either side of the divide.

Look at all the 5-4 split Supreme Court rulings. Do you admit, as I do, hoping the Supreme Court balance will swing in favor of the culture you support so that contentious aspects of your culture can be forced on the rest of the nation "for their own good"? For example, I am hoping for assertions of human rights such as the Constitutional individual right to keep and bear arms in areas where these rights have heretofore been unconstitutionally blocked. Regardless of which issues are key from each individual's perspective, the fact that we as a nation must routinely rely on the Supreme Court to mandate these policies is a sign of serious sociopolitical & cultural dysfunction.

I really believe that secession/dissolution is tenable and wouldn't lead to collapse. Much has been said about the net flow of tax money from blue states to red states, but I believe what would actually happen is that blue state food prices would jump significantly to compensate for their now lowered wealth transfer tax burden. The Farm Bill food subsidies for the past 70+ years represent most of this tax wealth transfer to the red states and these laws have really screwed up the agricultural/food markets. The Farm Bills' subsidies have led to such abominations as HFCS and corn for ethanol. Who knows? Secession might even lead to innovations in our food supply if we start using the land to grow something other than corn that humans can't eat (literally, the preponderance of corn grown is for animal feed/industrial purposes and tastes like chalk).

Back on topic: what could we call this movement? The Nonpartisan Coalition for Amicable Secession? Hm, that doesn't have a pithy acronym. I'm open to suggestions.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46649005)

Most of this sounds good to me, and you're absolutely right about HFCS and corn ethanol. I think that if the country broke apart, a lot of the "wedge issues" you see which people in different parts of the country would be settled very quickly (in different ways in different regions of course), and people would be able to move on to other things. Guns would be all banned in the northeast most likely, and most other places would adopt their own laws, and we'd be able to move on to other issues. Personally, I think splitting the US up into about 5 separate republics is the way to go: this would yield countries with a little over 60M people each, give or take, which is a pretty good size for a country (when you compare to the stronger European countries), but not too large, which is what we have now, and not too small (too small = little economic power).

As for collapse, the Soviet Union broke apart and it didn't collapse, things were actually much better in many parts afterwards. Just look at Poland and the Czech Republic now, compared to how they were under Soviet rule.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 4 months ago | (#46649391)

I think it is logical that there will always be wedge issues in any society, but the Overton Window indicates what they will be. I'm sure that the healthcare/individual mandate wedge issue in the US is very far displaced from the UK's wedge issues. I can't imagine what it would be like if we were still in a single country/kingdom trying to reconcile our divergent cultures into a single coherent UK/American colonies culture.

I'm also disturbed by political "victories" in courts where the ruling is "basically, your state law is too different from the rest of the country". I refer most recently to the federal courts demanding that IL and CA start issuing concealed handgun carry permits to all applicants who are not legally barred from having one. The federal court gave the IL legislature a deadline to pass a law allowing this. Now, obviously I believe this is an expansion of human rights in these states, but WTF?! Having this forced on a state against their will with the rationale of "you're too different, no self-determination for you!" feels very wrong.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46649571)

Exactly. Heck, the whole healthcare thing is proof things are broken here; we shouldn't have an individual mandate at all, because it's the government forcing people to buy something from private companies. What we should have is the conservative regions can just have private healthcare like they obviously want, and the less-conservative regions can create systems that look more like Canada's or Britain's. But because no one can agree, we get the abomination that is Obamacare.

Same goes for gun issues. Places that don't like them should be able to ban them (which would be places like the northeast and the rust belt (this includes Chicago). Other places will either have a free-for-all (TX, southeast), or have more mild restrictions (CA).

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 4 months ago | (#46650137)

I think the two-tier health care thing (cf. UK NHS) can be sold in red states if it were marketed correctly. This is probably a cultural issue as well... what is a convincing argument in one area simply doesn't resonate at all in the others.

However, your point is absolutely correct: compromise only works if the gap is not an insurmountable gulf, otherwise the result of compromise is untenable (e.g. Obamacare). In the case of the Obamacare/the individual mandate, it had to be ramrodded through without any deliberation (or even being read by the legislators), then had to be immediately validated by a 5-4 supreme court ruling that was a farce (who honestly believes that forcing people to buy products is consistent with the Constitution?). The law is so buggy that it required the executive to unconstitutionally unilaterally modify it (the judiciary's silence is deafening here). Meanwhile, half the country hopes for repeal because the entire process was non-consensual. Barring any progress in the "correct" direction, the country finds gridlocking the federal government desirable because at least if the government isn't doing anything then it isn't forcibly "making things worse".

This is the future of our union, barring some commanding supermajority hold on Congress and the Presidency for at least a decade, ala FDR. I believe he really did a lot to damage our country (obviously, views about this differ), but he did manage to shift the Overton Window.

Everyone hates Congress, but keeps voting the same people in. Why? Because they hope their culture will gain an upper hand and force it upon the rest of the country. It's always "those other people" who are the problem, right? *cough*

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46654263)

|As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.|

Israel did it

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

brainboyz (114458) | about 4 months ago | (#46642833)

Minimal casualties. It wasn't bloodless.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#46643269)

Minimal casualties. It wasn't bloodless.

It was a bloodless coup. All stranglings.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Insightful)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46642511)

Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted. Does this make Iraq a sovereign country? I think not. Iraq is pretty much controlled by US. As well as all NATO countries, especially east European ones. BTW, did anybody invited US into Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? So yeah, look at yourself first and mind your own business - and your business has nothing to do with east Europe. US has much more imperial ambitions than any other country.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46643079)

Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted.

IMHO the government of Iraq was NOT decided by the USA, but elected by the people of Iraq. The process of putting Iraq back together was set from the start and although the USA enforced the process (Temporary government appointed, elections held for constitution writers, Constitution written by elected representatives, Approved by vote, first government under constitution elections held, Elected government functions from there) we certainly did not control the elections or their outcomes. The only real control the US had was the appointment of the interim initial government, after that it was up to the people of Iraq to elect who they wanted.

If you want to claim we stacked the deck to get the government we wanted, I guess you can. I'm not convinced you are right and it's going to take some evidence to change my mind. Right now, the simple fact that they tossed us out, completely out, and we have zero military in their country beyond what's there to protect the embassy pretty much proves what you claim is not true. The USA would have LOVED to have an airbase in IRAQ to help keep Iran in check and give us another toehold deep in the middle east. But they tossed us, and because they are a sovereign country, we left.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46643541)

Well. I hardly can imagine free elections with a gun pointed to ones head (figuratively speaking). Not to mention that US propaganda machine was running at full steam there. There is no way those elections were not influenced by US. They very much were. So US got what US wanted (oil, I presume) and left, fair enough.

Now in Ukraine: there was an elected government that was overthrown by armed riots. ELECTED president fled to Russia and asked Putin for protection - this is his official position. And US comes in and helps those armed rioters who stared whole thing on the first place. Notice: those rioters were not elected. They are just convenient for US to mess with Russia.

Disclaimer: I'm Russian myself, although I currently live on North America.

But in my view Russian actions in Crimea are no better or worse then US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or many other numerous places were US soldier had set his foot, many times uninvited. It's true that US didn't annex those territories - but that's just it didn't make much sense to officially annex them. Imagine 'state of Iraq' as a part of US - this just would not have worked. Mainly for cultural and language reasons. If people in Iraq spoke English Iraq would have been US state by now. And people in Crimea speak Russian and are actually ethnic Russians in their majority.

Note: I do not say that Putin is good. My point is that Putin is no more evil than any US president. And that's just how world works - larger countries control smaller countries, in one way or another. And nobody is free.

And all that hysteria how Putin is new Hitler is just good job in US propaganda. As well how 'Putin brings freedom to oppressed Crimeans' is a Russian propaganda.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46643903)

And the rhetoric that says USA just as bad as Russia to me is mostly fiction.

I'm not saying that the USA doesn't act in it's own self interest, of course it does, but I am saying that our history is clear, we don't take over places for strategic or tactical advantage. Look at Russian history since WW2. What was the difference between the western and eastern parts of Europe? Why on earth was the Berlin wall built and what caused it to stay up so long?

Putin's (and by extension Russian) actions in Ukraine, viewed though the light of history, should give pause. Has Russia changed since WW2? Since the Berlin wall came down? I sure hope so, but I watched the Olympics Opening and closing ceremonies and the Russian view of history was not lost on me, nor was the huge difference between Russian and American views of many things in the past.

But if you cut to the chase on Crimea, what's the USA going to do? In reality? Nothing outward, some symbolic acts, some covert, but mostly just talk. This NASA boycott is just symbolic. But I believe that we (the USA) have the moral right, if not the obligation by treaty to protest this action.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 months ago | (#46644489)

we don't take over places for strategic or tactical advantage

The post war history of Russia looks very similar. Sure you don't add territory, that would mean the conquered would have US constitutional protections. Rather they both install puppet regimes and pull the cash/power strings. Supposedly the cold war is over but if you look carefully many of the world's trouble spots are also points of disagreement between the veto wielding powers in the UNSC.

The democratic thing to do now is to let Russia have Crimea, that's what the majority of Crimea's people want. Do not create a new generation of exploding humans by punishing the ordinary people of Crimea in the same way the Palestinians have been punished for electing Hamas in overwhelming numbers.

Speaking of history, future text books will blame the Arab spring and in particular the Syrian civil war not on "social media" but on the preceding record drought years in the fertile crescent and across most of N. Africa. A drought that saw large internal displacements as people abandoned dry farms for work in the cities, cities that then saw food riots and social tensions between city dweller and refugee farmers. The leaked diplomatic cables will form part of the academic evidence and show how diplomats had worried about the tensions to the point of correctly predicting the city where the civil war ignited.

Of course once the shooting starts it becomes a "winner takes all" water war. The individual battles may be over a military base and the soldiers motivation may be preventing the slaughter of "his people". The Syrian civil war itself is about water, the problem is that this fairly obvious kernel of reason is buried deep inside an onion of political layers and is virtually ignored when discussing Syria, Egypt, Lybia, et-al. These people did not after 30yrs suddenly realise they were oppressed after signing up to facebook, they could not put enough food on the table to stop their stomachs rumbling. The stress was so great people started setting fire to themselves in protest, this is where social media came in and helped re-organise the deck chairs but did nothing to solve the problem.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46647607)

The democratic thing to do would be for Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine. Then go through whatever process Ukraine has for the secession of a Ukrainian state. Then once Crimea has independence from Ukraine petition to join Russia.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644439)

Somewhere in Russia is a colossal warehouse that is filled to the ceiling with straw men.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46643707)

And couple of more things about Crimea that everybody seem to be conveniently forgetting.

Russia didn't just 'annexed' it. There was a referendum and citizens of Crimea voted to join Russia. There may be different points of view on legitimacy of that vote - my same applies on elections help in Iraq while under US invasion.

And secondly - I do not really see Crimeans fighting against Russian invasion. No attacks on Russian solders, no IEDs on the roads. At least not yet. But still - compare that to Iraq. How many civilians were lost in Iraq war? How many US soldiers?

Russian approach seems more humane, I'd say :).

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46643715)

Typo: "my same applies on elections help in Iraq while under US invasion." needs to be "but same applies on elections held in Iraq while under US invasion."

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46644023)

You can look at the elections in Iraq, but look closely. There where three elections with three distinct purposes. All of the elections where conducted by Iraqi nationals with varying amounts of security provided by US forces which decreased over time. You may not agree, but a case can be made that says the the Americans purposely decided to not force Iraq into what we wanted, but choose to let the people of the country decide though elections. After all, that was the STATED goal here. To take Iraq out from under a dictator who was harboring terrorists and give it back to the people. Which is what generally happened.

Just because the US could have had any result they wanted by forcing it, does not mean they did. And the fact that when we where eventually asked to leave, we did, tells me that the goal wasn't to control Iraq or it's oil.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46644673)

Well, I guess if Crimean people ask Russians to leave you would have a fair point. As of now they've asked them to stay - it's their choice.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46644845)

But the people of Ukraine haven't all voted, just Crimea. Don't forget that the Russians have split up a sovereign country when they did this.

I get the justification of this action, I just don't agree that it's right. I also don't accept the moral equivalency argument that Russia is doing the same thing the US did in Iraq.

Full stop.. At least for me.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Calavar (1587721) | about 4 months ago | (#46643981)

Let me start off by saying that I do not think the invasion of Iraq was justified, but IMO, it is time for these Russian apologist arguments to end.

1. Even if you think Iraq == Crimea, two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot excuse what Russia is doing now just because other countries have done similar things. China killed their own citizens in Tienanmen. Does that mean it should be okay for the US or Russia to do this as well?

2. The above point really doesn't matter because Iraq != Crimea. The referendum in Crimea had only two options: 1) join Russia or 2) return Crimea to it's older legal status where it had much more autonomy, including the ability to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Since the Crimean government had already made it's intentions clear, option 2 was no different from option 1. This resulted in the group that had the most to lose from a merger with Russia (the Tartars) boycotting the election. Yes, in Iraq, the US did some filtering of the candidates to remove Ba'athists, Al-Queda members, and so on, but in the end, there was still a wide range of candidates for Iraqis to choose from. Furthermore, Iraq was not annexed into the US. While US oil companies certainly were the winners of the Iraq war, Iraq is still a sovereign nation and has declined to follow the lead of the US on many points, such as relations with Iran.

3. A referendum on independence is not a typical vote. It is a vote that is too important and too wide-reaching in its consequences to be decided by a simple majority. Just look at what is happening to the Tartars: They are about to be enslaved by the tyranny of the majority. When the Continental Congress met in 1776 to vote on independence, they decided for exactly this reason that any vote in favor of independence had to be unanimous. The US did not declare independence until delegates from all thirteen states voted in favor of independence.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644235)

90+% in-favour is about as unanimous as you're going to get in this day and age.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Calavar (1587721) | about 4 months ago | (#46646545)

Yes, 90% after a boycott of the polls by the Tartars. And there were Russian troops at the polling stations, many of which did not offer a secret ballot.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46644729)

90+% and the fact that Crimeans are not fighting suggests that that is quite unanimous. And people in Iraq were fighting with US, weren't they?

And since when unambitious vote of DELEGATES is equal to unanimous opinion of people in those states?

My main point is that those sanctions are just hypocrisy. "Yes, we've done that. But you are not allowed to!" type of stance.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Calavar (1587721) | about 4 months ago | (#46646575)

1) the Russians held a poll in which the two options were vote to join Russia now, or vote for increased autonomy that allows the Crimean assembly (which has already announced that they wish to join Russia) to vote on joining Russia. That's not a poll, it's a sham and a mockery of democracy. Which is why the Tartars boycotted the polls. And, yes, normally 90% is effectively unanimous, but not when the third largest ethnic group of the region has boycotted the polls because they are blatantly unfair.

2) I already went over this in my previous post: Two wrongs does not make a right. Okay, so you believe that the US steamrolled Iraq. Fine. That means that the US should allow Russia to steamroll Ukraine to "even the score"? Bullshit. In that case, there is no country in the world that is free from guilt. Literally every country in the world has at one point colonized another, attacked another unprovoked, massacred certain ethnic groups, etc. You could then go back to to the invasion of Iraq and say that it is hypocritical for Russia to criticize the US because of what the Russians did in the Chechen War.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46648237)

2) I already went over this in my previous post: Two wrongs does not make a right. Okay, so you believe that the US steamrolled Iraq. Fine. That means that the US should allow Russia to steamroll Ukraine to "even the score"? Bullshit. In that case, there is no country in the world that is free from guilt. Literally every country in the world has at one point colonized another, attacked another unprovoked, massacred certain ethnic groups, etc. You could then go back to to the invasion of Iraq and say that it is hypocritical for Russia to criticize the US because of what the Russians did in the Chechen War.

Well, Chechen is a Russian territory, so again, non of US business. And yes, the whole topic started because Russians didn't stop working with NASA when US committed stuff in Iraq.

I'm saying that before US (or EU) have the moral right to criticize Russia for its actions they should show how they have changed to prevent actions they've themselves made in the past. Otherwise it's like thieve criticizing other thieve: yes, stealing is wrong, but is a thieve the right person to tell anybody that?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Calavar (1587721) | about 4 months ago | (#46653359)

Well, Chechen is a Russian territory, so again, non of US business

There are only two ways to look at the Chechen War. Either you believe that Chechnya was an independent country, in which case Russia attacked a foreign nation unprovoked, ala Iraq, or you believe that Chechnya did not have the authority to declare independence and was a component of the Russian Federation, in which case Russia massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens ala Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Turks in Armenia, etc. Either way, this is illegal and very much the business of the international community. The crime is that other nations (including the US and nations of the EU) chose to remain quiet because they did not want to upset Russia.

I'm saying that before US (or EU) have the moral right to criticize Russia for its actions they should show how they have changed to prevent actions they've themselves made in the past. Otherwise it's like thieve criticizing other thieve: yes, stealing is wrong, but is a thieve the right person to tell anybody that?

As I already said, if you subscribe to this point of view, every country in the world is a thief. If a thief robs someone and the only others to witness it are also thieves, is it better for them to say something or to remain quiet? Ideally you could have someone pure to criticize the thief, but a critic who is also a thief is better than no critic at all.

Besides, Russia is has much more of a history of thievery than the US. Remember Georgia? Remember the assassination attempt on Yushchenko? How about defending al-Assad after he used snipers to kill peaceful protesters? How about continuing to defend al-Assad now that the Syrian situation has devolved into a full scale war in which entire cities are being leveled?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#46651869)

90+% for a poll being conducted on behalf of the people who have just invaded? You've gotta be kidding. Nor do people necessarily shoot at well-armed forces with a reputation for ruthlessness just to express a political opinion.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46652159)

Well, defending from 'invasion' is not exactly expression of political opinion.

I'm fairly sure that if "well armed and ruthlessness" US (or Russian, for that matter) soldiers put their foot on, say, Iran soil there will be armed response, no matter how fertile.

I do not have many friends in Crimea, but as far as I can hear this is hardly viewed as a forceful annexation by majority of citizens there. So yes, polls may be biased, but not that biased. And yes, people may be afraid to defend themselves - but this goes to a certain point. And this point clearly have not been reached. So far majority of people living there is not against joining Russia.

OTOH I'm very curious were 'ruthlessness' of Russian army is coming from? I didn't quite follow US propaganda, so must have missed something...

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 4 months ago | (#46645717)

3. A referendum on independence is not a typical vote. It is a vote that is too important and too wide-reaching in its consequences to be decided by a simple majority. Just look at what is happening to the Tartars: They are about to be enslaved by the tyranny of the majority. When the Continental Congress met in 1776 to vote on independence, they decided for exactly this reason that any vote in favor of independence had to be unanimous. The US did not declare independence until delegates from all thirteen states voted in favor of independence.

So what will America do if Quebec votes to separate? As it stands they vote and a simple majority of Quebecois means they leave Canada, the rest of Canada has no say. Take it a step further, what if Quebec offered Russia a base bordering the USA? Do you really think America would allow Russia having a base there? Would America consider giving all the land on the Pacific back to the countries they stole it from and give up having any bases on the Pacific besides Alaska?
And when the Continental Congress met, only 13 out of 16+ colonies were represented and they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards the Articles included that the other colony was automatically allowed to join.
(British N. American colonies in 1776 included New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Canada, as well as Bermuda and various Caribbean colonies)

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Calavar (1587721) | about 4 months ago | (#46646679)

And when the Continental Congress met, only 13 out of 16+ colonies were represented and they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards the Articles included that the other colony was automatically allowed to join. (British N. American colonies in 1776 included New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Canada, as well as Bermuda and various Caribbean colonies)

This is complete BS. Even in 1776, no one considered Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Georgia to be part of the same group as Bermuda, Quebec, and Hudson Bay. Need proof? Take a look at Benjamin Franklin's join or die political cartoon from 1754, when the idea of rebellion was still a whisper. He lists the components of the America as South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. Nowhere did he mention Quebec, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, Bermuda, or the Bahamas.

The 13 colonies were historically considered a single unit even before 1776 because they were the original mainland colonies and they were the only colonies to be inhabited chiefly by English-speaking whites and not by natives or slaves. The colonies of modern day Canada, meanwhile, were brand new components of the British Empire, having been held by the British for only about a decade, and were composed mostly natives or French speaking whites. (With the exception of Hudson Bay Colony, but that was 99% natives and just a few British fur trappers.) The Caribbean colonies were mostly African slaves, and even the British who lived there very rarely traveled back and forth between the mainland. In short, even in 1776, the British Americas were divided into three culturally distinct sections.

With this in mind, it should be obvious that saying that the 13 colonies and Canada/Bermuda were a single unit just because they are close to each other and both belonged to the British is like saying that Nigeria and Ghana or India and Burma were single units because they border each other and both belonged to the British. That is to say, it is total BS.

they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards

The British opted to attack Boston and New York and thus turned what had been a few isolated acts of local farmers skirmishing with British troops (Lexington, Concord), into a full scale war. Once war has been declared, all stops are off. The invasion/planned annexation of Quebec is the sort of thing that happens during a war. It's that simple. No one bats an eye about the fact that Russia currently occupies Königsberg and Sakhalin: That is what one country stands to lose when it declares war on another.

As far as the Canadian clause of the Articles of Confederation, I agree. It was wrong. The founding fathers made mistakes from time to time just as anyone else did.

What will America do if Quebec votes to separate? As it stands they vote and a simple majority of Quebecois means they leave Canada, the rest of Canada has no say.

I completely agree with this sentiment. Unlike the 13 colonies and the Caribbean/Canadian provinces in 1776, modern-day Quebec and the rest of Canada have long been a single cultural unit. It would be wrong for Quebec to secede when the rest of Canada is against it, just like it is wrong for Crimea to secede when the rest of Ukraine is against it.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46647155)

Tatars, not "Tartars". Tartar is an archaic spelling of Tatars. Also, Tartar is a sauce.

As someone who talk about Crimea, you should learn how to spell Tatars correctly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cey35bBWXls

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644425)

Russians would claim the dark side of the moon was painted red, white and blue and what a tragedy it was if they thought it might get them a few more sips of vodka.

I wonder what the going rate is to be one of Poohtins mouthpieces. 3 sips?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

nizmogtr (675721) | about 4 months ago | (#46644363)

Wrong, Iraq is more influenced by Iran than the U.S. http://www.randomhouse.com/boo... [randomhouse.com]

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46644689)

I guess that just shows difference between intention and implementation :).

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

dwpro (520418) | about 4 months ago | (#46644595)

look at yourself first and mind your own business - and your business has nothing to do with east Europe

America ignoring imperialist invasions by a nationalist leader in eastern Europe by a country humiliated as a result of a previous war. No precedent for that going wrong.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 4 months ago | (#46645597)

Iraq is pretty much controlled by US.

This is false. The reason there's no US troops in Iraq today is that the democratically elected Iraqi government wouldn't agree to a status of forces agreement with us. Status of forces agreements are pretty standard, the US has agreements with every country that we have troops in, especially our allies like Germany and Japan. The Iraqi government decided they didn't want to agree to a SOFA, so we left. If the Iraqi government were our puppets, we would have pressured them into agreeing to the SOFA.

BTW, did anybody invited US into... Afghanistan?

That's different. bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan and launched terrorist attacks against the United States. The Taliban was supporting him, both before and after the 9/11 attacks. If you go around committing acts of war, you can expect a military response.

Vietnam?

Actually, the United States was in Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese government, who wanted our help repelling the North Vietnamese army, who had invaded South Vietnam in violation of a UN order. So yes, the US was asked to intervene in Vietnam.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46646269)

This is false. The reason there's no US troops in Iraq today is that the democratically elected Iraqi government wouldn't agree to a status of forces agreement with us. Status of forces agreements are pretty standard, the US has agreements with every country that we have troops in, especially our allies like Germany and Japan. The Iraqi government decided they didn't want to agree to a SOFA, so we left. If the Iraqi government were our puppets, we would have pressured them into agreeing to the SOFA.

Sounds naive. US left Iraq because no powerful US corporation was interested enough in staying. Probably because there is not much to gain there anymore. Or because Iraq government is controlled well enough without military presence. The goal is not a military presence, the goal is to get rich. Military is just a tool.

That's different. bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan and launched terrorist attacks against the United States. The Taliban was supporting him, both before and after the 9/11 attacks. If you go around committing acts of war, you can expect a military response.

In other views the reason to invade Afghanistan was Afghanistan Oil Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline).
OTOH, can fact that country doesn't extradite a criminal be a reason for invasion? What's next: invading Ecuador for Assange and Russia for Snowden?

Actually, the United States was in Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese government, who wanted our help repelling the North Vietnamese army, who had invaded South Vietnam in violation of a UN order. So yes, the US was asked to intervene in Vietnam.

Democratically elected president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych use asked Russia to use force in Ukraine (not in exact this words, but fairly close), after he had to flee Ukraine. People of Crimea have had a referendum and by vast majority decided to join Russian Federation. The whole 'annex' thing happened without shots and with much celebration in Crimea. So yes, Russia was very much asked to come to Crimea.

US (and EU), on the other hand, openly supports and funds people who using force overthrown democratically elected government in Ukraine - and those people have never been elected. Clear invasion in Ukraine's internal business. Just like Iraq - we will tell you whom you can democratically choose from.

I'm not defending Putin's actions. I'm just saying that US is as bad and is leading by example. And overall it's not that people are bad, it's the structure of life, law of the nature.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 4 months ago | (#46646351)

If the USA had any influence over Iraqi elections, Maliki would've lost to Allawi. It's absurd to think the USA would choose the Iranian-influenced guy over the more secular guy. At any rate, the USA's real choice was Chalabi but they couldn't get anybody in Iraq to accept him.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 4 months ago | (#46647503)

US left Iraq because no powerful US corporation was interested enough in staying...

In other views the reason to invade Afghanistan was Afghanistan Oil Pipeline...

People of Crimea have had a referendum and by vast majority decided to join Russian Federation.

If you're going to ignore facts and spout crazy nonsense without evidence, while ignoring THE ACTUAL FACTS, then I can't help you.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 4 months ago | (#46648193)

What is THE ACTUAL FACTS? What is truth? How are your facts better than mine? Because they are said by US president? As if he never lies.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#46651845)

Iraq? No. It has been claimed to be legit considering certain UN Security Council resolutions, although I don't agree. Afghanistan? I believe so. There was an armed difference of opinion whether Afghanistan should be governed by the Taliban or by the Northern Alliance. I have no particular idea whether either of these sides was really legitimate (I'd suspect not), but there were people claiming to be the rightful government that wanted US help. Vietnam? Sure: South Vietnam, where almost all US troops were active during the war. Again, you can question the legitimacy of the South Vietnamese government if you like, but the de facto government of South Vietnam asked for our help.

Nor is Iraq currently US-run, although the constitution was imposed on them. That was part of the inept Bush-Cheney planning for the occupation, which seems to have assumed that the Iraqi people wanted a constitutional secular democracy like the US.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Servaas (1050156) | about 4 months ago | (#46642527)

Oh please! In all but name is Iraq now an American state. It had an evil dictator but the country "worked" for the most part. Now its controlled by US interest groups lording over all the mayor oil refineries. And the country itself is still "Working" the exact same way. People kill other people over beliefs.

At least with Russia their upfront about taking ownership of a piece of land.

I'm 33 years old, democrat, dutch guy who used to believe we needed to look to our big brother country America but these days i'm feeling more and more that Russia (doing pretty well atm jobs, income, healthcare) and the imo very sexy Putin are maybe another way of doing things...

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642835)

In all but name is Iraq now an American state

I can't wait until Iraq starts paying taxes to the US, then!

People kill other people over beliefs

You really think that happens all the time in the USA? You watch too many movies.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46643251)

I'm 33 years old, democrat, dutch guy who used to believe we needed to look to our big brother country America but these days i'm feeling more and more that Russia the imo very sexy Putin are maybe another way of doing things...

Oh how far have we come in this world when we start looking at the public persona and rhetoric over substance and what's right. Just remember why you supported Putin should he decide to continue invading countries for what ever reason Putin thinks is justified or can trump up.

Seems there are parallels in history for this kind of behavior and the end of being tolerant of such aggressive acts by nations have been grave. WWI and WWII both come to mind. I'm not making any predictions of WWIII, I'm just saying that there are parallels and we need to be mindful of history, lest we repeat some really bad mistakes.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46647659)

What is happening with Russia and Crimea trends a lot closer to Germany annexing the Sudetenland or Japan invading Manchuria in the lead up to WW2 rather than anything involving WW1. WW1 happened because it was the final death throe of the balance of power concept of international relations.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 4 months ago | (#46644331)

> the imo very sexy Putin

So you're crushing on a tyrant. You're not alone. Much of the American far-right is infatuated with Putin. The Twitter Conservatives shake my faith in humanity some days with their Putin/Obama memes. Putin's virile-man propaganda, pandering to Christians, and persecution of gay people has made less sophisticated people love him

Re:Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642603)

USA invaded Iraq and scared and killed thousands of people. Then it controlled its territory while people of Iraq went to polls to vote. The vote was considered democratic and the results were recognized.

Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody. Then it controlled its territory while people of Crimea went to polls to vote. Despite numerous international observers and absence of any concerns from them, US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Looks like hypocrisy and double-standards.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#46642749)

US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Of course not - most of the US States would be better off leaving the Empire. USG can't possibly recognize a peaceful secession.

It's hard to make a case for why Vermont e.g. wouldn't be better off as a province of Canada than a State of the US.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about 4 months ago | (#46644019)

No hypocrisy or double standards. The U.S. didn't benefit from the Iraq vote (most of the oil contracts went to non-US companies). Hence there was no conflict of interest. I think the U.S. was wrong to invade without UN approval, but the U.S. lost lives, lost equipment, lost money, lost international respect, and suffered degraded ability to react to matters more pressing to its self interests (Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan). The only thing they gained was eliminating a dictator from the world stage (one they helped put there in the first place, but that's another story).

Russia did benefit from the Crimea vote - they annexed a huge amount of territory. Hence there is a huge conflict of interest, and why people are refusing to recognize the vote. If Russian had simply stood by the sidelines, and the people of Crimea had revolted on their own and held their own elections demanding secession from Ukraine, then there might be some international support for what happened. Heck, people might even have supported Russia's invasion. But the way Russian played it out, the results are indistinguishable from if they invaded and held a rigged election.

As the saying goes, to have a crime there has to be a motive, means, and opportunity. While the U.S. had the means and opportunity in Iraq, there was no motive - else we'd still be there. While the means Russia used may have been more benign*, the fact that they also had a motive and opportunity raises a lot of suspicion.

* The fact that no lives were lost in Crimea is I think more attributable to Ukraine deciding not to elevate the situation into a war they knew they had no chance of winning militarily. Not due to Russian benevolence. Had Ukraine fought back as Saddam Hussein did, do you really think no lives would have been lost?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46645247)

The U.S. didn't benefit from the Iraq vote (most of the oil contracts went to non-US companies)

If exclude Asia (which are Malay, Korea, China, Turkey), USA is the 3rd (below Iraq, and UK) of total barrel of oil producer on Iraq soil.
But, USA is not thirsty of oil (like China), it's want control the resources to control its rival - China. Also, Middle East, which Iraq in this, has important geopolitical - to make sure Iran will not rise as regional power.

The same with situation of Vietnam.
Gabriel Kolko - Anatomy of a War 1985:
page 76: ...The "principal world source of natural rubber and tin, and a producer of petroleum and other strategically important commodities" would be lost in Malaya and Indonesia. The rice exports of Burma and Thailand would be taken from Malaya, Ceylon, Japan and India....
"Why is the USA spending hundreds of millions of dollars supporting the forces of the French Union in the fight against communism?" VP Richard Nixon explained publicy in 1953. "If Indo-china falls, Thailand is put in an almost impossible position. The same is true of Malaya with its rubber and tin... who trades and must trade with this area in order to exist, must inevitably be oriented towards the communist regime." Both naturally and logically references to tin, rubber, rice, copra iron ore, tungsten and oil were integral to American policy considerations from the inception.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
"... Free world dominion over the region would provide markets for Japan, rebuilding with American help after the Pacific War. U.S. involvement in Vietnam reassured the British, who linked their postwar recovery to the revival of the rubber and tin industries in their colony of Malaya, one of Vietnam's neighbors. And with U.S. aid, the French could concentrate on economic recovery at home, and could hope ultimately to recall their Indochina officer corps to oversee the rearmament of West Germany, a Cold War measure deemed essential by the Americans. These ambitions formed a second set of reasons why the United States became involved in Vietnam.

The fact that no lives were lost in Crimea is I think more attributable to Ukraine deciding not to elevate the situation into a war they knew they had no chance of winning militarily. Not due to Russian benevolence. Had Ukraine fought back as Saddam Hussein did, do you really think no lives would have been lost?

1. Most of people here are pro-Russian, unlike Iraq, people did not welcome American.
2. Most of soldiers here are Crimean. Only 11% Ukraine soldiers refused to stay in Crimea.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

Synonymous Homonym (1901660) | about 4 months ago | (#46647585)

The U.S. didn't benefit from the Iraq vote (most of the oil contracts went to non-US companies).

Saddam Hussein wanted to trade the oil in Euros. With the new government, Iraq's oil is still traded in Dollars. In which country the oil is traded is immaterial; it is exported mostly to the USA anyway.

I think the U.S. was wrong to invade without UN approval

In fact, it was a war crime, violating article 2.4 of the UN charta, and public international law.

Russia did benefit from the Crimea vote - they annexed a huge amount of territory.

And Crimea's debt, which they now must help pay off. At least in the short term, the annexation of Crimea was a loss for Russia.

If Russian had simply stood by the sidelines

Their naval base in Sewastopol made it impossible for them not to be involved in some way.

demanding secession from Ukraine

The Autonomous Crimean Republic had existed since 1921. It was put under Ukrainian governance in 1954. When the Ukraine seceded from Russia in 1992, Crimea became an autonomous republic again, albeit as part of the Ukraine.

the results are indistinguishable from if they invaded and held a rigged election.

Crimea invited international observers to the elections because of these concerns. There is no evidence of vote rigging.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644047)

USA invaded Iraq and scared and killed thousands of people. Then it controlled its territory while people of Iraq went to polls to vote. The vote was considered democratic and the results were recognized.

Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody. Then it controlled its territory while people of Crimea went to polls to vote. Despite numerous international observers and absence of any concerns from them, US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Looks like hypocrisy and double-standards.

Hey wait a sec. So OK the US does not want to recognize the vote fine fine fine. What about all the other countries that don't recognize the vote? What about all the chatter and condemnation coming out of the UN, NATO and the EU in general? It's not just the US so give us a break. Quite pinning every fucking thing that happens in this situation on us - we're just ONE voice in a choir of voices. K thanks bye.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 4 months ago | (#46644387)

Yes, invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do for a huge list of reasons, starting with all the lives lost. Enabling people to draw a parallel between the US and a Russian invasion is just another one of them.

We should never have allowed Bush to invade Iraq, but that doesn't make this invasion acceptable.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644471)

"Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody."

No they didn't. Not openly at least, because to do so openly would mean that they did not feel shame and guilt about what they were doing.

"There are no Russian troops in Crimea." ------Remember that? You can throw sticks and stone all you like, but your body is already broken.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644741)

...And, NATO and USA bombed Yugoslavia, and annexed Kosovo WITHOUT any referendum at all.

Incredible Obama:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/28/obama-makes-two-major-foreign-policy-gaffes-europe-trip

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46646595)

There was no need for Russia to mess with the polls when they controlled the options that were given: A) join Russia now, or B) join Russia in a few weeks.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 4 months ago | (#46647691)

USA invaded Iraq and scared and killed thousands of people. Then it controlled its territory while people of Iraq went to polls to vote. The vote was considered democratic and the results were recognized.

Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody. Then it controlled its territory while people of Crimea went to polls to vote. Despite numerous international observers and absence of any concerns from them, US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Looks like hypocrisy and double-standards.

Russia chose the international observers that were allowed to attend.

"International observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were prevented last week from entering Crimea. Pro-Russian forces fired warning shots in the air as the OSCE convoy approached a checkpoint leading from mainland Ukraine into the peninsula."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]

Those allowed by Russia to 'observe' are Anti-American far right nazis:
"Concerns have been raised about the objectivity of the international observers and the fact that the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE), the election monitoring organization, is a partisan institution, with ties to far-right and neo-nazi groups.[133][134] The mission leader Mateusz Piskorski is a well-known antisemite and admirer of Adolf Hitler,[135] and the EODE leader Luc Michel is an antisemite and neo-Nazi as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Russia's actions in Crimea are just as wrong as America's actions in Iraq.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about 4 months ago | (#46647791)

How the F*** can you invade a country in a peaceful way? lol What an oxymoron

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 4 months ago | (#46642643)

there is the argument, of course, that these people want to be part of russia as they historically had been until the 50's when russia gave the territory away to ukraine.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46643121)

Yes Mr. Putin.. I understand your rhetoric on this.

But, it looks bad when you invade a sovereign country, break it up into pieces and then annex parts of it because you can. Even the USA doesn't do that...

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643351)

The US is the ONLY one doing it, moron. The US invaded Ukraine. Russia is defending itself. You dumbfuck americans are pushing the whole world to nuclear war, and it's because you're too stupid to see the truth.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644261)

Welllllll... I know it's been a while ago, but I wouldn't go saying that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_american_war

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Informative)

dryeo (100693) | about 4 months ago | (#46645873)

How many Central American countries has America sent troops to? How many Central and South American countries has America used the CIA and such to interfere in their affairs including forcing regime change? Usually much more bloody then what Russia is currently doing in their sphere on influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 4 months ago | (#46663541)

not to mention virtually every state in the union.
they were inhabited when we showed up, you know.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643175)

Potato poTATo.

George W Bush Jr, aka Dubya put the US back a century with that Iraq invasion. Russia has only seen the end of the cold war for about 25 years, so the worst credability lost in doing this is not too different from the Pacific side either with China/Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Russia. If Russia goes unhindered, this invites China to attack Taiwan and Japan without consequences, North Korea to take over South Korea without consequences, and Russia or Japan to invade each other over the northern part of that archipelago.

Dubya already set a bad precedent in invading Iraq, and as such the US can't take the moral high ground when serious conflicts happen like in Egypt or Syria. All the Americans know is violence... how does that make the Americans look any better than the existing violent governing forces? Is Iraq or Afghanistan any better off now than they were before? Probably a matter of perspective. Women maybe get treated a little better, but good luck in getting the rotten misogynistic elements out in a decade, that took nearly a century in the US to get over, and Americans still treat women and minorities as second-class citizens when they aren't constantly threatened with legal consequences.

As for NASA and Russia, there is too much at stake to let the ISS fall apart, and the rest of the international community except China has a stake in it and won't let the US or Russia unilaterally destroy the ISS over political fights.

That said, why other countries don't have their own space fleet seems to be a terrible oversight. The US had the shuttle program, and should have kept it until a replacement was available. Countries like Canada, Australia, UK and Germany should have had their own RLV's even if they are effectively copies of the shuttle or some other advanced technology. The US constantly has to fight with anti-science politicians and capitalists who are so shortsighted that they don't care if their companies survive more than one quarter out that they make such boneheaded decisions. If more than one country has it's own space facilities, then that removes reliance on the US or Russia. Better to share the load than rely on just one country to do everything.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643221)

yep, usa just fuck up places then give them back after they got some good deals to keep screw em up

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Zedrick (764028) | about 4 months ago | (#46643393)

> No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in
> annexing Iraq into US territory. So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.

True, Putin can at least claim he is protecting Russians (and might even believe it), the US-Iraq wars were just about controlling the oil.

> USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself,

Eh... This is not a game of Risk.

> But we don't do that, and haven't acted like an imperial power, increasing our borders
> though military force, for a LONG time.

Again, this is not Risk. Please go to the library and look up the concept of Imperialism, it does in no way have to involve annexing territories - controlling countries through puppet governments (Iraq, for example) is how it's done since at least the 18th century.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46643681)

If we control Iraq, why did they abruptly kick us out? We didn't leave so much as an air base there but pulled totally out. The Iraq government is *anything* but puppets controlled by the USA.

Iraq is just an example of the USA's method of operation. We've invaded a LOT of places, to be sure, but for the last century or more we have not stayed in control of any other sovereign country, even though we would have been historically entitled to do so. Japan is not a puppet of the USA, neither is South Korea, Granada, or Panama. Most of Europe was taken from the Germans but returned, even to the Germans and apart from a few acres to bury our dead has ALL been returned.

By your theory, we have puppet governments in all these places? I don't think so, not because we couldn't have done what you say, but because we choose to NOT do what you claim.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46648063)

We didn't leave so much as an air base there but pulled totally out.

LOL, you CAN'T be serious! The U.S. embassy in Iraq [wikipedia.org] is the largest embassy in the world. It's more like a fortress complex than an embassy. It has a staff of 15,000 people, not even counting the CIA staff who are "off the books."

You think all that is just for diplomatic talks with a fellow democratic country? You can't possibility be an adult and be that fucking naive. It's the *real* administration HQ for the puppet government. The official offices for the Iraq government are just for show.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46648643)

Yes, I know about that, but that is under State Department control with *security* provided by our military. This is SOP and we have such in Moscow too. I know we don't control Russia.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (3, Insightful)

igny (716218) | about 4 months ago | (#46643573)

Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to the people we took it from.

Well, it is obvious that you are wrong here. US could not have kept Iraq (as in "annexed" Iraq). It did not have to either considering that it usually installs puppet governments around the world. Even though it fails again and again, it is not for the lack of trying. This tactic would surely fail in Ukraine too.

Russia, on the other hand, can and will keep Crimea.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#46643635)

No, just privatizing the resources and have the rich buy the rights to them and the production. .. If the people of Ã...land decided they wanted to be part of Sweden rather than Finland or had Alaska not belonging to USA and they voted to become part of the USA had that been much of a problem?

I guess the real problem is Russia put troops there but then again without that happening they likely wouldn't have had the chance to vote. I'm not into what happened with the riots, coup and new government but the old was democratically elected wasn't it? And the US had interests in Ukraine getting closer to the west and who knows what they did to help the events which happened.

The US priority isn't to make everyone happy and help everyone. Their interest is to help themselves. It's the same for Russia. The US want to be everywhere and be the preferred ally because they believe that benefits them.

But now I don't know the true story and I live to far away from Ukraine and I can't really expect to get the correct information either from US or Russian officials. Last news was that even the government of the US get the correct information from the CIA.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#46643663)

I kinda get the impression that possibly in the US the rich rules politics and in Russia the politicians rule the rich.

Whichever is better? ..

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643779)

They were talking about invading a free sovereign country, and both did. But crushing a country and killing over 60k people based on lies about WMD is worst than annexing part of a country where the absolute majority of that part supports the annexation. I agree that they are different things, but the point people are making here is that scientific works shouldn't be affected by one nation trying to look "righteous", or at least not in this situation, since the one pretending to be righteous did much worst a very short time ago.

Neocon arrogance is breathtaking. (3, Insightful)

Uberbah (647458) | about 4 months ago | (#46643899)

I mean, Fox-News-claiming-Bush-kept-us-safe-from-terrorist-attacks breathtaking. As in you cannot believe that someone just said something that brazen with a straight face.

No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory.

Nah, they just forced Iraq to privatize it's oil industry and sell it off to for-profit foreign interests. Because America's record post WWII has been that of a rampaging imperialistic shitbag that has all the power of a British Empire without any of the responsibilities. Rather than setting up a colonial government, which might actually do shit like build roads and schools, you just overthrow [wikipedia.org] dozens of governments, including democratically elected ones, to get those sufficiently subservient to your "national interests".

So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.

No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age. Call us when Putin does the same or starts having 16 year old kids murdered [wikipedia.org] on the other side of the planet from Moscow.

They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it.

The hell they did. Any reason in particular you're ignoring the illegal, western-backed coup of Ukraine's democratically elected president less than 6 months before the next elections? Aside from all that, if Russia "invaded" Crimea by moving troops to a navel base covered under an existing treaty with Ukraine, than the United States has been busy invading western europe and Japan for over 60 years.

It takes some serious neocon balls (with a hefty dose of willful dumfuckery) to treat the self-appointed junta in Ukraine as a legitimate organization, while flatly ignoring the fact that the people of Crimea just overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. This is invariably countered with some BS about how this vote was done "at the end of a gun barrel", ignoring the fact that the the first things the junta did after sizing power was to strip Crimea of it's autonomy and start oppressing minorities. And ignoring the fact that the United States has 900 military bases throughout the world and special forces operating in more than half the world's countries.

Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE.

You mean after the Wikileaks cables showed Bush giving free reign to death squads, after the U.S. built military bases and a fortress of an embassy, and made it clear that it would re-invade on a moments notice from military bases in surrounding countries in the event of 'instability'?

Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to puppet governments it set up after forcing the privatization of industries and infrastructure.

FTFY. Compare how many governments Russia has overthrown since the fall of the Soviet Union, and get back to us. How many countries has Russia bombed or invaded. How many people Putin is keeping in gulags, and force feeding them (which is torture), after they've been cleared for release since 2007? [huffingtonpost.com] Is Russia violating the sovereignty of nations thousands of miles away from it by bombing innocent people inside them with impunity?

The United States lecturing modern Russia about imperialism is like Jack the Ripper lecturing Alec Baldwin on how to treat women.

The response to the these facts is generally to bleat about how this is pro-Russian propaganda, or some other butthurt neocon BS. Well then, feel free to point me to Putin's worldwide kidnapping/torture/murder-by-drone regime. Feel free to point out how the list of countries overthrown by Russia dwarf's that of the United States. Or, feel free to cram this American Exceptionialist bullllllllshit back up the orifice it came from.

Re:Neocon arrogance is breathtaking. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46644217)

So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.

No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age.

I'm not going to go though your whole laundry list of junk and complaints. It's clear you are angry about some stuff. Sorry to hear that.

The Iraq situation was a huge mess. Lots of stuff didn't go very well, but that's how war goes. But I will remind you that the USA's goals in Iraq where NOT to cause massive destruction and death but remove a dictator who was choosing to harbor terrorists within Iraq's borders and then set up Iraq to govern itself and leave. That was the stated goal, and in the end, that's what happened. So yes, we bombed a country into the stone age, but we then paid to put it back together best we could in the time we had and set up Iraq for self rule. They are now independent of the USA. So, the road between the start and the end may have been bumpy and a lot of wrong turns made, but the stated destination has been more or less reached.

If you want to be angry about what happened on the trip, OK, mistakes where made, but remember that in the end the destination was reached.

Re:Neocon arrogance is breathtaking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46647313)

"But I will remind you that the USA's goals in Iraq to remove a dictator who was choosing to harbor terrorists within Iraq's borders."

So what? Who give USA rights to attack other country? Saddam Hussein is a bad guys, but attacking Iraq is still an aggression. According to UN: "No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace." http://www.un-documents.net/a29r3314.htm USA has committed this crime.

You know USA is able to get away with this, only because it is too powerful. If some minor country behave like this it will be sanctioned into the stone age.

Re:Neocon arrogance is breathtaking. (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 4 months ago | (#46700805)

I'm not going to go though your whole laundry list of junk and complaints.

Because you have no response that isn't BS or more neocon lies. Case in point:

but remove a dictator who was choosing to harbor terrorists within Iraq's borders

But that talking point was known to be a baldfaced lie ten years ago, right up there with "Nigerian yellowcake", "aluminum tubes" and "mobile weapons labs". Repeating a lie that was debunked 10 years ago doesn't make it true, it makes one a more pathetic liar.

That was the stated goal, and in the end, that's what happened.

You left out the "torture and rape rooms", the other parts of the revisionist history. Because the invasion of Iraq was about WMD's and Saddams "ties to 911", neither of which existed.

OK, mistakes where made

"Mistakes" involving the deaths of a million people, millions of refugees, the theft of national resources, the torture of hundreds if not thousands, and the destabilization of a region. I say again, the neocon arrogance is simply breathtaking.

Re:Neocon arrogance is breathtaking. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#46704069)

Actually, the invasion of Iraq was about terror and removing a dictator that said he had WMD's and harbored terrorists.

All the rest of your tripe is stuff that has been trumped up in an effort to discredit the president who initiated the action, even though it was will full UN and congressional approval and thus not totally his responsibility. After all, he may have made the final decision, but pretty much everybody involved agreed (the UN, Congress, NATO countries etc..) that it was the right thing to do. FEW where out there decrying the injustice of the action BEFORE it was done, even though many would love to revise history to make it sound like they opposed the war when they actually voted FOR the use of force.

So, I will say this. I think YOU are the one who is revising history to suit your argument and political leanings. At which point, this discussion stops being useful and ends, at least for me.... Full Stop.

USA butchered TWO MILLION people in Iraq (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644237)

Some f**king neo-Nazi called 'bobbied' howls his appreciation of the holocaust inflicted against the people of Iraq by the US war machine, and the owners of Slashdot ensure he gets a score of '5'. Pay attention to how things work around here, you sheeple.

Iraq currently has a 'constitution' imposed on the destroyed nation by an American JEW. Read that gain. Yes, the depravities of the US State Department appointed a JEW to impose their will on the 'conquered' population. How perfectly Nazi of them- but then 'bobbied' thinks his 'master race' should get to do the same with every other Muslim nation on the Earth.

Today, the ravaged nation of Iraq, which suffers insane amounts of daily terrorism, enjoys puppet rulers split between America, and Iran. Iran actually partnered the USA in both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but this fact gets almost zero coverage.

Present day Iraq is littered with US military bases, that like NSA spying, zionist filth like 'bobbied' pretend don't exist simply because the US government lies about their existence. Given that the US placed a gun to Iraq's head, and made Iraq turn over 100% of its oil production to US companies, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the US to ever leave Iraq. The moment they actually did so, those US oil companies would be thrown out overnight.

So tell me. What kind of dirty, depraved, filthy neo-Nazi racist garbage would try to claim Russia's reclaiming of the Crimea, with the full assent of the population, and zero bloodshed/destruction, is in any sense comparable to one of the world's worst Crimes against Humanity- the US invasion of Iraq. But I'll tell you this. The very fact such neo-Nazis post to sites like this, fully expecting to get the full support of the site owners, lets us know how close we are to war between the demons that run the USA, and Russia. This is no new 'cold war'. This is the run up to actual war- where the US war machine is unleashed across our entire planet.

Re:USA butchered TWO MILLION people in Iraq (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644537)

The fact, that during WW2, Ukrainians thought the Nazis were 'nicer' than the Russians is really telling. Russia has more blood on it's hands than almost ANY other country in the history of history!

So...I'd call you a 'Nazi' but really it's worse to call you what you really are. A 'Russian'. Hopefully someone takes some of your territory by force soon, so you can cry about it and we can all laugh like you are now. You pathetic worm.

Re:USA butchered TWO MILLION people in Iraq (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46647695)

Look no further than the fact that the Germans were trying to hold out in the end long enough to get their troops and people into Allied hands rather than Russian hands.

The Eastern front was two monsters fighting each other.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 4 months ago | (#46645013)

The comparative territory being? Perhaps the US could give California back to Mexico and then peaceful invade and take it back. Reality here it is all lame arsed pressure bullshit. The US is trying to force an early agreement because Ukrainians are pretty aggressive and are not really going to just bend over and take austerity whilst the country is sold out from underneath them. So they want to lock Russia into an agreement a get them to help force austerity on the Ukrainians. For Russia of course the longer this all takes, the more pissed off with austerity the Ukranians will become, and regardless of, oh look new laws hardly surprising in the switch from left to right, major protests are now a crime against the state, riots are now treason, now that wont stick.

Basically the US now has zero reliability and as such there are no negotiating, sure there is a bunch of empty talk but any agreements with the US are basically meaningless. All there is for Russia to do is to decide how to stick it to the US corporations driving this current crazy adventure, whilst they allow it to drag on without an agreement and let it all collapse under it's own weight. For the US they are stuck, the more they open their mouth, the more sanctions they try, the more difficult an agreement becomes which is against their own goals, confusion reigns supreme.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about 4 months ago | (#46646737)

I think a majority of Ukrainian service men in Crimea defected to Russia during the referendum. Was it really an invasion? I don't think it is clear cut who is in the right and who was in the wrong. Like you make it sound.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46647711)

It's fairly clear cut that Russia is in the wrong. They violated a treaty they signed with Ukraine. Full stop. It doesn't matter if the eventual outcome may have matched the current status.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673797)

No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory

People like you just dont get it anymore.
Countries would be far better of if they were annexed.
What happens now is a puppet is installed, or corporations are empowered, and the country gets all the disadvantages of being taken over but none of the benefits. They have no access to American courts, American rights, any of the good things, but all of the bad things.
Talking about annexing places is just a strawman for people who still think of the world as it was a couple centuries ago.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 months ago | (#46642285)

> This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

NASA is an agency of a government that's a part of the alliance that is supposed to defend a number of countries that are likely Putin targets.

NASA should not be dependent on Russia right now any more than they should have been dependent on the Soviet Union when it was still around.

Lack of self-reliance can be a right b*tch sometimes. You never know what kind of abusive crap you will have to tolerate.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46642469)

Not having the USA flag floating over Iraq doesn't mean they don't control it. The USA has been very good at injecting puppets so that political control remains possible. Not saying that these are vile intensions but they do benefit them in the end. After all, if you go fight a war and move the dictator out, the last thing you want is another dictator showing up and the best way to avoid that is political control.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

butalearner (1235200) | about 4 months ago | (#46642579)

The USA has been very good at injecting puppets so that political control remains possible.

I don't know about that. I mean, we try our best, but I wouldn't say we're good at it.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46643095)

Yes, we used to do things similar to how Western Europe and Russia does things. That is long over. Iraq is NOT friendly with America. Nor is the Afghanistan gov.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

jafac (1449) | about 4 months ago | (#46644029)

If the USA didn't want to be reliant upon the Russians for manned spaceflight, then they should have given NASA enough money to develop a proper new heavy-lift solution (ie. not orion/mars or whatever other ATK-based abomination the senators from Utah want).

Russia is no longer a democracy (1)

coolmanxx (150620) | about 4 months ago | (#46642293)

NASA is under no obligation to work with Russia. Fast track Elon Musk, keep it American.

Fuck Elon Musk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642565)

It takes a seller 60 days to get paid off ebay/paypal. By the people are probably already homeless and cant pay their bills.

But Elon Musk has a spaceship!

Re:Fuck Elon Musk (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46643333)

WTF are you talking about? You can transfer money for free from Paypal to a US bank account in 3-4 days via ACH transfer. You can also get a Paypal debit card for free, and spend the money from your Paypal account at any place that takes debit card or Mastercard (Paypal even gives you 1% cash back for doing this). You can also just request a paper check.

Re:Fuck Elon Musk (1)

phayes (202222) | about 4 months ago | (#46647283)

Idiot. Musk has had nothing to do with Paypal for over a decade.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (3, Insightful)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 4 months ago | (#46642297)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

You're joking right?

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is a government organization that has to appeal to the president and Congress every year for funding and scope. Their employees are considered federal employees on the GS (general schedule) pay scale. NASA has both "national" and "administration" in the title. It doesn't get any more political than that.

How are they NOT a political body?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643103)

"NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is a government organization that has to appeal to the president and Congress every year for funding and scope. Their employees are considered federal employees on the GS (general schedule) pay scale. NASA has both "national" and "administration" in the title. It doesn't get any more political than that."

Then they should boycott the Russian rockets that transport their astronauts to the ISS too.

Now they act like little kids that go on a hunger strike, except for breakfast, lunch and diner and a few snacks.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644609)

Their goal, is not one of political means. However, they are subject to those with political position and body. Look at what they do, and tell me what they do is political with a straight face.

Driving a few rovers on Mars? Not political. Conducting scientific experiments on a tin can floating around the Earth every 90 minutes? Not political.

You're confusing the tool, that is NASA, that politicians use as a kicking bag, with the foreign policies the Executive branch picks and chooses from day to day.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#46647921)

Political != government. They are part of the government but they are not supposed to be involved in politics. It's like the IRS isn't supposed to collect tax based on the political views of its staff, only apply the law as written. I don't know about the US but in most democracies government employees (civil servants) are not allowed to involve themselves with politics like this. They do what elected politicians tell them to, not what they personally decide.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642327)

America annexed Iraq?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642655)

America annexed Iraq?

They annexed Florida, Hawaii and Alaska. They failed to annex Cuba but still try hard. They also have military bases around the world the same way Russia have military in Crimea. If there was a threat to the US control of these military bases you can bet Obama would react the same was Putin did.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46643107)

LOL. We bought Alaska from Russia. Florida wanted to join the US. About the ONLY one that has issues would be Hawaii.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643219)

Florida wanted to join the US.

The Seminole might disagree with that.

In other news, are the /. captchas based on the text in your post? Because I just got "pilgrims", and this isn't the first time something like that has happened.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 4 months ago | (#46643465)

The US certainly did annex Texas, though.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46644071)

No. Again, texas joined the US. While Mexico really did not own this land, there is no way for large entities other than the US to have taken on their military. Hence the Alamo.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 4 months ago | (#46647325)

The Texas annexation was the 1845 incorporation into the United States of America of the Republic of Texas, which was admitted to the Union as the 28th state. After declaring their independence from the Republic of Mexico in 1836, the vast majority of Texas citizens favored the annexation of the Lone Star Republic by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46648227)

Texas PUSHED to join the US. It was not a grab by the US. The formal process is simply called anexation, however, I believe that the AC was implying that we grabbed the land like W was making a grab for iraq.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46643403)

You need to get a better education. The US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. At the time they were desperate for cash.

I've never heard of the US trying to annex Cuba. Meddle and control its affairs the way it has other Latin American nations, sure, but not annex.

Florida joined the union just like lots of other states.

Hawaii, however, was a pretty ratty deal. They supposedly joined just like any state, but that was after it was basically taken over by American businesspeople. The native Hawaiians didn't have any real control by that point.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642331)

Too bad Russia didnt suspend its contracts with NASA back in '99 when the US bombed the shit out of Serbia in order to free Kosovo. But yeah that was the good ol' yankees liberating the "enslaved" 40% of Albanian Kosovars from the evil Serbian rule.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 4 months ago | (#46642415)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

I'm a huge opponent of the Iraq war but I consider Russia's actions in Ukraine quite a bit more objectionable than the US's actions in Iraq.

I think there's two parts to NASA, there's the straight science part and the space exploration part. The science part should mostly ignore the politics and ideally not be affected by the crisis. But the space exploration aspect doesn't have a lot of practical impact at this point and is more symbolic and aspiration, I'm still not sure if I agree with it, but a given the primary product of the space program is prestige it does make sense to use it to punish Russia for political reasons.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Informative)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46642533)

Is it really more objectionable?

Maybe the news I'm seeing isn't accurate but it appears the majority of people currently "invaded" wants to join Russia. Hope is all those people want and joining a large world force/economy is something that can provide people with a better life. Especially considering that a large percentage of this population is of Russian background.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642759)

You mean the ones that are being interviewed want it? Or do you mean that ones that live there? Because they are 2 very different groups.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643519)

In the last capture, half of the troops defaulted to Russia's side.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46646881)

What are you babbling about? obviously you have never been to the Crimea or know anything about it. Even before this crisis the majority were Russians and identified themselves as Russian rather than Ukrainian, with an anti Russian government installed in Ukraine I would think it would be near impossible to find significant numbers of people in Crimea that didn't want to get the fuck away from the Ukrainian rule. Hell even half the UKRAINIAN military based their swapped sides to Russia rather than go back to Ukraine. At least do some basically research before espousing shit.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46642951)

Yes it is more objectionable.

If the people want to join Russia, why don't they emmigrate? Russia took sovereign land from Ukraine and made it Russian. That isn't even demonstrably close to what the US did and it directly violated a treaty that Russia had signed.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644313)

If I wanted change to occur, and one way involved me uprooting and moving, and the other allowed me to stay where I was, guess which one I'd choose?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46650263)

Your kidding right? Immigrate? They want to be part of Russia. Why would they leave their current homes? If a majority of the population wants this why wouldn't you let them decide.

And Russia didn't take the land, they actually let them vote and the vote was unanimous. Most people don't understand that the only interest being protected here is the political powers of Ukraine which benefits EU and US by preventing Russia from expanding.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46650993)

You mean the vote that didn't contain an option for the status quo?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46661735)

Don't take my word. Look at the words from an actual Crimea civilian who posted here. He said clearly said that most of the Crimea population wants this.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643675)

I will respond with a fair and balanced "ballot" for you:
You are: (a) a twit, or (b) a naive twit

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643679)

Are you kidding? That referendum yielded mathematically impossible results (unless you want to believe every single non-Tatar cast a ballot, and voted in favour, AND a quarter million Tatars broke the boycott), and more to the point, didn't even include a status quo option. The results indicating the Crimean Peninsula desired to join Russia was fraudulent, a sham designed to cloak the forcible seizure of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in a veneer of legitimacy. That's not even counting the fact that it was held under foreign military occupation, with only ten days' notice.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 4 months ago | (#46644183)

Is it really more objectionable?

Maybe the news I'm seeing isn't accurate but it appears the majority of people currently "invaded" wants to join Russia. Hope is all those people want and joining a large world force/economy is something that can provide people with a better life. Especially considering that a large percentage of this population is of Russian background.

There's surely some significant support for joining Russia but I think it's weaker and less manipulated than is generally believed. Russia quickly established control of the media, Russian troops shut down public protests or displays in favour of Ukraine and protected pro-Russian mobs. Yes it's meaningful that the population didn't rise up in revolt, it implies that they don't consider Russian citizenship to be a horrible outcome, but that's a long way from saying they wanted it.

Moreso it's seizing another countries territory through military force, it drastically changes the incentives around military force and is extraordinarily dangerous.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Informative)

Strange Quark Star (1157447) | about 4 months ago | (#46644787)

I was born in Simferopol and most of my relatives still live there. Here's a few things I can tell you almost first-hand.

The vast majority of people there are ethnic Russians who don't even speak Ukrainian. Khrushchev's 1954 transfer of Crimea to Ukraine did not mean anything to them until the Soviet Union split up. Since then the Ukrainian government introduced Ukrainian as the official language of the autonomous republic of Crimea, forcing the Russians to learn Ukrainian for anything official. Then they made Ukrainian the mandatory first foreign language in schools and soon the first language spoken; teaching the children's native Russian as a foreign language once a week.

Any foreign investments (like the EU's) went straight into the oligarchs' pockets, leaving health care, infrastructure, etc. in ruins. No running water after 10:00 PM, and even then it's just cold.
Pensioners like my grandmother often continue to work well beyond retirement to supplement their income enough to get by. Most medical equipment in hospitals is still from the Soviet era; clinics are usually out of medical supplies, i.e. if you want treatment you are expected to bring your own antiseptics, bandages, etc. Paying doctors for better treatment is a given.

Putin's invasion was ridiculous, no question. But honestly, that's exactly what many Crimeans were desperately hoping for for a long time. Say what you like about the Russian government, but it's way better than anything Ukraine's ever seen. Remember the fist fights in Kiev's Parliament? A regular show.

Changes coming to Crimea:
Return to the Russian school system in addition to local Ukrainian schools.
25% increase in retirement pay every quarter until it reaches Russian standards (100% increase overall) in addition to widow's pension, which previously has just not been payed at all.
Complete modernization of health infrastructure.
Repair and restoration of public infrastructure and venues including parks and plazas (you should see the current state they're in).
Exploitation of the abundant natural gas reservoirs off shore; there has just not been any funding previously. Crimea is expected to become self-sufficient and maybe even export natural gas at a profit.

A major concern surrounding the annexation was Crimea's dependence on tourism as it's main source of income, as most tourists came from Ukraine. Now they simply halved the price of plane tickets from mainland Russia to Crimea to encourage Tourism.

I don't know if the results of the referendum were falsified, it would not surprise me as it's always been the case with elections over there. But all Crimeans, not only ethnic Russians would greatly benefit from a change in government for the reasons mentioned above and they know it. My relatives told me about huge lines of people waiting at 9 AM, soaking in the rain to vote for joining Russia, including Tatars and Ukrainians. They also told me of the unprecedented joy and general happiness on the streets after the result was made public and even more so when Crimea finally rejoined Russia.

I want to stress the fact that I am by no means a supporter of Russia, its government or Putin. I despise their corruption and violations of human rights. But what is happening in Crimea is very positive change for the people on that peninsula from what I can tell by reading the news and keeping in touch with my friends in relatives there that are directly impacted by the events.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about 4 months ago | (#46647377)

Yeah, it's all just great - investments in Crimea's infrastructure, halving the plane tickets prices and all that. But who's going to pay for all that? Oh, it would be simple Russian folk, who already sponsored Olympics with their pensions. And many of them still live in worse conditions than you've described - have you ever been in, say, Yaroslavskaya or Vologodskaya oblast? You know that in the eyes of many people Crimeans soon would look only marginally better than Dagestans or Chechens? With all their subsides, "relaxed" EGE exams and all that.

Besides, do you really think that there is less corruption in Russia? That all these subsides would really reach common Crimeans? Let's just wait an year or two and look at all that "glorious reunion" than - I'm not so sure everyone in Russia or even in Crimea itself would support it so unanimously.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 4 months ago | (#46647715)

Is it really more objectionable?

Maybe the news I'm seeing isn't accurate but it appears the majority of people currently "invaded" wants to join Russia. Hope is all those people want and joining a large world force/economy is something that can provide people with a better life. Especially considering that a large percentage of this population is of Russian background.

And how do you prove this?

The voting was not observed by impartial international witnesses and as such, must be called invalid.

I'm all for a real vote - but with impartial observers, not Russia chosen America hating nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#46650385)

Read the message from Strange Quark Star. He sums it up pretty nice! If you knew people from Crimea you wouldn't argue the results. The people from Crimea have felt oppressed by the Ukrainian system for many years and no hope in sight.

As for the election, there are no impartial observers in this election. The EU, US doesn't want to see Russia expand their land and Russia wants nothing more than an extra port to do business and conduct war from.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 4 months ago | (#46668409)

Read the message from Strange Quark Star. He sums it up pretty nice! If you knew people from Crimea you wouldn't argue the results. The people from Crimea have felt oppressed by the Ukrainian system for many years and no hope in sight.

As for the election, there are no impartial observers in this election. The EU, US doesn't want to see Russia expand their land and Russia wants nothing more than an extra port to do business and conduct war from.

I'm not saying the Crimeans don't want to be Russian. I'm saying that the vote cannot be claimed to have been valid.

If you can't find impartial observers, then you can have both sides' observers with plenty of cameras showing real-time video of the goings-on.

The reality, of course, is that the country with the biggest balls is going to come out of this ahead and given that Putin has balls and Obama doesn't...

Guess we'll see what happens if Putin goes after Ukraine itself.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 4 months ago | (#46642617)

You didn't find a few hundred thousands getting killed objectionable - while one (reportedly anyway) guy getting killed you did?

I'm sorry, but... what?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642867)

First off, there are several issues with Iraq:
1) W/neo-cons DID invade Iraq wrongly. OTOH, the Iraqi's were happy to have us do it and rid themselves of him.
2) The real issue is that W/neo-cons basically occupied Iraq and was attempting to steal their oil.
3) Under O, we have given back the nation to their citizens. IOW, it remains whole, though it is pretty much in civil war due to W/neo-con's occupation allowing AQ to sneak in (and no doubt it will be one for many military books on HOW TO NOT RUN A WAR).

Russia's issues are very different:
1) Putin/Russia invaded Crimea and took control of it. In addition, they are anexxing it back into Russia. Considering that Crimea has historically been Russian (200 years worth until around 1960), I have less issues about this.
2) Putin/Russia are waiting to invade Ukraine. These is all territory that has ALWAYS been Ukraine. The Russians that are living there now, come in with the USSR. IOW, they were transplanted there.
3) the areas that Putin/Russia wants, are all related to oil, nat gas, and piplines. Think that there is a reason for it?

They are somewhat similar, but Putin/Russia IS far worse because it is a grab for oil/gas. This is leading to them wanting to control this so as to control Western Europe.
In addition, if it happens, Russia is counting on nations like Germany and Italy to do NOTHING since they both depend heavily on Russian energy.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#46642923)

3) Under O, we have given back the nation to their citizens. IOW, it remains whole, though it is pretty much in civil war due to W/neo-con's occupation allowing AQ to sneak in (and no doubt it will be one for many military books on HOW TO NOT RUN A WAR).

It should, perhaps, be noted that the schedule for withdrawal from Iraq that O used was the one written (and agreed to by both Congress and the Iraqi government) by W a couple years earlier.

No, Obama didn't get us out of Iraq early, contrary to what you may have heard.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46646045)

Fair enough.
BUT, W wanted to leave a large number of troops in there. O did not. So, they are gone.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 4 months ago | (#46644551)

But Russia already controlled the overwhelming majority of the gas/oil. Most if that stuff going through Crimea/Ukraine is doing that - going through. They aren't produced locally; they ususally arrive from Russia and just get transported further west. I know because there were yearly disputes between Russia and Ukraine about the prices, and the continous Russian threats to stop the pumps made every damn country here build ludicrous amounts of reserves...
If Russia wanted to threaten W-EU with closing the tap, nothing stopped them from doing so already. I really think it was just their fear of losing the comfortable bases in Crimea that made them act; though I wouldn't be surprised if they now annexed more territory - to secure a land route there.

And I still don't get why is Crimea worse - the US would have happily made a puppet-state out of Iraq were it not for the civil war their continously naive (and short-sighted) decisions made. Sure, they wouldn't have annexed Iraq in name; but they would have still ran the show. Why - how - is that better?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 4 months ago | (#46644293)

You didn't find a few hundred thousands getting killed objectionable - while one (reportedly anyway) guy getting killed you did?

I'm sorry, but... what?

Well I actually said I was a huge opponent of Iraq and I've been so from the start.

But at the end of the day the failure of Iraq was fundamentally one of incompetence, there were certainly lies and criminal acts, but I believe the core motive of the people in charge was to help the Iraqi people. Unfortunately expecting them to perform a useful intervention in Iraq was a bit like asking an elephant to run a daycare, an act of dubious value that was fated to end in tragedy.

The reason why I found Crimea to be MORE objectionable was because Putin has no noble motive. It's land theft pure and simple, made on a pretext so flimsy it makes Iraqs WDMs to be as common as sand. And while the body count has been low it runs the risk of war in an otherwise stable part of the world and significantly escalates the tension between the West and Russia, the long term consequences of the Crimean invasion could be far worse than those of Iraq.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 4 months ago | (#46644693)

Well I actually said I was a huge opponent of Iraq and I've been so from the start.

I get that - but I still don't get the reasons behind your comparison. ;)

But at the end of the day the failure of Iraq was fundamentally one of incompetence, there were certainly lies and criminal acts, but I believe the core motive of the people in charge was to help the Iraqi people.

That's kind of a very dubious claim - and one that rests more on personal bias than anything proveable... I see the US in much less of a rosy light, given how they, you know, installed Saddam there in the first place. And then supplied him with WMDs so he could kill the very rebels the US proclaimed to now side with.

Unfortunately expecting them to perform a useful intervention in Iraq was a bit like asking an elephant to run a daycare, an act of dubious value that was fated to end in tragedy.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure that trying to help is going to be a real comfort to all those who died - or have to live in constant fear thanks to their country descending into civil war.
In short: given the absolute mess that Iraq became, I wouldn't care about the intentions of the US - even if I really believed they were doubtlessly altruistic to begin with...

The reason why I found Crimea to be MORE objectionable was because Putin has no noble motive. It's land theft pure and simple, made on a pretext so flimsy it makes Iraqs WDMs to be as common as sand. And while the body count has been low it runs the risk of war in an otherwise stable part of the world and significantly escalates the tension between the West and Russia, the long term consequences of the Crimean invasion could be far worse than those of Iraq.

Land theft is kind of a misnomer. There are very important navy bases in Crimea - ones which the Russian navy kept using after the USSR dissolved... and which they must've felt in danger after their puppet government got kicked out of Ukraine. Not that I approve of this move - had enough of Russia sitting around here for fifty years - just saying it's a whee bit more nuanced than you make it seem like.

As for reactions and fears... the world is only up in arms because we are reminded of the Cold War. If China decided to annex parts of Mongolia, I could tell you what would happen: a big, fat nothing. Ukraine is too close, and the bad memories with Russia are too recent. But this was really to be expected; after the NATO continously expanding east and losing Serbia, Iraq and now Ukraine... of course Russia would react in some way.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 4 months ago | (#46644969)

But at the end of the day the failure of Iraq was fundamentally one of incompetence, there were certainly lies and criminal acts, but I believe the core motive of the people in charge was to help the Iraqi people.

That's kind of a very dubious claim - and one that rests more on personal bias than anything proveable... I see the US in much less of a rosy light, given how they, you know, installed Saddam there in the first place. And then supplied him with WMDs so he could kill the very rebels the US proclaimed to now side with.

I'm not sure many people would accuse me of seeing the US in a rosy light. The US actions in Iraq are basically driven by Pax Americana, the belief that the US is extraordinarily powerful and has a responsibility to exert that power to spread democracy and freedom. Also that any truly free populace would be pro-West, ie an unfriendly democratic leader must not be truly democratic otherwise they'd be friendly, and thus they're liable for overthrow.

Now the problem is this isn't completely wrong, anti-west democratic leaders do have a tendency to become totalitarian (Chavez is a good example), and it's not clear that a genuine democratic government is possible, or that open elections wouldn't result in even greater oppression. This leads to them playing a game where the try to micro-manage foreign politics winning short term gains but arguably increasing oppression in the long term by pissing people off.

Unfortunately expecting them to perform a useful intervention in Iraq was a bit like asking an elephant to run a daycare, an act of dubious value that was fated to end in tragedy.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure that trying to help is going to be a real comfort to all those who died - or have to live in constant fear thanks to their country descending into civil war.
In short: given the absolute mess that Iraq became, I wouldn't care about the intentions of the US - even if I really believed they were doubtlessly altruistic to begin with...

What if solid evidence came out that revealed that Bush-Cheney didn't care at all about Iraqis or Democracy, but only wanted to enrich some defence contractor and oil exec buddies? I'm guessing you'd care a lot about those intentions.

The reason why I found Crimea to be MORE objectionable was because Putin has no noble motive. It's land theft pure and simple, made on a pretext so flimsy it makes Iraqs WDMs to be as common as sand. And while the body count has been low it runs the risk of war in an otherwise stable part of the world and significantly escalates the tension between the West and Russia, the long term consequences of the Crimean invasion could be far worse than those of Iraq.

Land theft is kind of a misnomer. There are very important navy bases in Crimea - ones which the Russian navy kept using after the USSR dissolved... and which they must've felt in danger after their puppet government got kicked out of Ukraine. Not that I approve of this move - had enough of Russia sitting around here for fifty years - just saying it's a whee bit more nuanced than you make it seem like.

As for reactions and fears... the world is only up in arms because we are reminded of the Cold War. If China decided to annex parts of Mongolia, I could tell you what would happen: a big, fat nothing. Ukraine is too close, and the bad memories with Russia are too recent. But this was really to be expected; after the NATO continously expanding east and losing Serbia, Iraq and now Ukraine... of course Russia would react in some way.

They had a 25 year lease on the bases I'm not sure losing them was really a risk, and even if they did Russia already had territory on the Black sea. The importance of those bases was as a symbol of their relationship with Ukraine. While the most extreme wing of the nationalists definitely wanted to Ukrainianize the country a lot more I don't think even they wanted to sever the relationship with Russia.

I do agree that NATO and the EU were undercutting Russia's influence, but those reactions were the results of the valid Democratic desires of the populations involved. Moreover Crimeans weren't oppressed by Ukrainians in any sense, you can justify Iraq in the sense that Saddam was a very bad man and you think you can do better. Under Russia Crimeans are already experiencing more oppression, I just don't see seizing Crimean as any sort of defensible reaction to the NATO and EU expansions or being based on any sort of noble but misguided ideology.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643395)

Only because you are stupid. Russia is DEFENDING itself from the US. How is that more objectionable than war for empire?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 4 months ago | (#46644303)

Only because you are stupid. Russia is DEFENDING itself from the US. How is that more objectionable than war for empire?

Orwell called. He wants his doublespeak back.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 4 months ago | (#46642601)

No, because everybody hated Saddam.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#46642831)

NASA is not a political body

Did you happen to notice the story title?

Perhaps NASA used to be different, but today, for the money it spends, it functions mostly as a way for Congressmen to funnel cash back to their home district.

At this point, they should just spin off JPL as a non-profit and sell the rest to SpaceX for launch vouchers. With level funding *much* more science would actually get done.

Oh, I wish. (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 4 months ago | (#46643971)

All it takes is one congressman inserting language in an appropriations bill about what countries NASA isn't allowed to work with.

But they'd never do something like that, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

It was so bad, we had to get a legal opinion on if I was allowed to respond to a question e-mailed to the support address for one of the projects I work on. (they said yes, because the project was international in scope, and not just between us and China).

I also had a to pass up an invitation from the US Academy of Science, as it was for a meeting that was being held in China. (later, I was informed that it was Taiwan, which didn't count as China, but it was too late at that point).

ps. if it's not obvious, I work at a NASA center.

pps. and then let's not forget about earmarks and the like. Or how the shuttle was built all over the US and then brought together, to make congress happy that it was being built in their district.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 4 months ago | (#46647619)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

So scientists who didn't agree with, for example, Hitler's Nazi Germany should have continued to collaborate with German scientists just for the sake of science?

Anyone who doesn't agree should speak up and act out in whatever way they judge best.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46650691)

"If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016"

Too late it has happened already. Not to worry though the Muslim Outreach program is going swimmingly.

Who needs space when you have proud Muslims.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642357)

Wait until the astronauts need to return to Earth or require supplies. Who will NASA turn to for assistance? Politics should never enter into sceince. NASA is a scientific organisation not a political body. Obama pounding his chest imitating a gorilla. Meanwhile, Putin strokes the Siberian Tiger laying in his lap. Curious George versus Dr. Evil.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Megane (129182) | about 4 months ago | (#46642629)

Wait until the astronauts need to return to Earth

That is handled by default. It is a requirement for ISS to have enough seats docked for everyone on board to get down to earth. Of course that depends on the Soyuz going down with all seats occupied.

or require supplies.

Fortunately, that's under control with the commercial cargo launches, aside from ground problems delaying Dragon or Cygnus from getting up there. (The Air Force radar system that confirms launches are not off-track is currently broken, holding up the launches of both Dragon and a new spy satellite.)

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

BradMajors (995624) | about 4 months ago | (#46642829)

My prediction is Russia is about to increase their rates for supplying the ISS.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Megane (129182) | about 4 months ago | (#46642561)

At least this is a change from the usual politics that get in the way of space science. Usually it's Congress messing with the NASA budget to protect the pork of legacy "OldSpace" jobs that have been threatened since the end of the Shuttle. We've already had to extend buying rides from Russia for three more years because Congress keeps underfunding the Commercial Crew program. At least SpaceX shows every indication of plowing ahead with their own manned spaceflight projects in spite of all that bullshit.

Cosmic thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643057)

deGrasse Tyson came up with "Cosmic thinking" that basically says we are all together on this little planet and we need to work together - for ALL of our benefit.

I wish that could come to pass but it won't until small men get over their pathetic grabs for power, people get over tribalism and we stop this irrational belief in Iron Age religions and fighting over who's interpretation of the fairy tale is correct.

In short, until we start acting like human beings and not like bald apes, we will never move beyond what we are now.

Re:Cosmic thinking (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46643415)

deGrasse Tyson came up with "Cosmic thinking" that basically says we are all together on this little planet and we need to work together - for ALL of our benefit.

It' a great idea. But in reality, petty bickering inevitably breaks out even in small groups of people. Without good leaders, people just won't act in concert very well, even when it's clearly in their best interests.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Matheus (586080) | about 4 months ago | (#46643605)

Straight out of 2010... where's the monolith when we need one?!

How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642071)

That's why they NEED Putin. Suck his ball, NASA!

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 4 months ago | (#46642191)

SpaceX is not too far from manned launches. Of course, if NASA had gone ahead with Orion and Jupiter-Direct, the US would have manned space flight capabilities by now.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642393)

uh, no.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (2)

blueturffan (867705) | about 4 months ago | (#46642405)

SpaceX is not too far from manned launches.

I believe the most optimistic schedule has a manned launch sometime mid-2015. I'd guess early 2016 as the soonest we'll see a manned SpaceX launch.

Of course, if NASA had gone ahead with Orion and Jupiter-Direct, the US would have manned space flight capabilities by now.

It would be great to have an Orion capsule ready to launch on a SpaceX Falcon9 rocket. Unfortunately the rest of the Constellation program was so horribly over budget and behind schedule that it needed to be shut down.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 4 months ago | (#46642729)

They should have shitcanned Ares-1 from the start, and gone with Ares-V.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46643169)

Actually, if house republicans will quit gutting private space funding, and even increase it a bit, SpaceX can be ready to launch before the end of this year. And with just 1-2 months worth of work, they can be used as a return vehicle.
Of course, it all depends on funding.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

Megane (129182) | about 4 months ago | (#46642707)

SpaceX is not too far from manned launches.

The word I've heard is that they simply don't have enough free time (their satellite launch business is doing very well) to do it in 2014, so it's pretty likely to be next year.

if NASA had gone ahead with Orion

...they wouldn't have had any budget left to actually go anywhere. Or at least not anywhere Congress could agree to let them.

Seriously, go read this guy's stuff, he explains a lot about NASA's budget troubles: http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642423)

Ha! He does have one ball doesn't he.

Wait... (5, Insightful)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about 4 months ago | (#46642095)

Isn't this the sort of thing that the ISS collaboration was supposed to prevent?

Re:Wait... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46642137)

Only on paper. The truth is that NASA and Russia have been at each others' throats from day one. Remember how pissy NASA got when Russia one-upped them on the first space tourist [wikipedia.org] ? It was like watching a jealous child throw a goddamn temper tantrum.

Re:Wait... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 4 months ago | (#46642185)

The ISS collaboration was a make-work program to ensure Russian engineers didn't run off to work for states in the axis-of-evil just to put food on the table. That's why a lot of dodgy MIR-2 bits were shoehorned into the design. Now that the Russian economy is in a better condition than in the 90's they don't need to be beholden to us especially when they control the manned launch services industry now.

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642235)

Funny, the collaboration does continue on the ISS.

I tell you what--I sure was mighty sad to see the last Space Shuttle on its pad. I went to Cape Canaveral and saw Atlantis on its pad before it made its final launch.

Re:Wait... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46642873)

Funny, the collaboration does continue on the ISS.

For now. Until I noticed it was 2014 today, I thought "am I watching 2010 [imdb.com] again?" :-)

MAIN SCREEN TURN ON (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#46642439)

It was the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind, ten years after the second Iraq War. The ISS Project was a dream given form. Its goal: to prevent another war by creating a place where Americans and Russians could work out their differences peacefully. It's a port of call - home away from home for astronauts, cosmonauts, scientists, and tourists. Russians and Americans wrapped in 450,000 kilograms of spinning metal, all alone in the night. It can be a dangerous place, but it's our last best hope for peace. This is the story of the last of the IIS stations. The year is 2014. The name of the place is the IIS.

WOW. SO FUTAR. Just like when they quarantined Clavius base.

Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (4, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46642097)

Gas, grass, or ass--no one rides Soyuz for free!

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642129)

The good news is that SpaceX can actually be ready to send man up there within 1 year (6 months if the house republicans will quit blocking funding for private space and increase it to less than 2 B for this year). And we can actually bring ppl down in less than 1 month. Issue solved.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642203)

Call me when SpaceX has a safety record that even begins to compare with Soyuz.

obvious troll is so obvious you can't see him. (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#46642505)

Oh come on, you're being unrealistically tough on a fledgling company. Can't they first shoot for the Shuttle's safety record?

Soyuz slightly worse than shuttle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642765)

Call me when SpaceX has a safety record that even begins to compare with Soyuz.

Oh come on, you're being unrealistically tough on a fledgling company. Can't they first shoot for the Shuttle's safety record?

Actually, Soyuz has (just slightly) a worse safety record than the Shuttle. As of March 2014, Soyuz had two fatal accidents in 121 launches (also, two serious aborts).

It also had some pretty hair-raising close-calls on re-entries.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

blueturffan (867705) | about 4 months ago | (#46642625)

4 people have died in 2 separate Soyuz accidents.

There have been other non-fatal incidents in Soyuz. Here's just one such example:

April 19: Soyuz TMA-11 suffered a reentry mishap similar to that suffered by Soyuz 5 in 1969. The service module failed to completely separate from the reentry vehicle and caused it to face the wrong way during the early portion of aerobraking. As with Soyuz 5, the service module eventually separated and the reentry vehicle completed a rough but survivable landing. Following the Russian news agency Interfax's report, this was widely reported as life-threatening while NASA urged caution pending an investigation of the vehicle. South Korean astronaut Yi So-Yeon was hospitalized after her return to South Korea due to injuries caused by the rough return voyage in the Soyuz TMA-11 spacecraft. The South Korean Science Ministry said that the astronaut had a minor injury to her neck muscles and had bruised her spinal column

  I'd say SpaceX with 0 fatalities is looking pretty good by comparison.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642793)

Remind me how many manned missions SpaceX has launched again? Because the Soyuz hasn't lost a single man in over 40 years and they've launched over a hundred of them in that time.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46643405)

And yet, they continue to have issues with the rocket that launches both the Soyuz and Progress. It is called, just a matter of time.
Regardless, SpaceX is at 100% success with their F9.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46644105)

Actually, the F9 has 100% success with 8 flights.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644529)

Yeah, I knew you couldn't cite any bills, shit for brains.
 
Go fuck your partisan puppet bitch self straight up the ass.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46646173)

When you are no longer AC, come ask again. Until then, you can keep sucking kock brothers cocks.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46645433)

Actually, the F9 has 100% success with 8 flights.

It's just too bad any one Russian Progress flight to the ISS brought more supply than all F9 flights combined.
Ergo, the administration be damned to end Russian flights to the ISS, as SpaceX can't cut it in the big leagues.

SpaceX is 100% alright, 100% waste of taxpayer money.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642683)

Hmmm. 100% success with their F9. Russia does not even come close.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642301)

Soooo... "private space" need public funding? What?
 
I just bet you're one of the people who scream bloody murder about "big [whatever]" getting tax breaks or subsidies. Why should "private space" be any different?
 
Also, can you cite bills that Republicans have defeated for this funding?

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642483)

In the house, Shelby, Coffman, Wolf, Hatch, Lamar Smith, Hall, granger, Sessions, Bill Young, Connie Mack, come to mind
In the senate Hutchinson and Cornyn come quickly to mind.

And from a national security POV, we need private space since it is much cheaper and safer to have 3 companies that can deliver humans and cargo to space. Sadly, the above and many other neo-cons/tea* prefer the communist approach to space of paying off large companies to do this. And yes, paying L-Mart, Boeing, Ball, Gaumen, etc 3B/year for 20-30 years, Rather than paying a total of 3B for 3 different companies to do the work strikes me as being smart.

Sadly, you neo-cons/tea* woudl much rather destroy America and Capitalism and send money to your definition of 'enemies', then to actually make successful companies here. And I can understand why you remain AC.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642975)

Again, can you cite an actual bill or are you just going to throw names of people you don't like out there.
 
I'm neither neo-con nor tea. There are more than two options, you know? I see you don't have much to back up your claims and that even leaves me more skeptical. All you have is name calling. That's pretty sad.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642389)

(6 months if the house republicans will quit blocking funding for private space and increase it to less than 2 B for this year).

That is not a 'private' company then is it?

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642661)

What part of private, do you not understand?

Tit-for-Tat (4, Insightful)

hubang (692671) | about 4 months ago | (#46642099)

Would have the Russians suspend all ISS related contracts.

Good for the goose and all.

It would be nice for Russia to do that (1)

coolmanxx (150620) | about 4 months ago | (#46642333)

It would give incentive for the US to fund their own launch vehicle. Nothing spurs funding like patriotism!

Re:Tit-for-Tat (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 4 months ago | (#46642459)

Yeah, this reminds me of the 1980 Moscow Olympics boycott. While it may have had a symbolic meaning (it was in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), it ended up hurting the athletes more than the Soviet Union it was intended to hurt. And it seemingly forgot that the 1984 Olympics were in Los Angeles, which of course the Soviets promptly boycotted.

should'a boycotted Sochi, it was a toilet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642591)

it was in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

OP is so gay he cain't even get his facts straight. US invaded Afghanistan, look it up.

Re:should'a boycotted Sochi, it was a toilet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642839)

it was in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

OP is so gay he cain't even get his facts straight. US invaded Afghanistan, look it up.

Just in case you're not trolling, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and stayed for a decade before abandoning it. Look it up yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Re:should'a boycotted Sochi, it was a toilet (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 4 months ago | (#46646373)

Though it could be more accurate to say that the Soviets sent support to the government of Afghanistan, in the same way the USA sent support to the government of South Vietnam.

And Russia will announce shortly (0)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642111)

no more human flights to the ISS.

What is odd is that the house neo-cons/tea* have been the ones blocking development of human launchers, because they were afraid that it would stop funding to their SLS. In fact, they even gave more money to the Russians, than what they have approved to go to private space funding here.

And now, those traitor's actions are coming to haunt America. What do you bet that they will scream that we instead need to increase SLS spending to 10B/year and finish it by 2020, rather than simply spend less than 1B and have systems available next year?

Flame away neo-cons/tea*. Never take responsibility for your leader's actions.

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

Kogun (170504) | about 4 months ago | (#46642347)

Except Bolden has said he would recommend killing SLS and Orion if Russia stops flying our astronauts to the ISS.

'Bolden said the space station would probably have to be shut down without Russian transport, and in that case, "I would go to the president and recommend we terminate SLS and Orion."'

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/03/nasa_administrator_says_cancel.html

Care to rethink what the agenda is?

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46642507)

I think that killing the SLS makes the most sense. Spending 3B/year for another 10 years just to get a system taht will costs us 1-3B PER LAUNCH for 70 tonnes is nothing less than insane.

Care to rethink your logic?

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

Kogun (170504) | about 4 months ago | (#46642897)

You prefer to leave space flight to the whims of a billionaire instead of dictator?

I hope private companies are successful in achieving reliable manned flight, but I don't believe the US should be putting all its eggs in one basket. Until there are viable alternatives, the US would be wise to pursue as many avenues to space as possible.

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46643267)

No, I prefer to have a large number of launch vehicles available, then to leave it to the whims of a bunch of DOD companies that are rapping and pillaging.
Look, back in the 60's, we had a large number of companies that competed. Now, they find it far more profitable to work together and keep the price up high.
And no, the SLS is NOT an option. We really already have muttiple options. We have Falcon 9, shortly to have Falcon Heavy. We have Atlas V, though that is about to stop. We have Delta IV. We have OSC with multiple rockets. And if we kill the SLS now, we can have a new COTS for say 2 SHLVs (realy SHs at say 150 tonnes, not this 70 tonne joke).
In addition, both Europe and Japan have launch systems. So, building the SLS does not buy us a thing. In fact, it simply is a waste of money.

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

jafac (1449) | about 4 months ago | (#46644109)

orion/sls is not a viable alternative.

It's a money-suck designed to perpetuate profits for contractors in utah. (particularly, ATK).

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 4 months ago | (#46646063)

Actually, not just ATK, but all of the companies connected to those republicans that I listed earlier. All of them are on the take for the SLS. Of course, the dems helped push the SLS through as well, but it is house neo-cons/tea* (not the real republicans) that are trying to gut private space.

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

blueturffan (867705) | about 4 months ago | (#46642653)

Care to cite any sources to backup those claims?

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643025)

their SLS

Ares I was scheduled for first launch on a human rated booster in 2014. That didn't happen because Obama cancelled it.

Yes...but no (2, Interesting)

Johannes Sebastian (3601881) | about 4 months ago | (#46642119)

As a Dane im proud that the Secretary General of NATO and the Danish foreign minister is in front with sanctions against Russia. Putin is effectively destroying what has created lasting peace in Europe from the last 69 years. Putin will keep pushing, until we stand firm. Then he will pick as with someone else...even the gay community, anything that will take eyes of the fact that he rules the country like a dictator. But, the US Russian space cooperation was first initiated as a sign of good will. It will always stand as one of the greatest examples of respect, despite differences. I want to keep the space cooperation out of any foreign relations.

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642281)

NATO cowards were bombing Yugoslavia to support Muslim thugs and steal Kosovo, killing hundreds of people and telling lies and more lies (they even bombed TV station in Belgrade when their lies were exposed), and their biggest lie about NATO being self-defense pact. I guess US need more brave Arab pilots and Tsarnaev brothers...

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642837)

Naw what is needed is more Kool-Aid drinking Russians(spiked with vodka of course). Clearly there is not enough. Poohtin ONLY has a 71% approval rating and ONLY 51% of Russians supported taking not just Crimea, but ALL of Ukraine.

Seriously though, the reality of these latest events are this. It's clear how completely blinded and stuffed full of themselves Russians really are, not to mention stupidity approaching indescribable lows. And here I thought education levels in the USA were bad.....here comes Russians to show us truly epic traits of dumbfuckery. Poohtin has also demonstrated he is not anywhere near as smart as the world thought he was. He is really just a stupid little kid with a lot of toys, all paid for by his drooling sheeply followers.

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644001)

Cowards eh? Why doesn't Russia just fuck with us directly?

Fuck you whore.. go back to your bottle of potato mash and leave the adults in the civilized world alone.

Re:Yes...but no (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 months ago | (#46642317)

The sanctions are just a farce. If Putin turns off the gas to Western Europe, Germany's economy will sputter, taking down the rest of the EU, and it will get all Mad Max-y there. This is why Germany will never agree to any serious sanctions against Russia.

Note that one of Obama's first moves was to try to whip up some plan to get Europe off their dependency on Russian Gas. And there is no quick and easy solution to that.

And, no, we can't just build a "series of tubes" to bring gas from the US to Europe.

Re:Yes...but no (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 months ago | (#46643933)

How about ships instead? There are LNG carriers [wikipedia.org] .

Looking at this report [europa.eu] (figure 1 on page 2), I estimate that the EU consumed about 16-17 million cubic meters of natural gas. In comparison, the average LNG carrier now under production moves about 120 thousand cubic meters of natural gas. So it's around 150 trips of such LNG carriers from wherever to support the EU's needs.

math fail (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 months ago | (#46644045)

I blew that by getting the wrong energy content of a cubic meter of natural gas. It's more like 16-17 billion cubic meters of natural gas. That's 150,000 trips of such LNG carriers which sounds a lot more reasonable. Let's say that one ship could do a round trip from North America to Europe and back in two weeks or 25 trips a year. Then that's a need for about 6,000 ships. Wikipedia notes that new ship construction is up to 260,000 cubic meters, which would drop the ship count to under 3,000.

There are currently 357 LNG carriers of any sort (according the Wikipedia link in the previous page) in the general category worldwide. There are currently 4,000 oil supertankers worldwide. So this would be a substantial increase in large ship traffic particularly since it would just be servicing a particular region.

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643045)

Are you really in your senses, saying that it is Russia that is destroying lasting peace in Europe?
What was Yugoslav wars in your opinion? Bombing of Serbia. Invasion of Kosovo. Recognition of Kosovo independence referendum?
It were Western allies who shredded Helsinki accords that set the principle of inviolability of national borders of Europe.

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46646723)

There was no referendum in Kosovo. The separation from Serbia was "merely" proclaimed by the parliament.

Re:Yes...but no (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#46643869)

Re "But, the US Russian space cooperation was first initiated as a sign of good will." The deal between the US and Russia about space was a pact that both sides really needed.
The US could keep expert Russian skills in Russia and away from Brazil, China, India and other very well educated emerging space nations.
Russia got to keep its best staff with generational skills that would be costly to have to re create decades later - stay with funding in Russia and could pass their skills on to next generations.
Working with complex metals and other materials took decades to get to a production stage.
As for "sanctions" try and understand the German view of its energy needs and exports:
"German Executives Denounce EU/US Leaders Over Russia Confrontation"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
In countries with less debt, real exports, real jobs, real energy needs and real growth - they do not have the luxury to be been seen "in front ".

Re:Yes...but no (1)

X.25 (255792) | about 4 months ago | (#46647531)

As a Dane im proud that the Secretary General of NATO and the Danish foreign minister is in front with sanctions against Russia. Putin is effectively destroying what has created lasting peace in Europe from the last 69 years. Putin will keep pushing, until we stand firm. Then he will pick as with someone else...even the gay community, anything that will take eyes of the fact that he rules the country like a dictator. But, the US Russian space cooperation was first initiated as a sign of good will. It will always stand as one of the greatest examples of respect, despite differences. I want to keep the space cooperation out of any foreign relations.

As a Serb that watched part of his country being taken away (while being bombed), let me tell you this:

Fuck you and your moral high-ground

I am so incredibly tired of heading/reading all the hypocrisy for the past 20 years. It appears people, in general, are really stupid and blind.

Re:Yes...but no (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 4 months ago | (#46647669)

Lasting peace in Europe? You must have been asleep for the last 25 years.

Bombing, invasion, annexation, partition, suffering, in Europe and abroad, by the hand of NATO.
Your "peace" and general prosperity is built on the blood, death and suffering of others, and don't you forget it.

Personally, I'm happy Russia finally slapped NATO in the face. I was wondering if anyone on this planet had the balls to finally stand up to the bully (Disclaimer, I'm not Russian). Now just to see how this develops, geopolitically.

digging it's own grave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642131)

The rhetoric coming out of Washington these days is about as lost as it's foreign policy.

Win for Space-X (1)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 4 months ago | (#46642141)

Space-X has done a bunch of docking with the international space station already, if they have a rocket capable of transporting people to the space station, this will be huge for them.

Re:Win for Space-X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642261)

And it's going to be even more huge if one of those barely-tested things explodes with a bunch of astronauts in it. Say what you want about the Russkies, but they *know* how to consistently send people to space and back safely. They haven't lost a man in over 40 years.

Re:Win for Space-X (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 months ago | (#46642365)

...that we know of.

It's a lot like bragging about closed sourced software. Most of it was done in secret without any chance for outside review with critics likely being sent to the gulag if they dared speak up.

Re:Win for Space-X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642551)

Typical American. Anytime anyone claims to have done anything better than you, you find some snide way to insult them. As if Russia has secretly been hiding a spate of Soyuz accidents since the 70's just because they're *so jealous* of the great USA. Maybe you want to claim they faked every "first" in space too, while you're whining.

Re:Win for Space-X (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 4 months ago | (#46642685)

Yeah, because anyone can sneakily launch something into orbit without the whole world watching! There are certainly no radar systems that are capable - and even purposefully designed - of tracking any larger missile being launched.

Oh wate...

The dark side clouds everything.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642175)

You heard it first here folks (well, maybe not): This is a bad omen.

Space has, for a long time, been one bright spot of US/Russian relations. For the US to make a move like this is basically a way of saying that we're not going to be friends any longer, and as soon as the ISS becomes obsolete, our governments will work separately in projects which serve to benefit all of humanity.

Now we shall once again enter a period of cold war style relations between these countries. Don't get me wrong, Putin has been blood-hungry for quite a while, and only through a fortunate (by unintentionally spoken) hypothetical by the US secretary of state were we able to temporarily diffuse the recent Syrian chemical weapons incident. Russia/US relations are coming to a head...start the popcorn.

2 days later..maybe have to kill SLS and Orion if (1)

Kogun (170504) | about 4 months ago | (#46642241)

.."if Russia stops American astronaut rides to the International Space Station any time soon and before U.S. companies are ready to do the job."

Asshole. How does this even make sense?
'The space station would probably have to be shut down without Russian transport, and in that case, "I would go to the president and recommend we terminate SLS and Orion."'

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/03/nasa_administrator_says_cancel.html

The good thing about politics in space is... (1)

bradrum (1639141) | about 4 months ago | (#46642269)

It inspired a race between two great nations to reach further than each other towards the stars.

The bad thing is that this doesn't seem likely again as we move out of the basic science business. I would love to proven wrong on this, but it seems that the US public looks upon basic research funded by the fed as some kind of socialist program. George W was instrumental in sabotaging basic science programs, especially those that study climate and geology, because there research objectives and discoveries didn't fit his agenda.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642295)

Who would have thought it would be NASA taking a hard line with the Russians instead of the president.

Thats bad for science. (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 4 months ago | (#46642305)

That's unfortunate that we loose scientific abilities because of political reasons. Science in this country already suffers from enough political religious groups and budget cuts. Hopefully SpaceX or the airforce will be able to fill the gap until it stabilizes.

Re:Thats bad for science. (1)

js3 (319268) | about 4 months ago | (#46642407)

That's unfortunate that we loose scientific abilities because of political reasons. Science in this country already suffers from enough political religious groups and budget cuts. Hopefully SpaceX or the airforce will be able to fill the gap until it stabilizes.

For it to work both parties have to operate in good faith. Stealing parts of other countries is not good faith.

Re:Thats bad for science. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643157)

Yeah, good faith is stealing whole countries [wikipedia.org] !

Oh (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 4 months ago | (#46642335)

But I thought outsourcing was the solution to all our problems? It was going to make everything cheaper and lead to a capitalist utopia of free beer, cheap drugs and hookers?

Or maybe it was a bill of goods sold to us by lazy pigs who were too busy filling their pockets to plan ahead more than one fiscal quarter?

After the space station burns up in the atmosphere maybe China will flip the switch on Wal-Mart and we can watch the middle third of the country go dark too.

nbn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642385)

cgbgjjkk,

Finally someone with a pair (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 4 months ago | (#46642401)

Space program is one of the few unique things Russia can be proud of on the world stage. If it's prestige is endangered, Putin is apt to take notice. Unlike oil, space is above every country in the world and there is no inherent reason Kazakhstan has to keep its dominance for launches.

Paying for a Bad Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46642445)

Well, I guess it turns out that shutting down our only manned space vehicle and going with another country was a bad move on our part. I can't believe this political powers were so short minded to force us to rely on another country in which we have had such a rocky history.

Contract$ contract$ contract$, oh, oh, aaaaaah (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 months ago | (#46642479)

The MIC just had a cold-war-gasm

Good-bye Agnitum's Outpost (0)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 4 months ago | (#46642687)

Early last week I uninstalled Agnitum's Outpost software from my PC's. Not sure I want to rely on Russian software for security applications nowadays.

Re:Good-bye Agnitum's Outpost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643473)

You. Are. A. Fucking. Idiot.

Re:Good-bye Agnitum's Outpost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644647)

A wild drunken Roosky appears!

lol be sure to tell all your komrades that when you are standing in line to buy bread, fucktard.

ISS deorbiting fear, interesting Russian science (2)

volvox_voxel (2752469) | about 4 months ago | (#46642859)

I understand that the Russians are the only ones that can put people in the space station, and that the US serves as the ground control. If Russia refuses to let Americans on to the space station, what are the chances that the US would not coordinate ground control for an exclusively Russian or non-American crew? I've read from a number of sources speculating on this probability. What kind of ground support and communications structure are needed to keep the station operational? With the addition of the alpha magnetic spectrometer, the ISS has become a lot more interesting. : http://ams.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

Perhaps this is one thing that both countries really care about, it's one thing that could serve as leverage between then; a negotiation point.

It's a shame that the cooperation deminishing. The Russians are doing some really fantastic work. They've put a radio telescope in orbit: They launched a radio telescope (Spektr-R) into space. By synchronizing this telescope with earth based telescopes, it can resolve features that are 1250x times smaller than what Hubble can see (40u-arc-seconds vs 0.05 arc-seconds).. Did you know that by pointing all of the radio dishes on one side of the earth, and that knowing the exact time radio waves hit each receiver with atomic clocks, you can out resolve any optical telescope on earth? We can literally see finer details with a radio telescope than we can with our best optical ones (using "VLBI " interferometry). The more separation between radio dishes, the better the angular resolution; and now we have one in orbit that will give us much much better resolving power. We may be able to "see" planets with radio waves. (I'd love to hear from radio astronomers about the practical limitations of this -- real world vs back-of-the envelope)

They only started recently announcing their achievements on their website. Several of my friends joked that the reason we heard nothing for so long was that it was an expensive and embarrassing dud. It works, but they don't market or advertise themselves well. http://www.asc.rssi.ru/radioas... [asc.rssi.ru]

Space-X already quoting on manned flights. (1)

Animats (122034) | about 4 months ago | (#46643065)

Order your manned flight to the ISS here [spacex.com] . Space-X is doing various "abort tests" NASA insists on, and the first manned launch for NASA isn't supposed to happen until 2017. But Space-X may send their own private astronauts into orbit next year.

Space-X has been sending Dragon spacecraft to the ISS for some time now. The fourth one was supposed to launch this week, but the USAF had a fire at one of their tracking stations and all Cape Canaveral launches are on hold.

Good for NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643109)

In case nobody noticed, NASA was a Cold War propaganda piece.

Now that things are heating up with the Russians as opposed to the jokers we've been slapping around for the past 25 years, perhaps Congress will increase the NASA budget to something less than a pittance and let them get serious again.

An-124 replacement? (1)

LanceUppercut (766964) | about 4 months ago | (#46643129)

NASA apparently is trying to erect sanctions against NASA. Most of the US space and military heavy hauling was done by Volga-Dnepr An-124. It used to make its final approach to Moffett field right over my head. I guess we'll no longer see it. I wonder what NASA is going to do to replace it. Slice the cargo into smaller chunks and make more trips?

space shuttle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46643253)

I misread NASA as NSA. Gah.. need new glasses.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden says and I quote: "...our dependence on Russia for putting astronauts into space needs to end."

Too bad the space shuttle program has ended. Then we wouldn't rely on the Russian Federation.

How will this affect their Muslim Outreach Efforts (0)

leereyno (32197) | about 4 months ago | (#46643609)

How will this affect the central mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Muslim outreach?

There are lots of Muslims in Russia NASA might not be able to reach now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]

Re:How will this affect their Muslim Outreach Effo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46646831)

They could start by moving all the Palis to Venus, and following that, the populations of Fuckistan, Bang la desh, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, et al all there. Give that entire planet to the Muz

"needs to end" (1)

Chas (5144) | about 4 months ago | (#46643959)

Our dependence on Russia for putting astronauts into space NEVER SHOULD HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED!

But, can we vote into office a group of dumbasses who'll shit all over America's mission into space?

YES! WE CAN!

Can we just take all that money and shovel it into Russian coffers and pork projects?

YES! WE CAN!

Re:"needs to end" (3, Informative)

confused one (671304) | about 4 months ago | (#46644249)

I hope you're referring to Bush Jr. because he's the one who signed the order to kill and dismantle the Shuttle program. The current administration has failed by not producing a viable alternative and pushing the agenda forward. I personally think they're sitting on their hands, on purpose, waiting for commercial manned spaceflight to fill the role.

Re:"needs to end" (1)

strack (1051390) | about 4 months ago | (#46645321)

The current administration has bloody well succeeded by waiting for commercial manned spaceflight to fill the role. And trust me, the Shuttle needed to die. It was a politically compromised design which led to it being expensive and unsafe. And if the current administration didnt sit on their hands, any crew carrying rocket they made would probably squeeze the likes of spacex out of contention. Not on price or efficiency mind you, but on government mandated usage by NASA. Much like the shuttle did for 30 years.

Re:"needs to end" (1)

confused one (671304) | about 4 months ago | (#46655891)

I frankly think everyone will be best served by SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing stepping up and providing commercial access to space. My point with respect to the current administration is that they failed to push an alternative that was viable. SLS is not viable; or, it might be better to state that the hypothetical Falcon X Heavy with the next generation 1.5 M lb thrust engines would be more viable than SLS. The Obama administration isn't pushing anything... Not really. Not SLS. Not Commercial. Nothing. Congress hasn't helped by cutting funding; but, the current fiscal climate forces them to cut something and NASA (and all science) looks like low hanging fruit since the Obama administration won't fight cuts there vigorously.

Re:"needs to end" (1)

speedlaw (878924) | about 4 months ago | (#46644935)

I'm sorely disappointed that we let anyone take our manned ride into space out of the US. We should have gotten the capsules up before we stopped the shuttle. OK, the shuttle never became the space truck it was sold as, but as a kid watching US go into space on the teevee, I'm just amazed. We may have some launch capability we don't know about...consider that the SR 71 was existing in 1960. What do we have today that is that removed from the daily level of tech ?

A real mess (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 4 months ago | (#46644421)

Shut down ISS. Let's restart the space program along the lines that George Bush proposed, Project Constellation - made in America. Obama has made a real mess of a once great nation.

Re:A real mess (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46648233)

that George Bush proposed, Project Constellation

Proposing something and actually FUNDING it are very different things. GW's space efforts were just for show, as has been the case with every President since Nixon. They all get up and give their "WE'RE GOING TO MARS, BOYS!!" rah-rah speech. But at the end of the day, the NASA funding that was cut after Apollo remains at pretty much the same anemic levels. So NASA floats along, jerking around with LEO space bullshit, pretending they're actually going to do more *someday*. But it's all a dog-and-pony show for dumb shits like you. And that is truly non-partisan, with both parties being equally full of shit about being serious about space.

Dependence on Governments needs to end (1)

Tomkat0789 (3515195) | about 4 months ago | (#46644601)

Our dependence on lousy governments for space transport needs to end. Go SpaceX!

Protecting the Russian speakers on the ISS next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46644651)

I just wonder how long before Putin invades low Earth orbit ....
  seeing as he can, and nobody else on Earth has that capability right now.

For a more fact-based view of the Ukraine conflict (1)

matbury (3458347) | about 4 months ago | (#46645905)

Oligarchs, Fascists and the People's Protest in Ukraine

Derek Monroe says the Ukrainian far-right, with the backing of local oligarchs, the US and the EU, hijacked popular protests against corruption

"Western press reports are saying Russian troops are amassing on the Ukraine border. Russia says these are normal troop movements. There's a war of words between Congress and the Kremlin. But it seems fairly clear now, as the dust more or less settles, the Russian annexation of Crimea will have to be de facto recognized by Ukraine and the West. And the strategy now of President Obama and Europe is to quickly try to integrate Ukraine into the E.U. orbit and the American orbit--$18 billion IMF loan is being promised to the Ukraine and more."

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11661/ [therealnews.com]

Rescue of ISS Coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46645977)

All NASA obligation to ISS will be canceled by Russia !

Check Mate and Match fuckers.

Perfect timing for India (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46646557)

Perfect timing for Indian Space enthusiasts.

totally ineffective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46647243)

NASA has issued a statement confirming that it is halting "the majority of its ongoing engagements with the Russian Federation," while ISS operation has been excepted
But there are hardly any engagements besides the ISS, so in the end, the collaboration continues without effect..

Why does nobody learn? Putin is okay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46647423)

Is everybody else tuned into a different reality than I am?

The elected government in Ukraine gave into demands of the (CIA backed) protesters, even moved up the date for the next election. That wasn't good enough! No, you can't hold a coup if you don't have gunfire and confusion.

So they added some gunfire. Turns out the snipers weren't what the media said they were. Turns out they were something else instead. Turns out it was the protester side shooting at its own people in order to create chaos and anger and drive the revolution forward like a bunch of cattle. People fall for it.

Rabble-roused, and newly couped, Russia releases the infamous phone call between EU foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister, Urmas Paet, wherein the world is shown just how up to the neck the West is in covertly toppling the Ukraine government. (Imagine if the discussion had centered on placing a puppet leader in the White House. Do you GET how offensive such a conversation is?) But the US media distracts everybody by focusing on the use of the word, "fuck" in the phone call. And it works. Holy shit. It WORKS. Human sagacity sinks to an all new low.

So, the newly minted puppet leadership in Ukraine immediately announces their intention of seeking IMF funding. They obviously know which side of their bread the butter is on. IMF loan = massive, unpayable dept, rapid default and then the fire sale of the entire country's infrastructure and resource base to Western corporations. Total sellout of a country from within, basic treason by the leadership, and the creation of a wholly owned client state. Think of it as taking the Hoover Dam, NASA, your local police and all your farmland and selling it for a hundred bucks to the Chinese. Along with everything else. And this is entirely how the scam is designed to work, and how it always does work. Buy, hey, that's bringing 'freedom' to a country, right?

Crimeans see what is happening, and having old ties to Russia, feel the need to get the fuck out of the way of the holy-shit smite train. They hold a referendum. (You, know, like they do in a democracy, without snipers and crazy people). They decide to become part of Russia. Which is smart. They probably wont starve like the rest of Ukraine over the next few years while the IMF scam unfolds.

Oh no! But, but, Crimea was the goal! It's sitting right in the middle of all that oil and prime coast! So the US and Europe declare that the democratically held referendum in Crimea is not legal, while at the SAME FUCKING TIME supporting the NON-elected Neo-Nazi thugs in Ukraine. And I'm not even saying "Nazi" in frustrated jest. They're actual, full on Neo-Nazis.

So I have to ask:

What the hell, guys? How daft are the people in the West for falling for this shit? Putin is not the villain in this story. In fact, it is very possible that he might be a kind of savior.

Cue the sycophants, imbeciles and propaganda trolls.

Amusing hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46647525)

The United States claims to support democracy, and yet it is now opposing the democratic will of the people of Crimea. This is a republic, with a predominantly Russian speaking population, who were effectively being made second class citizens by the Ukranian government. The regime in Ukraine, which has come to power, amidst a violent coup, against the democratically elected government, had installed street signs in Ukranian, and banned Russian speaking television. Imagine this happened in your country. Would you NOT want to break away? After supporting the new regime in the Ukraine, which came to power unconstitutionally, the US has the cheek to accuse Russia of acting against the Ukrainian constitution.
After the similar US actions in declaring an independent Kosovo, it makes a mockery of the United States that they should complain, when Russia pursues a similar policy. It is really tiresome to hear the insane rantings of members of the ruling regime in Washington. While Putin might not be the most tasteful of leaders, I believe he serves a very important purpose in opposing the neo-fascistic militarism of American foreign policy, and its totally self serving objectives.
Crimea was also historically part of Russia. It was only, against the will of its people, attached to the Ukraine by Nikita Kruschev, in the late 1950's.
I am shocked by the standard of reporting of the American media on this subject, and their flagrant disregard for the facts. As the US sinks further down the league of countries with acceptable standards of press freedom, it is really beginning to become a very ugly beast.

Except there is no non-ISS work with Russia! (1)

Megane (129182) | about 4 months ago | (#46648701)

In other news, Russian defense and space minister Dmitry Rogozin said Russia has no space interests with NASA outside of the International Space Station.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was subsequently reported to have said, "THAT'S THE JOKE."

Gee, it sure is a good thing... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 4 months ago | (#46649683)

... that the US has a functioning rocket program and doesn't depend on Russia for launches.

Oh right.

-_-

Re:Gee, it sure is a good thing... (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#46652113)

We do, it just isn't man-rated yet. NASA wasn't going to accomplish anything by itself, being such a political football. Buying rockets from private industry is going to work a lot better overall.

Dear Congress.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#46665727)

Stop being assholes and spending all our money on a useless war. give 5% of the military budget to NASA and they will have more than enough to get us a new launch system and have money to spare.

I am sick of spending every dollar to put our soldiers in harms way for other countries political agendas. Screw them, Screw them all. Let's spend it on science and the American people. OR, require the senators to have their children and grand children on the front line in full danger. You vote for war, then your legacy is the first to die.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>