BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:20 AM

Another bunch of Mars pictures (scroll a bit and disregard the foreign language around the pictures).

It damn looks like a now dry river bed.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: mooman
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:15 AM

...well that's entirely another matter....!!!

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:03 AM

A Scientist named Mooman....

Genetic mutation,,, the milk lobby... mothers against...

It all makes sense now! You're trying to breed a mate! :)

s

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: mooman
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:41 AM

As a scientist and a human being I'd far sooner see the 1000's of billions it will cost being used to put right some of the shit we've created right here.

Or is that really asking too much...?

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:33 AM

Latest pic from Mars Express from ESA, and from the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:06 AM

P.S. Some English people don't have a sense of humor (with or without "u"), but not many of them are Mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 06:43 AM

Peg, Kendall ... QED!

Oh, all right: apologies if you were offended, I didn't mean you to be. Mark Twain and Bill Bryson, to name but two, are masters of irony, and I'm sure many Americans are as much at home with the concept -- and the practice -- as I am, as are all the Amricans I've met in person (and even some Canadians). But I think we might be excused for taking seriously some of the sterotypes we see here on US TV shows ... and wasn't Leslie Nielsen's Police Squad axed because the network bosses thought people wouldn't understand it?

I'm off now to make some more tea before I check up on the jolly old Beagle 2 website, don't you know, what?

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 07:41 PM

Since it's not been mentioned so far, I suggest that if they are going through with spending the taxpayers money on this nonsene, I nominate the first passengers to be G W Bush and Dick Cheney. Then you can send Rumsfeld, Perle, Delay, Wolfowitz..not necessarilly in
that order.

Let's see how they do with democracy on Mars. Better send Condi Rice too. Need a woman up there. :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 12:24 AM

I don't see Dubya's spacey announcement as having any affect on the budget. It will be like AIDS relief to Africa, 15 thousand million in the newspaper headlines then two days later, cut the budget and send them nothing. This will be the same deal. As soon as Dubya's basked in the glow of scientific achievement, the money will be pulled and NASA will become an engineering subsidiary of Halliburton.

Sending humans to the planets, should it ever happen, isn't about science, it's about conquest. Think of Dubya as the Emperor from the Star Wars movies.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 10:08 PM

The Chicago Tribune reports that U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehert, Republican from New York, Chairman of the House Science Committee said:
"The primary reason for human flight is the human impulse- some might say, destiny- to explore. Human exploration is not necessarily the best way to advance science or technology and it certainly is the most expensive and riskiest way to do so."

Like I said.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 08:54 PM

Halliburton is super deep into this. The principle is that space exploration is just prospecting with space suits. Halliburton is going to ding the American taxpayer to design all sorts of new drilling technology ostensibly for other planets.

Who do you think is going to make $$$ from any tech advances in drilling technology?

Even if no moon landing is ever attempted you can bet the US GOV is going to help out Halliburton with their tech, not the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 07:47 PM

Well, yeah, it is obviously intened to divert the attention away from Bush's failures but...

... if I had screwed up as much a Bush, I'd do the dame thing 'cept...

I'd set the time table wat up!

I mean, think about. In 1963 JFK said we would go to the moon in that decade. Now some 40 years later, even though we have allready done it a few times, now it's like, ahhh, 2 friggin' decades. Now, I hadn't given it much thought until the trusty Wes Ginny Slide Rule brought the aritmaticin' to my attention and so now all I gotta say is...

...hmmmmmmmm> What's the holdup?

Are we waitin' fir Halliburton to get into the rocket business, er' what?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 07:43 PM

Now to hark back to my space elevator link, I see that the estimate for getting that off the ground (literally) is $10 billion.

Which means that this $15 billion proposed by Bush, in his election warm up, could actually achieve something that would really make a difference in space travel terms - whereas with rocket technology it won't get us anywhere (literally, once again...)

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 07:24 PM

See this article at Wired. The impact of Bush's visionary plan for the moon may be more divisive than not.

Elsewhere in wired the impact on budgets for shuttles and Space Stations is examined.

All in all, for all his fine and colorful rhetoric, I don't think he is going to have a salubrious impact on our space program anymore than drinking aqvavit has a salubrious effect on your head the next morning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:18 PM

I subscribe to The Daily Mis-Lead ("a daily chronicle of Bush administration distortion") and this just came in.

MISSION TO MARS FOR MILITARY BENEFIT, NOT JUST "SPIRIT OF DISCOVERY"

President Bush unveiled his proposal for a new space program Wednesday by invoking the spirit of explorers Lewis and Clark, saying, "They made that journey in the spirit of discovery . . .America has ventured forth into space for the same reasons"   But the president didn't mention that members of his administration view space as the next frontier for military buildup and conquest.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization four years ago. Rumsfeld was announced as Bush's choice for DoD Secretary weeks before the commission releasing its findings in January 2001. Rumsfeld's report found that "we know from history that every medium -- air, land and sea -- has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different." The panel also concluded that "given this virtual certainty, the [United States] must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space."

The president's focus on space exploration because it "improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit." However, behind the scenes, USA Today reported that Bush was persuaded to move forward in part due to the military benefits, as promoted to him by Vice President Cheney.   The Center for American Progress' Progress Report yesterday noted an appearance by Republican Congressman Tom Feeney on Scarborough Country where he stated, "Somebody is going to dominate space. When they do, just like when the British dominated the naval part of our globe, established their empire, just like the United States has dominated the air superiority, ultimately, whoever is able to dominate space will be able to control the destiny of the entire Earth."

Feeney's comments echo PNAC's September 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses, which said, "Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce defined global power in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future."

Read the Mis-Lead

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 01:03 PM

I just saw Clinton's response as an extension of the original irony. That was his ironic answer to your ironic question.

Why did you just assume he wasn't being ironic in turn, Steve?

Just wondering...

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:39 PM

Steve, I fully appreciate irony; does that mean I'm not an American?
Making statements such as..those people always do this and that bunch never do that is silly.

I once made a general statement about something, and my wife said "Sure, and all Indians walk single file." I said, "Why do you say that? it's silly." She replied, "Well, I saw an Indian once, and he was walking single file."

I was brought up to believe that the English have no sense of humor. Now, how silly is that?

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:09 PM

This is so transparent! Bush is doing everything he can to keep our attention off his failures. Pulling a JFK is just another bit of smoke and mirrors.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Peg
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 11:26 AM

Steve;
Clinton is Canadian but that is beside the point.

What makes you think Americans in general don't understand irony?


Unless you have met a majority of the 300 millon or so people who   live in this country, I don't think you ought to make such generalizations...especially when you offer nothing to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Mooh
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 11:07 AM

I found my inner child years ago and kicked his stupid little ass.

"Remember the good old days when there was an Earth?" may be the mournful song of space age folkies.

Sigh, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:48 AM

Only an idiot would ever even have to ASK that question...

I've been trying to explain to my inner child the concept of "irony", and why many Americans can't grasp it when an English six-year-old can ... he says he "can lick your inner child with one hand tied behind his back, so yah, boo, sucks!"

You know, around the time of John Glenn's space flight, I spent some time trying to justify it all to my grandfather. He wouldn't budge from his belief that, fundamentally, the rocket is a weapon of war, however peaceful our intentions for it. I suppose he was remembering the V2s (not that they ever came so far north). Werner von Braun wanted to put a man on the moon, and he was quite prepared to make WMDs for the Nazi war effort to do it ... and the US too, and I dare say the USSR if they'd got there first. I no longer subscribe to the philosophy that scientists have no responsibility for the consequential misuse of their work. (Shut up, inner child, unless you want a clip round the lug 'ole!)

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:27 AM

Oh one more thing, to the British Group. You can bring your Beagle!

Sigurd

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:22 AM

UK catters are advised not to take USA shuttles or they might have to submit a thumb print.

All visitors are warned to be nice to any Martians that might come join the circle. If you don't understand them point them towards the Welsh as they currently have the strongest remedial language program for alien residents.

Remember its not only 'nature' abhors a vacuum!

All performers whishing to sing songs with more than 12 verses must contribute extra canisters to the oxygen supply.

And please share the camp beacon with grace, keep your water reclemation tanks to yourself unless requested or there is an emergency.

Sigurd

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 04:10 AM

OK, so it's the Interplanetary Mudcat Gathering 2020 on Mars.
First of all, some 'Catters want it to be in 2019 as they always go to the Moon on odd dates.
Some 'Catters like the date but had their heart set on Venus
Some 'Catters said they were coming but pulled out at the last minute.
Interminable postings about who is sharing which crater with whom
More postings about current NASA rulings on playing instruments in weightlessness or storing them in the cargo pod.
A lot of discussion as to whether there will be enough Vegan readimeal packs, jOhn of Hull won't come if they're pot noodles.
RtS complains all the people going are folkies, no blues or skiffle likely to be played.
Discussion as to whether shaky eggs are on the NASA forbidden goods list.
Discussion as the whether it is cheaper to go via ESA (Easyrocket) or ISA (Ryanshuttle).
Will there be parking pods for people bringing their own Camperrockets
Can some people come/leave early as they have to work?
Can the Moon-based group arrange to rocket-pool?
What are the licencing laws on Mars?
Any locals likely to join in? What instruments do they play (MARStins?)
This thread will run and run.

(....like I better do!)
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: LadyJean
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 01:16 AM

My good friend Tim Smith got his phd in whatever rocket scientists get their phds in last year. He says he's going to send people to Mars someday. He says they're all going to be Republicans, and he isn't going to let them come back.

Of course, once the snow melts, I could go to Mars if I felt like it. It's just up I79 in Butler County. (I am speaking, of course of Mars Pennsylvania, a small town just a few miles outside of Pittsburgh.)

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:28 AM

I heard a comedian ask once:

"If they can put a man on the moon... How come they can't put a man on the moon anymore?"

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:24 AM

Bush is proposing a billion dollar increase for NASA, each year for the next 5 years. 5+4+3+2+1 -- a fifteen billion dollar budget raise for the moon and then mars.

My understanding is that the Apollo program, in modern values cost in excess of 100 billion dollars. Each space shuttle launch costs 1/2 billion dollars. Do the math yourself and ask if this is a 15 billion dollar personal Bush Election support bill.


I don't begrudge NASA the 15 billion, especially with their new found economy of science and the help of other countries. I just think that Bush is lying about something America can't afford, to impress voters he doesn't respect, for a position he doesn't deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 11:10 PM

Anything to divert money away from domestic spending initiatives.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 10:35 PM

Sorry to be negative, but Bush's first priority will be the moon -- to make it a military base so that the US controls the entire planet from outer space. He will tie the moon in with the space shield project, and it will all be military, and with nothing but war applications.

Mars is a dream that Bush doesn't have to consider, as it (if it ever happens) will be way beyond his time.

But the moon will be an American military base.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 10:24 PM

That's not the same as "over my dead body" is it, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 10:21 PM

Not in my lifetime.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 09:14 PM

My two pennies worth. I was as thrilled as any when the first man stepped on the moon. But even at that time, there was concern in this country about priorities. Pehaps we will never be rid of the poverty, violence and fear in this country and on this earth that so many live with every day, but we have to try. Another race to be first is deplorable, imo. And it isn't necessary.

Many, many times out of our testosterone-driven quest for excitement, human beings have been added to an equation, when it would be but a fraction of the cost and at no risk to sentient life if sophisticated instruments and tools alone were sent to do a job. With the capabilities we now have and with more on the horizon, why would it be necessary to send people? For pete's sake, we are getting wonderful pictures right now from Mars, 49 million miles away, by remote control. Very soon it will be possible to bring back physical data for examination. All without risking one life. So yeah, Clinton, count me in: "Only an idiot would ever even have to ASK that question... "

Quote:
Today's Luddites continue to raise moral and ethical arguments against the excesses of modern technology to the extent that our inventions and our technical systems have evolved to control us rather than to serve us and to the extent that such leviathans can threaten our essential humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 06:48 PM

You ain't gonna find me climbin' in no tin can that gets shot to the moon or Mars. No sir. I leave that job to the crazy humans who thought it up. With any luck they will all emigrate to some other planet one day and then we apes can put this one back in order again. I know what's up with Bush. He's been hittin' the bottle again and gettin' all excited, jumping around and screeching and hooting, and then he makes a speech about somethin' like space travel. He's just havin' After-Saddam letdown, that's all. He needs a new big objective to focus on, but he figures he can't afford another war right now.

Nice writing, though, Mr Spaw. You are almost simian. From me, that's a major compliment.

Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:56 PM

(I'm not sure that most of the conservatives even realize what the vector forces of their attitudes and policies are heading towards...many just want certain daily stuff done their way. But some, like the Roves and Wolfowitzes and Grover Norquists certainly have far reaching agendas in mind.)

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM

Oh I still wouldn't vote for Bush (if I was American), but I was happy to see at least lip service paid to expanding the space program. Gotta take what we can get.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:50 PM

thank you for the post, Don Firth...it says what I 'felt', but hadn't the background to put into words...and it puts one more name into the list of right-wing zealots who seriously intend to reduce the world to a new form of oligarchy

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:47 PM

"It's being worked on", but on a shoestring budget.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:43 PM

Interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:32 PM

" if they were serious, they'd be announcing... some kind of space elevator,"

Read the site you linked to... it's being worked on...

"The discovery of carbon nanotubes and the ongoing development to implement them into a composite is the key to space elevator viability being achieved in the coming years."

Note the "Ongoing development" part especially...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:21 PM

"all of modern science has been a big waste of energy"

Ouch!

How 'bout:
the germ theory of illness
penicillin
polio vaccine
earthquake resistant construction
genetics (e.g. for disease and drought resitant crops)
bioremediation of pollutants (well, okay the pollutants too)
Tang instant breakfast drink
.
.
.

I guess you do have a point, but I object to the word "all". The products of science, like any knowledge, can be put to good or bad use.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:20 PM

The strange thing is that, it appears that a whole lot of Americans are so sceptical that they think the whole moon landing was a hoax; but now Bush is betting on the idea that enough Americans are actually naive enough to believe this empty promise about Mars, so that he can actually get elected President next time.

Of course it might enable to few more healthy contracts to his mates, but this shrikes me as about as serious a commitment as his Daddy's similar one.

Now if they were serious, they'd be announcing a programme to put up some kind of space elevator, which could really make human space travel a practical possibility...

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:17 PM

Left all that trash on the moon? I'll bet it could be measure in 10's of pounds and still not be a big number...

Cultural value of the 50's?? Oh please... I'd rather be dead than live in the wasteland THAT appeares to have been...

I suggest you'd better go back to the cave Bill...

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:16 PM

I'm always amused to see Luddites posting on the internet.

Have a beer, Bill. It'll all look better in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 04:37 PM

I'll go even further and aver that all of modern science has been a big waste of energy. Nuclear energy has given us Hiroshima Nagasakie, Chernobyl, etc. and high utility bills. Medicine has given us heart transplants for smokers who keep smoking, antibiotics that we feed to chicken so bacteria thrive and evolve into super bacateria that may kill us all. radio and television have given us rush limbaugh, survivor, and not much else of any real cultural value since the 50s.
computers have made it easier to bring porn into the home without having to show the brown paper wrappers. and solitair, I forgot that. yet we still let people go to bed hungry, homeless. it's a distribution of wealth problem, a social problem, and it needs to be solved first. if solved, why would anyone want to go to other planets? this earth could be a paradise, but for our selfishness and greed.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 04:30 PM

we have no business going to mars and messing it up and it is to our eternal shame that we set foot on the moon and left all that trash there as well.

I think it was Burma who in 1969 filed a formal complaint with the United Nations that we were desecrating something sacred to them. I was with them on that then and now even more.

As a species we could do so much more to solve the problems on this planet, which are NOT all attributable to over population, and the moon is not another Australia where we will send our convicts and surplus citizens anyway. this is one of the stupidest, most flagrantly diversionary, infuriatingly asinine ideas this moron Bush has ever had.

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 04:20 PM

*In my best Leonard H. MaCoy*

Damn the cost, man!

Full speed ahead!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM

Sorry to be a curmudgeon, folks, but here's how I see it:—

Grover Norquist, who has been described as "the philosopher of the Greedhead wing of the Republican Party" once stated that "We hope to get the federal government small enough so we can strangle it in the bathtub."

One of the intentions of the Bush administration is to get the federal government completely out social programs or anything having to do with such things as Social Security, Medicare, or anything vaguely resembling what might be called "welfare programs." Attempts to privatize Social Security are part of this and the so-called "Medicare Reform" bill is another step in this direction. This also involves making many things, such as education, the responsibility of the individual states. Why has "no child left behind" never been adequately funded? They expect the states to do that. Any social programs to aid the poor and/or homeless are to be turned over to "faith-based organizations" (read "fundy churches"). This has been a dream and a goal of reactionaries since Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal," during which many such social safety-net programs got their start. This was what drove Reagan. And this is what drives Bush.

Bush doesn't believe in "trickle-down" economics any more than you or I do. Massive tax cuts serve a purpose beyond further enriching the rich. It reduces the federal government's income. This, plus massive expenditures on the defense budget and the Iraqi war have given the United States the largest deficit in history. Despite the usual Republican objections to government spending, Bush has pooped away more money than any other president ever, Republican or Democrat.

What would you say of an individual who, already so deep in debt that he will never be able to pay it off in his lifetime, dashes out and buys himself a Lear jet—on credit? Fiscally irresponsible hardly describes it. This is, essentially, what Bush is doing with his newly announced space program. It doesn't matter that he will not be around to officiate when humans finally set foot on Mars; he will have accomplished his purpose: the country will be so deep in debt for generations to come that any future Democratic administrations will not be able to afford to pay for the social programs that the right-wing reactionaries have wanted to cut for the past seventy years. He will have achieved Grover Norquist's ambition: he will have strangled the federal government in the bathtub.

No one could be more enthusiastic about space exploration than I am. I became fascinated with the Buck Rogers comic strip before I could even read. I have read vast quantities of science fiction and still do. I have seen just about ever science fiction movie that ever came out. I have watched every episode of the various Star Trek incarnations several times (I have all of Star Trek: The Next Generation on tape), not to mention regularly tuning in on the Sci Fi channel. And I have about six feet of bookshelves dedicated to such nonfiction books as Road to the Stars by Iain Nicolson, Understanding Physics (three volumes) by Isaac Asimov, Other Worlds by Paul Davies, and just about everything Carl Sagan ever wrote. I stayed up all night watching television when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. Few things would make me squeal with delight more than a manned landing on Mars.

But that's not what Bush is all about. He will undoubtedly look like a visionary to many space enthusiasts, thereby garnering their votes, so it's a good election year move. But the main purpose is to bore another drain hole in the fiscal bucket.

The right thing (manned interplanetary travel), but at the wrong time (massive fiscal deficits) and for the wrong reasons (to look good while further increasing the deficit).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

Go to Mars? On what, our looks? we are so far in debt right now we would have to look up to see down.
This lying phoney is running for President, and we shouldn't believe a word he says. Remember when he was running before? He trashed Clinton for spreading our troops too thin, and engaging in "Nation building". Then what did he do immediatly after getting appointed?

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 02:40 PM

Nothing a little Lunar Regime Change can't handle...

A

Subject: RE: BS: So Are We Going To Mars Or What?
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 02:36 PM

Mark,

Surely he won't put WMD bases on the moon - he'll be looking for them. They're as likely to be there as the last place he looked.