| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Big JuJu Here: Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority |
| 2006-10-18 |
| It's WaPo, so there's gratuitous drivel and generous characterizations of Clinton's policies regards space - an attempt to cast Bush in the Cowboy role, methinks... But, if half of this is accurate, it's Big Magik. President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests." The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy. "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #14 Alan C, don't forget that when the Romans had to come back, they plowed the earth with salt the second time. The modern equivalent being high residual radiation nukes... or Guatamalans. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-18 21:41 |
| #13 Chicoms! Keep your grubby hands off our death ray or u die |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-18 19:41 |
| #12 BA, Z & D, I'm with you on this. I had a short debate with a LLL on another site trying to get an honest answer on this. Needless to say I didn't get one. I asked him to pick among the 3 available choices to surrender: We have 3 alternatives to appeasement... 1) Roman - aka break things and leave, aka rinse and repeat as needed. 2) British - aka Full Imperial (see Japan post WWII) 3) Bush - limited engagement, quickly as possible hand back to locals hope to grow a peaceful state. Given the resistence (aka traitors) in this country I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that only the break things and leave (and DON'T make me come back!) is the best way to go now. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-10-18 15:47 |
| #11 Exactly, Zen and Darrell. I'm actually a fairly compassionate guy, and I'm fully aware that the MSM bias is only showing the "bad stuff" over in Iraq/Afghan and not the "good stuff" we're accomplishing there. That being said, though, I've seen a lot of people here (myself included) getting fed up with the "insurgency", and are moving toward a "just go in and break it so it can't raise it's ugly head again" type attitude. I'm about as patient as they come, but when it comes down to our national treasures (both blood and $), if those who live there don't take advantage of what we've given them, then next time, it'll be a much harder lesson for them (and there will be a next time, just a matter of whom/where). In Iraq, specifically, though, I'm all for "finishing the job". Just next time, we may be once bitten/twice shy and just assume that Islam IS INCOMPATIBLE with Good Governance (Democracy). I'm beginning to think the two are not compatible and I'm shifting toward the "break it and leave" camp. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-10-18 14:43 |
| #10 I'm not for breaking things and leaving; I'm for breaking things by remote control. We can't have too many nuclear subs with cruise missiles. ICBMs are good too. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-10-18 14:17 |
| #9 Of course, maybe we should just change it (post-Iraq) from implementing democracy in the ME to just breaking things and leaving, letting those who live there to clean up the mess afterwards. Something that a few of us right here in this thread have been advocating for some time now. Screw this expensive nation-building schtick. Let the mega-smackdowns begin. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-18 14:01 |
| #8 With communist China attempting to assert itself both geographically and in space as well, this represents a huge step forward towards ensuring our military supremacy. I suggest we celebrate by deorbiting the Nilesat and Arabsat birds that are being used to downlink Hamas' filth spewing television channel. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-18 13:58 |
| #7 AlanC: The EXACT description of Clinton's approach to Saddam too. Remember, Clintoon signed the official foreign policy of the US toward Iraq as being regime change. It's just that Bush actually IMPLEMENTED it. There are talkers and there are doers. Bush is the latter, while Clintoon is the former. You see this in EVERYTHING we now face...AQ, 9/11, Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea.... ALL OF IT! Bush inherited a LOT of messes to clean up and he's only about 1/3 of the way through that list in my book. I only hope his follow-up continues to implement his policies. Of course, maybe we should just change it (post-Iraq) from implementing democracy in the ME to just breaking things and leaving, letting those who live there to clean up the mess afterwards. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-10-18 13:39 |
| #6 ROTFLMAO!!!! "The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Has there ever been a better definition of the Clintonian approach to governing than this???? 8^) |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-10-18 12:44 |
| #5 Jeebus, this is awesome! Anyone photoshopped Bush's face into the Master of the Universe graphic yet? |
| Posted by: BA 2006-10-18 11:55 |
| #4 This orbit ain't big enough for the both of us. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-10-18 11:36 |
| #3 Is shooting lasers at our satellites considered "hostile to US interests"? |
| Posted by: danking_70 2006-10-18 11:21 |
| #2 Lol. I believe you called for a moratorium on mentioning Carter in the 'Burg, or am I mistaken? Go sit in the corner of the Internet, lol. This really is a big deal - a complete reversal of the past namby-pamby Tranzi bullshit of Clinton and his ilk - names aren't needed, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-18 11:02 |
| #1 Well, sure, .com, but what does Mr. ex-President Carter (PBUH) think? Let's dial up his website and inquire. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-10-18 10:50 |