Galactic Overlord next?

Sigh. I was suggesting you do that.

 

Did you read the original?

 

From the 1996 edition.

 

Junior, see post #10.

 

I quoted from it. Now you're supposed to pick apart the phrasing.

Interesting that the policy was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day, with no public announcement. Whitehouse trying to avoid a spin cycle for dirty laundry?

 

I did take note of your admission that this is a bipartisan gripe. However, see post 4. Whatever administration is in power at any given time has always determined who the adversaries were. Are you just now discovering this fact? If you have an issue with the concept, why was it not an issue 10 years ago?

 

The third party would obviously have to be either Guatemala or Venezuela.

 

The verbiage is identical in both versions. Which one do you take issue with?

 

Not sure what your point is. I'll refer you to the title of your link, "Controlling Space Access", and the title of the article, "Bush seeks to block enemies from space". Do you think either of those are fair summaries of the policy? Or just more half-assed Bush bashing?

 

Neither, just typical headling writing. Headlines are not ment to inform, they are made to stop grab the reader's attention and get them to read the article. Just as "well crafted" articles are written in the inverted pyramid.

 

Two Convicts Evade Noose - Jury Hung.

 

I have two issues, the current administration's propensity for making so many decisions out of the public's view and the floating allies/enemies thing over the past five or six decades.

As for why it wasn't an issue (for me) 10 years ago, 10 years ago I didn't have recourse to discussions like these because I wasn't on the WERA BBS so there were items of potential interest that never showed on my personal radar screen.

 

Yup. That's why I read the entire article, and, when I had time, the underlying document.

Still wondering what was incorrect or inacurate in the origial article that has got y'all in such a tizzy.

 

Out of the public's view????? Elaborate as it applies to this specific policy, because you've totally lost me.

 

The only mention in the new version of “treaties” that I can find is where it says the US will use satellite intelligence to verify who is complying with them.

 

I actually have less of a problem with the article, more with your characterization via the thread title and link title. Not in a tizzy, but I assume you invited comment when you started the thread. What were you expecting, everyone to nod their head and say that W is the personification of Darth Sidious?

 

Well, now, if it were out of the public's view, I wouldn't be privy to it, as related to this ten day old revised policy, now would I...

 

While it was a vain attempt at humor, I actually do believe that if the VP and SecDef thought they could pull it off, they would anoint the President as Galactic Overlord. As for my link title, how is it inaccurate?

 

I can't help but jump in on this one...

I've read a few reports that discuss China's interest in leap-frog technologies designed to attack the U.S. C4I systems. One of them basically said that if you look at their legends and classic military texts one of the major themes is defeating a great enemy with use of secret trump-card weapons. (Since I didnt grow up in China I dont know how true these things are)

Examples being parasitic devices attached to U.S. Satellites, dormant computer viruses etc. As far as I can tell, nobody is really sure exactly what they're cooking up but that kind of intelligence isn't out there for just anybody to see either.

Some has been acknowleged publicly, check page 35

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/dod-2006.pdf

This is likely the reason Bush said what he did since there were past international agreements baring nations from claiming territory in space or putting weapons there.