Belly35;414959 wrote:Not My President ............. just a bad Public Servant
I sorry I feel this way but I can't thing of anything this PSO has done that will make America better, the World more inviting or anyone future prosperous in any aspect of their life.

Where have you been? ObamaKare will take care of your ills for life...and if you refuse to opt in the Feds will simply fine your ass. See how wonderful that is?

This is not good news for those that want to see a 21st century version of the Crusades. Nothing better than festering religious wars...been going on for over 2000 years. Most people think peace blows anyhow.

^^^Why is it you fail to mention that modern radical Islam thinks it's on its own 21st century version of the Muslim Conquests of the 7th century? Oh that's right only Christians and Jews deserve to be - um - crucified for brutality.

The big question is why does Obama feel the need to make a particular group feel good about things they had nothing directly to do with??

But hey, just think of how big of an explosion a middle east made shuttle plowing into a skyscraper would make!

In the overall scheme of engagement with the Middle East and nations like the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait or any other nation that wants to have space cooperation like satellites, Space Launch vehicle cooperation and education transfers that is fine by me.

There are a few levels of exchange, type 1, type 2 and type 3. Type 1 is formal state delegations, Type 2 is is lower level officials and former officials and type 3 is NGO, science, education and cultural transfers. NASA would fall into the Type 3 area, where they would not dominate Middle East diplomacy, but continue their long tradition (opening up to the Soviets anyone?) of cooperation and education with other nations. NASA is not the State Dept, but by perhaps engaging with other nations on technology, it can bridge some gaps.

ManO'War;415597 wrote:The big question is why does Obama feel the need to make a particular group feel good about things they had nothing directly to do with??

But hey, just think of how big of an explosion a middle east made shuttle plowing into a skyscraper would make!

Considering a shuttle would be gliding to land (cause a lifting off shuttle into the towers makes no sense) with no fuel onboard, not worse than a 747. But, thanks for playing.

ptown_trojans_1;415615 wrote:In the overall scheme of engagement with the Middle East and nations like the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait or any other nation that wants to have space cooperation like satellites, Space Launch vehicle cooperation and education transfers that is fine by me.

There are a few levels of exchange, type 1, type 2 and type 3. Type 1 is formal state delegations, Type 2 is is lower level officials and former officials and type 3 is NGO, science, education and cultural transfers. NASA would fall into the Type 3 area, where they would not dominate Middle East diplomacy, but continue their long tradition (opening up to the Soviets anyone?) of cooperation and education with other nations. NASA is not the State Dept, but by perhaps engaging with other nations on technology, it can bridge some gaps.

I don't have any fundamental issues with cooperating with the nations you mention for space exploration since they tend to be reasonably pro-American. However, a part of me thinks they want access to space "opportunities" for non-benevolent purposes as opposed to advancing space technologies and exploration...but that's JMHO.

As far as using NASA to bridging some diplomatic gaps that's a stretch.

ptown_trojans_1;415615 wrote:In the overall scheme of engagement with the Middle East and nations like the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait or any other nation that wants to have space cooperation like satellites, Space Launch vehicle cooperation and education transfers that is fine by me.

There are a few levels of exchange, type 1, type 2 and type 3. Type 1 is formal state delegations, Type 2 is is lower level officials and former officials and type 3 is NGO, science, education and cultural transfers. NASA would fall into the Type 3 area, where they would not dominate Middle East diplomacy, but continue their long tradition (opening up to the Soviets anyone?) of cooperation and education with other nations. NASA is not the State Dept, but by perhaps engaging with other nations on technology, it can bridge some gaps.

But, that is based on a "perhaps" scenario, is it not? What about if it didn't flow along with the collective hope of goodwill?
Then what?

I think you guys are overreacting. We aren't using NASA as our main diplomats or even as diplomats or anything. Just an educational mission. Probably similar to what they do here in the states all the the time.

ptown_trojans_1;415620 wrote:Considering a shuttle would be gliding to land (cause a lifting off shuttle into the towers makes no sense) with no fuel onboard, not worse than a 747. But, thanks for playing.

I was joking, but do you realize how fast the shuttle travels on reentry, and how much energy that would produce on impact?? There would be no fuel needed, just as an astroid has no "fuel".

believer;415513 wrote:^^^Why is it you fail to mention that modern radical Islam thinks it's on its own 21st century version of the Muslim Conquests of the 7th century? Oh that's right only Christians and Jews deserve to be - um - crucified for brutality.

Yeah...NASA has emboldened the enemy with their unpatriotic, left winged, terrorist huggin, I hate America agenda. NASA the appeasers. The "I hate all Muslims" crowd are out in full force on this thread.

Footwedge;415155 wrote:This is not good news for those that want to see a 21st century version of the Crusades. Nothing better than festering religious wars...been going on for over 2000 years. Most people think peace blows anyhow.

I'm sure all 5 of them will be royally pissed.

Footwedge;416040 wrote:Yeah...NASA has emboldened the enemy with their unpatriotic, left winged, terrorist huggin, I hate America agenda. NASA the appeasers. The "I hate all Muslims" crowd are out in full force on this thread.

I'm not surprised this is how you twist it. My take is there are certain leftist - I mean "moderates" - on this thread who fail to see the reality that radical Islam is an equal opportunity hate-filled religion.

believer;416218 wrote:I'm not surprised this is how you twist it. My take is there are certain leftist - I mean "moderates" - on this thread who fail to see the reality that radical Islam is an equal opportunity hate-filled religion.

What exactly does this thread have to do with Radical Muslims? The answer is absolutely nuthin. And that's the point of my posts.

The vast majority of posters including the OP have a real problem with NASA sharing technology with Muslim countries. Why is that? Why is there even a thread on this bullshit? I'll tell you why. It is the blanket opinion of many on here that share the same hatred for all Muslims....just like Michael Savage and Neil Boortz. That's why.

Would there even be a thread with this type of vile had NASA been sharing the same info with Great Britain? Germany? Japan? I don't think so.

We are not at war with Muslims. But you could never convince that fact to many here on this chatterboard. It is an ongoing religious war....a religious war that was perpetuated by the pastor of a Baptist preacher when I visited there a few Sundays ago.....for the absolute last time I might add.

Footwedge, are there radical muslims in the world who want to kill the infidel???? This is a simple yes or no question.

Where in anything that has been posted does it say we are going to "share" technology with Middle East countries? What I and others have a problem with is Obama telling the director of NASA to make these Muslim countries "feel good" about themselves, as if that will all of a sudden make the ME a peaceful region, and we will all sing a rousing round of Kumbaya. It's totally off NASA's radar, this shouldn't have anything to do with them. They have a lot more important stuff to worry about.

"What I and others have a problem with is Obama telling the director of NASA to make these Muslim countries "feel good" about themselves, "

I've watched the entire video, it is simply a softball pitched interview and I wouldn't put a lot of faith in that Obama told Holden anything. Holden was just delivering a response targeted to the interviewer and the audience. It sounded stupid (and is stupid) but for the most part is innocuous.

The dumbest question was about the difference between a moon and an asteroid and the challenges re studying them. That exchange was far more offensive than the Muslim comment.

Footwedge;416245 wrote:The vast majority of posters including the OP have a real problem with NASA sharing technology with Muslim countries. Why is that? Why is there even a thread on this bullshit? I'll tell you why. It is the blanket opinion of many on here that share the same hatred for all Muslims....just like Michael Savage and Neil Boortz. That's why.

Once again you dance around and twist the truth. I personally don't hate Muslims but I do loathe radical Islam...there is a difference.

But if my loathing of radical Islam that makes me skeptical of - say - sharing NASA information with largely Muslim countries gets your righteous and holier than thou panties in a bunch please accept my apologies.

Mr. 300;416329 wrote:Footwedge, are there radical muslims in the world who want to kill the infidel???? This is a simple yes or no question.

There are plenty of radical Christians in the world that want to kill the Muslims.

believer;416414 wrote:Once again you dance around and twist the truth. I personally don't hate Muslims but I do loathe radical Islam...there is a difference.

But if my loathing of radical Islam that makes me skeptical of - say - sharing NASA information with largely Muslim countries gets your righteous and holier than thou panties in a bunch please accept my apologies.

The thing is. You act like radical Islam is the rule over there instead of the exception.

I Wear Pants;416625 wrote:There are plenty of radical Christians in the world that want to kill the Muslims.

Nothing to do with my question, but nice try.

I Wear Pants;416625 wrote:There are plenty of radical Christians in the world that want to kill the Muslims.

Laughable bullshit. Give me one credible source to back-up your assumption.

I Wear Pants;416629 wrote:The thing is. You act like radical Islam is the rule over there instead of the exception.

Radical Islam does rule over there (or at least is a very, very powerful influence in the Arab world across-the-board) with relatively few exceptions.

I Wear Pants;416629 wrote:The thing is. You act like radical Islam is the rule over there instead of the exception.

Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, and Iraq. All "middle east" countries either ran by, or with strong radical Islamic ties. So, lets not act like radical Islam is such a small percentage over in the Middle East. Maybe its a small percentage of the Muslims here in the US, but in the ME, not so much.

Even if you counter with "well most of Iran is not radical just the leadership", they still hold the power.

Guaranteed they're saying the same things about those damned radical Christians in the United States.

But I guess they're all just crazy assholes right?

Cuba, for example, is a country that is pretty desolate and is generally considered to have poor leadership. What would we do if some powerful country in the middle east came in and attacked then occupied it to institute a "better" government?

We wouldn't like it one bit. Why are we allowed to do it though?

Fundamentalist Christians promote religious wars. There just isn't anything Christlike in promoting religious wars.