We have often marveled at the extraordinary discoveries and pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope. However, a panel of the House Appropriations Committee Science has moved to cut the successor to Hubble — the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). It is part of a $1.6 billion cut into NASA — an agency already slashed deeply in prior budgets.
The Webb telescope is designed look deeper into space than the Hubble. Its launch is now delayed. It is 75 percent complete, but could now be scrapped.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said “given this time of fiscal crisis, it is also important that Congress make tough decisions to cut programs where necessary to give priority to programs with broad national reach that have the most benefit to the American people.”
I understand that sentiment but why not make the tough decision to cut funding for our three wars? The Obama Administration has just burned over $1 billion on our latest war. We are literally burning away our scientific and educational foundations to pay for these wars.
Source: The Hill
gbk:
a good many of the officers and enlisted in this war were not the poor.
In fact the officer corps is decidedly middle class, at least once they become officers.
Elaine:
A state that can draft its citizens is not a free state.
“Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.”
We had the draft in Viet Nam and were there for about 6-7 years before any real opposition was raised. So I disagree that a draft would have kept us out of Iraq, especially after 9/11. We wanted blood. Too bad we spilled the wrong blood.
@Roco
The draft should be reinstated. Then let us talk of the pains of war as the children of wealthy means return home in a box. Wars don’t last long when profiteers feel the consequences of their profits.
Roco,
Elaine is spot on with that one. Not having a draft and opting instead to use mercenaries was all part of the Bush/Cheney Cabal’s masterplan to reduce resistance to their manifestly illegal war for personal profits. If they’d run up a draft at the onset, there would have been a lot more pushback about Iraq. Not everyone is so stupid as to believe a country that didn’t attack us allegedly attacked us or that “preemptive invasion” is any kind of foreign policy other than straight out warmongering. Keeping citizens out of a draft is going to be a continuing part of their plans for perpetual warfare as well. They must keep the citizenry distanced from the true costs of their crimes and conscription would do the exact opposite. People would eventually pull them from their offices and hang them from the cherry trees along the National Mall if the greater parts of the masses felt the pain of the war costs personally.
Roco,
I wonder if Bush would have had the same support for the Iraq War had there been a draft in place. There are many Americans who would not have wanted their children to fight in an unnecessary war–and many young Americans who probably would have rebelled. I think the lack of a draft may be the reason why there weren’t many war protests before we invaded a foreign country.
A standing army in a truly free society is purely for defensive purposes. When the government exceeds its constitutional mandate, a standing army not only becomes a threat to the citizens but to the entire world.
We are fast becoming the new Rome or worse. When we reinstate the draft there will be cause for worry, as if we didnt have enough already.
TYPING, on typing and sword fighting.
I’ll blame that one on type and sword fighting at the same time.
Let’s just pretend I said “(hint: the word conquest is in my vocabulary)”
Wow, all this over something I didn’t say (hint: I know the conquest is in my vocabulary).
And gbk gets it.
Warmongering is warmongering is warmongering.
What do you use a standing army for?
Wars.
It’s their only function.
Wars are not always about territorial expansion unless you’re playing Risk. Wars are about control. One need not annex a territory to control it. A military much bigger than what is required for defense is not only wasteful in expenditures. It is an accident waiting to happen as someone in a position of command grows ever more discontent with being a warrior with no war.
Are you sure English is your first language, kderosa?
I get it now; warmongering by another name. Thanks for clearing that up.
@gbk
How’s this: “Actually, it speaks directly to [growth of the] military, not expansion [by use of the miltary],”
Which ties into what I initially said “It’s one thing to say we should not be involved in a bunch of dopey wars; it’s quite another to say that we are constantly expanding by use of the military.” which Buddha must have missed.
And what “mission” would that be
Name the war and I’ll tell you the mission.
@kderosa
As pointed out by BIL your statement of: “Actually, it speaks directly to military growth, not expansion,” is difficult to follow.
“Or does the desire for conquest lead to an expanded military? Which then leads to empire trouble?”
It appears you’ve answered your own questions to this recursive herring, given your prior statements in this thread.
“Ours tend to have a mission.”
And what “mission” would that be, assuming we agree on “ours”? You are silent on this.
The expedition was funded largely by the Spanish Crown and provided with ships carrying supplies for two years of travel. Expert cartographer Jorge Reinel and Diogo Ribeiro, a Portuguese who had started working for Charles V in 1518 as a cartographer at the Casa de Contratación, took part in the development of the maps to be used in the travel. Several problems arose during the preparation of the trip, including lack of money, the king of Portugal trying to stop them, Magellan and other Portuguese incurring suspicion from the Spanish and the difficult nature of Faleiro. Finally, thanks to the tenacity of Magellan, the expedition was ready. Through the bishop Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca they obtained the participation of merchant Christopher de Haro, who provided a quarter of the funds and goods to barter.
After continually lobbying at the Spanish court and two years of negotiations, he finally had success in 1492.
About half of the financing was to come from private Italian investors, whom Columbus had already lined up.
I guess Spain couldn’t borrow money from the Chinese the way we can to pay for our exploration.
On 1 May 1486, permission having been granted, Columbus presented his plans to Queen Isabella, who, in turn, referred it to a committee. After the passing of much time, the savants of Spain, like their counterparts in Portugal, reported back that Columbus had judged the distance to Asia much too short. They pronounced the idea impractical, and advised their Royal Highnesses to pass on the proposed venture.
The king submitted Columbus’ proposal to his experts, who rejected it. It was their considered opinion that Columbus’ estimation of a travel distance of 2,400 miles (3,860 km) was, in fact, far too short
Blouise,
One lives to be of something-er-rather.
Mike A,
“I believe that the decision on the JWST is shortsighted.”
The beauty of that statement brought a tear to my eye.
What if they had done a cost-benefit analysis on Columbus, or Marco Polo, or Magellan? There is no way their trips could have survived a close scrutiny by the equivalent of the cost cutters.
Look what happened when Spain did a cost benefit analysis and decided to sell the land of the Louisiana Purchase. Or when Russia did the same thing and sold Alaska.