But there's no way we could win a ground war against them without freeing up troops from the Iraq war.

They've got a great deal of love from Fox News and the other right-wing media adherents who have encouraged millions of Americans to turn a blind eye. Nixon has got to be rolling in his grave to consider the kinds of things they've been able to get away with. He got popped for a petty burglary. These people routinely torture, invent evidence to bring the nation to war, violate the Constitutional rights of Americans, and smile and acknowledge it all openly.

Although the number who still buy the BS is declining steadily (support is down to around 30% or lower).

Don't get me wrong – I don't think the Democrats are really any better, only that this current adminstration has been particularly aggregious in their activities. The Democrats voted for the war, they continue to vote to fund it and continue it, and they've toed the line on basically every invasion of privacy /anti-civil liberty law that's been introduced in the last 7 years.

The problem is that both parties are essentially controlled by the massive amounts of campaign contributions that they receive. You don't pay millions to a candidate without expecting something in return. I'm not advocating third parties (they'll never win!) but it would be nice if we could abolish parties altogether and vote for the candidate's stance on the issues, not a D or R beside their name. Limiting the amount you can spend on a campaign to a reasonable amount would help too.

The current admin is basically "dead in the water" in expanding the powers of government and committing new atrocities, but the fact remains that they have not been held liable in the least. The ones who have left were scapegoats forced to resign.

I don't have a problem with the term neocons normally but its now invoked by people who don't really keep up on events or think from all sides about an event. It's become a buzz word for knee jerk Bush haters.

I'd also point out that most of the "neocons" have left government or have lost influence. This was very well document since Rumsfeld left.

I don't buy it when people try and define conservative. The very basis of the conservative movement is that progress is bad. Conservatives do NOT want NASA. I can't imagine why anyone would want to be labeled a conservative unless they want to continue to pretend its the late 19th century and America is still up for grabs.

You have a problem with the term "neocon?" It's how most of the warhawks in office describe themselves – neoconservative, "new" conservative.

Meaning they are conservative when it comes to morals and religious issues (though they rarely practice what they preach), but they're far from conservative when it comes to spending, or military action, or the expansion of government power.

The only reason we haven't attacked Iran the way they wanted to is that we're overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq as it is. Should we pull out of Iraq I fully expect them to declare war with Iran.

That way they can move to a colony off-world and we won't have to risk the neocons starting a nuclear war because of Ahmadinejad's big mouth.

You are entirely correct.

Nukes, funding terrorism, our religion or else?

If your nation didn't have nukes and actually the balls to use them then your comment would be acceptable.

I don't trust America more than Iran or Russia…Afterall invading two countries in 2 years time is fact ; that Iran wants to blow the whole world up is a neocon supposition. Iran is where civilization was born on this planet. Iran is not Taleban country. They are educated & welcoming people. And they have the right to hate israel as much as americans have the right to hate iran.

Stop repeating CNN christian necon propagandic paranioa it's really getting boring for us non-americans…

One of the greatest things about space exploration programs is that they lead to technologies applicable to other areas.
However, this is not an unknown factor and one of the main reasons that NASA and other space agencies were developed was for military reasons such as developing ballistic missile technology to deliver nuclear weapons.

You can claim peaceful space exploration all you want, but you are at best incredibly short-sighted and at worst naieve to the point of having no understanding of human nature if you think that a country which develops missile technology for 'space exploration' will not then develop it for military purposes.

Oh yeah, and call me a war mongering American if you like, but we're talking about Iran possibly having nuclear weapons here. You know, the same Iran that has no qualms about state funding of terrorism and suicide bombings, not to mention an 'our religion or else' mentality towards the world. And these are nukes we're talking about, as in kill all of your enemy in one shot, lingering radiation and death for miles around, the most deadly weapons mankind has made so far, nuclear weapons. Myabe it's just me, but I don't feel comfortable allowing a country such as Iran to develop either nukes or the ability to deliver them with a missile. And mistranslations about intentions towards Israel notwithstanding (and the one referred to above was hardly the only instance of such threats), there is no love lost between the two countries.

Sorry about the length, but to conclude; space exploration is NOT a right, it is a privledge. By necessity the amazing process of exploring the cosmos involves technologies with huge potentials for war and destruction. If others are worried your country is going to use those technologies against them or their allies, they have every right slap you down and keep you from reaching space.

Why is it that when other countries have failed missions or don't make it entirely people claim "Rocket Science is Hard" but when Iran does it people say "Miserable Failure" – like that changes ANYTHING.

Perhaps…but I think the real point lurking in this comment is that Middle East/East worldviews are quite different than West worldviews. This creates very different orientations in space, science and research programmes. Yes, Iran's behavioral track record would lead to the conclusion that you suggested. But overall, the reality is that we will see actual advances from such countries in space/science/research…just a matter of time. What concerns me is that there may never be any real common ground for us to dialogue (because our worldviews are profoundly different). This will prove a considerable challenge (as we are now seeing in the potential problems with sharing ISS with Russia) in sharing orbital space, moon research, Mars, etc.

To recap, I'm NOT claiming to know that iran doesn't aim for military use of nuclear technology and their rockets. I'd just like everybody to take a step back, look at the situation calmly, and ask themselves "if I ignore the propaganda I've been fed, am I still 100% sure that iran is an evil terror state that wants nukes to attack us with? or should I rather enjoy hope for another nation to join us in our quest for space?"

I mean, seriously. They didn't find osama in any of the caves they bombed in afghanistan, and they didn't find WMDs in irak either. You'd think people would start taking what Bush's government says with a grain of salt.

Hi Mark, apologies you took offence. It was a silly error on my behalf and it has been corrected. I can assure you 99.9% of my facts are "straight," but occasionally I slip up. Problem corrected. Hope you enjoyed the rest of the article.

Cheers, Ian

And if you compare their propaganda with what we know today, say, about their interplanetary program…