Kerry's "Space Policy"

G EddieA95 ) wrote:
: Further, statements indicating that Canada borders Mexico,
: or that California is the largest state in the U.S.,

: The second is not an error; in *population* they are the largest state.
: Politically, the P is what matters. Ranking in land surface is only important
: for boasting rights (i.e., TX prior to 1959)

"Most populated" vs. "largest" would NOT have led to any ambiguity. Bush
is ambiguous by nature.

Could Bush have ever gotten where he is today without nepotism? I
seriously doubt it.

Eric

Joe Strout wrote:

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations
strive to resolve differences in peace." - George W. Bush (irony apparently
unintentional)

Ignorance apparently intentional as well. Here on this planet free
nations did strive[1] to resolve the differences in peace, however
when the difference in question continues intransigent, the only
alternatives are to give up or up the ante.

But to realize that takes intelligence. It's easier to spout slogans.

[1] You are aware that 'strive' means nothing more and nothing less
than 'try'? You are equally aware that failure of an attempt is not
the same thing as the failure to attempt?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Joe Strout wrote:
On the other hand, a weak grasp of the grammar and vocabulary of one's
native language is a fairly good sign of either low intelligence or poor
education.

One wonders what you would call deliberate ignorance of things that
show the unlikeliness of low intelligence or poor education.

Statements that America and
Japan have been in a "great and enduring alliance" for the last century
and a half indicate trouble with either numeracy or history.

Hardly. Perhaps Bush knows what you don't.... That except for a
brief interregnum the US and Japan have indeed been very close for
about that period.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Rand Simberg wrote:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities...acepolicy.html

Sorry, the best I can manage is to read it with relief.

(1) Increase funding for NASA. Well, I no longer pin all my hopes on
humanity's development of space on NASA, but on the other hand, NASA
does still have an important role to play. It will help to have them
fully funded.


Not if they're not spending the money effectively. What does "fully
funded" mean, outside the context of a program plan or goal? Kerry
appears to have none, at least as far as manned spaceflight goes.


If there's no profit in going to the Moon or Mars, Bush's plans will
yield no more than flags and footprints.

The only new space business goals I know of outside of space tourism is
Benson's hope to mine NEAs
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/...9131322,00.htm
(about 3/4 of the way down)

Once we know more about Near Earth Asteroids, folks like Benson would
have a greater chance of successfully mining volatiles & other resources.

One of Kerry's goals mentioned from the webpage cited earlier:
"They will support solar system exploration as an important goal for our
human and robotic programs,"

That is a good goal. More robotic exploration would be a very wise
preliminary effort to establishing human colonies in space.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

oil
alternatives. If oil is used only in chemical industry any more, the rich
muslim countries will collapse.....

That's not going to happen overnight, even if it works. We don't
necessarily have that much time.

That much time until what? The world runs out of oil? Or the rich Muslim
countries ramp up a large-scale jihad?

If the first, that is going to happen whatever we do, and we have to prepare
for it. That would still be the end of the Saudis and the Islamists, but it
would do us no good as terrorism would be replaced by worldwide economic
depression.

If the second, that really can't happen. Islamism hasn't the power to relaunch
its wars of conquest even were it united.

Derek Lyons ) wrote:
[...]

: -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
: Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

What brought this on? C'mon share! What happened 3 weeks ago?

Eric

"Seeing it through" until many more Americans are killed or maimed,

That happens in war.

And in peace, too. We were not at war on September 11. The idea that
extremists will stop killing Americans if we just stop fighting them
is stunningly naive.

and hate the Americans
more, and until American voters demonstrate not only that Bush is
ignorant, but that they are ignorant for supporting him.

You they will stop hating you just because you put an "I Hate Bush"
bumpersticker on your car??? And you call Bush ignorant?

Edward Wright wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote in message ...

And Iraq was not at war in March 2003 either. There were not
a lot of Iraqi terrorists able to kill Americans by the thousands

No? Remember the training camp US troops found in the Iraqi desert,
where a known terrorist organization was training with airline
fuselages?

Except that there was no such thing ... another lie a'la Iraqi soldiers
ripping babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

You are simply a liar and a spreader of lies.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:28:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

And Iraq was not at war in March 2003 either. There were not
a lot of Iraqi terrorists able to kill Americans by the thousands

No? Remember the training camp US troops found in the Iraqi desert,
where a known terrorist organization was training with airline
fuselages?

Except that there was no such thing ... another lie a'la Iraqi soldiers
ripping babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

Really?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm

You are simply a liar and a spreader of lies.

Boy, talk about projection...

Rand Simberg wrote:
Sander Vesik glowed:
No? Remember the training camp US troops found in the Iraqi desert,
where a known terrorist organization was training with airline
fuselages?

Except that there was no such thing ... another lie a'la Iraqi soldiers
ripping babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

Really?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm

This was a bad reference. It contained no good direct
observation information to convince him.

However...

www.freepublic.com/focus/news/866766/posts
....has a satellite photo of the jet fuselage.

www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp
....names firsthand reports from reporters who were
with the US Marines who entered Salman Pak and destroyed
it, including the jet, several buses and other training
aids which were present.

And if you google on "salman pak airplane fuselage"
you get 551 hits (or, I did) many of which have other
firsthand accounts (though most are just repeating the
same claims secondhand).

There is no reasonable case here that there wasn't an
aircraft fuselage there.

The former Iraqi government had claimed at the time that
it was a counterterrorism training center, for their
own special forces to be ready if someone hijacked one
of their airplanes. This is a plausible theory
(the US has similar training facilities, as do
most other major nations).

A number of relatively neutral people including
Richard Butler who inspected the biowarfare facilities
elsewhere at Salman Pak believed it to be a terrorist
training camp. Several defectors from Iraq's security
forces claimed it was a terrorist training camp.

Those are not factual proof, however.

I don't know what evidence was found when the US
invaded, in terms of paperwork and other info that
might explain who had been using it. It may take years
for the US to declassify all the intel it gathered
after the invasion, if we were even able to find
conclusive answers.


-george william herbert