What if the money spent on Iraq war were spent on space exploration?

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:27 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
the time.

The blame for inadequate intelligence stops at his desk. So he finds
a different reason for the war.

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:43:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Howard
Brazee made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:27 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
the time.

The blame for inadequate intelligence stops at his desk. So he finds
a different reason for the war.

No, he doesn't. That reason remains valid, in terms of what we knew
at the time (it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback), and there were
many others, even if many, like you, have selective amnesia.

Jim Oberg wrote:
"kT" wrote
Well, let's see ... ~ 2900 soldiers. What's the going rate for some
mother's son, hundred grand or so on the body parts market?

Compared to how many soldiers dead if we didn't go to war --
say, compared to 1994, or 1996?

What happened in 1994 or 1996 that would have saved lives? Do you think
9/11 would have been avoided if we invaded Iraq in 1994 or 1996? You're
not being clear about events from 1994 or 1996 that makes sense in Iraq
today.

Jim never, ever mention your political opinion when on air. Stick to
space and only space. Your politics doesn't translate well outside of
Texas.

Eric

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Jim never, ever mention your political opinion when on air. Stick to
:space and only space. Your politics doesn't translate well outside of
:Texas.

What you really mean is that YOU disagree with him and hence want him
silenced, don't you, Eric?

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:43:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Howard
Brazee made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:27 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
the time.

The intelligence at the time did not show strong evidence for weapons
of mass destruction. We were telling you so in January 2003.


The blame for inadequate intelligence stops at his desk. So he finds
a different reason for the war.

No, he doesn't. That reason remains valid, in terms of what we knew
at the time (it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback),

I don't know for Mr. Brazee, but many of us were "Saturday
quarterbacking"
in early 2003.

and there were
many others, even if many, like you, have selective amnesia.

Yeah, it was also to stop terrorism. We all know that there aren't
any terrorist in that part of the world anymore. Oh! and we had some
"Saturday quarterbacking" on that issue in early 2003 also.


Alain Fournier

On 4 Dec 2006 19:24:40 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:43:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Howard
Brazee made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:27 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
the time.

The intelligence at the time did not show strong evidence for weapons
of mass destruction. We were telling you so in January 2003.

Who is "we"?

and there were
many others, even if many, like you, have selective amnesia.

Yeah, it was also to stop terrorism. We all know that there aren't
any terrorist in that part of the world anymore.

What planet are you living on?

wrote:

:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:43:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Howard
: Brazee made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:27 GMT, h (Rand
: Simberg) wrote:
:
: Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
: Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.
:
: Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
: the time.
:
:The intelligence at the time did not show strong evidence for weapons
f mass destruction. We were telling you so in January 2003.

But you didn't have access to the intelligence. Folks who did (in
pretty much all nations) were convinced otherwise.

:
: The blame for inadequate intelligence stops at his desk. So he finds
: a different reason for the war.
:
: No, he doesn't. That reason remains valid, in terms of what we knew
: at the time (it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback),
:
:I don't know for Mr. Brazee, but many of us were "Saturday
:quarterbacking" in early 2003.

But nobody who actually had the intelligence was. Check the vote. Ask
Hillary Clinton.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Jim never, ever mention your political opinion when on air. Stick to
:space and only space. Your politics doesn't translate well outside of
:Texas.

What you really mean is that YOU disagree with him and hence want him
silenced, don't you, Eric?

No, I'm saying he should stick to talking about space outside of Texas.

And why did you delete what he posted, Fred? Being intellectually
dishonest again?

Eric


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:43:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Howard
: Brazee made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:48:27 GMT, h (Rand
: Simberg) wrote:
:
: Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
: Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.
:
: Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
: the time.
:
:The intelligence at the time did not show strong evidence for weapons
f mass destruction. We were telling you so in January 2003.

But you didn't have access to the intelligence. Folks who did (in
pretty much all nations) were convinced otherwise.

Are you saying the UN inspection teams found evidence of WMD in Iraq?


:
: The blame for inadequate intelligence stops at his desk. So he finds
: a different reason for the war.
:
: No, he doesn't. That reason remains valid, in terms of what we knew
: at the time (it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback),
:
:I don't know for Mr. Brazee, but many of us were "Saturday
:quarterbacking" in early 2003.

But nobody who actually had the intelligence was. Check the vote. Ask
Hillary Clinton.

Bush ignored the UN in typical right-wing fashion and started a war
under false pretense. THAT is the fact of history just like Clinton's
BJ.

Eric


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Jim never, ever mention your political opinion when on air. Stick to
: :space and only space. Your politics doesn't translate well outside of
: :Texas.
:
: What you really mean is that YOU disagree with him and hence want him
: silenced, don't you, Eric?
:
:No, I'm saying he should stick to talking about space outside of Texas.

And you should stick to not talking until you get something in that
space between your ears.

:And why did you delete what he posted, Fred?

Because it was irrelevant to YOU statement, which is what I was
responding to.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain