![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Snip: And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel... One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well. ...but executed poorly. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tiger" wrote in message ... Ed Rasimus wrote: Snip: And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel... One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well. ...but executed poorly. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros. you mean like bush,cheney and rice????????? some "pros" and your hero reagan was king of the "cut and runners" unlike you present days wingnut fools , the traitor reagan was not blinded by ideaology |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 10:42*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner- of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and the companies involved in them, Wood predicted. She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last week. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense, Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican. "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense] spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty." However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry." For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing to get a $250,000 a year job there. Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes. Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House South Lawn. Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. Remember Jimmy Carter? What about Jimmy Carter? And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, does that mean that war is good for business? - nilita War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill. Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO Video * Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’ April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary. Countdown Video * Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh. MSNBC updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant. In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.” She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an “incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region. “I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said. Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.” Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing use nuclear weapons. Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she is to remain a credible candidate. Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified.- Hide quoted text - Well, an active duty submariner is not the same thing as an active duty officer. Which is where GPS, Internet, Microcomputers, Fiber Optics, Cell Phones, Cruise Mssiles, laser-guided bombs, PV Cells, and AUVs, AAVs, Drones, and Robots, came for Carter in his idiot energy budget. - Show quoted text - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. "Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you started reading USENET? Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his Presidency. Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer. And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON. Jack |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 24, 9:41 am, J a c k wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. "Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you started reading USENET? Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his Presidency. Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer. And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON. Jack Truman was an artillery officer, yes, he was not a micro-manager. G. Washington, was, as I have heard, not a micro-manager, perhaps not even a manager. He had Hamilton for that. Hamilton Jordan said it best about the Carter presidency before it had even started, "If Cyrus Vance is the Secretary of State, we have lost." Cyrus Vance was the SecState. Carter wanted everything to be on his desk and signed off on before it was implemented. There was a reason for that: "A few reform-minded Democrats and intellectuals were starting to rethink the premises of big government liberalism, to wonder if there might be less expensive and bureaucratic--and more effective--means to traditional liberal ends. Carter was inclined to agree with them. But such thinking was anathema to the party's liberal leaders and most powerful interest groups, and they were positioned to stop it. When Carter took over as president, the nation's most pressing--and consuming--problems were economic. Growth and worker productivity were low, unemployment and federal deficits were high and rising, and, by midway through the president's term, inflation and interest rates were compounding at more than 10 percent annually. Carter's plan was to balance the budget, slashing spending enough to also provide for a $15 billion tax cut which would act as an economic spur. Congress rejected the package, insisting instead on an economic stimulus package (which Carter reluctantly signed) consisting of $15 billion for public works projects, urban aid, and education, the kind of program that reeked of 1933. This pattern was repeated throughout Carter's term, as unions fought the president's calls for voluntary wage controls to combat inflation, and Congress resisted Carter's repeated attempts to balance the federal budget. The president proposed a budget for 1980 designed to restore fiscal austerity and cut spending to keep the deficit for that year under $30 billion. Congress insisted on restoring the cuts, and by the end of the process, the budget was more than $60 billion in the red. The second great challenge the Democrats faced was an OPEC-induced surge in energy prices. Carter came in with some good and some bad ideas about how to alleviate the energy crisis. Democrats in Congress rebuffed the president's best plan--Carter's attempt to lift the price controls Richard Nixon had imposed on domestic energy. But congressional Democrats eagerly adopted his bad ideas, including the creation of the Department of Energy, which would become perhaps the most dysfunctional agency in Washington. House Speaker Tip O'Neill set up a task force to speed along passage of the authorizing bill, getting the agency running in a matter of months. Congress happily signed on in 1980 when Carter asked it to set up the Synthetic Fuels Corporation. The program ultimately spent $88 billion subsidizing American oil and gas companies to try to extract petroleum out of oil shale, an enterprise only slightly more cost-effective than trying to wring water from a stone. The SynFuels concept dispensed a lot of taxpayer money to a lot of Democratic interest groups but did nothing to solve the energy crisis." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...ace-wells.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave" wrote in message
... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed above. ALV |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Andrew Venor" wrote in message . .. "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... SNIP SNIP Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'. Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did. And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not. Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS Monterey. I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed above. ALV Thanks. I didn't know about McKinely's service. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 168 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
2007 Defense Budget: Changes in Aircraft Programs. | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 6th 06 06:33 PM |