A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 19th 04, 09:32 PM
Go Fig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message

...


Their fair share for ALL programs is the same as everyone else.
If they are "unconstitutional, unworkable,immoral programs" then convince
the majority and have them repealed. It's called democracy.


The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Note: "promote the general welfare"


The phrase "promote the general welfare" does not mean what you think it
does.



President Franklin Pierce was confronted with this situation, this is
what he said years and years ago... he is still correct today:

"I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us
all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our
duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of
Providence, are subject to want and to disease of mind; but I cannot
find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal
Government the great almoner [one who gives something to the poor] of
public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my
judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and
subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is
founded...'the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
States respectively or to the people."

jay
Mon Jan 19, 2004

  #22  
Old January 19th 04, 09:50 PM
DALing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

particularly since there aren't so MANY of them (but remember, they are all
"volunteers")

"None" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"DALing" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com wrote in message
...
True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's enemy is my
friend" than anything else. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't

it?

(oh, and I got out of the army myself about 40 years ago - VietNam and

all
that)


As an american citizen, I humbly apologize for what our country did to our
VietNam veterans and their families. I shudder to think what we will be
doing to our Iraqi Invasion vets.



  #23  
Old January 20th 04, 03:39 AM
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

None wrote:

Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't!


How does one prove a negative?


Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.
  #24  
Old January 20th 04, 03:41 AM
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DALing wrote:

True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's
enemy is my friend" than anything else.


The new rule of thumb:

The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.
  #25  
Old January 20th 04, 05:12 AM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
None wrote:

Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't!

How does one prove a negative?


Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


How soon we forget. The issue was not to prove they didn't, it was to prove
they got rid of the stuff they admitted having in the first place.

Pete


  #26  
Old January 20th 04, 05:58 AM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...
devil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:32:43 -0500, Gwen Saylor wrote:

=Sara wrote:


Yeah, just as there's no financial situation where the Democrat
doesn't scream for higher spending

Like $87 billion for Iraq and a few billoion more for NASA?
Suuurre. This is one fiscally conservative admin we've got here.

You conveniently forget to recall how many billions and billions
were already spent on Iraq for the 12 years before Bush took office
due to the presence and moves by Hussein. And the $ number was
getting higher and higher with no end in sight due to the failure of
the "containment." . Did you think all of those daily no-fly zone
sorties were free? When Clinton bombed Baghdad in 1998 with more
missiles than the entire 1991 Gulf War, did you think that was free?
Or the 1994 bombings? Or the 1996 bombings? Did you think the
constant built up troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were free? Did
you think the aircraft carriers that needed to be in the Gulf
constantly were free? Today all of that is changing. And it will
only get better going forward as things wind down in Iraq.


Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has
been borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.


Just how big a drop in the bucket? What is the dollar amount on
all of the above?

Just curious.


Isn't it odd that, when the Democrats run up the deficit, "pay as you go" is the
Republican mantra, but when the Republicans do it, "tax and spend" (a euphemism
for "pay as you go") becomes a terrible policy?

Or is it merely another example of hypocrisy in government?

George Z.


  #27  
Old January 20th 04, 01:50 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stark Raven" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul
Middlestat wrote:

Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits.

Someone
who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the
trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which

was
not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public
sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and
wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring
trip? I'm guessing probably not.


A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated
his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary
to charity.

Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business
endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is
where publically-earned money comes from, you know.

I for one find it strange that the current administration had rather
give $500,000 to Charles Schwab to maintain a rice farm for duck
hunting purposes than $300 to a welfare mom. Of course they had rather
be invited to a duck hunt than collards and greens.


Nothing strange about it. How much does the welfare mom contribute to the
reelection coffers compared to Charlie? I believe it's spelled G R E E D or
perhaps C O R R U P T I O N.....take your pick.

George Z.


  #28  
Old January 20th 04, 02:04 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving
a negative.


  #29  
Old January 20th 04, 03:16 PM
Fly Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd,
yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD
by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has
been done is not proving a negative.


You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
(especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
invading you).

If you start with an inflated estimate of the amount of WMD in the
first place, of course nothing will convince you that all of it was
destroyed.

Iraq was compelled to submit a 10,000 page report as to it's WMD
status. To date, I have yet to hear that any aspect of that report
was false. David Kay was assigned the task of finding WMD. At one
point he gloated over a room stacked to the ceiling with documents -
every page scanned into a bank of computers. I have yet to hear
anything productive come from his efforts (which I suspect were more
to discover and destroy evidence and links of the US-supplied chemical
weapons to Iraq in the 1980's). Mobile chemical manufacturing trucks
have been proven to be Brittish trucks sold to Iraq to generate Helium
for battlefield target balloons.

The US claimed to know where the WMD were, but for baffling reasons
they never told the UN inspectors on the ground.

Look. The UN had several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq in late
2002/early 2003. They had complete access to any site they wanted to
go. While the US was massing 150k troops nearby. What the US could
have done was to slap UN arm bands on each and every US soldier and
say that they were simply more UN inspectors. They could have just
walked into IRAQ and take up the task of looking for WMD in a
peacefull way - similar to the several hundred UN weapons inspectors
already there. There would have been NO excuse that with 150k UN
inspectors that the Iraqis could play a shell game with WMD.
  #30  
Old January 20th 04, 03:36 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
(especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
invading you).


The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their WMD prior
to any destruction of them. For what reason would they destroy them but
maintain the appearance that they had not been destroyed?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax Rich S. Home Built 0 August 9th 04 04:41 PM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements me Military Aviation 146 January 15th 04 11:13 PM
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology Mike Yared Military Aviation 0 November 8th 03 11:45 PM
Homebuilts by State Ron Wanttaja Home Built 14 October 15th 03 08:30 PM
Police State Grantland Military Aviation 0 September 15th 03 12:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.