Britains Reaction to NASA's success
Elysium Fossa
ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been different, or
perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the British press.
"While saluting Nasa's success in managing to keep their probe intact, Prof
Pillinger could not help but observe ruefully: "For the price of one of
their launches, we could have put seven Beagle 2s on Mars."
..........but how many of the 7 would have worked? I watched the
documentaries on Beagles construction and testing. It's not nice to admit,
but after they had finished they left we with little faith in the project
succeeding.
Martin Frey
I don't see this as anti US - Pillinger is doing a good job of
containing his emotions in the face of real personal tragedy: his
"baby" was always underweight and undernourished (with cash: not with
ingenuity) and it (probably...) died.
I share your view of the difficulty in maintaining faith: after the
airbag failure, more than one test success would be needed to build
confidence.
I have posted before on the iron nerves of these guys. Having seen the
documentaries I was like a jelly when I thought about the probable
outcome - and its got nowt to do with me.
--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47
Elysium Fossa
> I don't see this as anti US - Pillinger is doing a good job of
> containing his emotions in the face of real personal tragedy: his
> "baby" was always underweight and undernourished (with cash: not with
> ingenuity) and it (probably...) died.
>
> I share your view of the difficulty in maintaining faith: after the
> airbag failure, more than one test success would be needed to build
> confidence.
>
> I have posted before on the iron nerves of these guys. Having seen the
> documentaries I was like a jelly when I thought about the probable
> outcome - and its got nowt to do with me.
>
> --
> Martin Frey
> http://www.hadastro.org.uk
> N 51 02 E 0 47
I thought the journalists tone and style of writing was more anti-US,
rather than what Colin Pillinger was supposed to have said.
The article mentions some the failures NASA has had recently, but fails to
mention the succeses - of which there are dozens. Also many NASA craft are
multi-national missions. I believe 3 of Spirits science instruments are
European.
Martin
"Elysium Fossa" <elysiu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mZwMb.1839$YV1...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fwm
> ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
>
> I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been different,
or
> perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the British press.
>
(BBC, Guardian etc.) but its just that all the media generally like
something to fail. It gives them a chance to blame everyone and muck rake.
Martin
Jack Harrison
"Elysium Fossa" <elysiu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mZwMb.1839$YV1...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
>
> I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been different,
or
> perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the British press.
Hold on a second.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the British media is
anti-American. It is not and nor are ordinary British people. But we are
certainly vehemently anti-Bush. The media and the public detest Bush.
However, we Brits must accept some of the blame for this - he's called
deputy fuehrer Blair. (Or the lap dog)
Jack
Martin Frey
>I thought the journalists tone and style of writing was more anti-US,
>rather than what Colin Pillinger was supposed to have said.
>
>The article mentions some the failures NASA has had recently, but fails to
>mention the succeses - of which there are dozens. Also many NASA craft are
>multi-national missions. I believe 3 of Spirits science instruments are
>European.
Mea culpa - too idle to read the Telegraph article. (Usually idle
anyway, but even the word Telegraph makes my idleness discover new
depths or perhaps heights)
Doctor J. Frink
<elysiu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>The article mentions some the failures NASA has had recently, but fails to
>mention the succeses - of which there are dozens. Also many NASA craft are
>multi-national missions. I believe 3 of Spirits science instruments are
>European.
The Mossbauer spectrometer is by the MIMOS group at Mainz Uni, Germany
and is practically the same as used on Beagle. And the X-ray
spectrometer is also a German-led instrument.
There has also been much cooperation between the NASA and Beagle teams
(not just in the use of Odyssey as a relay). There is healthy rivalry
but some teams have worked on both missions (some simultaneously), both
on instruments and the supporting science needed to work on Mars.
I have always felt that we were all in it together, and whilst it would
have felt good to show the 'damn yankees' a thing or two it wasn't to be
on the day. ;0) MER and Beagle would have complemented each other;
neither mission can do as much science as both together could have done,
and that's what's important.
Frink
--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
MichaelJP
"Martin" <mpsX...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:btuaip$r8m$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Do you think so? I got the impression that most of the UK media would have
loved Beagle to be a success, especially as Pillinger has been seen as a
real "character".
- Michael
Doctor J. Frink
>
>Do you think so? I got the impression that most of the UK media would have
>loved Beagle to be a success, especially as Pillinger has been seen as a
>real "character".
I listened to a debate on Radio 2, which had some pontificating, pompous
toff saying it had all been a complete waste of time and money[1] and it
should have gone into genetics "which we're already very strong in"
apparently, and that we were merely trying to play second fiddle to the
more expensive NASA rovers (ignoring the fact that the two missions
could do some quite different things). I wonder if he would have said
the same if Beagle had been beaming back data by then...
The idea of trying to be very strong in a new area doesn't seem to be
useful according to him. Stick at what you're good at! Never try
anything new! No wonder GB has gone downhill if prats like that have any
influence.
There are always a few who like to jump in and make themselves sound
very important by predicting doom *after* the event. Didn't hear many of
these people saying it was all a waste of time and money *before* it
landed...
Frink
[1] Despite the fact that even though Beagle has disappeared it has
generated a lot of equipment, technology and knowledge which can be used
in future missions and terrestrial science, not to mention generated
enormous public enthusiasm in science. This makes it a success and a
good use of resources in my book.
Martin
"Jack Harrison" <jack.h...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:M5yMb.141$RN1.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
"...But we are certainly vehemently anti - Bush.." thaks for telling me what
my opinion is! They used to call it Communism, but Socialism will do. We
have enough crap politicians telling us what we should be thinking without
people like you jumping on the bandwagon.
Martin
Michael Anthony
> left wing media (BBC, Guardian etc.) but its just that all
> the media generally like something to fail. It gives them a
> chance to blame everyone and muck rake.
I remember a similarly negative piece in the BBC prior to the mission to fix
the Hubble ST. They stated that in the aftermath of the loss of Space
Shuttle Challenger, NASA's reputation was now "on the line" in the face of
increasing schepticism about its relevance, and so on, and so on. They
seemed to be at pains to avoid saying something positive, which leads me to
believe that they just don't understand the relevance and necessity of space
exploration and research. Could this be evidence of a more fundamental
cultural difference? I've heard it suggested that the British are simply
less inclined to take risks, as a symptom of a more stagnant culture. (And
this is from a Brit.)
The Beagle 2 team, on the other hand, posted good-luck messages to NASA on
their website. The sneering most definitely did not emanate from them.
It's also possible that NASA is a victim of its own success. In captaining
so many successful missions in their short history, they make the difficult
appear mundane. The public got bored of shuttle missions, for example, but
everyone who truly paid attention knew that the shuttle was still dangerous
to fly. For a critic to spout a list of NASA's "costly failures" is
therefore to overlook the fact that when risk is high, failures are part of
the business.
With regards to Spirit and Opportunity being labelled repeats, let me ask
this : if we had only discovered the means to get to Antarctica in 1960, and
sent three scientific missions over the course of three decades, would it be
entirely a repeat to send a fourth or could we claim that we had learned
everything there is to know about the place?
--
Michael Anthony
Ethan Trewhitt
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fwm
> ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
>
> I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been
> different, or perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the
> British press.
I find it offensive that they call Hubble a "fiasco."
--
eth'nT
http://www.hydrous.net
aim: courtarro
Dan
message
> I find it offensive that they call Hubble a "fiasco."
Please don't confuse the opinion of one journalist, or newspaper,
or broadcaster, with that of "the British people". Moreover,
please don't consider the notion of 'British public opinion' as
anything other than a transient and nebulous metaphor. "It" does
not exist. I do (I think!), and as a Brit I find Hubble to be an
exceptional instrument that has been _well_ worth the money and
effort invested.
I'm not alone amoungst Brits in the sentiment: Hats off to NASA
and the USA for daring, not only to dream, but to make those
dreams manifest.
Jonathan Silverlight
<M...@nospam.com> writes
>> (BBC, Guardian etc.) but its just that all the media generally like
>> something to fail. It gives them a chance to blame everyone and muck rake.
>>
>> Martin
>
>Do you think so? I got the impression that most of the UK media would have
>loved Beagle to be a success, especially as Pillinger has been seen as a
>real "character".
>
story "The Beagle is landing" on my web site just before Christmas, but
we've had a post on this group from someone citing personal experience
that the BBC was more interested in Beagle 2 now it seemed to be a
failure.
But then this is the publicly funded corporation that effectively
ignored the 50th anniversary of one of the 20th century's great
scientific achievements; a British discovery that incidentally gave the
BBC a prize for best documentary of the last 50 years.
Rant over!
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Michael
"Elysium Fossa" <elysiu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mZwMb.1839$YV1...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
>
> I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been different,
or
> perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the British press.
>
> "While saluting Nasa's success in managing to keep their probe intact,
Prof
> Pillinger could not help but observe ruefully: "For the price of one of
> their launches, we could have put seven Beagle 2s on Mars."
Keep a stiff upper lip Pillinger..pip pip..jolly Oh....
mike ring
news:4002b8ba$0$61056$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net:
>> >
>> There is a degree of sneering that you get from the usual left wing
>> media (BBC, Guardian etc.) but its just that all the media generally
>> like something to fail. It gives them a chance to blame everyone and
>> muck rake.
>>
>> Martin
>
> Do you think so? I got the impression that most of the UK media would
> have loved Beagle to be a success, especially as Pillinger has been
> seen as a real "character".
>
> - Michael
>
I fully agree - I was working at the Beeb when some scouts went missing
round Aviemore in winter a few years back.
They were missing for (at least) several days and our news staff were
practically widdling themselves waiting for the bodies to be found;
unfortunately the scouts turned up, theyd done everything right, dug a
burrow, got their heads down and waited for the weather to improve, then
waved cheerfully at the choppers.
The newsroom were livid - no bodies, no injuies, no-one to crucify; and
worst of all, they had to sound happy!
Good news is not news
mike r
Martin
"mike ring" <mike...@MICHAELbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946EE478363D7mi...@217.32.252.50...
I think the BBC radio is much more negative than BBC TV. I guess that the
monkeys work on radio? Radio 5 especially has a very negative attitude
towards most stories along with that horrid Socialist sneer that is typical
of London media types.
I hate the way they ask a question, then before they've even given someone a
chance to answer they interrupt and ask them something else. I guess that is
done to create the 5 second sound bite that is used on news bulletins?
One dopey female Radio 5 presenter didn't know that there had ever been more
than one moon landing and she generally has a sneering attitude to anything
scientific.
It was a Radio 5 science reporter that said on air that the news production
team were more interested in Beagle 2 failing than succeeding. Of course
Spirit 2 helped deflect a lot of the attention away from beagle. In actual
fact, listening to BBC Radio you'd be hard pressed to even know that the
Americans are being so successful on Mars.
Martin
socalsw
to be lost, and the same for Nozomi. On the other hand, I was happy
to see the Chinese Shenzhou succeed. Who knows, without national
competition, maybe nobody would send out space missions (or maybe
more). But now that we are past the Cold War, I would hope that
everyone could share in everyone else's successes and losses. I know,
sounds naive perhaps, but space is pretty big and we are rather
small...
socalsw
Erik
"Dan" <con...@viathewebsite.com> wrote in message news:<btusk9$8go$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Ethan Trewhitt
> Please don't confuse the opinion of one journalist, or newspaper,
> or broadcaster, with that of "the British people". Moreover,
> I'm not alone amoungst Brits in the sentiment: Hats off to NASA
> and the USA for daring, not only to dream, but to make those
> dreams manifest.
Thanks for that. I find it scary to think that Brits use Bush as a figurehead
who represents our (Americans') feelings, and though it's true that (too) many
people support him, there are plenty of us who can't stand him.
Elysium Fossa
> monkeys work on radio? Radio 5 especially has a very negative attitude
> towards most stories along with that horrid Socialist sneer that is
typical
> of London media types.
>
> I hate the way they ask a question, then before they've even given someone
a
> chance to answer they interrupt and ask them something else. I guess that
is
> done to create the 5 second sound bite that is used on news bulletins?
>
> One dopey female Radio 5 presenter didn't know that there had ever been
more
> than one moon landing and she generally has a sneering attitude to
anything
> scientific.
>
> It was a Radio 5 science reporter that said on air that the news
production
> team were more interested in Beagle 2 failing than succeeding. Of course
> Spirit 2 helped deflect a lot of the attention away from beagle. In actual
> fact, listening to BBC Radio you'd be hard pressed to even know that the
> Americans are being so successful on Mars.
>
> Martin
>
"commentary" of the total solar eclipse in 1999.
Martin
I don't know what it is about Radio 5. They just can't cover any science
topic in a serious way. If its anything to do with America there is
instantly a negative attitude and the usual thing that we should be spending
the money on better things (I'd rather pay my licence fee to a more worthy
cause as well) etc.
There is also a lack of people within the media generally, who don't
understand anything technological and therefore they tend to slag it off.
The number of women who admit on the radio that they are crap at science &
technology is amazing and they act all proud. But they would never admit to
being a bad shag. Until people take science seriously (and its science that
will fix the problems of the world not journalism) it will stay the same.
I blame MEDIA STUDIES!!!!!! BAH!
Martin
Mike Humberston
>I find it scary to think that Brits use Bush as a figurehead
>who represents our (Americans') feelings, and though it's true that (too) many
>people support him, there are plenty of us who can't stand him.
I suspect that most British people don't see Bush as representing
the feelings of the American people, particularly those British
who keep themselves informed and use their brains. Certainly
none of my friends and acquaintances make that mistake.
--
Mike Humberston
WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not oblivion.
Bettrel
>who represents our (Americans') feelings, and though it's true that (too)
>many
>people support him, there are plenty of us who can't stand him.
>
And there are many who support him, his views, and actions in part, though not
in whole. Oh no!! What's that? Something other than plain black and white?
That's surely anathema to American politics, isn't it? Those scary shades of
gray!!!!
David Nakamoto
The bottom line here is that since they only have one chance to make it,
given that they sent only one spacecraft, the smart thing to do is hedge
your bets and (1) build lots of redundancy where possible and accept the
additional size, power, and mass, or (2) expect it to fail and not get your
hopes up too high. These are the only reasonable positions to take. My
letdown on Mars Polar Impactor is that I thought Lockheed-Martin would have
taken position (1). But from what I understand, the guys engineering
Beagle-2 knew they couldn't build in much redundancy. I know you work on
something like this and get emotionally attached to it; it's almost
inevidable, but we need to stay realistic about it.
Ethan Trewhitt
> And there are many who support him, his views, and actions in part,
> though not in whole. Oh no!! What's that? Something other than
> plain black and white? That's surely anathema to American politics,
> isn't it? Those scary shades of gray!!!!
uhhh ...
Joe Bergeron
ring <mike...@MICHAELbtinternet.com> wrote:
> The newsroom were livid - no bodies, no injuies, no-one to crucify; and
> worst of all, they had to sound happy!
I've been watching some British news show on weeknights...one of the
newsreaders is Mary Nightingale. My pet name for the show is "The Dead
Children Half Hour". The show seems a little wan when there isn't a
dead, missing, or abused child or two to dwell upon.
On the other hand, I enjoy hearing the bald-headed political reporter
ripping into various shenanigans of the British government. I wish our
American "news" guys would take a stab at that.
--
Joe Bergeron
Chuck
news:M5yMb.141$RN1.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
That's the problem with a democracy, everyone gets to vote ...
Tony Turner
> That's the problem with a democracy, everyone gets to vote ...
>
only an experiment in government, and has the obvious disadvantage of merely
counting votes instead of weighing them"
Subz
>
> I don't know what it is about Radio 5. They just can't cover any science
> topic in a serious way. If its anything to do with America there is
> instantly a negative attitude and the usual thing that we should be
spending
> the money on better things (I'd rather pay my licence fee to a more worthy
> cause as well) etc.
Also, why are we still getting these "polls" deciding if the exploration of
space is a waste of money when there are starving people, health care and
war to pay for? How come when some multi-million dollar film is produced,
nobody complains about that? Personally, I'd rather risk £35 on a small
probe to Mars that fritter away money on a straight to video piece of crap.
Do these idiots think that £35 (for example) is really going to make such a
difference once it is divied up by the government into varies black holes of
spending?
> There is also a lack of people within the media generally, who don't
> understand anything technological and therefore they tend to slag it off.
> The number of women who admit on the radio that they are crap at science &
> technology is amazing and they act all proud. But they would never admit
to
> being a bad shag. Until people take science seriously (and its science
that
> will fix the problems of the world not journalism) it will stay the same.
How true. How very, very, true. *shakes head sadly*
> I blame MEDIA STUDIES!!!!!! BAH!
And other micky mouse studies.
Cheers,
Subz
Subz
"Subz" <rea...@oh.yar> wrote in message
news:SpNMb.23027$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
> Also, why are we still getting these "polls" deciding if the exploration
of
> space is a waste of money when there are starving people, health care and
> war to pay for? How come when some multi-million dollar film is produced,
> nobody complains about that? Personally, I'd rather risk £35 on a small
> probe to Mars that fritter away money on a straight to video piece of
crap.
> Do these idiots think that £35 (for example) is really going to make such
a
> difference once it is divied up by the government into varies black holes
of
> spending?
Okay, I'm forgetting the m's after the £35. Duh. Look... It's early and it's
a bloody awful morning outside! ;o)
Still, a probe to Mars for £35, man, that'd be cool. 3xChinese rockets, £10.
Disposable Kodak camera, £4. Paracute (Free, made from Asda carrier bag.).
12 Pack of beer to celebrate or commiserate, £8 (Stella, reassuringly
cheap.) With money left over to make Terminator 4. Fantastic! ;o)
Cheers,
Subz
Jonathan Silverlight
Fossa <elysiu...@netscape.net> writes
>>
>Pretty accurate there about Radio 5, you should have tuned into their
>"commentary" of the total solar eclipse in 1999.
But from what I gather, the whole BBC coverage of the eclipse wasn't
exactly a stellar performance.
mike ring
in news:jk78YhBX...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk:
>
> But from what I gather, the whole BBC coverage of the eclipse wasn't
> exactly a stellar performance.
I'd forgotten that particular fiasco - they should be made to watch it at
frequent intervals
mike r
Robert Cook
>
> I find it offensive that they call Hubble a "fiasco."
It's not just offensive--it's a bald-faced lie that completely
discounts not only the incredible scientific value of this instrument,
but also the success that NASA had in repairing and upgrading it in
orbit. Although I don't disagree with everything the article says, I
think that the Hubble comment tells us all we need to know about the
writer's point of view.
- Robert Cook
John
<gtg782a.s...@mail.gatech.edu> writes
>According to Elysium Fossa <elysiu...@netscape.net>:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fwm
>> ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
>>
>> I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been
>> different, or perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the
>> British press.
>
>I find it offensive that they call Hubble a "fiasco."
>
just that, a [very] expensive fiasco.
2.5 billion dollars to launch a mirror with undetected spherical
aberration!
Every ATM must have fallen about laughing at that one.
Then some unfortunate [or idiot] spokesman was given the job of
explaining to an astonished astronomical community that the HST mirror
"could not be tested properly on earth and had to be in space first".
Pardon?
The mission to correct the fault was indeed a triumph of ingenuity but
must have caused some gritted teeth amongst the team given the job.
As I understand it, from reports circulating at the time, the mirror
testing procedure was not overseen by the team responsible for the whole
HST project but was left to the manufacturers who seemed quite
incompetent.
--
John
circuit_breaker
Bush is one the the most signifiant US Presidents in history,
especially because when he says he will do something, he does. Like
it or not, American-minded people like me, don't always rely on the
"media" like you said. We have diversity too in North America.
"Jack Harrison" <jack.h...@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<M5yMb.141$RN1.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> "Elysium Fossa" <elysiu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:mZwMb.1839$YV1...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fwm
> > ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworld.html
> >
> > I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been different,
> or
> > perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the British press.
>
Scott Schwartz
as sysnonyms for Pro-Bush. Liking thepresident or nothas no bearing on
patriotism or Americanism. He is just a man (and a dimwitted lying one at
that).
"circuit_breaker" <circuit...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:2863e14b.04020...@posting.google.com...
Doug...
says...
> Sorry, as an AMERICAN I am Anti-Bush as well. Don't use American and Patriot
> as synonyms for Pro-Bush. Liking the president or not has no bearing on
> patriotism or Americanism. He is just a man (and a dimwitted lying one at
> that).
Thanks, Scott. My sentiments exactly.
Martin
"Doug..." <dvan...@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a8d9c252...@news-server.mn.rr.com...
Dimwitted and lying. I thought that was Clinton?
Martin
Scott Schwartz
to Reagan for Dimwitted lying as well? I think they can all classify like
that to an extent since most presidential candidates are inbred rich boys
with nothing better to do with the millions they have.
Don't make this into a Republican vs Democrat thing. It is a stupid
president thing only. I will criticize whoever is in office if he is a
moron. I don't care which side of the farm he grew up on.
"Martin" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c00qac$8ov$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Martin
"Scott Schwartz" <macl...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:1027tqm...@corp.supernews.com...
> So if it was Clinton that means it COULDN'T be Bush? Do we have to go back
> to Reagan for Dimwitted lying as well? I think they can all classify like
> that to an extent since most presidential candidates are inbred rich boys
> with nothing better to do with the millions they have.
> Don't make this into a Republican vs Democrat thing. It is a stupid
> president thing only. I will criticize whoever is in office if he is a
> moron. I don't care which side of the farm he grew up on.
I've never understood why Clinton was so popular. Whilst he was having his
way with young women in the Oval Office the Muslim Extremists were well at
work. Perhaps if Clinton had spent a bit more time worring about that rather
than did he or didn't he have his way with a certain young woman, perhaps
9/11 wouldn't have happened (why has everyone forgotten that it was planned
whilst Clinton was in charge?)
Martin
Scott Schwartz
not been a decent middle eastern policy set in place yet. Until the Middle
East decides to move forward it will stay in chaos. Once again I think it is
a mistake to point the finger at Republican or Democrat and just let the
blame lie on the people who were in charge regardless of affiliation. Where
Clinton was storing his willy at night made no difference to foreign policy.
Where Reagan wasn't storing his made no difference. What we need are leaders
who can see more than 4 year ahead and work for the betterment of the world
and not just the re-election of themselves and their flunkies. Sadly our
country is filled wth leaders that only see things in the short term.
Martin
What I can't understand is why anyone think sthat Bush's plan to go back to
the Moon or eventually Mars would be a vote winner? After all the only
reason that the USA pushed Apollo was that they were scared the Russians
might beat them to it.
This time I suspect that only if China clearly looks like its off to the
moon (and I wouldn't be surprised if they simply copied the Apollo design)
would the USA have to respond. I can't see the Americans potentially let
China have free run of the Moon.
As for the more general issues of politicians, well they all lie. What
pisses me off here in the UK is that the lefties that were all up in arms
over Blair lying to take us to war against Iraq were quite happy for Blair
to lie to get elected in the first place!!!
Martin
OG
>
>
> I've never understood why Clinton was so popular. Whilst he was having his
> way with young women in the Oval Office the Muslim Extremists were well at
> work. Perhaps if Clinton had spent a bit more time worring about that
rather
> than did he or didn't he have his way with a certain young woman, perhaps
> 9/11 wouldn't have happened (why has everyone forgotten that it was
planned
> whilst Clinton was in charge?)
>
> Martin
Hi Martin,
I really hesitate to get involved, (it's OT, but on the other hand I've got
a whisky in hand and I'm in opinionated mode), but following the attack on
the USS Cole in August 1999, Clinton's administration had developed an $850M
strategy for isolating Al Quaida; this was 'under review' by the incoming
administration. It is not fair to say that WJC was ignoring Muslim
extremism; WJC had the plan; it was GWB who failed to sieze the moment.
There is a theory that any 'liberal' administration believes they have no
right to be telling people what to do, but feel they have a duty to get
involved.
OTOH, Right Wing administrations feel they have a God-given authority to
_lead_ their nation and necessarily maximise the profits of their
supporters.
Unfortunately, there is much always going to be much more money (and much
firmer vested interests) on the Right, so _ANY_ administration is going to
be under threat unless it supports the
wealthy and already influential - because Clinton's travails showed that
even the most successful economic model is under threat from the forces of
the right.
As to why Clinton was popular >>> possibly because he occasionally thought
of supporting the weak over the strong. There may be 100 rich Americans
worth 580 Billion dollars, but there are 100 million poor Americans with 100
million votes. The richest Americans rely on the 100 million poorest either
not voting, or voting for their own poverty.
OG
>
> As for the more general issues of politicians, well they all lie. What
> pisses me off here in the UK is that the lefties that were all up in arms
> over Blair lying to take us to war against Iraq were quite happy for Blair
> to lie to get elected in the first place!!!
>
> Martin
>
In 1997, Blair didn't need to lie to get elected.
Murdoch and his cronies had to work bloody hard to get Major re-elected in
1992; by five years later a Tory with a red spot on his nose could have
gotten elected!
No No No, this is off topic - I would be replying to Martin personally, but
he hides behind a false addy. I won't say any more.
Martin
"OG" <owen_uses_...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:c01a38$1253c5$1...@ID-151220.news.uni-berlin.de...
ER no Blair has lied the entire time he's been in charge, ranging from no
tax increases, through to no tuition fees and of course the obvious lies
over the Iraq war.
As for Clinton, he wimped out of Somalia, allowed the Muslims to bomb the
WTC first time around, withdrew the weapons inspectors from Iraq and chucked
a few cruise missiles around Africa.
As for him supporting the weak. I think not. Bush has done far more in
trying to deal with AIDS in Africa than Clinton ever did. In fact it was
only under intense pressure from Blair that Clinton got involved in the
Balkans. And I find it really amusing how the US media all now praise Blair,
yet only a few years before they accused him of being willing to fight to
the last American soldier in the Balkans.
Clinton was a tosser, he supported big business just as much as Bush did.
He's also corrupt and can't keep his hands off other women. Hardly a great
leader. I have little time for Bush either (and especially Blair) but don't
try and make out that Clinton was Jesus 2.
Martin
OG
> but don't
> try and make out that Clinton was Jesus 2.
>
> Martin
>
This is so pathetic
Martin
What that people might have opinions that differ to yours? No doubt
Communism is your ideal.
Martin
OG
Let's just review here
I put an proposition that you don't agree with.
so
You say I'm claiming Bill Clinton is as good as Jesus
I didn't, so
I point out that your argument is pathetic
so
You say I can't bear that others may disagree with me, and I must prefer
Communism.
Fantastic, do you have any other information you would like to share with
us?