+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/22/2018 06:06 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.730 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
01/23/2005 04:34 AM ID: 45733 Permalink   

White House Will Not Fund Hubble Repairs


The White House has rejected a funding request to conduct repairs on the Hubble telescope. The request would have funded a human or robot repairperson, and sources say it would have cost over one billion dollars.

The Hubble still functions and has delivered stunning pictures of outer space for 15 years. The original mission was to only operate for 15 years but this was later extended to 20 years with 2010 as an end date.

Without this funding, the Hubble will continue to operate until it ceases to function. Under the budget proposal, astronauts were to install new equipment and visit the telescope periodically.

    WebReporter: JFURY Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Only so much in the pot  
$1B is a lot and as it has served it's purpose, a replacement is due and the pot must be nearly empty I can understand the decision.
Pity though, hope it continues for as long as possible. Maybe next year the funds can be found.
  by: bag     01/23/2005 11:57 AM     
  is a replacement in the works?  
i'd love to see deep-space studies continue. if they're just going to let the hubble die and not send up something new in its place, i'm gonna be pretty disappointed.
  by: ayestiva   01/23/2005 05:03 PM     
But it won't be ready till 2011 and imo that is a good case for continuing with Hubble but I don't have wars or a country to run. Maybe next year the funding will be available but hopefully it won't go faulty.
  by: bag     01/23/2005 07:48 PM     
  oh good...  
six years isn't too long to wait, if hubble doesn't last, i can live with that. here's hoping the followup doesn't get scrapped or whittled down to pay for something else...
  by: ayestiva   01/24/2005 01:30 AM     
  I bet  
I bet if they wanted to slap a laser guided missile system into it the cash would be found somewhere in seconds.
  by: rory182     01/24/2005 01:37 PM     
The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that the job of the Federal Government is to "provide for the common defense". In other words, the Federal Government of the United States of America is legally bound to defend the citizens and visitors whithin our borders. That being said, there is absolutely no Constitutional basis for providing funding for deep space research at the expense of our defense budget. If we need the money for our military, the Federal Government is legally obligated to divert funding. It is not the bloodlust that you seem to see in our Federal system. I am extremely happy that you are not an eligible voter here. Your lack of understanding of our Republic only intensifies your lack of open mindedness. Good luck there in your country. I hope that you are not one of the victims of Islamo-Fascists. If you need us to come defend you as well just give us a call. We have defended your country before and we will do so again. It is the freedom that you enjoy that we defend, not your personal opinions.
  by: tomblik     01/24/2005 03:34 PM     
jesus talk about getting all het up about a simple comment ....

I was refering to the US refusal to join UN resolutions on Non-Militarisation of space I wasn't seriously sugesting that they were going to use Hubble for this ..

Nice to know that the rest of the world sleeps under the blanket of peace provided by the USA though .. although if this is the case why did the Iraqis vote JACQUES CHIRAC as the most respected world leader in a recent poll . I mean The US just saved them right ....why didn't they vote for Bush the man who brought them peace and saved them from your Islamo-Fascists ...and Chirac was against the war ...???

Oh did the people in Iraq "give you a call" ??
  by: rory182     01/24/2005 04:11 PM     
  and another thing  
You don't even know what country I'm from .....
But anyway you're not saving anyone from Islamo-Fascists (how many terrorist suspects has the US rounded up ???) bugger all except the people the Northern Alliance sold to the Us for massive sums of cash who have spent 2 years in Cuba ..check your press it's in Europe and Britain that terrorist groups are being rounded up on a daily basis , I am yet to become aware of a "definate catch" of terrorist suspects in the US all the headline stories over there seem to fizzle out when held up to the light...

Do you think the current world anger at Americas position in all this is creating a climate of trust and will reduce terrorism ???

And if I was a voter over there who the hell could I vote for? Rep. or Dem. most people outside the Us see very little difference between the two ..

Anyway this is a story about space exploration gone mad if you want to continue the debate we should move over to the Forums .
  by: rory182     01/24/2005 04:22 PM     
In your own words, "in my office in Spain". I do know where you are. You told everyone yourself last week. Secondly, the Kurdish minority has been begging for help for years. We let them down in the early ninetys, but we are more than making up for it now. Next allow me to point you to today's short news regarding captured terrorists.
Lastly, when you make an ill informed comment like your laser guided missile comment you should expect a fairly quick response. I do not seriously think you were suggesting that the US would be doing that with Hubble. You simply made a stupid comment that I easily rebutted with the Constitution of the United States and how our defense spending budget in a time of war takes precedent over the Hubble telescope. Have a wonderful lunatic fringe day.
  by: tomblik     01/24/2005 04:52 PM     
  Since when  
Since when does having an office in Spain make you
Spanish ??? Eh no I'm not Spanish .

the Kurdish minority has been begging for help for

Yeah begging for the international community to
stop American Arms flooding into the region which
always end up being pointed at them

We let them down in the early ninetys

That's putting it softly . The US supplied tonnes of
arms to Turkey to massacre Kurds in fact during
the period Turkey was the biggest biggest arms
buyer from the Us apart from Israel and Egypt
which are in a different catagory ....

They also helped the international community to
point it's cameras at Bosnia at the time where a
similar massacre was going on ...what happened in
Turkey ...well ask someone over there and see if
they know anything about US arms sales in the
region at the time

Not to mention Saddam and his Us backers

When Britain had it's day in the sun Churchill was
outraged at not being allowed to use posion gas
against them ....

So the Us went into iraq to save the Kurds ...well
that's news to quite a few people , wasn't it over

  by: rory182     01/24/2005 05:09 PM     
  Your head is in the clouds  
or the sand. You are so intent on being anti-US that you can't see the forest for the trees. Get past your hatred for the US then maybe, just maybe, you can have a philisophical debate. The US sells weapons to lots of countries as do many other countries. The US does not sell weapons to countries just so they can undertake specific campaigns. If we sell a country weapons or equipment for their defense and they use those weapons for something that we may not agree with, it does not mean that we sold it to them so they could do it. We never said "Here is a bomb. Go kill some Kurds."
  by: tomblik     01/24/2005 06:24 PM     
  And one other thing  
If you will go back in your history about 3 pages to the UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the war in Iraq is about Iraq's or more precisely Saddamm's refusal to comply with 12 years of UN resolutions, and his up front support of terrorism. You seem to conveniently forget such facts in order to spout your own opinions without any documentation to support your claims. Don't give me that link as support either. They have absolutely no credibility.
  by: tomblik     01/24/2005 06:28 PM     
  only me :-)  
Ok point by point

If we’re getting all philosophical since when is it anti-US to criticize The US Governments Foreign Policy.

If someone in Europe say in France stood up and criticized the French government they wouldn’t be called Anti-French In fact those calling them Anti-French would be laughed at.

So the US has no responsibility as to what people do with the arms it sells despite the fact that it sells to regimes who are currently using the arms it’s buying from them to commit International crimes and other crimes against humanity ………and my head is in the clouds…… no comment .

And man I am so happy you’ve been watching Mainstream Media and brought up UN Resolutions

Iraq failed to comply to UN resolutions

Here’s a little Noam Chomsky back in October 2003 when Iraq wasn’t fulfilling UN Resolutions , I’m sure you’ve heard of him

Over to you Noam

If you take the record of vetoes: the US ran the United Nations in the early days, because of the distribution of power. By the 1960s it was beginning to reflect some sort of world opinion. Decolonization had taken place and there were a lot of participants. However, since the mid 1960s, the US is far in the lead on vetoing resolutions and Britain is second.

No one else is even close and this can’t be discussed. They haven’t discussed the fact that the UN is paralyzed by the US refusal to obey international positions. There was all this fuss in the last year about Iraq only partially fulfilling UN resolutions. Right, maybe they should fulfill them all. If Iraq had the veto they wouldn’t have had to fail to fulfill UN resolutions. I mean the veto is the strongest and most extreme method of violating UN resolutions. So if you want to be serious about even wanting to discuss the topic, you bring up the veto. I don’t know one article in the entire US press in terms of opinion that brought up the point.

These are not trivial resolutions. The US has vetoed resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. It vetoed the Security Council resolution affirming the World Court judgment which condemned the US for pronounced international terrorism. No one mentions this, nobody knows it, it’s not part of anyone’s consciousness. You go into the faculty club or the editorial offices and people will never have heard about it. That’s what it means to have extreme power and a very subservient intellectual class. Exactly as Morgenthau pointed out – it’s out of history, it didn’t happen.
  by: rory182     01/24/2005 07:01 PM     
  You are beginning  
to have a little bit of arguement on your side of this discussion. However, you fail to recognize the the Constitution of the United States of America. This document was written at a time when there was no international body of government. Since there was no international governing body of any sort, US soveregnty is the highest authority concerning the United States. In other words, it would violate our constitution to subject our soldiers to international courts. Next is the idea that individual states should recognize international law as being supreme. Since the US Constitution sets up the order of government here it sets up the order of government so that state and local government cannot breech the supremecy of the Federal Government. In other words, a state cannot pass legislation that would contradict Federal Law and there is no higher law than Federal law.

The United Nations has a set of countries with the power of veto. If you don't like the veto power, you will have to take that issue up at the next UN Security Council meeting that you attend. What would be the point in weilding veto power if you never used it in your own best interests. If you know anything at all about history you will remember the "League of Nations". It was the UN's predecessor that failed miserably because nothing was ever accomplished and it was eventually abandoned. There was no veto power. The failures were based on the idea that we ended up with a buddy system. If you vote yes for my resolution I will vote for yours. This buddy system had no real controls that would prevent resolutions that were bad for the League of Nations from being passed. That is the reason that the founding members of the United Nations were granted the power of veto as an internal control. The US must continue to use the veto to protect US interests whether they be economic or political. If we stopped caring about ourselves, we would cease to exist. No one here wants that.
The only way to achieve what you think we should be doing would be to scrap our Constitution and start over. However, there is no interest here in doing that. Basically, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other. See which hand gets filled first. It simply isn't going to happen in the near future. That isn't because of Bush either. Americans are very nationalistic when it concerns abandoning our Constitution. We may not always agree on things, but we agree that we love our republic and we aren't going to have Europeans telling us to do things their way.
  by: tomblik     01/24/2005 08:50 PM     
  International Constitution.  
Your very quick to rush to the defense of your own countries actions, but I am curious as to what your views would be on anothers. Your using the argument that basically says, "Becuase we said we can do it, its okay for us."

However, speaking as a represantitive of your country, would you not wish the same rights on others? Not forcing them upon others or what not, but respecting that they have the right to rule their own country as you seem to support in your own?

If that was true, the Iraq invasion should not, and would not be about installing a democratic goverment. If there were WMD's I would agree with stopping them. Not on a major invasion but with careful intelligence. To re-justify a war is simply a scared administration looking for a better excuse. It is alright to show weakness but the administration doesn't seem to see that.

For all the cries against this "war on terror," I've noticed that its still very much an invasion agenda. Countries don't support terrorists. If anything, the vast majority of terrorists come from inside the country itself. They are more often then not disgruntled patriots who believe that the only course of action to invoke change is violent, however misguided it may be.

Even the US has many more terrorists born and rasied on its terrorists then it does outside. Which isn't to say that there is a large terror problem in the US. Its far worse in places such as, well even West Ireland.

The US has made its fair share of enemies and we are witnessing those enemies fight back. The goal of terrorists isn't murder, its change. I don't endorse terrorism by any level, but I do agree with fighting back anyway you can against someone doing wrong upon you or your people. The United States is literally a country founded on dissadents who weren't satisfied with the opressive life they were living in Europe. Now its almost ironic to see how far they've come from their ideals. Its time to give up the outmoded concepts of good-country/bad-country and actually try to solve problems instead of either bullying your way through them, critizing them, or supporting them. Everyone is entitled to their own view, but I am sick of watching people take embittered stances against each other.

Kind of a funny thought, but although he was horribly unpopular with the people, Lincon did much for freedom. At least he acknowledged that a country divided upon itself.....
  by: drewmcgowan   01/25/2005 08:05 AM     
Firstly I would like to point out that I said that it would be illegal under US law for any President to subject the US to international law. If (this wouldn't happen but we can go hypothetical on this one) President Bush said "OK. Give us the International Criminal Court" He would be breaking US law and would be quickly kicked out of the White House and replaced. His replacement would quickly reverse the US position on the ICC and put the US right back where it is today. It would require a fundamental change to the US Constitution for that to happen, and that change is simply not going to happen. Your insistance that we not view countries as "good" or "bad" is naive at best. That is like saying that there is no "good lay" or a "bad lay". We should just refer to them as "lay". Maybe we shouldn't rate Universities on how "good" or "bad" their engineering program is thought to be. Maybe we shouldn't think of football (American football or the rest of the world's football doesn't make a difference here) teams as "good" or "bad". How exactly would you prioritize countries that you would like to visit. Be careful now. Don't say that you would prefer to go to France rather than Romania because the art is "better" in France. We wouldn't want anyone to think that France could be better or Romania could be worse. Don't say you would prefer to go to Switzerland rather than Nigeria because there isn't any good skiing in Nigeria. We don't want to label things as good or bad. That leftist equality B.S. has got to stop. It is our inequalities that make us valuable as individuals. These same inequalities influence art and culture in the most amazing ways and to treat everyone like vanilla pudding would be a crime against humanity. Everyone is not equal. I wouldn't want an autistic person doing my heart surgery, but I wouldn't want a hear doctor overhauling my Pontiac GTO either. It is the inequalities that make a mechanic a good mechanic versus that kid down the street with the neon lights under his Toyota who pays someone else to repair his "Fast and Furious" rollerskate. I am good at somethings and bad at others. Likewise some countries are good or bad depending on what you are talking about. There aren't many good Alaskan surfers just like there aren't many good Hawiian ice fishermen. In respect to a country's art they may be great, but in respect to their treatment of their fellow man they may suck. If the negative aspects of a country outnumber the positive aspects, I would label that country as "bad".
The US has not reversed its position on why we went to Iraq. We clearly stated prior to going into Iraq that Saddam's refusal to certify that he was complying with the conditions of his surrender in the early 90's. A surrender is a truce. If you and I are wrestling in the living room floor and you pin me. I can signal my surrender with some word that we agree upon. If I use the key word and you let me up then I refuse to abide by the terms of my surrender, what exactly is going to happen? Our little wrestling match would resume quickly. It is very important that a defeated enemy must abide by the terms of surrender. If not, what does surrender mean? For 12 years the UN had tried to enforce Saddam's surrender. For 12 years he had given excuses and stonewalled inspections. The US grew tired of this. There was also reliable information regarding Saddam funding terrorism by paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel. So there were questions to be answered that Saddam refused to answer. As a condition of his surrender, Saddam was required to subject himself to the UN resolutions regarding his weapons programs. Saddam agreed to this surrender then welched on the agreement. So the US went back and kicked his @ss. The US has not changed its position. WMDs were only one of a host of reasons to remove Saddam from power.
As to your comments President Lincoln, he didn't free the slaves. Read if you will the Emancipation Proclamation. It only "freed" slaves in the south. The south had already declared itself an independent state so Lincoln's address was just hot air. Further, after reading his proclomation he returned to the White House where the White House slaves served his dinner. You seem to have less insight into US history than a blind man has on television.
  by: tomblik     01/25/2005 04:28 PM     
  time to move this to a forum ...perhaps  
The US has not reversed its position on why we went to Iraq. We clearly stated prior to going into Iraq that Saddam's refusal to certify that he was complying with the conditions of his surrender in the early 90's

I’m not going to get into a big tit for tat post here cause I simply don’t have time in the next 2 or 3 days (got a lot of work on ) but where do you get stuff like the above.

Saddam put a huge offer on the table which even granted America drilling rights in certain oil fields for American companies. This obviously wasn’t widely reported in the US the Us and UK rejected the offer ….

They even stated that if Saddam left the country the attack would go ahead

They blocked an anti-Saddam revolution that was brewing In the country and could have possibly have overthrown him (he could have gone the way most totalitarian dictators inevitably do)

If you want to discuss American interests in the region you can go back to 1945 and observe the State Departments observation as to the wealth of the region..

"a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history"

Eisenhower in closed comment (so we know it from declassified documents ) pointed out the growing Anti-American feeling in the region and pointed out that this was because Arabs felt that the USA was deliberately supporting Status-Quo governments and blocking the growth of democracy in these Arab countries because America has no interests in the region apart from the oil ……


To which he added this will be difficult to rebuff because it’s correct and not only is it correct but that it should be correct ….

Wasn’t this attack sold to the American people as part of the “war on terror” take a look at the polls why did so many Americans believe (and many still do) that Saddam had something to do with 911 …that’s not chance …that was sold through the media as fact … and as for WMD well that issue is such a sick joke by now that it doesn’t even deserve comment…

And as for UN resolutions it appears they apply to everyone except the US (what the constitution doesn’t allow it)
Take a look at the Veto the US and Israel pulled on the UN resolution calling on all countries to observe international law. Nowhere did the US bring up it’s constitution in the debate both parties pointed to the same paragraph in the resolution and said that would veto the resolution because of it
  by: rory182     01/25/2005 05:58 PM     
  cont...from above  

It referred to military occupations (Palestine) so the Israelis said no
And it mentioned South Africa (which the US backed all through the apartheid years)

So that was out the window because it referred to “crimes” we do and not “crimes” carried out by others no mention of the US constitution …not a whiff of it

Saddam’s first mistake was the invasion of Kuwait …why..Because he was acting on his own .. he didn’t ask the US …big mistake …I mean it was ok for him to gas Kurds ..that was fine the US backed him prior to this and after …Kuwait ..well he wasn’t following orders from Crawford Texas so he’s gotta go.

Then we had that 15 year old telling the world how Iraqi soldiers threw babies out of incubators in the Hospital in Kuwait and went on a murderous rampage ..and all the Arab women around her crying for the cameras…..Turned out that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador or something like that and was never in the hospital and the whole thing was a fabrication … but it worked and The White House was impressed (so impressed in fact that they made her a spokesperson !!!) (Perfect person for the job …i.e. a liar)
And then the lies and media circus began and is still going on …..

Take a look at Rummys comments on the 12th of September 2001, his immediate reaction to the attacks on 911 were “shouldn’t we use this opportunity to do something about Iraq as well”

As for the weapons inspections, a lot of talk goes around about how Saddam made a joke of them and “stonewalled” the inspections….

Very few actually quote the inspectors themselves who said that Saddam complied 110% , that in the end they worked ….

Americas proof that Saddam had WMD’s

1 informers (namely Saddams son in law) who was head of the weapons programs…he said they were working on WMD’s ….. What they failed to report, and it wasn’t reported until a British journalist went to Geneva and looked at the original transcripts was near the end he stated …”under my orders ( and he was in charge) all of the above was destroyed after 1991 “

2 Video images: - Powell was sent to the Un to convince the rest of the world of the “imminent threat” that Saddam was he showed a video of an Iraqi plane spraying a liquid he claimed was Simulated Serine Gas..He failed to point out that the plane in question according to UN and US weapons inspectors was destroyed in 1991

3 Chemical Weapons: - Powell held up a small glass vile in front of the Un and told the world “one teaspoon of this could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans” what he failed to tell them (caus he probably didn’t know, he certainly didn’t look sure of himself but gave an Oscar winning performance all the same). He failed to mention that according to America’s number 1 informer and head of the Iraqi WMD prog. and CIA reports Iraq produced in 1989 two liters of serine gas which had a shelf life of two months and looked not like a white powder but more like coca cola syrup and was of no military use .
  by: rory182     01/25/2005 05:58 PM     
  last bit  
Artist Renders :- of what a mobile chemical lab looks like …why no photos??? …because they didn’t exist and remember the elaborate caves Bin Laden was hiding in with water systems and hundreds of passages and rooms etc etc … all a crock Rummy actually said on TV “we know they exist and there are hundreds just like that one”

Wire taps or whatever you call them of (supposed) Iraqi generals talking openly on radios …any soldier on sn can tell you that Top Secret info isn’t broadcasted like this by Generals on fm radios

I could go on and on but the facts are there

1 they lied
2 they knew they were doing so
3 They are going to line the pockets of Corporations with oil money from Iraq
4 Who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq ?? America yeah the American tax payer ….. not with the money from the oil …..a lot of Americans don’t get this .. they aren’t going to see a cent of this unless they are Texaco or Shell or Toys’r’us (yep they are getting money from Iraq along with a huge list of others)

During the Reagan years there was a close community of 5 or 6 who were known as the “crazies” within the Republican Party … Among these “crazies” were Rumsfeld , Paul Wolfowitz and Cheney …lets face it the current Administration , Powell is reportedly to have made comments along the line of “the crazies are taking over”

Looking at these sorts of facts as to Saddam not complying with UN resolutions or surrender agreements or whatever send that argument into the trivial.

A lot of people are now buying the well ok we lied ,killed 100,000 civilians (closer to a million taking into account the 10 years prior to the current conflict) but we brought down Saddam which was a good thing …

No one debates that Saddam was a brutal dictator (of American creation) , he was however a highly efficient one really efficient in fact . The World Health Organization have pointed out that Saddam’s food distribution program was the best they have ever seen and that they have been unable to reproduce it anywhere. This along with the UN sanctions pushed the people closer to Saddam (they needed him for their survival, you know for food on the table, like your dinner is ready ...Hence they depended on him so much they didn’t have much time to dedicate to planning his demise, attempts were made but blocked by the US ,if the US was interested in bringing him down wouldn’t that have been the logical option ) . It may have been but if the Iraqi people did it themselves how would the US get a permanent Military base in the area and of course not forgetting the oil the stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history".

The list goes on, I sadly have to do some work so I’m off , feel free to comment disagree or whatever ….
  by: rory182     01/25/2005 05:58 PM     
  Oh sure, billions to take oil from iraq...  
...but none to find out the screts of the universe. great decision assholes!
  by: fredfredrickson   01/31/2005 09:46 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: