Another Attempt To Hinder GA

[Jay Beckman]

From today's EAA E-Newsletter:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Peter Gottlieb]

Idiot. He is supposed to represent my state and me? He will hear from me.


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01...
> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>
>

[Darkwing Duck \(Infidel\)]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01...
> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!


I find it ironic, YET appropriate, that the jerk's name is Weiner.

[Scott Skylane]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>
>
Message sent to my rep., Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation
Committee. This bill has no chance...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Doug]

Scott Skylane > wrote in news:10k2e2b77392uc5
@corp.supernews.com:

> Jay Beckman wrote:
>> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>>
>> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>>
>> Jay Beckman
>> Student Pilot - KCHD
>> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>>
>>
> Message sent to my rep., Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation
> Committee. This bill has no chance...
>

Oooh.. your one of those evil special interest types that controls our
Government from behind the scenes... LOL

good on ya, I contacted my reps as well... dont know the outcome but I
trust they wont use my email for tail timber...

-Doug
"I am the far right"

[C J Campbell]

Oooh! Ooh! This makes me so mad.

You almost wish these guys would get their way so that the economy would
tank and the revolution would come.

[Kees Mies]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message news:<qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01>...
> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

After reading this I think it is just a matter of time that flying in
the US is more restrictive than Europe or even North Korea.

-Kees (from Europe)

[kontiki]

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than
unequal in freedom. --Alexis de Tocqueville

Kees Mies wrote:
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message news:<qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01>...
>
>>From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>>
>>http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>>
>>Jay Beckman
>>Student Pilot - KCHD
>>46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>
>
> After reading this I think it is just a matter of time that flying in
> the US is more restrictive than Europe or even North Korea.
>
> -Kees (from Europe)

[Bob Noel]

In article <qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01>, "Jay Beckman"
> wrote:

> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

Now congress critters think they can repeal physical laws?

"It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S.
airspace remain in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration,
presumably by radio, regardless of altitude or location."

or will the congress critters fund the FAA to put enough RCOs
(and radars) so provide the required coverage?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[NW_PILOT]

I think that this would infringe on my Right to Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness.

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01...
> From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 46.5 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> I think that this would infringe on my Right to Life, Liberty, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness.

They, uh, left those out of the Constitution when they wrote it... not that
any of the rights that actually got in are any better off.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> They, uh, left those out of the Constitution when they wrote it... not
> that
> any of the rights that actually got in are any better off.
>

They left all rights out of the Constitution when they wrote it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

NW_PILOT wrote:
>
> I think that this would infringe on my Right to Life, Liberty, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness.

So?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Toly]

His email is

I have personally seen the fool giving out flyers in Bklyn. He leaves
the impression of a complete retard, with slogans like "fight crime"
and "improve commute". I see with this bill he's doing both.

Anyway, pls drop him a line... he could use some attention.

-Toly.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > They, uh, left those out of the Constitution when they wrote it... not
> > that
> > any of the rights that actually got in are any better off.
> >
>
> They left all rights out of the Constitution when they wrote it.

True, but they did try to put some of them back in with amendments.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:29:32 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in <qc90d.136551$4o.14720@fed1read01>::

>From today's EAA E-Newsletter:
>
>http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/040909_weiner.html
>


EAA URGES MEMBERS TO OPPOSE OUTRAGEOUS HOUSE BILL THAT WOULD SEVERELY
RESTRICT GENERAL AVIATION

EAA AVIATION CENTER, OSHKOSH, Wis. - (Sept. 9, 2004) - The
Experimental Aircraft Association is urging its members and all
aviation enthusiasts to contact their Congressional representatives
and strongly oppose a newly introduced bill by Rep. Anthony Weiner
(D-N.Y.)


Here's a little information about this misguided Representative:

http://www.house.gov/weiner/

1122 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-6616

As a member of the Science Committee, Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, Weiner has been a driving force behind the
investigation into the space shuttle Columbia disaster. He has
also passed a measure to expand research into quieter aircraft
engines.

Weiner also serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, where he sits on the Aviation and Highways
Subcommittees where he is leading the fight to reduce airport air
noise.


This bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland
Security to create a method of screening all passengers and property
on each flight of all passenger aircraft in the U.S., including
general aviation aircraft of all types.

Rep. Weiner obviously has no concept of the large number of GA
operations that occur daily from many times more airports than
originate at airline hubs. To accomplish GA passenger screening
at all airports serving GA aircraft would require an enormous
increase in federal personnel and equipment.

It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within
1,500 feet of any structure or building,

How is that supposed to increase homeland security? Does Rep.
Weiner expect terrorists to obey the regulations?

and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with
a population of 1 million or more.

Ummm... Let me see if I understand this correctly. Rep. Weiner
feels that only AIRLINE traffic has the RIGHT to airspace over
metropolitan areas. I'm beginning to smell the stench of
graft money....


It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace
remain in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration, presumably
by radio, regardless of altitude or location.

Ostensibly, this requirement would identify those flights failing
to comply as suspected terrorists. Unfortunately, low-level
flights, such as pipeline patrol, and crop dusting, and flights in
outlying areas would find it difficult to comply with this
proposed requirement.

"The extreme shortsightedness of this bill speaks for itself and
completely counters the government's own security experts, who have
continually stated that general aviation does not pose a significant
security threat to the U.S.," said Doug Macnair, EAA's vice president
of government relations. "It's sad that the solemn anniversary of the
9/11 terrorist attacks is being used to introduce this bill, which
does nothing to enhance security and smacks of election-year
grandstanding."

Actually, it smacks of airline influence, IMNSHO.

With 17,000 landing facilities and nearly 200,000 aircraft in the
United States, EAA maintains that it is inconceivable that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FAA could ever fund and
administer such a plan. DHS and the Transportation Security
Administration have repeatedly indicated that general aviation does
not warrant such levels of security when compared to other
transportation modes and threats.

"We as a nation need to focus our limited resources on the most
serious vulnerabilities and threats to our security," Macnair added.
"TSA has made extensive studies of those threats and nowhere has that
agency ever suggested such draconian measures as those proposed in
this bill."

EAA members and others can express their opposition to this bill to
their congressional representatives by finding their contact
information at http://www.house.gov. EAA immediately contacted members
of the House Aviation Subcommittee to state its extreme opposition to
this legislation.

[Peter Duniho]

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
...
> [...] For
> what ever reasons, it does seem that we are seeing more democrats
> than republicans with their "heads up their ass", so to speak.

They are just trying to catch up with the biggest "head up his ass" of all,
the President responsible for the Department of Homeland Security. It's
going to be pretty tough to top that act. I'm not sure there are enough
heads and asses even to accomplish that.

[Doug]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:



>> what ever reasons, it does seem that we are seeing more democrats
>> than republicans with their "heads up their ass", so to speak.
>
> They are just trying to catch up with the biggest "head up his ass" of
> all, the President responsible for the Department of Homeland
> Security. It's going to be pretty tough to top that act. I'm not
> sure there are enough heads and asses even to accomplish that.
>


Your right, Our President should have sat back and kept the status-quo
after our country was attacked. Lord knows we shouldnt disrupt YOUR
flying.

So easy for you to call it from the cheap seats.. things gotta change we
cannot sit back and think oceans will protect us any longer.


-Doug

"10 out of 10 Terrorists agree... Kerry for President"

[Casey Wilson]

>Sorry but Homeland Security belongs to the military.
>

Hmmm, don't think so. It brings to mind the term "posse comitatus."

[Peter Duniho]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Your right, Our President should have sat back and kept the status-quo
> after our country was attacked. Lord knows we shouldnt disrupt YOUR
> flying.

You say that as though we are safer now than we were before.

Nothing that has been implemented that restricts my flying in any way
improves security for this country. Precious little of ANY of the DHS
activities improve security for this country, and much of what Bush has
overseen has decreased security for this country by increasing global
hostility toward us.

> So easy for you to call it from the cheap seats.. things gotta change we
> cannot sit back and think oceans will protect us any longer.

I never thought that before. If you have so little imagination that the
only solution you can think of is to turn ourselves into a police state,
then you are beyond help.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
...
> The democrats have been pressuring to create a department of
> Homeland Security for years.

Ahh, I see. That's why we had eight years with a Democrat President without
a DHS being created?

You can make whatever claims you want about who wanted a DHS, the fact
remains it was Bush who presided over the creation of the DHS, not any other
President.

Pete

[Doug]

> Ahh, I see. That's why we had eight years with a Democrat President
> without a DHS being created?
>
> You can make whatever claims you want about who wanted a DHS, the fact
> remains it was Bush who presided over the creation of the DHS, not any
> other President.
>
> Pete
>



And it was President Bush that was served the most heinous Terrorist
attack that this country has ever seen.

You play the cards your delt and you deal with it effectively.. like you
got a pair...

------------------

The last 8 years you speak of with NO DHS..you have Clinton sitting idly
by getting a BJ and "stuffing cigars" while:

1993 World Trade Center Bombing:
Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New
York City, killing six people and injuring thousands

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar
Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more

1998 Embassy Bombings
Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were
injured.

2000 USS Cole Bombing
Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni
port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors. American officials
quickly linked the attack to bin Laden and al-Qaeda

-----------

Thank you President Bush for finally saying enough is enough. And when
AMERICANS are murdered on your watch we get action, not enablement.

FACT: Since Bush and DHS (With its flaws as any Gov agency has) no
attacks on American Soil... the fight is on their turf and our people
are safer today because of his action.

[FullName]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

>> You say that as though we are safer now than we were before.
>
> Nothing that has been implemented that restricts my flying in any way
> improves security for this country. Precious little of ANY of the DHS
> activities improve security for this country, and much of what Bush
> has overseen has decreased security for this country by increasing
> global hostility toward us.

And you think they hated us any less or wanted to hug us on Sept 10th?
Wake up sir.


> I never thought that before. If you have so little imagination that
> the only solution you can think of is to turn ourselves into a police
> state, then you are beyond help.
>


Pete, I've been a card carrying member of the GOP for 15 years now. I
fight and demand for my freedoms that this great country has blessed us
with. Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
restrictions. But wake up.. the world has changed, evil exists and it has
to be delt with. So if that means I have to fly around a TFR (keeping us
on topic :) )then I fly around it. At least I have the freedom to fly and
not worry about someone strapping on a bomb and wasting my ass while I eat
a pizza before I go up.

Freedom isn't free.

[Peter Duniho]

"FullName" > wrote in message
...
> And you think they hated us any less or wanted to hug us on Sept 10th?
> Wake up sir.

Yes, I *do* believe that more people in the world hate us today than did on
September 10th. You wake up yourself (and if you want your opinion to count
for something, quit hiding behind your anonymous fake name and address).

> Pete, I've been a card carrying member of the GOP for 15 years now. I
> fight and demand for my freedoms that this great country has blessed us
> with. Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
> restrictions.

That might have been true, in a time long ago. It is clearly not true
today. I suppose if you've only been involved with the Republican party for
15 years, that might be lost on you though.

> But wake up.. the world has changed, evil exists and it has
> to be delt with.

Wake up? Again with that? Uh, right.

> So if that means I have to fly around a TFR (keeping us
> on topic :) )then I fly around it.

There's not a single TFR that actually succeeds in protecting whatever it is
supposed to protect. Even the 30 mile TFR that follows the President around
is useless.

I don't might a security measure as long as a) it doesn't violate my
Constitutional rights, and b) it actually DOES SOMETHING GOOD.

> At least I have the freedom to fly and
> not worry about someone strapping on a bomb and wasting my ass while I eat
> a pizza before I go up.
>
> Freedom isn't free.

In your world, freedom apparently isn't freedom either.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> The last 8 years you speak of with NO DHS..you have Clinton sitting idly
> by getting a BJ and "stuffing cigars" while:

A little jealous that none of your Republicans are getting laid? Here's a
clue-by-four for you: get over it. If you think Clinton was the first
President to have an extra-marital affair, or the first to do so in the
White House, you are incredibly naive.

> 1993 World Trade Center Bombing:
> Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New
> York City, killing six people and injuring thousands

Heh...yeah, right. It's all Clinton's fault, even though he was only in
office a month.

In any case, none of the bombings you mention resulted in our Constitutional
rights being taken away. I fail to see what your point is, unless it's to
prove my point for me.

> FACT: Since Bush and DHS (With its flaws as any Gov agency has) no
> attacks on American Soil... the fight is on their turf and our people
> are safer today because of his action.

It's unfortunate that you will eat those words, and probably not in the
distance future. We had no attacks on American soil for decades *prior* to
the creation of the DHS. Lack of attacks is in no way proof of the efficacy
of the DHS.

Back to logic class for you.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> It's unfortunate that you will eat those words, and probably not in the
> distance future. We had no attacks on American soil for decades *prior*
> to
> the creation of the DHS.

1993 WTC bombing wasn't an attack on US soil?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Jim Rosinski]

FullName > wrote

> Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
> restrictions.

How do you reconcile the "less Government" part of that assertion with
the fact that the size of government has grown, not shrunk, during the
Bush presidency (e.g. the new prescription drug entitlement pushed
through by Bush)? And with a Republican House and Senate to boot.

Dunno what planet you think you're on if you actually believe
Republicans as a group want to shrink the size of government.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Doug]

>
> Yes, I *do* believe that more people in the world hate us today than
> did on September 10th. You wake up yourself (and if you want your
> opinion to count for something, quit hiding behind your anonymous fake
> name and address).
>

Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.
And they were not even in Iraq... (guess there goes ALL your reasoning)

Lets see who else is more mad at us today...

Like the palenstinean murders that are no longer getting their blood money
from Saddam.

Like the taliban that no longer have a seat of opression of 25 million
people.

Like Abu Abbas who no longer has safe haven in baghada after murding a
wheel chair bound man and dumping his body overboard.

Like al-queda leader Al-zarqui who no longer gets Iraqi state sponsored
medical treatment for his battle wounds.

Like the thousands of Saddam loyalist and thugs that no long can oppress,
rape, torture and kill their own countrymen. But yet.. sadly they find
ways to continue it still today. Through their mortars, IEDs and car
bombs. But thanks to self-loathers and America haters like yourself you
feed poision into our countries resolve and they get stronger with each
word you type. Stand behind them folks there Pete.. sure your families
real proud of that.

--
and to summarize, chew me..you do not decide or dictate how I express
myself, I will post as I choose. You may like your free viagra samples and
kiddie porn e-mail but I do not.


>
> That might have been true, in a time long ago. It is clearly not true
> today. I suppose if you've only been involved with the Republican
> party for 15 years, that might be lost on you though.

Again couldnt agree with you more. My guess is that our great President is
beating the democrats to the entitlement punch. MANY conservitives like
myself are completely against many liberal issues he has produced (medicare
bondoggle for one)


>
> Wake up? Again with that? Uh, right.

Snappy come back champ. We will then agree that there IS EVIL and it HAS
to be dealt with.



>
>> So if that means I have to fly around a TFR (keeping us
>> on topic :) )then I fly around it.
>
> There's not a single TFR that actually succeeds in protecting whatever
> it is supposed to protect. Even the 30 mile TFR that follows the
> President around is useless.

Have you tested that theory? I can only imagine but if there is a radar
contact within the presidents TFR that is *not* supposed to be there then
Im sure there will be a few stinger missles produced from the trunks of the
motorcade... Care to prove my point?


>
> I don't might a security measure as long as a) it doesn't violate my
> Constitutional rights, and b) it actually DOES SOMETHING GOOD.

Prove to me where the changes that the President has lead us on havent done
any good. I can show you that they have.




>> At least I have the freedom to fly and
>> not worry about someone strapping on a bomb and wasting my ass while
>> I eat a pizza before I go up.
>>
>> Freedom isn't free.

<sniped ridiclous comment>

[Doug]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The last 8 years you speak of with NO DHS..you have Clinton sitting
>> idly by getting a BJ and "stuffing cigars" while:
>
> A little jealous that none of your Republicans are getting laid?
> Here's a clue-by-four for you: get over it. If you think Clinton was
> the first President to have an extra-marital affair, or the first to
> do so in the White House, you are incredibly naive.


Just like a liberal, gotta redirect to the sex thing. Apologize if I
was not more clear but the point was (and I'll type extra slow for you)
is that Clinton had other things on his mind then the security of the
United States. No one is suggesting he was the first to have an affair,
but he was the FIRST sitting president to be found GUILTY of PURJURY.
So no, I cannot get over the President LYING under OATH while our
country was systematically ATTACKED by Terrorists. And to re-direct us
all from his PERJURY and MONICA while he wagged the dog and killed
thousands of SERBS (who were fighting the Islamo-facists btw...) from
20,000 feet.. and you probably didnt say a thing.


>
>> 1993 World Trade Center Bombing:
>> Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in
>> New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands
>
> Heh...yeah, right. It's all Clinton's fault, even though he was only
> in office a month.

hey, never said it was his fault that it was bombed... as it was not
Bushes fault that Sept 11th happened. It was his fault that NO action
was taken.. after the FIRST Trade Cetner attack, he warned Americans
against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the
bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."

four more DEADLY attacks on Americans and our intrest were done while on
his watch.. Cumulating sadly on Sept 11th.

And the list goes on... you cannot deny it.

>
> In any case, none of the bombings you mention resulted in our
> Constitutional rights being taken away. I fail to see what your point
> is, unless it's to prove my point for me.


what rights? Have you read the patriot act? the SAME act and LAWS that
we use against drug Dealers today... where were your "concerns" then?
Did you have them?

even so, nothing was done and PEOPLE DIED in ATTACK after ATTACK. Is
your point that your percived rights are more important then the
thousands killed while nothing was done.



>
> It's unfortunate that you will eat those words, and probably not in
> the distance future. We had no attacks on American soil for decades
> *prior* to the creation of the DHS.

WRONG, get your facts:
1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000;
President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.

1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured
5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
punished

2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S.
sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.

And before you lip off...
Embassies and Naval ships are considered Sovereign territory, so legally
yes they were on American Soil... Don't even make me get into McVeigh
and his domestic terrorism.. On Clintons watch.


Back to reality for you

Your pal,
-Doug

[FullName]

(Jim Rosinski) wrote in
om:

> FullName > wrote
>
>> Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
>> restrictions.
>
> How do you reconcile the "less Government" part of that assertion with
> the fact that the size of government has grown, not shrunk, during the
> Bush presidency (e.g. the new prescription drug entitlement pushed
> through by Bush)? And with a Republican House and Senate to boot.
>
> Dunno what planet you think you're on if you actually believe
> Republicans as a group want to shrink the size of government.
>
> Jim Rosinski
> N3825Q

Jim,
Planet Earth thanks, and having a 1 seat Senate majority in pushing
through a Liberal give-away entitlement isn't so hard. Bush is pandering to
those with their hand out in this country, folks that he hopes he will lure
away from the Grand-daddies of entitlement Dems... not going to happen and
should have never been done.

And yes as there are Pete-itots out there that sit on the far side of the
liberal see-saw there are too many so called "republicnas" that are near
that end with them. However there are still those in party, the
consertitive base, that believe that this is one path the Presdient should
not take.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
> the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
> UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
> a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
> isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
> killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.
> And they were not even in Iraq... (guess there goes ALL your reasoning)

I feel so honored to be in the presence of someone who knows what every
country's reasoning was. I sure would appreciate reading some of your
papers and articles on the subject. Silly me, I was under the clear
misunderstanding that these countries, even though they knew "terrorism"
more than we did and earlier than we did, were concerned that a war in Iraq,
even though easy enough to get into and "win," would be extremely difficult
to get out of and not have the desired effect.

> Lets see who else is more mad at us today...

Actually it is our unilateralism and arrogance that people dislike, plus the
parallels to a "crusade." Right after 9/11 we had world sympathy, but
managed to turn that into more distrust and hatred than we had before that
event.

> But thanks to self-loathers and America haters like yourself you
> feed poision into our countries resolve and they get stronger with each
> word you type.

Disagreeing with the administration does not make Pete a self-loather or
America hater. Being that America is the leader of the free world, where
freedoms are important and part of the nature of the country, your
statements implying one must have blind faith in the administration and
questioning their direction is unpatriotic is far more anti-American by far.

>Stand behind them folks there Pete.. sure your families real proud of that.

Ah, very good, you are doing a great job of attacking the person rather than
just simply disagreeing with his opinion.

> and to summarize, chew me..you do not decide or dictate how I express
> myself, I will post as I choose.

Good for you, you have that freedom. So does Pete, in case you didn't
notice.

> Again couldnt agree with you more. My guess is that our great President
> is
> beating the democrats to the entitlement punch.

*chuckle*

> Prove to me where the changes that the President has lead us on havent
> done
> any good. I can show you that they have.

You haven't shown anything, or proven anything. You just have blind faith
trust in an administration, which by virtually every measurable metric, has
done an exceptionally poor job. Just a few: size of government, budget,
fiscal responsibility, environment, jobs, economy, representing all
Americans, openness, conflict of interest issues, diplomacy,
competitiveness, immigration, healthcare, security.

Crapshoot whether Kerry will do better but it would be really hard to
imagine he could do worse.

[Michael 182]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> You haven't shown anything, or proven anything. You just have blind faith
> trust in an administration, which by virtually every measurable metric,
> has done an exceptionally poor job. Just a few: size of government,
> budget, fiscal responsibility, environment, jobs, economy, representing
> all Americans, openness, conflict of interest issues, diplomacy,
> competitiveness, immigration, healthcare, security.
>
> Crapshoot whether Kerry will do better but it would be really hard to
> imagine he could do worse.
>
>
>

Excellent summation of the past four years. I can't believe what a poor
campaign Kerry is running, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.

Michael

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Doug wrote:
> Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
> the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
> UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
> a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
> isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
> killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.

On a point of pedantry, you're very wrong about the Russians. Their
terrorism problem is about Chechnya, and nothing to do with Osama's lot.

You might want to read up about the Russian situation with Chechnya.
Google is your friend. Don't expect Fox News to give you the facts on
anything, if you want to talk about Russia's enemies, learn who they are
first.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> In article >, Doug wrote:
> > Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
> > the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
> > UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
> > a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
> > isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
> > killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.
>
> On a point of pedantry, you're very wrong about the Russians. Their
> terrorism problem is about Chechnya, and nothing to do with Osama's lot.
>
> You might want to read up about the Russian situation with Chechnya.
> Google is your friend. Don't expect Fox News to give you the facts on
> anything, if you want to talk about Russia's enemies, learn who they are
> first.

Our troops in Afghanistan have encountered a number of Chechens. I would
not discount the Chechen/Al-Quaida connection.

[Jim Rosinski]

Dylan Smith > wrote

> You might want to read up about the Russian situation with Chechnya.
> Google is your friend. Don't expect Fox News to give you the facts on
> anything, if you want to talk about Russia's enemies, learn who they are
> first.

Excuse me--where exactly did the original poster mention Fox News as a
source? And if he did, why should one automatically assume the
information to be false?

If you're going to lecture someone on how to make a convincing
argument, engaging in "proof by assertion" yourself may not be the
most effective means.

Jim Rosinski

[FullName]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
>
> On a point of pedantry, you're very wrong about the Russians. Their
> terrorism problem is about Chechnya, and nothing to do with Osama's
> lot.
> You might want to read up about the Russian situation with Chechnya.
> Google is your friend. Don't expect Fox News to give you the facts on
> anything, if you want to talk about Russia's enemies, learn who they
> are first.
>

The first thing liberal weenies do is blame Fox news for Propaganda. I
thank Fox news for finally I can see both sides, the Republican Support
as well as Democratic support. I no longer am FORCED to the left-
leaning liberal broadcast networks...Freedom of speech Dylan, again
something you lefties are against. So lets get back to your point...

Nothing to do with Osama...??
Osamas claim is jihad in the name of alla to destroy all infadel nations
(read:everynation that does not get on their knees praying to mecca 5x's
a day). So lets see where that battle takes us smart guy...

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (Biasd media)

MOSCOW - Rebels linked to the school hostage-taking seek independence
from Russia and most want to make Chechnya a sovereign Muslim nation.

Chechens have been affiliated with the al Qaeda terror network, and an
Arab connection suggests a further link between the Chechen rebel
movement and international terrorism. Chechen rebels have been fighting
Russian troops for a decade, seeking independence. Itar-Tass quoted an
unidentified intelligence official as saying the school assault was
financed by Abu Omar As-Seyf, an Arab who allegedly represents al Qaeda
in Chechnya, and directed by Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev, The
Associated Press reported.

and

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-riebling102402.asp
(Consertitive media)

In December 1994, Jokar Dudayev, a former Soviet air-force general,
began fighting for an independent Chechnya. Since then, Moscow has seen
a series of bombings which are thought to have been carried out by
Chechen Islamists.

That al Qaeda has trained these Chechens — and perhaps even planned some
of their operations — is clear. In fact, the Chechen conflict has long
been seen by bin Laden as but one front in the global jihad which began
on February 14, 1989, when the last Soviet soldiers Afghanistan.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, a multinational force of mujahadin
slithered into Chechnya. The key operative was Jordanian Omar Ibn al
Khattab, who had trained in bin Laden's camps. Bin Laden and Khattab
enjoyed an unusually close theological affinity, and exchanged personnel
and resources.

AND YOUR MSNBC LIBERAL LOT HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889819/site/newsweek/

Indeed, a close reading of the recent report by the September 11
commission reveals 27 different references to connections between Al
Qaeda and the Chechen rebels

BBC's Liberal PROPAGANDA DISPUTES YOU TOO:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2372971.stm
Al-Qaeda suspect tells of Chechnya link


I have about 100 more before I realized im having a battle of wits with
an un-armed man. Yep Google is my friend and your downfall.. Turning
your back to the truth is not going to make terrorists want to kill you
and your family any less.

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:16:44 GMT, FullName >
wrote:

> Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
>restrictions.

Hmmm, GW has been in office for almost four years now, do we have less
government, or do we have more, with more restrictions?

>But wake up.. the world has changed, evil exists and it has
>to be delt with.

Hmmm, his own commision, with access to all the top security
information they need to investigate the 9/11 attacks, has concluded
that there was no corroborating information connecting Iraq to the
attacks. That did not stop Bush from invaded Iraq anyway(Bush
obviously had all the information the commission had), or claiming
since the commission's report that we are safer for having invaded.
Weiner's bill is the same kind of ethereal thinking.

I agree with AOPA and EAA, Most GA aircraft do not carry enough to be
a threat.

Corky Scott

[Doug]

Corky Scott > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:16:44 GMT, FullName >
> wrote:
>
>> Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
>>restrictions.
>
> Hmmm, GW has been in office for almost four years now, do we have less
> government, or do we have more, with more restrictions?
>

We've covered this at length.. your a bit behind in the thread


>>But wake up.. the world has changed, evil exists and it has
>>to be delt with.
>
> Hmmm, his own commision, with access to all the top security
> information they need to investigate the 9/11 attacks, has concluded
> that there was no corroborating information connecting Iraq to the
> attacks. That did not stop Bush from invaded Iraq anyway(Bush
> obviously had all the information the commission had), or claiming
> since the commission's report that we are safer for having invaded.
> Weiner's bill is the same kind of ethereal thinking.
>

Corky.. your not looking at what was written, your taking Dan Rathers
class on journalism and making your own version up arent you?

NO ONE, NOT EVEN OUR PRESIDENT EVER SAID IRAQ was involved in the 9-11
murders of our 3,000 citizens.

But what has been PROVEN is that they did provide material support to
terrorists across the globe including AL QUEDA. And President Bush has
said, if you harbor or provide support for the terrorists you are just
as guilty as the terrorist.

You know with your "logic" we should have never had gone into europe
after Japan murdered our citizens in Hawaii...Germany and Italy had
nothing to do with that... would you agree?




> I agree with AOPA and EAA, Most GA aircraft do not carry enough to be
> a threat.

have you seen what 800lbs of c4 can do? GA aircraft can be a threat,
just like anything with 800lbs of c4 in it is. Its AOPAs airport watch
programs and responsible flying community with a sharp eye that keeps
General aviation safe.

-Doug

[G.R. Patterson III]

Doug wrote:
>
> You know with your "logic" we should have never had gone into europe
> after Japan murdered our citizens in Hawaii...Germany and Italy had
> nothing to do with that... would you agree?

And we would not have gone into Europe after Pearl Harbor. We went into Europe
because Germany declared war on the United States.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> And we would not have gone into Europe after Pearl Harbor. We went
> into Europe because Germany declared war on the United States.
>

We were already involved in the European war by Pearl Harbor.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And we would not have gone into Europe after Pearl Harbor. We went
> > into Europe because Germany declared war on the United States.
> >
>
> We were already involved in the European war by Pearl Harbor.

In the sense that we were sending war material to Britain and escorting convoys, yes.
But we were not sending troops to Europe and would not have done so without a
declaration of war. Pearl Harbor did not provide Congress with reason to declare war
on European nations, and Congress did not do so. We went into Europe because the Axis
powers declared war on the United States.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the sense that we were sending war material to Britain and escorting
> convoys, yes.
> But we were not sending troops to Europe and would not have done so
> without a
> declaration of war. Pearl Harbor did not provide Congress with reason to
> declare war
> on European nations, and Congress did not do so. We went into Europe
> because the Axis
> powers declared war on the United States.
>

Which would have happened even without the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:06 GMT, Doug >
wrote:

>NO ONE, NOT EVEN OUR PRESIDENT EVER SAID IRAQ was involved in the 9-11
>murders of our 3,000 citizens.

Our fearless leader keeps repeating that we are in Iraq to fight
terror. Since Iraq was not involved with the attacks of 9/11... why
did we invade? Ah, I remember now, he originally said Iraq WAS behind
the attacks, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Rumsfeld even arrogantly declared "we know where they are". Now that
WMD's haven't been found and no connection to 9/11 has been found,
we're left with "he was a bad man" as the reason. No question about
that, he WAS a bad man. But is that reason enough to send troops in
harms way in a country far away from our shores?

>But what has been PROVEN is that they did provide material support to
>terrorists across the globe including AL QUEDA. And President Bush has
>said, if you harbor or provide support for the terrorists you are just
>as guilty as the terrorist.

Are you sure? Bin laden and Saddam weren't buddies, they in fact were
idealogically at odds with each other. I don't know what information
you've been reading but Al Qaida was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq.
They may be welcome now though. Perhaps that's what Bush is referring
to? Now that his invasion has created targets in Iraq, you betcha
there are Al Qaida fighters there.

>You know with your "logic" we should have never had gone into europe
>after Japan murdered our citizens in Hawaii...Germany and Italy had
>nothing to do with that... would you agree?

1. Are you equating the terror attack of 9/11 with World War 11? If
you are, with what sovereign nation are we at war? Iraq? Remember,
the commission has declared that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11
attack.

2. Have you read your history? We did NOT declare war on Germany or
Italy after the attack on Pearl Harbor because they did not attack us.
Hitler declared war on us three or four days later, all by himself.
Hitler's military leaders were horrified.

During the famous declaration of war President Roosevelt declared that
since that attack "on December 7th 1941, a date which will live in
infamy, a state of war has existed between the US and the Empire of
Japan". Neither Germany nor Italy were mentioned.

If Germany had not declared war on the US, no one can say how many
months or even years might have passed before war actually did break
out between Germany and America. I think it would have been
inevitable, given the amount of aid we had been giving Britain in
their time of need, and also the lendlease granted Russia prior to
Pearl Harbor. We'd all but declared war on Germany, and had in fact
been aggressively escorting convoys out to the mid Atlantic and had
even engaged several U-Boats in deadly combat before war was declared
on Japan, yet Germany was not mentioned in the declaration of war
against Japan.

Corky Scott

PS,
"Declaring war on Iraq after the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon
makes about as much sense as waiting three months after the attack on
Pearl Harbor, and then invading Bolivia." I wish I could claim that
as my own, but it's not.

[FullName]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Doug wrote:
>>
>> You know with your "logic" we should have never had gone into europe
>> after Japan murdered our citizens in Hawaii...Germany and Italy had
>> nothing to do with that... would you agree?
>
> And we would not have gone into Europe after Pearl Harbor. We went
> into Europe because Germany declared war on the United States.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the
> people he gives it to.

Thanks George.. .Since Osama has declared Jihad (Holy War) against us,
Saddam as well declared holy war against us then finally we can finish the
job and kick some ass without the whingers.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> Our fearless leader keeps repeating that we are in Iraq to fight
> terror. Since Iraq was not involved with the attacks of 9/11... why
> did we invade?
>

To fight terror.


>
> Ah, I remember now, he originally said Iraq WAS behind
> the attacks,
>

When did he say that? I don't suppose you could provide a verifiable quote.


>
> that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>

There were.

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Our fearless leader keeps repeating that we are in Iraq to fight
>> terror. Since Iraq was not involved with the attacks of 9/11... why
>> did we invade?
>>
>
> To fight terror.

How has the invasion of Iraq fought terror?

>>
>> Ah, I remember now, he originally said Iraq WAS behind
>> the attacks,
>>
>
> When did he say that? I don't suppose you could provide a verifiable
> quote.

He said Iraq was training Al Qaeda in terrorist activities.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/

In a October 2002 speech, he said, "Iraq has
trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and
poisons and deadly gases."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21?language=printer

Here's the speech itself:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraqspeech.htm

Note that this is just once speech by one person (Bush).

Doing a little searching, I'm sure you'll find more of the same. If memory
serves correct, Cheney was a lot more prolific on this topic than Bush.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6197777
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0401/23/-44055.htm

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/06/18/20040618_022404_flash3.htm

>
>>
>> that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>
>
> There were.

It's a shame you're not working for the US military or the current
government in Iraq. You obviously know better than they.

- Andrew

[FullName]

Corky Scott > wrote in

> Our fearless leader keeps repeating that we are in Iraq to fight
> terror. Since Iraq was not involved with the attacks of 9/11... why
> did we invade?

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence;
they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the
public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that
detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the
Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache
of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr.
Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special
Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay,
and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external
intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary
of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations
Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed
meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in
1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in
Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the
mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease
all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the
United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk
Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into
the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet
with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden
asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman,
was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according
to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's
reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and
Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison"
between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United
Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan
-- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with
the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the
terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The
invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent
reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu
Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw
bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was
a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak,
the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by
Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with
knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first
visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the
camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were
queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do
with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and
Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday,
defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that
there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims
to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam
in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time
and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden
associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations
there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their
Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men,
materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was
'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda
members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in
Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was
poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical
treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a
training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to
the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S.
Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured
assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell
in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai
(aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence
sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S.
killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda
member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside
of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where
did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to
Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison
gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship
with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons
to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces
in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a
reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show
that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group
led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's
Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for
the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to
be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to
both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish
newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda
officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988.
When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on
Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000
'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in
the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to
Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to
Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United
Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by
"Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have
holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.



Ah, I remember now, he originally said Iraq WAS behind
> the attacks.

Never happened your lying.

>that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


Yes there were...

NEW YORK — Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday
confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the
deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox
News Tuesday.

The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the
U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be
rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor
exposure to the nerve agent.






> Rumsfeld even arrogantly declared "we know where they are". Now that
> WMD's haven't been found and no connection to 9/11 has been found,
> we're left with "he was a bad man" as the reason. No question about
> that, he WAS a bad man. But is that reason enough to send troops in
> harms way in a country far away from our shores?

Yes. He funded and supported terrorist murders around the globe.
tortured, raped, and murdered millions of his own citizens. Violated 17
UN reslutions for 12 years, filled mass graves and shot at colation
aircraft EVERY DAY enforcing teh above UN resolutions.

Being that we are the leaders of the free world, and direct attacks
daily against our country were taking place. And that seeing what
inaction causes against a gathering terrorist threat does to our
airliners and office buildings.. makes the solid case for taking out
that BAD man.


>
>>But what has been PROVEN is that they did provide material support to
>>terrorists across the globe including AL QUEDA. And President Bush
>>has said, if you harbor or provide support for the terrorists you are
>>just as guilty as the terrorist.



>
> Are you sure? Bin laden and Saddam weren't buddies, they in fact were
> idealogically at odds with each other. I don't know what information
> you've been reading but Al Qaida was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq.
> They may be welcome now though. Perhaps that's what Bush is referring
> to? Now that his invasion has created targets in Iraq, you betcha
> there are Al Qaida fighters there.
>

See above proof and retract your lies. And as you apologize think of
the new bride that was taken from her wedding reception, raped infront
of her new husband and fed to Udays tigers in the palace built with the
UN Oil for food money.




>>You know with your "logic" we should have never had gone into europe
>>after Japan murdered our citizens in Hawaii...Germany and Italy had
>>nothing to do with that... would you agree?
>
> 1. Are you equating the terror attack of 9/11 with World War 11? If
> you are, with what sovereign nation are we at war? Iraq? Remember,
> the commission has declared that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11
> attack.

do you even understand terrorism? And why do you people keep thinking
that someone stated that Iraq ever had anything to do with 9-11?????
your the only ones that are saying it. Come back to the real world.

>
> 2. Have you read your history? We did NOT declare war on Germany or
> Italy after the attack on Pearl Harbor because they did not attack us.
> Hitler declared war on us three or four days later, all by himself.
> Hitler's military leaders were horrified.

Wrong again...
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly
declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on
sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he
once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under
this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941,
have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American
destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James,
have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary
of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American
destroyers attacked German submarines.

Sounds like pre-emptive strikes... against our enemy.



> During the famous declaration of war President Roosevelt declared that
> since that attack "on December 7th 1941, a date which will live in
> infamy, a state of war has existed between the US and the Empire of
> Japan". Neither Germany nor Italy were mentioned.
>
> If Germany had not declared war on the US, no one can say how many
> months or even years might have passed before war actually did break
> out between Germany and America. I think it would have been
> inevitable, given the amount of aid we had been giving Britain in
> their time of need, and also the lendlease granted Russia prior to
> Pearl Harbor. We'd all but declared war on Germany, and had in fact
> been aggressively escorting convoys out to the mid Atlantic and had
> even engaged several U-Boats in deadly combat before war was declared
> on Japan, yet Germany was not mentioned in the declaration of war
> against Japan.
>
> Corky Scott
>
> PS,
> "Declaring war on Iraq after the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon
> makes about as much sense as waiting three months after the attack on
> Pearl Harbor, and then invading Bolivia." I wish I could claim that
> as my own, but it's not.

Let me quote our President:

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated
strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign
unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes
visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another,
drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our
nation has been put on notice. We're not immune from attack. We will
take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

Now read this post 3 times, and apologize to your country.
case closed...




>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Morgans]

>
> Hmmm, his own commision, with access to all the top security
> information they need to investigate the 9/11 attacks, has concluded
> that there was no corroborating information connecting Iraq to the
> attacks. That did not stop Bush from invaded Iraq anyway

One thing is sure. Iraq was in substantial violation of a number of UN
resolutions, and had not accounted for a substantial quantity of WMD's, and
that is all the reason I see to kick the little SOB's arse.

Period.

As a side note, I'm glad we are doing the fighting in their country, and not
ours.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.759 / Virus Database: 508 - Release Date: 9/9/2004

[jim rosinski]

Morgans wrote:

> One thing is sure. Iraq was in substantial violation of a number of UN
> resolutions, and had not accounted for a substantial quantity of WMD's, and
> that is all the reason I see to kick the little SOB's arse.

Unfortunately, just "kicking the little SOB's arse" and getting out of
there is not possible in that part of the world. The miserable process
of nation building must go on for who knows how long afterward. And at
what cost? $200,000,000,000, over 1,000 dead Americans and counting. Way
too much, IMO, to be worth it. And I don't like being the ones who
started a war.

Jim Rosinski

[Paul Sengupta]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>
> > > There were.
> >
> > It's a shame you're not working for the US military or the current
> > government in Iraq. You obviously know better than they.
>
> for sure there *were* WMD in Iraq. USA sold them and Saddam used them. But
WMD
> have not a unlimited life.

Indeed. And Sadam came out and admitted that they did have them,
but they had been destroyed during or after the first Gulf War.

The US kept coming out with various excuses for invading Iraq. The last
but one of these after all the others had been shot down by the media was
the WMD question. The last reason was that Sadam wasn't a nice person.
The media said that there were others, for instance Mugabe, who weren't
either. Usually in the same sentence, oil would be mentioned but I think
that's a bit of a red herring (just a personal opinion).

The US were going to invade Iraq whatever happened and couldn't
wait for the report from the inspectors saying that to their knowledge
there weren't any WMD...that was their leading excuse, so had to
invade before that one was also discounted...hence the rush to get
the inspectors out rather than give them more time to report. Sadam
didn't help things by continually "playing games" with the inspectors and
seemed to be pretty much his own worst enemy.

Sadam was pretty good at keeping control and keeping the terrorists
in check...though a lot of innocent people got caught up in this. Now I
fear where there was a nation providing funding for a relatively local
terrorist organisation (Hamas) there will be a long queue of people
in Iraq waiting to sign up to fight the US and its allies...and a fair queue
outside Iraq who wouldn't have been so emotive before, maybe who
didn't particularly like the US before, but now would be spurred into
action. For example, look at all the foreign fighters in Afghanistan
(including those from Britain and the US) who jumped to "the cause",
who were previously just ordinary citizens and no threat.

I'm all for fighting the terrorists, but looking in the right place is
important,
and I believe that not creating 10x or 100x the number of terrorists in the
process should be equally important.

Just my £0.02 worth.

Paul

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Paul
Sengupta" > wrote:

> > for sure there *were* WMD in Iraq. USA sold them and Saddam used them.
> > But
> WMD
> > have not a unlimited life.
>
> Indeed. And Sadam came out and admitted that they did have them,
> but they had been destroyed during or after the first Gulf War.

where is the proof that Irag's WMD were destroyed?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:40:33 GMT, FullName >
wrote:

>See above proof and retract your lies. And as you apologize think of
>the new bride that was taken from her wedding reception, raped infront
>of her new husband and fed to Udays tigers in the palace built with the
>UN Oil for food money.

So we invaded Iraq because of this incident? Really?

>> 2. Have you read your history? We did NOT declare war on Germany or
>> Italy after the attack on Pearl Harbor because they did not attack us.
>> Hitler declared war on us three or four days later, all by himself.
>> Hitler's military leaders were horrified.
>
>Wrong again...
>On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly
>declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on
>sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941

Not wrong. That order was not a declaration of war. The declaration
of war did not occur until December 8, 1941. And the declaration was
against Japan, not Germany.

Corky Scott

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, FullName wrote:
> leaning liberal broadcast networks...Freedom of speech Dylan, again
> something you lefties are against. So lets get back to your point...

Talking about making assumptions...I'm hardly a 'leftie'.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > In the sense that we were sending war material to Britain and escorting
> > convoys, yes.
> > But we were not sending troops to Europe and would not have done so
> > without a
> > declaration of war. Pearl Harbor did not provide Congress with reason to
> > declare war
> > on European nations, and Congress did not do so. We went into Europe
> > because the Axis
> > powers declared war on the United States.
>
> Which would have happened even without the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Perhaps, but there was a lot of feeling in Congress (and fear in Britain) immediately
after Pearl Harbor that the U.S. should/would stop sending war material to Britain
and keep it for our own war. Hitler removed any chance of that by making "Britain's
war" ours as well.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[FullName]

Corky Scott > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:40:33 GMT, FullName >
> wrote:
>
>>See above proof and retract your lies. And as you apologize think of
>>the new bride that was taken from her wedding reception, raped infront
>>of her new husband and fed to Udays tigers in the palace built with
>>the UN Oil for food money.
>
> So we invaded Iraq because of this incident? Really?


It was a example of the murderous, terror supporting regime that waved
its middle finger in the face of the united nations for 12 years. You
appear to be a very disturbed person for you seem to have no problem
with the systematic torture and rape of innocence, the support of
murders and safe haven to those that share in the wanton destruction of
our country and way of life.

And to throw more facts into your world of disbelief and hate of your
country this was not a new war but a resumption of hostilities based on
the original UN resolutions of '91. He broke the cease fire and now he
deals with the consquences. People free, terrorists no longer being
supported and our country more safe then it was with him in power.


>> Not wrong. That order was not a declaration of war. The declaration
> of war did not occur until December 8, 1941. And the declaration was
> against Japan, not Germany.
>
> Corky Scott


You dont read very well do you? Yes you are wrong.

[Doug]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >, FullName wrote:
>> leaning liberal broadcast networks...Freedom of speech Dylan, again
>> something you lefties are against. So lets get back to your point...
>
> Talking about making assumptions...I'm hardly a 'leftie'.
>

Perfect Socialist response. lenin would have been proud..At the point of
recognition denial starts, next step should be you claiming opression and
your freedoms being trampled.. then reverse accusations...then the law-
suits you people cannot destroy our country sir. We will defeat your
leftist ideas, actions and way of life.

[Doug]

jim rosinski > wrote in
:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>> One thing is sure. Iraq was in substantial violation of a number of
>> UN resolutions, and had not accounted for a substantial quantity of
>> WMD's, and that is all the reason I see to kick the little SOB's
>> arse.
>
> Unfortunately, just "kicking the little SOB's arse" and getting out of
> there is not possible in that part of the world. The miserable process
> of nation building must go on for who knows how long afterward. And at
> what cost? $200,000,000,000, over 1,000 dead Americans and counting.
> Way too much, IMO, to be worth it. And I don't like being the ones who
> started a war.
>
> Jim Rosinski


If we dont sacrafice the lives and the money and we "just leave Saddam
alone"...

What do you tell the survivors of the family that was blown to pieces on
the bus going shopping in tel-aviv.

What do you tell the kurdish people as Saddams troops fill mass graves
with their women and children?

What do you do and what do you tell the victimswhen he gives the secret
recepie of his favourite mustard gas to Al Zarqui and releases it in Los
Angeles, Denver or Boulder?

You ask a fair question but at what is the sufficent number of lost
lives that will justify protecting innocence? if this war only cost
200mil then would it be ok to save those people? What is your price per
life?

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:40:33 GMT, FullName >
wrote:

>Ah, I remember now, he originally said Iraq WAS behind
>> the attacks.
>
>Never happened your lying.

"To lie": 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true:
falsehood. 2. Something meant to decieve or give a wrong impression.

As a general rule I try never to lie. I may unknowingly not get my
facts straight once in a while, but I do not lie.

I got my facts regarding Bush's conviction that Iraq was involved from
the numerous reports coming out of the White House. Here's one from
Wolfowitz:

Wolfowitz Lets Slip
Iraq Was Not Involved in 9/11; No Ties to Al-Qaeda
By JASON LEOPOLD

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects
for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing
to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting public
statements made by senior White House and Pentagon officials whose
attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda
was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for
launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq.

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham,
Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind
the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

"I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with
it," Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday.

Wolfowitz's answer confirms doubts long held by critics of the Iraq
war that the Bush administration had no evidence linking Iraq to 9-11
or al-Qaeda, but simply used the horrific terrorist attacks as a
reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime.

This is one of many many reports indicating the the Bush White House
very strongly believed that Iraq was somehow connected to the 9-11
attack. You only have to do a google search with the words "Bush 9-11
Iraq" to find a bunch. Word it differently and you'll find more.

Then there are the people who worked in intelligence for Bush and left
and wrote about what they experienced during this period. What these
people have writting is that from the moment Bush took office, he
focused on Iraq to the exclusion of other more dangerous opponents
such as Al Qaeda.

Did Bush deliberately misslead the American public about the need to
invade Iraq? The information getting to the public sure focused on
Iraq, and that information was coming from official government
sources. Does this mean Bush knew what was being hended to the
public? Darned if I know. Someone told me a month ago that Bush is
dyslexic and that's why he doesn't read much. Can't confirm that
either.

Corky Scott

[FullName]

Corky Scott > wrote in
:


Corky,
Instead of replying bit by bit to confidental sources and outright
falsehoods please lets all together read the presidents address to the
people that outlined why we went and finished the job in Iraq. this is
what was told to the people and why we went to finish the war and keep our
country safe.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

No where is there any coorleation to 9-11 and iraq, but he did say as the
9-11 COMISSION confirmed that there is and was a connection between Iraq
and al-queda.

[Dean Wilkinson]

Mr. Weiner,

After reading the text of HR-5035 I am convinced that you are both
clueless about aviation and aviation security, and that you are
wasting the time of other members of congress. I recommend that you
concentrate your efforts on issues with which you have actual
knowledge and stop sponsoring ridiculous bills such as HR-5035. Had
you introduced this bill on April 1, it would have been much more
entertaining.

Dean Wilkinson
Boise, Idaho USA


(Toly) wrote in message >...
> His email is
>
> I have personally seen the fool giving out flyers in Bklyn. He leaves
> the impression of a complete retard, with slogans like "fight crime"
> and "improve commute". I see with this bill he's doing both.
>
> Anyway, pls drop him a line... he could use some attention.
>
> -Toly.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> > where is the proof that Irag's WMD were destroyed?
>
> prove that you have no gun.

This is not one of those "can't prove a negative" things.

Why isn't there proof that the WMD were destroyed?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Peter]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>where is the proof that Irag's WMD were destroyed?
>>
>>prove that you have no gun.
>
>
> This is not one of those "can't prove a negative" things.
>
> Why isn't there proof that the WMD were destroyed?
>
My guess is because Saddam didn't want there to be any
such proof.

Dictators generally have two main concerns; invasion by
a neighboring country and an internal coup. Having the
appearance of WMDs is a good deterrent against the first,
so if you do actually destroy them all, it's still best
not to document it convincingly since then Iran and other
countries may find out through their informants. Having
generals who are in charge of the WMDs might increase
the risk of a military coup. Better if each general
doesn't have such weapons under his own command but can't be
sure what weapons might be at the disposal of any other
general. So a good strategy is to secretly have the
weapons be destroyed but in a way that prevents anyone
from knowing if some might still be held in reserve.

So there are advantages in destroying the weapons - no
chance of the UN finding them, no chance of a military
revolt using them against you. And there are advantages
in making it look like they still exist to deter
a foreign invasion and to keep potential rebel
generals guessing. That's why I'm not surprised that
proof of their destruction has been hard to come by.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Doug wrote:
>> Talking about making assumptions...I'm hardly a 'leftie'.
>
> Perfect Socialist response. lenin would have been proud..At the point of
> recognition denial starts, next step should be you claiming opression and
> your freedoms being trampled.. then reverse accusations...then the law-
> suits you people cannot destroy our country sir. We will defeat your
> leftist ideas, actions and way of life.

I find you utterly amazing. You can deduce all this from me merely
pointing out that Russia's terror problem stems mainly from a
decades-old problem with Chechnya, and saying "I'm harldy a leftie".

With all the jumping to conclusions you do, I bet you're in top fitness
form.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Doug]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >, Doug wrote:
>>> Talking about making assumptions...I'm hardly a 'leftie'.
>>
>> Perfect Socialist response. lenin would have been proud..At the
>> point of recognition denial starts, next step should be you claiming
>> opression and your freedoms being trampled.. then reverse
>> accusations...then the law- suits you people cannot destroy our
>> country sir. We will defeat your leftist ideas, actions and way of
>> life.
>
> I find you utterly amazing. You can deduce all this from me merely
> pointing out that Russia's terror problem stems mainly from a
> decades-old problem with Chechnya, and saying "I'm harldy a leftie".
>
> With all the jumping to conclusions you do, I bet you're in top
> fitness form.
>

I can deduce this from you trying to deflect and justify the fact that
islamo facists are murdering newly freed peoples (read:Children) of Russia
in the name of Allah.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
> > Why isn't there proof that the WMD were destroyed?
>
> biological weapons don't have (so was I told) an unlimited life. so -
let's say
> - after 5 years (just a number) after production it loses its deathly
value.

They do have a limited life, but I'm not sure about these
things becoming "mostly harmless".

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/15/Vimy.munitions/?related

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/world_war_i/197406.stm

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/04/14/vimy010414

Paul

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:31:03 GMT, FullName >
wrote:

>Corky,
> Instead of replying bit by bit to confidental sources and outright
>falsehoods please lets all together read the presidents address to the
>people that outlined why we went and finished the job in Iraq. this is
>what was told to the people and why we went to finish the war and keep our
>country safe.
>
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Ok, here's his first paragraph: "The threat comes from Iraq. It
arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of
aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years
ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime
was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all
development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist
groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It
possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking
nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and
practices terror against its own people. The entire world has
witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad
faith."

He's outlining the reasons for his apparently already made decision to
invade Iraq by saying Iraq is a threat. He does not give any proof
that Iraq is a threat, he just says they're a threat.

He goes on to state the Saddam killed thousands of people with
chemical weapons, which is true, except that the chemical weapons were
given him by us, the USA, and they were used on his own countrymen,
and possibly Iran, . So thanks to the USA he had weapons of mass
destruction. But he apparently used them up.

So far Saddam is looking pretty tough on his own countryment and Iran,
but not the USA. So we should invade him anyway?

Aren't there lots of vicious dictators who deserve to arrested besides
Saddam? Is it possible GW wants to finish what his dad started?

GW's fixation on Iraq is really curious since Iraq literally did not
have the ability to threaten anyone but it's neighbors. Only the
Whitehouse appeared to see the threat, and the rest of the world,
except for England who apparently were duped by the same bogus
intelligence, could not understand why the USA was rattling it's
sabers so fiercely.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:03:20 GMT, FullName >
wrote:

>It was a example of the murderous, terror supporting regime that waved
>its middle finger in the face of the united nations for 12 years. You
>appear to be a very disturbed person for you seem to have no problem
>with the systematic torture and rape of innocence, the support of
>murders and safe haven to those that share in the wanton destruction of
>our country and way of life.

Well, I guess you'll be the first to sign up to invade the Sudan then,
and North Korea, and a few other African nations where murder, rape
and torture are systematic. They deserve to be invaded and nation
built into democracy's too, right? Oh wait, Saddam was a Frankenstein
of our own creation wasn't he? It's up to us to take care of the
sadistic dictators we create? But that was nation building too,
right? I'm so confused.

Corky Scott

[H.P.]

My letter:


Dear Congressman:
Re: HR-5035.
I've only recently become aware of your attempt to introduce this most inept
and plainly stupid piece of legislation that I have ever witnessed in my
entire life. You are an intelligent man (so I thought) and I've supported
you in the past but now I'm not so sure that you know what you're doing. So
please let me know if I'm wrong: if your measure is enacted, I can still buy
an AK-47 but I can't fly a Piper Warrior?

"Toly" > wrote in message
m...
> His email is
>
> I have personally seen the fool giving out flyers in Bklyn. He leaves
> the impression of a complete retard, with slogans like "fight crime"
> and "improve commute". I see with this bill he's doing both.
>
> Anyway, pls drop him a line... he could use some attention.
>
> -Toly.
>

[Paul Sengupta]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> GW's fixation on Iraq is really curious since Iraq literally did not
> have the ability to threaten anyone but it's neighbors. Only the
> Whitehouse appeared to see the threat, and the rest of the world,
> except for England who apparently were duped by the same bogus
> intelligence, could not understand why the USA was rattling it's
> sabers so fiercely.

I can only assume the US had its reasons which we still don't really know
about. 70% of the UK population were against invading Iraq. Mr Blair
himself was against it without a UN resolution, and a UN resolution would
have had to have waited until the UN inspectors had finished their job and
reported back one way or the other. Mr Blair then went for a meeting with
Mr Bush, and suddenly changed his tune to "We have to invade now."
I, probably along with the rest of the world, would love to know what
happened in that meeting.

Various people have come out and said that the evidence was obtained
from the thesis of a British student written several years ago...which was
now
completely out of date...somehow that thesis got written about and, from
passing from person to person, place to place, became the CIA evidence,
along with reports from people "defecting" from Iraq. This in turn became
the evidence of MI5. It all got a bit silly with MI5 claiming they got the
evidence from the CIA and the CIA claiming they got it from MI5.

I would guess there were reasons for invading Iraq, but not what we're
being told. There's the current outcry about not having found any WMD
but I really don't think that would have made a difference...the US would
probably have found another "legitimate" reason if it had been reported
they didn't exist. It may have taken more time though.

Anyway, what's done it done. No one is going to let Saddam go back
now, even if it has been suggested that would be the best option! :-)
No debate on the legitimacy of the invasion is going to undo what's
already been done, so it's up to the world to try and figure out what to
do next.

Paul

[michelleinflorida]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Doug wrote:
> > Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
> > the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
> > UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
> > a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
> > isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
> > killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.
>
> On a point of pedantry, you're very wrong about the Russians. Their
> terrorism problem is about Chechnya, and nothing to do with Osama's lot.
>
> You might want to read up about the Russian situation with Chechnya.
> Google is your friend. Don't expect Fox News to give you the facts on
> anything, if you want to talk about Russia's enemies, learn who they are
> first.

m kinda new to this site, isnt it an aviation forum for IFR?
Michelle

[G.R. Patterson III]

michelleinflorida wrote:
>
> m kinda new to this site, isnt it an aviation forum for IFR?

Actually, this one is supposed to be for basic piloting issues. You can Google the
groups for the charter, which Larry Dighera posts every month or so. In fact, of
course, many of the posts here are unrelated to piloting aircraft, and this is
particularly bad in an election year.

If this bothers you, I suggest you adopt a few techniques to minimize exposure.
First, if any thread is cross-posted to any of the "alt" groups, just mark it as
"read" every day and ignore it. Second, when a thread drifts into an area in which
you don't want to go, just mark every post in that sub-thread as "read" and ignore
them.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[FullName]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in
:

> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> GW's fixation on Iraq is really curious since Iraq literally did not
>> have the ability to threaten anyone but it's neighbors.

Giving support to international terrorists can and did extend Iraqs
reach around the globe.



>> Only the
Whitehouse appeared to see the threat, and the rest of the world,
>> except for England

WRONG... France and Germany do not count as the rest of the world.. let
look at our coalition....

Europe:
United Kingdom Spain Portugal Denmark Netherlands Iceland Italy Baltic
States: Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary
Albania Macedonia Romania Bulgaria Turkey Croatia Slovenia Ukraine

Asia:Japan South Korea Singapore Philippines Afghanistan Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan Georgia Marshall Islands Micronesia Solomon Islands Mongolia
Palau Tonga

South and Central America:El Salvador Colombia Nicaragua Costa Rica
Dominican Republic Honduras

Australia

Kuwait

Africa:Eritrea Ethiopia Uganda RwandaAngola


Id bet NONE of them had illegal oil for food contracts going to their
governments....



who apparently were duped by the same bogus
>> intelligence, could not understand why the USA was rattling it's
>> sabers so fiercely.

You have that as fact... you dont speak for the UK now do you?






>
> I can only assume the US had its reasons which we still don't really
> know about. 70% of the UK population were against invading Iraq. Mr
> Blair himself was against it without a UN resolution,


Wrong.. He went to the UN and got the resolution along with the others
that had ALREADY BEEN PASSED FOR GOODNESS SAKE and IGNORED BY SADDAM

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html

Resolutions
661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991)
of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991,
707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995)
of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the
relevant statements of its President,1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001


and a UN
> resolution would have had to have waited until the UN inspectors had
> finished their job and reported back one way or the other.

Ummm you forgot Saddam kicked out the inspectors... maybe the could have
finished their work at the next cocktail party in NY.




Mr Blair
> then went for a meeting with Mr Bush, and suddenly changed his tune to
> "We have to invade now." I, probably along with the rest of the world,
> would love to know what happened in that meeting.
>
> Various people have come out and said that the evidence was obtained
> from the thesis of a British student written several years ago...which
> was now
> completely out of date...somehow that thesis got written about and,
> from passing from person to person, place to place, became the CIA
> evidence, along with reports from people "defecting" from Iraq. This
> in turn became the evidence of MI5. It all got a bit silly with MI5
> claiming they got the evidence from the CIA and the CIA claiming they
> got it from MI5.
>
> I would guess there were reasons for invading Iraq, but not what we're
> being told.


what were you being told.. .the rest of us heard the truth and it didnt
stop at WMDs. he had them, we found them and he could have gave them to
those that wished us harm. To turn your back on that is nieve and
shameful.


There's the current outcry about not having found any WMD
> but I really don't think that would have made a difference...the US
> would probably have found another "legitimate" reason if it had been
> reported they didn't exist. It may have taken more time though.


As if invading your neighbour, 12 years of resolutions and sitting on
your hands with your back turned while he killed hundreds of thousands,
providing aid, support and comfort to terrorist murders is a better
option.????



>
> Anyway, what's done it done. No one is going to let Saddam go back
> now, even if it has been suggested that would be the best option! :-)

for you to say that makes for a clear picture to the sick person you
are.

> No debate on the legitimacy of the invasion is going to undo what's
> already been done, so it's up to the world to try and figure out what
> to do next.
>
> Paul
>
>

[FullName]

(michelleinflorida) wrote in
om:

>
> m kinda new to this site, isnt it an aviation forum for IFR?
> Michelle

Yes it is and it is infested with socialists...well a couple at least.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> They left all rights out of the Constitution when they wrote it.
>>
>
> True, but they did try to put some of them back in with amendments.
>

Actually, they put them all back in.

One of the complaints against the proposed Constitution was it's lack of a
Bill of Rights, such as the Virginia Bill of Rights. James Madison was
opposed to such a Bill of Rights because it was unnecessary and implied the
people had only the designated rights. It was unnecessary to declare a
right to a free press, for example, because the Constitution did not give
the government the power to control the press. Madison had to concede on the
issue in order to see the Constitution ratified, but he was then the driving
force behind the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

[jls]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> They left all rights out of the Constitution when they wrote it.
> >>
> >
> > True, but they did try to put some of them back in with amendments.
> >
>
> Actually, they put them all back in.
>
> One of the complaints against the proposed Constitution was it's lack of a
> Bill of Rights, such as the Virginia Bill of Rights. James Madison was
> opposed to such a Bill of Rights because it was unnecessary and implied
the
> people had only the designated rights. It was unnecessary to declare a
> right to a free press, for example, because the Constitution did not give
> the government the power to control the press. Madison had to concede on
the
> issue in order to see the Constitution ratified, but he was then the
driving
> force behind the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
>
>
Excellent. Madison didn't want rights named or enumerated because he
thought to do so would limit them to those listed. Thus, the 9th Amendment
was drafted as a curative. Very eloquently it says, "The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."

I wouldn't be so optimistic about the practical effect of this fundamental
amendment, however. The Supreme Court hasn't touched it in decades and
appears to be terrified of it.

The ninth may live in the hearts of the men and women of America, but it is
dead in the halls of 1 First St. in Washington, DC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

" jls" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Actually, they put them all back in.
>>
>> One of the complaints against the proposed Constitution was it's lack of
>> a
>> Bill of Rights, such as the Virginia Bill of Rights. James Madison was
>> opposed to such a Bill of Rights because it was unnecessary and implied
> the
>> people had only the designated rights. It was unnecessary to declare a
>> right to a free press, for example, because the Constitution did not give
>> the government the power to control the press. Madison had to concede on
> the
>> issue in order to see the Constitution ratified, but he was then the
> driving
>> force behind the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
>>
>>
> Excellent. Madison didn't want rights named or enumerated because he
> thought to do so would limit them to those listed. Thus, the 9th
> Amendment
> was drafted as a curative. Very eloquently it says, "The enumeration in
> the
> Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
> others retained by the people."
>
> I wouldn't be so optimistic about the practical effect of this fundamental
> amendment, however. The Supreme Court hasn't touched it in decades and
> appears to be terrified of it.
>
> The ninth may live in the hearts of the men and women of America, but it
> is
> dead in the halls of 1 First St. in Washington, DC.
>

Hell, the whole Constitution is pretty much dead.