Another Attempt To Hinder GA

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

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

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.