Another Attempt To Hinder GA

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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...nguage=printer

Here's the speech itself:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...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.j...ryID=619777 7
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0401/23/-44055.htm

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...404_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

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...

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

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

"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