Another Attempt To Hinder GA

"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/res...ext/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

(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.

"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.

"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.

" jls" wrote in message
news

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.