|
|
| |
| |
- DefaultUser wrote:
Army chiefs feared Iraq war illegal just days before start
What nonsense! In a war, there is no legality or illegality. War serves to
decide what is legal and what is illegal. The will of the winner is the law. The
will of the loser is criminal.
|
| |
| |
Lucien Saumur <lsaumur@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4041B6EC.7280AB1A@sympatico.ca:
- DefaultUser wrote:
What nonsense! In a war, there is no legality or illegality. War
serves to decide what is legal and what is illegal. The will of the
winner is the law. The will of the loser is criminal.
might be true in black and white cases.
the invasion of Iraq was not a black and white case.
the 'will' of the UK was and still is deeply divided.
the story posted was about the threat of UK military chiefs to refuse to
invade Iraq on the basis of the legal advice that was originally given. if
true, it means the top military brass in the UK did not share your opinion.
|
| |
| |
- DefaultUser wrote:
What nonsense! In a war, there is no legality or illegality. War
serves to
decide what is legal and what is illegal. The will of the winner is
the law. The
will of the loser is criminal.
Rubbish !
The Queen's forces may not be deployed beyond their legal remit.
Britain is NOT Israel !
In the case of the invasion of Iraq they were illegally deployed
on the orders of a Zionist puppet acting on the demands of his
political backers who funded his election campaign.
The same is true of Bush.
The invasion was illegal and launched on the strenght of a brass
necked lie manufactured for the purpose.
The army should have refused to act on his orders - they are
answerable to The Queen, and though her, to us, the people.
Not him, whatever the tries to pretend to the contrary.
What they should have done is taken down his illegal dictatorship,
which has long since ceased to have any democractic legitimacy,
since he constantly acts in contempt and defiance of us, the
electorate, and in open contempt of The Queen.
He was elected by only 24% of the electorate, and is in constant
and open breech of the constitution and engaged in an open
attempt to subvert and destroy the nation - and The Queen -
whoes powers he constantly errodes and whoes authorities he
constantly accures to himself and to an illegal foreign crime
syndicate, namely the so-called "EU".
He has also, and still does, conspire to hand over HM armed
forces to an illegal foreign crime syndicate calling itself the
"EU", which has no electoral authority even to exist.
There is no reason not to remove him from power - and there
is every possible reason, and necessity, to do so - as a matter
of the greatest urgency.
Those who conspire and contrive to keep him in power conspire
to destroy The Queen and the nation and are guilty of treason.
|
| |
| |
Lucien Saumur <lsaumur@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4041B6EC.7280AB1A@sympatico.ca:
might be true in black and white cases.
the invasion of Iraq was not a black and white case.
the 'will' of the UK was and still is deeply divided.
Rubbish !
1.5 million people took to the streets in the largest demonstration
ever seen in Britain to express their opposition to this illegal
invasion.
Since then, even those who fell for the "patriot" con. trick have
realised that they were lied to and that 57 British soldiers were
sent to their deaths for the sake of Blair and his Zionist backers.
the story posted was about the threat of UK military chiefs to
refuse to
invade Iraq on the basis of the legal advice that was originally
given. if
true, it means the top military brass in the UK did not share your
opinion.
Rubbish ! Confronted with a cooked up document, changed at the
last minute under pressure from Blair, to pretend that there was a
legal basis for the invasion, the clearly reluctant military were left
with
no choice.
It is perfectly clear from the comments of those returning from
the war that they regarded the whole exercise as a political trick
to fulfill Israeli vengenance - and they are furious.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:17:40 +0000, basho007 <basho007@deepnorth.org>
wrote:
might be true in black and white cases.
The liberation of iraq from 35+ years of baathist enslavement is about as
black and white as one gets.
the invasion of Iraq was not a black and white case.
It clearly was given iraqs well documented non compliance with the terms of
the 1991 ceasefire. A ceasefire which *should* have taken place say 2-3
weeks later over the smouldering corpse of the dictator.
the 'will' of the UK was and still is deeply divided.
The 'will' of UK has SFA to do with the mealy mouthed utterances of morally
bankrupt socialists whinging about the removal of a fellow traveller
greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.
|
| |
| |
"Wotan" <Wotan@Valhalla.net> wrote in message news:4041b74f@212.67.96.135...
refuse to
given. if
opinion.
Rubbish ! Confronted with a cooked up document, changed at the
last minute under pressure from Blair, to pretend that there was a
legal basis for the invasion, the clearly reluctant military were left
with no choice.
Can you explain this to me......?
The government is now wanting to expand their security departments...
(MI 5 or whatever it's called)
Because they want more 'spies'
Yet when their 'spies' gave the results of their intelligence on Iraq, the
government ignored it, and forced them to change it.
How would having more 'spies' help our country at all........
Whatever data they report will be ignored, as it has been in the past.....
What the @$#* is all that about ??
It's the same in the US, they had many warnings about 9/11, but they ignored
them,
whats the point of expanding their intelligence services, if their just
gonna be ignored ?
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:17:40 +0000, basho007 <basho007@deepnorth.org>
wrote:
The liberation of iraq from 35+ years of baathist enslavement is about as
black and white as one gets.
Oh go on, the case for war was over alleged *WMD*.
Care to show where the UN authorised the removal of SH?
the invasion of Iraq was not a black and white case.
It clearly was given iraqs well documented non compliance with the terms
of
the 1991 ceasefire. A ceasefire which *should* have taken place say 2-3
weeks later over the smouldering corpse of the dictator.
The 'will' of UK has SFA to do with the mealy mouthed utterances of
morally
bankrupt socialists whinging about the removal of a fellow traveller
The will of the people has everything to do with democracy, and nothing to
do with megalomaniac type dictators.
Where are those WMDs, eh? Everybody who was anti the Iraqi invasion is a
socialist? Well that's just true to form for you Greg, you have problems
getting things right without over generalising, that is when you are not
prevaricating.
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:58:06 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
Oh go on, the case for war was over alleged *WMD*.
Care to show where the UN authorised the removal of SH?
I dont give a XXXX what the UN did or didnt authorise.
One doesnt require authorisation from a wholly corrupt edifice which sat
idly by while the oil for food program was used to oppress and murder those
the UN was allegedly there to protect.
http://tinyurl.com/ytqaw
Todays NYT
"Hussein's Regime Skimmed Billions From Aid Program"
"As ministry officials and government documents portrayed it, the
oil-for-food program quickly evolved into an open bazaar of payoffs,
favoritism and kickbacks.
The kickback scheme worked, they said, because the payoffs could be
included in otherwise legitimate supply contracts negotiated directly by
the former government and then transferred to Iraq once the United Nations
released funds to pay the suppliers. "
"Under normal circumstances, Iraq would have been expected to seek the
highest price for its oil, its only legal source of cash. Instead, said
officials who worked with the oil-for-food program, Mr. Hussein's
government fought to keep the price as low as possible to leave a margin
for oil traders to pay illegal surcharges. "
"That was where the oil traders would gather whenever a journalist, actor
or political figure would arrive in Iraq and openly praise Mr. Hussein.
Experience taught them that the visitor usually returned to the hotel with
a gift voucher, courtesy of the Iraqi president or one of his aides,
representing the right to buy one million barrels or more of Iraqi crude. "
"They were paid millions of dollars, said Dr. Abbas, for drugs they did not
deliver, medical equipment that did not work and maintenance agreements
that were never honored. Iraq, he added, was left with defective ultrasound
machines from Algeria, overpriced dental chairs from China and a warehouse
filled with hundreds of wheelchairs that the old government did not bother
to distribute. "
greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:58:06 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
The liberation of iraq from 35+ years of baathist enslavement is about
as
black and white as one gets.
Oh go on, the case for war was over alleged *WMD*.
Care to show where the UN authorised the removal of SH?
I dont give a XXXX what the UN did or didnt authorise.
One doesnt require authorisation from a wholly corrupt edifice which sat
idly by while the oil for food program was used to oppress and murder
those
the UN was allegedly there to protect.
You still don't get it do you? They didn't go to war to remove SH because of
the crimes he had committed.
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
Jez wrote:
"Wotan" <Wotan@Valhalla.net> wrote in message news:4041b74f@212.67.96.135...
Can you explain this to me......?
The government is now wanting to expand their security departments...
(MI 5 or whatever it's called)
Because they want more 'spies'
Yet when their 'spies' gave the results of their intelligence on Iraq, the
government ignored it, and forced them to change it.
How would having more 'spies' help our country at all........
Whatever data they report will be ignored, as it has been in the past.....
What the @$#* is all that about ??
It's the same in the US, they had many warnings about 9/11, but they ignored
them,
whats the point of expanding their intelligence services, if their just
gonna be ignored ?
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
They need more people to watch the surveillence cameras and to read your email.
Beeswax
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:57:37 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
One doesnt require authorisation from a wholly corrupt edifice which sat
idly by while the oil for food program was used to oppress and murder
those
You still don't get it do you?
Oh contraire I do 'get it'.
They didn't go to war to remove SH because of
the crimes he had committed.
It was reason enough.
greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:24:47 +0000, Greg Hennessy <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:57:37 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
One doesnt require authorisation from a wholly corrupt edifice which sat
idly by while the oil for food program was used to oppress and murder
Oh contraire I do 'get it'.
It was reason enough.
If it was reason enough, then why was that not put to the electorate?
Why did the gov have to create this whole damn WMD mess which has only
served to damage the trust of the electorate and the future of
government foreign policy?
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:57:37 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
One doesnt require authorisation from a wholly corrupt edifice which
sat
idly by while the oil for food program was used to oppress and murder
those
the UN was allegedly there to protect.
You still don't get it do you?
Oh contraire I do 'get it'.
No you clearly don't, dumbo.
They didn't go to war to remove SH because of
the crimes he had committed.
It was reason enough.
But it wasn't the *primary* reason B/B gave, dumbo! What part of the alleged
***WMD*** dossier don't you understand???
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:52:46 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
It was reason enough.
But it wasn't the *primary* reason B/B gave
Which has SFA to do with socialists hand wringing about the overthrow of
the baathist paradise they were so keen on defending.
greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.
|
| |
| |
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:52:46 GMT, "Fed Up"
<returntosender@MtEverest.peak> wrote:
It was reason enough.
Which has SFA to do with socialists hand wringing about the overthrow
of the baathist paradise they were so keen on defending.
So when are they going to overthrow the brutal Kuwaiti monarchy and
the corrupt and perverse Haus of Saud ...?
greg
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:52:46 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
It was reason enough.
Which has SFA to do with socialists hand wringing about the overthrow of
the baathist paradise they were so keen on defending.
Oh, did B/B consult *you* before deciding to invade? No? Then your *opinion*
counts for absolutely nothing as to *why* Iraq was invaded. How can you be
so
politically naive? You don't even reach neophyte level.
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
From: "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
(...)
But it wasn't the *primary* reason B/B gave, dumbo! What part of the alleged
***WMD*** dossier don't you understand???
The same parts that I didn't read.
What makes this document so credible?
2003. All rights reserved.
(...)
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Over-ridden on basis of fair use.
_______
If you remove this copyright notice, fair attribution, or lack thereof,
then I hereby threaten to take your money without your permission, and I
promise to do it through the most inhumane means of lawyerly conduct the
courts will allow, especially if you hav more money than I do and all that
you're doing is claiming to write this drivel. Do you really want that
evidence of you insanity on the public record?
--This notice volunteered to Bruce Cameron without let or hindrance
in recognition of his being an extensively plagiarized case.
<a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/">BrewJay's Babble Bin</a>
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:32:35 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
Oh, did B/B consult *you* before deciding to invade?
Why ? Should they have done ?
No? Then your *opinion* counts for absolutely nothing as to *why* Iraq was invaded.
A non sequitur, given the distinct lack of personal consultation w.r.t more
prosaic items of governance.
I don't give a XXXX about the dearth of WMDs ex post facto. Based on the
madsams past record. The merest suspicion was more than enough to provide a
casus belli IMHO.
Iraqis have been freed from slavery and the world *is* a safer place as a
consequence.
How can you be so politically naive? You don't even reach neophyte level.
The only people being naive (or deliberately disingenuous) are those who
are asserting that the interests of the US and UK should be constrained by
highly selective and partial interpretations of 'international law'.
greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:32:35 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
Why ? Should they have done ?
Only if they wanted to look even more stupid than what they do now.
No? Then your *opinion* counts for absolutely nothing as to *why* Iraq
was invaded.
A non sequitur, given the distinct lack of personal consultation w.r.t
more
prosaic items of governance.
I don't give a XXXX about the dearth of WMDs ex post facto. Based on the
madsams past record. The merest suspicion was more than enough to provide
a
casus belli IMHO.
Iraqis have been freed from slavery and the world *is* a safer place as a
consequence.
You sound like Bliar's spokesman.
How can you be so politically naive? You don't even reach neophyte level.
The only people being naive (or deliberately disingenuous) are those who
are asserting that the interests of the US and UK should be constrained by
highly selective and partial interpretations of 'international law'.
Now you are talking about US/UK interests. Interesting. Maybe there is some
seepage of understanding reaching your nether regions of consciousness. Must
say though, it takes a lot to get through to you. I've just been watching
some KB; you wouldn't look like Sapp would you?
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
Fed Up wrote:
Only if they wanted to look even more stupid than what they do now.
No? Then your *opinion* counts for absolutely nothing as to *why*
Iraq was invaded.
You sound like Bliar's spokesman.
How can you be so politically naive? You don't even reach neophyte
level.
Now you are talking about US/UK interests. Interesting. Maybe there
is some seepage of understanding reaching your nether regions of
consciousness. Must say though, it takes a lot to get through to you.
I've just been watching some KB; you wouldn't look like Sapp would
you?
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:54:36 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
Oh, did B/B consult *you* before deciding to invade?
Only if they wanted to look even more stupid than what they do now.
Your inability to think through your silly attempt at point scoring is
noted.
greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:54:36 GMT, "Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak>
wrote:
Your inability to think through your silly attempt at point scoring is
noted.
You're joking right? Are you some kind of schoolteacher?
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
|
