russj41

I never assumed you were talking about "force". Nor was I. So what's the
point of all this verbiage. It looks to me like your trying to wriggle off
a hook. You asked about the status of US states added to the union. I
replied that they are "sovereign states" of the USA. You came back with
some barely intelligble stuff about off shore states not being "equal" and
referred to the US Constitution. I don't see anything in the US
Constitution that says the states must all be contiguous and all located on
the mainland USA. Now you're coming back with these dictionary definitions,
which is rather condescending of you, but the way.
<snip definitions>


A waste of your time and mine. You're just going back over old ground.
Furthermore, you didn't put the evidence I asked for on the table.


That is breathtaking sophistry, Bob.

In the first place, it isn't a "war crime" to take military action against
any country or group who threatens the lives of your citizens and your national security.


The UN wasn't in charge. The UN wasn't doing a damn thing but playing into Saddam's hands.

Then why did the UN refuse to act? No matter how you argue it, Bob, we are
not going to let a couple of members of the UN Security Council dictate our
policies when it comes to our own internal security. Get used to it.

No, you did.

Exactly, although I disagree that he "lashed out in all directions". He was
very specific about when he intended to do.

You're still ignoring Salman Pak. Nice try.


Bin Laden may still be on the loose, but he's sure looking over his
shoulder. 2/3rds of his top cohorts and hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of
his henchmen are dead. It's just a matter of time. Same with Saddam.

Accused by whom? Has the ICC indicted Bush and Blair? Apparently, that
news hasn't reached the mass media yet. There hasn't been an ad hoc UN
court established over night, like the one for Milosevic, has there? All
I've heard is that Spain indicted bin Laden and some other al Qaeda thugs,
including a couple of characters from Al Jazeera.


Bin Laden also took money from Saddam. Just ask Murchadh. He'll fill you
in on the details.

Oh, and I disagree that the terror groups haven't been weakened. It's
rather more difficult to whip them into good little terrorists since the
training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been shut down. It's also
pretty difficult to maintain contact with your cells when many of them have
been arrested or are being watched by the security agencies in a host of
countries. There's lots of spanners in their mechanisms.


Well, if what they set out to do is already accomplished, it was a bit of a
tempest in a tea pot, wot.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Bush went to the UN. The UN supported him on
Afghanistan. Maybe that's why you don't hear too much from the UN about the
detainees in Cuba. On Iraq, two members of the Security Council blocked a
UN decision to support the Coalition on Iraq. As I said above, the
Coalition members are under no obligation to the UN if it refuses to act
when sovereign states have valid security concerns that involve those states
and their allies.


Well, they've certainly succeeded in dividing, thanks to France, Germany,
Russia, and blokes like you. Shame it had more to do with IOU's and
contracts where France and Russia are concerned. It calls their true
motives into quesiton. Conquer? Not a chance in Hell.


MacHamish Mór

murchadh

That's a lie. The original point arose over a connection between bin
Laden and Hussein and I suggested that Hussein might have paid bin
Laden to be left alone.

What you have written underlines the reason why nobody takes you
seriously - because you and the truth have such a hard time keeping in
touch.

I can't believe what a dishonourable and dishonest person you are.

Murchadh

robert peffers

snip>


Why? You said the USA did not have colonies. I said they had and showed you
the definition of a colony to prove my point. It is you who is wriggling, not I.

What evidence? Of what?

It is stone cold facts. Don't you understand that? Fact - the USA is
illegally invading countries to bring about regeme change. Fact - The USA
is taking and holding prisoners illegally withour regard for The Geneve
convention. There is no such caragory as, "Illegal combatants", under the
Geneva convention. The USA are prime signatories to The Geneva Convention
and they have breached its ruls Your country's leaders are thus all war criminals..


There was no threat to the USA from Afghanistan. There was no threat to the
USA from Iraq. Your country's leaders are war criminals.


That does not give the USA any rights to invade any country to bring about
regeme change. If they did not like the actions of the UN, as a permenant
member, their only right was to push for change from within the UN. Your
leaders are all war criminals. BTW: the UN was more successful than the USA
invasion. They knew where Saddam was just for starters.


ROTFLMAO! Today your stupid administration told the whole World why the UN
did not act. They admitted there was nbo WMDs in Iraq. You may shoose to
wear blinkers but I rememer the idiot Powell showing aerial photos of,
"Chemical Weapons Plants". So now it seems he was telling porkies. He also
showed large vehicles that he claimed were mobile WMD production units.
Experts have proved that such mobile plants are not possible. Powell is a
liar. No evidence was found. Where was the threat to your internal security
from either Iraq or Afghanistan? There was none. Your idiot leaders invaded
with a stated aim of bringing about a regeme change in both countries. That
makes them war criminals. They invades two countries that had not attacked
the USA - That makes them war criminals.

Stop wriggling like Bush and co. Now which is it?

Were the invasions to get terrorist responsible for 9/11. If so what
evidence did you have and did you get them?
Were the invasions to get WMDs and if so what evidence do you have and did
you find any?
Were the invasions to prevent an attack against the USA by either country
you invaded? What is the proof and how was the attack to be delivered?
Were the invasions to bring down the World's belief in the UN and replace
them? You did do this and it first damaged the UN. Now it has backfired and
your leaders are seen as war criminals in the eyes of most of the World.
Were the invasions to bring about regeme changes in both countries? You have
changed the regemes in both countries and that is illegal and your leaders
are War Criminals.

Finally why are the Afghans and Iraqis killing your troops if they think you are liberators?


I would not put it to a vote if I were you. snip


I'm not ignoring anything for I have said all along that the terroists are
an international force. It is thus wrong to select countries to invade and
use international terrorism and daft stories of these countries being an
immediate threat to the USA.

If you are going to hit the terrorists then hit the terrorists not select
certain countries where you don't like the particular leader in that
country. There are many more evil dictators in the World why are they not
hit? It is not just chance that Saddam was supported by the USA when it
suited you. It is not chance that the USA trained bin Laden when his support
suited you. The World can see the USA for what it is. Neither your lies and
blinkers, or those of Bush, will change that.

The fact is the World has become a far more dangerous place for Western
countries because of USA actions. snip


Aye! Richt! For every bin Laden cohort you have killed there are at least 2
more waiting to fill their shoes. Further to that if you actually kill him
you will make the biggest religious martyre since Jesus Christ. Kill him and
you will reap the whirlwind. snip


Only because of the World threat posed by them. Everyone points the finger
though. If any other people had done as he had they would by charged with
it. There is no doubt that both the USA and UK have breached the UN rules.
The USA has also breached the Geneva Convention and , that also, is a war crime. snip

Not the same thing at all. After all the USA funded the IRA, entertained its
leader at the White House and gave them moral support. There has been no
proven funding from Saddam to bin Laden.


How do you know? How come we keep finding more of them then? Were they all
trained before the invasions? There are sleepers everywhere and it only
takes one suicidal bomber to make a big hit.


The war is not over even if Bush says it is. Would that it was. snip


to

is

Bush

the


states


The terrorist are still running rings round them and they will continue to
do so until the USA gets a leader who takes the fight to the real enemies.
These ememies are not the leaders of countries they are the leaders of
terrorists.
snip


That is utter bollox. If the USA had not broken the rules there would be no
need for France and Germany to oppose them. It is the USA that is the
proverbial nigger in the woodpile.

--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
bob@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003

On 3 Oct 2003 21:26:15 GMT, I read these words from "Séimí mac Liam"
<gwyddon@aracnet.com> :

Haven't forgotten them, I never heard of them in the first instance.

-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.ian-stewart.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/informer.htm

richard kaulfuss

On 3 Oct 2003 21:26:15 GMT, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyddon@aracnet.com>

Yes, but none of the good stuff comes from the "dance" genre.

Donald Duck's cloned nephews?

--
****

séimí mac liam

Dance music for pre-adolescents c. 1970.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

richard kaulfuss

Absolutely. However it's not very often that an entire genre
is keech.

--
****

robert peffers

Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
No! And I'm not going to.
I live some way from the old Billado Air field. You can look the map and see
the distance it is from Kelty.When T in the Park is on I hear the racket
from here. Now remember I suffer severe tinitis. Now just what do you think
that level of sound is doing to the kids ears who are standing in front of
the stages? I cannot be bothered looking the map for exact distances but it
must be about eight miles away. How can anyone call that music? It is not
possible to hear such volumes of sound properly.
--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
bob@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003