On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]> [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:30:13 +0100, "Rob Overfield"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |
> | Dave, an amazingly crass conclusion taken from insufficient information.
> | What has your last statement got to do with it?
>
> OK in words of two sylables
> | > | Under the Geneva Convention, as occupying powers, it was illegal for us
> | > | to make constitutional changes in Iraq.
>
> Sadam and the Baath Party were in power and *were* the constiution there
> was no democracy, and anyone who even looked like a danger to Sadam was
> murdered, in all about 30,000 per year.
>
> If one argues that constitutional changes can not be made, one is arguing
> that Sadam and the Baathists should still be in power.
I haven't argued that constitutional changes can not be made, you made
that bit up. Constitutional changes can be made, they can be made legally
by the United Nations Security Council, not by the occupying forces.
What you are saying is that anyone who is against vigilantes must be
in favour of crimilals.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:35:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:15:23 +0100, [email protected] (fred) wrote:
>
>| On Wednesday, in article
>| <[email protected]>
>| [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
>|
>| > We know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had reference samples of
>| > bacterilogical, and industrial fermentors which he had not declared to the
>| > UN. From those to massive quantities of bacteriological agents is a simple
>| > operation.
>| >
>| > We also know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had missiles with a longer
>| > range than were allowed.
>|
>| Do we? How do we know that then?
>
>David Kay found it after the war. It was even on The Box if you had been
>at all interested in the subject you would have caught the program.
I remember them finding some borderline weapons that Saddam hadn't
declared, which could just about go a little bit further than the
declared distance.
The Government tried to trumpet it as examples of WMD but nobody
bought it.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
>Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
>on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote the following to uk.local.yorkshire.moderated:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
> Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
> on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
Would I be causing trouble by mentioning the nice picture at the top of this
article?
On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]> [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:30:13 +0100, "Rob Overfield"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |
> | Dave, an amazingly crass conclusion taken from insufficient information.
> | What has your last statement got to do with it?
>
> OK in words of two sylables
> | > | Under the Geneva Convention, as occupying powers, it was illegal for us
> | > | to make constitutional changes in Iraq.
>
> Sadam and the Baath Party were in power and *were* the constiution there
> was no democracy, and anyone who even looked like a danger to Sadam was
> murdered, in all about 30,000 per year.
>
> If one argues that constitutional changes can not be made, one is arguing
> that Sadam and the Baathists should still be in power.
I haven't argued that constitutional changes can not be made, you made
that bit up. Constitutional changes can be made, they can be made legally
by the United Nations Security Council, not by the occupying forces.
What you are saying is that anyone who is against vigilantes must be
in favour of crimilals.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:35:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:15:23 +0100, [email protected] (fred) wrote:
>
>| On Wednesday, in article
>| <[email protected]>
>| [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
>|
>| > We know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had reference samples of
>| > bacterilogical, and industrial fermentors which he had not declared to the
>| > UN. From those to massive quantities of bacteriological agents is a simple
>| > operation.
>| >
>| > We also know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had missiles with a longer
>| > range than were allowed.
>|
>| Do we? How do we know that then?
>
>David Kay found it after the war. It was even on The Box if you had been
>at all interested in the subject you would have caught the program.
I remember them finding some borderline weapons that Saddam hadn't
declared, which could just about go a little bit further than the
declared distance.
The Government tried to trumpet it as examples of WMD but nobody
bought it.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
>Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
>on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote the following to uk.local.yorkshire.moderated:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
> Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
> on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
Would I be causing trouble by mentioning the nice picture at the top of this
article?
On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]> [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:30:13 +0100, "Rob Overfield"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |
> | Dave, an amazingly crass conclusion taken from insufficient information.
> | What has your last statement got to do with it?
>
> OK in words of two sylables
> | > | Under the Geneva Convention, as occupying powers, it was illegal for us
> | > | to make constitutional changes in Iraq.
>
> Sadam and the Baath Party were in power and *were* the constiution there
> was no democracy, and anyone who even looked like a danger to Sadam was
> murdered, in all about 30,000 per year.
>
> If one argues that constitutional changes can not be made, one is arguing
> that Sadam and the Baathists should still be in power.
I haven't argued that constitutional changes can not be made, you made
that bit up. Constitutional changes can be made, they can be made legally
by the United Nations Security Council, not by the occupying forces.
What you are saying is that anyone who is against vigilantes must be
in favour of crimilals.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:35:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:15:23 +0100, [email protected] (fred) wrote:
>
>| On Wednesday, in article
>| <[email protected]>
>| [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
>|
>| > We know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had reference samples of
>| > bacterilogical, and industrial fermentors which he had not declared to the
>| > UN. From those to massive quantities of bacteriological agents is a simple
>| > operation.
>| >
>| > We also know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had missiles with a longer
>| > range than were allowed.
>|
>| Do we? How do we know that then?
>
>David Kay found it after the war. It was even on The Box if you had been
>at all interested in the subject you would have caught the program.
I remember them finding some borderline weapons that Saddam hadn't
declared, which could just about go a little bit further than the
declared distance.
The Government tried to trumpet it as examples of WMD but nobody
bought it.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
>Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
>on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote the following to uk.local.yorkshire.moderated:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
> Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
> on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
Would I be causing trouble by mentioning the nice picture at the top of this
article?
On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]> [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:30:13 +0100, "Rob Overfield"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |
> | Dave, an amazingly crass conclusion taken from insufficient information.
> | What has your last statement got to do with it?
>
> OK in words of two sylables
> | > | Under the Geneva Convention, as occupying powers, it was illegal for us
> | > | to make constitutional changes in Iraq.
>
> Sadam and the Baath Party were in power and *were* the constiution there
> was no democracy, and anyone who even looked like a danger to Sadam was
> murdered, in all about 30,000 per year.
>
> If one argues that constitutional changes can not be made, one is arguing
> that Sadam and the Baathists should still be in power.
I haven't argued that constitutional changes can not be made, you made
that bit up. Constitutional changes can be made, they can be made legally
by the United Nations Security Council, not by the occupying forces.
What you are saying is that anyone who is against vigilantes must be
in favour of crimilals.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:35:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:15:23 +0100, [email protected] (fred) wrote:
>
>| On Wednesday, in article
>| <[email protected]>
>| [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
>|
>| > We know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had reference samples of
>| > bacterilogical, and industrial fermentors which he had not declared to the
>| > UN. From those to massive quantities of bacteriological agents is a simple
>| > operation.
>| >
>| > We also know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had missiles with a longer
>| > range than were allowed.
>|
>| Do we? How do we know that then?
>
>David Kay found it after the war. It was even on The Box if you had been
>at all interested in the subject you would have caught the program.
I remember them finding some borderline weapons that Saddam hadn't
declared, which could just about go a little bit further than the
declared distance.
The Government tried to trumpet it as examples of WMD but nobody
bought it.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
>Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
>on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote the following to uk.local.yorkshire.moderated:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
> Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
> on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
Would I be causing trouble by mentioning the nice picture at the top of this
article?
On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]> [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:30:13 +0100, "Rob Overfield"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |
> | Dave, an amazingly crass conclusion taken from insufficient information.
> | What has your last statement got to do with it?
>
> OK in words of two sylables
> | > | Under the Geneva Convention, as occupying powers, it was illegal for us
> | > | to make constitutional changes in Iraq.
>
> Sadam and the Baath Party were in power and *were* the constiution there
> was no democracy, and anyone who even looked like a danger to Sadam was
> murdered, in all about 30,000 per year.
>
> If one argues that constitutional changes can not be made, one is arguing
> that Sadam and the Baathists should still be in power.
I haven't argued that constitutional changes can not be made, you made
that bit up. Constitutional changes can be made, they can be made legally
by the United Nations Security Council, not by the occupying forces.
What you are saying is that anyone who is against vigilantes must be
in favour of crimilals.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:35:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:15:23 +0100, [email protected] (fred) wrote:
>
>| On Wednesday, in article
>| <[email protected]>
>| [email protected] "Dave Fawthrop" wrote:
>|
>| > We know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had reference samples of
>| > bacterilogical, and industrial fermentors which he had not declared to the
>| > UN. From those to massive quantities of bacteriological agents is a simple
>| > operation.
>| >
>| > We also know beyond a shadow of doubt that he had missiles with a longer
>| > range than were allowed.
>|
>| Do we? How do we know that then?
>
>David Kay found it after the war. It was even on The Box if you had been
>at all interested in the subject you would have caught the program.
I remember them finding some borderline weapons that Saddam hadn't
declared, which could just about go a little bit further than the
declared distance.
The Government tried to trumpet it as examples of WMD but nobody
bought it.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
>Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
>on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:15:08 +0100, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote the following to uk.local.yorkshire.moderated:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:30:08 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You are ignoring the fact that Parliament voted for the war.
>>
>> Only because:
>> 1) the majority in Parliament are as corrupt as he is
>> 2) he lied to us about extra evidence that we couldn't see as it was
>> classified.
>>
>
> Of course it was classified, they knew full well what weapons Iraq had,
> on account of the fact we sold him them!!!
Would I be causing trouble by mentioning the nice picture at the top of this
article?
