Iranian Sniper Rifles Iraq
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I don't know about WMD but I do know that our forces should only be used as a matter of last resort.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple,
You are a lost cause. Even George Bush and the Iraq Survey Group don't claim these scattered munitions were the "smoking gun", constituted any kind of threat or were even the weapons they were searching for.
You really are clutching at straws if you are using that as a justification. In fact, until you raised the point, not even the most rabid supporters of the war were claiming so. How does it feel to be in the insane minority?
You are a lost cause. Even George Bush and the Iraq Survey Group don't claim these scattered munitions were the "smoking gun", constituted any kind of threat or were even the weapons they were searching for.
You really are clutching at straws if you are using that as a justification. In fact, until you raised the point, not even the most rabid supporters of the war were claiming so. How does it feel to be in the insane minority?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm insane because I don't hold your world view? Nice, with such debating skills the Oxford Debating society must be holding a place open for you!
By the strict interpretation of UNSCR 687 ANY chemical round is a breach of the ceasefire - you don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.
It's rather like arguing with Neo-Nazis on other forums (not that I'm suggesting you are one) hard facts, which the UNSCR is, are dismissed as irrelevant, out of context or any other weasel words. Stage two is equivalence so I'll do the spade-work up front here, the argument usually goes
"Yer but, right, he might have killed millions (or hundreds of thousands in the case of Saddam) BUT the west/Bush/Blair/Israel/the Dagenham Girl Pipers were worse because (insert irrelevant facile comparison here)"
Saddam had thousands murdered on his orders, those killed subsequently to the 2003 war died as a result of the actions of 'insurgents' drawn from many sources and none as a US/UK policy of genocide - see the difference?
The anti Israeli lobby may now open fire with 'why should Saddam have to comply with UNSCRs when the land of the Red Sea pedestrians doesn’t' - conveniently forgetting there are several types of UNSCR ranging from 'mandatory' through to 'would you please, pretty please'. Saddam was under the first type.
Personally
a. I'm glad the bastard is dead, my only regret is we didn't get to him sooner but sadly we've had to live with real politick, AKA the politics of the possible - do you want him back?
b. We screwed Iraq in 1919, with the break-up of the Ottoman empire the Kurds should have been given Kurdistan, the Shia should have had their bit and the Sunni could have got on with what's left. Then they could have got on with their genocides and ethnic cleansing in the 1920s/30s. Oh no, Britain and France decided to divide up the region into protectorates. Wilson's plan for self determination got conveniently forgotten about and we ended up in the mess we have today
c. If we got our act together and weren’t so dependent on oil from the Arabian peninsula the world might be a better place
d. If the UN weren’t so cr@p the world might be abetter place - third-world peacekeepers anyone?
Apologies for thread hijack and lack of funnies
By the strict interpretation of UNSCR 687 ANY chemical round is a breach of the ceasefire - you don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.
It's rather like arguing with Neo-Nazis on other forums (not that I'm suggesting you are one) hard facts, which the UNSCR is, are dismissed as irrelevant, out of context or any other weasel words. Stage two is equivalence so I'll do the spade-work up front here, the argument usually goes
"Yer but, right, he might have killed millions (or hundreds of thousands in the case of Saddam) BUT the west/Bush/Blair/Israel/the Dagenham Girl Pipers were worse because (insert irrelevant facile comparison here)"
Saddam had thousands murdered on his orders, those killed subsequently to the 2003 war died as a result of the actions of 'insurgents' drawn from many sources and none as a US/UK policy of genocide - see the difference?
The anti Israeli lobby may now open fire with 'why should Saddam have to comply with UNSCRs when the land of the Red Sea pedestrians doesn’t' - conveniently forgetting there are several types of UNSCR ranging from 'mandatory' through to 'would you please, pretty please'. Saddam was under the first type.
Personally
a. I'm glad the bastard is dead, my only regret is we didn't get to him sooner but sadly we've had to live with real politick, AKA the politics of the possible - do you want him back?
b. We screwed Iraq in 1919, with the break-up of the Ottoman empire the Kurds should have been given Kurdistan, the Shia should have had their bit and the Sunni could have got on with what's left. Then they could have got on with their genocides and ethnic cleansing in the 1920s/30s. Oh no, Britain and France decided to divide up the region into protectorates. Wilson's plan for self determination got conveniently forgotten about and we ended up in the mess we have today
c. If we got our act together and weren’t so dependent on oil from the Arabian peninsula the world might be a better place
d. If the UN weren’t so cr@p the world might be abetter place - third-world peacekeepers anyone?
Apologies for thread hijack and lack of funnies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Maple,
You are missing the hard facts.
It is physically impossible for Iraq to dispose of weapons it didn't know still existed, no less that the weapons found were not the ones inspectors were searching for and were no longer operational. No one other than a lunatic would invoke UNSCR 687 on such grounds to make an invasion....hmmmm, actually I suppose that makes sense now. Such fundamentalist interpretation of a document is the same justification used by religious fanatics for murder.
It would be like claiming the US is involved in selling nuclear weapons material since radioactive substances go missing from US installations every year; obviously this isn't the case, it is simply impossible to be 100% accurate, especially when you country has been bombed and sanctioned. Or likewise, claiming John Reid should be convicted and tried for the cannabis discovered in his home last year. Utterly ridiculous, but according to the black and white, "letter of the law" world you seem to live in, quite justified.
It is a false justification for the war and you would be much better off for your own credibility sticking to the secondary argument for war - to depose Saddam.
You are missing the hard facts.
It is physically impossible for Iraq to dispose of weapons it didn't know still existed, no less that the weapons found were not the ones inspectors were searching for and were no longer operational. No one other than a lunatic would invoke UNSCR 687 on such grounds to make an invasion....hmmmm, actually I suppose that makes sense now. Such fundamentalist interpretation of a document is the same justification used by religious fanatics for murder.
It would be like claiming the US is involved in selling nuclear weapons material since radioactive substances go missing from US installations every year; obviously this isn't the case, it is simply impossible to be 100% accurate, especially when you country has been bombed and sanctioned. Or likewise, claiming John Reid should be convicted and tried for the cannabis discovered in his home last year. Utterly ridiculous, but according to the black and white, "letter of the law" world you seem to live in, quite justified.
It is a false justification for the war and you would be much better off for your own credibility sticking to the secondary argument for war - to depose Saddam.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore there was no specific authorisation for war from the Security Council. Take this view from a team of well known International Lawyers.
We consider that it is far from clear that material breaches of a cease-fire agreement authorise the use of force in response. However, if such use of force can ever be justified, this is clearly a decision to be taken by the Security Council. The constitutional arguments considered above apply with equal force in this context. Given the purpose of the system of collective decision-making, the emphasis on peaceful resolution wherever possible, and the Security Council’s active management of the Iraqi situation to date, the better view is that neither breaches of the cease-fire agreement nor breaches of any other resolution authorise the unilateral use of force. Such use of force by the United Kingdom would therefore violate international law.
In summary, our opinion is that:
The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:
Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom’s assistance; or
an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or
the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.
Iraq has not attacked the United Kingdom, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack is imminent.
Our view is that current Security Council resolutions do not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Such force would require further authorisation from the Security Council.
At present the United Kingdom is therefore not entitled, in international law, to use force against Iraq.
Apologies for posting this again. But Maple, you are not a lawyer. Stick to the day job fella. Not even the dear leader came out with your arguments, even in his desperation to justify the war.
We consider that it is far from clear that material breaches of a cease-fire agreement authorise the use of force in response. However, if such use of force can ever be justified, this is clearly a decision to be taken by the Security Council. The constitutional arguments considered above apply with equal force in this context. Given the purpose of the system of collective decision-making, the emphasis on peaceful resolution wherever possible, and the Security Council’s active management of the Iraqi situation to date, the better view is that neither breaches of the cease-fire agreement nor breaches of any other resolution authorise the unilateral use of force. Such use of force by the United Kingdom would therefore violate international law.
In summary, our opinion is that:
The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:
Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom’s assistance; or
an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or
the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.
Iraq has not attacked the United Kingdom, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack is imminent.
Our view is that current Security Council resolutions do not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Such force would require further authorisation from the Security Council.
At present the United Kingdom is therefore not entitled, in international law, to use force against Iraq.
Apologies for posting this again. But Maple, you are not a lawyer. Stick to the day job fella. Not even the dear leader came out with your arguments, even in his desperation to justify the war.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
I always found it amusing that we launched this war in violation of the security council under the claim of upholding the security council resolution.
Much like the mad dictator who dissolves parliament and take control under the claim that only he knows better.
If one thing came out of this, it certainly showed me how manipulation of the truth and the media can make invasion justified. I find it hard to hold any hatred for German or Japanese civilians who similarly supported their 1940s invasions - they were simply misguided in just the same way people here are.
I always found it amusing that we launched this war in violation of the security council under the claim of upholding the security council resolution.
Much like the mad dictator who dissolves parliament and take control under the claim that only he knows better.
If one thing came out of this, it certainly showed me how manipulation of the truth and the media can make invasion justified. I find it hard to hold any hatred for German or Japanese civilians who similarly supported their 1940s invasions - they were simply misguided in just the same way people here are.
Last edited by Sunray Minor; 15th Feb 2007 at 11:48.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. What is of interest to me is the responsibility of the invaders to uphold law and order in the country thay have invaded. US and UK singularly failed to do this. If the dear leader tries to duck out of Iraq now, and leave behind a blood bath, he really will have broken every rule in the book. Did not want to steer this thread into a legality question. My points were really about what have we achieved, aside from a disaster? The lack of strategic thinking is staggering. I'm just a comprehensive school boy from the Midlands but I managed to work it out!!
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are not a lawyer.
no less that the weapons found were not the ones inspectors were searching for and were no longer operational.
No longer operational? Tell that to the Yank EOD guys that were cas-evaced for exposure to phosgene. The gas shells from WW1 are still 'operational' as in they'll kill you given half a chance, the stockpile of BW stuff found at Spandau from WW2 was still viable, and chances are the lot that was dumped at Portreath are still 'live'. A six form chemistry student could recycle the contents. But hey, no biggie, right guys?
Look, twist it as you want, SH was in breach of UNSCR 687, look it up on tinternet and see if he had any wriggle room
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus Maple, you are not Lord Goldsmoth are you?
Resolution 686, para 4, which marked the provisional cessation of hostilities, expressly preserved the right to use force under Resolution 678. However, Resolution 687, which marked the permanent ceasefire, uses no such terms. This demonstrates a clear recognition that the right to use force requires express terms if it is to be continued. The absence of any clear terms in any resolution after 686 leads us to the conclusion that no such use of force was authorised.
Further, Resolution 687 states that the Security Council ‘[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.’ This clearly contemplates that the Security Council remains seized of the matter and will itself decide what further steps may be required for the implementation of that resolution.
The Secretary General of the United Nations has made it clear that Resolution 678 was directed at a unique and specific situation:
‘The Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait was the first instance since the founding of the Organisation in which one Member State sought to completely overpower and annex another. The unique demands presented by this situation have summoned forth innovative measures which have given practical expression to the Charter’s concepts of how international peace and security might be maintained.’ (The United Nations Blue Book Series Vol IX, The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990-1996 (1996), at 3)
Those ‘unique demands’ relating to the invasion and occupation are no longer in existence. The Secretary General’s remarks underline how exceptional the United Nations considers the use of force, and how dependent the decision to use force was on the fact that Iraq had actually invaded another Member State. No such action has been taken by Iraq since then.
Resolution 686, para 4, which marked the provisional cessation of hostilities, expressly preserved the right to use force under Resolution 678. However, Resolution 687, which marked the permanent ceasefire, uses no such terms. This demonstrates a clear recognition that the right to use force requires express terms if it is to be continued. The absence of any clear terms in any resolution after 686 leads us to the conclusion that no such use of force was authorised.
Further, Resolution 687 states that the Security Council ‘[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.’ This clearly contemplates that the Security Council remains seized of the matter and will itself decide what further steps may be required for the implementation of that resolution.
The Secretary General of the United Nations has made it clear that Resolution 678 was directed at a unique and specific situation:
‘The Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait was the first instance since the founding of the Organisation in which one Member State sought to completely overpower and annex another. The unique demands presented by this situation have summoned forth innovative measures which have given practical expression to the Charter’s concepts of how international peace and security might be maintained.’ (The United Nations Blue Book Series Vol IX, The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990-1996 (1996), at 3)
Those ‘unique demands’ relating to the invasion and occupation are no longer in existence. The Secretary General’s remarks underline how exceptional the United Nations considers the use of force, and how dependent the decision to use force was on the fact that Iraq had actually invaded another Member State. No such action has been taken by Iraq since then.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Maple,
Try sticking one of those into a 155 and seeing where it goes. Then I suppose you would accuse the Iraqi red-legs of being suicide bombers though wouldn't you.
But if it makes you feel better about the invasion that has turned into a massacre, whatever floats your boat.
A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."
But if it makes you feel better about the invasion that has turned into a massacre, whatever floats your boat.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I've got dyslexia! Sorry mate, Resolution 678, still valid though isn't it? Or has the Secretary General got the powers to overturn or interpret resolutions after the even as he sees fit?
I don't think he has without referring back to the permanent members of the UNSCR
BTW which web-site did you pick that up from? I'm guessing you didn't do it off the top of your head and we were always advised to 'show all working'
Edited to add
At least two sources found that match
peaceright.org
lawersagainstthewar.org
Hmmmm, unbiased untainted primary sources - not
If it's not in a ammo box and waiting to go it's not a risk? BTW the BM21 rounds were shiny and 'as new' in ammo crates, just waiting to be mated up to the propellant - did you ever read any of the int reports?
Play the ball old chap, not the man!
I don't think he has without referring back to the permanent members of the UNSCR
BTW which web-site did you pick that up from? I'm guessing you didn't do it off the top of your head and we were always advised to 'show all working'
Edited to add
At least two sources found that match
peaceright.org
lawersagainstthewar.org
Hmmmm, unbiased untainted primary sources - not
Try sticking one of those into a 155 and seeing where it goes. Then I suppose you would accuse the Iraqi red-legs of being suicide bombers though wouldn't you.
But if it makes you feel better about the invasion that has turned into a massacre, whatever floats your boat.
Last edited by Maple 01; 15th Feb 2007 at 12:23.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither of those and I am not disclosing. Reputable lawyers will suffice. Certain lawyers sought an opinion from recognised experts.
Why don't you try a search of your own and post some legalise from some pro-war lawyers? Apart fron the dear leader and his puppy the Attorney General. For some reason Lord Goldsmith will not disclose. Hmm guess it has something to do with WMD that never existed then.
My last post on this, don't wish to bore everyone else to death. I have given up trying to change your mind. No prob, damage is done anyway. Can't blame you for it.
BTW 678 no longer applies.
Resolution 678, at paragraph 2, authorised Member States ‘to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.’ (emphasis added) Resolution 660 had the sole aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. After that had been achieved, Resolution 687 imposed a formal cease-fire. That cease-fire was conditional on Iraq’s acceptance of certain terms. It did accept those terms. The Security Council’s current requirements of Iraq are contained in Resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions.
Why don't you try a search of your own and post some legalise from some pro-war lawyers? Apart fron the dear leader and his puppy the Attorney General. For some reason Lord Goldsmith will not disclose. Hmm guess it has something to do with WMD that never existed then.
My last post on this, don't wish to bore everyone else to death. I have given up trying to change your mind. No prob, damage is done anyway. Can't blame you for it.
BTW 678 no longer applies.
Resolution 678, at paragraph 2, authorised Member States ‘to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.’ (emphasis added) Resolution 660 had the sole aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. After that had been achieved, Resolution 687 imposed a formal cease-fire. That cease-fire was conditional on Iraq’s acceptance of certain terms. It did accept those terms. The Security Council’s current requirements of Iraq are contained in Resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh! you are so busted!
Don't fold up your tent and go away, just went you were winning! I mean, how can I compete with a cut-and-paste job from an undisclosed single source - hold on isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
Used to see the same thing from the Neo-Nazis posting links to 'Stormfront' as validation of their arguments - I'll give you that though - smart not telling me where you got if from - can't check for bias
Now questions you haven't answered, multi choice
Do you want Saddam back? Y/N
Were forbidden chemical weapons found? Y/N
Don't fold up your tent and go away, just went you were winning! I mean, how can I compete with a cut-and-paste job from an undisclosed single source - hold on isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
Used to see the same thing from the Neo-Nazis posting links to 'Stormfront' as validation of their arguments - I'll give you that though - smart not telling me where you got if from - can't check for bias
Now questions you haven't answered, multi choice
Do you want Saddam back? Y/N
Were forbidden chemical weapons found? Y/N
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple,
I suggest that you read the UNSCR (687) that you continue to quote.
For your info,
"Prior to the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 678, authorizing use of “all necessary means” to uphold UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait) and subsequent resolutions, and to “restore international peace and security in the area.” This was the basis for use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.
At the end of the Gulf War, the Security Council imposed obligations on Iraq requiring it to end its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, as a condition of the cease-fire declared under UNSCR 687. Because Iraq has materially breached these WMD obligations, which were essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under UNSCR 678."
Quoted from John Dillinger III, NSC in an article to the CFR, entitled "Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law"
Now the mistake that you make and the crux of the whole matter on the deposing of SH was that none of the UNSCRs were written with either the intention or desire to enable regime change in Iraq.
Hence the failed attempts by the "coalition of the willing" to get a UNSCR that would. When it became obvious that they could not they simply decided that the UN was irrelevant and did anyway. For this check the quotes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al on the matter. There are far too many to post here.
Now you come back and claim that the UN gave the US the right to attack when all the UN gave them the right to do was what it did in 1990.
In the above article John Dillinger actually makes the mistake of stating where, under US law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Lets see if you can find it.
Cheers
BHR
Edited to take in to consideration your recent edit, Maple.
It is sad to see you resorting to the old Bushism of "You are either for the war or want to see the return of Saddam Hussein".
It is actually possible to be both against the war and happy that SH is dead.
I suggest that you read the UNSCR (687) that you continue to quote.
For your info,
"Prior to the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 678, authorizing use of “all necessary means” to uphold UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait) and subsequent resolutions, and to “restore international peace and security in the area.” This was the basis for use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.
At the end of the Gulf War, the Security Council imposed obligations on Iraq requiring it to end its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, as a condition of the cease-fire declared under UNSCR 687. Because Iraq has materially breached these WMD obligations, which were essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under UNSCR 678."
Quoted from John Dillinger III, NSC in an article to the CFR, entitled "Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law"
Now the mistake that you make and the crux of the whole matter on the deposing of SH was that none of the UNSCRs were written with either the intention or desire to enable regime change in Iraq.
Hence the failed attempts by the "coalition of the willing" to get a UNSCR that would. When it became obvious that they could not they simply decided that the UN was irrelevant and did anyway. For this check the quotes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al on the matter. There are far too many to post here.
Now you come back and claim that the UN gave the US the right to attack when all the UN gave them the right to do was what it did in 1990.
In the above article John Dillinger actually makes the mistake of stating where, under US law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Lets see if you can find it.
Cheers
BHR
Edited to take in to consideration your recent edit, Maple.
It is sad to see you resorting to the old Bushism of "You are either for the war or want to see the return of Saddam Hussein".
It is actually possible to be both against the war and happy that SH is dead.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bill, didn't know you were in, are you having a nice day?
Do you want to fill in the second part of the multi-choice questionnaire too?
You wanted SH gone, how were you planning on doing it? Peace vigil or bed-in?
Do you want to fill in the second part of the multi-choice questionnaire too?
You wanted SH gone, how were you planning on doing it? Peace vigil or bed-in?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the sort of places you Int guys hang out on a night off.
Just remember that.
BTW the lawyer I got the gen from has represented many soldiers in high profile cases. Just to put your mind at ease.
That was definitely my last posting. For the moment!
Just remember that.
BTW the lawyer I got the gen from has represented many soldiers in high profile cases. Just to put your mind at ease.
That was definitely my last posting. For the moment!
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you mean 'The Blue Oyster bar' it's all true - see you there. But I'm ex now so not much chance of being followed by black Omigas
Anyway about these Iranian rifles.........
Anyway about these Iranian rifles.........
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Maple,
Here is the contact number for The Hague war tribunal. You can talk to anyone there, even the cleaner will tell you that the war was illegal. You can even send a postcard!
Cheers,
Nige
Postal Address
International Criminal Court
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
+31 (0)70 515 8487
Here is the contact number for The Hague war tribunal. You can talk to anyone there, even the cleaner will tell you that the war was illegal. You can even send a postcard!
Cheers,
Nige
Postal Address
International Criminal Court
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
+31 (0)70 515 8487
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you back for more? Give up while you're behind! Unless you've got more words of wisdom from you unattributable legal source
Has either Bush or Blair been indited?
Even the cleaner knows the answer to that one
Hoping it was so isn't going to make it happen, enjoy your impotent rage!
Anyway about these Iranian rifles.........
Has either Bush or Blair been indited?
Even the cleaner knows the answer to that one
Hoping it was so isn't going to make it happen, enjoy your impotent rage!
Anyway about these Iranian rifles.........