On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:55:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its patently obvious what happened.

You sound just like Tony Blair now....

No, it seems that in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence and bush
doing an about turn, Bliar has had to admit there might be a failing
somewhere

I have yet to hear this from minimie

Maxie, the UK intelligence people kept telling the government that WUD would
be found. So they tell people that. TB doesn't look under rocks in the
desert you know.

Understandable. He'd find cabinet members under them......


If it appears there are no "smoking gun" WUD, then an inquiry has to set up.

.... in an attempt to spin the story further and try to distance
himself from the sh*t.

Then all he has to do is to blame it on the faceless and nameless
intelligence services who can't be named "for security reasons".
Perhaps Houdini will have to be sacrificed on the way, but that's
about it.

But the capability to get them zippo was there, which is the main point, and
I'm sure that will come out. You don't need a smoking gun.

You do for the position that he took.

I wouldn't have minded if he and Dubya had simply said that regime
change was the thing to do. The game played was simply because of
lack of popular and UN support and became a face saving exercise.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:50:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I guess that if Hutton had flipped the coin the other way and believed
the BBC's position that you would have said that it was a really bad
report??

Yes. Inaccurate reporting, and the poor checks/balances mechanisms to
ensure accuracy, that was exposed by the report. The MOD got a little
rapping for its failure to deal with the media properly. The BBC top brass
failing to act after the reports went out is really a trivial matter,
despite all the board wanting to resign. The reports should never have gone
out in the first place; and that is the big probem.

I hope it tightens up reporting all over, but I doubt it. They get away
with murder. The inaccuracies and total distortions I have read over the
years should not be allowed; one of the reasons I don't read newspapers too
much as they are the biggest offenders. They all have to get their acts
together, especially the TV/radio news people, as they have more influence
than any other.

That wasn't the point I was making. That was if Hutton had come
out against the government position and Gilligan was right would you
have still felt that it was a good report? In other words, would you
have supported the government position regardless of the evidence
either way?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to sit behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing for
Newcastle United?

Do you believe that in 1999 he voted for to ban fox hunting, only for it
to be blocked by the hereditary peers?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley
Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its patently obvious what happened.

You sound just like Tony Blair now....

No, it seems that in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence and
bush
doing an about turn, Bliar has had to admit there might be a failing
somewhere

I have yet to hear this from minimie

Maxie, the UK intelligence people kept telling the government that WUD
would
be found. So they tell people that. TB doesn't look under rocks in
the
desert you know.

If it appears there are no "smoking gun" WUD, then an inquiry has to
set up.
But the capability to get them zippo was there, which is the main
point, and
I'm sure that will come out. You don't need a smoking gun.



Strange that up until last week there was absolutely no need for an
enquiry, but now we need one. I wonder why that might be...

With a presidential electing looming in the US, all the Democrat
candidates have said they will hold an enquiry into the Iraq war. If
there's going to be an enquiry, better for Bush to be on his own terms,
so he has set one up.

That put the pressure on Blair, because unless we can "get our
retaliation in first" it seems likely that Bush will blame the CIA
who'll blame it on being passed dodgy info by the Brits (cf Niger
uranium intel).

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
Every Tory government since the war has left the country in an
economic
mess, while Labour have left office with it sound. FACT!


Seemed to be going OK in 1997.

Blair inherited a hell of a lot of Major's debt.



According to the DMO:-

Year Total (£mn)
1996 262 261
1997 290 259
1998 297 366
1999 291 788
2000 290 631
2001 281 720
2002 278 720
2003 292 709

1996 is the last full year of Major's government. 1997 is
half-and-half,
so no conculsions can be drawn about that year.

So, while you are correct to say that the Major years left a lot of
debt
behind, Brown has only added to it.

By not much.



How does that fit with your comment "Every Tory government since the war
has left the country in an economic mess, while Labour have left office
with it sound."?

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Neil Jones wrote:
According to the DMO:-

Year Total (£mn)
1996 262 261
1997 290 259
1998 297 366
1999 291 788
2000 290 631
2001 281 720
2002 278 720
2003 292 709

1996 is the last full year of Major's government. 1997 is
half-and-half,
so no conculsions can be drawn about that year.

So, while you are correct to say that the Major years left a lot of
debt
behind, Brown has only added to it.

Err, by the figures you've given, the trend in the last two years of
Tory
rule was up - as earlier figures would prove, and down under Brown,
with
the exception of '03. The '03 figure may have been influenced by the
Iraq
fiasco.


OK, "nothing but add" is wrong and I take it back. Perhaps I should have
said something along the lines of we now oew more than when Labor got
in.

These figures don't really tell much of a story, though. 1996 will be
affected by the "sale" of the railways. 2000 onwards by the 3G auction.
However, IMM chose the statistic.

In article ,
Neil Jones wrote:
Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of we now oew more
than when Labor got in.

As does every generation compared to their parents. It's the way things go.

--
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:50:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I guess that if Hutton had flipped the coin the other way and believed
the BBC's position that you would have said that it was a really bad
report??

Yes. Inaccurate reporting, and the poor checks/balances mechanisms to
ensure accuracy, that was exposed by the report. The MOD got a little
rapping for its failure to deal with the media properly. The BBC top
brass
failing to act after the reports went out is really a trivial matter,
despite all the board wanting to resign. The reports should never have
gone
out in the first place; and that is the big probem.

I hope it tightens up reporting all over, but I doubt it. They get away
with murder. The inaccuracies and total distortions I have read over the
years should not be allowed; one of the reasons I don't read newspapers
too
much as they are the biggest offenders. They all have to get their acts
together, especially the TV/radio news people, as they have more
influence
than any other.

That wasn't the point I was making. That was if Hutton had come
out against the government position and Gilligan was right would you
have still felt that it was a good report? In other words, would you
have supported the government position regardless of the evidence
either way?

If the government is wrong, well it is wrong.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to sit behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

Do you believe that in 1999 he voted for to ban fox hunting, only for it
to be blocked by the hereditary peers?

Just as well those parasites were kicked out.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its patently obvious what happened.

You sound just like Tony Blair now....

No, it seems that in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence and bush
doing an about turn, Bliar has had to admit there might be a failing
somewhere

I have yet to hear this from minimie

Maxie, the UK intelligence people kept telling the government that WUD
would
be found. So they tell people that. TB doesn't look under rocks in the
desert you know.

Whatever intelligence he got, he should still have looked at the bigger
picture. The letter I have posted on uk-diy isn't the only voice saying
that his intelligence was false

He made a grave error of judgement

I don't think he did at all. The war was not just about WMD. WMD is the
only thing the right wing press can ever hope to corner him on, so they blow
it to high heaven as they grasp at straws, and the gullible go along with
it. It is clear he did look at the wider picture.

If it appears there are no "smoking gun" WUD, then an inquiry has to set
up.
But the capability to get them zippo was there, which is the main point,
and
I'm sure that will come out. You don't need a smoking gun.



--
geoff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:55:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its patently obvious what happened.

You sound just like Tony Blair now....

No, it seems that in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence and bush
doing an about turn, Bliar has had to admit there might be a failing
somewhere

I have yet to hear this from minimie

Maxie, the UK intelligence people kept telling the government that WUD
would
be found. So they tell people that. TB doesn't look under rocks in the
desert you know.

Understandable. He'd find cabinet members under them......

LOL, such fun.

If it appears there are no "smoking gun" WUD, then an inquiry has to set
up.

... in an attempt to spin the story further and try to distance
himself from the sh*t.

He only acts on intelligence given to him. If it is incorrect then that is
not his fault.

Then all he has to do is to blame it on the faceless and nameless
intelligence services who can't be named "for security reasons".

If they were wrong, then they were wrong. Simple.

But the capability to get them zippo was there, which is the main point,
and
I'm sure that will come out. You don't need a smoking gun.

You do for the position that he took.

No you don't.

I wouldn't have minded if he and Dubya had simply said that regime
change was the thing to do.

They did day that.

The game played was simply because of
lack of popular and UN support and became a face saving exercise.

The US doesn't give a toss. They had the planes rammed into their blocks,
not the French or the others. They see a Middle Eastern terrorist backing
tyrant, who did/had WMD, so out he goes. Job done, who cares. Now more
stability in the world.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley
Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its patently obvious what happened.

You sound just like Tony Blair now....

No, it seems that in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence and
bush
doing an about turn, Bliar has had to admit there might be a failing
somewhere

I have yet to hear this from minimie

Maxie, the UK intelligence people kept telling the government that WUD
would
be found. So they tell people that. TB doesn't look under rocks in
the
desert you know.

If it appears there are no "smoking gun" WUD, then an inquiry has to
set up.
But the capability to get them zippo was there, which is the main
point, and
I'm sure that will come out. You don't need a smoking gun.



Strange that up until last week there was absolutely no need for an
enquiry, but now we need one. I wonder why that might be...

because the Yanks have come up with nothing as yet.

With a presidential electing looming in the US, all the Democrat
candidates have said they will hold an enquiry into the Iraq war. If
there's going to be an enquiry, better for Bush to be on his own terms,
so he has set one up.

That put the pressure on Blair, because unless we can "get our
retaliation in first" it seems likely that Bush will blame the CIA
who'll blame it on being passed dodgy info by the Brits (cf Niger
uranium intel).

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
Every Tory government since the war has left the country in an
economic
mess, while Labour have left office with it sound. FACT!


Seemed to be going OK in 1997.

Blair inherited a hell of a lot of Major's debt.



According to the DMO:-

Year Total (£mn)
1996 262 261
1997 290 259
1998 297 366
1999 291 788
2000 290 631
2001 281 720
2002 278 720
2003 292 709

1996 is the last full year of Major's government. 1997 is
half-and-half,
so no conculsions can be drawn about that year.

So, while you are correct to say that the Major years left a lot of
debt
behind, Brown has only added to it.

By not much.



How does that fit with your comment "Every Tory government since the war
has left the country in an economic mess, while Labour have left office
with it sound."?

Fits in well.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
He made a grave error of judgement

I don't think he did at all. The war was not just about WMD.

I think we all know that, by now. But his grave error of judgement was
to say that WMD was the justification for war.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Neil Jones wrote:
According to the DMO:-

Year Total (£mn)
1996 262 261
1997 290 259
1998 297 366
1999 291 788
2000 290 631
2001 281 720
2002 278 720
2003 292 709

1996 is the last full year of Major's government. 1997 is
half-and-half,
so no conculsions can be drawn about that year.

So, while you are correct to say that the Major years left a lot of
debt
behind, Brown has only added to it.

Err, by the figures you've given, the trend in the last two years of
Tory
rule was up - as earlier figures would prove, and down under Brown,
with
the exception of '03. The '03 figure may have been influenced by the
Iraq
fiasco.

OK, "nothing but add" is wrong and I take it back. Perhaps I should have
said something along the lines of we now oew more than when Labor got
in.

These figures don't really tell much of a story, though. 1996 will be
affected by the "sale" of the railways. 2000 onwards by the 3G auction.
However, IMM chose the statistic.

The debt is abut the same all through, but our society is richer and
unemployment a fraction of what it was under the idiots. You have to look
at the big picture. What we pay for and what we get.

These are the best government by mile in living memory. I find it strange
some people want to make us poorer and go with the idiots again. Masochism
I suppose.

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:43:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



He only acts on intelligence given to him. If it is incorrect then that is
not his fault.



That's irrelevant. He still has the responsibility for his actions.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:43:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

He only acts on intelligence given to him. If it is incorrect then that
is
not his fault.

That's irrelevant. He still has the responsibility for his actions.

His actions are based on many intelligence depts and the intelligence of the
USA too. If there is a F**k up then he takes the can for UK Ltd. Simple.
But! if there is one, he is in the clear, as he acted in good faith.

As I said a smoking gun WUD is only a small part of the reason for going
into Iraq. Other matters collective stronger.

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:50:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I guess that if Hutton had flipped the coin the other way and believed
the BBC's position that you would have said that it was a really bad
report??

Yes. Inaccurate reporting, and the poor checks/balances mechanisms to
ensure accuracy, that was exposed by the report. The MOD got a little
rapping for its failure to deal with the media properly. The BBC top brass
failing to act after the reports went out is really a trivial matter,
despite all the board wanting to resign. The reports should never have gone
out in the first place; and that is the big probem.

I hope it tightens up reporting all over, but I doubt it. They get away
with murder. The inaccuracies and total distortions I have read over the
years should not be allowed; one of the reasons I don't read newspapers too
much as they are the biggest offenders. They all have to get their acts
together, especially the TV/radio news people, as they have more influence
than any other.

That wasn't the point I was making. That was if Hutton had come
out against the government position and Gilligan was right would you
have still felt that it was a good report? In other words, would you
have supported the government position regardless of the evidence
either way?


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl


Look A HALL why don't you change your name to R S HALL as it would be
more appropriate.
Just in case you're as thick as I think you are that's ARSEHOLE

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

He may be right. Milburn was the 1950s and Tony was born in 52, so he could
have watched that footy player in baggy shorts.

On 3 Feb 2004 04:16:56 -0800, (Jack the Lad)
wrote:



Look A HALL why don't you change your name to R S HALL as it would be
more appropriate.
Just in case you're as thick as I think you are that's ARSEHOLE

Thank you for your kind comments.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
He made a grave error of judgement

I don't think he did at all. The war was not just about WMD.

I think we all know that, by now. But his grave error of judgement was
to say that WMD was the justification for war.

Only one of the points, not the point point. You are taking in right wing
crap. Iraq did have WMD and had used them. Kelly said they could be up and
running within days. It is fair to say WMD was on the agenda. I is fair to
say they could have them quickly if they wanted too, despite getting rid of
them for now.

If the US and UK were satisfied that none were there and never invaded
(altough WMD was not the only point), they could have them up and running
within months, weeks, days. Then if they have them again, and no troops in
the area, we would be powerless to stop them. It took six months to prepare
for this war. We would have to stand by if they had them and used them.
The odd B52 strike is about all we could do.

Get this 45 minutes WMD crap out of your mind as the only reason for
invading Iraq. The right wing press have done a good job at brainwashing
the hard of thinking into believing it was the only issue. IT WASN'T

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

He may be right. Milburn was the 1950s and Tony was born in 52, so he
could
have watched that footy player in baggy shorts.



No, he was proved to have lied about it. Milburn stopped playing when
Blair was 4, and there was no seating behind the goal until after the
Taylor report, IIRC.

Are you sure you still believe every word Tony says?

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

He may be right. Milburn was the 1950s and Tony was born in 52, so he
could
have watched that footy player in baggy shorts.



No, he was proved to have lied about it. Milburn stopped playing when
Blair was 4, and there was no seating behind the goal until after the
Taylor report, IIRC.

Are you sure you still believe every word Tony says?

I've seen 4 year olds in footy grounds. In those days they sat them around
the pitch. So, Tone could be right.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Get this 45 minutes WMD crap out of your mind as the only reason for
invading Iraq. The right wing press have done a good job at
brainwashing
the hard of thinking into believing it was the only issue. IT WASN'T


In March 2003 Jack Straw laid down 6 points for Iraq to comply with in
order to avoid war. They we-

· a public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq, admitting
possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime has
decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon
inspectors.

· a commitment to allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by the
inspectors outside Iraq.

· the surrender of, and explanation of the 10,000 litres of anthrax the
Iraqis are believed still to be holding.

· a commitment to the destruction of proscribed missiles.

· an account of the unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted
vehicles or drones.

· a commitment to surrender all mobile bio-production laboratories for
destruction


There are all about WMD. Nothing else.

Note point 1. Unless Saddam Hussein broadcast he was in possession of
WMD, we would go to war. How's that for a Catch-22? Saddam refuses to
say that he has WMD. We go to war. We find he had no WMD. Hmm.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Get this 45 minutes WMD crap out of your mind as the only reason for
invading Iraq. The right wing press have done a good job at
brainwashing
the hard of thinking into believing it was the only issue. IT WASN'T


In March 2003 Jack Straw laid down 6 points for Iraq to comply with in
order to avoid war. They we-

· a public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq, admitting
possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime has
decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon
inspectors.

· a commitment to allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by the
inspectors outside Iraq.

· the surrender of, and explanation of the 10,000 litres of anthrax the
Iraqis are believed still to be holding.

· a commitment to the destruction of proscribed missiles.

· an account of the unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted
vehicles or drones.

· a commitment to surrender all mobile bio-production laboratories for
destruction


There are all about WMD. Nothing else.

That is on the surface. The other points were not stated.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Get this 45 minutes WMD crap out of your mind as the only reason
for
invading Iraq. The right wing press have done a good job at
brainwashing
the hard of thinking into believing it was the only issue. IT
WASN'T


In March 2003 Jack Straw laid down 6 points for Iraq to comply with
in
order to avoid war. They we-

· a public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq, admitting
possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime has
decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon
inspectors.

· a commitment to allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by the
inspectors outside Iraq.

· the surrender of, and explanation of the 10,000 litres of anthrax
the
Iraqis are believed still to be holding.

· a commitment to the destruction of proscribed missiles.

· an account of the unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted
vehicles or drones.

· a commitment to surrender all mobile bio-production laboratories
for
destruction


There are all about WMD. Nothing else.

That is on the surface. The other points were not stated.


Read the resolution which Tony Blair proposed to the House of Commons on
18th March 2003 :-

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../vo030318/debt
ext/30318-06.htm#30318-06_spmin2

http://tinyurl.com/29vtd

The part relating to the use of force (ie war) says:-

"believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the
United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions
preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's
Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to
ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; "

It is in Hansard, on the record. The use of all means necessary to
ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Nothing
else.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to
sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing
for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

He may be right. Milburn was the 1950s and Tony was born in 52,
so he
could
have watched that footy player in baggy shorts.



No, he was proved to have lied about it. Milburn stopped playing
when
Blair was 4, and there was no seating behind the goal until after
the
Taylor report, IIRC.

Are you sure you still believe every word Tony says?

I've seen 4 year olds in footy grounds. In those days they sat them
around
the pitch. So, Tone could be right.


Right, so a four-year old teenager, sitting on the terrace behind the
goal, will be able to see any football through the crowds of geordies
standing in front of him?

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Get this 45 minutes WMD crap out of your mind as the only reason
for
invading Iraq. The right wing press have done a good job at
brainwashing
the hard of thinking into believing it was the only issue. IT
WASN'T


In March 2003 Jack Straw laid down 6 points for Iraq to comply with
in
order to avoid war. They we-

· a public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq, admitting
possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime has
decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon
inspectors.

· a commitment to allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by the
inspectors outside Iraq.

· the surrender of, and explanation of the 10,000 litres of anthrax
the
Iraqis are believed still to be holding.

· a commitment to the destruction of proscribed missiles.

· an account of the unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely piloted
vehicles or drones.

· a commitment to surrender all mobile bio-production laboratories
for
destruction


There are all about WMD. Nothing else.

That is on the surface. The other points were not stated.


Read the resolution which Tony Blair proposed to the House of Commons on
18th March 2003 :-

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../vo030318/debt
ext/30318-06.htm#30318-06_spmin2

http://tinyurl.com/29vtd

The part relating to the use of force (ie war) says:-

"believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the
United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions
preceding it,

Yes UN resolutions were being upheld. That alone ass enough to go in.

and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's
Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to
ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; "

Correct. He had them, had used them and could have them within weeks. A
change of admin in Iraq would prevent them re-emerging. This is another
strong point to go in. And the terrorism, mass murders, etc, etc.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair used to
sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn playing
for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

He may be right. Milburn was the 1950s and Tony was born in 52,
so he
could
have watched that footy player in baggy shorts.



No, he was proved to have lied about it. Milburn stopped playing
when
Blair was 4, and there was no seating behind the goal until after
the
Taylor report, IIRC.

Are you sure you still believe every word Tony says?

I've seen 4 year olds in footy grounds. In those days they sat them
around
the pitch. So, Tone could be right.


Right, so a four-year old teenager, sitting on the terrace behind the
goal, will be able to see any football through the crowds of geordies
standing in front of him?

They sat them around the pitch. On the running track. Have a look at al
those old footie films.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

And yet you believe every word
in combi glssy brochures,

Do I?

and every word
Tony says.

Yes.

Really? Do you believe that as a teenager Tony Blair
used to
sit
behind
the goal at St James's Park watching Jackie Milburn
playing
for
Newcastle United?

NO. He is not old enough. Milburn was before his time.

But Tony said so.

He may be right. Milburn was the 1950s and Tony was born in
52,
so he
could
have watched that footy player in baggy shorts.



No, he was proved to have lied about it. Milburn stopped playing
when
Blair was 4, and there was no seating behind the goal until
after
the
Taylor report, IIRC.

Are you sure you still believe every word Tony says?

I've seen 4 year olds in footy grounds. In those days they sat
them
around
the pitch. So, Tone could be right.


Right, so a four-year old teenager, sitting on the terrace behind
the
goal, will be able to see any football through the crowds of
geordies
standing in front of him?

They sat them around the pitch. On the running track. Have a look at
al
those old footie films.


How many four-year-old teenagers have you met?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Get this 45 minutes WMD crap out of your mind as the only
reason
for
invading Iraq. The right wing press have done a good job at
brainwashing
the hard of thinking into believing it was the only issue. IT
WASN'T


In March 2003 Jack Straw laid down 6 points for Iraq to comply
with
in
order to avoid war. They we-

· a public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq,
admitting
possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime
has
decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon
inspectors.

· a commitment to allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by
the
inspectors outside Iraq.

· the surrender of, and explanation of the 10,000 litres of
anthrax
the
Iraqis are believed still to be holding.

· a commitment to the destruction of proscribed missiles.

· an account of the unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely
piloted
vehicles or drones.

· a commitment to surrender all mobile bio-production
laboratories
for
destruction


There are all about WMD. Nothing else.

That is on the surface. The other points were not stated.


Read the resolution which Tony Blair proposed to the House of
Commons on
18th March 2003 :-


http://www.publications.parliament.u.../vo030318/debt
ext/30318-06.htm#30318-06_spmin2

http://tinyurl.com/29vtd

The part relating to the use of force (ie war) says:-

"believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the
United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions
preceding it,

Yes UN resolutions were being upheld. That alone ass enough to go in.

and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's
Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to
ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; "

Correct.

So you agree that the sole justification for the war given by Tony Blair
was the disarmement of Iraq's WMD. At last!

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:55:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


TB doesn't look under rocks in the desert you know.

No,but that is where he came from.
ATB
Kris

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 02:09:03 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Whatever intelligence he got, he should still have looked at the bigger
picture. The letter I have posted on uk-diy isn't the only voice saying
that his intelligence was false

What about the "intelligence" that an american student had published
on the internet and was written during 1987-1991 and at the time was
just about spot on,The coalition distroyed just about anything that
saddam possessed in the 1991 conflict.
10 years later this evidence was published by "us" (word for word)
and presented as up to date information and a reason that so much
doubt remained about the quality of intelligence and made us the
laughing stock of the world.
If this is the way we gather intelligence then god help us.

He made a grave error of judgement and one way or another will be
answerable for it

Tb and co will find a scapegoat to take the blame and might yet again
come out of it all ok......again.

Don't think that the beeb will let this go they will in their revenge
in one way or another.


ATB
Kris

"Kris" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:55:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


TB doesn't look under rocks in the desert you know.

No,but that is where he came from.

LOL, oh so funny.

"Kris" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 02:09:03 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ashley Stevens
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Whatever intelligence he got, he should still have looked at the bigger
picture. The letter I have posted on uk-diy isn't the only voice saying
that his intelligence was false

What about the "intelligence" that an american student had published
on the internet and was written during 1987-1991 and at the time was
just about spot on,The coalition distroyed just about anything that
saddam possessed in the 1991 conflict.
10 years later this evidence was published by "us" (word for word)
and presented as up to date information and a reason that so much
doubt remained about the quality of intelligence and made us the
laughing stock of the world.
If this is the way we gather intelligence then god help us.

He made a grave error of judgement and one way or another will be
answerable for it

Tb and co will find a scapegoat to take the blame and might yet again
come out of it all ok......again.

Don't think that the beeb will let this go they will in their revenge
in one way or another.

It is best fro the BBC to look at themselves and what they did, and their
own internal checks and balances, rather than thinking about any revenge.

In article ,
Neil Jones wrote:
How many four-year-old teenagers have you met?

So do you know what were his exact words then?

(You didn't reply when I posted before to cam.misc only. I guess you are
on uk.d-i-y so this time I'll cross post. Of course you could be ignoring
me ;-) I wouldn't blame you...)

Lots of articles report this story, though none seem to report what he
said or where or when. This vagueness makes me wonder if there may be a
bit of urban myth effect going on. If you can provide a link (or any
source) to what he said rather than vague "ha-ha caught him out" style
stories I'd be obliged and interested. :-)

In any case: the winner of the last major trophy, whom was an idol for the
older fans and remembered fondly would be a teenage idol for some
fans. Especially for a team sauntering vaguely downwards.

Cheers,


Mike

Lots of articles report this story, though none seem to report what he
said or where or when. This vagueness makes me wonder if there may be
a
bit of urban myth effect going on. If you can provide a link (or any
source) to what he said rather than vague "ha-ha caught him out" style
stories I'd be obliged and interested. :-)

In any case: the winner of the last major trophy, whom was an idol for
the
older fans and remembered fondly would be a teenage idol for some
fans. Especially for a team sauntering vaguely downwards.

Cheers,


Mike

Yes, sorry, I only noticed the cross post a couple of posts ago.

Could be an urban myth, but it's mentioned in Hansard (along with a
number of other fibs):-
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...900/cmhansrd/v
o991117/debtext/91117-02.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2mjer

which, unless anyone can point to the contrary, will do for me.

Neil

(Jack the Lad) wrote:
[copious untrimmed and effectively irrelevant quoting snipped]
Look A HALL why don't you change your name to R S HALL as it would be
more appropriate.
Just in case you're as thick as I think you are that's ARSEHOLE

Pot, meet kettle.

m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | we are few / and far between / i was thinking about her skin / love
\/ | is a many splintered thing / don't be afraid now / just walk on in
------+ -- Sisters of Mercy, "Ribbons"

In article ,
Neil Jones wrote:
Could be an urban myth, but it's mentioned in Hansard (along with a
number of other fibs):-
http://tinyurl.com/2mjer
which, unless anyone can point to the contrary, will do for me.

Hmmmm. Yet again no actual quote, no indication of what he said just the
allegation from a political opponent.

*sigh* he clearly said something, but I'm still no nearer to what it
was. Oh well :-)

Maybe I should ask a Newcastle Utd newsgroup.


Mike