In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:37:15 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , PoP
writes
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:02:26 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

You are taking into account that a lot of the countries gold reserve has
been sold of to off set expenditure....

That decision must be the single most irritating decision made by
Gordon Brown since he took office. He reportedly sold 60% of the UK's
gold reserve, and lost £400m by buying into the Euro from the proceeds
of the gold sale.

The gold reserve is our rainy day fund, it allows the UK to operate in
the worlds money markets.

It was also sold at a rock bottom gold price

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after all


You don't think that....... No, couldn't be.....

No, ... they have intelligence
--
geoff

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

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for
invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason
he
gave was the 45 minute one.

It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.

Put up or shut up

Hutton report.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:40:31 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , IMM
writes
"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

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

I think he was mixed up with Supermac


Ah, so your glorious leader gets easily confused then

He was probably thinking about BigMac and wondering whether to order
fries with it.



Or rather a future career, and whether to _serve_ fries with it.

Of course, whether the evidence that the fries were ever ordered or not
exists will be the subject of a future enquiry...


--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:39:21 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse and start to read / look at
the media, or are you really saying that all those suicide bombings, planes
being cancelled, new anti terror laws, potential ricin(sp?) attacts etc. are
lies and faked film sets ?...

Now come on - that's a little unfair in my opinion.

Just where do you suppose the rest of us would get our laughs from if
IMM took your advice?

He does a remarkable job of making the rest of us look sane!

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"PoP" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:39:21 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse and start to read / look
at
the media, or are you really saying that all those suicide bombings,
planes
being cancelled, new anti terror laws, potential ricin(sp?) attacts etc.
are
lies and faked film sets ?...

Now come on - that's a little unfair in my opinion.

Just where do you suppose the rest of us would get our laughs from if
IMM took your advice?

He does a remarkable job of making the rest of us look sane!

And says our resident odd-job man. Who lives in...Basingstoke. Yes
Basingstoke.

Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason he
gave was the 45 minute one.


I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started hyping it
up after the war.



I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Tone and Sherry are lawyers.



--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Jerry. wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.




May I suggest you take you head out of your arse and start to read / look at
the media, or are you really saying that all those suicide bombings, planes
being cancelled, new anti terror laws, potential ricin(sp?) attacts etc. are
lies and faked film sets ?...




In the case of the anthrax and Ricin, faked is probably closest to the
truth. Or rather 'staged'. Not necessarily by the government tho.
Probably by some mad right winger tryimng to keep the heat on the subject.

Oh. That IS the US government isn' it?

:-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

In article , IMM wrote:

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

[snip]

It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.

Put up or shut up

Hutton report.

Baker Street

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:36:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

Miltary actions sanctioned the UN or NATO, in which UK forces
participated in accordance w/ treaty obligations and agreement w/
treaty partners. *Very* different from Iraq where - no matter that
the outcome is a Good Thing - the US and the UK invaded a sovereign
country under two pretexts:

- that Iraq had contravened UN sanctions (which it had; however, the
overwhelming majority of the members of the UN did not support
military action on the timescale dictated by the coalition leaders)

- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear
and present danger to the middle east and beyond: something not yet
proven, and which increasing numbers of respected experts are saying
will not be proven. The "45 minute" claim, although not central to
this pretext, was nonetheless cited as part of the justification for
military action.

*Other* reasons for the "war" (regime change, liberation of the Iraqi
people from a tyrannical regime, removal of a supporter of al-Qaeda,
etc.) were either not cited by the coalition, or were explicit stated
not to be justifications prior to military action.

Julian
(not that I expect mere facts to change IMM's position!)

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Chris Brown wrote:
In article , IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , IMM
writes


[snip]


It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.


Put up or shut up

Hutton report.


Baker Street

Mornington Cresent

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:36:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for
invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason
he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and
immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

Miltary actions sanctioned the UN or NATO, in which UK forces
participated in accordance w/ treaty obligations and agreement w/
treaty partners. *Very* different from Iraq where - no matter that
the outcome is a Good Thing - the US and the UK invaded a sovereign
country under two pretexts:

They conformed to a UN resolution.

- that Iraq had contravened UN sanctions (which it had; however, the
overwhelming majority of the members of the UN did not support
military action on the timescale dictated by the coalition leaders)

Still conformed to a UN resolution.

- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear
and present danger to the middle east and beyond: something not yet
proven,

They did and had uded it and Kelly said they can have them in weeks, days.

and which increasing numbers of respected experts are saying
will not be proven.

You mean Tory politicians.

The "45 minute" claim, although not central to
this pretext, was nonetheless cited as part of the justification for
military action.

Which is neither here nor there. See above.

*Other* reasons for the "war" (regime change, liberation of the Iraqi
people from a tyrannical regime, removal of a supporter of al-Qaeda,
etc.) were either not cited by the coalition, or were explicit stated
not to be justifications prior to military action.

Julian
(not that I expect mere facts to change IMM's position!)

You are highly selective in what "facts" you present.

I saw parliament on TV just now. Dennis Skinner was v good. Points that
came up. No us having committee after committee looking into matters going
over the same thing. Skinner said the lot opposite won't be satisfied until
the government is out (that is their aim, as Iraq is not really a big issue
with them). The idiots and their right wing press hailed Hutton just before
the results came out. When the results did not suit them they called him a
liar, biased, and other assorted insults. What a bunch of saddos.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:31:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:36:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for
invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason
he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and
immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

Miltary actions sanctioned the UN or NATO, in which UK forces
participated in accordance w/ treaty obligations and agreement w/
treaty partners. *Very* different from Iraq where - no matter that
the outcome is a Good Thing - the US and the UK invaded a sovereign
country under two pretexts:

They conformed to a UN resolution.

- that Iraq had contravened UN sanctions (which it had; however, the
overwhelming majority of the members of the UN did not support
military action on the timescale dictated by the coalition leaders)

Still conformed to a UN resolution.

You know very well that there was not UN support for the action taken.






I saw parliament on TV just now. Dennis Skinner was v good.

I can think of a number of adjectives in connection with Dennis
Skinner, but I wouldn't include "good" among them.

Points that
came up. No us having committee after committee looking into matters going
over the same thing. Skinner said the lot opposite won't be satisfied until
the government is out

That is stating the obvious. It is the job of the opposition to
present an opposing view to that of the government of the day.


(that is their aim, as Iraq is not really a big issue
with them).

Of course it's a big issue. The government misled the House and the
people.

The idiots and their right wing press hailed Hutton just before
the results came out. When the results did not suit them they called him a
liar, biased, and other assorted insults. What a bunch of saddos.

I suspect that you would have said the same thing regarding Hutton had
he flipped the coin the other way and believed the position of the
others involved and not that of the government.

This is the same whitewash and phony logic that starts with the
conclusion desired and selects the events to lead to it.

The Queen of Hearts did this in Alice in Wonderland -

"Sentence first, trial afterwards".

Except that here, the situation is rather more serious.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:31:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:36:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for
invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the
reason
he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and
immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

Miltary actions sanctioned the UN or NATO, in which UK forces
participated in accordance w/ treaty obligations and agreement w/
treaty partners. *Very* different from Iraq where - no matter that
the outcome is a Good Thing - the US and the UK invaded a sovereign
country under two pretexts:

They conformed to a UN resolution.

- that Iraq had contravened UN sanctions (which it had; however, the
overwhelming majority of the members of the UN did not support
military action on the timescale dictated by the coalition leaders)

Still conformed to a UN resolution.

You know very well that there was not UN support for the action taken.

There was. It was in existence since 1991 and covered the current conflict.

I saw parliament on TV just now. Dennis Skinner was v good.

I can think of a number of adjectives in connection with Dennis
Skinner, but I wouldn't include "good" among them.

I know Andy, words like brilliant are better.

Points that
came up. No us having committee after committee looking into matters
going
over the same thing. Skinner said the lot opposite won't be satisfied
until
the government is out

That is stating the obvious. It is the job of the opposition to
present an opposing view to that of the government of the day.

So, having inquiries for the sake of it, or to shut up the idiots opposite
is silly.

(that is their aim, as Iraq is not really a big issue
with them).

Of course it's a big issue. The government misled the House and the
people.

They misled no one at all. Read the Hutton report.

The idiots and their right wing press hailed Hutton just before
the results came out. When the results did not suit them they called him
a
liar, biased, and other assorted insults. What a bunch of saddos.

I suspect that you would have said the same thing regarding Hutton had
he flipped the coin the other way and believed the position of the
others involved and not that of the government.

If the government had lied then the PM goes. It is simple. But he never.

This is the same whitewash and phony logic that starts with the
conclusion desired and selects the events to lead to it.

Not so. Great report!

"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
Chris Brown wrote:
In article , IMM
wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , IMM

writes


[snip]


It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.


Put up or shut up

Hutton report.


Baker Street

Mornington Cresent

No, no, you can't. We're playing the Whitewash rules here - 2004 2nd
amendment of.

Obfuscation rules here, and you'd have to play Cambridge Circus first.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..
"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...
Chris Brown wrote:
In article , IMM

wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , IMM

writes


[snip]


It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.


Put up or shut up

Hutton report.


Baker Street

Mornington Cresent

No, no, you can't. We're playing the Whitewash rules here -

Whitwash rules? Great! If guilty go to Jail. If not then sweep the board.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?


I don't think it's because he doesn't understand, more a case that he
does
not wish to understand (face the facts). :~(

You have given NO facts, except warped opinions.



IMM talking about himself again....

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments. After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.



Best invade the USA and the old USSR then....

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after all

Maxie, how many of his meetings have you been to?



Not as many as you have, that is obvious !

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:37:15 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after all


You don't think that....... No, couldn't be.....


Nah, David Icke is far too sane to be IMM.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip


Ah, so your glorious leader gets easily confused then

He is your glorious leader too. And what a leader.

Who is frantically trying to learn how to carry out 'U' turns

No U turns needed.


There's no time, just full reverse gear and full speed astern !

I would not be surprised if there will be a general election come Oct / Nov,
after yet another enquiry looking into just what Blair want to be looked
into and before the **** his the fan after the US presidential elections
when there enquiry reports back...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after
all

Maxie, how many of his meetings have you been to?

Not as many as you have, that is obvious !

LOL, such fun.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:37:15 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after all


You don't think that....... No, couldn't be.....

Nah, David Icke is far too sane to be IMM.

LOL, such wit.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

Ah, so your glorious leader gets easily confused then

He is your glorious leader too. And what a leader.

Who is frantically trying to learn how to carry out 'U' turns

No U turns needed.

There's no time,

snip drivel

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?


I don't think it's because he doesn't understand, more a case that he
does
not wish to understand (face the facts). :~(

You have given NO facts, except warped opinions.

IMM talking about himself again....

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:07:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

And says our resident odd-job man. Who lives in...Basingstoke. Yes
Basingstoke.

Basingstoke? Oh dear, something else you've got wrong me ol' china.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is
nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments. After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.

Best invade the USA and the old USSR then....

LOL, such wit.

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:07:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

And says our resident odd-job man. Who lives in...Basingstoke. Yes
Basingstoke.

Basingstoke? Oh dear, something else you've got wrong me ol' china.

Are you ashamed of Basingstoke?

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.
ATB
Kris

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments. After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.



Regarding Gaddafy, he was well on his way to doing what he did in terms of
allowing inspection / dismantling before Iraq '2', this is more to do with
his wish to be readmitted to the World community post Pan Am 103.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:16 +0000, Kris wrote:

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.

::Voice From Outer Space ON::

You are not alone.

::Voice From Outer Space OFF::

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:08:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Still conformed to a UN resolution.

You know very well that there was not UN support for the action taken.

There was. It was in existence since 1991 and covered the current conflict.

Oh come on. That's not reasonable, If there had been UN support, it
would have been a UN action.



I saw parliament on TV just now. Dennis Skinner was v good.

I can think of a number of adjectives in connection with Dennis
Skinner, but I wouldn't include "good" among them.

I know Andy, words like brilliant are better.

Not what I had in mind. Dear Dennis is a dinosaur in the same
genre, although at a different place in the spectrum to his late
lamented namesake, Mr Thatcher,


Points that
came up. No us having committee after committee looking into matters
going
over the same thing. Skinner said the lot opposite won't be satisfied
until
the government is out

That is stating the obvious. It is the job of the opposition to
present an opposing view to that of the government of the day.

So, having inquiries for the sake of it, or to shut up the idiots opposite
is silly.

It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.
Beyond a certain point, this approach becomes ineffective. Mr TB and
co. have sought to manipulate the House, the media and the public.
If they feel that they cn get away with it, then fine. Sooner or
later, and it's usually sooner, these tactics come home to roost, and
something that may have been relatively unimportant at the outset
turns into a whole new game.

One only has to look at the seeding events for Watergate and for the
Lewinsky affair to realise that.






(that is their aim, as Iraq is not really a big issue
with them).

Of course it's a big issue. The government misled the House and the
people.

They misled no one at all. Read the Hutton report.

I have. The whole thing. I don't draw the same conclusions as
Hutton from the information at all.


The idiots and their right wing press hailed Hutton just before
the results came out. When the results did not suit them they called him
a
liar, biased, and other assorted insults. What a bunch of saddos.

I suspect that you would have said the same thing regarding Hutton had
he flipped the coin the other way and believed the position of the
others involved and not that of the government.

If the government had lied then the PM goes. It is simple. But he never.

Quite. He should have done. The whole setup is riddled with far
worse sleeze than the Conservatives ever managed, and of a more
insidious nature.



This is the same whitewash and phony logic that starts with the
conclusion desired and selects the events to lead to it.

Not so. Great report!


As I pointed out, I suspect that you would have said the opposite had
it impeached Teflon Tony.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is
nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments. After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.

Regarding Gaddafy, he was well on his way

He wasn't.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:02:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message


No, no, you can't. We're playing the Whitewash rules here -

Whitwash rules? Great! If guilty go to Jail.

Certainly true here, and be careful if the soap is dropped in the
showers.

If not then sweep the board.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:16 +0000, Kris wrote:

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.

::Voice From Outer Space ON::

You are not alone.

::Voice From Outer Space OFF::

PoP

How often do you hear these voices? Do you see flying saucers over
Basingstoke?

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:16 +0000, Kris wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.
ATB
Kris

No not at all. There are a number of disorders. I used to wonder
whether he was schizophrenic, but now I'm in two minds about it.

Refer to the Fawlty Towers episode where the psychiatrists visit and
after a short period of exposure to Basil observe that there's enough
material for an entire conference.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:16 +0000, Kris wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.
ATB
Kris

No not at all. There are a number of disorders. I used to wonder
whether he was schizophrenic, but now I'm in two minds about it.

Oh so funny, LOL, Andy, Bystander, or whoever you at the mo'.

Refer to the Fawlty Towers episode where the psychiatrists visit and
after a short period of exposure to Basil observe that there's enough
material for an entire conference.

LOL, so funny, are you going to give us a chorus of Boiled Beef and Carrots?

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

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is
nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments. After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.

Au contraire madame

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction

Maxie, I can't believe it. You actually said some sense. Well it is one of
the biggest threats, nuclear is a threat to world security...a different
thing Maxie.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:37:15 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , PoP
writes
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:02:26 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

You are taking into account that a lot of the countries gold reserve
has
been sold of to off set expenditure....

That decision must be the single most irritating decision made by
Gordon Brown since he took office. He reportedly sold 60% of the UK's
gold reserve, and lost £400m by buying into the Euro from the proceeds
of the gold sale.

The gold reserve is our rainy day fund, it allows the UK to operate in
the worlds money markets.

It was also sold at a rock bottom gold price

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after all


You don't think that....... No, couldn't be.....

No, ... they have intelligence

Yes Maxie does think the world is going to be ruled by reptiles with pointed
tails.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:08:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Still conformed to a UN resolution.

You know very well that there was not UN support for the action taken.

There was. It was in existence since 1991 and covered the current
conflict.

Oh come on. That's not reasonable, If there had been UN support, it
would have been a UN action.
snip

To be fair, IMM is / technically / correct, if you take a very long route
[1] back through successive UN resolutions they all do indeed refer back to
that original resolution (No.1661 ?), but as you say, if there had been
actual UN support in 2003 there would have been 'UN' military forces
involved - rather than just military forces of member states.

[1] as only lawyers would do