Ping ATB.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


That's why you yanks supported Saddam Hussein!

Not recently.


Only yanks could have that short a memory!

I haven't researched our behavior toward him before he invaded Kuwait.
I would guess we might have favcred Iraq over Iran in their war, but I
don't remember. We also backed Afghanistan over the Soviet Union.
Did NZ back the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:10:05 -0800 (PST), Sancho Panza
wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:14 am, Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.

Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva Convention
to hide military operations or store munitions at facilities such as
hospitals, schools or mosques.

That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.

So who are they? They're most definitely not nations, countries or
even rebel forces.

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy. Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.
Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.
Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....4e24d9718d8971

"Bugger the happy buying experience thing, just make as much money as you can
with the least amount of effort... The world is full of customers."

Euromerc on business ethics.

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:35:03 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Sarah Czepiel wrote:
:
: On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:12:34 +1300, Greg Procter
: wrote:
:
: :"Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: : Do you happen to know whether Iraq and Afghanistan follow the Third
: : Geneva Convention? Did you pay any attention at all to the
: : documentation I posted regarding the criteria?
: :
: :
: :There is no call for nations that are not signatories of the Geneva
: :Convention to follow the Conventions.
:
: :OTOH those nations that are signatories are honour bound to follow those
: :conventions, whether the nations they invade are signatories or not.
:
: Uh,no they're not. Ken gave you an example involving the Waffen SS
: in WWII.
:
:
:You're saying that the US is no worse than the Waffen SS of WWII!?!

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.


You're saying the US is worse than the Waffen SS of WWII?
I can believe that.


:Is that better or worse than Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot?

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, Sarah Czepiel said:

Who are these people groggy? You can't quite seem to wrap your brain
around answering the question.

Greg couldn't wrap his brain around a pea without having half the pea still
exposed...

Larry's brain is a pea - dried.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:10:05 -0800 (PST), Sancho Panza
wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:14 am, Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:06:25 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.

Don't forget the fact they are not allowed under the Geneva Convention
to hide military operations or store munitions at facilities such as
hospitals, schools or mosques.

That falls under the criteria listed. They are NOT conducting their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Nor were they
invading anyone or carrying out war against any nation.

So who are they? They're most definitely not nations, countries or
even rebel forces.

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy.

Of course it is - the US has been doing that sort of thing for over a
century.

Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.

It's fine by me.


Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.

Nahh, hes a Saudi Arabian living in a Manhatten penthouse.


Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.


Ken-scum, old ****wit, how is invading Afghanistan a war against an
individual from Saudi-Arabia, currently living in Manhatten???

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mr. Travel" said:

Greg Procter wrote:

That's why you yanks supported Saddam Hussein!

Not recently.

The French and Germans were the last to actively support him.

You obviously don't know the difference between "support a dictator" and
"discuss terms of trade".

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:02:44 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Sarah Czepiel wrote:
:
: On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:35:03 +1300, Greg Procter
: wrote:
:
: :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: :
: : On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:12:34 +1300, Greg Procter
: : wrote:
: :
: : :"Mr. Travel" wrote:
: :
: : : Do you happen to know whether Iraq and Afghanistan follow the Third
: : : Geneva Convention? Did you pay any attention at all to the
: : : documentation I posted regarding the criteria?
: : :
: : :
: : :There is no call for nations that are not signatories of the Geneva
: : :Convention to follow the Conventions.
: :
: : :OTOH those nations that are signatories are honour bound to follow those
: : :conventions, whether the nations they invade are signatories or not.
: :
: : Uh,no they're not. Ken gave you an example involving the Waffen SS
: : in WWII.
: :
: :
: :You're saying that the US is no worse than the Waffen SS of WWII!?!
:
: Nope, that's not what I'm saying.
:
:
:You're saying the US is worse than the Waffen SS of WWII?
:I can believe that.

I'm sure you can, but that's not what I said.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy. Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.
Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.
Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.

There has been no published information linking Saddam and Iraq to the
attacks of 9/11. Since the stated onjective was WMD, and no WMD were
found, why are we still there?

Greg Procter wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mr. Travel" said:


Greg Procter wrote:


That's why you yanks supported Saddam Hussein!

Not recently.

The French and Germans were the last to actively support him.


You obviously don't know the difference between "support a dictator" and
"discuss terms of trade".

Isn't trading with a dictator supporting him?

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:02:44 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Sarah Czepiel wrote:
:
: On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:35:03 +1300, Greg Procter
: wrote:
:
: :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: :
: : On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:12:34 +1300, Greg Procter
: : wrote:
: :
: : :"Mr. Travel" wrote:
: :
: : : Do you happen to know whether Iraq and Afghanistan follow the Third
: : : Geneva Convention? Did you pay any attention at all to the
: : : documentation I posted regarding the criteria?
: : :
: : :
: : :There is no call for nations that are not signatories of the Geneva
: : :Convention to follow the Conventions.
: :
: : :OTOH those nations that are signatories are honour bound to follow those
: : :conventions, whether the nations they invade are signatories or not.
: :
: : Uh,no they're not. Ken gave you an example involving the Waffen SS
: : in WWII.
: :
: :
: :You're saying that the US is no worse than the Waffen SS of WWII!?!
:
: Nope, that's not what I'm saying.
:
:
:You're saying the US is worse than the Waffen SS of WWII?
:I can believe that.

I'm sure you can, but that's not what I said.


In that case, it's really not clear what you were trying to say.