Author Topic: Weapons Of Mass Distruction (Read 1076 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #30 on:** November 30, 2003, 06:36:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
hmmm ... isn't legit related to legal ?

Remind me what law was applied ,please.

Maniac · « **Reply #31 on:** November 30, 2003, 08:02:50 PM »

Quote

The UN is not the ultimate law giving authority. It's not even relevant any longer so far as I'm concerned.

Ditto this, i wish my country withdraw from the UN. The money could be used way better else where.

Martlet · « **Reply #32 on:** November 30, 2003, 08:04:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maniac
Ditto this, i wish my country withdraw from the UN. The money could be used way better else where.

yeah, you could supersize a number 4 with that kind of dough.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #33 on:** November 30, 2003, 08:13:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
yeah, you could supersize a number 4 with that kind of dough.

ROFL!

straffo · « **Reply #34 on:** December 01, 2003, 01:38:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan

Law was applied in ths case.

SLO · « **Reply #35 on:** December 01, 2003, 07:34:13 AM »

bah...whats done is done...we cannot go back and undue the past.....but we can make sure the future is a little more rosy.

now they have to get better intel....you need BETTER INTEL....get your spooks some good shoes and tell em to pound the pavement.....or you are just gonna keep getting more dead 19 year olds on the news.

and the UN is relevent...just cause I say so:aok

davidpt40 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 01, 2003, 09:16:55 AM »

Quote

It's been mentioned so many times on this board that I'm sure it's pointless to mention once again but here goes anyhow; Iraq invaded Kuwait.... Never mind, just a waste of time.

Theres two sides to every story Captain America. Its very rare that a country invades another country for no reason at all. Some people will even say the Kuwait invasion was justified.

AKIron · « **Reply #37 on:** December 01, 2003, 09:21:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
Theres two sides to every story Captain America. Its very rare that a country invades another country for no reason at all. Some people will even say the Kuwait invasion was justified.

Do I detect a reversal here? Are you suggesting that it was ok for a big bully like Iraq to invade it's much smaller peaceful neighbor to the south but not ok when an even bigger friend of the small peaceful neighbor says it's not gonna stand?

I wanna get this straight, are you saying this? I don't care what "some people" say. What are you saying? I really want to see where you stand.

gofaster · « **Reply #38 on:** December 01, 2003, 09:37:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Law was applied in ths case.

Sounds like a miscarriage of justice to me.

Quote

Following claims in the London Sunday Times that President Mitterrand had known of the bombing plan, and implicitly, therefore had authorised it, French Defence Minister Charles Hernu resigned and Admiral Pierre Lacoste, director of the DGSE, France's intelligence and covert action bureau, was sacked. Within days Prime Minister Fabius admitted French secret service agents had bombed the Rainbow Warrior under orders. It was, said New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, nothing more than 'a sordid act of international state-backed terrorism'.

Charged with murder and arson, on 4 November Mafart and Prieur, just two of a much larger team of saboteurs, pleaded guilty in the High Court at Auckland to lesser charges of manslaughter and wilful damage and were each sentenced to ten years' jail. Their guilty plea ensured that the facts of the police investigation would never be made public. In June 1986, in a political deal presided over by the United Nations Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, France agreed to pay compensation of NZ$13 million (US$6.5 million) to New Zealand and 'apologise', in return for which Mafart and Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao atoll for three years.

To cap it all, the two spies were both free by May 1988, after less than two years had elapsed, Mafart having been smuggled out.

AKIron · « **Reply #39 on:** December 01, 2003, 09:43:43 AM »

Sounds like state sponsored terrorism to me.

straffo · « **Reply #40 on:** December 01, 2003, 09:53:12 AM »

Exact gofaster.

Quote

Following concern about Major Mafart's health, a French medical team advised that he be evacuated to France for treatment on 10 December 1987. On 11 December France sought New Zealand's consent to this "urgent, health related transfer" but New Zealand's request that its own medical team should also examine Mafart before he was repatriated was denied when France refused to allow a New Zealand military aircraft carrying a doctor to land at Hao. On 14 December 1987 Mafart left Hao, without the consent of New Zealand. Following medical treatment in Paris, Mafart was permitted to remain in France. New Zealand doctors who examined Mafart after his return to Paris agreed that he could not have been satisfactorily examined in Hao

Quote

Captain Prieur was repatriated in May 1988. On 3 May 1988 the French authorities notified New Zealand that she was expecting her first child and asked consent to her repatriation. New Zealand again requested that an independent medical examination be made. France acceded to this request and a New Zealand doctor was due to arrive in Hao on 6 May. On 5 May, however, the French authorities notified New Zealand that Captain Prieur's father was dying of cancer and that her immediate evacuation had thus become necessary. She was repatriated on 5 May 1988 without the consent of New Zealand and never returned to Hao.