|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
1441
#2028216 - 10/21/03 09:37 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
How exactly did Iraq violate the resolution?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2028356 - 10/21/03 10:43 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Iraq was told to catalogue their weapons (chemicals etc.) but when it came time for the inspectors to check on those chemicals that were cataloged they were missing. I'm not going to pretend like i know where they went but that alone is in defiance of 1441, full disclosure. knowing what we know now (and i've already said i was wrong) the US should of waited Saddam out and call his bluff.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2028363 - 10/21/03 10:46 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
A cease-fire agreement is much like being on parole. If you violate the terms then action will be taken against you.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
there were NUMEROUS violations and 1441 was the last straw. I wonder where the chemicals they said they had went?
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
Iraq was also in possession of Al-something missiles that exceeded the legal range of missiles they wer allowed to have. Interesting how the war was because of BANNED weapons(not just WMD's) and noone has really focused on the fact that they did have BANNED WEAPONS.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
|
I don't know where they went, but I have one friend with blister agent burns on his feet, and one who is losing hair and fingernails. There is some bad stuff over there.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2028411 - 10/21/03 11:06 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
GAZZ, what did you think 1441 said?
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
lysergic said: Iraq was also in possession of Al-something missiles that exceeded the legal range of missiles they wer allowed to have. Interesting how the war was because of BANNED weapons(not just WMD's) and noone has really focused on the fact that they did have BANNED WEAPONS.
I am familiar with the missles you are referring to and the weapons inspectors have already stated that those missles you speak of were considered a non-issue...since the range was only exceeded by a few miles...and that there were many variables that could account for that.
You'll need to do better...
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028442 - 10/21/03 11:19 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.
In 1991 Iraq, as part of resolution 687, decleard that she did have weapons that violate the treaty, and has "some" chemical weapons. No proof is ever made of them destroying these weapons.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
UNSCOM: CHRONOLOGY OF MAIN EVENTS
3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq?s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items. 6 Apr 1991 Iraq accepts resolution 687 (1991) (S/22456).
18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.
14 May 1991 Entry into force of the exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the Foreign Minister of Iraq setting out the rights, privileges and immunities of the Special Commission and its personnel in Iraq.
16 May 1991 Iraq submits revised declarations covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of the missile declaration.
9 Jun 1991 UNSCOM commences its first chemical weapons inspection.
23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.
---
We should have attacked them at that time.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
|
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution715.htm
I won't post that entire thing here, but it's a list of a few mroe times that Iraq has violated resolutions. I did't even realiez all of the things that they had done. AFter reading this, you can't POSSIBLY be against hte war, unless you are a [edited in consideration for Rono]
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
You do realize where they got those from don't you? Chemical weapons have a shelf life...anything that they had in 1991 has been long since rendered useless...How do you prove that you have destroyed something that is already worthless? EDIT: That list you provided does not support your argument at all...Are you saying that because Iraq admitted to having weapons and destroying them 10 YEARS AGO, that the U.S. was justified for attacking them recently???
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (10/21/03 11:30 AM)
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028475 - 10/21/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Stabilizers can be added to chemical weapons giving them a shelf-life of decades. US stores of XV are a good example. We have to incinerate these, which we've been doing for many years now.
Anthrax spores have an indefinite shelf-life. They can survive for decades, possibly over a century, just buried uncontained in the dirt. In a sealed container there is no known lifespan.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
I think it's already been well established already that Iraq does not possess any WMD's by the simple fact that not ONE DROP of chemical weapon has been found...I repeat..NOT ONE DROP...or are you still clinging to the hope that Bush and Co. told the truth about their reasons for attacking Iraq?
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
|
Quote:
The liquid form of anthrax weapon can be stored at 0?C for approximately one year. The dry form has a much longer shelf life; no decay was observed even after five years in storage. Spores can remain viable for many years, despite significant changes in light and temperature.
http://www.bioterrorism.uab.edu/EIPBA/Anthrax/history.html
UNSCOM catalogued 8500 liters of weaponized anthrax spores.
Quote:
Unscom was forced to quit Iraq in December 1998, with the team believing it had destroyed most of the 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax and 19,000 litres of undiluted botulinum toxin that Saddam admitted he had after years denying a biological weapons programme. Anthrax production began in June 1990, on the eve of the invasion of Kuwait.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,578030,00.html
It didn't take them much time to produce that 8500 liters, and a single liter could be easily replicated.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
not one drop....
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028521 - 10/21/03 11:41 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were physically catalogued by UN inspectors, and some of them were verified to have been destroyed.
Where did the rest go? Quote:
I think it's already been well established already that Iraq does not possess any WMD's by the simple fact that not ONE DROP of chemical weapon has been found...
Finding a 1000 liter tank hidden in an an area the size of California may take a while. It's taken this long to inspect something like 10% of their weapon dumps. Clandestine labs, deliberately hidden from UN inspectors, have been found. That right there is a violation and casus belli.
BTW, anthrax would be a much better terror weapon than nerve agent, imho. Dump a liter in the air ducts at Grand Central Station and you'll have an impressive body count, plus total chaos.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028529 - 10/21/03 11:44 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Where did they go, then?
Iraq could have secretly destroyed the remainder, after driving out the inspectors. This is so highly unlikely as to be absurd.
The only other options are that they are hidden within Iraq, or have been shipped out of the country. They cannot simply cease to exist.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
They didn't go anywhere because they never existed.
Edame just posted an excellent article from the New Yorker...here is the link... NO WMD'S
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028542 - 10/21/03 11:49 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So the UN was lying when they found all that anthrax back in the 90's?
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
Did you even read the article?...
The unaccounted for weapons never existed...
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028578 - 10/21/03 11:59 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, I did read the article. It simply does not mention anthrax even once, much less the 8500 liters found by UNSCOM. It briefly mentions that a biological weapons program existed, then ignores it and addresses chemical and biological weapons.
Were the UN weapons inspectors lying about physically verifying the existence of that anthrax?
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028591 - 10/21/03 12:03 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
From the article you refer to:
"we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist"
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
No-one is denying that Iraq ever HAD anthrax...the key word being HAD...that was 10 years ago....let it go.
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (10/21/03 12:09 PM)
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
wingnutx said: From the article you refer to:
"we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist"
Sort of the same as saying "we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively that such weapon stocks DO exist" wouldn't you say?
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028623 - 10/21/03 12:13 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, but they were proven to exist at one time, or else UN inspections regime was a fraud from the start. Do you believe that it was?
If so, then why should the reconstituted inspections regime under Blix be any different?
Either the UN has been lying the entire time, or the anthrax existed.
If it existed at one point, and was not verified destroyed, then where did it go?
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
Just because something is described as "unaccounted for"...does not mean that it actually ever existed.
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028700 - 10/21/03 12:34 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rono said: Just because something is described as "unaccounted for"...does not mean that it actually ever existed.
Quote:
Rono said: Like I said previously...no one is saying that the Anthrax never existed, it obviously did.
make up your damn mind
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
Re: 1441 [Re: d33p]
#2028718 - 10/21/03 12:38 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
sigh....Why is this so hard to understand??? Let me put it as simply as possbile to avoid confusion. Iraq had a quantity of Anthrax...the U.N. believes that "most" of what they thought Iraq had was destroyed and the rest is unaccounted for...but just because the remainder is unaccounted for does not mean that it actually ever existed. Get it?...or am I going to have write this in crayon?
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (10/21/03 12:51 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2028807 - 10/21/03 01:02 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's a lot more than anthrax that is unaccounted for.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10288
To move away from anthrax specifically and get to resolution 1441 as a whole, no one can deny that Iraq was in violation of EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of 1441, just as they were in violation of EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of the previous 16 resolutions. And, of course, no one (other than Ba'athist flunkies) has ever even tried to deny this.
As a matter of fact, 1441 is in essence nothing more than a repeat of the content of the previous sixteen resolutions. The only new thing was that this time there was the the hollow threat of grave consequences if iraq continued to ignore the resolution.
Of course, to the UN, such consequences meant nothing more than writing another resolution -- and maybe directing some extra-strong "frown beams" towards Iraq if they happen to be really pissed.
pinky
--------------------
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Phred]
#2028842 - 10/21/03 01:13 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The invasion by the U.S. has proved to be no more effective than the U.N.'s "frown beams" when it comes to finding said WMD's...
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
lysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2029199 - 10/21/03 03:24 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think that it's mandatory for us to find WMD's, since long range missiles were also a part of it. Another part, Saddam wasn't allow to do ANYTHING to prevent the UN from their inspections. He did, we removed him.
Rono - It has been more effective at guaranteetingthat Saddam won't use any WMD's, regardless.
-------------------- In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen PsiloKitten said: Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
I don't think that it's mandatory for us to find WMD's
Since that was the main reason given for going over there, I'd say it better be fucking mandatory.
Quote:
since long range missiles were also a part of it.
Iraq does not have, or ever did have long range missles...period.
Quote:
Another part, Saddam wasn't allow to do ANYTHING to prevent the UN from their inspections
Bullshit...Iraq bent over backwards to accomodate the inspectors...please explain otherwise.
Quote:
Rono - It has been more effective at guaranteeting that Saddam won't use any WMD's, regardless.
That is completely absurd reasoning...I would hope that even you can see that.
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2029466 - 10/21/03 04:40 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the U.N. believes that "most" of what they thought Iraq had was destroyed
Wrong. Most of what they physically verified to exist, not most of what they thought might exist.
Big difference.
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2029478 - 10/21/03 04:42 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Rono: Check this link out, you'll find that it's not even that clear cut as to how much anthrax Iraq was supposed to have. Looks to me like it's mostly based on speculation and guesswork, rather than actual physical evidence that Iraq had as much as is being claimed. Like it mentions in the article you linked, the intelligence was cherry-picked and then spun to make it appear worse than it was.
http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsb.html#bexista
Quote:
UK dossier, 24 September 2002, p.16: "we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for [...] growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured)"
Department of Defense, 8 October 2002, slide 24: 3 to 4 times more anthrax .. was produced than are unaccounted for.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Washington, 19 December 2002: "Before the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, they concluded that Iraq could have produced 26,000 liters of anthrax. That is three times the amount Iraq had declared. Yet, the Iraqi declaration is silent on this stockpile, which, alone, would be enough to kill several million people."
State Department, 19 December 2002: "The UN Special Commission concluded that Iraq did not verifiably account for, at a minimum, 2160kg of growth media. This is enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax -- 3 times the amount Iraq declared" (repeated by White House, January 2003, p.5).
President Bush, 28 January 2003: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people."
Secretary Powell, 5 February 2003: "Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material."
State Department, 27 February 2003: "Iraq declared producing nearly 8,500 liters but denied its ability to produce dry agent. UN inspectors believe Iraq may have produced 26,000 liters [...]."
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Edame]
#2029526 - 10/21/03 04:55 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Where's the 8500 liters? Leave the estimated amount out completely.
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
|
Where does it say that the 8500 litres that were declared are not accounted for?
-------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
|
Quote:
Iraq was told to catalogue their weapons (chemicals etc.)
Which they did. The report then had some 8000 pages edited out of it by the US with no satisfactory explanation.
Quote:
but when it came time for the inspectors to check on those chemicals that were cataloged they were missing.
And how did the Iraqi's respond to this claim? Were they even given a chance to? What quantity of chemicals are we talking about? If Iraq were really trying to be duplicitous why would they claim to have stuff which they then hid? As with the long range missile issue this is grasping at straws and could easily have been accepted by the US if they really had been interested in finding a peaceful solution.
Iraq had to declare their WMD's or prove they didnt have them which is obviously impossible. How can you prove you dont have something? Hussein stated all along that Iraq didnt have WMD's. He was called a liar and because he did not disarm he was attacked. Now it turns out he may bave been telling the truth and was unable to disarm as he had nothing to disarm.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
|
Quote:
Iraq was also in possession of Al-something missiles that exceeded the legal range of missiles they wer allowed to have. Interesting how the war was because of BANNED weapons(not just WMD's) and noone has really focused on the fact that they did have BANNED WEAPONS.
The reason nobody focused on it was because these weapons were only slightly over the legal limit, there wasnt very many of them and they are not particulary effective weapons. In short, it was no big deal.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
|
Lysergic do you really think that violating a few UN resolutions is enough reason to attack another country? Is it that important they are enforced?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2032094 - 10/22/03 10:55 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If so, then Isreal should be next....
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
Re: 1441 [Re: Rono]
#2032316 - 10/22/03 12:16 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I bet Lysergic supports selective enforcement of UN resolutions...
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Bhairabas
Stranger
Registered: 07/21/03
Posts: 889
Loc: Toronto Canada
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: 1441 [Re: GazzBut]
#2032709 - 10/22/03 02:18 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If they had them they would have used them... So why didn't they?? it's not that hard to fill a morter up with chems and shoot it..
|
|