Why are there so many 'Reich Wing' Morrissey Fans?

Re: Loafing Oaf = Wrap Self In Flag + Ignore Reality

> San Francisco is part of California, one of the most right-wing states in
> America (if you read between the lines).

The last time I was in San Francisco some jack-ass tried to keep me from smoking OUTSIDE his f***ing store on the sidewalk. I realized then that San Francisco is a puritanical, retarded city. Let the trendy yuppies have it.
 
Oh that poor fellow...

He obviously doesn't know Rick Moranis' name is spelled with an 'I'!

And there aren't that many right-wingers here, the same people just post here endlessly.
There was a poll on the main board before the war regarding how many people supported it and the hawks lost.
 
You say you're not right wing?????

And then proceed to post a series of links to some of the most prominent right-wing thinkers on the face of the planet!!!!

Hayek, god spare me! I'm surprised you haven't got any Ayn Rand links up there!

And I'd like YOU to take a walk around the streets of Baghdad RIGHT NOW and get some real sense of the true political situation - which can roughly be summarised as "grateful to be rid of Saddam, and EXTREMELY WARY if not outright hostile to US intentions in their country". Which is why they protest at the military occupation of schools and such like. At the famous pulling down of that statue there was at least one guy there with a "US go home" banner. You and the pro-war crowd have no monopoly over Iraqi goodwill.

History cannot be written until the consequences of this war are played out, and that's still a long way ahead of us. But if one of the consequences is active US engagement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm inclined to say the war was in some ways a price worth paying - but hardly in and of itself, and I certainly won't say as much until we've seen how it all plays out.
 
Re: Why is oaf profaning so much today?

Sorry, but the new handle is less than classy!

Now see what you've done - you're making me sound like a f***ing puritan!!!
 
david watches SNOOKER???????????!

Well, I must admit I used to play lawn bowls, myself.

But watching snooker has to be more boring than watching paint dry - more like watching paint once it's already dry...
 
Re: You say you're not right wing?????

> Hayek, god spare me! I'm surprised you haven't got any Ayn Rand links up
> there!

Hayek was linked to as a source to discover how fascism is a variant of socialism.

I linked two left-wingers and two libertarians.

I read stuff from the full spectrum of thought. Don't you?
 
Re: Slogan boards

pic108349.jpg
 
Re: Oh that poor fellow...

> He obviously doesn't know Rick Moranis' name is spelled with an 'I'!

> And there aren't that many right-wingers here, the same people just post
> here endlessly.
> There was a poll on the main board before the war regarding how many
> people supported it and the hawks lost.

I didn't vote in that poll! If I had seen it I'd have voted multiple times, too.
 
Re: Loafing Oaf = Wrap Self In Flag + Ignore Reality

> You dip shit - proving my point yet again. Labelling ANYONE who says
> ANYTHING against the war or Bush as a "Saddam Lover" - can't you
> see how pathetic you sound flailing your arguments so desperately?

I don't see anywhere in my message to you where I called you a "Saddam Lover." Therefore, the bulk of your reply to me is complete horseshit.

> Your "logic" would lead us in to endless wars around the world.
> Everything you have said could be applied to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China
> - Do we use the military to 'liberate' those people too?

Yawn. Here's this unoriginal, weak argument for the ten-millionth time. Did Cuba, Saudi Arabia, or China invade Kuwait? Were resolutions 687, 678, 1441 passed against them?

What's clear is YOU would oppose the liberation of ALL of those places, just as you opposed liberating Iraq despite the clear legal and moral justifications of that unique, individual case.

> Who in the f*** said they ever had a problem with getting rid of Saddam,
> asswipe? Just like most pro-war idiots (like the one in the picture I
> posted) you just ignore anything that could possibly present this war in a
> bad light and then set up the typical straw man that Rush/Hannity/Savage
> taught you to.

I dismiss Rush as a shill, Hannity as a douchebag, and I don't know this Savage person.

In my reply I mentioned Paul Berman. What do you think of him? Heard of him?

Or is the idiocy of Rush v. Michael Moore the extent of it to you?

> Here's me: This war is bullshit and was predicated on lies.
> Here's You: YOU LOVE SADDAM!

Again, I didn't say you love Saddam. And actually, when I got into the details of why this was a legal and just war in other threads, nobody on the Leave-Saddam-Alone side offered anything I'd consider a good challenge to it. (Mindy said she thought Saddam would somehow mellow out on his own if we backed off...LOL!) And they certainly didn't offer any better alternatives to the war. They only convinced me that they had no better ideas that would lead to better conditions for Iraq, the Middle East, the United States, and the world at large.

What I was challenging was the ridiculousness of your calling my position a "conservative" or "fascist" one. You're the one who wanted to leave the status-quo in Iraq.

> Bwahahaha - and finally, your linking to 'FAUX' news says it all about
> your dittohead flag waving ass.

FOX is just another news network to me. *shrug* They're all biased. But what makes you think the reporter I linked to is not credible? That was just a regular news story, with the help of the Associated Press, from their web site. It wasn't from one of FOX's opinion shows. You dismiss every reporter at FOX? I see a tendency on this board to try and dismiss news that doesn't fit certain people's political agenda by saying the news organization that reported it is not credible. Documents were found in Baghdad that reveal George Galloway might be a paid shill of Saddam's, and the socialists on this board respond with, "That was in the Telegraph, which I call the TORYgraph, so I don't care." Eh?

And I don't see how the BBC or the CBC or any other outlet is less biased than FOX. Duller, yes, but no less biased. In fact, in coverage of the war, the BBC was *more* biased. One of their own reporters even attacked the BBC for presenting the war in a manner that had little resemblance to what he was experiencing in Iraq. And today's news tells us another BBC reporter was rather chummy with the dictator's regime (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-666386,00.html).

You're worked up over FOX exclusively because you're following your leftist talking points. As anyone can see in my messages, I cite and link to an extremely wide variety of sources from all over the world for my information.

Everything you guys say is straight out of a ZMAG "fact sheet." I read those too, so I know.

>People like you have no business listening
> to Morrissey - What can he possibly say that you relate to?

I'm not surprised you say that; I already gathered that you have a Stalinistic streak in you.

One lesson I get from Morrissey's songs is to think for yourself and be your own person. I didn't realize there was some political label you had to subscribe to to be allowed to listen to the man's music. I don't even know precisely *what* his politics are, nor do I much care. I get along fine with people of all political outlooks.

What I do know is Morrissey was driven out of England by journalistic thugs of the Stalinistic persuasion just because he dared to express his honest thoughts. He was called a "fascist" even, although I can't for the life of me work out what could possibly be fascist about *Morrissey*. But so it goes in some circles.

>He is against
> all the jingoistic simple minded patriotic bullshit you spew. You can rest
> assured he hates people like you and rightly so.

He doesn't know me and I don't know him.

However, while I have never actually wrapped Old Glory around myself, Morrissey took considerable heat for wrapping himself in his Union Jack.

Anyway, I love his music and I love his public image and there's much in his lyrics I do relate to (and I don't think one has to be a card-carrying member of any political ideology to relate to them).

But I have no idea if I'd actually like him in person. For example, I keep reading about how he's some kind of tightwad to his employees. I hope that's untrue, because where I come from, one of the ways you judge a person is how they treat those who work for them. If those rumors are true, I'd probably not wanna be in his inner circle.

Also, while I have no idea what Morrissey's take on Iraq is, I don't think he would be the person I'd turn to for guidance. He claims to hate paying attention to the news. And, has he lived in Iraq? I based my views largely on reading what people who lived there had to say. Has he studied Iraq and/or foreign policy for his whole life? I based my views largely on people who have.

I could reasonably speculate that Morrissey is happy to see the dictator of Baghdad out of power. And of course that wouldn't have happened without the war.

What matters to me, dumb ass, is that MY morality is reflected in my views. I don't sit around wondering in fantasy: "Ohh, if I one day met Morrissey, would he pat me on the back for taking this stand???"

I have taken a moral stand on Iraq that I am proud of. What I saw happen in Iraq after the war began only made me prouder. Until someone can convince me that I've gotten it wrong, I'll continue to believe I'm on the side of right.

> Oh, and as for you 'visiting' iraq - bahahaha! yeah, make sure you wear
> your american flag of 'liberation' and bring your boombox to play all you
> favorite pro-war country songs.

So are you saying the average Iraqi will have less political power and a worse life with their dictator now fallen? Or, do you not have anything to say about that?
 
Re: You say you're not right wing?????

> And I'd like YOU to take a walk around the streets of Baghdad RIGHT NOW
> and get some real sense of the true political situation - which can
> roughly be summarised as "grateful to be rid of Saddam, and EXTREMELY
> WARY if not outright hostile to US intentions in their country".
> Which is why they protest at the military occupation of schools and such
> like. At the famous pulling down of that statue there was at least one guy
> there with a "US go home" banner. You and the pro-war crowd have
> no monopoly over Iraqi goodwill.

I wouldn't walk around Baghdad right now! And I don't disagree with what you say here.

Anyway, I'm a little concerned that you characterized some of my links as right-wing. You really should check out that Johan Norberg book.

You can read the preface here: http://www.globalcapitalism.st/pdf/preface.pdf

And then get the bok thru here: http://www.globalcapitalism.st

It's one of my favorite books!!! He's a former goth boy and everything, hahaha. And um, yeah, that preface will you give you an idea of why that's not really something anyone should be calling "Reich Wing." Boy, our educational system is really failing us when people characterize those who are the most pro-freedom as "fascist."
 
Re: david watches SNOOKER???????????!

> Well, I must admit I used to play lawn bowls, myself.

> But watching snooker has to be more boring than watching paint dry - more
> like watching paint once it's already dry...

snooker is great. I love "boring" sports, I watch darts and formaula 1 regularly
 
Re: You say you're not right wing?????

> Hayek was linked to as a source to discover how fascism is a variant of
> socialism.

> I linked two left-wingers and two libertarians.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by libertarianism - libertarian economics (neo-liberalism) is to my mind the apotheosis of right-wing thought (undermining of the state, denial of broader social obligations, rights, compacts, etc.). I'm more receptive to what I guess you'd call "social libertarianism" encompassing opposition to censorship, enfranchising disempowered sectors of society, the idea that any given human being ought to have the right to realise whatever potential they may have unencumbered by biases, prejudices, poverty, etc.

> I read stuff from the full spectrum of thought. Don't you?

I try to, but some on the right make it soooooo difficult. Particularly here in Australia.
 
Re: david watches SNOOKER???????????!

> snooker is great. I love "boring" sports, I watch darts and
> formaula 1 regularly

Hmmmmmmm
Doesn't take drugs any more but watches snooker, darts and formula 1 - could it be you've found a "natural" form of dope?

The comedown must be horrid though!
 
UN Resolution 144

Have you read the resolution? Just curious...

The Bush administrationd tried to sell the fact that "they couldn't find WMD's" as "proof that they existed but they were hidden!" Guilty until proven guilty!

Using Iraqi liberation as an excuse to cover the administration's deceptiveness.

--------

Bush said regarding 1441...

-The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441, has
declared Iraq in material breach of its longstanding obligations,
demanding once again Iraq's full and immediate disarmament, and
promised serious consequences if the regime refused to comply. That
resolution was passed unanimously and its logic is inescapable; the
Iraqi regime will disarm itself, or the Iraqi regime will be
disarmed by force. And the regime has not disarmed itself.

----

What the UN members said of the resolution...

John Negroponte of the United States:
The resolution contained, he said, no "hidden triggers" and no
"automaticity" with the use of force.

Jean-David Levitte of France:
If the inspection authorities reported to the Council Iraq had not
complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately
and decide on a course of action. France welcomed the lack of
"automaticity" in the final resolution.

Adolpho Aguilar Zinser of Mexico:
The resolution had eliminated "automaticity" in the use of force as
a result of material breach.

Richard Ryan of Ireland:
The resolution, he said, provided for a clear, sequential process for
Iraq compliance. Developments would be then examined by the Council
itself, which had the primary responsibility to decide whatever action
needed to be taken.

Sergey Lavrov of the Russian Federation:
He emphasized that the resolution did not contain any provisions for
the automatic use of force and underlined that the sponsors of the
text had affirmed that today.

Stefan Tafrov of Bulgaria:
The resolution did not provide a pretext for the automatic use of
force, but instead a firm insistence on the accomplishment of its
objective, the disarmament of Iraq.

Fayssal Mekdad of Syria:
His country had voted in favour after having received from the United
States and United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian
Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not be used as
pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for
"automaticity". The resolution should not be interpreted in any way
that any entity could use force.

Ole Peter Kolby of Norway:
In case of Iraqi non-compliance, the resolution set out a procedure
where the Council would convene immediately in order to secure
international peace and security.

Alfonso Valdiviezo of Colombia:
The resolution was not authorizing the use of force, but provided a
final opportunity to Iraq to comply.

Martin Belinga-Eboutou of Cameroon:
He welcomed the clear statements made by the sponsors of the
resolutions, spelling out the lack of a trap, trigger or automaticity
in the resolution.

Zhang Yishan of China:
He was pleased to note that the co-sponsors of the resolution had
accommodated his country's concerns. The purpose was to disarm Iraq,
and it no longer contained any "automaticity" for the use of force.
The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq.

Hence, it appears that most, if not all, of the 15 Security Council
members believed that Resolution 1441 did not authorize the automatic
use of force. In fact, both the U.S. and U.K. simply referred to
the fact that 1441 did not preclude the use of force as follows:

John Negroponte of the United States:
If the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of
further Iraqi violation, the resolution did not constrain any Member
State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that
country, or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect
world peace and security.

Jeremy Greenstock of the United Kingdom:
"But if Iraq chooses defiance and concealment, rejecting the final
opportunity it has been given by the Council in operative paragraph 2,
the United Kingdom -- together, we trust, with other members of the
Council -- will ensure that the task of disarmament required by the
resolutions is completed", he said.

---------------------------------------------

Text of Resolution 1441

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Annex
 
Re: Why are there so many mindless Morrissey Fans? You f***ing retard: SADDAM WAS THE FASCIST

I´m sorry I got lost with so many quotes... I just have a simple question to make to you: Who made the US police of the world? The rest of the world now has to live a life that pleases the Unites States or otherwise...?

Im sorry, but if thats the true then America is letting be a lot of injustice in the world... but only "correcting" ( if that is true) those who represent some interest to them. What about self determination of a country?.....

Iraq was an invasion, not a liberation, you believe everything the media says.
 
Back
Top Bottom