Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

That's more hilarious than serious. I don't wish any ill towards Tony.

I just googled the site - very interesting idea. Hope it does not turn sour.

I hope some idiot doesn't reinterpret the word arrest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's more hilarious than serious. I don't wish any ill towards Tony.

why not, he lied to his country!, took his country illegally to war! he should be hung as a traitor !!!

No he didn't, no he didn't and no he shouldn't.

Pure hysteria, all of it. Not liking the war is utterly different from it being illegal- it being illegal is simply not true; an objective fact.

You didn't want it- fine. But calling a war cleared by thr attorney general AND voted upon in Parliament AND subsequently legitimised by the UN illegal is deeply feeble; an emotive attempt to try and give a fake legitimacy to your view. Every relevant single legal body involved and concerned cleared it.

If you want to say it SHOULD have been illegal, fine. Whole different ballgame. But it wasn't. If you want to say the process by which it was legal was flawed, then fine. But that was still the process and he followed it legally. He simply wouldn't have done it were it actually illegal.

He gave a good performance. Blair's still got it in a forum like that, in a way that Brown... doesn't.

Oh. You're a fan.

I never voted for him. That is no barrier for an appreciation of the truth of things. The immediate assumption that anyone who defends Balir must be a fan and hence biased is pretty poor also.

Do UK citizens vote for the PM? Or is it the House of Commons that puts the PM into power?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No he didn't, no he didn't and no he shouldn't.

Pure hysteria, all of it. Not liking the war is utterly different from it being illegal- it being illegal is simply not true; an objective fact.

You didn't want it- fine. But calling a war cleared by thr attorney general AND voted upon in Parliament AND subsequently legitimised by the UN illegal is deeply feeble; an emotive attempt to try and give a fake legitimacy to your view. Every relevant single legal body involved and concerned cleared it.

If you want to say it SHOULD have been illegal, fine. Whole different ballgame. But it wasn't. If you want to say the process by which it was legal was flawed, then fine. But that was still the process and he followed it legally. He simply wouldn't have done it were it actually illegal.

He gave a good performance. Blair's still got it in a forum like that, in a way that Brown... doesn't.


That may be the case for the UK, but Ron Paul made a good point about the Iraq war being illegal. There was some sort of provision or requirement in the constitution that made the Iraq war illegal...and it had to be voted on by congress. That was seriously one of Ron Paul's justifications for opposing the Iraq war in 2003. I don't know this because I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I know this because I ran across this, incidentally. It's one of the things that made me start like Ron Paul.


So, on that note, I think Bic. was confusing the US situation with the UK's.......buuuut, he's a Brit, not a Yank, so it's probably more what you said.

thats because russia sucks though. have you even played MW2?!?!!?

Originally posted by lord xyz


I remember something about the UN opposing the war, but somehow it got justified, veto or some bullshit.



Iraq War violated UN Charter, and was never actually sanctioned by UNSC. So from that respect it was illegal.

nah

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's actually a great observation.

US attacking most of southern and central america is fine, but Russia attacking Georgia, is not.

Huh.

Well, that's Bush's fault. After all, if Tony's liable, so is Spain, Portugal, Australia, Poland etc.

Indeed. Every sovergin nation that participated in the war, should be, technically liable. Any member of the UN.
Since UK is a UN member, as are other countries too, everyone is liable for themselves.

It is not just Bush's fault - unless every other country is a colony of USA. Which it isn't.
Sure he ''lead'' the war, but sovereign countries are responsible for themselves.
Bush or USA is not responsible for UK, Spain, Portugal...no way in hell can they blame Bush for their actions.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
nah


Slightly better graphics then

Originally posted by dadudemon
That may be the case for the UK, but Ron Paul made a good point about the Iraq war being illegal. There was some sort of provision or requirement in the constitution that made the Iraq war illegal...and it had to be voted on by congress. That was seriously one of Ron Paul's justifications for opposing the Iraq war in 2003. I don't know this because I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I know this because I ran across this, incidentally. It's one of the things that made me start like Ron Paul.


So, on that note, I think Bic. was confusing the US situation with the UK's.......buuuut, he's a Brit, not a Yank, so it's probably more what you said.

That is what I heard, too. Apparently some people said, it didn't go through the proper channels in the US which would make it illegal. But I assume that Ush is right about it being legitimate in the UK, I know that the German involvement in Afghanistan was at least properly done. I guess it also depends what legal bodies you accept.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
No I havn´t whats it like C&C?

Nah, C&C is a strategy game, MW2 is a first person shooter.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US matters.

Ushgarak has stated why the UK's inclusion of the Iraq invasion was legal.

I remember something about the UN opposing the war, but somehow it got justified, veto or some bullshit.

By talking about Ron Paul and US laws, and then proving yourself wrong at the end by saying, oh yeah, Tony's Brit not a Yank, makes you a moron.

The legal system doesn't give a shit about your moral values.

The lagal system works like a mental firm. There's a list of criteria, if it fits the criteria, it's A, if it doesn't it's B.

According to Ushgarak, the Iraq war met the legal requirements.

Working in the army, as sad as it is, doesn't make you an expert in politics and international law.

Either you completely misread the tone of DDM's post or you're just being a prick with this reply. I hope it's the former because you don't usually start calling people morons no reason. If it's the latter then I think you should be warned for this post because, quite frankly, there was no need for it.

He also wasn't saying Tony's a Brit and not a Yank at the end...He was saying Bicnarok was.

Originally posted by jaden101
Either you completely misread the tone of DDM's post or you're just being a prick with this reply. I hope it's the former because you don't usually start calling people morons no reason. If it's the latter then I think you should be warned for this post because, quite frankly, there was no need for it.

He also wasn't saying Tony's a Brit and not a Yank at the end...He was saying Bicnarok was. I misread the last sentence.

Taken in context, I didn't call him a moron for no reason. Confusing US law with UK law does make one a moron.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I misread the last sentence.

Taken in context, I didn't call him a moron for no reason. Confusing US law with UK law does make one a moron. He didn't confuse it. He explained that he thinks Bicarok might be referring to the US law of things. He didn't even state any sort of opinion, I'm not sure why you flew of the handle like that. He didn't really say anything dumb at all, in fact he tried to clear up the situation.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US matters.

1. You mean YOU don't give a shit about US laws regarding world matters.

2. You'd be an idiot if you think UK government is not concerned with what the US does when it comes to waging war on another nation.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ushgarak has stated why the UK's inclusion of the Iraq invasion was legal.

Aren't you glad I was referring to the US, then? dur

Originally posted by lord xyz
I remember something about the UN opposing the war, but somehow it got justified, veto or some bullshit.

It was. It was shot down by the UN so Good ol' Georgie decided to go over the collective world's decision and goad NATO into it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
By talking about Ron Paul and US laws, and then proving yourself wrong at the end by saying, oh yeah, Tony's Brit not a Yank, makes you a moron.

No, you simply did not understand the context of my post and have made a fool of yourself by even responding to my post. (As usual. You even fail at being a troll.)

I mean, really, was the following REALLY that hard to put into context?



Originally posted by lord xyz
The legal system doesn't give a shit about your moral values.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I'll address it anyway because it needs to be.

Indeed, personal moral values mean very little to the "legal" system. But, a "voice" is not completely null.

There's a HUGE list of things that I could do to increase my voice and actually make the legal system bend to my morals, within reason. Here's 5, just to whet your appetite:

1. Run a "voice" system such as a blog, lobby group, etc. This one is quite a powerful tool.

2. Run for a congressional office at any level.

3. Become a judge.

4. Become a lawyer.

5. Run for an executive office from mayor to all the way up to President of the U.S.





Edit - Noticed that Jaden already told you the obvious.

Edit - Just read Bardock's post, too. He did that because he's trolling me, again.

Originally posted by lord xyz

Confusing US law with UK law does make one a moron.

US law is based largely on Scot's law if I remember correctly. Scot's law is seperate entirely from English law so there's effectively no true "UK law" although there is legislation which applies to both that is enacted at Westminster.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He didn't confuse it. He explained that he thinks Bicarok might be referring to the US law of things. He didn't even state any sort of opinion, I'm not sure why you flew of the handle like that. He didn't really say anything dumb at all, in fact he tried to clear up the situation.

Yeah, I said that.

Originally posted by jaden101
US law is based largely on Scot's law if I remember correctly. Scot's law is seperate entirely from English law so there's effectively no true "UK law" although there is legislation which applies to both that is enacted at Westminster. The point was UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US issues.

You should watch The Hurt Locker a graet film on iraq

Originally posted by lord xyz
The point was UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US issues.

Don't really see how the Iraq war is a US only issue.

If that was your original point then maybe it would've been a good idea to say that in the 1st place...But neither the 1st post I picked you up on mentioned it or the 2nd one.


It's all by the by anyway given that war isn't really based on soveriegn country's laws but rather international law.

Geneva conventions, Hague convention, RULAC Project, Law of armed conflict, UN charter (1945).

I haven't looked into the Ron Paul legal objection to the war but it might have something to do with the Kellogg-Briand Pact which prevents war being used by a sovereign nation as an instrument of national policy.

Originally posted by jaden101
Don't really see how the Iraq war is a US only issue. It isn't.

The US's involvement of the Iraq war is though.

Originally posted by jaden101
If that was your original point then maybe it would've been a good idea to say that in the 1st place...But neither the 1st post I picked you up on mentioned it or the 2nd one. Originally posted by lord xyz
The UK doesn't give a shit about US laws regarding US matters.
There really is no excuse for this level of stupidity.

How can the US's involvment in ANOTHER COUNTRY be only a matter for the US?

I really think that it might be a matter for...say...Iraq.




Stupidity?...Not reading isn't as stupid as reading and completely misunderstanding and then going on a rant and making a complete fool of yourself in doing so.

Originally posted by jaden101
How can the US's involvment in ANOTHER COUNTRY be only a matter for the US? Who said it's only a matter for the US?

It's a US matter, not a UK matter. It's also an Iraq and a UN matter.


Originally posted by jaden101
Stupidity?...Not reading isn't as stupid as reading and completely misunderstanding and then going on a rant and making a complete fool of yourself in doing so. ...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who said it's only a matter for the US?

It's a US matter, not a UK matter. It's also an Iraq and a UN matter.


...

So it's a UN matter but not a UK matter despite the UK being one of the permanent members of the UNSC?

Ah who cares anyway?...The war happened regardless of whether some obscure domestic law in any country said it shouldn't. That's the law for you...Mostly ****ing wrong.

Originally posted by jaden101
So it's a UN matter but not a UK matter despite the UK being one of the permanent members of the UNSC?

Ah who cares anyway?...The war happened regardless of whether some obscure domestic law in any country said it shouldn't. That's the law for you...Mostly ****ing wrong. You got that right.

According to UK law, carry a joint in the street gives you 5 years, whereas a knife will get you 4.

Or is it now 14 years for a class B?

Originally posted by lord xyz
You got that right.

According to UK law, carry a joint in the street gives you 5 years, whereas a knife will get you 4.

Or is it now 14 years for a class B?


14 years with a prior c and only 7 with no priors.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
why not, he lied to his country!, took his country illegally to war! he should be hung as a traitor !!! You mean hanged? I don't think his penis size has anything to do with it.