So in other words there has been no court action?

You're a busted flush old boy, don't confuse your opinions with points of law.

Run allong now, there's a good chap

Or better still, read UNSCR 678

If you want Sadam back in power I'm sorry it's too late, both he and the male side of his loathsome family are gone, me? I refuse to mourn the death of a murderous dictator responsible for 400,000+ deaths; you on the other-hand obviously are determined to defend his right to murder and torture - good luck

You're catching on, but this time read the reply and give it time to sink in. You'll see you're playing cards with a faulty deck, obviously a few are missing.

Don't confuse law with what's right, wrong and/or illegal.

If I want to "Run allong", it'll be because I want to, not because some 'govern'ment apologist **** house tells me. :ok:

Why are you hiding behind false praise ?

Not only has your post not added anything of relevance to the topic, it's also a sly personal attack.

Grow some nuts and say what you mean big man.

I'd look up the word 'illegal' boy, it means against the law, which has to be proved or disproved in a court of law, you with me so far?

Now as you're the one talking about illegality how can you independantly declare something illegal without going through the process of law? Are you the Pope?

No, you're just an apologist for Sadam - or doesn’t the death of 400,000+ Iraqis and Iranians concern you more than trying student style Trotskyite rabble-rousing?

Once again, other than in your mind where has current action in Afghanistan or Iraq been declared illegal? And if it is has been does that also mean the UN is stuffed full of Neo-Con war monkies?

OK, you're a clueless sprog cock who likes dictators

Can I have a pint of what Pious is on? :rolleyes:

And before you accuse me, I am not a supporter of New Liarbour, but I think mileandahalf's post was clear enough to the rest of. No faint praise there!

And you complain of a "personal attack"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm

Not that the UN is of much use.

You'll find that you're the one confused about what illegal actually means sunshine.

Law:

the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Illegal:

forbidden by law or statute.


Read the above a few times and a light bulb may go off in your head. :ok:

I leave the floor to my learned friends, anyone that can get upset about the demise of Sadam and the end of Taliban rule is reserving himself a bedspace in a very special part of hell

Pontificating Pious Pr**k!
 

Here here Maple 01 :D

I'm sorry to jump in Pious but as a law graduate I have to point out that your line of argument is incorrect, though you are doing a very good job of alienating yourself from the military pprune community!

"Don't confuse law with what's right, wrong and/[B]or illegal[/B]" - an oxymoron old boy, law and illegal being inextricably linked.

Misinformed individuals all too often completely misconstrue the meaning of 'legal' and incidentally, 'rights', by quoting them in terms of some sort of subjective context...

The only ones reserving bed space in a warm hostel are people like yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html

Will someone sort out my confusion here. I thought that civilians, safe at home, started wars and soldiers fought them and sometimes died. If you're going to ban anyone from the hallowed halls maybe it should be new labour politicians.

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again.

Nope. They're the ones who become the type of parasites who infest parliament so they can foist their insanity on others.

Problem is we then become the kind of thickos who vote them into those positions of influence...:(

That's better, get the anger out.

Your whole post is just amateur psychologist BS trying to cause an effect, again it adds nothing to the debate.

There is nothing to answer, you have no question.

And yet

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Puts the figure much lower, and even then they aren’t exactly an unbiased source

So not only are you confused over the concept of the law, you haven't grasped the notion of discredited propaganda

And if you have a look at my profile you'll see I'm an analyst - so don't try blinding me with dubious discredited stats

Did I mention you're a cock?

And I had to laugh at this bit in the WP report:

So not exactly a precise science then and completely open to manipulating in any direction you wish to go.

PP. Has anyone ever told you "not to believe everything you read in the papers"?

Judge dredd,

Alienation from pprune is something that fills me with fear & trepidation, it being the barometer of what is true and just in the world.

More accusations but nothing to show for your pointless post that adds nothing to the thread.

Nice one :ok:

Oh, good!

I went to pop some corn and was afraid this one was going to sputter out...................

Hand me my beer, please! :p

You make accusations and then do the very same thing yourself.

You're the one confused about what illegal actually means, go back and read the definition again.

It comes as no surprise you're an analyst, anal being a major constituent of your title.

Is that the best personal insult that you could come up with btw ? Big daft cock would have been much better.

Irony of the highest order, funniest post so far though.

Well done :ok::ok::ok:

Seriously, I should be doing other things rather than replying to inter warrior knobbers. If I don't reply, it's because I've got 20 odd papers that I need to read for my imaginary occupation. Not that you bunch of tits need to know or anything.

Good night :cool:

Wooooooooo Hoooooooooooo!
 

Let me wade into this like Indiana Jones with a big cracking whip in one hand and a keyboard in the other....

PP, I expect you are puzzled you utter window-licker! Haven't you figured it out yet? The majority of the civpop, aside from immature students who equate uniforms with baby-killing, have no particular beef with HM Forces, but detest Zanu-Labour for pi$$-poor planning, cr@p logistics, even worse procurement and overall being seen to be Bush's poodle. I mean, who wouldn't support a war to depose the Hitler of Iraq and the Nazis of Afghan? It's just the way it was done rankles a bit - and I know - it aint half hot out here Mum!

Oh thanks, no really thanks for your sympathy. When I need the support of a whining left-wing apologista, I'll ask for it.

Not much Oil or Gas in Afghan eh? Very clever of you to try and argue with previous posters over points of logic, try that again whilst you breath through your mouth.

Bitter AND selfish? I bet that attitude was really appreciated by everyone except your 'mate' while you were in the mob?

PS: Note to self - arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

Er...


Since PP referred to illegal 'wars' -

Intervention in Afghanistan - covered by various UN Security Council Resolutions, particularly Numbers 1368 and 1373 which stated that the Taliban's support for terrorism represented a clear threat to international peace and security; that the acts of 11 Sep 01 were covered by the inherent right to self defence, and which stated that such a threat should be combated by 'all means' (UN-speak for you may start breaking stuff if you feel it necessary). Afghanistan, whatever the Manchester University 'right on' mob (probably about 0.1% of the student body) think, meets all the criteria they claim were breached when OIF/Telic kicked off.

Therefore, using the generally accepted measure of legality - Afghanistan has been legal from the start, whatever the Manchester Student Union says about it.

The invasion of Iraq, of course, is open to question (to put it mildly).

However, the occupation of the country was retrospectively recognised by UNSCR 1483, which called upon the 'Authority' (determined in the Resolution to be the US and UK as the occupying powers who had formally recognised their responsibilities as such under the Geneva Convention) to undertake the rebuilding of Iraq and appointed a Special Representative.

Therefore, while the students might, in the eyes of some, have been on solid ground to call the combat operations between Day 1 of OIF/TELIC and 22 May 2003 an 'illegal war', they cannot call the occupation of Iraq an 'illegal war' or an 'illegal occupation', since it, like the intervention in Afghanistan, is covered by a procedurally correct vote in the UNSC.

However, I'm sure they won't let facts get in the way of their attempt to carve out a political niche for themselves.:hmm: