SteveThaiBinh

The cake really does taste very good - try it! Mayonnaise is only eggs and oil, after all.

Have we seen the facial expressions in motion? Which trailer/vid was it in?

On a related note: Being Christmas No.1 is a huge status thing in the UK. I think I like the John Cale version best, but I've heard lots of good covers and the song really is too good to be ruined by anyone.

W. T. F? Yoghurt, surely? Nope, mayonnaise. I've even managed to find the recipe at the BBC website for you. It's there as an Easter cake, but we make it at Christmas. http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/bluepete.../eastercake.pdf

It looks like the DRM regime around Spore has been relaxed somewhat - you can now install it on as many machines as you like sequentially, but only on five at any one time. I assume this is the result of a rethink - if they were planning on doing this all along, why on earth wouldn't they announce it right at the start? I guess they have until their next big release to put together a sustainable and defensible approach to DRM.

We always make chocolate cake with mayonnaise, as per the old Blue Peter recipe. It's become a Christmas tradition in my family.

Or on a passport. Passport control officials tend not to have much sense of humour, at least not while at work.

End of old topic I'll be stopping by the DVD shop later today and hoping something will jump out and say "Watch me!". I haven't seen a decent new film in ages.

Closed for length.

Fair point and well made. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the European Union might attempt to seize Bush - they don't have the power to, they don't have the will to, and as you rightly say, they don't have the slightest desire to. Ordinary folks like myself might bark at Bush like a dog howling at the moon, but nothing will ever come of it, and perhaps it's right that it shouldn't. I don't see how my original post was bellicose, but again, it certainly wasn't intended to be. Is it the fact that I found the shoe throwing incident funny? To be honest, I don't really wish the shoes had hit him - he's not a young man now and I wouldn't wish him physical harm. I can sympathise with an Iraqi's desire to express his anger, but throwing eggs or custard pies would be my own choice if it ever came to that. Is it because I think he should be held to account in an international court of law for the Iraq War? I would hope to see my own former Prime Minister Blair standing right next to him in the dock, if it ever came to that (which of course it won't).

More than likely. Time moves on, and though people may revisit this in the future, the present state and future of the Middle East are more important concerns. I'm not sure that all the other leaders were saying that sanctions would oust Saddam, though I imagine many hoped it, rather that they would help contain Saddam and Iraq, limiting his ability to do harm in the wider Middle East. Arguably they succeeded (rather partially) in this regard, in so far as Saddam probably wanted nuclear weapons and yet was nowhere near getting them. Is it the militia to blame for the deaths, or George Bush who created the conditions in which the militia thrived? Is it Saddam to blame for the deaths of those children (for syphoning off UN aid to enrich himself) or the UN for creating and operating the system that allowed this to happen (and some members who actively participated in the corruption, though not all did, I think). Perhaps there's enough blame for everyone, but a substantial share does have to fall with the militia. Who would say otherwise? Again it comes down to international law, and I confess I'm no expert on that, but it feels right to say that if you invade and occupy a country (even legally) and effectively disband its police force and army, then you bear a share of the responsibility for the lawlessness that follows and for the results of that lawlessness. Negligence, not malice, but still a serious matter.

Apparently we are the minority. Gamespot gave A Vampyre Story 7.5, which if you factor in Gamespot's automatic -1.0 point for being a point-and-click adventure, is really a score of 8.5. Ahh, well, you forgot to mention they were filthy heretics. Burn them, I say!

As am I. And governments are indeed willing to go against strong popular opposition if they believe it to be in the national (or the government's) interest; our own Dear Tony did. I'm sure the French government factored the economic consequences of regime change into its decision, and it may even be right that it do so. I feel a balanced analysis is important. As in, UN Security Council members losing their voting rights on issues where they have an economic interest? Difficult to implement in the new global economy.

The war was opposed by eighty-five percent of the population of France. You really don't think that was a factor in a democratic country?

The legality of the war is disputed. I'm more familiar with the arguments over the legality of the UK's participation, but I imagine similar opinions to this have been expressed in the US. Different experts take different views, and I don't think you could say there's a consensus either way. In normal circumstances, you might resolve such disagreements by testing the matter in a court of law, but as we've said, that's not going to happen in this case.

No! Give peace a chance!

I don't seriously expect that he would ever stand trial (for launching an illegal war and ordering the use of torture, Kelverin), and certainly not in the Hague. International law is a rather flimsy thing and often depends on the political will of world leaders to enforce it - no sitting US president is ever going to support putting a former occupant of that office on trial in an international court, if for no other reason than it would be political suicide. Plus, if Bush did stand trial there's a good chance he'd be acquitted - as others have said in this thread, he probably acted in good faith according to his own view of the US national interest. Besides, heads of state hardly ever get hauled before the international courts except for genocide, and not even I would accuse Bush of that. And, as Rosbjerg points out, it does open lots of cans of worms that the world may not be ready for. A part of me would still like to see the legitimacy of the Iraq War tested before an international court, because I think it would make future world leaders more cautious about launching military actions abroad, but I don't delude myself that it's actually going to happen. You'd be surprised what I have the guts for. More importantly, do you think we could conduct this discussion without irrelevant throwaway insults? They don't add anything. Not long until we don't have to think about him ever again. I'm looking forward to it. I quite like America, for all its faults, and it's been a difficult balancing act to hold together my general liking for the country and my strong dislike for its leaders. I don't imagine I'll love everything Obama does, but I'm hoping he'll do less harm to my blood pressure.

It seems al-Zaidi is being prepared for a criminal prosection: Link. Of course, they may simply hold him for a few days and release him. I wonder what would have happened if he'd thrown a shoe at Bush while in Britain. Most likely he would have been held by police overnight and questioned at the very least, but I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would want to pursue such a divisive court case. It would be a real circus.

I'd like to remind everyone in this thread that we all have a responsibility to post in a respectful and constructive manner, even when in discussion with those whose views we don't agree with. Some of the recent language has been anything but respectful.

I think it's probably the same everywhere. I'm superficially attracted to the opposite idea where the government has to demonstrate the constitutionality of its actions in advance, but I can see the impracticality of it, particularly in national security/foreign policy issues. It is interesting that devolution of power from national/federal government to regions or states seems to be seen as a right-wing issue in the US, whereas it's more often a left-wing policy in Europe (the UK and Spain, at least). Personally I'm all in favour of decisions being made as close to those affected as possible, because it's more likely that the individual voter affected can confront the decision-maker face-to-face (always good for democracy ).

What would be the practical effect of the US government suddenly only being able to do things, domestically and overseas, that were constitutional? What the are the major things that would change, I mean? Is it just that the executive would have to go through a lengthier progress of congressional approval for everything, or would certain actions become entirely off-limits?

I did placement testing for future corporate students at the Saudi National Water Company (NWC). They have an unfortunate tendency to introduce themselves saying "I work in the National W.C."

Happy Birthday, Nick. You'll always exist on the Obsidian boards, if not necessarily anywhere else.

It's a shame he missed. A shoe in the face is the least Bush deserves. A jail cell in the Hague would be my vote. Not long now.