Walsingham

Erm... not to be obvious but these guys chose to spend their free time shooting people for no reason. I think that qualifies as stupid right there. what kind of car they drive is just icing on the cake.

It's basically impossible. I hope I haven't given the impression that I think the war was purely moral. My objection is to statements claiming it was immoral. Viz our recent discussion on glossing over details in judging right and wrong.

Teeter?

That's what everyone is telling me, sans the naive fool, part ( ) Only thing is, I have no idea what I would buy that would take up more space at this point...ahh, the life of a single male I'll give you a clue. It begins with 'P'.

Obviousy I temperamentaly agree with your statement about being free of lies. However, I ask another question: If - as I do - one believes the pre-war stance was in fact immoral, is it immoral to lie in order to provoke action? I ask in the context of my premise, not in general terms.

There were bits of it which stood up on their own. The whole isolation and madness thing works. But why go so cheesy at the end? Bastards.

Poor naive fool. You will soon run out of space.

Because Muso just kissed her?

I agree that the UN council was grotesquely weakened by the invasion. However, I respond with two points: 1. The stance taken by France and Russia was equally damaging to the UN's moral mandate. 2. Was the pre-invasion stance of sanctions morally sound? With the UN itself estimating civilian deaths in the hundreds from inadequate medicines and food. In addition it served no purpose whatever in terms of weakening the regime. 3. Regime change may be illegal, but is it actually immoral?

I'm also interested.

I think they should have to meet a culture that provided the base for African mythology. That would rule.

My TV says screw you. ROFL I agree it looks like you've got it pretty good. Of course MINE used to look like that, before I realised I could leave it much more messy/ had to squeeze in all my military kit. My second bedroom is supposed to be my office but at present it's mainly just a bergen explosion.

I am just finishing off the its of chicken I had from Wednesday. Wednesday: picked up a bag of lemons, made fresh lemonade and roasted the chicken with the lemon skins and a little salt. Served gravy over couscous. Dashes of Oxford sauce. Thursday: out all day. Drunk in evening. Terrible curry. Friday: hungover. Doing taxes. Made soup instead. Soup incredible. Saturday (today): thick wholemeal toast with pork pate and marmalade (insane but delicious). More soup. Still soup left over. Throwing it away now as I can't believe it is still going to be good to eat tomorrow.

Norah Jones and the Handsome Band live in concert on DVD. It's pretty weird having something I'm listening to on DVD, but it kinda works.

I've been reading more of How to kill by Kris Hollington. It's my considered opinion that Hillary or Obama will be the subject of at least one assassination attempt, and there are good odds of it being succesful. My question is, is it tasteless and/wrong to lay a bet to that effect?

Book so much better it's not even funny.

I concede you have a good point. Although I'm not sure I follow you all the way through your logic. i suspect you know more about interntional law than I do (I have been taught about the Geneva conventions twice, and read the papers about Iraq). Is there really any such thing as illegal/legal in the international arena, excluding crimes against humanity?

She's real purty! Although I'd probably make her shave off the beard and ditch the glasses before I'd kiss her.

I thought flamebaiting was against forum rules, moderator. I think you and I are practically at the stage where it's flirting, mate.

I'd have thought a show in which America gets nuked would be a good export product.

If we are going to have any sort of meaningful exchange we can't just rubbish the whole concept of statistcs. Yeah they can be bent, but we have to use 'reasonable doubt'. IBC, for example, at the bottom of that page, says that their figures are still indicative of a systematic catatstrophe. Does this sound like a group trying to produce Coalition friendly stats? Indeed, does having a stealth bomber on the front page, rather than a suicide bomber make any damn sense? IBC's own stats (which include many incidents minutely catalogued) demonstrate the majority of civilian casualties are caused by insurgents! However, this leads on to your next statement: "Bottom line is no statistic showing how good the conflict is going, how (civilian) deaths are "down" and how GDP is growing can justify what is ultimatly a illegal, dare I say criminal, war. Period." Which is your strategic viewpoint. Plenty of people say the war is illegal, but I refer you to the very clear and FULL version of the attorney general's report at the Guardian newspaper The official reason given by Snr Bush was the war was justified under 'a' - 'self defence' (WMD). This is an imponderable, because the truth of what the intelligence services told our governments is effectively hidden for all time. Let's just agree we haven't found any. More importantly, Lord Goldsmith argues that pre-emptive strategic attack is not a mechanism under international law. Point to you. However, arguments 'b' and 'c' still hold. It is true that both the French and Russiaans blocked a UN security council resolution _adding_ to the existing resolution mandating force to make Iraq comply with inspections. Point to you, or so it would seem. There is a problem however, which is that two of the judges hearing that case were owed 20 billion and 300 billion USD by the defendant! Oddly these were the two judges who blocked the guilty verdict and further action. Tied point, caused by collapse of court in hysterics. Argument 'b' is most interesting. It states that intervention is legal where necessary to 'avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe'. He goes on to admit it was used in Kosovo, and was in current usage to enforce the no fly zones. However, Lord Goldsmith claims Iraq did not constitute such a situation. Given the hundreds of thousands dead one wonders what would constitute a humanitarian catastrophe to Lord Goldsmith. Nonetheless, the point is established by precedent. As to your last point I find it deeply offensive for two reasons. Firstly you impute that I regard Iraqi and Afghan lives as unworthy because I am a racist. I intend to appeal your use of language to the moderating team. The second reason is that in turn I find it extraordinary that I should be on the receiving end of such a charge when it seems to me that so-called liberals have no problem with hundreds of thousands of foreigners dying provided our flag isn't anywhere nearby! I am a supporter of intervention where achievable, to use our military advantages to break the stranglehold of tinpot violent abusers. We've made terrible errors in how we've gone about it. But the principle is still sound. It was when JFK argued freedom is indivisible. It will be true when we're all long dead.

Where can I find it? I'm opposed to the death penalty.. I means ALWAYS opposed. I don't think it's warranted in more than 1% of cases, or whatever. but in case you really do want to see it: It looks like the NYPD no-longer publish their handbook. I'm guessing post 9/11 paranoia ( I read it in 2000). This looks similar, but may be less compendious. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Investigator...8981&sr=1-4 I thought this was interesting, while I went looking: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Negotiate-Win-Stra...8712&sr=1-8 I mean, I could forge good deals, if the alternative was that my interlocutor got shot by snipers.

I think we're missing a trick here. Clearly Sand can tell who is and is not a Taliban or Al Qaeda sympathiser just by looking at them. Computer analysis suggests he should also be able to fly and shoot lightning from his kneecaps. I say we send him to Iraq asap.

I really like that Norwegian dried lamb. Delicious.

Dude, that's soooo 1950s. Call me Fallout Boy. And you make a good point, Brdavs. China may well feel patriotically self-interested on Tibet. But my point was a more gfeneral one. I am a British subject and allied to the Western bloc. Is it morally wrong to observe a resurgent and aggressive China with something other than affable interest?