Walsingham

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?

I'll buy 2.5 million displaced. But 1 million dead? Would that be from the Lancet report which assumed that some 70% of people killed never turned up in either a hospital or morgue? See the criticism expanded on at: critique of the Lancet figure of 650,000 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ I suggest that given your eveident partisan hostility you restrain your use of figures to those which can be backed up by evidence. I refer you to the same site to observe the falling off of civilian deaths, even in this fiercely independent source. The action in Basra the last few days is probably misguided, but if nothing else it proves the Iraqi government are not mere pawns of the Coalition, since it contradicts the line taken by the USA of attempting peaceful integration of the Mehdi army, and reconciliation with the Shia. I could quote economic indiactors at you, to show improvemnt, but it would be a total waste of time since the sources are governmental and will no doubt be ignored.

I suppose you chaps noticed that a lot of US equipment and munitions are made in Norway? Damned fishy, if you ask me.

Ah. Hence your name.

I am that rare beast: a man who can resist the urge to be curious. Although I must say I mastered the art only after reading the NYPD crime investigation handbook. I challenge anyone who believes the death penalty is always wrong to read it.

I'm not 100% behind this statement, but can anyone explain to me what on Earth is so bad about viewing China from a selfish patriotic standpoint?

I became intoxicated with the exuberance of my own verbosity yesterday and dragged my assistant out of home by cab to attend on some projects I'd make a breakthrough with. We charged around like a pair of freaks for several hours, gathering information, surprising people with meetings, buying pencils etc. To compensate for the inconvenience to him I bought a lot of very good food and beer along the way, ending in the evening very much the worse for wear, and stuffed with a huge quantity of too hot curry. The curry was a vast mistake, being both expensive and not very good. By contrast I had some excellent Spanish food at lunch, consisting of spiced cubed pork, chunks of potato, olives, and chillis all fried up 'in a bucket'. Hugely filling and delicious. I intend to make it at home soon.

I blame Canada!

I absolutely love the fact that opponents of the war resolutely refuse to admit that there's any improvement in Iraq, despite a massive dropoff in violence and increasing reconciliation between the power players. Of course, it would be too scientific to ask Sand to base his opinions on observable data rather than isolated principles of faith.

Fething lone snipers. Read "How to Kill" by Kris Hollington. Awesome insight into the phenomenon, along with groovy debunking of famous assassinations.

I concur.

Pfah. "Get Tough" is a much better guide. Plus there are Nazis.

What?

ROFL

Thanks for asking. I'm signing the deal tomorrow. Then the awesome might of me shall begin the Herculean task of transporting my library across.

I'm not sure being against China is very helpful. China's not a moth to be shoved out a window. It's not going away. Sooner or later we have to get along.

I'm not sending any more hookers until FedEx explain what happened to the last lot.