Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Sorry but you're wrong. It's there, in black and white, and you even went to the bother of linking to a post disproving your own argument. Thanks.
|
You mean an article which states it was within iraqi law, and extended under iraqi war?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
That's a particulary judgemental and nasty piece of commentary, even from you. It appears that you are now judge and jury on how or where my sentiments lie with regard to deceased servicemen and their families. Still, I suppopse it fits with your fantasy idea of actual conflict and war situations. For the record - I've a great deal more respect for soldiers, living and dead, than I have for weekend war fantasists whose idea of a tough decision in a war scenario comes down to what colour of paintballs to use.
|
Perhaps you'd like to appologise for the cheap shot you made over the deaths in iraq to get a 30 second video, I don't believe that's too much to ask for, especially as it's not the first time you've done it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
And, in the event of a handover to a legitimate government would you allow them to recind that protection - or would that be just a little "too democratic" for your taste?
|
You mean like its extension and continued adherance agreed by the current elected goverment?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Lets deal with the facts. I didn't say the Iraqi law wasn't valid - that was a comment made and quoted in the news story you linked to which defeated your own "argument". I stated that Iraqi law was not used to determine Order 17 - again proven in the opening gambit of the story you linked to and by the copy of the actual document drafted by an American and signed by an American.
|
You stated those covered by order 17 are outside Iraqi law, which patently is not the case as order 17 is upheld by Iraqi law through the agreement of the elected Iraqi goverment.