Saddam To Sue Uk - Page 4

Bifta · 13-05-2004, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant

Hey the mods are now aware that you hand them out to people you disagree with. I've always known your a ________ so there's not a problem there is there

God, I'd hate to think of myself as an ________

Defiant · 13-05-2004, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

I don't need a teacher to help me read, unlike you I managed to concentrate in school, perhaps if you read your posts before actually clicking the 'submit reply' button and realised that most of them look like they were typed up by somebody who's literacy level matches that of the average 5 year old, I wouldn't need to question wtf you're talking about.

Yea right why do you go on about things you know nothing about. its because your head is so big but nothing inside it. I've just checked the past history on the reps and you really are a child with a game. I'd love to meet you on person

Bifta · 13-05-2004, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant

Yea right why do you go on about things you know nothing about. its because your head is so big but nothing inside it. I've just checked the past history on the reps and you really are a child with a game. I'd love to meet you on person

I'll bring a dictionary for you.

dilli-theclaw · 13-05-2004, 17:41

Will you two please get a room!!!

Defiant · 13-05-2004, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

I'll bring a dictionary for you.

Yea you may need to look up a few words

Bifta · 13-05-2004, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

Will you two please get a room!!!

Sorry, I'll shut up now.

**Mick** · 13-05-2004, 17:44

Whilst we are talking of _________ <- This is where I draw the line, this heated discussion will cease now please. Thanks.

danielf · 13-05-2004, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pem

The US is part of NATO (possibly the biggest part) - so would any treaty apply - would NATO still exist or would one NATO country attacking another make it cease to exist. I'm not going to guess - I simply don't know.

I had a quick look. The members need to invoke article 5 which states that an attack on one country is an attack on the whole of NATO. I suppose there would be the option of not invoking article 5. I don't know if any members have a veto in this btw.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Quote:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Reading article 5, I suppose they could also decide that no action is deemed necessary...

MovedGoalPosts · 13-05-2004, 17:50

Perhaps this idea of the USA invading Netherlands is one reason why Europe wants its own combined army?

Shudders at the thought: If the Brits and Yanks fighting alongside speaking a similar language can have friendly fire, imagine the chaos with multiple different languages and the time taken to translate "left a bit, right a bit, up a bit Fire"

iadom · 13-05-2004, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Perhaps this idea of the USA invading Netherlands is one reason why Europe wants its own combined army?

Shudders at the thought: If the Brits and Yanks fighting alongside speaking a similar language can have friendly fire, imagine the chaos with multiple different languages and the time taken to translate "left a bit, right a bit, up a bit Fire"

You forgot the Italians, with "back a bit"

13-05-2004, 18:01

If France allows this Lawyer to represent Saddam then the EU should boot France out. No Trade etc.
We should ban Garlic and onions throughout the EU, wearing a beret should be punishable by stangling at the stake and we could offer a safe haven for all dem poor ickle snails.

Seriously though, the EU must intervene in this it must be against all that the EU stands for.

Let France try and gain by supporting a dictator, lets ban France from arms sales to other countries.

Actually lets invade the onion/garlic eating snail lovers, its about time they had their arses kicked again.

GHrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[/rant]

Defiant · 13-05-2004, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Actually lets invade the onion/garlic eating snail lovers, its about time they had their arses kicked again.

How many times have they been invaded now lol

iadom · 13-05-2004, 18:18

As it says here

If this plonker defends you, the whole world knows you are guilty.

PS. His claim to have worked for Milosovic is untrue.

punky · 13-05-2004, 18:52

You are all forgetting, the ICC is UN based. Any attack on the ICC would mean the US would face the other 190 countries as a join reactionary force. The court just happens to be in The Netherlands. The same would apply if any country staged a raid on the headquarters in NY.

It would still win though. Me and a couple of mates with pea shooters/elastic bands with rolled up pieces of paper would be able to probably defeat any UN army

13-05-2004, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by iadom

As it says here

If this plonker defends you, the whole world knows you are guilty.

And the "whole world" (sweeping generalisation) "knows he's guilty" (breach of basic human rights) anyway.

So why shouldn't we at least *try* to prove that we're better than him by presuming he's innocent until *proven* guilty and *giving* him a fair trial...?