You are looking in the wrong place, a claim of ilegality requires a legal judgement not opinions. Well I am seeing you smear the troops, thats 1.
Govered by common sense? ha! how about speaking in non-gibberish whatever "get in the bowl" means, are you talking to a box of alpen and commanding it?
Blair was not exonerated true but thats not the proof of the illegal war is it? We are looking for a legal judgement or a retraction and apology for insulting the armed forces and potentially increasing the risk we all face
So you dont care about smearing troops as war criminals or bigging up...
christ you are a slippery *******, its not a direct comparison but an example of a legal judgement in the case of the SS, and the lack of in your argument.. You have accused our forces of a crime, involvement in an illegal war.
You are not paying attention, I dont want a illegal argument to...
Well yes and yes. You are free to insult are troops. Put it another way. They risk their lives so you are free and sfae to sit on your back side and insult them so what does that make you?
I didn't say troops were immune chump, Im just say call it as it is.
Oh please dont try reposting the same rubbish with a bit more of a twist on it and hope you will get away with it. Neither Donkeys or retards are aware, everyone else is offence by proxy and meaningless.
Put it another way. What you are saying is that you can insult me without my consent in a...
A retard also wouldn't be offended by the term but nice try in switching the point from lobbing abuse to whos is valid according to your selective and questionable criteria.
You really dont know much about history do you? Nuremburg set the standard for "I was only obeying orders" as being no...
Whereas calling someone a donkey is OK? I bet you quickly scrambled about on google looking for a couple of links to back up your ego and didn't even bother reading them properly. You do know you are accusing British Troops of being War Criminals or doesn't that figure in your posturing?
Are you retarded or just plain stupid? His top legal advisor warned him (opinion) it would be illeagal then changed his mind, thats the order, how difficult is it for you to follow a chain of events rather than cherry picking according to your prejudices?
The first link is a politicians OPINION, the second one was a a provisional legal OPINION which he changed to that Lord Goldsmith presented Mr Blair with formal legal advice that a ''reasonable case'' could be made for launching an attack without further UN backing.
Its in the second link you...