>>Guest282RA do not put words into my mouth or have the bloody nerve to tell me what I mean,<<

Or what? You're gonna get really really mad? I'll do what I like and if you don't like it, I guess you can...oh, I don't know...jump in a lake?

>>especially if you cannot be bothered to read the text you seem to so bloody keen to argue about.<<

Because you're so bloody keen to respond. You don't really think I give two shits what you think about anything, do you? You're someone who has to be right about every single thing and that is somebody that is NEVER to be taken seriously.

>>Very simple rule in life if you believe in equality - "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the Gander". The question I asked before if the justification for Clinton to attack Iraq on a number of occasions was UNSC 687 and there was no uproar about it, why all of a sudden did Bush need a special dispensation in 2003 when exactly the same reason was invoked backed up by 1441 "Iraq's Last Chance".<<

Once again, you are not answering the question and continuing to place the blame on Clinton.

You know how to avoid that, Teribus? YOU QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR WHAT BUSH DOES!!! And how do you do that? By not even mentioning Clinton at all. This has NOTHING to do with Clinton. If you can't defend Bush's actions without resorting to hiding behind Clinton, then you don't have a case. Now wasn't that easy?

>>By the bye Guest282RA if you do not believe in Law based on precedent, then whatever law you do believe in is subjective and worthless.<<

And another thing, when you're getting your ass handed to you in an argument, DON'T try to change the subject. Now ANSWER THE QUESTION or admit defeat. (This will be good!)