Greek Court rejects gaming ban

[-Aragorn]

How is Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction a big "if"? Their building towards it, their not sending inspectors back home, etc.



Really all you need today to build an atomic bomb is money.



Also, don't you think Bush knows what is up to stake? I don't think he'd do this just to "flex his war muscle".



And why would the French and Russians be so afraid of us all of a sudden now? Haven't they not supported us in other things before?



Finally - support is support. Those three first world countries say they are with us. Does there need to be reasons behind that? Especially reasons you don't really know is true or not.

And those three nations aren't the only ones supporting the U.S. at the moment - but they are the major players in the world.

Lastly - does it matter at all if the world supports us? The U.S. sees a threat. When you pay a government to look after you, I would expect them to look me, and THEN the rest of the world.



This hold's true with every other nation in the world. Why should the U.S. be different?



It would just be a lot better for us if we have support - of which we currently do.

[Ghengis]

mouth wrote..

"Greater hatred and resentment" from arabs and muslims? Yeah, thanks. We've already hit the ceiling on irrational, fanatic towelhead "GRRR, WHITE DEVIL! Hey, HEY, COVER THAT SLUT'S HEAD MORE!" resentment.



YAY FOR EVERYONE. MORE ARMCHAIR POLITICAL ANALYSYS PLEASE.

See that kind of 'towel head remark' just demonstrates a serious lack of understanding. For such an advanced nation, eveyone there seems to be super keen on maintaining theoir original identities, Hispanic Americans, African Americans Chionese Americans, why not just Americans???? Devisive nationalism, is no good, when are you gonna arrive in the 21st century and realise it si a WORLD out there with different shapes sizes colours and creeds, all just as valid as another, Would you like it if Germany was a big super power and started bombing your crummy asses cos they didnt like your shit? nNo, and neither does anyone else. Leavee alone what you patently dont understand, and dont criticise what you dont know. Islam, pushed womens rights to the forefront long before any crappy amendments to your flawed constitution. Christianity Judaism and Islam are all Extremely similar and preach tolerance, peace and harmony for all. shame there are no truly religious people involved in any of this fighting. But all assholes will get their due come the day of Judgement, Inshallah. (And Many christians, and Jews and nonbelivers will go to heaven for their good deeds, and the pious will burn for their bad ones... PEace

[evil_sheep]

Edited by [user="2040"] @ [time="1032080245"]

Aragorn - How is Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction a big "if"? Their building towards it, their not sending inspectors back home, etc.

That is evidence? You would never prove a case in court like that. Maybe that's why the US has decided to ignore rulings made by the International Court of Justice (the only other country to do so was Iran.) Point is, making war on a country is not something to be taken lightly on seemingly highly circumstantial evidence.

Really all you need today to build an atomic bomb is money.

We should all be glad that it really isn't that easy.

And why would the French and Russians be so afraid of us all of a sudden now? Haven't they not supported us in other things before?

Yes, the French and Russians have supported the US in many other things. So what? France and Russia aren't really "afraid" of the US, it's more like they want to support the US to make themselves look good so they can further their own agenda.

Finally - support is support. Those three first world countries say they are with us. Does there need to be reasons behind that? Especially reasons you don't really know is true or not.

No, the reasons I've given aren't necessarily true, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out their obvious intent. Luckily George Dubya is no genius.

And those three nations aren't the only ones supporting the U.S. at the moment - but they are the major players in the world.

Actually, as far as I know, Britain and France are the only nations in the world to have supported the US' Iraq policy so far. Russia is officially neutral. Most other countries seem at best ambivalent about the US' foreign policy.

Lastly - does it matter at all if the world supports us? The U.S. sees a threat.

Does it matter if the world supports the US? Think of it this way...190 or so countries think one way and 3 countries think the other way... Why haven't any of these other countries seen this "threat" that seems so imminent to the US? Oh yeah, obviously the rest of the world is insane and ignorant and the US is always right... Right...



Here is an excerpt from an article concerning the United Nations' view on the matter:

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations and U.S. President George W. Bush were headed for a showdown today after top UN officials made it clear the United States could not invade Iraq on its own without violating international law and alienating the world's governments.



Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Canadian Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the world body, said the UN Security Council, not Washington, must decide if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is a threat to other countries and the world.



"There is a strong desire of members of this organization that whatever the United States and other countries feel must be done about Iraq, it [should] be taken up by the Security Council," Ms. Frechette said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.



Mr. Bush, who is scheduled to address the General Assembly this morning, has said "regime change" in Iraq is the best guarantee that Mr. Hussein will not secretly develop weapons of mass destruction or make such weapons available to terrorists.



But, so far, he has failed to convince other countries or the UN leadership of the need to topple the Iraqi leader.



Only Britain has said it would join a U.S. attack on Baghdad. Yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Blair succumbed to all-party pressure and agreed to an emergency recall of the Parliament to debate the Iraq crisis on Sept. 24.



Mr. Annan and Ms. Frechette, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN, urged Mr. Bush to avoid the temptation of unilateral action.



"In matters of threats against peace and security the [Security] Council has the power to determine what is the course to be followed. It could decide to modify or expand [current Iraq resolutions requiring weapons inspections]. Whether that would include regime change, I don't know. That's pure speculation," Ms. Frechette said.



In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., Mr. Annan said it is important that any possible action against Iraq be multilateral, which also means sanctioned by the Security Council, not least because any military action would have an enormous impact on other countries.



"I think if one does it unilaterally, or with one or two countries, we don't know what happens at the end, the unexpected consequences of this conflict. Would Iraq remain intact? What happens in the region? How do we pick up the pieces? Who does it? All these issues are very critical that one should bear in mind," Mr. Annan said.

Here is a speech that Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the UN wrote regarding multilateralism in Iraq:

The terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, were not an isolated event. They were an extreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained and global response.



Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite against it. Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, or overnight. And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.



I believe that such a response can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions. I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad.



Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression. They recognized that international security is not a zero-sum game. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one state has, the more its neighbours are likely to have. And they recognized that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.



If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today? Individual states may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and co-operation among all states, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.



Any state, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.



Member states attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law. They have shown -- notably in the action to liberate Kuwait, 12 years ago -- that they are willing to take actions under the authority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing to take without it.



The existence of an effective international security system depends on the council's authority -- and therefore on the council having the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive at the outset.



Let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadership and effective action are badly needed.



First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of us have recently been struggling to reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs. But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the wider political context.



The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement is well known: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders. Both parties accept this vision. But we can reach it only if we move rapidly and in parallel on all fronts.



Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the charter.



I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, including the need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. Efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the council's resolutions must continue.



I appeal to all who have influence with Iraq's leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is the indispensable first step toward assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and -- let me stress -- toward the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so many hardships for the Iraqi people.



I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations -- for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.



Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the international community, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan. It was the international community's shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for al-Qaeda.



Today, the government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country. And donors must follow through on their commitments to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction and development.



Finally, in South Asia, the world has recently come closer than for many years past to a direct conflict between two nuclear weapon-capable countries. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remains perilous.



Let me remind you of your pledge two years ago, at the millennium summit, to make the United Nations a more effective instrument in the service of the world's peoples. Let us all recognize, from now on in each capital, in every nation, large and small, that the global interest is our national interest.

The first article came from this Friday, since then, the US has shifted its position a bit and endorsed the fact that it must respect the authority of the UN and that only a UN-sanctioned force can invade Iraq. However, this doesn't lessen the point that the US can not act on global issues without respecting global interests.

When you pay a government to look after you, I would expect them to look [after] me, and THEN the rest of the world.

It's more like the US doesn't give a shit about most other nations in the world. What you've said there is one of the main reasons that US foreign policy is so destructive and the US is hated in so many parts of the world. It almost seems counter-productive when you factor in all the money spent on anti-terrorism, border control, spying, surveillance, the military, etc, not to mention the loss of privacy and freedoms of American citizens. Almost.

[Ghengis]

amen RIGHT ON, AND WELL PUT.

[tinyAlgae]

HTH was online gaming related to gambling??? These government law-makers must be really ignorant enough to lump



anything they dun understand together. Gambling---> Online Gambling---> Online Gaming(?) so online gaming = gambling??? It's



sad to see how our leaders today assume things so blindly...

It's because they're always the ones to sell out for money. Stupidity or ignorance has nothing to do with it. This law was passed to ban gaming in public and private places, because alot of teen money was circulating at small privately owned net.cafes instead at the huge gambling establishment at the outskirts of the city the Hyatt Regency Casino. They are getting shaky profits lately, considering that a good part of their clientele are either economically ruined, in jail for debts, or committed suicide, so the new addicts were to be found only a couple of kilometers in downtown Thessaloniki for the taking. But to get the gamers, you have to bust the net.cafes. That's their logic behind the game ban at public places. But it's still not good enough. They have to frustrate the gamers by scaring them into believing that if you get caught in private gaming you're in for serious trouble.



Unfortunately, the sh*t is still fresh, and considering that the same party is in power for over 20 years they have a rich history of bad laws. Back in the early 80's the minister of press and communication Maroudas (dead now), managed to propose one of the most technophobic law drafts ever in global history. The draft required that every owner of an PC had to present themselves to their local police station and sign a paper stating their name, home address etc. This was laughed out of parliament back then, but today it shows that these same ppl are mindset at doing their heart's desires with the aid and sponsor of Hyatt. What the court at Thessaloniki did by creating a pro game precedence by declaring the law unconstitutional will not rend the law unusable or unenforceable by the police. It will only give the gvt. the motive and the chance to revise it (as planned) by adding a paragraph or two that will require licenses and criteria to be met by those who want to operate PCs with games in their shops. And guess who could meet the tough criteria (like lighting fixtures, anatomically correct chairs for the users, temperature and humidity requirements and so forth) and get a license. Big gambling establishments across the country. Everything will be legal there: gambling and gaming.



And we who live here will watch this happen step by step and there would be nothing we could do about it, unless we get up and go to vote at the local elections in November AND START LOVING LIBERTY MORE THAN LEISURE

[-Aragorn]

Alright, last post.



You can't really believe George Bush is completely stupid. So what if he can't pronounce a few words? That truely doesn't relate to his intelligence. I think he's doing a better job than Al Gore would. Especially since Al Gore smoked marajuana back in his younger days.



And building an atomic bomb truely does only require money. Go read up about it.

[cooltc2004]

Props to the guy. Its nice.

[Bokuho]

Nothing wrong with this model at all. Nothing. Great modelling with no flaws (nice to see the ejection port, and 1.6 arms, yay!), great skin with no flaws, just a simple great model. I've never found a TMP that's better then this model in one of it's various forms (well, I did find a better model once, one of my own creations, but I only kept that for two weeks then switched back), one of the skins of this model has always been in my models folder. Quality replacement for a quality gun.



Go forth and spray (and miss everything, run out of bullets, swear loudly, then get headshot by some T with a Deagle on the other side of the map).

[ginge]

Meh ... its ok but im not a TMP person

8/10

<Gingeh^>

[Mr. T]

I like Galen's old TMP but there is a bit he didn't skin...

[perrypan]

Wow..it looks so nice with CZ arms....Good job! I fall in love in weapons with CZ arms...Ha~

[cartmandude101]

looks terrible! and cz arms do suck

[Gizmus(Silent)]

tooooo gray, but props for CZ arms... me wont use cus im using Frenchy TMP w/ out silencer = god



<3



-Giz

[Polishnerd]

Nice skin, thumbs up for CS 1.6 arms and CZ arms.

[Kenshin]

hey cartmandude, you can use regular cs1.6 arms...



This is the best tmp replacement I've ever seen (as far as cs1.6 replacements go). I love how there actually is an idle animation, and the skin is actually something nice to look at.



My only problem with it is that it doesn't have the detail that all of the m4s and ak-47s get. (prejudice freaks ^_^)



Having the option to either have cs1.6 arms and cz arms is great, and I think that it should be an option for every replacement.



Great tmp, IMO best tmp replacement here.