Behind bars at the Hague, do you mean?

The way it’s been PUT INTO PRACTICE is pacifist. I stand by my statement.

How many wars have Maltese soldiers taken part in?

How many Maltese soldiers have ever fired a rifle in anger?

Has the Malta Labour Party pledged to withdraw Malta from PfP, the European Defence Council, and the European Defence Agency?

Answer me, and then you can make your argument. Until then, I am right and you are not just wrong, but totally off track. Words mean bugger all, so you can cut and paste all you like. The facts speak otherwise.

From The Times:

Libya threatens air, sea traffic in case of attack
Libya warned today it could target military and civilian air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean in case of a foreign military intervention, the official Jana news agency reported.

“Any military operation against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean to danger,” Jana quoted Libya’s defence ministry spokesman as saying.

“And any civilian or military moving traffic will be the target of a Libyan counter-offensive,” he said.

“The Mediterranean basin will be exposed to grave danger, not just in the short term but also in the long term.”

Hekk imissu Dr Gonzi, ma jibqax newtrali!

Gonzi jaf x’inhu jaghmel. Ma noqoghdux naghmlulu pressjoni zejda u bla bzonn.

I didn’t get this; do you mean that you sincerely hope that the rebels die fighting rather then surrendering or be slaughtered by Gaddafi’s men or vice versa?

In another words, dear Baxxter, if there is a UN Security Council resolution (a prerequisite Hillary Clinton has insisted on before committing to US intervention), then PM Gonzi can decide – and still abide by the Constitution, in spirit and in letter – to allow Malta to be used for military action against Col Gaddafi.

No pacifism, no nothing of what you have been harping on about.

Baxxter

Read this again:

“b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the Government of Malta, and only in the following cases:

(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or

(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta”

How on Earth can the above be construed as pacifist?

It can be construed as non-aggressive, but certainly not as pacifist.

It is explicitly stated that Government may allow Malta to be used by foreign military powers for:

(1) self-defence

(2) the implementation of UN Security Council decisions

(3) the repulsion of a military threat to Malta.

This is not pacifist. If Malta is attacked or if there is a UN SC decision, the Government may – in its discretion – allow Malta to be used etc etc

So, it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation, but a POLICY decision, whether Government resorted to para (b).

Without para (b), any Maltese Government might decide to make Malta join an alliance. Today, that alliance might be NATO. In the future, with a different Administration, it might be something else.

So stop being shallow.

He should use all his books to light barbecues, next summer.

Watch it, she might point out a mistake.

You people are so exasperating. It is with the pacifist interpretation of that neutrality clause that some of us take issue. The constitution, like all laws, should serve the common good, not straitjacket our policies or provide convenient excuses.

And Evarist Saliba never said that “a lot of nonsense has been put forward in the guise of informed opinion.” You’re putting words into his mouth.

When did I say that they are going to accept to surrender? What I said was that if they do, it will be their end. Don’t you agree?