Quote:
Originally posted by soldierdog
I will say this, when a country surrenders and signs the terms and conditions of the surrender and doesn't follow them, they are still at war. The U.N. failed to enforce this, they were asked to enforce the resolutions they implemented and said no. That is the point at which the U.N. was becoming irrelevant and that is another argument.
|
So?
If the UN is irrelevant, then why does Bush keep begging them for help and asking them to get involved in Iraq? Shut them down and create a new organisation that will follow rules set by the US. And we'll see what happens when US allies don't follow the rules 
Quote:
|
The occupation of Palestein is a factual argument up for debate since the real Palestein was Jordan I believe and that Jews were also called Palestinians. In this context there was no occupation and the right of return means the end of Israel simply by numbers alone. There is no way Israel is giving up its country, end of story, so suicide killers are just that, killers.
|
No they just came and occupied a country that's not theirs.
Quote:
|
I have to flat out say your crazy to think that all countries should have Nukes, you really think Saddam should have had a Nuke. You really think a guy that gassed the Kurds in the way he did should have a Nuke, mass graves, rape rooms and torcher. Those are talking points but they are also facts. You think Mugabi should have a Nuke. That really isn't a sane comment.
|
Look at Pakistan and India. They stopped fighting the moment they got those nukes.
No, Saddam is a special case. He refused to use his nukes in the face of a certain invasion, maybe he should be up for a nobel prize