Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phunkie
You can't be so blind that you can't see there are two sides in the conflict.
|
I do understand two sides to the conflict. And I understand that Israel was attacked first and successfully defended herself against a coalition of Arab states that wanted her wiped off the map. When the dust settled, those Arab states lost a significant amount of land. Israel didn't start that war and they didn't want it. The Muslims gambled and lost. They should stop acting like children who lost a game and now want to change the rules. Perhaps if they did something to stop the suicide bombers then Israel would be more amenable to giving back some land.
Quote:
|
Interesting view you have on the US "free Iraq" -campaign (guess they're not that free after all...). So now that the US own Iraq they can do whatever they want with it as long as they want, e.g. take the oil and then leave when there's nothing more to be gained from the country?
|
Look, I didn't make the rules, I'm just explaining them. Israel has more right to keep the land they won in battle than the US does; Israel didn't invade anybody - she was just defending herself. Still, to the victor go the spoils of war. We could debate the validity of the war ad infinitum but that wouldn't change the fact that the US is the one on the ground with the big guns and has the overwhelming ability to control the destiny of Iraq through force if need be.
If you want to start talking about giving land back to Palestine because it wasn't Israel's to begin with then you're neglecting that it didn't belong to the Allies to give to the Palestinians OR Israel in '45.
Quote:
|
If something won by war is righteously the winner's property as you say, then wouldn't Kuwait have been the legal property of Iraq and Saddam back in the days? Why did the rest of the world have to meddle with the issue?
|
It was his for a while. Then a bigger group of barbarians came along and kicked him out.