Palestenian-Israeli Conflict

Iraq was attacked because they failed to account for large amounts of weapons of mass destruction as they were obliged to do by the UN, as part of the terms of the ceasefire in Gulf War I. The whole decade-long pattern of non-cooperation (and aggression) was a breach of the terms of the original ceasefire. As far as I'm concerned there was no need for further justification for re-invasion than that. If Saddam wanted to avoid a continuation of Gulf War I, he simply could have cooperated. Unfortunately he preferred to play a game of brinkmanship with the West and counted on the French Veto of any new UN resolutions to save him from military action.






Don't you think Saddam bears more responsibility for Iraqi deaths than George Bush?





I'd love to see some evidence that the projects haven't simply gone to the best bidder, and how much money Bush is making from Iraqi oil.






Why don't you let people who MIGHT be affected by that worry about it i.e. American voters. If use of the Patriot act turns out to be unconstitutional a court can throw it out.



So none of these countries count then?

Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #

Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary

Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga    

North America:
United States of America

South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras    ANZ:
Australia

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola




That's a nebulous statement if ever I've seen one. Allied strategy was to end the war as quickly as possible.



Well fortunately for all of us, you're not the one who gets to decide that.
 
The point was his obligation to the UN was to demonstrate that he had no more WMDs. He could simply have done that instead of playing games with the UN inspectors for 12 years.

It is obvious that Saddam never expected the US to get military action past a French veto, and that he could thought he could go on playing his face-saving games forever.
 
neither can you blame the Palestinians for everything, if the Israeli's withdraw from all occupied territories there will be peace.





chemical yes, but i cant be bothered to find the evidence at this moment, nuclear yes depleted uranium the ill affects of which will be felt for hundreds of thousands of years by the Iraqi's.
 
You seem to use the same argument for everything. It kind of goes.

OP) The US have done something really bad
you) well this group of arabs also did something really bad, so they are terrorists.

You can either apply your standards consistently and condemn them all as terrorists (my favoured option) or see them all as legitimate combatants in a war. Two wrongs don't cancel each other out.
 
So, the director for the Nightmare on Elm Street movies is a terrorist? How about we use the standard definition instead. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
 
As bizzare as it may seem, there are rules for the conduct of war. One of which is combattants wearing uniforms to identify them as combattants.
 
It's simple. Which side ideologically you are on justifies it. If you don't like the war in Iraq, then obviously it must be far more justifiable to intentionally kill civilians on purpose than to kill civilians that you didn't do on purpose.
 
In other words, empty accusation



The only danger of DU weapons comes from either fragments or aerosol entering the body, both are caused by being in a targeted vehicule.
 
I'd still like to establish what you mean by "occupied territories"

Are you referring to the 1967 boundaries? The Partition? It's a shame that Israel's neighbours couldn't have accepted those boundaries in the first place or we would have had peace a long time ago.
 
I don't blame the Palestinans for everything I blame the PLO and Hamas.
Dpeleted Uranium is not a nuclear weapons. If the US used a nuclear weapons the people who suffered would be dead.
 
You clarified earlier in this thread that you were talking about the 1947 date for occuppied lands. Is that what you are referring to here also? If so, you are really stating that the Palestinians will cease their killing when they get their way and there is no more Israel.



I would like some type of proof of either of those. I am calling bogus on that.
 
Palestinans have the opportunity for Peace at any point, it just means recognizing Israel which they are unwilling to do.
 
its radioactive its hazadous to human health the ill affects are horific and has a half life of some 4.4 billions years.

i class that as a nuclear weapon
 
white phosphorous was used by USA during masacre in Fallujah, as for the nuclear weapons used depleted uranium
 
what you class as a nuclear weapon does not fit the objective scientific definition. It isn't a nuclear explosion. No nuclear explosions have taken place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

radioactive waste is what your talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
 
The definition doesn't really alter the reality of the post, as depleted Uranium is still highly toxic
 
actually it does. You see a nuclear explosion wipes out entire cities. Depeleted Uranium marginally effects a small area
 
Back
Top