Originally posted by Torque
We all sat around while Britian inserted Israel a Jewish state in a Arab dominated part of the world so Britian could protect the Suez canal and it's just newly found oil reservers in the middle-east.
The world is a hypocritical dirty little place.
Find that morale high ground when you can!
Hmm, from what I know, the Brits tried their best to keep Jewish emigrants away from Palestine, fought a nasty little guerilla war with the militant Jews over that. Then they turned it the whole place over to the United Nations, where partition was decided.
Heck during World War II, Britain and the Allies attacked the neutral French fleet, occupied neutral French territory in North Africa, occupied Iraq, deposed the reigning Shah in Persia (Iran), and occupied that country. All to aid the war effort against Hitler. Churchill, as First Sea Lord, was even planning to invade neutral Norway, to cut off German iron ore imports from Sweden when the Baltic froze, when Hitler beat him to that, in part to spoil that very threat from the British. Would the Allies have won without these violations of international law? I would guess so, but I can't be sure. Do these infractions make the Allies as bad or worse than Hitler? Certainly not, in my view. In view of these infractions, would you have been neutral in a war between Hitler and the Allies?
Should Saddam be able to hide behind legality, sovereignty and technicalties when he is the poster boy for the rule of force and fear? I think not, and I think the world will be that much better a place with him out of power. I hope that more of the world's dictators feel a bit insecure, that might modify their behavior a bit for the better. But Saddam is alone in being a charged and convicted aggressor, who was put on parole and repeatedly and seriously flouted the cease-fire conditions. He had never anticipated the conjunction of Bush and Blair, and his pack of tame worms were not able to shield him. Fini. Requiscat in Gehenna.
