Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
Saddam wasn't giving up any of the land in Kuwait when he invaded - were Kuwait's supposed to just give up? After all, they had no hope of achieving freedom by themselves.
What is different about the two occupations? NOTHING - so this must mean that you were not in support of the international community kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. correct?
Oh and another thing - those generalisation about europeans amounts to country-baiting. Please clarify the statement or apologise.
|
Are you not up to snuff today, skunk. This Kuwaiti argument is waaay out there -- you may as well argue kumkwats against me. The differences are: (1) Saddam was in Kuwait for all of, what, a few months, and (2) Saddam didn't have the might to resist being kicked out. Israel, on the other hand, has the capacity to do whatever the hell it pleases in the region, and has been on the land in some places for 40 years. Oh, and the whole world don't see it as enough of an issue to build a coalition and send troops to kick him out.
As for an apology about country-bashing, you started it. So stick it. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.