|
Take a look at my statement, tell me where I said it was OK. The quick answer to that is, I did not. Because it's not OK. What I actually said was, the precedent for such an action was rather set by the invasion of Iraq.
The point being that by marching ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite objections from various countries those involved implicitly opened the door to other countries following suit as long as it's all part of the guise of going after terrorists. Of course it's not OK, but that doesn't mean the precedent wasn't set.
Try actually, you know, reading before you reach for that post button.
|
I get your point. The invasion of Iraq has set a precedent. Please don't be condescending.
All I'm attacking is what you seemed to imply by pulling this out of nowhere in response to Locke's claims. That, basically, Israel shouldn't be called out on the current attacks because there is a precedent, and if anyone is to blame it's the U.S.A. and the U.K. That's shitty logic, because
deciding whose fault it was in the first place isn't going to help stop the killing of civilians in Gaza, whereas international pressure on Israel actually might.
Not to mention the invasion of a sovereign country by another sovereign country (situated on another continent!) under the pretence of overthrowing a dictatorship and removing the WMDs they allegedly own has actually very little in common with the situation at hand, which involves a country and neighbouring territories that share a 60-year history of conflicts and wars.
There's nowhere I can't reach.