Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:48 pm**

2dimes wrote:I just asked my four year old, "Hey buddy, what do you think about that?" and pointed at the Sheyla Hershey picture.

His response, "What the heck? She is Mr. Fat!"

So I think TMZ guy is projecting, little kids have their own perceptions of the world.

Kids are awesome. They say some really funny shit! :lol:

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:52 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:Well, I don't really think it would happen... It's just a hypothetical to make a point. But it would be interesting to see it play out. America has basically occupied that country before, don't think it wouldn't do it again. If anything, America loves to spend its money on making war. (Not that I agree with this, just stating a fact.)

I absolutely agree with you. It was a really good hypothetical because it's interesting and could have so many angles.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:52 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:And since we're getting into hypotheticals here, let's say that Panama decided that the US was not allowed to use their canal anymore. What do you think the response would be?

Let's say China demanded to start sailing guided-missile destroyers in Lake Superior and the U.S. refused to let them do it. Is China justified in bombing New York?

tkr4lf wrote:Perhaps they aren't the perfect size for Sesame Street, perhaps bigger, even massive breasts, I'm talking the kind that could be used as weapons, are in order. I guess the question is, how big of breasts should our young ones be seeing? And does it even matter? I think not.

we need regulation when it comes to weaponized breasts; I'm not advocating breast-control but at least some kind of checks and balances are in order

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:06 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:And since we're getting into hypotheticals here, let's say that Panama decided that the US was not allowed to use their canal anymore. What do you think the response would be?

Let's say China demanded to start sailing guided-missile destroyers in Lake Superior and the U.S. refused to let them do it. Is China justified in bombing New York?

Again, this is a completely different situation. Just like your question of screwing my girlfriend. You are taking major international affairs and trying to equate them with personal or regional affairs. The great lakes are not a major conduit of international traffic. The Suez Canal and Panama Canal are. Further, the US does not "own" the Great Lakes. They are shared by the US and Canada.

So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical, as it actually applies to the situation? Or would you rather be evasive again?

Actually, it's cool. I'll answer my hypothetical for you. If Panama decided to bar US shipping from their canal, the US would be swift in their response. The America I know (and usually disagree with, mind you) would not stand for such an attack on their national interests. Just like Israel did not stand for such an attack on its national interests. For a country to deliberately keep another country from using it's canal, when that canal is a part of major world shipping lanes, is an open declaration of hostility. You cannot be surprised when that country moves to protect its interests. That is the way of the world.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:12 pm**

I think where Uncle Saxi is trying to go here is.

Israel wanted to move heavily armed vessles through the canal. Not too many other groups wanted to do that and because the Suez goes right through Egypt it might be considered bad form by the Egyptians.

A better analogy regarding the girl friend might be, "What if saxi only wants to pass her in a doorway while he's naked. Often he's probably on his way to have sex with your cousins girl friend and probably not your's."

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:16 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:I should clarify. I am not speaking of Israel itself when talking about the lands "stolen" from the Arabs. I am speaking mainly of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Sinai and Gaza, which were taken from Jordan, Syria and Egypt during the Six-Day War of June 1967. Apparently Jordan, Syria and Egypt decided to attack Israel, which defeated the Arab forces in, go figure, 6 days.

The whole creation of Israel violated most legal standards for countries. I mean, a group of religious folks decide they want this territory.. never mind anyone who is there before, never mind any ties except religion... and takes it.

Well, while it was rather unusual, it's not like the Jews simply took it.

In fact, it pretty much was.

tkr4lf wrote: I think the whole thing was largely a response to WW2 and the holocaust.

No, zionism was a force prior to that, but WWII gave the excuse for the west to allow it/encourage it.

tkr4lf wrote:Britian was instrumental in the creation of Israel.

The Balfor declaration is often cited as the "legal" basis, yes.

tkr4lf wrote:And besides, it's not like religion was the sole claim they had to the land, they were the ancient inhabitants of the land, so that could be construed as a legitimate claim. Of course, that claim is sort of based on the Old Testament, but still, not really having to do with religion.

Oh no? IN reality, the Palestiniens were not only descendents of ancient inhabitants, but they continued to reside there. Jews, by contrast, largely fled, adopted cultures from Europe, etc.

tkr4lf wrote:I should also note, that I am rather sympathetic to Israel. Not on any religious grounds or anything like that. My father believes we should support Israel because they are God's chosen people and our brother faith. I say hogwash on that. I am sympathetic to them because they are surrounded by people who want their total destruction, have been in quite a number of wars, and yet have done an admirable job in defending their country and in developing their country. Not to mention, they have like the third best military technology in the world. Granted, much of it comes from the American government, but not all of it. Take the main battle tanks for example. The Americans come in first, with the M1A2 Abrams(if they havent come out with a newer one yet...not sure on that), then the Russians with the T-90, then the Israelis with the Merkava Mk 3. The first two countries make sense, being rather large and powerful nations. But then Israel, a rather small and unimportant country on the world scale, comes in third...it's interesting to say the least.

True, but irrelevant. Who knows what the Palestiniens themselves could have done had they the same help that Israel received. At any rate, while Israel is not going to go away, none of that gives excuse for them to continue, even today, to steal lands that were owned by Palestiniens only 40, even 10 years ago and for which the Palestiniens were never truly paid... and which no Israeli is even considering necessary to pay for.

tkr4lf wrote:Anyway, you do bring up a good point about the previous inhabitants, and I'm not sure that there is a good solution. However, I would say that it only seems fair that the Jewish people should have a homeland of their own. This may not be the fairest solution, but why can't the palestinians go live in the other Arab/Muslim countries? It wouldn't be the perfect solution, but at least then Israel wouldn't have a lot of the problems that it now has, and the Palestinians would be somewhat more content, being surrounded by fellow Muslims and Arabs. Like I said, not a perfect solution, maybe not even a viable one, but just my suggestion. Thoughts?

They have homelands.. many of them. They have homes in whatever nation they reside, where they were born, where often their grandfathers were born, etc.

Why do the Jews have any more right to a "homeland" than any other religious or ethnic group? Why do they have the right to their land, but not the Palestiniens who occupied that land for 2000 years. Israel has a right because Israel chose to irrigate instead of relying on a nomadic lifestyle? Who says that the nomadic lifestyle is inferior? Westerners, yes, but is that truth? It is arrogance.

If Jews have the right to their land, they why isn't the US ceding all of its lands to the Native Americans who have an even more legitimate, more recent claim to these lands. Or, how about South AFrica? The Kurds? ... etc, etc. ,etc. We really ought to turn Hawaii back to the Hawaiin monarchy.

No, these questions only seem "legitimate" when it comes to the jews and Israel. There is no objective sense there, only religion and the fact that 6,000,000 jews were killed .. NOT by Palestiniens, but by Germans. Yet.. no one suggested Germany give up their lands so the Jews could have a nice homeland. It was the Palestinien people, people who had no part in any prior conflict with the Jews (at least for several hundred years), people who simply were not white, who lacked set land titles such as was common in much of Europe, etc. THAT is why Israel exists.

And.. even if it was OK originally, the crime is that instead of stopping and being glad they got their land, tehy insist that they must have more. FURTHER, they insist that any act by Palestiniens to defend themselves means "terrorism". But, Israelis are free to take land, steal it outright or through the courts. They are allowed to build where international courts say they should not with almost no recourse. They make the nation of Israel a fact, no matter any right or wrong of it. And simply push the Palestiniens out, then try to claim "victim" when a few Palestiniens have the "audacity" to complain or fight back.

This is most definitely NOT about religion. It is about greed, ignorance and insanity, but mostly plain old-fashioned greed with religion as the excuse.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:20 pm**

So Player have you joined the facebook group this thread is based on yet?

And would you consider Sheyla to be, "Mr. Fat"?

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:20 pm**

2dimes wrote:I think where Uncle Saxi is trying to go here is.

Israel wanted to move heavily armed vessles through the canal. Not too many other groups wanted to do that and because the Suez goes right through Egypt it might be considered bad form by the Egyptians.

A better analogy regarding the girl friend might be, "What if saxi only wants to pass her in a doorway while he's naked. Often he's probably on his way to have sex with your cousins girl friend and probably not your's."

Regarding your analogy, I would be fine with that, as I would trust my girlfriend. And to use my hypothetical for this situation, the Americans pass war ships and armed military vessels thorugh the Panama Canal all the time, how else are they supposed to transfer ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Yet the Panamanians do not get all upset about it.

I think the reason Egypt was upset about it was simply because it was Israel. If it was another Arab power wanting to move it's warships through the canal, do you honestly believe they would have been denied access?

And while I support Egypt's right to restict passage through their canal, as it is owned by them, I still think they should have at least considered the consequences. But, they may have. They were already massing their troops on the Sinai/Israel border, so perhaps they wanted to go to war. I don't really know, as I was not there.

The thread has gotten somewhat off topic though. Does anybody have any thoughts on the lands conquered by Israel from the Arab nations. Namely, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights?

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:23 pm**

2dimes wrote:So Player have you joined the facebook group this thread is based on yet?

And would you consider Sheyla to be, "Mr. Fat"?

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:28 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:
2dimes wrote:I think where Uncle Saxi is trying to go here is.

Israel wanted to move heavily armed vessles through the canal. Not too many other groups wanted to do that and because the Suez goes right through Egypt it might be considered bad form by the Egyptians.

A better analogy regarding the girl friend might be, "What if saxi only wants to pass her in a doorway while he's naked. Often he's probably on his way to have sex with your cousins girl friend and probably not your's."

Regarding your analogy, I would be fine with that, as I would trust my girlfriend.

Dude, stop.

tkr4lf wrote:And to use my hypothetical for this situation, the Americans pass war ships and armed military vessels thorugh the Panama Canal all the time, how else are they supposed to transfer ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Yet the Panamanians do not get all upset about it.

I think the reason Egypt was upset about it was simply because it was Israel. If it was another Arab power wanting to move it's warships through the canal, do you honestly believe they would have been denied access?

Of course I think that would be a different thing. That would be the difference between Saxi lounging on your sofa naked and your cousin. I would be cranky either way but family gets treated different. Both would be asked to put on some shorts or go outside however, I'm sure my emotions would be stirred slighty more by an aquantance.

tkr4lf wrote:And while I support Egypt's right to restict passage through their canal, as it is owned by them, I still think they should have at least considered the consequences. But, they may have. They were already massing their troops on the Sinai/Israel border, so perhaps they wanted to go to war. I don't really know, as I was not there.

The thread has gotten somewhat off topic though. Does anybody have any thoughts on the lands conquered by Israel from the Arab nations. Namely, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights?

Agreed on the first paragraph. For the most part and this might be cold but the second paragraph is not really my problem.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:35 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical

No, I will - likewise - ignore your hypothetical.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:46 pm**

Player.

Terrorism and anti semitism was around long before israel was made a nation again.

The jews returning to palastine just gave terrorists a new excuse to hate and try and legitimise their killing.

don't use circular reasoning

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:53 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:I should clarify. I am not speaking of Israel itself when talking about the lands "stolen" from the Arabs. I am speaking mainly of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Sinai and Gaza, which were taken from Jordan, Syria and Egypt during the Six-Day War of June 1967. Apparently Jordan, Syria and Egypt decided to attack Israel, which defeated the Arab forces in, go figure, 6 days.

The whole creation of Israel violated most legal standards for countries. I mean, a group of religious folks decide they want this territory.. never mind anyone who is there before, never mind any ties except religion... and takes it.

Well, while it was rather unusual, it's not like the Jews simply took it.

In fact, it pretty much was.
Well, what I was getting at by saying that they didn't take it, is that it was given to them by Britian, who were the legal owners of the land at the time. So in a sense, it was a legal move by the British government.
tkr4lf wrote: I think the whole thing was largely a response to WW2 and the holocaust.

No, zionism was a force prior to that, but WWII gave the excuse for the west to allow it/encourage it.
I agree with you that Zionism was a force before the war, but not that WW2 merely served as an excuse. The Jews had been persecuted long before WW2, pretty much throughout the centuries. WW2, I think, served as the catalyst that made people realize that they needed a land of their own. Because, if not, then the same stuff would continue to happen. At least this way, nobody could do that again without pretty much invading Israel.

tkr4lf wrote:Britian was instrumental in the creation of Israel.

The Balfor declaration is often cited as the "legal" basis, yes.
We are in agreement here.

tkr4lf wrote:And besides, it's not like religion was the sole claim they had to the land, they were the ancient inhabitants of the land, so that could be construed as a legitimate claim. Of course, that claim is sort of based on the Old Testament, but still, not really having to do with religion.

Oh no? IN reality, the Palestiniens were not only descendents of ancient inhabitants, but they continued to reside there. Jews, by contrast, largely fled, adopted cultures from Europe, etc.
While the Palestinians may be ancient inhabitants, so were the Jewish people. And if we go by the Old Testament, then they were probably there much earlier than the Palestinians. Granted, the palestinians did stay there, so you are right, they do have a claim to the land. However, as said before, the British were the legal owners of the land, and they basically gave it to the Jews. Therefore, it should be a done deal. However, it seems that the Palestinians will not accept it. While I do not know why the Jews largely fled, as you correctly say, but I do know that they were rarely treated well where they did go, Moorish Spain being a glaring exception. So, I think it is important for them to have a homeland where they can be at least somewhat homogenous.

tkr4lf wrote:I should also note, that I am rather sympathetic to Israel. Not on any religious grounds or anything like that. My father believes we should support Israel because they are God's chosen people and our brother faith. I say hogwash on that. I am sympathetic to them because they are surrounded by people who want their total destruction, have been in quite a number of wars, and yet have done an admirable job in defending their country and in developing their country. Not to mention, they have like the third best military technology in the world. Granted, much of it comes from the American government, but not all of it. Take the main battle tanks for example. The Americans come in first, with the M1A2 Abrams(if they havent come out with a newer one yet...not sure on that), then the Russians with the T-90, then the Israelis with the Merkava Mk 3. The first two countries make sense, being rather large and powerful nations. But then Israel, a rather small and unimportant country on the world scale, comes in third...it's interesting to say the least.

True, but irrelevant. Who knows what the Palestiniens themselves could have done had they the same help that Israel received. At any rate, while Israel is not going to go away, none of that gives excuse for them to continue, even today, to steal lands that were owned by Palestiniens only 40, even 10 years ago and for which the Palestiniens were never truly paid... and which no Israeli is even considering necessary to pay for.
But I don't see how they "stole" these lands. That was actually a central premise of my OP. These lands were legitimately taken in a war. That's like saying that the United States stole the southwest from Mexico. No, Mexico and America went to war, and by the terms of the treaty, Mexico ceeded those lands to America. That is how wars work. Oftentimes, the winner will get new lands. And it just so happens that Israel is far superior than her Arab neighbors when it comes to military operations.

tkr4lf wrote:Anyway, you do bring up a good point about the previous inhabitants, and I'm not sure that there is a good solution. However, I would say that it only seems fair that the Jewish people should have a homeland of their own. This may not be the fairest solution, but why can't the palestinians go live in the other Arab/Muslim countries? It wouldn't be the perfect solution, but at least then Israel wouldn't have a lot of the problems that it now has, and the Palestinians would be somewhat more content, being surrounded by fellow Muslims and Arabs. Like I said, not a perfect solution, maybe not even a viable one, but just my suggestion. Thoughts?

They have homelands.. many of them. They have homes in whatever nation they reside, where they were born, where often their grandfathers were born, etc.
But my argument is still that those are not their homelands. The Jews are not just a religious group, but an ethnic one. Granted they have split off and created many different ethnic lines now, but originally they were one ethnic group. Therefore, I think they should have a homeland.

Why do the Jews have any more right to a "homeland" than any other religious or ethnic group? Why do they have the right to their land, but not the Palestiniens who occupied that land for 2000 years. Israel has a right because Israel chose to irrigate instead of relying on a nomadic lifestyle? Who says that the nomadic lifestyle is inferior? Westerners, yes, but is that truth? It is arrogance.
Well, I'm not arguing that just because they irrigated means they have more a right. In fact, I don't see agriculture being superior to the nomadic lifestyle. I am heavily influenced by Daniel Quinn's books Ishmael, The Story of B, and My Ishmael. You shoudl check those out if you haven't already. But, to get back on topic, I don't think they have "more" or a right to the land than the Palestinians. It is a tricky situation. Perhaps, since the British did give the land to the Jews though, then they should be the ones to "legally" own it and administer it as they see fit.
If Jews have the right to their land, they why isn't the US ceding all of its lands to the Native Americans who have an even more legitimate, more recent claim to these lands. Or, how about South AFrica? The Kurds? ... etc, etc. ,etc. We really ought to turn Hawaii back to the Hawaiin monarchy.
Well, I guess because the American Indians haven't made any sort of organized effort the way the Jews have. There hasn't really been an Indian equivalent of the Zionist movement. And as far as Hawaii goes, they are a US state now. I highly doubt the inhabitants would want to go back to the way things were that long ago. The Kurds, I completely agree with you on that matter. They should have a homeland of their own, istead of being governed by a largely Arab country. And I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with South Africa. I know they have had their problems, what with apartheid and all that, but it seems to be doing fairly decent as far as African standards are. At least their are now black leaders, instead of white leaders. Again, I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at, or something else. My South African knowledge is sorely lacking, though.
No, these questions only seem "legitimate" when it comes to the jews and Israel. There is no objective sense there, only religion and the fact that 6,000,000 jews were killed .. NOT by Palestiniens, but by Germans. Yet.. no one suggested Germany give up their lands so the Jews could have a nice homeland. It was the Palestinien people, people who had no part in any prior conflict with the Jews (at least for several hundred years), people who simply were not white, who lacked set land titles such as was common in much of Europe, etc. THAT is why Israel exists.
But I think the reason no one suggested Germany give up their lands is because the Jews weren't orignally from Germany. They were originally from Palestine. So it kind of makes sense that they be allowed to go back there. And I guess one reason it does not bother me so much about the Palestinians, but it does about the Jews, is because there are no predominately Jewish countries, apart form Israel. However, there are many predominately Arab/Muslim countries. I know that is not the best reason, but it is what it is.

And.. even if it was OK originally, the crime is that instead of stopping and being glad they got their land, tehy insist that they must have more. FURTHER, they insist that any act by Palestiniens to defend themselves means "terrorism". But, Israelis are free to take land, steal it outright or through the courts. They are allowed to build where international courts say they should not with almost no recourse. They make the nation of Israel a fact, no matter any right or wrong of it. And simply push the Palestiniens out, then try to claim "victim" when a few Palestiniens have the "audacity" to complain or fight back.
While I do think they take the "terrorist" thing too far, there are many acts by Palestinians that are no doubt terroristic in nature. Blowing stuff up, or suicide bombing, is most definitely terrorist activity, especially when undertaken by civilians. And, again, I don't see how they are insisting that they must have more. It is their country. So they have a right to set up new Jewish settlements where they wish, even if it is in the Gaza strip, where the Palestinians dominate. Just because the UN or International Courts tells them they shouldn't says otherwise, that doesn't mean it is binding. Would the US government bow to UN demands to do something they dont want to? Hell no they wouldn't. International courts only hold so much weight. A country must first agree to be bound by their decisions. I do not know if Israel has signed such an agreement or not. The whole International Court thing does not sit well with me, but that is a whole different topic meant for a whole different thread.

This is most definitely NOT about religion. It is about greed, ignorance and insanity, but mostly plain old-fashioned greed with religion as the excuse.

I agree with you that is is NOT about religion, but not that it is about greed, ignorance and insanity. I see it as being about giving a group of people a homeland they deserve. And while it has definitely caused problems, I think it is still worth it. Just my opinion though. By the way, I'm enjoyin this. You are a good adversary in this debate, and I thank you for sharing your ideas and for continuing this with me.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:56 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical

No, I will - likewise - ignore your hypothetical.

Well, that is your right. But I ignored your hypothetical because it was not relevant to the situation, however, as others have stated, mine was. If you would rather give up then continue the conversation, that is your choice. That just reflects badly on you, in my opinion. Either way, thanks for the contribution to the thread.

Edit: Oh, by the way, I didn't completely ignore your hypothetical, I did at least tell you why it didn't apply to this situation. But, oh well.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:00 pm**

tk you need to replace [b] with

Code: Select all

[quote="tkr4fl"][/quote] or [quote="me][/qouote]

or something. The bold is a good concept but it doesn't seem to work great on my computer.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:04 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical

No, I will - likewise - ignore your hypothetical.

Well, that is your right. But I ignored your hypothetical because it was not relevant to the situation

me too

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:05 pm**

For some reason bold isn't working all that great on my computers either.

I reccomend using a different color as opposed to going bold.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:09 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical

No, I will - likewise - ignore your hypothetical.

Well, that is your right. But I ignored your hypothetical because it was not relevant to the situation

me too

How was my hypothetical situation not relevant? The original topic was the Suez Canal and Egypt restricting Israel's passage. You came back with what if you wanted to screw my girlfriend, and I said no, and you stabbed me. Not a good hypothetical because that is a personal matter, not a major world affairs matter. Then I came up with a very similar situation, in hypothetical, of panama denying use of its canal to america. Then you came up with China wanting to use the Great Lakes. Again, this does not relate to the others because of it being a regional thing. The Great Lakes are not used for major world shipping like the two canals are. So you cannot equate either of your hypotheticals with the original topic. However, mine directly equates to the original topic, as they are essentially about the same thing, just different countries and different canals. So again, how exactly is my hypothetical irrelevent? And I believe I've sufficiently shown why your's are irrelevent.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:10 pm**

Don't use [/qouote] that's a misspell and won't work.

I didn't even see the flesh-coloured mesh until the new Yahoo article said TMZ pointed it out.

I found the way the suez canal changed hands in 1875 and then 1882 interesting. I think the US&A are potentially in danger of China pulling a couple of moves like that.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:10 pm**

tzor wrote:For some reason bold isn't working all that great on my computers either.

I reccomend using a different color as opposed to going bold.

Yes, that seems it will work much better. Sorry bout that guys. I'm still getting used to the system here. Next time I will use a color. Maybe hot pink so it really jumps out at ya :lol:

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:13 pm**

Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while. I should be back on sometime after 7pm, and look forward to the conversations. Have fun while I'm gone!!

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:15 pm**

Aight.

I think you might be right about the "Great Lakes" what about if he used the "Saint Lawrence Seaway"?

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:40 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical

No, I will - likewise - ignore your hypothetical.

Well, that is your right. But I ignored your hypothetical because it was not relevant to the situation

me too

How was my hypothetical situation not relevant? The original topic was the Suez Canal and Egypt restricting Israel's passage. You came back with what if you wanted to screw my girlfriend, and I said no, and you stabbed me. Not a good hypothetical because that is a personal matter, not a major world affairs matter. Then I came up with a very similar situation, in hypothetical, of panama denying use of its canal to america. Then you came up with China wanting to use the Great Lakes. Again, this does not relate to the others because of it being a regional thing. The Great Lakes are not used for major world shipping like the two canals are. So you cannot equate either of your hypotheticals with the original topic. However, mine directly equates to the original topic, as they are essentially about the same thing, just different countries and different canals. So again, how exactly is my hypothetical irrelevent? And I believe I've sufficiently shown why your's are irrelevent.

'k, got it. So there's not much international trade happening in the Great Lakes.

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:42 pm**

tkr4lf wrote:Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while.

What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Gang, SRSLY, why does The Club attract Physics majors in such droves?

Posted: **Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:44 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while.

What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Gang, SRSLY, why does The Club attract Physics majors in such droves?

because the have time to waste on the computer?

Conquer Club

Israel??

Re:

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re:

Re:

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

bolding your answers

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??

Re: Israel??