quote:

Either Israel is the occupying power (ie., occupies the land) - as tweak says. Or it isn't.
If it occupies it - it owns it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Either Israel is the occupying power (ie., occupies the land) - as tweak says. Or it isn't.
If it occupies it - it owns it.

America occupied Iraq. Where is my oil share?[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Either Israel is the occupying power (ie., occupies the land) - as tweak says. Or it isn't.
If it occupies it - it owns it.

America occupied Iraq. Where is my oil share?[8|]

I never got my share either.

Of course, one could say that America also occupied America, depending on how one looks at it.

Sometimes, I think a drastic solution might be needed to resolve the whole issue of Israel, the Palestinians, and the occupied territories. The U.S. could take over the whole territory and draw the boundaries just like they gerrymander voting districts. It could be made into a U.S. colony and enjoy the same status as Guam or Puerto Rico. (I'm obviously being facetious here, but who knows? It might work.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Either Israel is the occupying power (ie., occupies the land) - as tweak says. Or it isn't.
If it occupies it - it owns it.

America occupied Iraq. Where is my oil share?[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Either Israel is the occupying power (ie., occupies the land) - as tweak says. Or it isn't.
If it occupies it - it owns it.

America occupied Iraq. Where is my oil share?[8|]

We americans have often played the rules differently. Bush chose (whether by accident or design) not to put an enduring American ally; O'bama chose to exit the theatre.

We occupied it then. We chose not to occupy it longer.

As for your oil share - that was never realistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Going back to Iran, for a minute

Why is the iran deal a bad idea? Well how about the fact that Iran is spending 600-700 million a month in Syria. Along with Hezbollah, helping to prop up the realm of Assad.

So explain to me how this deal is brilliant. We are spending millions of dollars providing aid to the rebels - and the deal O'Stupid proposed makes it easier for Iran to provide aid to Assad. Like I said. Brilliant.

I do like that the sunni's are pretty much engaged in a full fledged war against the Shia. Schism in the muslim empire - pretty much the only thing that stopped the muslims from conquering the west on two occassions before....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Going back to Iran, for a minute

Why is the iran deal a bad idea? Well how about the fact that Iran is spending 600-700 million a month in Syria. Along with Hezbollah, helping to prop up the realm of Assad.

So explain to me how this deal is brilliant. We are spending millions of dollars providing aid to the rebels - and the deal O'Stupid proposed makes it easier for Iran to provide aid to Assad. Like I said. Brilliant.

I do like that the sunni's are pretty much engaged in a full fledged war against the Shia. Schism in the muslim empire - pretty much the only thing that stopped the muslims from conquering the west on two occassions before....

Laughable stuff...... if it were not so stupid. Islam would not have conquered the West, united or otherwise. As for the fact you like the idea of people killing each other, it hardly comes as a shock after reading your posts on the middle east.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Whatever two times..... It is a nonsensical notion. Enlighten me though, just for a laugh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Whatever two times..... It is a nonsensical notion. Enlighten me though, just for a laugh.

No, I'm perfectly happen to leave it as a statement of your general arguing style. You don't know what two times, which means you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of western history. And yet still argue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Whatever two times..... It is a nonsensical notion. Enlighten me though, just for a laugh.

No, I'm perfectly happen to leave it as a statement of your general arguing style. You don't know what two times, which means you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of western history. And yet still argue.

Typical bullshit reply. Normally posted when asked for specifics after posting a vague claim. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Yet you still wont or more likely cant, back up your bogus claim that Islam could have conquered the west. Posting bullshit without proof, or in your case even a hint at wtf you are on about, is still...... well its still bullshit.

Just for you though brains...... The notion of a divided Islam in conflicts with the west, is new and doesnt bear out historical facts.

Thought for the day, a political divison isnt the same as a religious division. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Well, you are right about one thing.

You're not even close.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I fail to see why he bothers one way or the other. As Phydeaux has made perfectly clear throughout this thread, his position is that might equals right. Once this position is adopted, nothing else matters. So to assess the merits or demerits of Phydeaux's position, one need only consider whether might does equal right.

If you disagree with this claim, then you automatically reject Phydeaux's arguments. So if you believe that international affairs ought to be conducted on the basis of international law, or that there are better ways for States to behave than military aggression, seizing and occupying another people's land, or carrying out ethnic cleansing to rid occupied lands of the indigenous population, then you automatically reject Phydeaux's arguments.