Is guerrilla style code for "killing a bunch of people in their sleep on Christmas"?O-Trap;660489 wrote:Given the guerrilla style of combat we were using ... compared to their old-order form.
Who owns the Suez Canal?Con_Alma;660650 wrote:This is of critical international importance.
I've thought about that before.I Wear Pants;660653 wrote:Is guerrilla style code for "killing a bunch of people in their sleep on Christmas"?
I'm not trying to poo-poo on the US or anything because our founders and those who fought for us were definitely fighting the good fight. I just think it's odd that one of our more celebrated military maneuvers would be seen as a horrible atrocity and proof that our enemy is evil today.
Egyptian government.O-Trap;660661 wrote:Who owns the Suez Canal?
To be honest I don't know nor have I thought about ownership definition. It's usage is very important, however...which was the emphasis of my comment.O-Trap;660661 wrote:Who owns the Suez Canal?
...
If this is true, ultimately, it is up to them to use it as they wish.majorspark;660665 wrote:Egyptian government.
Con_Alma;660666 wrote:To be honest I don't know nor have I thought about ownership definition. It's usage is very important, however...which was the emphasis of my comment.
O-Trap;660685 wrote:...
To be certain. It should be taken into account, and weighted heavily, when we engage Egypt holistically. I was just getting some clarity to be certain that we shouldn't treat it as though we own it if we indeed do not.
Not to my knowledge. My prying was merely for clarity's sake.Con_Alma;660693 wrote:Has anyone given any indication that someone owns it other than the owners themselves?
Agreed, whole-heartedly.Con_Alma;660693 wrote:It's usage and impact is very important internationally. I couldn't imagine a government, especially a U.S. government not taking into consideration who owns it when making any decisions in the region.
Gottcha.O-Trap;660695 wrote:Not to my knowledge. My prying was merely for clarity's sake.
...
No one indicated that anyone owned it other than the owners but the attitude has been "this can be a good thing as long as they don't mess with the canal". My question is whether the attitude would be the same way for an important canal or something in the US (if it existed). Would we be so quick to say "we better not mess with the canal because it's important for other people" or would we all think "it's our canal we'll do as we damn please"?Con_Alma;660693 wrote:Has anyone given any indication that someone owns it other than the owners themselves?
It's usage and impact is very important internationally. I couldn't imagine a government, especially a U.S. government not taking into consideration who owns it when making any decisions in the region.
Yes they could. But unless some radical nuts take over they will not invalidate it.I Wear Pants;660716 wrote:But they can get out of the treaty since if I remember most treaties can be invalidated if you decide it is against your nations security interests.
We could tell the to go to hell because we can. We would do whatever is in our nations best interest The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Egypt cannot do that with their canal because there are greater powers than them in this would that would come over there ane promptly kick their ass and take control from them if they wanted to use it against one of these greater powers.I Wear Pants;660719 wrote:Would we be so quick to say "we better not mess with the canal because it's important for other people" or would we all think "it's our canal we'll do as we damn please"?
I Wear Pants;660719 wrote:No one indicated that anyone owned it other than the owners but the attitude has been "this can be a good thing as long as they don't mess with the canal". My question is whether the attitude would be the same way for an important canal or something in the US (if it existed). Would we be so quick to say "we better not mess with the canal because it's important for other people" or would we all think "it's our canal we'll do as we damn please"?
majorspark;660726 wrote:We could tell the to go to hell because we can. We would do whatever is in our nations best interest The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Egypt cannot do that with their canal because there are greater powers than them in this would that would come over there ane promptly kick their ass and take control from them if they wanted to use it against one of these greater powers.
Yep. History is full of them. There is the way we would like things to be and there is the way things are.O-Trap;660730 wrote:As I recall, most men who tried to conquer the world by use of force held a mentality very similar.
majorspark;660738 wrote:Yep. History is full of them. There is the way we would like things to be and there is the way things are.
I don't find it funny. People have though this way throughout history. Also don't forget the victors write the history books. I am not giving my personal opinion. I am giving my opinion of the world.O-Trap;660745 wrote:I just find it funny that many seem reserved to engaging the world in the very same way as people we vilify in history books. Hitler, for example, had this same "might-makes-right" aire. If he could conquer you, then what was right or wrong didn't matter. If you didn't give it to him, but he could take it, then he would take it.
We don't have to settle for the way things are.majorspark;660738 wrote:Yep. History is full of them. There is the way we would like things to be and there is the way things are.
I Wear Pants;660794 wrote:We don't have to settle for the way things are.
majorspark;660726 wrote:We could tell the to go to hell because we can. We would do whatever is in our nations best interest The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Egypt cannot do that with their canal because there are greater powers than them in this would that would come over there ane promptly kick their ass and take control from them if they wanted to use it against one of these greater powers.
We can try, but depraved immoral leaders will always be able to at times to get the reigns of power. The world has many depraved and greedy men. Things will remain pretty much as they are and nothing men do will stop it. Its like thinking you can get rid of greed and murder.I Wear Pants;660794 wrote:We don't have to settle for the way things are.
majorspark;660852 wrote:We can try, but depraved immoral leaders will always be able to at times to get the reigns of power. The world has many depraved and greedy men. Things will remain pretty much as they are and nothing men do will stop it. Its like thinking you can get rid of greed and murder.