Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Actually they're BOTH Assyrians and Jordanian....with greater emphasis of the "Greater Syria".

According to some genetic studies, Palestinians are actually descended from the Jews that chose to remain the area and eventually embraced Islam. But both sides would sooner cut out their own tongues than admit that....


I mean, hell, the Ashkenazim still have not forgiven the Samaritans for splitting off of Judea after Solomon's death (if you think that they've hated Arabs a long time) and enshrined this hatred into law. (remember, Israel isn't just racist against Arabs.)

Who cares. The territory is actually Jordan.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Actually they're BOTH Assyrians and Jordanian....with greater emphasis of the "Greater Syria".

According to some genetic studies, Palestinians are actually descended from the Jews that chose to remain the area and eventually embraced Islam. But both sides would sooner cut out their own tongues than admit that....


I mean, hell, the Ashkenazim still have not forgiven the Samaritans for splitting off of Judea after Solomon's death (if you think that they've hated Arabs a long time) and enshrined this hatred into law. (remember, Israel isn't just racist against Arabs.)

Who cares. The territory is actually Jordan.

Actually it isn't. Jordan only temprarily annexed the West Bank before being evicted in 67 by Israel, then fully renounced their claims to the West Bank. Its been Israeli/Palestinian far longer than it has been Jordanian, Jordan only had a brief time in which it had conquered it in between it being Israel/Palestine.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Actually they're BOTH Assyrians and Jordanian....with greater emphasis of the "Greater Syria".

According to some genetic studies, Palestinians are actually descended from the Jews that chose to remain the area and eventually embraced Islam. But both sides would sooner cut out their own tongues than admit that....


I mean, hell, the Ashkenazim still have not forgiven the Samaritans for splitting off of Judea after Solomon's death (if you think that they've hated Arabs a long time) and enshrined this hatred into law. (remember, Israel isn't just racist against Arabs.)

Who cares. The territory is actually Jordan.

Actually it isn't. Jordan only temprarily annexed the West Bank before being evicted in 67 by Israel, then fully renounced their claims to the West Bank. Its been Israeli/Palestinian far longer than it has been Jordanian, Jordan only had a brief time in which it had conquered it in between it being Israel/Palestine.

And Gaza has never been Jordanian.

There is no Palestine. There is only Israel and Jordan. If it is not Israel then it us Jordan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Actually they're BOTH Assyrians and Jordanian....with greater emphasis of the "Greater Syria".

According to some genetic studies, Palestinians are actually descended from the Jews that chose to remain the area and eventually embraced Islam. But both sides would sooner cut out their own tongues than admit that....


I mean, hell, the Ashkenazim still have not forgiven the Samaritans for splitting off of Judea after Solomon's death (if you think that they've hated Arabs a long time) and enshrined this hatred into law. (remember, Israel isn't just racist against Arabs.)

Who cares. The territory is actually Jordan.

Actually it isn't. Jordan only temprarily annexed the West Bank before being evicted in 67 by Israel, then fully renounced their claims to the West Bank. Its been Israeli/Palestinian far longer than it has been Jordanian, Jordan only had a brief time in which it had conquered it in between it being Israel/Palestine.

And Gaza has never been Jordanian.

True. That is Egypt. They also don't want it.

 Frazzled wrote:
There is no Palestine. There is only Israel and Jordan. If it is not Israel then it us Jordan.

Try swapping the places of Israel and Palestine in that sentence and consider whether you'd consider the statement just as valid.

 Frazzled wrote:
There is no Palestine. There is only Israel and Jordan. If it is not Israel then it us Jordan.

Come on now Fraz, this is obviously false. From 1920 to 1948 it was the Mandatory of Palestine, neither Israel (which did not yet exist) nor Jordan.

When Israel declared its independence it did so in accordance to the borders laid out by the UN plan. Israel didn't claim to own all of Palestine in 1948.

 Frazzled wrote:
There is no Palestine.

Not according to 136 countries, the UN, and the Roman Catholic Church. The Vicar of Christ trumps you, Frazz.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There is no Palestine.

Not according to 136 countries, the UN, and the Roman Catholic Church. The Vicar of Christ trumps you, Frazz.

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

Hey, its what the West does though. Palestine is to the West what Taiwan is to China on the believing its not a state front

Its a bit of a ridiculous idea that just because Israel managed to declare independence first and Palestine got overrun by neighbours that it isn't/couldn't be a legitimate state. By that notion almost every nation that was ever colonized could not be considered legitimate

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There is no Palestine. There is only Israel and Jordan. If it is not Israel then it us Jordan.

Come on now Fraz, this is obviously false. From 1920 to 1948 it was the Mandatory of Palestine, neither Israel (which did not yet exist) nor Jordan.

When Israel declared its independence it did so in accordance to the borders laid out by the UN plan. Israel didn't claim to own all of Palestine in 1948.

Mmm. Looked it up. You're right. Learn something every day.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

Hey, its what the West does though. Palestine is to the West what Taiwan is to China on the believing its not a state front

Its a bit of a ridiculous idea that just because Israel managed to declare independence first and Palestine got overrun by neighbours that it isn't/couldn't be a legitimate state. By that notion almost every nation that was ever colonized could not be considered legitimate

Here's the difference.

Israel was given that land by the UN post WW2. Whether that was right or wrong... its meaningless at this point. They fought wars to keep that land, so as far as I'm concerned, it's conquered land. Israel will "give it up" on their terms.

Even the Saudi Prince made a public statement that Israelis “have the right to have their own land” and that formal relations between Israel and the kingdom could be mutually beneficial.

That is yuge.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

Irrelevant what you believe. It's the 6,000 nuclear warheads that make it reality.

"As always Caesar, your word shall be law."
"Keep my Legions intact. They make the law legal."

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

Hey, its what the West does though. Palestine is to the West what Taiwan is to China on the believing its not a state front

Its a bit of a ridiculous idea that just because Israel managed to declare independence first and Palestine got overrun by neighbours that it isn't/couldn't be a legitimate state. By that notion almost every nation that was ever colonized could not be considered legitimate

Here's the difference.

Israel was given that land by the UN post WW2. Whether that was right or wrong... its meaningless at this point. They fought wars to keep that land, so as far as I'm concerned, it's conquered land. Israel will "give it up" on their terms.

Even the Saudi Prince made a public statement that Israelis “have the right to have their own land” and that formal relations between Israel and the kingdom could be mutually beneficial.

That is yuge.

That's plain ground breaking, and massive change in things.
They done a slow 180 from not even reconisingusing they existed.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

Hey, its what the West does though. Palestine is to the West what Taiwan is to China on the believing its not a state front

Its a bit of a ridiculous idea that just because Israel managed to declare independence first and Palestine got overrun by neighbours that it isn't/couldn't be a legitimate state. By that notion almost every nation that was ever colonized could not be considered legitimate

Here's the difference.

Israel was given that land by the UN post WW2. Whether that was right or wrong... its meaningless at this point. They fought wars to keep that land, so as far as I'm concerned, it's conquered land. Israel will "give it up" on their terms.

Even the Saudi Prince made a public statement that Israelis “have the right to have their own land” and that formal relations between Israel and the kingdom could be mutually beneficial.

That is yuge.

Yes that statement was very surprising to say the least.

The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent. What they could do is stop treating Palestinians like they are an exotic animal in an Israeli zoo, but that seems to get more unlikely with every passing year of Bibi.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

By the power vested in us by 40K Orks, if we believe hard enough it isn't, we can make it work as technically not a state!

By that Logic, I choose to disbelieve that Texas is no longer part of Mexico.

Of course, both Fraz and I know that if the UN did a Israel on Texas and made it a 'homeland for Mexicans', the Rio Grande would run red with blood.

Hey, its what the West does though. Palestine is to the West what Taiwan is to China on the believing its not a state front

Its a bit of a ridiculous idea that just because Israel managed to declare independence first and Palestine got overrun by neighbours that it isn't/couldn't be a legitimate state. By that notion almost every nation that was ever colonized could not be considered legitimate

Here's the difference.

Israel was given that land by the UN post WW2. Whether that was right or wrong... its meaningless at this point. They fought wars to keep that land, so as far as I'm concerned, it's conquered land. Israel will "give it up" on their terms.

Even the Saudi Prince made a public statement that Israelis “have the right to have their own land” and that formal relations between Israel and the kingdom could be mutually beneficial.

That is yuge.

Yes that statement was very surprising to say the least.

The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent.

Plus well. Israel been sat on those areas for decades. Israelis live there and so, at a certain point with ernough people it's almost impossible to undo.

They aiming for that. Build ernough settlements and the land is yours by defacto.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent. What they could do is stop treating Palestinians like they are an exotic animal in an Israeli zoo, but that seems to get more unlikely with every passing year of Bibi.

That precedent already exists (thank YOU United States). 'Conquest' as a means of gaining territory has been a violation of international law and a direct violation of the UN Charter since the end of WW2.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent. What they could do is stop treating Palestinians like they are an exotic animal in an Israeli zoo, but that seems to get more unlikely with every passing year of Bibi.

That precedent already exists (thank YOU United States). 'Conquest' as a means of gaining territory has been a violation of international law and a direct violation of the UN Charter since the end of WW2.

Yes and every single country has probably broken that in one way or another so I wouldn't tout that as a pillar of truth there.

Also which precedent are you speaking of, I want to know before I respond

 jhe90 wrote:

Plus well. Israel been sat on those areas for decades. Israelis live there and so, at a certain point with ernough people it's almost impossible to undo.

They aiming for that. Build ernough settlements and the land is yours by defacto.

They say that, but we got the US to fork over the property anyway, so, no, that's NOT how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:


Yes and every single country has probably broken that in one way or another so I wouldn't tout that as a pillar of truth there.

Actually since a 'war of aggression' as a crime against humanity and is a direct violation of the Nuremburg principals, it's been fairly well followed. Russia is about the only major violator and even they made a point to muddy the waters as much as possible with Crimea and the Ukraine.

 Ustrello wrote:

Also which precedent are you speaking of, I want to know before I respond

Well, the one that immediately springs to mind is the US ceding land back to the Seneca over the last 30 years or so. As the Seneca are a legally recognized by the US Congress as a sovereign nation, that would be an example. It's not perfect, there's confusion over the status of large portions of the city of Buffalo, but other conurbations have been handed over with a minimum of squawking.

A more interesting one has recently started to gain steam due to *edited for US politics Content* that Mexico annul the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This would see sovereignty of a significant portion of the US south west revert to Mexico. And there's not a lot the US can do about it short of wipe out the world with those 6k nukes Frazz mentioned if the trial goes against them in the world court. Treaties can get tricky sometimes, and no one wants to be seen as the guy to unilaterally renig on one.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent. What they could do is stop treating Palestinians like they are an exotic animal in an Israeli zoo, but that seems to get more unlikely with every passing year of Bibi.

That precedent already exists (thank YOU United States). 'Conquest' as a means of gaining territory has been a violation of international law and a direct violation of the UN Charter since the end of WW2.

Well it does for the US, yet the US is doing it internally. Plenty of countries that have grudges or lost wars with other countries. Imagine how many states could come out of the woodwork that started a war and then lost it plus some territory in the 20th century alone. But I'm talking modern day post 45 international politics and law. While you're right on the UN Charter, it did more imply conquest as in an aggressive war. The paradox is quite visible in how we consider the occupation of Cyprus by Turkey versus that of Palestine by Israel. Israel gets a lot more leeway. But giving in to Israel now would mean giving in to states like Turkey and Russia too. I'm not sure the West will prevent Israel with getting away with it, which is going to be a mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent. What they could do is stop treating Palestinians like they are an exotic animal in an Israeli zoo, but that seems to get more unlikely with every passing year of Bibi.

That precedent already exists (thank YOU United States). 'Conquest' as a means of gaining territory has been a violation of international law and a direct violation of the UN Charter since the end of WW2.

Yes and every single country has probably broken that in one way or another so I wouldn't tout that as a pillar of truth there.

Also which precedent are you speaking of, I want to know before I respond

Problem with not trying to tout it as a pillar of truth is that it loses all meaning. Then we're back to 19th century spheres of influence and survival of the strongest which posters in another thread seem to love. Going back to not holding it up as a pillar of truth is anarchy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well it does for the US, yet the US is doing it internally. Plenty of countries that have grudges or lost wars with other countries. Imagine how many states could come out of the woodwork that started a war and then lost it plus some territory in the 20th century alone. But I'm talking modern day post 45 international politics and law. While you're right on the UN Charter, it did more imply conquest as in an aggressive war.

There's also...

the Rio Pact (1947)

General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) [Granted, this one is non-binding and only set out to define what a 'war of aggression' is]

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well it does for the US, yet the US is doing it internally.

By the way, what do you mean, 'Internally'? We've NEVER been part of the US. The treaty even expressly spells that out.

Baron... the land Israel recovered during '67 was not a "war of aggression" as it was a defensive war for them.

Also, for the UN to ding Israel, they'd have to get past US' veto somehow.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Plus well. Israel been sat on those areas for decades. Israelis live there and so, at a certain point with ernough people it's almost impossible to undo.

They aiming for that. Build ernough settlements and the land is yours by defacto.

They say that, but we got the US to fork over the property anyway, so, no, that's NOT how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:


Yes and every single country has probably broken that in one way or another so I wouldn't tout that as a pillar of truth there.

Actually since a 'war of aggression' as a crime against humanity and is a direct violation of the Nuremburg principals, it's been fairly well followed. Russia is about the only major violator and even they made a point to muddy the waters as much as possible with Crimea and the Ukraine.

 Ustrello wrote:

Also which precedent are you speaking of, I want to know before I respond

Well, the one that immediately springs to mind is the US ceding land back to the Seneca over the last 30 years or so. As the Seneca are a legally recognized by the US Congress as a sovereign nation, that would be an example. It's not perfect, there's confusion over the status of large portions of the city of Buffalo, but other conurbations have been handed over with a minimum of squawking.

A more interesting one has recently started to gain steam due to *edited for US politics Content* that Mexico annul the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This would see sovereignty of a significant portion of the US south west revert to Mexico. And there's not a lot the US can do about it short of wipe out the world with those 6k nukes Frazz mentioned if the trial goes against them in the world court. Treaties can get tricky sometimes, and no one wants to be seen as the guy to unilaterally renig on one.

True congress did give you all federal recognition, but lets not kid ourselves here in what countries are the Seneca nations passports actually easily used? In the end you have a little more power than some schlub declaring his house as a sovereign micro-nation, but a lot less than a state because you depend on the federal government to continue to recognize your sovereignty. So I wouldn't really call it a precedent by any means at all, just a concession because you are still bound by the United States in the end.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Then we're back to 19th century spheres of influence and survival of the strongest which posters in another thread seem to love.

The whole "conquest is not allowed" thing is only going to last for as long as someone has the military power and will to enforce it. Which, looking at Israel, Turkey and Russia does not really seem to be the case. For political and military reasons, those countries can not be prevented from taking areas by force, so really the "no conquest" thing applies only to the weak.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The trouble is you can hardly force Israel to go back to areas that they had before the wars. I can't imagine the international border gore that would create. Forcing Israel to return it would set an incredibly awkward precedent. What they could do is stop treating Palestinians like they are an exotic animal in an Israeli zoo, but that seems to get more unlikely with every passing year of Bibi.

That precedent already exists (thank YOU United States). 'Conquest' as a means of gaining territory has been a violation of international law and a direct violation of the UN Charter since the end of WW2.

ask Ukraine and Ossetia about that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Plus well. Israel been sat on those areas for decades. Israelis live there and so, at a certain point with ernough people it's almost impossible to undo.

They aiming for that. Build ernough settlements and the land is yours by defacto.

They say that, but we got the US to fork over the property anyway, so, no, that's NOT how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:


Yes and every single country has probably broken that in one way or another so I wouldn't tout that as a pillar of truth there.

Actually since a 'war of aggression' as a crime against humanity and is a direct violation of the Nuremburg principals, it's been fairly well followed. Russia is about the only major violator and even they made a point to muddy the waters as much as possible with Crimea and the Ukraine.

 Ustrello wrote:

Also which precedent are you speaking of, I want to know before I respond

Well, the one that immediately springs to mind is the US ceding land back to the Seneca over the last 30 years or so. As the Seneca are a legally recognized by the US Congress as a sovereign nation, that would be an example. It's not perfect, there's confusion over the status of large portions of the city of Buffalo, but other conurbations have been handed over with a minimum of squawking.

A more interesting one has recently started to gain steam due to *edited for US politics Content* that Mexico annul the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This would see sovereignty of a significant portion of the US south west revert to Mexico. And there's not a lot the US can do about it short of wipe out the world with those 6k nukes Frazz mentioned if the trial goes against them in the world court. Treaties can get tricky sometimes, and no one wants to be seen as the guy to unilaterally renig on one.

Are you fething kidding? Do you want to see how short the third Mexican American War is?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well it does for the US, yet the US is doing it internally. Plenty of countries that have grudges or lost wars with other countries. Imagine how many states could come out of the woodwork that started a war and then lost it plus some territory in the 20th century alone. But I'm talking modern day post 45 international politics and law. While you're right on the UN Charter, it did more imply conquest as in an aggressive war.

There's also...

the Rio Pact (1947)

General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) [Granted, this one is non-binding and only set out to define what a 'war of aggression' is]

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

Sure, but the Rio Pact is quite localized, while the ICC one is after the 1967-73 period when most territory got captured.

 Ustrello wrote:

True congress did give you all federal recognition, but lets not kid ourselves here in what countries are the Seneca nations passports actually easily used?

Well, you'd have to explain what you mean by 'easily used'. Most UN member states recognize them as legitimate passports.

 Ustrello wrote:

In the end you have a little more power than some schlub declaring his house as a sovereign micro-nation, but a lot less than a state because you depend on the federal government to continue to recognize your sovereignty.

Well, aside from the insulting and frankly Rule One violating delivery there, I'll point out that the same thing is true of every single nation in the western hemisphere. I mean, seriously, there's actually nothing but international agreements like the Buffalo Creek treaty that keep them from simply annexing the whole place.

Point of fact, there are a lot of small countries that have it worse off than we do when it comes to that. Luxembourg, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Are you fething kidding? Do you want to see how short the third Mexican American War is?

Game, Set, Match. Thank you, Frazz, for making my point. And, I'll ask, if the US hands you over to make good on their treaty requirements, what forces do you think would fight in that 'war'? Because I hear this sort of thing a lot from the guys the US abandoned in Salamanca to their new native overlords.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

True congress did give you all federal recognition, but lets not kid ourselves here in what countries are the Seneca nations passports actually easily used?

Well, you'd have to explain what you mean by 'easily used'. Most UN member states recognize them as legitimate passports.

 Ustrello wrote:

In the end you have a little more power than some schlub declaring his house as a sovereign micro-nation, but a lot less than a state because you depend on the federal government to continue to recognize your sovereignty.

Well, aside from the insulting and frankly Rule One violating delivery there, I'll point out that the same thing is true of every single nation in the western hemisphere. I mean, seriously, there's actually nothing but international agreements like the Buffalo Creek treaty that keep them from simply annexing the whole place.

Point of fact, there are a lot of small countries that have it worse off than we do when it comes to that. Luxembourg, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Are you fething kidding? Do you want to see how short the third Mexican American War is?

Game, Set, Match. Thank you, Frazz, for making my point.

I'm sure some Iroquois Lacrosse players would have something to say about that. And frankly no it does not break rule one, just because it is an uncomfortable truth and something you don't agree with. If Israel were to cede land to the Palestinians and they were to gain recognition they could do as any sovereign nation could. The federally recognized tribes cannot do half of those things and that is why it is not an apt comparison or setting precedent

 Ustrello wrote:
The federally recognized tribes cannot do half of those things and that is why it is not an apt comparison or setting precedent

If you want to bring that up, fine, our passports are still a legal mess. How's yours in Iran? Oh, they don't accept it? Must be another of those 'fantasy passports' and your country does not exist.

Your argument that the Palestinians should have to get recognition is null and void, as, they already have that from over 130 countries. Which, I grant, is more than us. So, by your standard there, they should be allowed to act as their own country.


BTW: we do have recognition from one country: YOURS. The business in 2010 was BS.

Anyway, if you don't like my own people's example, perhaps Ireland?