Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 11:40:09 GMT -5
Recognizing and enforcing the limits of a nation’s maritime boundaries is critical to freedom of the seas. What limits would you have the world recognize aw? A hundred miles, a thousand? Should Gibraltar collect on every vessel that enters or leaves the Mediterranean? Perhaps Gibraltar and Morocco should just duke it out. Consider what might happen if the US were to declare the Bering Strait within the US maritime zone, or Venezuela to declare a 200 mile exclusion zone. The territorial claim on 12 miles is a recognized value on which states depend; Libya unilaterally changed that value and did so in a way may have impacted east and west bound traffic in the Med, as well as access to Sicily. What you incorrectly identify as a provocation was a legitimate and appropriate use of military power in defense of international law and US maritime interests. Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Oct 24, 2014 12:03:49 GMT -5
*nods* I'm guessing that's the root of aboutwell's blindness. Sorry to burst your bubble... but I knew Reagan long before PATCO... while you were still wetting your pants... Sure you did. I'm sure you had him over for dinner all the time when he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild. Look, you really need to get past this diaper/wetting your pants business. The whole 'respect for your elders' schtick stopped working on me about 20 years ago when I realized the only people who use it do so because they lack the intelligence to make their point based on facts and logic. Every time you use it, it only reinforces that belief. Just as I'm sure it does with everyone else in here who's familiar with the ad hominem and 'appeal to authority' fallacies. Look, we all (well, all of us but you) know that you can't make your case because you're wrong. There's no need to keep proving it over and over and over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Oct 24, 2014 12:27:13 GMT -5
Recognizing and enforcing the limits of a nation’s maritime boundaries is critical to freedom of the seas. What limits would you have the world recognize aw? A hundred miles, a thousand? Should Gibraltar collect on every vessel that enters or leaves the Mediterranean? Perhaps Gibraltar and Morocco should just duke it out. Consider what might happen if the US were to declare the Bering Strait within the US maritime zone, or Venezuela to declare a 200 mile exclusion zone. The territorial claim on 12 miles is a recognized value on which states depend; Libya unilaterally changed that value and did so in a way may have impacted east and west bound traffic in the Med, as well as access to Sicily. What you incorrectly identify as a provocation was a legitimate and appropriate use of military power in defense of international law and US maritime interests. Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores? Where did you get the idea that Gaza has a right to the waters off of it's shores? Maybe you could cut & paste some proof from a reliable source. Then again, maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 24, 2014 12:42:23 GMT -5
Sorry to burst your bubble... but I knew Reagan long before PATCO... while you were still wetting your pants... You seem to have a thing for urine, is that why you come here and piss on us then try to tell us its raining? I, like Reagan, want to make his age and inexperience an issue when he tries in vain to explain something to me... when I've been there... and he was peeing in his pants at the time... And I likely have peed on your parade several times... (and a few others here)... and it was you who ran for cover only thinking it was rain...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 24, 2014 12:55:15 GMT -5
linkSeems we are way behind the ball on terrorist attacks, and attempted attacks against our military on our own soil. Malkin lists quite a few attacks/foiled plots that I don't recall hearing about. Malkin isn't hardly worth the read... and what does she want Obama to do?... call himself and express his support to himself?... and pledge to remain vigilant?... seems he's already pretty vigilant considering the fact that all the folks Malkin mentions... have been apprehended... We don't normally hear about every foiled attempt... because if we did, those trying to make those attempts would be likely to be more vigilant themselves... and be less likely to be caught... Malkin is letting the cat out of the bag...
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 24, 2014 13:07:37 GMT -5
You seem to have a thing for urine, is that why you come here and piss on us then try to tell us its raining? I, like Reagan, want to make his age and inexperience an issue when he tries in vain to explain something to me... when I've been there... and he was peeing in his pants at the time... And I likely have peed on your parade several times... (and a few others here)... and it was you who ran for cover only thinking it was rain...
Whatever you say ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NOT
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 24, 2014 13:16:58 GMT -5
aw writes You could not be more wrong, aw. Recognizing and enforcing the limits of a nation’s maritime boundaries is critical to freedom of the seas. What limits would you have the world recognize aw? A hundred miles, a thousand? Should Gibraltar collect on every vessel that enters or leaves the Mediterranean? Perhaps Gibraltar and Morocco should just duke it out. Consider what might happen if the US were to declare the Bering Strait within the US maritime zone, or Venezuela to declare a 200 mile exclusion zone. The territorial claim on 12 miles is a recognized value on which states depend; Libya unilaterally changed that value and did so in a way may have impacted east and west bound traffic in the Med, as well as access to Sicily. What you incorrectly identify as a provocation was a legitimate and appropriate use of military power in defense of international law and US maritime interests. This statement is incorrect, and I know you reference another poster’s position here, but an overseas embassy is not simply “considered” the soil of the nation occupying that space; it is the soil of the nation occupying that space. The host nation cannot enter that territory without violating law. And the whole purpose of an embassy is to establish and maintain connections between the two nations. I have to tell you, my friend, you are so far off on these answers, I’m wondering if you are baiting for some future repost. Any way you look at it, it was a provocation... recognized by many... and Reagan knew it... would we be pissed if Iran brought a bunch of warships into the Gulf of Mexico just off of Biloxi, MS and Pensacola, FL... and proceeded to play war games?... you bet we would... And let's not get technical here... but we don't ship in soil to build our embassies on... nor do they ship their soil in to build their embassies here... (that's a silly argument to begin with)... it is the soil of that Country but is "considered" American soil simply because we own it... (the Maryland property I have is Maryland dirt... but I own it)... it's certainly NOT worth arguing over... and I was not the one to bring it up here...
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Oct 24, 2014 13:17:11 GMT -5
Recognizing and enforcing the limits of a nation’s maritime boundaries is critical to freedom of the seas. What limits would you have the world recognize aw? A hundred miles, a thousand? Should Gibraltar collect on every vessel that enters or leaves the Mediterranean? Perhaps Gibraltar and Morocco should just duke it out. Consider what might happen if the US were to declare the Bering Strait within the US maritime zone, or Venezuela to declare a 200 mile exclusion zone. The territorial claim on 12 miles is a recognized value on which states depend; Libya unilaterally changed that value and did so in a way may have impacted east and west bound traffic in the Med, as well as access to Sicily. What you incorrectly identify as a provocation was a legitimate and appropriate use of military power in defense of international law and US maritime interests. Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores? Back to Gaza…you’re just too predictable on some things, BE. The question is interesting however, and one that has troubled those in maritime law for quite a while. Let’s agree, if for no other reason than the sake of this discussion, that political sensitivities always play a part in any ME discussion, and then try to set those aside. A blockade is, without argument, an act of war. It must therefore, at least in the eyes of the blockading party, be necessary to prevent attacks against the blockading nation. Israel has made this intent clear; weapons coming into Gaza from the Mediterranean have been used to attack Israel. This route for rearming became more important, and more frequently utilized, when Egypt sealed its borders (at least in part). Whether one agrees with the Israelis message or not is another story, but Israel has been consistent in that message. In general, a blockade must be declared in advance so all ships likely affected by the blockade are advised. It must be clear about how it defines contraband within the blockaded zone. It must be applied equally to every ship entering the blockaded zone and it must be maintained. Israel has, for the most part, met all of these definitions. One can argue then that the blockade, whether legal or not, has at least been conducted properly. You ask about Gaza’s right to her territorial waters. In order to avoid getting sidetracked, I will, for this thread, concede to your view that Gaza is a state. Territorial waters legally extend out 12 miles. Israel does not enforce her blockade within the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, when Israel got into it with the Turkish ship several years ago, part of the debate centered on the location of the boarding – some 40 miles outside of Gazan territorial waters. There is a fine line between an act in international waters and an act of blockade. This one may well have crossed the line. The most critical question of the legality of the blockade centers on whether or not the results of the blockade cause a “collective punishment” on all of the residents in the blockaded area. This is a really tough question. Let’s look at construction material. Cement can be used to build a hospital or a tunnel into Israel. If used exclusively for the former, than the blockade is posing a collective punishment and is illegal. If used exclusively for the latter, it is interdicting war material and is completely legal. The trouble is, of course, it’s being used for both purposes, though it was ostensibly intended solely for the former. How then, should Israel act on this material? What complicates this even further is that Hamas, a group I believe even most of the left on the board will concede too be a terrorist group, at least in part, is the principal partner in the Palestinian governing authority; Hamas is the government. So, to answer your question, the people of Gaza have rights to their territorial waters and Israel has not intruded on them. There is clear evidence that material being brought in from the Med is being used to attack Israel and to the degree they can, Israel is working to stop that from happening, as is her right. I hope I addressed your question.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 24, 2014 13:24:42 GMT -5
Sorry to burst your bubble... but I knew Reagan long before PATCO... while you were still wetting your pants... Sure you did. I'm sure you had him over for dinner all the time when he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild. Look, you really need to get past this diaper/wetting your pants business. The whole 'respect for your elders' schtick stopped working on me about 20 years ago when I realized the only people who use it do so because they lack the intelligence to make their point based on facts and logic. Every time you use it, it only reinforces that belief. Just as I'm sure it does with everyone else in here who's familiar with the ad hominem and 'appeal to authority' fallacies. Look, we all (well, all of us but you) know that you can't make your case because you're wrong. There's no need to keep proving it over and over and over and over again. If you didn't make such stupid comments when I say something about where I've been or done... that's factual... I wouldn't respond with a foolish comment... one which you richly deserve... Comments like to one underlined above... all because I mentioned some time ago having breakfast with a few individuals... which I really did... (Reagan was not one of them... I would have refused)...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Oct 24, 2014 13:32:40 GMT -5
Sure you did. I'm sure you had him over for dinner all the time when he was the President of the Screen Actors Guild. Look, you really need to get past this diaper/wetting your pants business. The whole 'respect for your elders' schtick stopped working on me about 20 years ago when I realized the only people who use it do so because they lack the intelligence to make their point based on facts and logic. Every time you use it, it only reinforces that belief. Just as I'm sure it does with everyone else in here who's familiar with the ad hominem and 'appeal to authority' fallacies. Look, we all (well, all of us but you) know that you can't make your case because you're wrong. There's no need to keep proving it over and over and over and over again. If you didn't make such stupid comments when I say something about where I've been or done... that's factual... I wouldn't respond with a foolish comment... one which you richly deserve... Comments like to one underlined above... all because I mentioned some time ago having breakfast with a few individuals... which I really did... (Reagan was not one of them... I would have refused)... No, aboutwell. It's not a "stupid comment." It's called "mockery."
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 24, 2014 13:37:39 GMT -5
If you didn't make such stupid comments when I say something about where I've been or done... that's factual... I wouldn't respond with a foolish comment... one which you richly deserve... Comments like to one underlined above... all because I mentioned some time ago having breakfast with a few individuals... which I really did... (Reagan was not one of them... I would have refused)... No, aboutwell. It's not a "stupid comment." It's called "mockery." You shouldn't try to "mock" the truth... but I do understand... Why would you come up with such a comment on having lunch with Reagan... simply because I mentioned a long time ago that I had had breakfast with someone else?... what's wrong with having breakfast with whoever I want to have breakfast with... why do you feel a need to make a "mockery" of it?... It literally IS all you've got...
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Oct 24, 2014 13:40:22 GMT -5
Says aboutwell;
What you choose to see as a provocation was what most others who have truly studied this type of thing see as an exercise of freedom of the seas.
And your comparison to Iran in the Gulf of Mexico is simply silly. Were the US to unilaterally declare the Gulf to be US territory, in violation of international law, as Libya did with Sidra, it would not be Iran sailing into the Gulf, but possibly Russia and China. And they would be within their rights to do so.
I can agree that this one is not worth arguing over, at least in this thread, but it might make an interesting discussion on its own someday.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 24, 2014 13:48:57 GMT -5
Says aboutwell; What you choose to see as a provocation was what most others who have truly studied this type of thing see as an exercise of freedom of the seas. And your comparison to Iran in the Gulf of Mexico is simply silly. Were the US to unilaterally declare the Gulf to be US territory, in violation of international law, as Libya did with Sidra, it would not be Iran sailing into the Gulf, but possibly Russia and China. And they would be within their rights to do so. I have never said it was not "within our rights" to do what Reagan did... that doesn't mean he didn't do it as a provocation... he certainly did... and I used Iran just like Reagan used Lybia... tensions were high at that time with Libya... he did it to provoke their anger... tensions are high now with Iraq... it would certainly provoke our anger... that is my point... and was his...
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Oct 24, 2014 16:39:22 GMT -5
Recognizing and enforcing the limits of a nation’s maritime boundaries is critical to freedom of the seas. What limits would you have the world recognize aw? A hundred miles, a thousand? Should Gibraltar collect on every vessel that enters or leaves the Mediterranean? Perhaps Gibraltar and Morocco should just duke it out. Consider what might happen if the US were to declare the Bering Strait within the US maritime zone, or Venezuela to declare a 200 mile exclusion zone. The territorial claim on 12 miles is a recognized value on which states depend; Libya unilaterally changed that value and did so in a way may have impacted east and west bound traffic in the Med, as well as access to Sicily. What you incorrectly identify as a provocation was a legitimate and appropriate use of military power in defense of international law and US maritime interests. Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores? Well Gaza isn't a country.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Oct 24, 2014 16:45:35 GMT -5
Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores? Well Gaza isn't a country. I think it has a portion of the gas fields because of it's management by the Palestinian government. www.popularresistance.org/israel-us-uk-carve-up-the-spoils-of-palestines-stolen-gas/Granted, a biased source! But everything in the Levant is 'contested'.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Oct 24, 2014 16:57:38 GMT -5
The reports indicate that somewhere between 10 and 30 shots were fired inside the Canadian Parliament complex. And that three additional people were treated for injuries. I suppose we don't know yet whether or not those additional 3 were shot, or injured themselves trying to get away. The 1998 shooting at the US Capitol was carried out by a paranoid schitzophrenic, not a terrorist. Weston was a man known to strongly distrust the government... is that kinda not the definition of a "terrorist" these days?... From this regime it is. After all, they consider themselves gods, so anyone that 'distrusts' them must, by definition, be 'terrorists'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 18:56:22 GMT -5
Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores? Back to Gaza…you’re just too predictable on some things, BE. <snip> The rest of your post is devalued by the above simple give away opening sentence. I hope I addressed your question. No, you just dodged it. But reading between the lines, you are of the opininion that maritime laws only apply to the US, it's buddies and those others big enough to stand up to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 19:03:30 GMT -5
Do these rules and conditions also apply to another area of water in the Mediterranean, say, for instance, Gaza's rights to the waters off of it's shores? Where did you get the idea that Gaza has a right to the waters off of it's shores? Maybe you could cut & paste some proof from a reliable source. Then again, maybe not. Sorry if my question put your nose even more out of shape.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Oct 24, 2014 19:54:42 GMT -5
Back to Gaza…you’re just too predictable on some things, BE. <snip> The rest of your post is devalued by the above simple give away opening sentence. I hope I addressed your question. No, you just dodged it. But reading between the lines, you are of the opininion that maritime laws only apply to the US, it's buddies and those others big enough to stand up to them. I'm glad to see your consistent, BE; still too unsure of your position to engage in a real conversation. And by the way, I answered your question. You ask about Gaza’s right to her territorial waters. In order to avoid getting sidetracked, I will, for this thread, concede to your view that Gaza is a state. Territorial waters legally extend out 12 miles. Israel does not enforce her blockade within the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, when Israel got into it with the Turkish ship several years ago, part of the debate centered on the location of the boarding – some 40 miles outside of Gazan territorial waters. There is a fine line between an act in international waters and an act of blockade. This one may well have crossed the line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 20:31:50 GMT -5
The rest of your post is devalued by the above simple give away opening sentence. No, you just dodged it. But reading between the lines, you are of the opininion that maritime laws only apply to the US, it's buddies and those others big enough to stand up to them. I'm glad to see your consistent, BE; still too unsure of your position to engage in a real conversation. And by the way, I answered your question. I'm quite sure of my position, so don't try your smartarse stuff on me, quit with the demeaning first sentence shyte, or you will be treated to some of the same, and no, you didn't answer my question. You ask about Gaza’s right to her territorial waters. In order to avoid getting sidetracked, I will, for this thread, concede to your view that Gaza is a state. Territorial waters legally extend out 12 miles. Israel does not enforce her blockade within the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, when Israel got into it with the Turkish ship several years ago, part of the debate centered on the location of the boarding – some 40 miles outside of Gazan territorial waters. There is a fine line between an act in international waters and an act of blockade. This one may well have crossed the line. In the vain attempt of trying to establish some credence for your position, you begrudgingly conceded a point only to then devalue it by saying that what Israel is doing is happening 12 miles outside of Gazan territorial waters... what utter hypocritical bullshyte! A blockade is a blockade however you try to dress it up. You only want to see the possibility that releasing that blockade might allow weapons to get through that could be used against your beloved Israel. You don't give a whit about the plight of the Gaza's because of the blockade. No sir, you did not answer my question, you merely used it as a soapbox to punt your own pro Israeli propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Oct 24, 2014 21:14:04 GMT -5
But it didn't stay over there... even right before Reagan. The Iranian Hostage Crisis might have taken place in Tehran, but the Embassy is still considered US soil. What did Reagan do to bring that on? Back to the birth of the US, President Adams attempted to buy off the Barbary Pirates. That didn't work either, and it left Jefferson to send the Marines onto the Shores of Tripoli. This has been explained to you repeatedly, by several of us, yet you just don't care. Being the old dog that can't be taught isn't a good thing, aboutwell... it ought to embarrass you. I don't know why you don't know real history. I have to assume you either didn't live it the way you say, you weren't paying attention when it was happening to you, or you've forgotten it. It may be "considered" American soil... but it is over there, not over here... a stupid argument by you... And you haven't explained a damn thing to me... Embassies the world over have been considered "home territory" since the practice began. Just as ambassadors are considered off limits, unless a country is interested in starting a war with whatever country's embassy you decide to attack. So no, it's not a "stupid argument". More than one war has started over an embassy being attacked.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Oct 24, 2014 21:18:26 GMT -5
aw writes You could not be more wrong, aw. Recognizing and enforcing the limits of a nation’s maritime boundaries is critical to freedom of the seas. What limits would you have the world recognize aw? A hundred miles, a thousand? Should Gibraltar collect on every vessel that enters or leaves the Mediterranean? Perhaps Gibraltar and Morocco should just duke it out. Consider what might happen if the US were to declare the Bering Strait within the US maritime zone, or Venezuela to declare a 200 mile exclusion zone. The territorial claim on 12 miles is a recognized value on which states depend; Libya unilaterally changed that value and did so in a way may have impacted east and west bound traffic in the Med, as well as access to Sicily. What you incorrectly identify as a provocation was a legitimate and appropriate use of military power in defense of international law and US maritime interests. This statement is incorrect, and I know you reference another poster’s position here, but an overseas embassy is not simply “considered” the soil of the nation occupying that space; it is the soil of the nation occupying that space. The host nation cannot enter that territory without violating law. And the whole purpose of an embassy is to establish and maintain connections between the two nations. I have to tell you, my friend, you are so far off on these answers, I’m wondering if you are baiting for some future repost. Any way you look at it, it was a provocation... recognized by many... and Reagan knew it... would we be pissed if Iran brought a bunch of warships into the Gulf of Mexico just off of Biloxi, MS and Pensacola, FL... and proceeded to play war games?... you bet we would... And let's not get technical here... but we don't ship in soil to build our embassies on... nor do they ship their soil in to build their embassies here... (that's a silly argument to begin with)... it is the soil of that Country but is "considered" American soil simply because we own it... (the Maryland property I have is Maryland dirt... but I own it)... it's certainly NOT worth arguing over... and I was not the one to bring it up here... Would we send aircraft up, and have them shoot at the Iranian aircraft? I doubt that seriously. Unless they violated our territorial waters. And once we build an embassy in a country, it's no longer "the soil" of that country. It's American soil. Just like the Mexican Embassy is built on Mexican soil.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Oct 24, 2014 21:34:16 GMT -5
BE whines
and on an earlier post
Three points you might have picked up if you were not so blindly supportive of the people of Gaza and perhaps tried to comprehend;
(1) A blockade is very closely defined in law. I wrote that Israel's actions regarding the Turkish ship may well have been outside of the legal definition of blockade because it occurred so far outside the territorial waters of what you believe to be the Gaza state. I wrote that territorial waters extend to the 12 mile limit - for every state. Israel's actions occurred at the 40 mile limit. People were more concerned about a couple of dead bodies, killed under unprovable circumstances rather that look at the larger action; that Israel may committed an act of piracy. In all they do with the blockade, this was the only action that may have violated law.
(2) Whether I care about the people of Gaza was not raised in your question; what was raised in your question was in regard to the territorial right of a supposed Gazan state. I addressed those rights. If you want to discuss the plight of people in Gaza, you should propose that for a discussion.
(3) As I wrote, a blockade is an act of war. With that as background, maritime law applies to everyone, but those with military capability are able to enforce maritime law and protect their maritime interests. But this is still another of your frequent misdirections; the blockade of Gaza is, largely, being performed in accordance with maritime law and the laws of war. Some things you simply cannot deny BE; the Hamas group is misdirecting dual use material to attack Israel. We see it in the tunnels and we see it in the defense structures. We see weapons coming in and munitions. The people of Gaza have a right to import those things and the people of Israel have a right to defend themselves, in this case, through the use of blockade.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Oct 24, 2014 22:24:37 GMT -5
I'm glad to see your consistent, BE; still too unsure of your position to engage in a real conversation. And by the way, I answered your question. I'm quite sure of my position, so don't try your smartarse stuff on me, quit with the demeaning first sentence shyte, or you will be treated to some of the same, and no, you didn't answer my question. You ask about Gaza’s right to her territorial waters. In order to avoid getting sidetracked, I will, for this thread, concede to your view that Gaza is a state. Territorial waters legally extend out 12 miles. Israel does not enforce her blockade within the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, when Israel got into it with the Turkish ship several years ago, part of the debate centered on the location of the boarding – some 40 miles outside of Gazan territorial waters. There is a fine line between an act in international waters and an act of blockade. This one may well have crossed the line. In the vain attempt of trying to establish some credence for your position, you begrudgingly conceded a point only to then devalue it by saying that what Israel is doing is happening 12 miles outside of Gazan territorial waters... what utter hypocritical bullshyte! A blockade is a blockade however you try to dress it up. You only want to see the possibility that releasing that blockade might allow weapons to get through that could be used against your beloved Israel. You don't give a whit about the plight of the Gaza's because of the blockade. No sir, you did not answer my question, you merely used it as a soapbox to punt your own pro Israeli propaganda. Those occupying Gaza are the ones responsible for any "blockade". Israel has every right to defend herself, and when weapons and supplies are being delivered to her enemies via sea, Israel is well within her rights to blockade and stop said deliveries. The fact that you hate Israel has no bearing on whether she can legally blockade Gaza or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 2:52:34 GMT -5
I guess that Regan's firing of the PATCO air controllers would be a sore subject to bring up just now... Only if you learn to spell his name correctly... But PATCO has nothing to do with this conversation... so, why would you even mention it?... Aw, geeze, because it was one of your union negotiating failures, don't deny it. Hell, I was there when John Lewis told you to back off during your "brilliant defense," and Truman almost put your boy in jail! LOL!
(tune in next week, folks, when he claims to have almost saved Lincoln from being assassinated!)
|
|