In his speech to the UN, our pos in chief

[oaktonhokie]

said the world is more stable than it was five years ago.

Five years, I wonder why he chose that time frame...

More stable now, really?

No mention of the Muslims killing Christians, no mention of the killers in Kenya being Muslims.

Referred to "occupied land" by israelies. Occupied land, in Israel.

[ip_law-hokie]

Referred to "occupied land" by israelies. Occupied land, in Israel.

glad he got at least one thing right.

[Hokie CPA]

said the world is more stable than it was five years ago.

Five years, I wonder why he chose that time frame...

More stable now, really?

No mention of the Muslims killing Christians, no mention of the killers in Kenya being Muslims.

Referred to "occupied land" by israelies. Occupied land, in Israel.

I'm pretty sure the land in Gaza, the Golan Heights, and on the West Bank of the Jordan River is still considered to be occupied land.

[RiverguyVT]

Palestine- a region, much like "Appalachia" is a region, and not formal state within the union.
Never was a nation.

[oaktonhokie]

Are we "occupying" Texas?

La Raza thinks so. Obama probably does too.

California, New Mexico, Arizona?

Time to redraw the map of the United States?

Referred to "occupied land" by israelies. Occupied land, in Israel.

glad he got at least one thing right.

[ip_law-hokie]

Ummm, OK oak.

Are we "occupying" Texas?

La Raza thinks so. Obama probably does too.

California, New Mexico, Arizona?

Time to redraw the map of the United States?

Referred to "occupied land" by israelies. Occupied land, in Israel.

glad he got at least one thing right.

[oaktonhokie]

Is that your answer? Are we occupying Mexico or not?

Are we occupying injun lands too?

Ummm, OK oak.

Are we "occupying" Texas?

La Raza thinks so. Obama probably does too.

California, New Mexico, Arizona?

Time to redraw the map of the United States?

Referred to "occupied land" by israelies. Occupied land, in Israel.

glad he got at least one thing right.

[Hokie CPA]

Oak.. there's a difference. The WORLD acknowledges the annexation of Texas and the Gadsden Purchase as legitimate acquisitions by the United States. Mexicans who think they were screwed can suck it and the World will agree with the US. The United Nations has designated Gaza, Golan and the West Bank as occupied territory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Israel has made any effort to formally annex those lands. In fact they offered Gaza as territory that could become a new Palestinian State. But they have no intention, for security reasons, of pulling their military from the West Bank or Golan.

[Major Kong]

I tell ya that Levant area is a pain in the neck.

[Marine Hokie]

So the trick is to get other people to accept the stolen land as yours? That makes it morally justified?
What if Israel is abiding by their own government's laws in the conquest of more territory? Doesn't that make it, by definition, legal?

Oak.. there's a difference. The WORLD acknowledges the annexation of Texas and the Gadsden Purchase as legitimate acquisitions by the United States. Mexicans who think they were screwed can suck it and the World will agree with the US. The United Nations has designated Gaza, Golan and the West Bank as occupied territory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Israel has made any effort to formally annex those lands. In fact they offered Gaza as territory that could become a new Palestinian State. But they have no intention, for security reasons, of pulling their military from the West Bank or Golan.

[Hokie CPA]

So the trick is to get other people to accept the stolen land as yours? That makes it morally justified?
What if Israel is abiding by their own government's laws in the conquest of more territory? Doesn't that make it, by definition, legal?

Oak.. there's a difference. The WORLD acknowledges the annexation of Texas and the Gadsden Purchase as legitimate acquisitions by the United States. Mexicans who think they were screwed can suck it and the World will agree with the US. The United Nations has designated Gaza, Golan and the West Bank as occupied territory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Israel has made any effort to formally annex those lands. In fact they offered Gaza as territory that could become a new Palestinian State. But they have no intention, for security reasons, of pulling their military from the West Bank or Golan.

Do we have to go over the history on this?



Texas won its Independence from Mexico and existed as a free Republic for nine years. It was its own country during that time before the United States annexed it. Mexico has no claim to it. They lost it.

Then there was a war between Mexico and the United States which Mexico lost again. They ceded by treaty the land that is now California, Navada, Utah, Northern Arizona, Northern New Mexico, and Colorado. Again... they signed away any claim to it. They lost it.

Then the American Ambassador to Mexico, James Gadsden, negotiated the purchase for the United States the land that is now Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. The united States BOUGHT that land for consideration rendered. Mexico signed it away and has no claim to it. They SOLD IT.

So how does Mexico have a claim on that land today?

[RiverguyVT]

Didn't Abraham pay someone twice what a chunk of land was worth. Oh. Wait. Different deal. nevermind

[Marine Hokie]

Ah, so territory conquered in war is morally justified.

So the trick is to get other people to accept the stolen land as yours? That makes it morally justified?
What if Israel is abiding by their own government's laws in the conquest of more territory? Doesn't that make it, by definition, legal?

Oak.. there's a difference. The WORLD acknowledges the annexation of Texas and the Gadsden Purchase as legitimate acquisitions by the United States. Mexicans who think they were screwed can suck it and the World will agree with the US. The United Nations has designated Gaza, Golan and the West Bank as occupied territory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Israel has made any effort to formally annex those lands. In fact they offered Gaza as territory that could become a new Palestinian State. But they have no intention, for security reasons, of pulling their military from the West Bank or Golan.

Do we have to go over the history on this?



Texas won its Independence from Mexico and existed as a free Republic for nine years. It was its own country during that time before the United States annexed it. Mexico has no claim to it. They lost it.

Then there was a war between Mexico and the United States which Mexico lost again. They ceded by treaty the land that is now California, Navada, Utah, Northern Arizona, Northern New Mexico, and Colorado. Again... they signed away any claim to it. They lost it.

Then the American Ambassador to Mexico, James Gadsden, negotiated the purchase for the United States the land that is now Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. The united States BOUGHT that land for consideration rendered. Mexico signed it away and has no claim to it. They SOLD IT.

So how does Mexico have a claim on that land today?

[awesome guy]

Ah, so territory conquered in war is morally justified.

So the trick is to get other people to accept the stolen land as yours? That makes it morally justified?
What if Israel is abiding by their own government's laws in the conquest of more territory? Doesn't that make it, by definition, legal?

Oak.. there's a difference. The WORLD acknowledges the annexation of Texas and the Gadsden Purchase as legitimate acquisitions by the United States. Mexicans who think they were screwed can suck it and the World will agree with the US. The United Nations has designated Gaza, Golan and the West Bank as occupied territory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Israel has made any effort to formally annex those lands. In fact they offered Gaza as territory that could become a new Palestinian State. But they have no intention, for security reasons, of pulling their military from the West Bank or Golan.

Do we have to go over the history on this?



Texas won its Independence from Mexico and existed as a free Republic for nine years. It was its own country during that time before the United States annexed it. Mexico has no claim to it. They lost it.

Then there was a war between Mexico and the United States which Mexico lost again. They ceded by treaty the land that is now California, Navada, Utah, Northern Arizona, Northern New Mexico, and Colorado. Again... they signed away any claim to it. They lost it.

Then the American Ambassador to Mexico, James Gadsden, negotiated the purchase for the United States the land that is now Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. The united States BOUGHT that land for consideration rendered. Mexico signed it away and has no claim to it. They SOLD IT.

So how does Mexico have a claim on that land today?

Sure. Why not? Do you think rock , scissors, paper would be a better claim?

[Major Kong]

The Aztecs ruled most of Central Mexico by conquest...over time Spain conquered Mexico...a priest declared Mexico independent and Mexicans conquered the Spanish...Texas defeated Mexico...the USA defeated Mexico.

The lesson:
To the winner goes the spoils and we've had better luck against Mexico than we have had against Canada.

[HokieJoe]

Yes.

Ah, so territory conquered in war is morally justified.

[133743Hokie]

Palestine- a region, much like "Appalachia" is a region, and not formal state within the union.
Never was a nation.

Jordan is the Palestinian homeland

[patriothokie]

.

[133743Hokie]

Has been for centuries

Ah, so territory conquered in war is morally justified.

So the trick is to get other people to accept the stolen land as yours? That makes it morally justified?
What if Israel is abiding by their own government's laws in the conquest of more territory? Doesn't that make it, by definition, legal?

Oak.. there's a difference. The WORLD acknowledges the annexation of Texas and the Gadsden Purchase as legitimate acquisitions by the United States. Mexicans who think they were screwed can suck it and the World will agree with the US. The United Nations has designated Gaza, Golan and the West Bank as occupied territory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Israel has made any effort to formally annex those lands. In fact they offered Gaza as territory that could become a new Palestinian State. But they have no intention, for security reasons, of pulling their military from the West Bank or Golan.

Do we have to go over the history on this?



Texas won its Independence from Mexico and existed as a free Republic for nine years. It was its own country during that time before the United States annexed it. Mexico has no claim to it. They lost it.

Then there was a war between Mexico and the United States which Mexico lost again. They ceded by treaty the land that is now California, Navada, Utah, Northern Arizona, Northern New Mexico, and Colorado. Again... they signed away any claim to it. They lost it.

Then the American Ambassador to Mexico, James Gadsden, negotiated the purchase for the United States the land that is now Southern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. The united States BOUGHT that land for consideration rendered. Mexico signed it away and has no claim to it. They SOLD IT.

So how does Mexico have a claim on that land today?

[Hokie CPA]

Has been for millennia

FTFY. Land acquisition has been the basis for war since the dawn of man. Remember Stanley Kubrik's monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They fought each other over a water hole.

[Marine Hokie]

So what is the line? If break into your house and shoot you, is that a morally justified conquest of your land?

Has been for millennia

FTFY. Land acquisition has been the basis for war since the dawn of man. Remember Stanley Kubrik's monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They fought each other over a water hole.

[Hokie CPA]

So what is the line? If break into your house and shoot you, is that a morally justified conquest of your land?

Has been for millennia

FTFY. Land acquisition has been the basis for war since the dawn of man. Remember Stanley Kubrik's monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They fought each other over a water hole.

Course not. Now you're just trolling.

Pretty safe to say that governments/societies conquer, not individuals. Even Kubrik's monkeys weren't two guys fighting over a swimming hole.

[Marine Hokie]

So what is the line? If break into your house and shoot you, is that a morally justified conquest of your land?

Has been for millennia

FTFY. Land acquisition has been the basis for war since the dawn of man. Remember Stanley Kubrik's monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They fought each other over a water hole.

Course not. Now you're just trolling.

Pretty safe to say that governments/societies conquer, not individuals. Even Kubrik's monkeys weren't two guys fighting over a swimming hole.

I'm not trolling, I'm making a valid point, consistent with my overall position.

You're saying that a politician who wants more land and has soldiers murder to get it is morally justified, but not if someone did it without being told to by a state. I'm curious how far your standard reaches. Were Mao and Hussein morally justified in invading Tibet and Kuwait?
What if a government steals your land, and you want to take it back? Does the government have the moral high ground here?

[Hokie CPA]

So what is the line? If break into your house and shoot you, is that a morally justified conquest of your land?

Has been for millennia

FTFY. Land acquisition has been the basis for war since the dawn of man. Remember Stanley Kubrik's monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey? They fought each other over a water hole.

Course not. Now you're just trolling.

Pretty safe to say that governments/societies conquer, not individuals. Even Kubrik's monkeys weren't two guys fighting over a swimming hole.

I'm not trolling, I'm making a valid point, consistent with my overall position.

You're saying that a politician who wants more land and has soldiers murder to get it is morally justified, but not if someone did it without being told to by a state. I'm curious how far your standard reaches. Were Mao and Hussein morally justified in invading Tibet and Kuwait?
What if a government steals your land, and you want to take it back? Does the government have the moral high ground here?

I never said anything about being morally justified. But spoils of war are spoils of war. Moral's got nothin' to do with it.

[Marine Hokie]

So what is the line? If break into your house and shoot you, is that a morally justified conquest of your land?

Course not. Now you're just trolling.

Pretty safe to say that governments/societies conquer, not individuals. Even Kubrik's monkeys weren't two guys fighting over a swimming hole.

I'm not trolling, I'm making a valid point, consistent with my overall position.

You're saying that a politician who wants more land and has soldiers murder to get it is morally justified, but not if someone did it without being told to by a state. I'm curious how far your standard reaches. Were Mao and Hussein morally justified in invading Tibet and Kuwait?
What if a government steals your land, and you want to take it back? Does the government have the moral high ground here?

I never said anything about being morally justified. But spoils of war are spoils of war. Moral's got nothin' to do with it.

Sorry, that was another poster. Five people replied to my post.
So why is there a difference? If I declare war on you, and conquer your house, how is that less acceptable than a politician sending an army to do it? What if I formally annex your land by writing it on a piece of paper and have everyone in my house vote on it?