Middle East Military Conflict News.

[Minimalist]

Bibi and Trump also want to go through with an alternative to the Suez Canal running through that prime Gazan real estate.

Running into the Gulf of Aqaba, I'm assuming? Where might I read more about this?

Start with a good topographical map....



Suez runs through lowland areas directly NNW into the Med.  The Gulf of Agaba runs along the fault line which runs into the dead Sea.  Further, there are highlands to the West which would require transversing up and down the highlands.  But hey, when Fuckface gets an idea in his head to build yet another useless golf course he'll keep it at it while he tries to get someone else puts up the money he can later steal!

[Cavebear]

Most toddlers have that problem.  Some grow out of it.

Trump is mostly an "Id". His needs are instinctual, largely uncontrollable, and it drives him. He has some Superego, being driven by parental demands for success. What he seems to really lack is the Ego, the mediator.

OK, OK, that's all Freudian, but you know what I mean. He responds to "I want" more than he responds to "I should", or "We".

[Cavebear]

Bibi and Trump also want to go through with an alternative to the Suez Canal running through that prime Gazan real estate.

Running into the Gulf of Aqaba, I'm assuming? Where might I read more about this?

There was a more ancient "Suez Canal"...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...en.svg.png

[Thumpalumpacus]

Running into the Gulf of Aqaba, I'm assuming? Where might I read more about this?

There was a more ancient "Suez Canal"...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...en.svg.png

What that has to do with Netanyahu and Trump, neither of whom control any of Egypt, or what this has to do with the subject, is irrelevance elevated to art-form.

[Cavebear]

There was a more ancient "Suez Canal"...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...en.svg.png

What that has to do with Netanyahu and Trump, neither of whom control any of Egypt, or what this has to do with the subject, is irrelevance elevated to art-form.

Just wanted to point out that the Suez Canal wasn't the first from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, and there are many ways to get from A to B. Sometimes, a little historical knowledge can be useful.

Relax...

[Thumpalumpacus]

What that has to do with Netanyahu and Trump, neither of whom control any of Egypt, or what this has to do with the subject, is irrelevance elevated to art-form.

Just wanted to point out that the Suez Canal wasn't the first from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, and there are many ways to get from A to B.  Sometimes, a little historical knowledge can be useful.  

Relax...

A pointless point, got it.

[Minimalist]

Running into the Gulf of Aqaba, I'm assuming? Where might I read more about this?

There was a more ancient "Suez Canal"...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...en.svg.png

Of   course back then, and for most of human history as we know it, those ships were about 45 feet long with shallow drafts.  Far from the behemoths we build today.

[Cavebear]

Just wanted to point out that the Suez Canal wasn't the first from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, and there are many ways to get from A to B.  Sometimes, a little historical knowledge can be useful.  

Relax...

A pointless point, got it.

You just love to nit-pick at posts and insult posters. I mentioned some minor thing about other canals in Egypt just as general information and it seems to have greatly bothered you. My post was just about a previous canal. No big thing, just a mention.

You must be a real thrill at parties...

Loosen up guy! Try to a bit more friendly.

[Cavebear]

There was a more ancient "Suez Canal"...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...en.svg.png

Of   course back then, and for most of human history as we know it, those ships were about 45 feet long with shallow drafts.  Far from the behemoths we build today.

Well, yes it makes sense that new canals have to get bigger as ships get bigger. The economics of the canals and ships makes sense. Volume carried vs miles shipped is a very serious cost issue.

I sometimes wonder if there is a limit on sizes (both canals and ships), but that is a slightly different topic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A pointless point, got it.

You just love to nit-pick at posts and insult posters.

No, just you. We're talking about the viability of an Israeli alternative to the Suez Canal and you bring up an ancient irrelevancy. Sorry you don't like it being called what it is.

No one is forcing you to read my posts.

[Cavebear]

You just love to nit-pick at posts and insult posters.

No, just you. We're talking about the viability of an Israeli alternative to the Suez Canal and you bring up an ancient irrelevancy. Sorry you don't like it being called what it is.

No one is forcing you to read my posts.

No one is forcing you to read or respond to mine either.

But when I mention some minor historical fact or some side note, you just can't seem to not attack it.

When a poster mentions some related fact to a topic, I appreciate that. I've never met the smallest bit of side-information that didn't make me think about it.

But regarding the Suez Canal alternatives, I offer you this to read. I hope it is more to your liking.

[airportkid]

... I offer you this to read ...

Link inop.

[Cavebear]

... I offer you this to read ...

Link inop.

Sorry, it opens for me.  Let me try again HERE.

Did that work?

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, just you. We're talking about the viability of an Israeli alternative to the Suez Canal and you bring up an ancient irrelevancy. Sorry you don't like it being called what it is.

No one is forcing you to read my posts.

No one is forcing you to read or respond to mine either.  

[...]

But regarding the Suez Canal alternatives, I offer you this to read.  I hope it is more to your liking.  

I'd respond to this but my browser reports privacy concerns.

I unblocked you on the basis of the broken-clock theory, but I may have been optimistic.

[Cavebear]

No one is forcing you to read or respond to mine either.  

[...]

But regarding the Suez Canal alternatives, I offer you this to read.  I hope it is more to your liking.  

I'd respond to this but my browser reports privacy concerns.

I unblocked you on the basis of the broken-clock theory, but I may have been optimistic.

See above post for a hopeful link correction.  

[Kim]

The new link works fine for me.
Thanks! Very cool article.

[Minimalist]

Climate change, along with water diversions for agriculture, are causing serious water flow issues in both the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, both of which are at significant risk of drying up.  Canals do not thrive in such conditions.  At least they would not have to worry about salt-water intrusion.

[airportkid]

Broad strokes math produces the following: a canal 180 miles by 300 feet wide by 105 feet deep (roughly the Ben-Gurion) is (very roughly) one billion cubic meters.
The Bagger strip mining excavators (the largest on the planet) rip up (rounded) 250,000 cubic meters per day. 11 Baggers could dig a Ben-Gurion canal in 1 year - through soil.
The Ben-Gurion traverses rock, which would need to be pulverized before a Bagger could scoop it up. So add a year to dynamite the rock into scoopable chunks ahead of each Bagger.
Add 2 to 3 years to build 11 Baggers.

Like the Suez, the Ben-Gurion could be a straight trench without locks, so the principal challenge (other than politics) would be physically digging it. Sounds like it's inevitable.

Check out the Baggers if you haven't already seen them - very intimidating giant steel rotary "saws".

[Rhythmcs]

Like a cold miller roided up and ate all the other cold millers.

[mordant]

Bibi and Trump also want to go through with an alternative to the Suez Canal running through that prime Gazan real estate.

Running into the Gulf of Aqaba, I'm assuming? Where might I read more about this?

This seems like a fair summary. There are others.

https://www.newarab.com/news/what-israel...za-matters

[SYZ]

Senate Democrats failed yesterday to get a war-powers
resolution passed to limit Trump’s ability to single-handedly
escalate the war with Iran. The resolution, “to direct the
removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities
against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, was voted down 53-47.

Democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia who tabled the bill saying:

"Congress declares war", he said in a speech on the Senate floor.
He stressed that the framers of the US constitution in 1787 were
so wary of giving the power to start wars to one person that they
did not even entrust it to George Washington, the first commander
in chief.

"They decided that war was too big a decision for one person...
And so they wrote a constitution that said the United States should
not be at war without a vote of Congress".

I can only agree.  The absolute power invested in one single
individual by the US constitution is really beyond the pale.  
And this, obviously and extremely disturbingly, is why the
United States is currently morphing into an autocracy rather
than any true democracy.

I still can't believe that—apparently—the majority of Americans
have passively accepted Trump's derangement and lust for power.

—I see obvious similarities with Tito and Mussolini, or today's Erdoğan and Ortega.

[Rhythmcs]

The top line here is that the us constitution doesn't invest any single person with such power but, apparently, cannot prevent a single person from exersizing it anyway. From a practical point of view, though, that's not really happening here. Republicans are cowards like any other traitor - they could stop him, they've been given the oppurtunity. They voted to let it continue. Maybe they think that when this is all over, if it's ever all over, they can hang it all on the old man.

[SYZ]

Article II of the US Constitution establishes the Executive Branch
of the federal government.

The Executive Vesting Clause, in Section 1, Clause 1, provides that
the federal executive power is vested in the President.

Section 3 of Article II further requires the President to "take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed." The executive power thus
consists of the authority to enforce laws and to "appoint the agents
charged with the duty of such enforcement." The President also
has distinct authority over foreign affairs, and "alone has the power
to speak or listen as a representative of the nation."

 —To me that says that Trump alone has the authority to do
    whatever he likes, regardless of Congress and/or the people.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Article II of the US Constitution establishes the Executive Branch
of the federal government.

The Executive Vesting Clause, in Section 1, Clause 1, provides that
the federal executive power is vested in the President.

Section 3 of Article II further requires the President to "take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed." The executive power thus
consists of the authority to enforce laws and to "appoint the agents
charged with the duty of such enforcement." The President also
has distinct authority over foreign affairs, and "alone has the power
to speak or listen as a representative of the nation."

 —To me that says that Trump alone has the authority to do
    whatever he likes, regardless of Congress and/or the people.

By our Constitution, the power to declare war is vested solely in the Congress, so in this context Trump doesn't have the legal power to declare war, though he, like many of his predecessors, have the limited power to lead military responses to exigent circumstances. The pertinent law is the War Powers Resolution.

[Dexta]

Netanyahu to propose full reoccupation of Gaza, Israeli media report

This is a BBC article out today. Note the absence of inverted commas around "reoccupation." When has the state of Israel occupied Gaza? Never. 

I hate polygamy and the resultant oppression of women/girls inherent in Islam due to projected thoughts of infidelity and the biological prerogative monifest due to internal fertilisation, So fuck Islam over Judaism any day....HOWEVER (and I'm therapeutically thinking myself through this as I type):

The world needs atheism. Monogamous atheism - serial monogamy - OK! Islam is all about the sex, we all know it, virgins in the afterlife, chastity belts, Burqas....

There's a part of me which says "we need Jerusalem to defeat the polygamy and the resultant oppression of women." There's another part of me which says Israel should have never been born.


I'm still on the fence, basically. Darwin I hate myself sometimes....but I hate Islam more. But I hate the butchery of innocent children...how many children though...I'll stop there.