Court Rules Guantanamo Bay Detainees may not Challenge their Detention

Originally posted by shots

Just as I expected you claim we are conquering people yet you cannot or could not back it up bye naming those countries.

I will take that as "NO I cannot prove my logic or argument" with facts all I can give is words.

tell me one place that doesn't rely on american business, and you will answer your question of who we haven't conquered economically yet. Tell me one country who doesn't rely on international corporations and you will know what countries HAVEN'T been conquered yet.

If you think that you need to have a land invasion to economically conquer, youre wrong. Terrorists have no means of physically conquering us, and they have no means to economically conquer us, so how would they conquer us? They can't.

Business has conquered us. US has conquered the world economically because I can't see any real countries that could survive without us. If we disappeared, the world economy would be screwed. We have control.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
tell me one place that doesn't rely on american business, and you will answer your question of who we haven't conquered economically yet.

Pay attention it is not up to me to answer my own question you were the one making the claim not me. You made the statement we conquered people and you are the one who cannot back your allegations up with facts. :shk:

Originally posted by shots
Pay attention it is not up to me to answer my own question you were the one making the claim not me. You made the statement we conquered people and you are the one who cannot back your allegations up with facts. :shk:

so you cannot name one country is isnt economically dependent on the US and international corporations? I think thats the only point that need be made.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

so you cannot name one country is isnt economically dependent on the US and international corporations? I think thats the only point that need be made.

It is not up to me to answer your question the question was put to you which country or countries have we conquered and you have not named those countries.

Here perhaps a refresher of the use of the verb conquer is in order

Conquer
(v.) seize possession of and maintain control over by military conquest:
• annex
• occupy
• overrun
• surrender (antonym)
• give up (antonym)

AS you can clearly see bye definition your logic/argument has failed you, since conquering is done only by military force.

"To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms: scientists battling to conquer disease"

so now your telling me scientists battling to conquer disease is a military effort?

Please, lets be rational here. Name a country that isn't under control by either the US or an International corporation. That means that if the corporation or the US removed itself completely from that country, it would be able to continue and not collapse on itself.

GRIM you failed the course

Yet now you inject something that is non relevant we are not talking scientific terms here by defintion it is the use of Milarty force

Originally posted by shots

GRIM you failed the course

Yet now you inject something that is non relevant we are not talking scientific terms here by defintion it is the use of Milarty force

yes the definition, which is what I quoted. Conquer can be military force or other. Stop trying to play it off like conquer can only be used to describe a physical military take over when it doesn't. An economical take over is just as effective in the larger terms. It is you who has missed the mark, and now trying to say you hit it when you clearly missed it.

Trying to limit the definition of conquer is not going to help your arguement, and that the fact is many nations have been conquered economically by the US and international corporations.

Originally posted by grimreaper797


Stop trying to play it off like conquer can only be used to describe a physical military take over when it doesn't.

I am not the one playing with the menaing that would be you.

From here oinn in you can talk with yourself I am done here.

Well that was cleaver. Quote the definition and say Im wrong, then When I quote the definition as a whole you call it irrelevent. When I say Im quoting it, you say Im the one arguing the definition of a word. And you accuse me of dodging the question?