Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Who Owns the Nile? (datawrapper.de)
69 points by danso 16 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 101 comments



Egypt literally dies as a nation without Nile water.

Uganda purchasing SU27 advanced long range fighter bombers and Egypt recently placing increased emphasis and resources on training military units(including western training efforts) responsible for upstream Nile force projection is not a coincidence.

Nile resource sharing is a massive flash point.

I recall glancing at an engineering report that indicated clearing/dredging swamps in Sudan could significantly reduce mile water evaporation and increase downstream flow.

But at massive environmental and financial cost.

Perhaps it’s time to stock up on Egyptian cotton sheets now, since the future of Egyptian cotton may seriously be in doubt.

Tough choices to be made amplified by the need for them to be across sovereign borders.


Great video on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BCY0SPOFpE


Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOezSxtL05E

Great yt channel in general.


and the big ass damn in Ethiopia. Given the civil war there, don't be surprised in this turning into a bigger conflict.


From what I hear, a lot of the internal conflicts in Ethiopia is fuelled by undercover Egyption influence, trying to increase the internal conflicts to weaken the country.


That is the perception here. Predictably, it's behind the hardening of public opinion on the issue of the dam.


Has the world always been this on-the-cusp of war?

Turkey-Greece, Azerbaijan-Armenia, China-Taiwan, Ethiopia, Egypt-Uganda, Saudi-Iran-Yemen, Congo, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Russia-Ukraine, Morocco-Western Sahara-Algeria, India-China, India-Pakistan, Syria

Maybe I've just been watching too much Caspian Report lately, and a lot of these issues are a century in the making, but damn if it doesn't feel like early WW2 issues arising along with the geopolitical implications of climate change.


This is probably the most peaceful time in history, there is no armed conflict in the western hemishpere. https://time.com/4475617/how-peace-finally-came-to-reign-thr...

Most of the world is at peace, it's a remarkable accomplishment.


My understanding is that economic interdependence deserves the bulk of the credit for this relative peace. Tying the economic prosperity of nations together makes it harder to rationalise physical conflict.

But perhaps we can also thank global communications for making it that little bit harder (though still by no means impossible) to sufficiently otherise far away populations.


> economic interdependence deserves the bulk of the credit for this relative peace.

That was the thesis of a book called The Great Illusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

The book argued a European war was very unlikely.

the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another", as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved.

The book was published, to great acclaim, in... 1909.


The author could well have been right, but underestimated how much economic interdependence was required for his thesis to hold.


Oh, yes. I believe it was Francis Fukuyama who predicted that different regions of the world would specialize in producing specific products, trade would increase, and wars would decrease. Wars would decrease because of the DEPENDENCE of trade - BUT international sanctions would replace wars as the key piece to hold other countries in check.

We are seeing the US sanction other countries when they do things we don't like - and we are getting sanctioned in turn.


And nukes certainly limit large scale wars as well.


World Wars have always taken place primarily in the Eastern Hemisphere. I assume WWIII will be the same.


The Ukraine versus Russia


That is eastern hemisphere


> Has the world always been this on-the-cusp of war?

Usually much more so.


Those are small conflicts and skirmishes.

Take India-China. Those borderguards were literally fighting eachother with rocks and sticks because they don't issue guns to them PRECISELY to avoid war.


Until they're not? Major conflicts always seem to be negative feedback loop series of escalations.


I think you mean "positive feedback loop", which means a self-reinforcing cycle.

A negative feedback loop is the opposite, a feedback mechanism that self-corrects or dampens the signal.

Re. the state of war, I suggest reading "Enlightenment Now" by Stephen Pinker. We are living through the most peaceful period in history.


The primary issue of WW2 was an ascending, hyper-aggressive super-power-to-be that was assisted by a secret pact with the USSR. Had Poland not been stabbed in the back, the war would have gone on an entirely different course.

All of the conflicts that you listed are just run of the mill civil wars/border skirmishes/empires with rather limited pan-ethnic ambitions.


Morocco-westernSahara will not involve Algeria. The conflict is also basically resolved already with Morocco having successfully invaded/taken control of all but a very small part of Western Sahara.


I'll just leave this here.

https://youtu.be/eFTLKWw542g


Egypt is in an ideal location for solar-powered desalination... if they can afford it.


I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward. "Egypt has hundreds of fighter jets. Ethiopia has 20, We can turn the dam into dust".

They probably can. But then what? History is not over yet.

Egypt thinks of Ethiopia as enemy state. A lot of Ethiopians believe Egypt supports every rebel group in Ethiopia. But Ethiopians still don't view Egypt as an enemy, more like a thorn on the side. For thousands of years the Nile has been flowing toward Egypt without much objection. Bombing the dam will change that. It is the equivalent to creating a monster at your water source. Ethiopia will not try to block the water or anything like that. But it can and probably will start small irrigation projects everywhere. And it will stop consulting with Egypt. In the end, this will be much more devastating to Egypt than a hydro-electric dam which isn't even used for irrigation.

What baffles me about the Egyptian stance is, climate change is coming. Projections for fresh water in Africa in the coming decades don't look rosy. Mitigation for this is, fresh water sources should be developed and protected from environmental degradation. And you need the cooperation of upstream countries to do that. Being source of 85% of the Nile, Ethiopia's support is needed to do that.

Even if Ethiopia stops constructing the dam right now, in 50 years, at a time Egypt is sporting 200 million souls, there is potential that water levels on the Nile are probably going to decrease purely from climate change.

The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.


| I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward

Egyptian here .. i dont think most of Egyptian believe in the military solution and even our government Led by a military Experienced person doesn't believe in that

we have been in negotiations for multiple years and eventually will involve European Union or the US to make sure agreement is fair to both parties


Glad to hear that. But I am pessimistic about reaching a deal both sides would consider fair. Right now the basin water is divided by Egypt(85%) and Sudan(15%) with Ethiopia and the other 8 or 9 Nile basin countries allocated 0. Egyptian negotiation tactic over the past decade has been aimed at forcing Ethiopia to ratify this water share. The recent comments by your leader about war if "Egypt's water" is reduced is indicative of that.

For the Ethiopian side(and the rest of the Nile basin countries), this is outrageously unfair. Most people here recognize the water is a lifeline for Egypt and are against reducing Egypt's share by a consequential amount. But Egyptian intent of holding onto the 85/


Insightful comment, thanks for sharing.

For those that are interested, here is some more context on official cooperation between countries that surround (and are dependent on) the Nile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_Basin_Initiative


Thanks for bringing up the Nile Basin Initiative. Unfortunately, and to the surprise of no one, Egypt has been doing its best to kill it.


Something similar is happening in South Asia, where China has repeatedly proposed plans to dam rivers in Tibet. This has led to the possibility of war (https://asiatimes.com/2021/01/china-risks-a-himalayan-water-...) with India because rivers fed by the Himalayas supply a lot of India’s fresh water, and any alteration would dramatically affect its environment, agriculture, etc. This is a modern issue both because Tibet was historically it’s own sovereign territory and because the world didn’t face such overpopulation or resource strains.

The southwest of the US addressed this via an interstate compact that lays out shared allocation of river flows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact


I'm really curious on how they ignored their mexican counterparts, and really astonished that the US use all the caudal from the river leaving nothing to flow through the border. How they even manage to justify that decision is incredible to me.


The old colonial treaty split the waters 85-15 between Egypt and Sudan ignoring all the other African countries. This is completely unsustainable, the poor uptream countries must have their share.

Egypt just needs to use desalinization and water saving methods like other ME states.


The problem revolves around the filling duration. 3 years is way too fast for the downstream. thirsting the downstream is hardly ever a solution.


If only Egypt would realize that and cooperate with the upstream countries, or more specifically, Ethiopia. They could easily mitigate the issue with money, but they believe they have an ancient colonial right to command their neighboring countries.


Nobody said it would fill in 3 years. The stated number of years is from 4 to 7.


well Egypt is the downstream country in this case..


Oops. I did know that, but my fingers did not. Thanks, I edited the original.


Rivers that flow northward mess up all of our brains a little bit,.


Apparently it was the reverse for the Ancient Egyptians when they marched into the Middle East, encountered the Euphrates and were shocked to find a river flowing South.


It is surprising how most of the responses here seem so sympathetic to Egypt whilst forgetting the Nile countries who have had less benefit from a river originating in their territories.

The Black African countries have as much right to benefit from the river as Egypt and the idea that they must submit to some agreement created by the British who ignored the needs of Nile countries is simply absurd.

If any people "own" it is the Ethiopians, the Kenyans and the Ugandans in whose countries the Nile originates not Egypt, and they have as much right to it as anyone else. Instead of having proper negotiations on how the Nile should be shared they bringing up colonial agreements which none of the African countries were parties to. This is simply absurd and as racist as anything else.

Gadaffi created huge pipelines to draw water from aquifers, a resource which is way more valuable than oil, and offered to supply a substantial portion of Egypt's water needs and these fools supported his overthrow and turned the whole country into a scene of chaos, and now they are making silly noises about war with Ethiopia and other crap.


The water extracted in Libya is a non renewable resource, it's no not going to last.


> While most rivers flow south, the Nile flows north

I've heard this before, but it doesn't sound right, unless you get a weird bias because of weather patterns and lots of landmass that would drain into the arctic ocean.


I have a hard time conceiving of any reason that North and South would be different in this regard, but maybe it's possible if there is a tendency for rivers to flow towards the equator for some reason, since most of the world's landmass happens to be in the northern hemisphere.


Perhaps on some level, since melting ice would follow away from the ice mass. But AFAIK, there is no causative reason for rivers to flow towards the equator. A quick Google search corroborates this.


I live on the east coast of the United States and I have always felt that rivers flow east from the Appalachian mountains to the Atlantic Ocean.

If I lived in Siberia I would probably think that most rivers flow north to the Arctic Ocean.


It's crazy that Great Britain was even ever involved in a treaty related to this.


There's generally been a long-standing division between two polities, one controlling the upper Nile (modern-day Sudan/South Sudan) and one controlling the lower Nile (modern-day Egypt), although note the boundary between the two of them has shifted over the millennia.

The Islamic caliphate conquered the lower Nile from the Byzantines in their initial expansion, but failed to make progress on the upper Nile, leading the region to remain Christian. The Ottomans eventually displaced the rump states of the caliphate as the rulers of Egypt, but made essentially no progress again pushing south into Sudan. However, the governor of Egypt eventually went on a campaign and actually managed to conquer Sudan and it held for a couple of decades later. But then Sudan had a successful rebellion against Egyptian rule, so the Egyptian governor asked the British (who had by that time invaded and colonized Egypt, even though it was still legally part of the Ottoman Empire) to help him reconquering Sudan. This was successful, leading to Sudan becoming effectively a British colony under nominal Egyptian (but not nominally Ottoman, unlike actual Egypt) sovereignty [1].

That's how Britain acquired Egypt and Sudan. By the time of the first treaty, of course, the Ottoman Empire was carved up for good and Egypt became a clear British protectorate and Sudan a clear joint-British/English condominium. That's why Britain was involved. One of Britain's goals in ruling Sudan was to prevent it from becoming an extension of the Egyptian state, and the first treaty was an instrument to that end (by requiring Sudan to provide Egypt with a reliable supply of water, it's less necessary for Egypt to actually physically control Sudan).

[1] Yes, trying to figure out the actual boundaries of the Ottoman Empire were in its last century of existence is an exercise in frustration.


Wait until you hear about Sykes-Picot and the Durand line.


Is it? I think you'll find similar "involvement" around the world. The Great Partition of Pakistan and India, and Pakistan and Bangladesh/East-Pakistan spring to mind.


At some point there were just a bunch of tribes living around the world without much of a horizon. A "real" country played them against each other


[flagged]


The Middle East has indeed had very long periods of stability, and very often was significanrly more peaceful than Europe in all aspects including religious coexistence.


Doesn't Egypt have a really powerful military?

If the dam's an existential threat to Egypt, why don't the Egyptians simply launch a military strike to blow it up?


This is perhaps the most American thing I've ever read.

(No offence to any Americans reading this - there's simply no other country that's as insulated from the consequences of its military complex by sheer geography.)


This is stupid. If Ethiopia decides to hurt Egypt, it won't need to build a massive dam. Wasting water has never been too difficult. Egypt would do well to not create such an enemy at their water source.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Air_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Air_Force

Egypt can just occupy them, install a puppet regime and then move on. They definitely have that capability.


Depressing. I'll call it like it is. This is an idiotic response that lacks common sense. It's so common in the pro Egypt camp.

Most of the inventory is filled with short range equipment. The only jets able to reach Ethiopia are the Rafales and the SU-35 which make up a minority. They're not enough. More importantly, wars are not won by equipment (though they help immensely).

I don't get why such reductive opinions are so common when this issue is discussed.


Egypt and Sudan have signed a defense pact, and they are aligned on this issue. If and when push comes to shove I bet Egypt would use Sudan's air fields, and that would be more than enough range to bomb half the country(the half that has the river/lake) into oblivion with their 200+ F-16s. Also I don't sympathize with any side -- just made an observation that Ethiopia is very weak comparatively, and considering water is an existential issue for Egypt, may be they should be more realistic in their water related actions.

The only variable here that could stop Egypt and Sudan from taking "drastic measures" is the international response.

>wars are not won by equipment

Are you implying that Egyptians lack something in the morale or skill department compared to Ethopia?

>reductive opinions

Well, wars happen, and for lesser reasons.

>idiotic response that lacks common sense

Please be more civil.


I'm copy pasting a comment I made earlier.

================================================================

I have talked with a few Egyptians on the subject. Unfortunately most think a military solution would be simple and straightforward. "Egypt has hundreds of fighter jets. Ethiopia has 20, We can turn the dam into dust". They probably can. But then what? History is not over yet.

Egypt thinks of Ethiopia as enemy state. A lot of Ethiopians believe Egypt supports every rebel group in Ethiopia. But Ethiopians still don't view Egypt as an enemy, more like a thorn on the side. For thousands of years the Nile has been flowing toward Egypt without much objection. Bombing the dam will change that. It is the equivalent to creating a monster at your water source. Ethiopia will not try to block the water or anything like that. But it can and probably will start small irrigation projects everywhere. And it will stop consulting with Egypt. In the end, this will be much more devastating to Egypt than a hydro-electric dam which isn't even used for irrigation.

What baffles me about the Egyptian stance is, climate change is coming. Projections for fresh water in Africa in the coming decades don't look rosy. Mitigation for this is, fresh water sources should be developed and protected from environmental degradation. And you need the cooperation of upstream countries to do that. Being source of 85% of the Nile, Ethiopia's support is needed to do that.

Even if Ethiopia stops constructing the dam right now, in 50 years, at a time Egypt is sporting 200 million souls, there is potential that water levels on the Nile are probably going to decrease purely from climate change.

The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.

==================================================================================

I called your opinion reductive because, it does not consider potential consequences and is oblivious to the various factors behind Sudanese change of position. I called your opinion idiotic because it contained this statement "Egypt can just occupy them, install a puppet regime and then move on. They definitely have that capability" which is an idiotic statement and because it will create more problems than it solves. I am sorry it sounds rude but some things need to be made clear.

Fyi, Egypt invaded Ethiopia twice already and were repulsed.


>copy pasting a comment I made earlier.

And it's mostly unrelated to what I said.

>The talk of war is stupid. Playing zero sum game of "Only Egypt" is a bad idea.

Well you have a strong pro-peace opinion, doesn't mean that people who don't have strong opinions either way and are just observing should be silenced.

>it does not consider potential consequences

I shouldn't express opinions on the possible Egyptian actions and their capabilities because Egyptian actions would cause consequences? Are you ok?

>opinion idiotic because it will create more problems than it solves.

A harmful opinion on HN? I promise you Al-Sisi or his entourage don't read HN. And yet you didn't provide any arguments on why Egypt wouldn't or couldn't do it, only that it shouldn't.


Ah yes, the simple solution to many problems: violence and war.


They probably would, yes, and have hinted as much.


Dont underestimate Ethiopia. Few countries have such a potential in Africa.

The Track record of the Egyptians against Ethiopia is also not very good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian%E2%80%93Egyptian_War


I know how it will work. Most likely nothing will happen. Egyptian regime is very fragile, and will not risk a foreign intervention while having to suppress monthly uprisings back home.


The crisis of lack of water is bigger, who ever bombs the shit out of Great Renaissance Dam is going to be popular in Egypt.

Egypt more than one occasion came close to doing something like that. Long story short. Who ever has better military capabilities will own the Nile.

Egypt can use Suez as another piece to get Europe to accept its bombing campaign.


> who ever bombs the shit out of Great Renaissance Dam is going to be popular in Egypt.

Would they? GERD destruction = tsunami on the nile, possibly setting a chain reaction through downstream dams.

Sisi has now managed to beat even Murbarak on getting the lowest rating on record from any semblance of legit polls done nowadays.

Turkey is all over Ethiopia, and Sudan on top of that. And Sisi has a paranoid fear of Turkish involvement, either back home as a subversion, or a direct attack from Turkish African bases.

Turkey staring Sisi down from all sides is by far a much bigger concern to him than Ethiopians waving their MiG 21s at him.

If he has a gram of gray matter, he will not push Ethiopians further towards decision on Turkish military base.


That is really old news. read the current situation between Turkey and Egypt, which is actually getting better https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-egypt-diplomacy-id...


They face retaliations with the Aswan dam.

Egypt can not use Suez, because the US, Europe and Israel will intervene for sure on that particular case against Egypt and Egypt will lose for sure.


Israel will not intervene because it has a peace treaty with Egypt which is much more important than starting some stupid war on the behalf of foreign countries. Since the war with Egypt in 1956 Israel only had wars with entities which directly attacked Israel and even in 1956 there were some excuses due to attacks by the Fedayun that came from Egyptian area and to the fact that the Egyptian blockaded the entranc to the Israeli port on the red sea.

If anything they will just dig a canal or create some route from Eilat port to Ashdod port and make some profit out of the whole situation.


Egypt doesn't have the capability. Their air force has too little range and too little refueling capability.


Not exactly. in these situations they would bomb the GERD then ditch, out of fuel, in international waters ready to be picked up or in Sudan. It's been done before. For really high value targets range doesn't matter as much.


Which means they couldn't maneuver at all at the attack site, making themselves extremely vulnerable; Furthermore, a dam is an highly fortified target by nature, making serious damage requires very heavy bombs, not sure they could make it even as a one way trip if they are properly armed.

IMHO, most likely result of an attack (for Egypt) is that Egypt loses a part of its airforce in return for temporarily harming Ethiopia's ability to generate electricity at the site. At which point Ethiopia fills the dam anyway and works on repairing the damage, while Egypt wouldn't be able to repeat this.


They could certainly maneuver at the attack site - there is very limited depth for Ethiopian defences as the dam is only ten miles from the Sudanese border.

But yes, the planes would be expendable. That said, Egypt could very well breach the dam itself. It would needs some creative use of munitions but modern munitions are precise enough to allow for breaching of dams.


That was the case before they bought the Rafale from France I guess


Why bomb a damn when you can hack it.


i dont think boombing the dam is a popular thing in egypt


The difference is, regardless of political divisions, everyone in Egypt totally understands that they are doomed without water. so the mentality there is slowly shifting towards "well, if we are dying anyway...."


I think a war with Ethiopia would help the Egyptian regime, assuming it went well. And it probably would because Egypt's military is the strongest in the region minus Israel.

The real question is what Sudan would do (probably lie down for the Egyptians).


Maybe Sudan would help Egypt. They use the Nile's water too.


They had a joint training Air force operation 2 days ago named "Nile Eagles"

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/egypt-sudan-hold-nile-e...


Ethiopia is probably the only nation in Africa that has not been dominated by foreign powers.

The reason is the topography. Ethiopia has lots of mountains, like Switzerland and it is painful to attack.

Any foreign nation helping Ethiopia could mean disaster for Egypt.


Controlling the entire Ethiopia would be a huge challenge, but the war objective in a fight over the Nile is much more limited in scope.


I suppose in war you never know. But the dam is 10 miles from the Sudanese border.


"Egypt's military is the strongest in the region minus Israel." and minus Turkey


If it becomes an existential threat to Egypt via the Nile drying up, then the Egyptian people themselves will want war.


No need to intervene in the ear of 5th gen wars, especially when Ethiopia effectively has a civil war going on.


Water is life or death. So they might have to try it.

Go block oil extraction in the Arab world and USA will be all over you...national interest.


> Go block oil extraction in the Arab world and USA will be all over you...national interest.

You mean like they did in the 70ies when the opec cartel cut oil production for political reasons? yeah...


not any more (vis USA and Arab world) - is the fifth fleet still there in persian gulf ?


Not anymore. The US is an oil exporting nation now.


> The US is an oil exporting nation now.

That is irrelevant. Oil is fungible. Block oil exports from the Middle East and the price of oil skyrockets worldwide including in the US.


Not necessarily.

From 1975 to 2015 the US had a law banning most crude oil exports from the US (aside from Canada and partially Mexico), effectively creating a separate North America-only oil market. It wouldn't take much for the US to reinstate this ban, meaning oil produced in the US stays in the US. And since the US is a net oil exporter, that means North American oil prices will stay low and stable.


As an oil exporting nation, rising oil prices are now good for the US!


I see several persons claiming a lot of what is being said over the last few years as a propaganda from the Ethiopians as people or as a Government. Egypt only receives 55.5 billion cubic of water. Do you know how much the Nile rover represent for Egypt as a source of water? ONLY 83.1% of the FRESH WATER. https://water.fanack.com/egypt/water-resources/

Egypt has NO other water resources except the Nile river. How about Ethiopia? AT LESAT 936.4 BILLION Cubic meters and we don’t count underground water here (16.9 times as the Egyptians). https://www.worldometers.info/water/ethiopia-water/ Simply speaking: what does Ethiopia need? Ethiopia wants to SELL the water to Egypt. Ethiopia is being used as a dirty hand to get Egypt down in any debate with major forces especially Israel.

Water MUST NOT be sold. You CAN NOT trade lives of millions by money. This problem should be finished once and for ever. All the Nile river African countries have ZERO problem of water supplies EXCEPT Egypt. Egypt is already suffering from extreme water deficiency. Ethiopians always claim that they don’t get any benefit from the Blue Nile. Well, the answer is so simple, it is the civil wars that got your country sunk in bloodsheds of killing, it is your divided ethnic groups, it is your inadequate capability of using the huge water resources that you already have. I am not sure who supports negotiating about the lives of millions of people by trading their lives with money. You guys don’t imagine the consequences. It is not about war only, it is about uncontrolled anger which will reach a lot of places in the Ethiopian country. Last, if you don’t have enough information about this debate, do not place meaningless comment. This is not your daily sh* you post on social media. Numbers talk. That what we all know. Without number, what we say is just garbage. Grow up and have the info. Do not place your fail as a country or people on another nation


Egypt is not a "proper" country. It is simply a string of settlements along the banks of Nile river and its delta.

Don't let the large trapezoid shape fool you. Most of that is the result of a line on the ground drawn by colonialists.

If you want see a country like Egypt look at the Gambia, another country drawn along the eponymous river wholly surrounded by Senegal, another product of colonial machinations.


Roughly 70% of the world population lives within 5 km of a body of water [0]. By this definition, every country is a string of settlements along water.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110782/


The difference is that many places have more bodies of water for people to live next to. In Egypt, you've got the Nile, the Faiyum, and a smattering of oases.


Over 90 million people live on that insignificant river! Egypt was the center of the Mughal Sultanate that beat the Crusaders and the Mongols. They went into decline under the Ottomans and never really recovered — infamously, they faced the Ottoman guns with swords and bows in 1517 and were unceremoniously trounced.


s/Mughal/Mamluk/ for those wondering why I placed an Indian dynasty in Egypt


I seem to recall the US is also the result of lines in the ground drawn by colonialists.


You know, if the land near the nile is so valuable and the land far away from it is not, then why would you be jealous over it? No country can do anything with it.


Or look at Canada, a string of settlements on the US border.

See also: Nevada


That's a strange thing to call one of the cradles of civilization...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: