Rue

LOL. ah yes. We got ourselves one good ole boy telling me he is an expert on spirituality and seen and done it all and so yes siree his being a spiritually enlightened man has led him to his current path of ultimate awareness. Yes Sir, I am talkin to a man who has seen the light and them sone. And what do we have hear, yet another genius making remarks about feathers 'n such. Yeehaw! Just bust my britches laffin. Can't wait until we burn some crosses and maybe beat up or kill some of these savages. Yuck. Yuck. This is what happens when debate property rights? Look at the level of hatred directed at ALL aboriginals in these comments and tell me do you really expect anyone aboriginal to respond other then someone like Tsi? Got news for us all. The only people who respond to such people, are warriors. Y'all really expect anyone moderate to even begin to try engage in discussions with such enlightened souls? Yah you good ole boys got lotsto worry 'bout. Yes siree, them aboriginals want your trailers.

Tsi people will misunderestand your comment. I believe you are referring to the Catholic ritual when the Priest gives a follower what my Catholic colleagues liked to tell me were delicious wafer cookies. I think most Christians would agree with me when I say, don't actually promote the practice of cannabilism or eat people unless of course its after a few drinks and a friendly date.

Human beings are born into an environment they do not understand. So in an attempt to try give shape and form and meaning and explanation to our environment we postulate or think. Our brain is structured to engage in cognitive processes that simplify the above exercise and make it less daunting or overwhelming by labeling and categorizing our thoughts. It is a natural cognitive process to generalize. We all do it. Now to simplify and make things easier to understand, as we generalize and label, we preconceive. We come up with beliefs ahead of time and then refer to them as we venture into something we find new or unknown. We refer back to those preconceived beliefs like a child does a security blanket. It gives us something to refer to and it makes us feel less afraid of what we find unfamiliar. It is human nature to be afraid, or anxious or scared of that which is not familiar to us. This anxiety or dicomfort or fear is most often expressed by acting out the opposite of what we really feel. So when we become frightened we act all tough and we become full of bravado and ridicule that which makes us insecure because we are not familiar with it. So it is that simple really. We see people from a culture we do not understand, we are quick to fill that vacum or lack of knowledge of that culture by inserting pre-arranged references we fall back on to make us feel safe. So we have preconceptions about people of different colour, age, sex, gender preference. religion, ethnic beliefs, weight, size, physical abilities, mental abilities, and so on. Racism is one of many examples of the act of humans generalizing. People immediately think racism is bad. Well the fact is when we hold racist views that are positive or generalize people in perceived group in a complementary manner it is not necessarly bad. Where we get into trouble is when our generalizations set up negative generalizations. So I would summarize and say, its not the generalizations or need to simplify and label which gets us in trouble, its when we use such exercises to promote hatred and negative thoughts. We all have the potential for evil and good, negative and positive. How we choose to exercise it is ultimately our individual choice, and so some of us will go through life hating that which we perceive is different and ridiculing it to make it seem less scary, and some of us will go through life trying to understand and embrace that which we do not understand, also in an effort to make it seem less scary. Either way our attempt is trying to make our environment seem less frightening and more understandable. Obviously it probably is preferable to try create good and positive belief patterns from our experiences and generalizations as opposed to negative ones. Now although all humans have been shown in tests to be the only life form that kills simply for the sake of killing, and hating, the same thing that gives us such weaknesses that doom us to war and intolerance, also is what gives us the ability to learn to cooperate and create through social cooperation making us stronger and more likely to evolve. These days it just feels like for me that we have become primative naked apes to busy throwing rocks at each other and sticking our butts in each others' faces in mock defiance.

Clue in Tsi. They were drug, or deprivation induced halucinations. One time Carlos got all wasted and turned into a raven, or a crow. Sorry to burst your self-righteous pronouncement but it is not all about drugs or sensory deprivation. Maybe in your world with your concepts and the limited knowledge you have, where you choose to see things in a particular way, you feel any other way of conceiving reality can be dismissed with such an explanation, but for some of us who try to genuinely listen and learn from others and discipline ourselves to listen more then we preach, we come to different less simplistic conclusions/ Before you dismiss shape-shifting or any other aboriginal faith practice or belief, and make obnoxious comments about dogs and shaymen, rest your mouth, your self-righteousness and your arrogance and presumption you are superior and know the truth for just once. Your anger coupled with your lack of awareness of aboriginal spiritual practices and your hatred for aboriginal customs is clear and transparent and of course it makes you blind. Yes in your world blind men can't see colours so colours can't exist. Oh how simple. Your brain can't conceive of shape shifting so it can't possibly have any validity because I mean we all know you are God possessor of universal truth and if you say it aint so, well it aint so. Excuse me if I don't worship at your feet. What is a true shame is that what you may never understand that blind people can learn to understand colour even though they don't see it.. but you would need to sit and learn from a blind man to understand that and something tells me you are not someone who is prepared to do that. You are too busy snickering with self-righteousness and the conviction of your beliefs. Aboriginal faith beliefs are based on intricate, complex concepts and a method of learned disciplined exercises not drugs. More to the point, even though you try write them off, modern Western medicine, the same medicine you will go running to when you get sick, is now learning to understand and incorporate such principles when treating patients. I doubt you would understand it but Western culture is one of a very few on this planet that is fixated on the physical and seperating physical phenomena from emotional and mental or psychological (psychic) phenomena and emphasising all believes based on the aquisition and control of physical material. In your world of course you need drugs to think in alternative forms but in the majority of societies, they do not need drugs. Then again I doubt you know anything about Taoism, Hinduism, Shintoism, he Wickans, or so many other belief systems or even the great mystic traditions of your own Judeo-Christian religious roots. Aboriginal concepts are based on ancient methods of using the mind and emotions and not seperating them from the physical body you seem to think is distinct. It is as simple as that and yet it is precisely its simplicity that makes it far too profound for your mind at this point to grasp. The majority of cultures on this planet subscribe to similiar beliefs. It is we Westerners who have chosen to isolate ourselves and fixate on here and now and materialism including trying to accumulate and control material as a means to define our wealth and power and that is precisely why you live in a toxic evnironment full of crime and disease and have the audacity to think it makes you superior to aboriginal belief systems. Now as for your comment; I once saw a dog melt into a carpet, I guess that makes me a shaman too. Try understand this if your hatred and contempt can subside for just a second. To be a Shaman you must be willing to study and learn and commit your entire life to constantly learning and respecting that which you can not understand and learning to not be afraid of anything and give in to the temptation to need to label everything and have an answer for everything. ... clearly something you stopped doing years ago...so before you call yourself a Shaman look in the mirror. All you are is someone ridiculing something you can't understand. Here is the point. One day as you lie on your death bed and have to go through the passage of death, you will be forced to deal with the concepts you now ridicule and are afraid of and deny through ridicule. At that time people like Tsi will not seem so foolish to you anymore. You know its one thing to debate land rights but when you turn it into ridiculing a man's spiritual beliefs it becomes ugly and dooms you to self-destruction. Sorry but not all of us Westerners share your hatred and I am grateful for what-ever I have been able to learn (and still struggle to learn) from aboriginals on spiritual concepts.

Why don't you turn into a bird and flock off then? He can already turn into a bird and fly circles around you. To bad you are too angry to see that.

I love it when people who sit in comfort and take their peace for granted lecture Israel on what it should learn and talk about the Lebanese conflict like it is a foot-ball score where one side won and the other lost. Yes Figleaf you do hear contempt in my voice, because having had both Palestinian and Israeli guts in my face I sputter madly when I hear people like you make such simplistic analysis and see everything so black and white, good versus bad. So let us deal with a few comments I personally found idiotic. To start with Black Dog once again lectures us all that Hezbollah does not have the means to destroy Israel and simply is engaged in trash talk. Right this is a foot-ball game and the other guy is simply trash talking. I will say this again, Black Dog makes such simplistic, naive comments, because he has not lived through a missile attack, a bomb exploding a few feet from him, or constantly wondering when walking in a crowd if a bomb will go off. Black Dog I guarantee you this. If you came to Israel and lived through one missile attack or witnessed one bomb go off and have to scrape body parts, you would not make such idiotic comments such as Hezbollah can not wipe Israel out or is not a danger and fluff it off as trash talk and this is precisely why I am so quick to dismiss your comments when they revert to such simplistic generalizations. I do respect your other views, but sorry when it comes to the threat of terrorism and its consequences, I am truly moved by your ignorance and yes I do get angry. As for you Figleaf who obviously writes in a manner which suggests he is an expert and has figured it all out and of course realizes it is all Israel's fault let me try one simple concept on you. Lebanese infrastructure was blown up not because Hezbollah might use it, but because Hezbollah was using it. In fact, had Israel finished what it started years ago rather then pull out and allow Hezbollah to take over Lebanon and use its infrastructure at will to build an arsenal and launching pad from South Lebanon no this would not have happened. Here is the crux of the issue Figleaf your selectivity chooses to deliberately ignore. If Israel goes into Lebanon to try pre-empt terrorist attacks from Hezbollah, you argue they are occupying Lebanon and Hezbollah is merely a freedom fighting force. When Israel leaves, and is no longer in Lebanon, and then Hezbollah engages in attacks on Israel proper, you still refer to them as an innocent victim and that is precisely why Figleaf your simplistic lectures have no time of day with me and yes are spit on. You see Figleaf I have no time of day for someone who is intellectually dishonest and yes I find it intellectually dishonest for you to engage in the comments you do without ever stating or conceding that Israel has the right to exist and would not be fighting Hezbollah or engaged in attacks on Lebanon if it was not under attack. That you and Black Dog and the usual anti-Israelis on these posts like to sweep under the carpet. If youa re Blackdog youy write about this conflict like it is some sort of minor annoyance. Like Blackdog you feel you can be self-righteous and infer and argue that Israel had no business defending itself. Well I have news for you. If you did not live in such a comfortable world..if you lived in a city where missiles were being shot at you and terrorists were blowing up your movie theatres, cafes and streets, you would want your government to protect you. I also have news for you. If someone told you your government would not do anything, because the rest of the world doesn't want you to live in a free country you could care less what that world has to think. See in your simplistic world, Jews should just disappear. They have no right to live in peace. They can't defend themselves. They can't try stop the missiles from reaching them. Like Blackdog you dismiss these missiles, these kidnappings of soldiers, these terrorist attacks as a joke. Now as for the other comment from the other poster who claims Israel gave its finger to the UN he again shows his complete bias and ignorance as to the conflict in his attempt to depict Israel as simply giving the finger to the UN. Anyone who bothers to read up on this conflict knows what the UN's record is. But I suppose I should remind you one more time since you conveniently ignore it in your simplistic attempts to portray Israel as bad and anyone anti Israel as good. The UN passed a resolution stating UNIFIL was to go into Lebanon and disarm all militias including Hezbollah and to monitor activities in Lebanon that could lead to a war with Israel so as to prevent a war from happening. It did not and the UN admitted it failed. The UN admitted it did nothing as Hezbollah re-armed itself and turned the South of Lebanon into an armed launching pad in which it engaged in terrorist war against Israel. The UN did nothing as Iran shipped missiles, anti-tank weapons, armaments, bombs, explosives and yes nerve gas through Syria down to the South of Lebanon. So before you lecture Israel on giving the finger to the UN try accept reality and that is the UN gave the finger to Israel long before Israel gave up on the UN. This is the same UN that had Libya sitting on as Chairman of its Human Rights Committee. This is the same UN that enacted a resolution that called Israel a racist state and equated Zionism with racism. This is the same UN that has been so quick to criticize Israel for human rights violations but has remained completely silent as Muslim nation after Muslim nation has committed human rights autrocities that have resulted in the killing and torture of millions and far more than anything Israel has ever allegedly done. This is the same UN that criticizes Israel for wanting to keep an embargo on Lebanon but in the same breath admits it will not stop Hezbollah from rearming itself and doesn't think it is a good idea putting UN forces on the Syrian border of Lebanon even though as we speak, weapons continue to be sent from Iran through Syria to Lebanon making this latest ceasefire a joke. This is the same UN that criticizes Israel for blowing up Lebanon and killing civilians, and to date it appears somewhere between 800 to 1,300, but remains silent as to Arab autrocities. Let us start with the Algerian government killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in its own country when terrorists hid with them. Let's try Syria which in one instance shot dead 10,000 civilians as it suspected less then 50 Muslim Brotherhood terrorists hiding with them. Lets mention Iran which to this day lines up and shoots anyone itconsiders against its rule including Sunni Muslims, Bahaiis, Kurds, and Zoreastrians not to mention homo-sexuals, communists or anyone suspected of being sympathetic to the West, i.e., women who dare speak out in favour of full equality. This is the same UN that says nothing when Egyptian secret police and military kill thousands of civilians who are suspected of being in the Muslim Brotherhood or other opposition groups. This is the same UN that says nothing about Saudi Arabian military shooting unarmed civilians suspected of being terrorists or hiding terrorists. So you want to talk about Israel giving the finger to the UN lets talk about the UN giving the finger to Israel with monumental hippocracy and selectivity. Let us talk about the UN which molly coddles dictatorships and tyrants as long as they are in the third world. Let us talk about the same UN that did nothing as a genocide occurred in Rwanda and Burundi. Let us talk about the same UN that has abandoned millions in Darfur being exterminated simply because they are black and Christian. Let us talk about the same UN that looks a blind eye to world wide trafficking in human slaves to the Middle East from Africa and looks the other way as certain nations engage in the prostitution and sex trade of children. Let us talk about the same UN that said nothing when Hezbollah the same people Blackdog dismisses as a harmless annoyance engaged in a civil war in Lebanon and killed thousands of civilians. That is all conveniently forgotten in your simplistic Israel bad, Hezbollah good lectures. Me you bet I spit on such comments. I do not take any of you seriously. On the other hand unlike you soft, sheltered, suburban pups, I take Hezbollah and Intifada and Hamas and all the other cells of terrorists very seriously because I know maive pups like you would be the first they kill. People like me they know will put up a fight. People like you they prefer to go after. That is their m.o.-don;t fight people who can defend themselves, go after unarmed soft civilians and hide behind civilians once they shoot back or come after you. That is something you sheltered choir boys never seem to get until the attack happens close to you, then you are the same people who are the first to demand protection. You remind me of that Canadian twit who went into Iraq and was kidnapped by anti-American guerillas and was shocked he was held hostage. This same twit who went on and on about how evil the US was and how he went to Iraq to help the people, had no problem when American soldiers had to risk their lives to save him. Then it was o.k. This same twit then states once he is back in the comfort of Canada that he was gay but would never say it in Iraq because he knows the people he called vcitims in need of his help would have shot him if they found out he was gay. Yep you can keep going on trying to paint this world as bad vs good and Israel as being the bad guy but I got news for you-the people you defend want you dead the same way they want all of Israel wiped off the map and all Jews wiped out. This is not a game. And no Blackdog Hezbollah is not just trash talking. These are well trained, well educated, religious fanatics who are against everything you take for granted and defend. Its wonderful you can afford to dismiss them as a petty annoyance since you don't have your life on the line in either Israel or Iraq or Afghanistan. Me, I don't dismiss them as a petty annoyance and me, I do not take what Israel so desperately fights for, for granted.

I am not sure what I could add other than to say this as a former Quebecer who moved with many Anglos to Toronto in the early 80's...Quebec has always had often different views as to foreign policy. It makes sense. Their different language and identifying with the French colonial founders not the British results in this difference. Many Franco-phones out of nature and I mean sub-conscious nature, just by habit, will just disagree with the federal government on what-ever it does especially foreign policy. Quebecers genuinely feel they are different and so its a self-perpetuating phenomena...to be different they actually try to act differently by distancing themselves from what they see as the English view which is still traditionally associated with the federal government. The irony is not withstanding the bilingualism policy that clearly favours hiring Franco-phones and not withstanding the huge influence Quebec has had and has on the federal government and not withstanding half the federal government is actually in Hull not Ottawa...French Quebecers will always disagree with the federal government and I doubt that wil ever change. Its part of this psyche of being different. To be different from your brother, if he likes red, you like blue. If he drives a chevy, you drive a honda. I don't read that much in to it and I will tell you why. These same Franco-Quebecers who make a point of being different and disagreeing with everything the federal government does, have no problems demanding contracts and hand outs from it and voting in seperatists who still swear an allegiance to the Queen and find nothing contradictory about collecting federal pay-cheques and federal pensions although they claim to be seperatist. Quebecers love to have their cake and eat it to. When push comes to shove, the fact is they can afford to say they are different because they know the same federal government system they claim to not approve of will still look after them. Quebec is that annoying son that won't move out of the basement. They insist you pay their rent, feed them, pay the gas on their car, but they insist they have the right to be treated as an independent equal. Its a selective thing. I do think the majority of Franco-phone Quebecers do not want a Canadian Army or presence in Afghanistan. Its part of rejecting what they feel would make them the same as Anglophones. Its also interesting because some people say Quebecers are very sympathetic to Arab nations and the Lebanese. On one level they are but don't kid yourselves, in a coffee shop discussing politics oversees they will be sympathetic but then if you ask them about the Muslim next door all dressed in ceremonial garb insisting religious rights in schools, suddenly their tone changes very quickly. Yes Quebecers like to talk about not being racist, simply wanting to protect the French language-but then when people who speak French from Arab and African nations move in, their tone changes, quite quickly. To understand a Quebecer is to understand this- never take what they say verbatum.

I would love to hear more from people as to their reflections on Vietnam. I have never been there. I have heard stories from former American GI's and from Vietnamese people and have seen their pictures and listened to their stories. From what I gather it is geographically a beautiful country but politically it is a struggling nation and interestingly although it is called communist, from what Vietnamese people tell me, foreign nationals have no problems setting up huge factories and hiring employees and paying them very small wages. I also have been told by Vietnamese natives that they have always had a problem with Chinese Vietnamese based on historical issues and that although China supported North Vietnam, there is always an ethnic tension there. I also have a family friend from Cambodia. Again all I can say is their countries sound beautiful but full of hardships. I can only also say from a purely subjective point of view, the Cambodian and Vietnamese people I have met were gentle buddists...so for me I am always interested how gentle buddists live in countries that end up with so much violence. I have read of the French colonial history in Vietnam a bit. Am I wrong to believe that although technically the communists won, it doesn't seem to have stopped Nike and Coca Cola from doing business?

Wrong again. The Jay Treaty only applies to people that can prove they have 50% aboriginal blood quantum. Anyone who shows up at the US border with a Haudenosaunne passport will be denied entry if they don't also have proof of the required blood quantum. You can play games where you issue 'passports' that the US also accepts as proof of the blood quantum, however, if a Haudenosaunne does not have the required blood quantum (as decided by the US gov't) they cannot get access. Well again let me be my usual annoying self and say both posters have equally valid legal points and that is precisely the problem-we have two sets of conflicting laws that need to be straightened out. I think all that is happening is we have laws and rules and some of you feel aboriginals wrongfully feel they can break them and it gives them unfair rights you do not have. Well the thing is legally, and again you must understand this is all still to be determined by superior courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, it could very well be possible that aboriginals end up with rights that are different then non aboriginals based on earlier legal rights that will be deemed to supercede existing laws. So please do not label it as racism. It is not based solely because they are aboriginals. If aboriginals are deemed to be exempt from certain laws or to have superceding rights it is because legally they can prove we entered into agreements with them that allowed this. Aboriginals are merely trying to enforce legal rights as we are now. Here is the thing. If I go up to a business-man now and say, I am taking all your land because aboriginals have a superior right to that land, yes I understand that business-man will feel it is unfair. However it would not be unfair if I properly compensated that business-man. So what I am saying is, the busines-man gets mad at the aboriginal people for exercising their rights, when in fact his beef is with the government for not properly compensating him. I am simplifying things but I do believe for example, with mineral rights in many areas of Northern Ontario, aboriginals were not fairly compensated and now there is a responsibility for our governments to address such legal issues. I personally, hate the idea that aboriginals have to turn to cigarette sales or casinoes for commerce.I personally would refer they are able to engage in other businesses. But until we straighten this out, aboriginals will try to make money no different then non natives. I again keep steering this back to being a workable conflict. Let me give you one simple example. We all agree, native and non native, that we do not want the Americans or Europeans claiming Northern Canada as open to all nations of the world for exploitation. To stop that and guarantee Canadian sovereignty over those lands, we have to establish continuous use. So here is an example of an interest we both share. Surely we can find a method where aboriginals who are unemployed are allowed to be part of government run programs to exercise our sovereignty over the lands. How hard would it be to employ our natives as unarmed government officials patrolling and protecting these lands? I mean it is just one idea. But all I am saying is, we always look at our country as being in two solitudes, one native and one non native. The fact is when Canada broke away from the US our history with natives was NOT the same. Our North West Mounted Police did not carry guns. Yes we have our legal injustice, but the fact is unlike the US much of our legal system is deeply influenced and borrows from aboriginal concepts unlike American law. We are a nation like most other nations where movements have people come from other countries escaping famine, political violence and injustice seeking a better way of life. Most waves of immigrants who came here did not come here to intentionally commit genocide on natives. Most Canadians want to find ways to resolve competing laws and experiences. Now that the Catholic Chuch has diminished in influence, and our social institutions are now more open to avoiding assuming one way of life is superior to another's there is chance for that dialogue. There is absolutely no reason both natives and non natives can share the planet or part of it we call Canada. The major legal conflict we see with property comes from the aboriginal concept that we all share the planet and no one owns it, with our Western based laws which define private property rights and people owning land for personal use. The two notions are different and do conflict but this does not mean they both can't co-exist. It means finding a formula where both competing rights can exist. Let me put it to you using a very simple analogy. The big oil companies wanted to build oil pipe-lines to send oil from Alaska down South. Building those oil pipe-lines meant cutting throug migratory patterns of reindeer and dooming them to extinction. So the pipe-lines were built so the migratory movement could still continue and the reindeer could walk under the pipelines or over them. How hard is it to co-exist? I mean think about it. In the Middle East there is a hopeless conflict going on over a tiny piece of sand that is causing millions of deaths and seems to be at the centre of many terrorist attacks and our dependency on oil. It comes down to people with equal legal rights fighting over land. What is it about humans, we prefer to kill each other or insult each other rather then simply find ways to share? You really truly think by saying its mine mine mine that it solves anything? Are we just children fighting over a toy? No I refuse to believe that as a lawyer and trained to be a mediator and see both sides of this arguement equally. Caledonia is not the start of a race war. It is simply a conflict, one of many as we try to find ways to reconcile conflicting legal rights. We are not destined to a war. Bleeding heart liberals such as myself are not going anywhere and as you extremists heat up and yell at each other, we shall keep working to try find peaceful solutions. O.k. maybe Mr. Dalton blew it on this one by being afraid to lead and take ownership and control. But believe this, what-ever way this comes out, our country will find a peaceful solution.

Congrats Tsi. Not only can you cross the border to buy your toilet paper, you don't pay any duty on it. Your arsehole appreciates those soft American brands. This is precisely the kind of tone in this debate that I referred to before and do not understand. This Tsi certainly does not need me defending him but lowering his comments to an insult only reinforcer his warrior stance when he communicates back with you. As well if you bother to read the Jay Treaty of 1794 rather then turn this into a personal attack, you would realise not just this Tsi or whoever he is, but all aboriginals, have a valid legal arguement, not something fictious they have made up, as to their right to move between Canada and the U.S. If we were to be purely legal about this, it could be properly argued native North Americans are exempted from the U.S. and Canadian laws as to inter-nation movement. Its never been fully resolved. I also did a little more homework since we are all caught up on the 36 nations. I spoke with some government officials in Columbia and Venezuela becaause as you know they now have governments very very sympathetic to aboriginal rights. It is probable in those two countries, if a native from the US or Canada somehow managed to get to those countries without a Canadian or US passport but could prove they were natives, they would be treated sympathetically. Again you won't read it written down anywhere and its not official policy, but it is highly likely due to prevalent political sympathies. Not that this changes anything.

How would you react if you we being asked to turn over your property that you worked to pay for to some aboriginal for no reason other than that person has a genetic heritage that you do not have? How would you react if your personal income taxes were raised by 3-5% per year to pay the cost of these claims? How much of your sympathy for aboriginal issues is based on the presumption that it will cost you nothing personally? Let me say this to you. If I was asked to turn over property that I personally paid for to aboriginals because of another issue, and was not properly compensated, of course I would be as angry. I hear you loud and clear. Obviously that added personal financial involvement is a good reason for you to be angry....but I would answer you the way I would someone who has witnessed someone in their familu murdered or molested. I would not expect you to be anything other then angry. And this is also precisely the reason why when I work or communicate with aboriginals, because of their personal attachment to the issue, I expect them to be angry. So for you I would say, yah of course you are angry, and no I did not mean to morally judge you at all. But me, myself, I have no right to be angry and should be using my skills as a human being and mediator and lawyer and what-ever else, to help you and aboriginals BOTH find a fair way to compensate BOTH of you and call me a naive fool, but I honestly think there is a fair way to acknowledge competing legal rights here. In your personal case, no I would not be presumptious enough to say that. But with some other cases I am reading, purely as a lawyer and mediator, I do see hope and ways to resolve these issues. I also have a funny feeling the same thing that has heated you up personally, is better understood by aboriginals then anyone else. So I hear you and this I say truly from the bottom of my heart to you..I hope if you have been treated unfairly, just as I do with the aboriginals, I hope somehow you can be fairly compensated.

O.k. time for me to say something guys. Look as a Jew when I try explain that Jews feel a spiritual connection to the soil now called Israel and once referred to Judea and Somaria, non Jews (Westerners) often have a trouble understanding that and/or find it irelevant. Look in our Western culture, we take for granted a lot of things; i-the concept that we own private property; ii-the concept that legal jurisdiction is determined by borders that flow from demarkations that date back to the British and French crowns coming to Canada and simply declaring the land their own and iii-the moral basis for our laws (Judeo-Christianity and mostly Christianity). Its deeply engrained in our psyches. When you make a point to listen to aboriginals, you will find they don't define property rights the way we do and if I may say so, probably because they feel our set of laws was super-imposed on them, ignored their laws and cultures, and often came about as a result of the Crown entering into agreements and then breaking them unilaterally and creating more laws that were in turn imposed on aboriginals. So come on, anyone with any decency or compassion knows that land rights aboriginals are trying to protect or defend, are not myths or made up of myths, they simply refer back to historical events that did happen. In all fairness, and I do have lawyer friends who argue on behalf of the crown and governments, I have never known one of them to refer to aboriginal legal arguements as myths. If we are going to generalize, I think it would be more accurate to generalize that it is more likely aboriginals understand Canadian history more then most of us, because we don't have the need to understand it as deeply as aboriginals....we do not feel our land has been taken away...we just take it for granted we can buy a home and get a deed to property. So look I am not trying to sound like some idiot liberal bleeding heart, but I think it is important to understand when we discuss aboriginal claims to land, it is actually based on law not fiction. Now that side, I think what has happened in this present dialogue is that it got very heated. I personally don't understand why when it comes to land rights, non aboriginals get so heated. I mean maybe its in response to what you guys perceive is coming from the aboriginal side, but all I see is aboriginal pride not anything deeper then that. Of course there is deep emotion and pride when Tsi or any native talks about their history. Now that said, I do not doubt for a second that aboriginal nations or councils or tribes, what-ever word we care to use, issue passports. I can tell you just for your curiousity that in the past, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and probably the Soviet satellite nations in the 1960's - 70's when they existed, consistent with their political beliefs would have recognized aboriginal nation passports if aboriginals would have been able to get to those countries. The practical reality is though that most natives would not have had the money to be able to travel to such places but if I am not mistaken aboriginal activists did travel to Communist countries as guests of such nations and although they had American or Canadian passports also would have had their native ones that would have been recognized. I think as a matter of principal to this day, Cuba would recognize them and so would probably Libya because Mummar Ghadafi actually stated his country would recognize such passports. Now I say this based on past history and references to these countries and their leaders' sympathy for aboriginals and belief that they were allied in the struggle against imperialism, colonialism, etc. Today however, with the collapse of the Marxist empire, I am not sure there are any nations left that would accept aboriginal passports but I would hesitate to guess North Korea, Libya and Iran would probably be on that list. That said this debate is all a moot point because an aboriginal could not get on an airplane or cross the Canadian border today without a federal passport, so even if it could be argued there are nations that would recognize aboriginal status independent of Canadian status, I am not sure how an aboriginal could get out of Canada and be guaranteed that country would recognize his aboriginal passport. The confusing thing is, at the peak of the communist era when the Soviet Union and its satellites said they would recognize such passports, it was never official legal policy, it was simply said rhetorically and never really put to the test. So I would say in the past it was entirely possible what Tsi said was true. Today, with due respect, I went on my own and tried to find United Nations documentation or any other documentation to indicate what nations would accept aboriginal passports and can not find any. Also like I said, you couldn't get on an airplane without one. So I say let the issue of the 36 countries be put to bed, and let us move on. It seems this discussion went off on a tangent and I know you guys asked a question and did not get a direct answer but then I believe this Tsi guy has clearly indicated since he doesn't feel he has been given a straight answer as to aboriginal land claims from "we Westerners" its all fair game and I have a feeling he will continue to jerk your chains as long as you let him. There is an expression, "you can't cage a coyote...they simply dig their way out.." trust me if you are trying to corner this Tsu dude, I think he moves like the wind and you will be hard pressed. Yah yah I know I am a nauseating wishy washy goody ggody liberal bleeding heart. Lol.

Well if the original post was ment to generate a discussion on racism, for me it did an extremely poor job of raising anything insightful. In fact it comes across so simplistic and sugary, it runs the risk of doing the exact opposite of what the reader was probably trying to intend. It would have been simpler if he simply stated; "generalizations and stereotypes that are negative are not necessarily accurate or far and can lead to discriminatory behaviour'. The syrupy sh..t I could have done without. That is my personal opinion of course.

Now hang on a second. He brought up a topic for debate or a discussion. His point is a classic arguement not particular to him but postulated by many governments. He is just presenting the other side of the coin on the debate as to whether we should be looking outword or inword as to foreign policy and aid So I would prefer if we kept this on a general discussion level and I actually apologize to anyone if I contributed to making it personal. We are just debating classic fundamental positions as to foreign aid. That said, I do find Argus' comments that he feels he is superior to other people the kind of position that could easily be interperated the wrong way. I am sure Argus meant he feels superior because of the advantages he has although Argus I think you got some explaining to do on that comment because it can be construed as being "sick" if you really are trying to come across as some superiority freak. I can see where Yam is coming on that one. That said argus careful what you put in my mouth. When I say Africans may not know how to use contraceptives (rubbers) I never ever said that makes them savages. Ignorance argus from my perspective does not make one inferior. Ignorance is relative. Many an African may not know how to use a robber, but maybe they do know how to use a particular herb to manage a medical problem I would not know. So careful Argus do not generalize for me. I am not apologizing for Africans. They do not need me apologizing for them. I am simply trying to treat them with respect and compassion which is exactly how I would want them to treat me. That said, in response to another post which said I should do a better job of editing, uh no, I deliberately stated that there are two sides to the coin of arguing peoples' fate. One side is that they have situations and conditions imposed upon them they have no control over, and in such situations yes we need to be compassionate. In other situations where people have direct control over situations and make destructive lifestyle choices they could have presented, well then maybe in such situations we can take a less compassionate approach. I know doctors can be very tough on cancer patients who refuse to quit smoking and society defines who is on a transplant list for livers by disqualifying alcoholics. My point is because its a bit of both we have to take care not to generalize. And yes Argus is right when he says I am preaching and I know he did not mean it personally. Its true, the classic liberal arguements I am making in response to his conservative ones also deal with certain moral assumptions as to when to be compassionate and caring. Argus just so you know, while I disagree with your positions, I do not think for a second my arguements are morally superior and I can lecture you. I have strong feelings which I believe should be made, but I do appreciate we could take your side of the position and actually logically argue it is more compassionate to let nature kill people rather then prolong their lives with pain and suffering. There is a position as to third world relief that argues that in some situations it is hopeless and we should not interfere and let nature run its course. It was presented in a simplistic manner in that movie with Angelica Jolie where she comes across a starving child and insists on taking it back to the camp and the doctor in the camp gets upset with her for bringing it. He is upset because he feels limited resources that could be used elsewhere to help more people will now be used for simply one life. Again there are two sides to the compassion arguement. Obviously I subscribe to the one that Africa is not hopeless and should not be written off and that poverty is not hopeless. I also preach my side of the moral compassion coin on this argus because I think if we take your side on it, Darfurs and mass killings like in Rwanda and Burundi more easily happen. I can't for a second think the tragedy in Rwanda/Burdundi or in Darfur or on the Congo now, was not preventable to some extent. I can not believe everyone born to poverty must be condemned to death and suffering. If I stopped caring and maintaining hope, I would in my personal opinion be dead even if I was still breathing. Also on a strictly personal subjective note that may not be relevant, my views have been shaped by listenting to people now in Canada who came from Uganda, Tanzania, Zaire, Chad, and Mali. I certainly shoudn't make generalizations but I don't think any of them would mind me saying this-what they all had in common was coming from situations of extreme poverty and violence, but all these people were gentle and compassionate. For me I could not imagine not caring for such people. If after what they went through they can be so gentle and compassionate, surely they are "superior" to me in the sense that maybe they survived precisely to teach me that there is always hope. Its for the people who suffer but surive and take the time to be compassionate with me and explain what happened to them to me without being angry at me for not understanding what to them must seem so obvious, that I think is one reason I would want to argue that yes we should care and get involved.Surely it helps us become better people? (that's a humbe comment not a self-righteous pronouncement Arg)

There all gay but I obviously agree with you RB. The point is the the article is idiotic in its sweeping generalizations and assumptions. Quite frankly anyone stupid enough to pay money to read it and believe it can be my guest and marry Paris Hilton's sister who unlike her sister is not a career woman. As for me I will take this old decrepid carcass and crawl back in my hole. I missed out on marrying some giggly Barbie doll. I blew it. I married someone who works.

I have sent your comments to the Israeli Prime Minister. I will also make it a point to call every citizen of Israel and pass on your comments to the appropriate military review committee. Get real. 1- For Israelis, going into Lebanon and blowing up buildings where Hezbollah hides of course makes sense -they know Hezbollah's stated goal is to wipe them all out-obviously your brain can't wrap itself around the concept that when a people are being threatened with immediate destruction it will make sense for them to try prevent the source of that immediate destruction from launching further missile attacks-from the sounds of it in your world, it makes sense to do nothing when missiles come hurtling at your face... 2-do tell us Mr. Military Expert how you are able to state Israel's military lost on the ground..can't wait to read your military analysis in the next miitary journal that comes out....and no doubt Israel will have you lecture its army.... uh hello are there any lights on up there? Hezbollah was moved out of the South which is all that Israel had intended to do...no one lost or won..Israel set out to get Hezbollah 30 miles further away from their Lebanese border...that is what they set out to do and achieved--what I think you think you are babbling about is that a conventional army can not wipe out a terrorist cell that hides in civilian populations...sorry to burst your bubble but I think the IDF was wellaware of that and that is precisely why it made more sense for them to engage in air strikes rather then get caught in a ground exercise of hide and seek 3-again, I am glad you reminded us Hezbollah won a diplomatic war...I mean now the world now agrees with Hezbollah and its charter calling for the mass destruction of Jews-yes you are right the whole world will join Hezbollah now and wipe out Israel.. and all Jews everywhere...its a wide spread diplomatic victory! Hezbollah t-shirts are a hot sales item....and terrorism is sweeping every nation as the fad of fads...who needs Paris Hilton when you have Hezbollah...is a trend sweeping all nations..the Hezbollah look will be the latest autumn fashion... 4-Golly gee Israelis sit around scratching their heads wondering why there is no peace..yes sir, they are all clueless idiots that need to think that one over-I mean why would they think Hezbollah, Hamas, Intidadah, Jihad and thousands of terrorist cells and fundamentalists and Arab nations all across the Middle East who do not believe Israel should exist and for that matter killingJews world wide is acceptable would have anything to do with the lack of peace..and when the Iranian leader says the holocaust never happened and Israel should be wiped out...nah that is just too confusing for Israelis to think could possibly related to this lack of peace...nah they are all stupid..they havent a clue that the Muslim world refuses to acknowledge their existence...its never dawned on them..hopefully you can travel to Israel and tell them the real reason why...they are all dying to know and I mean dying... 5-Gee what is Israel going to do next? I know all Israelis sit around drooling and wondering. YGosh what should I do now. Hmmm. Can I give you a hint..... when you live in the face of death you don't think about what you are doing to do next..you do what you did today, and ysterday and the day before...and what you will do tomorrow. youl try to exist and survive and carry on. But on behalf of the State of Israel thanks for sharing.

I question Argus for two positions; i-his position of moral judgement and gross generalization that people die from AIDS because they are promiscuous (and thus by inference that they are not entitled to help because they caused their own problem due to a lifestyle choice) and ii-that the coruption in Africa is the responsibility of Africans. I also wish to clarify another point I made that Argus did not understand when I referred to a theoretical alliance between Muslims and Jews. O.k. to start with, this arguement Argus makes that people who get AIDS got it because of a lifestyle choice, don't deserve anyone else's aid or help because they brought it on themselves is truly simplistic and raises one of the most common misconceptions and prejudices associated with the disease. In that respect it is no different then people who once used to argue mental illness was a personal choice and therefore no one else's responsibility to help and of course used to be said about leprosy, tuberculosis, rabies, epilepsy adn thousands of other diseases and to this day icancer, heart disease, liver disease, etc. For starters with any disease even if it is caused by lifestyle choices, Argus does not have the moral right to judge people and condemn them to a lack of hhelp and suffering because they make bad lifestyle choices. why? Because as human beings we are supposed to have compassion and care-the moment we lose that compassion and care, the moment we lose part of our own inner selves, the part that helps us weigh decency over selfishness. More to the point people whose lifestyle contributes to diseases often are ignorant of the cause and effect and/or have been vulnerable to socio-economic conditions beyond their control that contributed to the disease. So yes on one level a person who smokes and drinks and eats junk food has an individual responsibility for the choice to have smoked, drank and eaten high fat foods which contributed directly to his or her liver disease, cancer, heart disease, etc. No one would argue we all as individuals have a responsibility to look after our bodies. But the point is, how does Argus know these same people didn't get their disease also as a result of being exposed to the stress of unemployment, air pollution, exposure to lead paint, and as a result of being exposed to crime, violence, despair, and partly as a result of that exposure, turned to drugs, smokes, high fat food as a reaction or coping mechacnism or quite simply because in many inner cities or the third world there is no access to fresh fruit and vegetables and water, education, work and clearn air, but there is exposure to cigarettes, booze and violence. Or would Argus turn a blind eye and choose to forget that alcohol and tobacco companies and junk food companies deliberately target and market the poor or third world? Maybe in theworld where Argus lives people have control over their choices, but in the real world this is not the case and precisely the point. In the third world, lack of fresh water, fresh fruit and vegetables and a balanced diet, education, health services and exposure to war stunts peoples' [hysical, spiritual and yes even mental growth and health. The fact is you can't develop insights to help yourself without a certain intellectual capacity, and that intellectual capacity is a moot point if your brain and body are robbed of basic vitamins and protein and so can't develop properly. Putting that aside, Argus' generalization that Africans are promiscuous is odious. Its a coded racist conception that third world people, are sexual savages. There are two facts Argus' own racial conceptions cause him to selectively ignore. First and foremost is that third world people most certainly try to have as many children as possible, not because they are promiscuous but because there is no social services net for them and so they try increase the chances of one or more of their children surviving to look after them by having as many as they can. That is a fact that anyone who has worked in the third world or developing nations understands and is something missed on people who live in the suburbs and take for granted their social services departments, education system and a social service system that might help them if they get sick or disabled. In the third world, if you can't find work or get sick, you die if there is no one in your own family to help. Now this next prejudicial assumption that third world people or Africans are promiscuous is of course subjective judgemental b.s. In fact people who are starving and weak are not promiscuous they have no energy from calories from food to engage in sex and if they do its to survive not to enjoy themselves again something missed on Argus because if he travelled to third world zones of poverty he would see many of these people he thinks are out of control sex savages are tired, sick people procreating in a desperate attempt to survive through offspring. As for the prostitution, Argus also seemed to skip over another inconvenient reality. The international sex trade that exports sexual slaves all over the world or uses third world children and women is financed and controlled not just by savage sexually crazed Africans but by Europeans and Americans who need their sex with children or young girls. More to the point AIDS is spread because millions of Africans haven't a clue what a contraceptive is and how to use it, and need access to it and education to understand how it works and how it can prevent the spread of aids before they are morally judged. Its easy to dismiss Africans as sexually promiscuous when even if they wanted to engage in safe sex they have no access to contraceptives. More to the point we still get back to the vicious socio-economic cycle Argus blocks out of his judgemental mind and that is, if you ask Africans or any third world person to stop reproducing and having as many children as possible to raise the odds of one them surviving to help the family, what do you do to assure these people there is an alternative social net to protect them when they get sick or are unemployed? See its easy for Argus from the comfort of the suburbs to dismiss Africans as sex savages when Argus doesn't have the pressure to need to reproduce as many children as possible. So sorry I do not buy into the odious racist misnomer that Africans or any other third world person is a sex savage. That dates back to Christian missionaries who went to Africa and the third world and dismissed these people as savages and yet these same missionaries spread venereal disease and were part of a society that used Christianity to justify apartheid, slavery and institutionalized racism. And that brings us to the next point. Argus dismisses Africa's coruption as being its own problem. Well this is just utter ignorance. Of course there was a historic chain of events leading up to the present tense and to ignore the artificially imposed borders of Britain, France, Belgium, etc., that ignored natural tribal patterns and condemned countries to artificial cultural and economic zones is absurd. There is a direct coorelation between the colonial borders and the political, social, cultural and economic problems now faced in the third world and to simply dismiss that as "nonsense" is the result of intellectual laziness and of course selectivity for to do that would relate it back to the same people who feel they aren't responsible. More importantly Argus may stick his head in the sand and pretend it aint so, but for those of us who do breath the air and acccept reality, we are vividly aware of the organized crime and government and business interests in Europe and America that prop up and fuel corput third world regimes. Where has Argus been. Does he think Chevron gas has shared its wealth with Chad? Does he think the multi-nationals in Nigeria share the wealth with Nigerians. Oh sure its because of these peoples' governments being corupt aint that convenient. The point is-the multi-nationals make sure that the governments are corupted and controlled and to pretend otherwise and blame it on the masses who have no say and can't change the government even if they wanted to, is absolute b.s. and is precisely why most third world people identify with charismatic figures like Castro, Guevera. Nasser, Hussein, etc., they of course will identify with firey leaders who talk of resisting colonial influence and being their own masters. Now that leads me to my last point. I raised the analogy of a Muslim-Jewish alliance as a concept which went over Argus' head. The point was to suggest this. When we look at present day conflicts, we dismiss them as tribal wars. And so like argus its convenient for us to say, ah let us just let these savages kill themselves it aint my problem. They deserve it because they are both savage. Well the fact is and that was the point of my analogy, what fuels a tribal war between Jews and Arabs is what fuels tribal wars in the third world-it is military industrial complexes and specifically the military economies and weapons sales of the US, Britan, France, Belgium, Germany, China, Russia that fuel thesetribal wars for two reasons; i-so they can trade weapons for oil or other natural resources; ii-so they can divide and conquer these nations and keep them in a state of dysfunction so that they are dependent on the US, China, Russia, etc. That is not nonsesne, that is cause and effect and to pretend there is no corelation the military-industrial interests of these countries to fuel tribal wars is absurd. One only need to trace where all the weapons come from, to see who financially benefits from having these tribes remain in a perpetual state of war. That is precisely why I say to you, jews adn Arabs, are but two examples of ancient tribes who as a result of historical developments and the inextricable link to colonial empires that created artificial borders, now face off with each other. Its precisely why fanatical nationalists and fundamentalist terrorists come about. Its precisely what causes terrorism to evolve and people like Jews to feel that the only way they can survive is to once and for all be their own masters of destiny just as Arabs or third world people crave the same for their people. So yes of course there is individual responsibility for lifestyle and yes people who buy into terrorism and violence have to be criticized and not apologized for. No I am not making excuses. I also would argue that all people no matter how desperate their situations still can follow the lead of Ghandi as opposed to terrorism. But putting that aside, what I am saying is on the other-hand, it does not given any of us the right to feel we are superior to people in the third world and can morally judge them-not while we live in countries and with a lifestyle that necessarily needs cheap labour and captive economies in the third world, if we are to sustain our lifestyles. The price for living the way we do is the propping up of captive economies. The price of our lifestyle is a European or North American economy that prevents third world countries from developing and being economically competitive. Of course perhaps in Argus' world he will also selectively ignore the policies of the World bank and how it has been used by the European Union and America to engage in predatory pricing and suck resources out of the third word. And I also blame the Chinese for the exact same economic reasons to contributing to world wide predatory pricing. So before Argus writes off Africa perhaps he should travel there and speak to its people, and people who have chosen to work for development agencies there and get a different perspective on poverty. He might also want to pay particular attention to how multi-nationals target third world people with products such as alcohol, tobacco, weapons, and dispose of toxic chemicals in many of these nations. And lest Argus feels he can simply write of Africans as promiscuous perhaps he should try understand not all people who engage in sex are savages. Some people get aids, not because they are promiscuous but because their partners did not disclose the illness or did not know they had the illness and not for moral reasons of failure. And no not all Africans or gays are depraved sex maniacs just as not all caucasians are evil because we live in societities that exploit the third world. negative generalizations and assumptions only shut down paths of healing and meaninful resolution to social problems.

Afghanistan will fuel isolationist feelings particularly as it will be bunched in with Lebanon and the Liberals, Block and NDP will all bounce over each other all trying to look anti-American and self-righteous. I think what Canadians really should talk about is; 1-our future in terms of protecting our natural resources and sovereignty up North-the US and European Union are making a big push to argue it should be open season for them to exploit 2-our criminal code and how it has become a joke 3- our environment and in particular the continuing pollution of our greatest natural resource, water 4- our energy and the need to find alternative fuel sources and promote natural gas and propane 5- the need to rebuild or military 6-our ability to remain economically competitive world-wide 7-then and only then our foreign policy. I think the majority of our politicians are ignorant as to our environment and economy and find it easier to talk about something like Afghanistan then some of these other issues. Afghanistan will become a distraction from very serious issues as all world conflicts are...but we should not lose sight of these other issues and right now I have seen nothing coherent coming from Duceppe, Layton or the Liberals. In fact other then the Green Party on the environment and Harper's simple plain talk on the Middle East and Afghanistan which was refreshing for its candor and bluntness, there hasn't been much form our politicians although our Justice Minister has stirred the pot a few times by throwing out some hoit potatoes to test the waters, i.e., his comments on doing away with preliminary inquiries.

I have always believed you marry a woman who has these qualities; 1-good teeth 2-nice hair 3-good skin complexion 4-long long legs 5- a good tight butt 6- a temper 7-brains 8-attitude 10-plays beach volley-ball 11-smells good 12-can dance 13-has a good sense of humour 14-has some sort of accent 15-is clean 16-is honest. So I should also write an article. Whether a woman is rich or poor aint the point its whether she is honest or not. Everything else is just talk. If I was younger and still had my teeth and original organs, I would probably have got it on with Kiera Knightly, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Jodie Foster (yah I know she's gay), Naomi Campbell, Jessica Alba and Cameron Diaz all at the same time. Too bad for them I am so old. I mean this Brad Pitt is such a woose. Me I would have been with Angelina and Jennifer at the same time and kept Robin Givens around too. All this talk. Bah.

I have no idea why you have raised the race card and made this a white v.s. non white issue. For starters, lets talk about AIDs. Your reasoning that it is a lifestyle choice is a coded arguement that is predicated on ignorance as to what free choice is. Gays have heard that arguement for years. If they get AIDS it is because they engage in unsafe anal sex so its their fault. Well in the real world, Black people in Africa have unprotected sex because they can not afford nor do they have access to contraceptives. They are also not sex crazed practicing sex crazed practices. They have as many children as possible because they have no social net. The more children they reproduce, the more likely the odds are one survives and can help the family. Its a vicious cycle of poverty that causes the poor to reproduce indiscriminately, not because they are morally weak and give in to their sex needs. More to the point, gay people don't get aids simply because they are promiscuous or because they choose to. Many gays like straights get aids, because of ignorance, because their partners lie, or because they are exposed to accidents. Not all gays deserve to die simply because they chose to engage in anal sex. It is far more complicated then that. So you want to write off all blacks in Africa and use racial context, you open yourself up to this question-why is Africa so destitute. Oh its their fault right? They have corupt leaders and they are ignorant and out of control what with their sex drives? Is that what I am to believe? Or maybe just maybe, can we see that say in the Congo today's current civil war and catastrophe is as a result of organized crime flowing from the diamond trade propped up by caucasians from Belgium, Germany, the UK, Canada, the US, etc. How about Zimbabwe. Oh yes on the one had we can say Robert Mugabe, is crazy with final stage syphilis of the brain and ruined a great country and he is black but I would also remind you that for years, Britain, Canada and the Commonwealth worshipped this man and kissed his butt. When it was convenient he was wonderful. So sorry it aint that easy. If Africa is a mess, yes its partially because its an internal problem but its also as a result of artificial borders sliced out by Europeans that ignored natural tribal population patterns and set the stafe for permanent civil wars and instability my mixing tribes that did not get along. It's also as a result of Europeans making billions off of propping up corupt regimes in Africa. It's also as a result of the West draining Africa of its entire intelligentsia and turning them into our taxi drivers and orderlies and janitors. More to the point, you don't think it is a collective responsibility, fine. But as you allow all these blacks to die in Africa, don't kid yourself. Some of them will come out and have sex with one of your white neighbours and before you know it, oopsy one of your relatives will have it or when they go to the hospital might be exposed to it. So don't kid yourself. As for the Middle East why not just let them Jews and Arabs kill themselves? Well I got news for you...your worst nightmare is if the Jews and Muslims of the Middle East ever smarten up and form an alliance. Pray that never happens. Pray the West and its need for oil continues to pit these 2 Cain and Abels against each other, because if they ever find peace, what do you think happens to the Western economy if there is no war and a way to justify trading oil for weapons? More to the point what is in it if Italy or France or anyone else stops a civil war or contains terrorism? Take a good look at their populations. You think France is not full of Muslims? You think Italy and Spain do not have Muslims in their population or are close to Muslim populated countries? You don't think terrorism spreads? You really think if you stick your head in the sand, and ignore it, these nasty Jews adn Arabs simply kill each other and go away or them there blacks in Africa will just die out? Oh if it were that simple. In summary what bugs me about the above question ( and not you...I know you simply raised it for discussion, its the issues I am talking about not you) is that a lot of people truly believe that when humanity suffers it isn't their concern. That is precisely why there were killing fields in Cambodia, genocide in Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Sudan, and there have been horrors such as the holocaust, mass starvation of Ukrainians by Stalin, massacre of the Armanians, etc., it is precisely because if we people collectively look the other way, it makes it possible for these things to spread. The holocaust happened precisely because, average every day people said, it wasn't their concern and when their neighbourhoods emptied out they continued to look the other way. In the end, it did make a difference because the lack of opposition kep Hitler going and enabled him to kill not just Jews, but these isolationists fellow countrymen other then them there Jews or Gypsies.

The majority in Iraq are Shiite. The country was artificially sliced out by the British. The British jammed together 3 enclaves, one Kurd, one Sunni and one Shiite, knowing they would be continuously dysfunctional and so Britain could rule by divide and conquer and maintain its cheap access to oil. Now the UK has turned back to Libya for its oil and finds it easier to kiss Ghaddafi's former terrorist and suddenly benevolent ass. I mean just how long ago was it Blair was in Tripoli performing on his knees for his Eminence Mummy Ghaddafi? So sorry I aint suprised for a second the Brits want out and are prematurely handing over power. The fact is without a psycho dictator ruling Iraq and killing everyone and ruling it like Stalin and keeping people under control by sheer horror and gas war when necessary, of course it was doomed to fall apart. The Shiite majority want it to be another Shiite Muslim fundamentalist state and you bet so does Iran. So the question is, if you want to keep Iraq's oil, you pay the price of needing to leave in a permanent military on the ground beause who are we kidding, without the Yanks there, it blows up into one collosal civil war and then the Shiites take over. The Kurds will then break away and Turkey and Iran find themselves united against the Kurds even though right now Turkey detests Iran as much as it does the Kurds. Iraq was doomed the moment it was left without a leader. That is precisely the problem through-out the Middle East. Countries like Syria and Egypt are run by ruthless dictators and ruthless secret police, precisely because these are the only kinds of governments that can function. This myth that Israel is the cause for all the Middle East woes is just utter bs. Look around. More Muslims die from each other's hands in secretarian violence then any conflict with Israelis. That is a fact. But of course in the West we blame everything on Israel and to a lesser extent the US and ignore what is in front of our face, that the Muslim Middle East is a society of violence and tyranny between Muslims and is nothing but violence and coruption as far as the eye sees. Oh Israel is to blame for it all. Uh huh. Meanwhile when was the last time any of you have read about any Muslim politician criticizing his fellow Muslims for their civil wars and crimes against each other? Oh yah they will point out how evil Israel is but what about their own civil wars? Oh yes its the fault of those colonial sob's. Its their fault. Let's just selectively ignore the thousands of years of inter-Muslim violence and blame it all on the Brits or French or Turks. Well those 3 didn't help but the cold hard facts are the Middle East was a bloody civil mess long before Israeli Jews were propped up as the scapegoats and distraction for its internal woes. So you have a choice. If you want to pull the Yanks out, start taking public transportation and riding your bikes or horses cuz you can't have it both ways-you can't keep driving those SUV's without paying the price and that price right now is Canadian young men in Afghanistan and thousands of Yanks and Brit soldiers, etc. in Iraq.

Sheeba farms is a non issue. It is a tiny parcel of land that is empty. It has no strategic value to anyone except Israel and all it did was allow Syria to use the Golan Heights to attack Israeli farmers in the North. In regards to that parcel of land, this is an issue between Syria who it legally belonged to and Israel who Syria is technically at war with and does not recognize. As for the Gaza, Shebba Farms, West Bank, etc., you again still have this illusion that Israel "wants" these lands. The only thing they want is no terrorists using those lands to launch attacks. In case you haven't noticed Israel has no interest in keeping ground forces permanently outside Israel. It can't afford to financially nor do its people support such things. What its people support and rightfully so, are using its armed forces to prevent terrorist attacks and if that means going into the West Bank, Gaza, etc., to attack terrorists that is what they do. They have no choice. Israel is far too small to survive if it did nothing adn allowed Gaza and Shebba and the West Bank to be used as launching pads. Now as I said before, since you are the expert, travel to Israel and get Hamas and Hezbollah to behave and never engage in violence again, and if you do that, I will be pleased to guarantee you that I can get the IDF go back to their barracks. Until then give it a rest. And I also have news for you. NO ONE wants the Gaza. It is a living hell. It is an open sewer teaming with people jammed in each others' faces in filth. It is one of the worst places on earth and is a pit of human despair. It is a breeding ground for hatred and terrorism as it is a sess pool. It has no economy, it has no fresh water. One has to ask this question. If the Palestinians adapted Ghandi's tactics and not the tactics of the PLO and now Hamas, chances are, the IDF would never have ever gone into the Gaza in search of terrorists and it might have had a chance of being a sort of independent suburb from which Palestinians could have travelled to Israel for work but go home to int he night time and not be taxed by the Israeli state for their wages. It could have been a tax haven for Palestinians. Now it is a disaster. Hamas uses teaming crowded apartments to store its weapons and it uses its children to engage in terrorist activities. Its parents are helpless to prevent the children born in desperate poverty from becoming terrorists unless they send them oevrseas. Yes I know you trendy Leftists blame Israel. The fact is prior to the Israeli state and after the Israeli state in 1949 to 1967, it was Egyptian and exploited by Egypt. It then became exploited by the PLO and the PLO's coruption which saw billions of dollars sent to develop the Gaza end up in Swiss bank accounts of corupt PLO officials including Mrs. Yasir Arafat who lives off that money to this day. Now Hamas runs the place like Hezbollah did South Lebanon. Youd on;t dare say you want to work in Israel and live peacefully side by side Israelis and live to talk about it in Gaza with Hamas in charge. Long before Israel was around it was a slum and pit of despair and it continues as such with Hamas who although not corupt in the same sense as the PLO are so blinded by their hatred for Israel they can not see the only way Gaza can be of any hope and use to its people is if it is allowed to create a common econmic trade zone with Israel. Yes since 1967 it has been involved in thousands of incursions by the IDF chasing Hamas and other terrorists. This is part of the vicious cycle of terrorism, poverty and the IDF trying tp revent attacks into Israel..and no its not simplistic and black and white and simply a case of blaming Israel. The violence and despair pre-dated Israel and continues because part of the problem is not just the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but the battle between fundamentalism Muslims and more Westernized Muslims within the Gaza Muslim society. The solution is to end the terrorism so that Palestinians can work in Israel and elsewhere. The tragedy is as long as Hamas is in charge aqnd is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, the people of the Gaza will be caught in the cross fires of Hamas terrorists and IDF soliders of under-cover Shen Bet commandos engaged in protracted apartment to apartment war. I have been in the Gaza and watched a boy blow up carrying bombs. I was also in the Gaza when a young boy posing as a woman engaged in a terrorist attack and was shot dead. I also witnessed someone from the news media from France smuggle weapons for the PLO and I witnessed people in the Red Crescent and Red Cross smuggle weapons. I saw UN observers hide PLO terrorists running from IDF after shooting at the IDF and I witnessed leftist activists from Europe and from certain Christian activist groups confront IDF and then realize when it was too late that the same PLO they were defending then decided to rape them and steal all their money and was absolutely disgusted with them. I also watched boys as young as 4 and 5 throw rocks at Israeli armed vehicles chasing them. Such is life in the Gaza. The average mother has 8 sons. The more sons, the more likely one might survive. The problem is of course, with the population out of control its people are choking themselves to death in their own shit. Its a truly horrible place and I personally wish all its children could be air-lifted to somewhere peaceful. If you have gone through there you would understand how close it is to Israel, why it is a danger to Israel and how its sheer poverty and lack of economic opportunity fuels the despair which creates the ideal conditions to grow terrorists. There are no rights or wrongs, good guys or bad guys, there just is conflict with two sides caught in an accident of history and waiting for someone to find a way to find an alternative to violence. It aint gonna happen as long as idiots from the West tell terrorists they are victims and their behaviour is understandable. The people I know who made it out of Gaza denounced terrorism and saw through the b.s. from both extremes. Hopefully they can go back one day and be part of the moderates who can reach out to Israeli moderates and beat this thing called despair.

In regards to the comments from the Armanian historical perspective I said in an earlier post that the idea of Turkish peace keeping forces given their record during the Ottoman Empire would be foolish. Of course if you are Armanian you remember genocide at the hands of Turks. We in the West forget such things however as we tend to look at history froma very instant, selective perspective and forget the past. Once we are on the topic, I note Indonesia and Malaysia have indicated they want to send troops. It won't happen. Both nations do not recognize the right for Israelt to exist and have leaders and widely spread opinions that Israel should not exist and openly display anti-semitis and anti-semitic beliefs as wide spread accepted culture in their newspapers, radio and tv. So I doubt you will see any troops from Turkey or those two countries. It looks now as if it will be France, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Holland and possibly Bangladesh although again I would strongly doubt Israel would support Bangladesh as it is another Muslim country that technically does not recognize Israel and again is not known for its fondness for Israel. I think the idea is to have UNIFIL forces that will be neutral although I fail to see how France is. Now the interesting thing abotu France is they are openly anti-Israel to the point of absurdity given their own record in Algeria, Lebanon and Syria and given the things their own troops have done in Africa or the Middle East but on the other hand Hezbollah killed 58 French troops so the French military does not forget such things. The French military is interesting. While its government is very sympathetic to the Arab world some of its Generals are not and still remember Algeria. So they are one screwed up military. I personally do not think they should be in UNIFIL. Another country rumoured to be coming into UNIFIL is Finland.

You ask me Jerry two things won't happen in the states in our life time, a black prez or a woman prez. I think the bias is just too built in. Hilary Clinton's views by the way would never be able to sweep the majority of American voters outside the large urban centres. She might carry New York and that would be about it. Right now if you also ask me I think Jebb Bush is gonna run sooner or later. Colin Powell is the logical candidate to win for the Republicans but some nut case for sure would kill him. The democrats have a major problem because I think they have no one ready for the next election. Sen. McCain by the way is not popular enough in the Republican party to get their nod. Do not underestimate how many enemies Hilary Clinton has made within her own party. As well to get elected in the US you have to be right wing even if you are a democrat. Y'all think America is ready to trust fighting terrorists to a liberal woman who couldn't control Billy's wondering wazoo? Don't think so. She still has that image of being a closet Lesbian/cheated on wife to dispose of and I don't see that happening especially if Rosie O'Donell and Elen DeGeneres rally to her side and reinforce her image of being a leftist lesbian which goes over real good in mainstreamAmerica.