myata

No, I don't agree to that; first there're limitations and reservations that you avoid to mention, until challenged. Secondly, as rightfully pointed out, the rights, constitutions, and proclamations, aren't god given everlasting truths. They are recognition of reality as democratic (in our case) majority understands it, ath the time. It is clear that democratic majority wants fair accommodation of native peoples's interests. It is also obvious, that very few rational people would find it fair to sell 90% of the country to pay out a small minority, and at that the one that is already entitled to benefits not shared by others. So the bottom line is, as others already pointed out, be reasonable in negotiating your interests, or the limits of those interests will be imposed. Imposed through the legal democratic process, of course, i.e. by a change in the law, or if necessary, constitution; and so on.

Yes I do. Read people who actially worked in Russia, (e.g well known work of Hedrick Smith) and you'll that the entire ideology system was rotting inside out. I.e nobody believed that the official propaganda tried to impose. And why did the economy start to give up, so suddenly, can I ask? Just so, out of the blue? They did great in the 20s and 30s, raised the country from agricultural backdrop into the first ranges of the world, after all? Then, what happened? Ask Mr Daniels.. Here's what happened though: people stopped to believe in the system; didn't have will or motivation to slave for the sake of a better future that never came. And there was nothing to replace it with.... That's a great lesson for the perfectors of all kinds (i.e communizers or democratizers, etc): a social system will only have long term future if the people (at least majority of them) agree, understand and support it, i.e. work with it; no outside force can make them do that.

Hey, you forgot to mention that, last time. I gather there would be other reservations and nuances hiding somewhere... Anyways, that statement that "all lands not ceded, etc" isn't entirely correct, shall we say?

No I havent. I stated what's written right couple of short messages down so you can easily keep it in your view, if not in memory. And earlier I stated that if the democracy is that people really want they'd have it, eventually, and by their own will. And that is what indeed happened in Eastern Europe, within a lifespan of one generation (1949 - 1989). And people did raise up many times before that, in Hungary (1956), Chekhoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, etc, each time taking away a bit of a strength from already weak regimes which were holding on only by force of foreign arms. Sounds familiar?

As I read it, it applies to the "reserved" lands; and I think it's stated clearly enough, as highlighted; so no, not all lands whatsoever in this country which haven't been ceded belong to First Nations, only those, "lands above reserved".

Nonsense. "Raising" isn't even necessary. Enough is for people, in their masses, to stop supporting it. Believing in it. Eventually it'll collapse on its own. Just as if majority of Afgans stopped believing in burkhas, etc not sure what exactly their belief is, no Taleban would be able to hold them to it, for long. And then, people did rise. In Poland, Romania, East Germany, Baltic republics, etc. That's when the term, "velvet revolution" was coined. If you didn't happen to notice it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

OK.. "explaining" it, even a hundred of times, doesn't make it true. Does it (the Afghanis government) have full sovereign control of their own territory? And they didn't invade, in doing so, no? And they didn't impose any will on anybody, by handpicking their president? And they didn't stand by with their arms and troops while they were running "democratic" elections? Give me a break, for heavens sake! The country is occupied, period. The moment there's no foreign troops on the streets, you can give us that story. Till then, it's plain ridiculous. Enough of that song too. Before 9/11, even the holy fathers of democracy never said that Afghan should be invaded and reeducated. There's any number of strange, maybe brutal places on this globe; hopefully and eventually, with time, they'll find their ways to better life, one by one; and maybe they could even be helped in that; help doesn't mean conquering them and converting into our ways by force. If you've discovered that enforcing human rights in other countries by force is a legitimate activity, please share with us the details. I can't wait to hear when all the others still expecting the enlightement, will have their turn? Wait, how about interpretation of what constitute the right, too? E.g is life itself a right (i.e not be killed against one's will)? Many think it is. It may even be one of them, basic rights. So? Have you scheduled the educational invasions, already? You know, to enlighten the enlighteners? Missed one: Congrats on creative use of terminology (underlined) btw... does a lot to support the point. For the answer, hit any point on the globe (Antarctica excluded), and you probably won't go wrong... Of course if we agree to not call invasions or occupations "assistance" .... or at least, change your formula to "despite x .... years of, "assistance".

That's a bit of a jump of logic, isn't it? Just because it wasn't ceded doesn't mean it belongs to native people outright. What if there was nobody who could cede it, for example? Any claim to the land that wasn't ceded must be proven, and with more than songs and legends. E.g scientists routinely do arheological searches; if land is claimed, it should bear some evidence that it was actually used. However, its "we", not some abstract government who's paying for our urban communities; with our taxes; and I don't see, in the principle of things, why it should be different with any other communities?

As I said, the past debts must be paid, no question about that. The issue is that as citizens we all contribute to the common benefits we receive. Benefits like health, education, housing, infrastructure, etc, etc, yada yada, surely your 36 million figure doesn't account for a drop of that? Eventually, and certainly after all past debts are paid, there should be no exceptions from this rule; it's just doesn't work if some of are entitled to use, while others have to contribute. BTW what's the situation with income tax? Every citizen have to pay it, for sure? That why Jerry's idea carries some sense with me: those who don't want to contribute should be free to pursue their interests outside, but certainly without counting on "free" services by Canada; and those who are "in" will have all rights, but also, responsibilities of a regular citizen.

No, no, all wrong. You can call it anything, maybe even "democracy", as long as it's an independent country. As of now though, it's a protectorate; because there's not a single province where "democracy" can sustain itself, i.e without massive help of foreign troops. Even by admissions of democracy's chief architects, it'll collapse the moment we pull out. (In that sense, my earlier (and hypothetical) example can surely (and proudly) be branded as "environmetal democracy of the new age" (or whatever you want to brand it). Imagine all those people, as one, exaulting in the joy of clean environment friendly living..... with cute little laser boxes hanging around to help them ensure peace and stability). Added reflections on "democracy": you're aware of course that those countries in exotic outlying lands weren't brutally occupied in the past, colonial, age; no how could we? they were all locally governed by democratic (oops, whatever was the order) governments of the day, such as rajs; kalifs; kings, etc, etc. The only way such a "kalif" could be told from a real kalif was in their respective areas of soveregnty; e.g an independent, democratic and sovereign president of one such well known "democracy" cannot, for all he wants, prevent certain foreign company of operating armed paramilitary units in his country. Wants ... but can't. That's the kind of "democracies" they are, my friend.

Well what about the benefits of tax free citizenship that's been going on for quite awhile now? In my ignorance, I thought one (the free benefits) was supposed to pay for the other (right to use the land)? Wasn't that the essence of the deal? And now, with those mega claims (Edmonton; Missisauga) it appears that some of us want it both ways; i.e the land, especially after it's been tilled and cultivated for a few generations (see below); AND the cash, free services, social assistance, yada, yada. (BTW: while pricing the land shouldn't one take the value of x-00 years ago, when it was barren and barely sustaining spare populations, and not today's value, after it's been built up, enriched and cultivated by many generations of people who worked it? Unless of course, it was written into a legal contract, in which case it's a legal obligation that must be observed.) I kind of agree that Jarry's idea should be the long term direction of this whole business; ie no tax free paradise forever... at one time, as in real life, one's expected to "graduate"; and the graduation can be either, full and responsible citizenship, with all the rights, and obligations, of a regular normal citizen; or independent and self sustained life whatever way on own territory and understandably, with no handouts (other than regular international aid through normal international channels); I agree that it's in all likelihood a long and ternuous process and won't discount any obstacles including those of financial nature that you described; but at some point this should be stated clear and unequivokely, that eventually there will be no two sorts of citizens, discriminated by ethnicity.

Yeah, right. You'd rather dispute with a mirror. It'll be smart enough for you, for sure.

Right, calling it names settles it once and forever. How serious and adultly! Still, there's a small matter of proof. Who defines that one culture is more "equal" than another? E.g in our culture we don't kill criminals while in theirs, they do. Does that makes us more "equal" than them? Should they be educated in our superior ways, even against their will? Forgetting that as of now, it's us who are coming to educate them, in their own land, and not the other way around? Your example, as usual, completely misses the point. Are you kidding? The only thing you've "guillotined" is the logic. Grow up!

Except it's impossible, of course. A rosy dream to deceive yourself, or feed to others.. Change comes not through an alien jumping on you from outside and force feeding it, but through slow maybe painful realization. When majority of people know what democracy is what they want, they'll have determination and will to create and defend it no matter Taleban or what; it happened in many many other places (collapse of communism in Eastern Europe the latest), and to say that these people are incapable of coming to democracy by themselves, in their own time and by their own means, is nothing short from denigrating them; who cares if it's cloaked into the words of peace liberty etc whatever Wouldn't that be like, what's the guy's name, Najib, asking Soviets to go home? After we gave them power and kept them safe from the other guys? You see high chance of that happening, anytime soon? Ok, the group is small... and population greatly aspiring for democracy is large; moneys and arms are flowing freely; foreign troops are providing all heavy support; and still the "democracy" would collapse the moment we pull out.. One of the above must be wrong; name it. ... executions by lethal injection .. (oops that was from another story, sorry). Should the go to all the places and make them look, feel and behave just like us? No, not really. You're mixing up different things. Murder, etc is a crime, in our culture; anybody who can is free and should attempt to prevent it; stoning, religious police; corporal punishment aren't (or weren't) crime in theirs. They were accepted norm recognised by majority; just like it was common here some hundred or so years back; and as e.g capital punishment still is, in some places; So here's the question: are we allowed, by our moral, to go to other places, maybe wild and violent and impose our understanding of moral, culture and society, by force; and how is it different from the colonizers of old? Here's another hypothetical example, maybe, to think over: tomorrow Canada decides that death penalty is inacceptable (in our hipothetical new moral); it drums up the horrors (real ones) of people being put to death against their will; it issues ultimatum to all countries to stop using it, instantly. And under a threat of force. Some won't agree because they "refuse to let the old ways die", etc.. What do you do? Go in, for sure? Educate them; improve them; perfect them. After all, it's the burden of the white man, right? they couldn't ever do it themselves?

Yes there're lots of different places, etc (I'm not in the bragging contest here, have it all to yourself). It doesn't mean that you have to go there, or if you do, not think of what you're doing and what the result (not your rosy plans) may be. There're many who go, and many who do not cause unprovoked and unnecessary deaths and suffering. And no, wrong. They were surviving before we barged in. But in a different way that what we find acceptable, you mean? Protecting against who? Aliens? Evil monsters? How can you protect people against themselves? Against their centuries old traditions and way of life? Short of changing, reengineering them, from top up, so that they are exactly like you. Is that your understanding of helping and protecting? And again, there're people who do come with a different kind of help. They usually don't carry heavy guns or drop bombs though. Here's a simple thing that you'll never be able to disprove with thatever sophistry or presumed to be experience: if - them - people - love - us - so - much - why - do - we - need - ,000s - of - troops - armed to their teeth - to make it work? Why don't they simply take it into their hands? And if they don't show great and massive enthusiasm for it (i.e democracy), who - said - that - they - have - to - be - taught - anyways? Forcefed it? You want to call it, "helping" and "protecting". Feel free. To me though, it looks every bit and penny the same as imposing our way of life on them. I.e. same plain old colonialism, and even by the same means (arms & fire). Sure, invaders are people and nothing humanly is foreign to them. Which doesn't grant a speck of legitimacy to the excercise, though. You haven't been asked in; you came with arms, anyways; why do you want to spin beautiful explanations and justifications around it? why do you think I should believe what you think or say, rather than what I see? No, can't hold off them insults for more than one post, do we?

Which still isn't the same thing... Amazing how specific, careful and differentiating we want to be judging our own actions, while opposition deserves only one broad categorization - yeah, that one, axis etc whatever, of evil. Indeed. Yet that was their way of life... accepted and even supported by most ... or we'd have evidence of massive resistance ... at least on the same scale we're seeing now; and they didn't have 50,000 superbly armed foriegin troops to do all the heavy fighting for them; nor loads of money flowing into the country ... i.e self consistency ... same glorious ideal that's still shining in the end of our glorious but ternuous path; but enough before you call me an apologist of Taleban or maybe the very evil incarnate. Here's the thing: imagine the tables are turned; some immensly superior power comes around and asks us gently but firmly to change our ways; instantly; now; e.g. give up your favourite SUV and jump on a bicycle; move into a commune home; and so on; you know, good for the envirnment... so one day you don't perceive them to be serious, and the ultimatum expires; they move in, burn a few super polluting power stations, along with bits and pieces of the army trying to resist, and unfortunately, some collateral damage of innocent civilians; then pick a few extreme environmental geeks and ask them to form a free republic of the clean new world forever; with their battlestations floating around every corner, understandably, for stability and peace; do I see you cheering, dancing and apploading? So here, again, the question you're avoiding to answer: who gave us, no them, perfectors, democratizers, and the like, the right, moral or whatever I care very little, to go into other places and impose their understanding of how they should live and be, and by force? And then they do that, why do they fuss, squirm, sing and preach when they are met with resistance; they came with force; force is what they met; isn't it supposed to be the normal order of things (in their understanding of the world)?? Hint: no I don't think they are that naive; it's just different things for different people: force and fire to have the objectives met; songs of democracy and piece (and evil incarnate that resists them at every nook and with every hook) - for you. There was a saying about uninvited dogooder, can't recall it though, seriously, can anybody help? Especially when they break a few things before even starting on with good deeds.. Right... The #1 adage of colonizers since times immemorial.. them locals simply can't manage their own lives, how can we resist to help?

Likewise, So, there's such thing as a moral basis of a war. The same old bad war, that nobody, yourself included, likes (but has to do anyways). Let's discuss this fine point. What gives us the right to go half world away and start a full blown war that is bound to take away lives in massive numbers? Obviously, we aren't talking survival or even self defence in any credible way here (Taleban taking over humankind? Al Quaeda marching on Washington?). But if not that, then what? BTW for all their sins, I do not recall anybody accusing Taleban of crimes against humanity; nor were they proven to be implicated in the 9/11 attacks; there's any number of regimes, including some of US's buddies, which routinely suppress people's freedom, disregard democracy (when it doesn't suit them) and excercise "terror" in various forms, against opposition, which has no way of getting to power via legitimate means; if so, why is it that only Taleban are painted as the ultimate threat to the humankind? source of all evil in the universe? You know why: because some people somewhere want the war to go on; with them at the helm, of course. And for you to believe in war, to support it, to pay for it (ultimately), you must be scared; even if by a backward super orthodox religious group, holding control of a remote undeveloped country; or by a splinter terror network bent on destruction; anything goes to get you running for shelter, looking up to the war gurus for salvation; by the time quesions will be asked, they'll be enjoying comfy retirements, preaching others how to maintain courage and will to fight. Correct, in any war civilians will be hurt and killed. So, again, if war in principle is bad, why is it right to go half the world away and start a real full blown war to instruct locals in a better way of life? And who should be ultimately responsible for the "price" of education? Except, they already were in power; no need to guess and theorize here; and without admiring them in any way, they managed to keep country in order after decades of fighting and without massive civil casualties, or foreign troops.

No, Dancer, the question is not whether some (self defined and imposed) rules were followed or not; the war itself was illegal and unnecessary; innocent bystanders were killed. Somebody ought to be held responsible for that, don't you think? And if not, then how do you prove that it's bad when some baddy takes away innocent lives? Not through the action, i.e its result, obviously; baddies will have to work a lot to even start approaching our scores; must be something else ... of course! we know that we're good guys, right? that in itself justifies whatever we do. Nice and simple. Works for us. And for them, too.

And you are congratulated on your big persons decision. Don't say it unless you can defend your argument. After all, this is a discussion board, not to be confused with an AA for rightwingers to comfort in sharing their worked up emotions. BTW did you mean this: " ... I never realised you were such a big fan of AQ and OBL.", or, maybe, this: " ... and excuse the actions of these animals, so, yes, it appears that you are an apologist for Al Quaeda.", speaking of insults? No, those wouldn't be as much of a "juvenile" as they're routinely repeated by the mature grown up rightwing media, have to give you this.

The intent - to start unprovoked, unnecessary war - a war what is bound to take away lives of innocents, in large numbers - was there, no, you wouldn't argue with that? as intentional firing a loaded gun would kill - no matter what claimed "intent" might have been. Or did the invasion troops just would themselves in the middle of another country, and had to defend themselves (and install the democrasy, as an afterthought). As to general interpretation of intent in criminal justice, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that it should mean very specific things. If someone were to run a truck in a cafe full of people and claim that they didn't intend to kill anybody, only to teach the owner a lesson, I'm sure it wouldn't fly, they'd be convicted for the deaths. The bunch started a war, and they should be responsible for all innocent deaths it resulted in. Their glorious intent should count as much as the one in the example. Does it mean that their guilt is the same as somebody's deliberately exterminating civilians? It's up to the justice system to decide. What I'm saying is that the bunch should be held to justice for the war that they started and which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. BTW, recalling the case of Saddam, if memory serves me well, he was never convicted of that (i.e deliberately exterminating civilians) in a credible independent court. Why I wonder? The evidence was of him signing execution orders. Same kind of orders that, if I'm not mistaken, GWB signs, in their dozens if not hundreds, annually. Also, a matter of perspective? I understand, he was a nasty guy, a dictator, but to call him a mass killer of innocents, one'd have to give him a fair day in court. Not for his sake as much as for yours. To be able to say it with substance. Or it's just their say against his say.. Like WMD .. or 45 minutes ballistic attack To Angus: I get it that you've taken a big persons's decision to quit. Could it be for the lack of better argument? No, how could anybody think that, it sure must the call of adult maturity. Anyways, see ya, hope you'll do better next time.

The intent wasn't there? A bomb dropped on a city was supposed to explode in what? flowers? kisses? Power plants destroyed so people would warm themselves with thoughts of democracy? Power structure demolished so that criminals would start preaching brotherly love? Smart thinking, fatal flaws ... You should sure try it in on your next occasion BTW nice drool in the rest of your post, congrats on excellent progress (as the drools go)

So, whoever has a certain understanding of "morality" is free to impose it on others; even by force? As in forced conversions of conquistas; or enlightements of the age of colonizations; it was all done for the good of the barbarians (their souls if not their bodies), so it should be excused and maybe, even praized? Nowadays we think that islamist governments aren't good for them people. So we feed and support friendly dictators to keep popular parties from getting anywhere near power. That's OK because our religion(s) is (are) moral, while theirs isn't, correct, Rue? As they continue to die now; and maybe, in greater numbers, than before (which is, in terms of numbers, true). So, where's the difference, Rue? In your feeling good about your "moral" decision?

Here's a fine (and the latest in the line of neverending) example of what really contributes to the emergence and resurgence of "Jihad" and "Terror": BBC: Elections in Egypt. Egypt's regime is a key ally in the "war on terror" and enjoys massive military aid from US (wikipedia). Compare to the case of Hamas in Palestine, and many others before (Iran; Algeria; ...) and the picture becomes crystal clear; no it's not the "democracy" we want to see and support there; it's the friendly regimes that extend our interests, even against the will of the majority of population. Not hard to predict future side effects of such "enlightment" and "assistance". Not sure if inborn predispostion to "Jihad" or "Terror" has anything to do with (actually and quite obviously, it doesn't).

Right, when you've got nothing to respond with, it always pays to restate the same thing and hope nobody noticed. No, won't be able to help you out there. But just in case it's a genuine severe case of innocent miscomprehension (however implausible it may seem), here, plain and digested, for the x - (and last) time: Yes the guy believes what he's saying; Stalin, etc all believed what they were saying; it's not even hard to make yourself believe what you want to believe in; and the prophets of the world's democracry also believe in their holy quest; it's only a matter of measuring the result (millions; or thousands; tens of; maybe, hundreds; of innocent victims); by all notions of logic and reason the difference between prophets, gurus and leaders comes down to numbers they "produce"; there's nothing they (or anybody) can add to it;

Again, about Air India incident, in which many, many more Canadians perished. Where's is the righteous anger? Where's the holy, global march to eradicate the roots? Or, maybe, look here: what about Canadians who contracated, and died of, hep C or cancer, through negligence, or incompetence of other Canadians? In much higher numbers than those lost in twin towers? Why don't I hear the drums, to arrest and exterminate, forever?? No, I'm not setting one victim against another. Just showing things in the perspective. All deserve remeberance and sorrow; nobody - being used as a pretext by a bunch of rightwing warmongers to unleash atrocities far exceeding the original tragegy. What's truly amazing is the mental (or intellectual maybe) flaw of the warmonger people, when they pick one pretext as the cause of all evil in the world, and drum it at each and every corner, while completely ignoring, no, excusing and glorifying much worser atrocitities committed by themselves (or their side), as pure goodness. But nothing new here. Do you think for a minute that the titans of extermination, Hitler or Stalin, viewed themselves as monsters? Or, the saviours of humankind (their understanding thereof)? Do you think Bin Laden thinks of his troops as merciless murderers of innocents? No, they are in the holy liberation buseness. As the democracy bunch are in the one of the holy democratization... So why don't we, for a change, drop all the worseless explanations / justifications and only consider one simple and easily quanifiable measure: the result. Bodycount. With Stalin and Hitler, with their multimillion scores at the top of the grisly podium; followed by a few far eastern dictators (millions); skip; Saddam, with some tens to hundred thousands; and those who started the most recent democracy quest, right there, in the tie; (skip again) finally Bin Laden's bunch, some way behind (but the race is still on).. There... I'm not interested what the buddies have to say; the result speaks for itself; if you can hear (and comprehend). Oh, I'm so sorry... Dont whine now... Insults, them must be the privilege reserved for exclusive use by your bunch...