Live From China

Thanks CUF; I couldn't have said it better myself. Tsi, basically your comments are a load of hooey. There is nothing magical about Mohawk Warriors; they do not have "mystical" military skills that no one else has. If any of them are instructors for the Special Forces or the Seals, and are teaching them things beyond tracking, etc., they obtained them as members of the US military. In short, they are soldiers first, and Mohawk Warriors next! Members of these elite units are covert operatives, and although extremely important, they are just a part of any war. If you were invaded you would still have to face mechanized warfare and airpower. Yes, you could harrass an enemy with guerrilla tactics, but the costs to you would be extremely high. Even your honored Mohawk Warriors cannot stand up to napalm. And remember, you do not have the population to replace huge losses. To think otherwise means you are living in a dream world.

To the pro-Six Nations posters: Could someone please answer my question about how the military force which you have had "for over 1,000 years" would fare in a "real war"? Exclude commenting about blockades in which an army has no air support and has its hands tied because it does not have "permission to engage." The passport: which countries actually allow you to cross into their territory and travel utilizing a Six Nations passport? Fortunately, freedom triumphs here! It is not a criminal offence to hold a different view that you do, Okwaho. If you believe it is, and you do eventually establish your own nation, your people are in for a very rough time. Eventually, your army will have to turn on your own people!

It is kind of cool that you have your own passport. Is there somewhere I can see a picture of one? Which nations actually allow you to cross into their territory by showing a Six Nations passport? Of course, I don't expect you to list all the countries.

Being from a military family, the armed forces answer (or non-answer) interests me. If you were invaded, you could actually mobilize your troops and fight a war on the ground and in the air? You actually have the equipment necessary to attain air supremacy or at least stop an invader from attaining it? How many troops do you have? Would they all be willing to fight? I am sure you are thinking of guerrilla warfare here, but just because your ancestors may have been skilled at this doesn't mean you are. As your arms and ammunition ran out who would supply you with the equipment you needed? Of course, all this is hypothetical, but I was hoping for an answer better than "the same one we've had for one thousand years." The debate about taxation also interests me. If you have the means to actually eliminate taxation and support yourselves completely, why do your citizens now need money from the federal government?

Well, said Mr. Fortin! I asked this same question (at least, in one of the native-issues threads) as did FTA Lawyer. Guess what? We are still waiting for an answer. And I too would love to see this hallowed agreement.

To the pro-Six Nations posters: If you are already a sovereign nation, I need to ask some basic questions (and by the way, I am NOT being facetious about this; I really want to know). Essentially, what are your plans for the future? 1. What kind of economy will you develop? 2. When will you start minting your own currency? 3. What kind of legal system will you develop? 4. What about visas and passports? 5. How will you levy taxes? Will they be sufficient to support your infrastructure? 6. Will you develop your own armed forces? 7. What is your current population? 8. What is your present unemployment rate? 9. What about schools and universities? 10. What about a parliament, legislature, and the like? 11. What kind of social services system will you develop? If you can think of any others, let me know.

Watched the CBC news last night. England and Scotland have laws that can hold a 10-year old criminally responsible. In the state of Oklahoma (get this ) this age drops dramatically to 7! Ten-year olds in jail? I am just not sure. Then again, when I see the case of the poor young child in the UK brutally murdered by 10-year old kids I wonder why they shouldn't be incarcerated, or even swinging from the end of a rope. My apologies to the more-sensitive people out there, but this case sickens me. Yes, most kids that age are just adventurous, silly, energetic, sometimes stupid and lovable, but what scares me about Canada is we are also seeing the growth of a generation of criminal punks who are just a little too confident and a little too sure of their rights. I think we need to start making the lives of those in 10 - 18 age bracket extremely miserable when they decide they wish to be criminals.

Quoting myself: Well, I really did think that this claim was a load of hooey!

I am going to change the topic here slightly (still related though): I am curious as to "how far" parental responsibilities can extend. For example, I know that support arrangements can be made to help an adult child financially while they are in university. However, yesterday, I was told that under family law parents can be legally forced to assist their adult children in other areas, e.g., the "child" does not now how to perform a maintenance operation on their house and the parent does. The adult child can have a judge force the parent to assist/teach them. At first, I rolled my eyes, but then I thought, "Wait a minute, we all know the law can be extremely bizarre and unjust, even out-and-out 'whacky'." If anyone knows of such a statute in family law, let me hear it. Personally, I don't believe it, but strangely enough, I have been wrong before

I must agree with the majority of the posters that such comments have nothing to do with intelligent discourse. These types of verbal "antics" smack of nothing more than an angry elementary school mouth in the schoolyard, and no one can really take their claims seriously. Sort of like saying, "The louder I scream, the "righter" my argument will be." History!

Thanks, Riverwind. Everytime I hear such stuff, I too, shake my head. In one of the threads (they seem to be popping up all over the place), one poster respectfully indicated that such massive amounts of money were simply not available. The reply was a childish, "Well, that's your problem!" No, it is NOT our problem. It is yours. We have some money, you are NOT going to get all of it, NOT even close to all of it. And you are certainly NOT going to be handed money that doesn't exist (basic Law of Thermodynamics here ). Such antics do not even approach a desire to bargain in good faith.

Maybe the answers (whatever that means) are in the past, but you have to deal with the courts, laws, etc. as they exist today. As a friend of mine once said, "That was then, this is now!" I still don't see that as answering my question. I see you as running in circles (I know, I know, you will say I am doing the same) and absolutely refusing to compromise. Let's face it, you will simply not get everything you want. Nor will we. I see a lot of your answers as obfuscating the issue. Since this subject is actually spread over quite a few threads, I will consolidate some of the so-called ideas here. Or at least try. You want sovereignty but refuse to recognize the sovereignty of Canada which must exist before sovereignty can be granted. You want the "special treatment" of the disabled and the demand for special treatment based on race to be seen in the same light. You want trillions of dollars when you know this is impossible. Let me ask you a basic question. Suppose you went before an international court or tribunal of some kind and it was composed of members totally to your liking, and you lost. Would you go home and just say you did your best and lost fair and square?

Stealing the wind?!!!! This is a completely frivilous claim/charge. It does nothing more than confuse the issue and actually makes any valid claims look weak and foolish!

I am going to play devil's advocate here. Why is it that the pro-Six Nations posters' statistics, research, etc. are accurate/valid to the nth degree, while everyone else's research isn't?

There is a tremendous difference between special treatment based upon a disability and one that is racially based. One is a necessity; the other one smacks of racism, plain and simple. Guess which one is which?

This is an extremely tough situation, and I certainly don't want violence to erupt. However, when guys like Joe Whatever His Last Name Is shoots off his mouth and proclaims that the only way he is leaving is in a body bag, I know this is nothing more than "big brave talk!" Joe knows very well that if the army was sent in with "permission to engage", he would be running for the next hill! As would most of the protesters. The Romans used to have a saying: "Bravery increases with distance!"

OK, I still don't see FTA's questions being answered. First, why is it that Canada is NOT a sovereign state? And then, if Canada isn't a sovereign state how can it pledge land over which it doesn't hold sovereignty? These are pretty fundamental and important questions. Also: just because the UN condemns Canada's treatment of its aboriginal peoples doesn't mean that they will automatically indicate that the said claims of these people for sovereignty will automatically be lawful. Seems like they are separate issues. But before you take issue with my issue, please answer FTA's questions.

Actually, geoffrey, I agree with you. I was more interested in making the point that IF a parent is going to have to pay another parent an extra $3000 in so-called child support (which is utterly ridiculous but it was mentioned in this thread) then it simply shouldn't be going into the custodial parent's bank account. There is just too much chance for abuse not to mention that no child needs this amount of money anyway. As I said before, children do not have a right to ski trips, BMW's, etc., even if their parents are millionaires. And just because they had these luxuries before a marriage broke up doesn't mean they have a right to them afterward. They are privileges! Child support is for food, clothing, shelter and the like. An asside here: I am noticing that North American children and young adults seem utterly obsessed with obtaining things and money; in short, they are becoming greedier and "grabbier" than in the past. I find this utterly discouraging and pathetic.

Of course, an RESP would be unacceptable in this circumstance (someone doling out $3K per month). That's why I thought a specially administered fund of some kind would be ideal. That way, both the payor and payee could not touch it. Of course, we could even kick up the accountability rate a notch or two. The appointed administrator pays the tuition, the books, the residence fees, etc. and the child (now an adult) doesn't touch any of that money. Of course, the child gets a monthly salary and s/he better not come back after two weeks of the month and say,"Oops, I accidentally went to Aspen to go skiing for two weeks. All my money for January is gone!" Administrator: "I guess you're going to lose some weight this month!" Or, "Hope you have a warm sleeping bag!" As far as maintaining a lifestyle goes, I don't think any kid has the right to Christmas holidays in Hawaii, a BMW Roadster, etc. just because s/he had these things while the parents were together. In reality, these are privileges not rights or essentials.

I am wading into this issue a bit late so I apologize if I am not maintaining "the flow." No child should be getting an additional $3000 per month in support payments. Of course, I am assuming adequate support to start with. I can see this money being put aside for college or university, but with one strong caveat: it is for that purpose and that purpose alone. It would have to be placed in a specially administered fund only to be accessed when the child enters university. Should the child decide not to go to university, then it goes back to the parent who made the payments. It is not for the child to buy cars, homes, vacations, etc.

TFB, I notice you didn't counter with very much! Why don't you come to China and have a look for yourself? Again, you will be both amazed and enlightened! You are so busy worrying about China that you are forgetting to look back over your shoulder!

Well done, Kindred! Your posts all well-researched, and obviously backed by considerable personal experience. CIA "Factbook"! Get serious

I would hardly considered the CIA Factbook an objective source (probably a preferred reference for China haters though). I think this is more balanced: http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=771 Pretty good, eh? And very perceptive for people who are only capable of rote learning! How does the CIA "Factbook" contradict that religious freedom is expanding? And what do you know: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/business...=rssnyt&emc=rss Kind gives your CIA "Factbook" a bit of a kick in the teeth, doesn't it? In fact, this whole issue of labor shortages in China has been a really headline in a few business magazines. I will try to find a few more articles that are a little more gutsy and substantial than your sources. Also: I am here witnessing these changes happening. Sure, I only see a little slice of China but it seems my observations are backed up by sociologists and the business community. And you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until after the 2008 Olympics! I guarantee that your sources will end up in the garbage!

On Canada getting poorer: http://www.thenav.ca/article_display.php?id=517 http://dawn.thot.net/cera3.html http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ty20050914.html http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/36/1/FINA...2/ndp-e_-29.htm Some good "grenade-in-the-face" reality!

Ok, I'm kinda getting tired of your propaganda. I am not too sure what the purpose of this statement is but OK! So now what? Why get so hot under the collar about my observations. Why not come over here and make some of your own? I think you would be surprised, and enlightened. And speaking of propaganda: 1. The one-child policy has become a thing of the past. I routinely speak to people who have more than one child; in fact, our secretary is expecting her second child. 2. Wages are on the increase. Astoundingly there is actually labor shortages in China. As a result, employers are being forced to offer higher wages, better housing and benefits. 3. The Chinese are aware that their environmental standards need to improve. 4. Freedom of religion is expanding. So there