Figleaf

As usual, Rue has tendered an extremely lengthy and not entirely accurate collection of factoids about mid-east history. Unfortunately when waded through it fails to add up to an argument, or even a coherent story. We know Arab leaders gave speaches against Israel. We know the 'great' powers had their own reasons for meddling. We know Arab states had defensive alliances. These are all known, and none of them (even told in exhaustive detail) change the facts of history. Israel attacked its neighbors in 1967, not the other way around.

Wrong. We've debated him in 9/11 threads before, and every time a point is countered he comes up with another one. ... Well, I'm certainly not seeing any kind of reasoned refutations on THIS thread.

So, any state can declare any action by any other state to be a cause for war? Well, okay, that's what we see in practice, but it tells us nothing about the right or wrong, or legal or illegalness of it. And it doesn't help clarify who starts it. Right -- Israel started it.

I don't get why those issues are particularly concerning to Albertans any more than other Canadians.

Albertans are pissed because the sun rises in the east?!? Albertans are pissed because Canada is a democracy??

But honestly, what are you talking about? Who's been telling Alberta what to do? Quebec doesn't really want to separate. The ROC should consider it an empty threat.

Well, AG, I didn't see anything in there that suggests the fight was motivated by these guys being military. It would be a very strange motive. What I do wonder is if there was a racial element ... Halifax does have an undercurrent of anti-black prejudice among some.

Yeah yeah. More sleazy lies from M.Dancer. Par for the course.

ah,,,sorry chump.... Insult reported to moderator. If you don't even read my posts, why do you argue about them. In fact, I noted above that the straight was Egyptian territorial waters. Saying that my arguments are empty does change the fact that I've soundly refuted your claim that a blockade is considered a just cause for war. I have: -cited the law that only self-defense or UNSC resolution is a legal cause for war between states; -noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES don't say that blockades are an act of war; -noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES say blockades will become defined as acts of war in 2009; and -pointed out that blockading the strait does not fit the legal definition of blockade which species the blocking of ports or shoreline. Meanswhile you baldly assert that blockades are a just cause for war, but as I've demonstrated (without any substantial reponse from you) your supposed support for that assertion doesn't actually say any such thing. Honestly, what do you think you're accomplishing?

Gee, I'm really sorry to have refuted you so thoroughly. Oh, heck, congratulations to you for buggering it up! Nice 'appeal to the mob' there, but who is this imaginary 'everyone'? More sleazy attacks, eh, Dancer? Sure sign you're losing the argument. BTW, I'm reporting that false, malicious slur to the admin. That's not what your own sources say. You should read them. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but simply reciting your mistakes won't make them right. I already explained that Egypt's blockade was not even illegal, let alone a justification for war. Do you have any actual arguments to make, or can I assume chanting your little mantras is all you've got left now? ANOTHER dirty rotten lie, further demonstrating how deeply out of your discussional depth you've gotten. For the reasons I've stated, which you've done zip to refute, I rest my case: Israel started the 1967 war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...ort/1995/TC.htm http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#Six-Day_War Game, set match What species of incompetence or dishonesty could produce your style of nonsense is a mystery to me. 1. The first quote isn't even from the source you cited. I think its from the Wikipedia cite at the end of your post. The article at globalsecurity.org doesn't even contain the phrase 'casus belli'. Nevertheless, let's deal with what the first quote says: a-casus belli: "Israeli government had a short list of "casus belli" . That is, the Israeli government declared it would declare war over certain things. This doesn't make those things legitimate causes for war, it just means ISRAEL MADE THREATS about them. b-"Such a blockade of the straits, in contravention of international law...". FIRST, its an open question whether it would violate international law because Egypt and others consider the straits Egyptian territorial waters. SECOND, not just any violation of international law justifies starting a war. In fact, there are only two legal ways to start a war: self-defence (which doesn't apply because Israel had not been attacked) or security council resolution. That means, Israel's proper remedy to the blockade, if it had one, was to go the the UNSC with their grievance. The did not even attempt that so far as I know. 2. The second quote says a blockade may be considered and act of war. Or maybe not. So, right off, it's only 50% in support of your contention. But look closer ... "considered" by who? An affected state may certainly "consider" it an act of war, but that doesn't make it a legitimate ground to start a war in international law. In fact, there are only two legal ways to start a war: self-defence (which doesn't apply because Israel had not been attacked) or security council resolution. 3. The Britanica article calls it an 'act of war', but doesn't offer a meaning for that term. In the context of all the other material supplied so far, it probably is intended to mean 'something done in war'. It does not amount to a statement that it's a valid reason to go to war. Furthermore, exerting territorial control of the straight does not match the technical definition of blockading ports and shorelines discussed there. SO, the "blockade" of the straights was not a "blockade" in international law. Israel started the 1967 war. But why take my word for it? Why not believe the senior Israeli officials who've said as much?

What exactly do you think you're proving with this nonsense? We know what a blockade IS, and your pretending that is the issue does nothing to convince me or anyone else that you know what you're talking about. It seems you're just trying to be annoying. Yes, sure, that's your stock in trade, but peddle it somewhere else for a while.

Here's what the real Wikipedia says about AUSTRALIAN Law of blocade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlockadeAMAZING how the convenient and oddly capitalized section Dancer wants to rely on is missing from the real version and present in the obscure reference he prefers. And it still explains nothing of how he thinks Australian law is relevant to this matter. Well, Dancer, why don't you try an unclever insult to cover your utter incorrectness on this matter?

Can you please tell me how Australian law is relevant to this issue? BTW, the "ACT OF WAR" reference doesn't appear in the actual Wikipedia article, probably because fact checkers removed it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade . It's quite curious how it's the only capitalized section in the report you cited as well. Did you do that little edit yourself by any chance? Oh, and if it's really an act of war, why does it need to become one in 2009? Dancer, face it, you're sinking fast.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Blockade Can you please tell me how Australian law is relevant to this issue? (BTW, the "ACT OF WAR" reference doesn't appear in the actual Wikipedia article, probably because fact checkers removed it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade . It's quite curious how it's the only capitalized section in the report you cited as well. Did you do that little edit yourself by any chance?) Oh, and if it's really an act of war, why does it need to become one in 2009? Dancer, face it, you're sinking fast.

I can't be held responsible for your ignorance in history. There are a number so called acts of war, even someone with your limited imagination should be able to google the phrase "acts of war" Then surely a big-brain such as you could do it. OH WAIT! you did do that and found that blocades WILL BE so defined IN 2009. That is what you found, isn't it? Don't blame me when your own research proves you're utterly wrong. Clearly any 'ignorance' does not lie on my side of this discussion. Absolutely false. The ludicrous notion of pre-emption makes a mockery of the concept of self-defence as any reasonable person could discern with a moment's thought. Israel started the 1967 war.

Currently MPs are tied to a district but very few actually put their constituents before their party so I don't see the point in your objection to list MPs. The objection to lists is that they are party hacks who represent no-one but their party heirarchy. They would be worse in that regard than members who are (however infrequently and imperfectly) responsible to the people of a district. No, that would be adding list-hack problems to an already imperfect system. To your satistfaction, maybe, but not to mine. Recall would force members to give full and continuous account to the constituents rather than grudging pretense every few years. It would mean that members have no free ride to say 'the party made me do it'. They would have to choose between party discipline and constituent interests with every decision.

I don't see why people who can't win in a district should be given special dispensation because their party manages pull a small spackle of votes across the country. Why should concentrated local support be favoured over national support? For example six hundred thousand Green voters produce zero representation as is...but if they all lived in the Maritimes they'd win 20 seats. Does that make sense? It makes sense to me, if the alternative is having members who represent parties rather than people. Because they're fringe voters. They can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them.

You did....where, when you proved you were clueless? For over 200 years a blocade has been considered an act of war,you know, siezing merchant vessels, (see war of 1812) attacking merchant vessels....yet bring the jews into it and it becomes a bargaining chip.......which brings us back to me thoughts..... WTF?? The sources YOU cited said it will be defined as an act of war in 2009. Note that we have not yet reached 2009. BTW, for those interested, there are only two legal ways to go to war in modern international law: self-defence and security council authority.

They are saying it is not EMPLOYMENT income which means they don't have to do a source deduction. It is still TAXABLE income which you should report on your return. You do have to declare it to the EI and you'll have your benefits reduced according to whatever formula they have in effect these days. You may be able to extend your benefit by a length of time commensurate with the time off from benefit you incur, but I'm not sure. They need either your permission, or a court order to monitor your bank account. NEVER use Money Mart -- they suck your blood.

That's true as a primary market. But once the share is issued, it's of no benefit to the issuer.[ I don't disagree that without a secondary market, the initial price would be lower. If you agree about the secondary market, then you agree about the main value of the stock market. I'm not sure why it's significant the once issued share are of no benefit to the issuer. They represent ownership and the issuer has already received the benefit, so I can't see how no FURTHER benefit matters. No, it's not. A zero sum game requires that for each 'win' there be comensurate 'loss'. I've explain how that's incorrect. The seller doesn't lose because she gains the benefit of liquid cash and terminating a risk position. The buyer doesn't lose because she gains a stock she values at a certain price and the benefit of potential future gains. I think maybe there's some confusion about what we mean by zero-sum here. If you mean markets provide no net benefit to society, they you're mistaken because financial instruments improve overall liquidity and thus accelerate money. If you mean markets are zero-sum because for each win there is a commensurate loss, then as noted above, that's not true of stock markets. But is is true of derivatives markets because in those cases there are actual counterparties taking directly opposing interests arising from the outcome of a future event.

A naval blockade not an act of war? That's what M.Dancer demonstrated with his sources higher up the thread. If you disagree, please give your sources in reply.

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them. We keep hearing this notion that the rich 'contribute' more to society than others. Actually, it should be obvious that the rich BENEFIT more from society than others. Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy. Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine. Wow, are you ever anti-Israel man. That was hardly the reponse. Not even close actually. With democracy comes responsibility. I'm not anti-Israel! I resent the implication. It's not anti-Israel to note that the West demanded Palestinians hold elections and the moment the did it the whole Western world crapped all over them because they didn't like the results. It was a shocking inconsistency, practically perverse.

Several points: 1. I agree with both August and Geoffrey about debt. Responsible use of debt is a perfectly appropriate government policy for the reasons they've given. A few things should be avoided however: financing current expenditures, locking in long term at high rates, and allowing foreign debt to exceed domestic ability to reabsorb the debt. 2. Rogue state probably meant 'partition' Alberta. I wouldn't target Alberta particularly for that, but I do think most Canadian provinces are too large and unwieldy. I think many of them should be partitioned: -Ontario into Southwest, Centre-East, Northern, and GTA; -Quebec into St.Laurent, Nord, and GMA; -Alberta into North and South, -BC into Vancouver Island and other islands, Mainland, and GVA; I'm not sure the others would profit from division, though there's an argument for combining the Maritimes. 3. Canada should definitely have nukes. It's a dangerous world and the demonstrated reality is that states with nukes have pretty effectively immunized themselves from strategic threats.

Y'know what I'm noticing... there's a lot of "Pshaw! Tinfoil Hat! Conspiracy theory!" barking going on, but precious little actual analysis or rebuttal of Poly's comments. If it's all such nonsense, you'd think it would be possible to meet his points with arguments rather than mere derision.