Figleaf

Another dead RickiBobbi giveaway... the whinging about non-existent 'personal attacks'. Hmmm that suggests a Search...

So they have announced they are going to investigate? Please read post #80, above.

I don't know? But I know Ricki's posts when I see them. Why, is he denying he changed his name? Yeah, who else could he be. His style is ... inimitable. (Thank goodness.)

How on Earth is that obvious? Because the RCMP hasn't laid charges. Presumably they are investigating. Unless Stock has already given them orders not to.

We still don't know exactly where the sailors were. But yes, that will make a difference depending on that fact. If you are enforcing legitimate sovereignty -- it's -- not -- kidnapping.

What you are describing is a violation of the criminal code. Obviously the RCMP disagrees. How on Earth is that obvious?

What you are describing is a violation of the criminal code.

Why post a link to a story five days after it first appeared? Because the poster appeared to have been unaware of the issue, obviously. No legs! A fax shows up wherein the person who resigned to let Stockwell Day have his seat pretty much admits that he got a pay off, and you imagine the story has no legs? You wish.

They have restored faith in elected officials to spend our money in an honest and accountable manner. I can't believe you're saying that seriously. A massive bribe to Quebec is not an honest and accountable manner. What measure are you refering to? (Surely that's not the current tory doublespeak for stacking the judicial selection panels!) Okay, I'll give you that one. And that one. There was no lack of professionalism in that that needed to be restored. What Canadian forelock tuggers like you tories objected to was a lack of deference, not professionalism. PURPOSE!?! Holy Hannah ... !

How many of them are going to have incriminating faxes about themselves lying around?

What Investigation? What Investigators? When was this all announced? Have you been ignoring the news for the last couple of days? http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...b0c6344&k=50098 If you are trying to hang your hat on the issue of whether an Investigation has been Announced, then you have no leg to stand on. The same conflict of interest applies to the decision to Announce the Investigation as applies to the Investigation itself.

So should Canada and Denmark start arresting each other's sailor's and make things worse? Countries do not have the right to kidnap sailors in disputed waters. what would you say if Britain tossed 15 Iranian sailors into the brig because they were in disputed waters? Iran could have let the Brits go and not caused an international incident. Do the Brits have warships in Iran's harbors? Iran has the right to do something, just not kidnapping. Why do you keep going on about Canada and Denmark? They are less aggressive, if you think peace is a good policy then you'll prefer our approach, yes. But look, this is a very simple fact -- states have the right to enforce their sovereignty in their own territorial waters. That includes taking foreign military personel into custody when they are engaging civilian shipping.

An excellent question. Iran would like to draw the line, and probably has drawn a line it claims. Iraq would like to draw the line. Should Britain draw the line? If you're Britain you should follow a line if the UN says its a line. If there's no UN approved line, then you should respect the Iranian line, 'cause it's not your business to press for the Iraqi line. Let's hope they're released soon.

We are two countries in a border dispute, much like Iran and Iraq. My point is that do we go and arrest Danish sailors when they wander in our claimed waters of Hans Island, and do they arrest our sailors for the same thing? I'm saying that no country has the right to up and capture sailors for being in disputed waters, Canada and Denmark don't do it, what makes Iran so special? I know what you are saying, and it's wrong. The fact that Canada and Denmark choose not to do something doesn't tell you anything about whether countries have the right to do something.

Sweet!

What part confirmed the heterosexuality aspect, in your opinion? Well, that settles it then! Ah, yes, of course. (P.S. Good lord, I can't believe you dragged up 'Virtu'.)

I don't see any problem Why did you ask if I wanted a medal? Do you want a medal for talking like you know something when clearly you don't? I got your blue ribbon right here. Canada and Denmark are easier-going than Iran and Iraq. I hope that's no revelation to anyone. It tells you zip about where the sailors were, what the status of the waters is, or whether Iran was within its rights to capture them. What is your point?

If these indeed are disputed waters between Iraq and Iran, what business do the British have to take sides in that dispute by implicity endorsing the Iraqi position by treating the waters as Iraqi?

So now you are an expert on acts of war? Are you disputing my comment?

:lol: This is priceless. FYI, oh-one-who-mouths-off-in-absense-of-knowledge, the Shatt al-Arab IS the Arvand River. You think that Canada enforcing it's territorial sovereignty would lead to a war with the United States? What a terrible thing to think of our wonderful allies! If you want to nickel and dime then you can call it the Arvandrud. That's the first i've heard it referred to as Arvand. Bravo, do you want a medal? WTF is wrong with you?

Jeez, between this situation and the revelations about Stockwell Day's constituency predecessor, next thing the CPC will be publishing a manual.

You should learn to read. I never said anyone was guilty. I'm saying that Stockwell Day has to step aside while the RCMP look into the situation. I'm not. The proper procedure is for a person interested in the outcome of an investigation to not be in charge of the investigators.

:lol: This is priceless. FYI, oh-one-who-mouths-off-in-absense-of-knowledge, the Shatt al-Arab IS the Arvand River. You think that Canada enforcing it's territorial sovereignty would lead to a war with the United States? What a terrible thing to think of our wonderful allies!

Do make the legal case. What is the statute involved? What are the elements of the offence? Show us how each of those elements are met. Why should I recite the obvious? If you want to make the effort -- The statute involved is the criminal code. It's available on the internet. Check out ss.119-123 or so. Read what the discovered documents say.

Perhaps your thought was wrong from the beginning.....and that would mean the original George W....as in Washington. Washington was a great man and an wise leader.