bradco

Nope. I only know about the money GRE gives to the Feds, and the money the Feds transfers to Six Nations...regardless, whatever the amount is, it will only increase the $140 million GRE gives to the Government of Canada....which will still work out to three times more than what the rez receives from Federal transfer payments. The bottom line is that Six Nations is putting at least three times more money into the Federal government's general ledger than what they get back from the same account. In simple terms, Six Nations is suffering from a fiscal gap...just like Ontario. Terrible, really. That certainly knocks the props from under the argument that Natives are government freeloaders, when clearly all of Canada enjoys the contributions Six Nation's makes.... Shocking is your complete lack of understanding that some money must go to fund bureacracy and departments that are necessary to run a country. The government doesnt transfer every dime it gets back to people. There are other expenditures such as debt payments that they have to deal with. Try factoring those in. Then again you will argue that the natives shouldnt have to pay for any of that, even though they receive benefits from it. What is your definition of freeloader?

"In essence, you are arguing that Canada has every right to act in the same manner as China, Iraq and Iran.Hummmm? Nice thought process. Where do I sign up for my Communist Party card." Such a dishonest comment. Since you have no understanding of how China deals with dissenters you will just have to trust me that Canada is a lot nicer and acts in no manner the same as China. If Canada was like China natives wouldnt get any benefits let alone preferential treatment "Be happy...at least China and Turkey support your ideals." You misinterpret my ideals purposely. I argue that the government of Canada ought to negotiate because it is right but the instant the native demands become extravigant, along with their refusal to thank or even admit the extra benefits they receive then its over. Negotiation is a two way street whereas you want it to be a buffet for the natives to take as they please. "you're right...silly me. I better tell the five doctors, two pilots and a couple of federal directors and one Deputy Minister who are my cousins that they should better mirror your experince." Either you are stupid and cant understand anything anyone writes or you purposely misinterpret it. Either way your dishonest in your replies. I specifically say not all and say and make reference to the statistical fact that the native population has a higher unemployment rate in this country. Since you cant, or refuse to understand what this means Ill try to explain it to you. It doesnt mean there arent very successful, hardworking and intelligent natives because there clearly are. It just means on average, a native person is more likely to be unemployed. "I don't need to, you pretty much put your views in print, and I can read you like a book, which is why i'm having such a good (and incredibly easy) time countering your "points"." Not incredibly hard when you misinterpret and manipulate them to mean something that they dont (see above). Try commenting honestly for a change, your only proving yourself to be ridiculous. "I once had the pleasure of watching a row of drunken cauco-Canadians pissing off a houseboat directly into the Lake I drink from. I also recall happening on a Cauco-canadian in a houseboat who asked me where the fish were at, because he wanted to set a net off the boat and hide it from the MNR. I once saw they Police Chief of North Bay come onto the Nippissing reserve to buy fresh fish from the Natives for a fish fry, and then turn around and complain about Native fish harvesting." One clear difference is my example was a government sanctioned and highly publicized event with a large amount of media coverage. There is a difference using an example like that and using examples of a bunch of idiots in their private time. There is a difference in some redneck breaking fishing laws and the government sanctioning natives to fish in an environmentally irresponsible way (those fish should have been allowed to spawn to replenish fish stocks for everyones economic benefit) "Clearly, the problem lies with Cauco-Canadian double standards more than anything else. What I find most amusing, though, is how you say Natives should work, and then criticize them for having a fishing business. A tad contrary, aren't we?" The issue is special privledges to native fisheries not the businesses themselves. I would never argue against their businesses, only for the same rules for everyone. Just another example of you making things up. Natives are clearly given special fishing rights so Id ask why they feel like they cant compete in a fair environment. Of course your going to interpret this as arguing that natives should not have fishing businesses cause your dishonest. "no less than a few sentences before you were complaining about the native fishery, and now you are wondering why they can't compete?" I was complaining about their special privledges and environmentally irreresponsible practises. A group that requires special privledges either cant, or refuses to compete. Probably refuses competition because they prefer the extra economic benefits. "come on now....get your thoughts straight...Having been to B.C., I know how much the non-native fishers revile the Native fishery, so how come you don't seem to have a clue that this is occuring?" And I live in BC so I know too. Most complaints come from the unequal treatment of native and non-native fisheries. Not that that excuses their actions but behaving legally, I would imagine, is tough when your way of making a living and feeding your family is taken away while another group still demands and receives extra benefits. "Yeah, but I bet you look like the priests and reverends, and probably look like Pickton, Bernardo and Mayerthorpe Rozsko than I do." And you look more like that poor native homeless man I flipped some change to on my way home than I do. And yes I know thats an absolutly ridiculous comment. I only use it to illustrate how dumb what you said is. But hey its typical of the rest of your post as well. "however, the rest of Canada happened to be enjoying a wonderful potluck on the reclamation site." All 30 million people that make up the rest of Canada? I love how you criticize me for speaking for the rest of Canada and then claim you do on the grounds that a few hundred odd people came to your dinner. Either way I stand by my argument that as natives continue to ask for more extravigant demands and make threats such as booting people out of their houses (as you have said) then Canadian public opinion will turn. Thats a pretty rational hypothesis. One that you have interpreted dishonestly to mean that I am somehow against natives. "A plethora of what you'd call "hyphenated-Canadians"" Yes cause I would call people hyphenated Canadians where exactly. You have now gone from misinterpreting to just blatantly making things up. Congratulations on becoming even more dishonest in your postings. The only person here that keeps referring to hyphenated Canadians is you. "when it was made quite clear to me that most of Canada sided with the Natives that day...by actually showing up." Again I stress that day they did. The point I have argued is not that there isnt support for natives. In fact I have argued the exact opposite...that Canadians do support natives. I only said that public opinion will change as native demands increase and natives come across as you do in this thread, talking about "evicting" people. "Maybe you should demand better border security, or find support for your cause among people of color." What exactly is my cause? You mean working with natives in a peaceful and fair negotiation process where both sides recognize the other and the increase in natives standard of living? Here you just flat out assume where I stand on the issue, an assumption that comes from your dishonest interpretation of what I say. In fact my saying that will be twisted by you somehow as well. I see little reason to continue this conversation cause you clearly have no intention of discussing anything in an honest manner. ""benevolence", which means out of the goodness of one's heart, and then go on to explain the actual legalities of the situation." benevolence: an act intending or showing kindness and good will, an inclination to do kind or charitable acts, disposition to do good The benevolence is choosing to honour the legal arguments of the natives when not necessary. That is, Canada has legal rights as well and we could, being the more powerful group, ignore native legal rights in favour of Canadian legal rights to the land. The benevolence is the desire to see the native population succeed....a desire that has gone so far that we extend extra benefits to native individuals that do not exist for other individuals in our society. "please...can you tell me what the name of the war was that determined the take over of the land? Here I thought I knew my history, but you present a version that I'm not familiar with...enlighten me" I thought I already explained that there doesnt need to be a war. Think about it. Canada exists and has title over all land in the area which is now considered as Canadian soil and occupied as such. Yes there are aborignal land claims and title but the government could easily choose to ignore them, give them out and take them back etc. It is basically a realist interpretation of the issue that completely eludes you. That is how I am defining "taking over the land".

Temagami Scourge: There doesn't need to be a battle with guns for Canada to be the victorious power. Just look at any internationally recognized map and see how the colour of this land that your tribe supposedly owns is coloured. Its shaded the same colour as Canada. Why? Because that land belongs to Canada as is recognized by every other official nation-state in the world. If the government refuses to give it to the natives how many states around the world will cry out against the Canadian government? When it comes down to it which claim is going to be internationally recognized? "See above. Feel free. See ya later! I hear England is pleasant in the winter time." Umm terribly sorry eh but all this land is ours now. It is internationallyrecognized as Canadian land no matter how much you want to whine about how once upon a time your ancestors lived here before Europeans came and settled it and started a state. "I bet you forgot that part. I think you truly believe that Natives sit around all day waiting for government money to arrive. I'd caution you now because you are at the point where you believe that Natives think and act like you would, which isn't exactly the case." Not all. I think it is recognized by anyone who isnt in denial that the native population has an incredibly high unemployment rate. Now if all Natives though and acted like I did they would all be enrolled in full time university studies and have their own business. Heck, whats that theyd all be successful. Dont assume anything about how I think and act "Oh....then why is it that non-native fishers on both coasts try so hard to stop the Native fishery?" Because someone has to protect the environment if the Natives wont. I had the pleasure once of watching a Native only sanctioned fishing during the salmon spawning runs. They would fillet the fish right there on the shore of the river and do it so fast that theyd make mistakes often and just chuck the dead fish into the river. Natives are clearly given special fishing rights so Id ask why they feel like they cant compete. Non-natives deserve to not be discriminated against just as natives deserve to not be discriminated against. "but you have to admit that your priests, reverends and other holy people had a hundred years of frolicking with Native children at residential school" Terrible events. Wouldnt call them my priests and reverends seeing that im not a religious person. "The "canadians" were a uniform white." Give me a break. So in this one case there was a bunch of white Canadians. Canada is one of the most multicultural societies in the world. "then why does Canada even recognize reserves and makes (sparse) treaty annuities" Benevolence. A recognition natives were here first and they ought to have an amount of land given through negotiation but inevitably on terms that are acceptable to Canada. Because unlike other nations throughout history that have effectively taken over land from other people we like to show a little bit of morality, at least as much as can possibly be present when one group has come in and taken an area over.

what a great night....big 5-0 canucks win and the oilers got punished by the ducks

Your opinion is based on an assumption that religous people dont ever break the morals laid out by their god. Since they undoubatly do, morals derived from god are no more stronger than those from any social contract. Morals in a social contract are still just as "real" as any morals from a god. Both are created, one by humans the other apparently by some higher being. I would argue when an individual has a say in what they personally believe to be moral and enter into a contract with other individuals to form a society where each respects and accepts the others morals they are both more likely to not break the contract than they would if the morals were dictated to them (ie by a god). There is little incentive to break the contract since your morals are respected and not dictated to you. You already get what you want and all you give up is allowing others to enjoy the same freedom of choice as you. The problem with religious folk is they see moral sets as competing in a zero-sum game. The more one set is accepted the less another is. It is this mind set that is one of the reasons that religions have and will always lead to conflict. Additionally, you have failed to realize something about god derived morals: there is not only one set on this planet. There are many religions and many gods all with different morals, and even within the same religion interpretations vary. How can you then claim that there is an absolute set of morals?

deleted, see below

"They're not busy." Except we're taking a large role in Afghanistan (a war which was fought in the self-defense of the United States and where we came to their aid) Is it really our fault we're not all that busy compared to the globe trotting US forces? We simply have less threats against us.

does he really have bad breath and body odour?? lol Id cancel out #'s 3, 6, 10 and 11 I hope, 12, 14 and definetly 15 I suggest: 16. a gay cowboy (loved that outfit he wore to stampede) 17. intolerant social conservative 18. some guy with a really creepy fake smile

You really should break out some legal books. The claim Six Nations has over the Haldimand Tract is a legal claim that has been validated by the federal government. The only problem is what to do with those of you that live there. You opinion doesn't matter anyway, since we have already convinced the provincial and federal governments to expect more similar land reclamations unless they willingly and honestly come to the table. Our bargining chip? Taking the land back and making YOUR government prove their claim to us. So far they admitted they can't. We'll see what breaks tomorrow...... You should also break out the history books. If it wasn't for the Haudenosaunee allied with the Crown, you would very well be just another American Bushite under the command of a warmonger and moron. We have never been conquered and the only thing that saved the British ass from our wrath was a peace treaty called the Covanent Chain. It is good to see another ignorant Canadian underestimating us. THAT already gives us the upper hand in any negotiation.... O:nen You fail to realize the government can always just say no and there is nothing you could do about it. Either way Im all for giving native populations a little land that they had actually done something with before the arrival of Europeans. Of course any improvements made to the land would have to be paid for or we would just take them/demolish them for scraps. Then after the natives choose to relocate (the ones who do) the federal government can stop providing them any benefits as they refuse to be a part of Canada. Unfortunatly, and I honestly believe this is incredibly unfortunate, but I think within a few years there would be a significant amount of poeple begging to be included back in Canada. I would love to see the native population flourish and increase their average standard of living but its difficult to see that happening anytime in the near future. Really what the natives have in their favour is public opinion. It is a black mark on our country to have a group, on average, completely unable to rescue itself from poverty despite the extra help already provided. I think most Canadians desperatly want to see natives better off and support land claims in the hopes that it might help the native populations and remove this blackmark on Canada. But as you increase demands and start evicting tax paying Canadians from the homes they bought and have attitudes towards them that you put forth on this board the public opinion will fall. Then the government might just have to say no more. "We have never been conquered and the only thing that saved the British ass from our wrath was a peace treaty called the Covanent Chain. " Never conquered yet you lost all your land...I think Im missing something?? Being duped into a treaty and then taken over doesn't sound all that much better. Either way if the British wanted to bother going head to head in battle it would have been a complete victory. Much easier and smarter to take the land without battle as they did I guess.

I think being the victorious power over a conquered group actually gives us the upper hand in negotiation. We dont really have to negotiate anything. Its only because of our benevolence that anything goes the other way. The land was conquered/settled in an era when international laws and norms saw this as the agreed upon way of doing business (probably not a good thing but thats the way it was). I honestly dont see any legal entitlement to any land.

What good is the U.N. if they don't even have the where-with-all to tell Kartoum that those tropps are coming whether they like it or not. The failure to do anything in Sudan is because no country cares enough to get invovled. (ie.there is no oil in the region....just poor, starving black people) The UNSC did its job and authorized force. If you feel something needs to be done send a letter off to your prime minister and tell him to get togther with other nations and send some troops.

I wonder if they would be singing the same tune if we cut them off from all the benefits of being Canadian and all the extra goodies we give out to the native population. Typical, wanting all the benefits and more but none of the costs of living in a civilized society.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion Oh, I accept that that is your opinion. But that doesn't help make any sense of why the same opinion is moral if held by one person but not by another. Say again? That last bit was too garbled for me to parse out your meaning. Even if that view were factaully precise (which it is not), it sheds no light on the question we are dealing with on this thread. So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another. Your question is illogical. Prior to the charter in this country Christianity and other religions substantially served as a standard concerning morals. With the advent of the charter, political legislation overruled the natural societal evolution of this country especially in the areas of religion and language. Your question cannot be answered because of this federal intervention. IMO the charter is destroying the fabric of this country. For your question to be answered the federal government would have to implement some sort of STANDARDS relating to morals like it did for language, concerning 'official bilingualism' and employment in the federal government. And in my opinion the charter reaffirms the fabric of this country. Luckily the charter still allows you the right to leave

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion and reinforced especially relating to the Catholic religion during the whole time spent in primary school. Christianity teaches what morals are from a religious point of view backed up your faith in that religion. You can also harbour the legal definition of what is good and bad on top of your religious definition which reinforces the overhaul concept between good and bad. I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any. Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents. That's what the difference is. absolute rubbish. Your argument that non-religous parents cant or wont teach morals is absolutly ridiculous. I grew up in a non-religous household and my parents constantly enforced morals on me (as allparents do) as to what is right and what is wrong. These morals were based in logical human thought about what is decent. They had nothing to do with what an unproven higher being or work of fiction said was the right way to live. My personal opinion is that the majority of religions preach immoral behaviour such as intolerance. I prefer to base my morals on the belief that all humans are equal and my morals come from that belief.

Exactly equal opportunity isnt the goal. The goal is that everyone has an opportunity. I would say for the most part if people want to succeed in this country they can. Problem is people in western society are generally lazy, plain and simple. In Canada if you fail you are most likely the reason why. And the great thing about this country is we have so many programs set out to at least offer you second and third chances and at least a way to live even when you fail. As a university student I hear lots of people whine about how they cant afford their tuition and that the government needs to do something. This upsets me because these people dont even realize how much the government is already subsidizing post secondary education. The level that it is at now is fully achievable by anyone. If you cant afford it then you can get a loan and presumably your education will make you able to pay it back. If your in the middle class and there are no loans available you are probably in a situation where you would have no problem earning enough if you really want it. Sure you might have to work for it but it is possible. I work 70-80 hours a week in the summer so when I hear people who arent even working full time whine about how hard it is to pay their tuition I cant help but shake my head.

I disagree. He will and ought to go down as one of the worst presidents in history. Worst attack on US soil occurred under his leadership (not that it was his fault), failed to bring justice by capturing the man responsible, destroyed US credibility around the world, disrespected the constitution in the name of national security while not really providing any security, some of the worst public opinion polls in history and my personal favorite --->the gigantic deficit Everyone gets so hung up on his failure in the international arena that they forget what this guy did to the deficit. It takes real skill to pile up that much debt. I wonder if always having daddy's plastic to pay his way has any impact on his use of the public purse. The one good thing about conservatives is they are usually fiscally conservative. Without that what good are they?

The Senate is minor fat and if reformed can provide valuable regional representation to a very Ontario/Quebec dominated government. It can be the uniting factor, eliminating that big ol' Western alienation. blah...Id rather have legislation passed and not be stuck in deadlock. But I guess thats because I dont have any feelings of western alienation. Either way, a Harper government must counter this Ontario is out to get us mentality in Alberta, no?

Actually, Health care was indeed one of the major points the treaties are based on, that, and housing, tax exemption and a whole host of recognized rights. Some treaties go into greater detail, the the above are the main points. I submit that the reason that we do have SIN numbers and Health cards is for ease of administrative use, and because the Crown unilaterally looks on Status Indians as citizens because the law the Crown made up on its own says so. Too bad no one ever asked the indians, but that has been the norm. I would also submit that these rights worked out to the advantage of Canadians in general as the exchange of land for rights allowed Canada to reap innumerable economic benefit from it, to what makes this country what it is today. The only disappointing thing is that the Crown has consistently failed to deliver on its treaty obligations, only protects Native people now that the world is cognizant of Canada's poor human rights record respecting Native people, and still can't do a good job of it. If anything, Canada got off cheap, and still reneges on its agreements for everyone else's benefit. I hope that helps you understand what's going on. "If anything, Canada got off cheap, and still reneges on its agreements for everyone else's benefit." give me a break. Its comments like this that hurts the native cause. When hardworking, tax paying Canadians hear stuff like this why would you ever expect them to shell out billions more to help native communities. Natives, as citizens of this country, receive all the same benefits and more while putting in, on average, a heck of a lot less. And then after this they cry about injustice and call Canadians racist. You cant receive extra benefits and cry about being oppressed at the same time. Its not reasonable to have your cake and eat it too. Personally I have troubles feeling sympathy for anyone who encourages double standards. The government does a lot to help native communities and I think you ought to realize this. Maybe they should do more maybe they should do less, thats up for debate. I think the problem is too many people (native and non-native) want the government to hold their hand all the way through life instead of putting effort in themselves.

You make trolls look bad -- or good -- or like they are doing a public service! Mandatory voting is a horrible idea. Lets get people who dont care and force them to vote. Ya that will definetly result in making sure the best, most qualified candidates win. Do we really want candidates elected because they got more randomly placed x's?

Toss the senate, and the monarchy while we are at it. Where all the conservative on here? What happened to taking any chance to argue we need to "trim the fat"? A body that has no power and whose members collect huge salaries and spend lavishly are fat. Why are we sending senators on fact finding missions. Leave that to the MP's they are the ones voting on the mission.

Yet if it was a white Christian hospital I bet there would be a lot of people on this forum that would say thats ok and anyone saying it wasnt was not respecting religious freedoms. It is a private religious institution. Who cares. Use the regular hospital system already in place. Im anti-religious and I have no problem with religous people having their own hospitals if they choose as long as I dont have to use it or have my tax money pay for it and I can still get healthcare elsewhere. It amazes me how people scream and cry about religous freedoms for Chritians on this forum ( ie on gay marriage) but when it comes to religious freedoms for Islamic people its a different story. Thats "prejudice and racism pure and simple". I'll give you an example of how this thinking is wrong-headed. New Brunswick is supposedly the only "Officiall Bilingual" Province in Canada, and all hospitals in the province are bilingual so they could serve both linguistic groups. Great idea except that now in Moncton we have two hospitals, one for French and one for English patients even though both hospitals employ bilingual staff. Now in Saint John, NB where less than 6% of the population professes French as their mother-tongue, we have a new situation. The Province paid to open a French only school within a provincially built cultural centre, and I didn't have a problem with that until the Acadian Society recently demanded that they be able to open their own medical Clinic to serve French only patients in that centre, and I also didn't have a problem with that until that demand was that the local Saint John Regional Hospital Corporation was asked to pay for this separate facility out of scarce financial resources. We now have a local hospital that is fully bilingual capable, yet we are also paying for a separate French only facility which is less than a 3 minute drive away. Does this make sense to anyone financially or otherwise? What we now have is segregation instead of bilingualism, a concept that South Africa fought for years to eliminate, only ours is based on the spoken langauge instead of the colour of one's skin. As someone else said and I agree with them, multiculturalism is definitely a failed concept, and we need to get back to common sense. Segregation is just wrong if you expect a society to function without conflict, and to do that all citizens need to be treated the same. Your examples are different though. I specifically said private institution. A public institution is much different, I agree. I wouldnt support any publicly funded institutions promoting segregation but private institutions ought to be able to do things as they wish as long as they dont discriminate (ie these hospitals cant refuse care).

My thoughts... If the strip mall owner wants to start a Korean mall specializing in Korean culture thats cool with me. Its his mall so he deserves that right. If a christian wants to start a strip mall specializing in Christian stuff thats cool with me to. The lease runs out on these businesses and the owner gives the lease to another company that fits his business plan I dont see a problem. The problem only starts when an insurance company is replaced by another insurance company. That has nothing to do with starting a Korean cultural mall. If the rent is the same or the existing tenant is excluded from bidding on the lease solely because of race that is racist plain and simple. You cant argue otherwise. Racist policies have no place in our society and if such an action isnt illegal it ought to be. I cant help but feel bad for these business who have been there for years and have had their leases taken away. If they can prove that it was based on racism and not a business plan then take it to the courts and hopefully they get reimbursed for their trouble. People should have the right to conduct their businesses how they want but they must meet the legal and moral requirements our society puts on businesses. You cant discriminate on things such as race. The strip mall owner can refuse the leases if he wants different types of stores or the current stores dont encourage business. These people seem to have been there a long time so obviously they arent liabilities. If its true that their businesses are being replaced by similar businesses this is a horrible precedent to be setting in our country. Where's the motivation to start a business if people can pull stuff like this and pull your lease solely because of your race? Businesses take a lot of fixed capital to start and for some people to lose their lease for no good reason could be really hard. As someone who has a one year contract for a franchise Id be pretty choked if it was pulled just because the franchiser wants franchisees to be different races.

So I was walking around campus today and some morons have gone around writing in colourful chalk "9/11 Inside Job" all over the place. Have they closed a lot of mental hospitals throughout North America recently? This thread is a complete joke.

What an interesting way to describe democracy. I hope thats in practise and not your ideal democracy. I like to think of it as more of compromises between different groups (at least that would be true, idealistic democracy). One group beating out another and imposing its will doesnt sound democratic, sounds more like tyranny of the majority.

To the contrary, it has a very negative effect on national security. International law, strictly speaking, forbids the targeted killing of "insurgents" in their "native" lands, i.e. people about to rain death and terror elsewhere. I'm thinking of Israel's killing of Yassin. Is there any doubt that failing to kill him would have elevated international law over the safety of innocent Israelis? Also, pre-emptive wars are a gray area under "international law" but in this day and age of proxy battles (the direct result of the UN Charter's ban on state-to-state war) they are utterly necessary. Pre-emptive wars should be avoided because of the many problems with them. Some questions regarding pre-emptive attacks: Who decides that a potential threat justifies pre-empitve action? How does one protect against opportunistic military interventions justifed under the guise of pre-empitve self-defense? Do we wish to accord the same extended right to India, Pakistan or Israel (nuclear powers with histories of engaging in cross-border interventions)? Could a pre-emptive right prompt potential targets intro striking first, using rather than losing their WMD? Im not sure killing Yassin made Israel any safer. Theres always going to be some nut to take his place and violence to avenge his death. Not allowing for pre-emptive target killings may make them less safe but the consequences of allowing preemptive war may be even worse. Pre-emptive war increases the desire of nations who could be targets to acquire WMD. Most staes in general dont benefit from pre-emptive war because it gives all states the same right to attack them. In the case of Israel it would then be attacked and the whole world would have to say thats okay under international law. The whole middle east could gang bang Israel, arguing pre-emptive self defense, and it would be legal? I dont like the prospects of that