Higgly

May I respectfully point out this Wikipedia article. Not an unassailable reference, I grant you, but please take a few moments if you are serious about understanding the sentiments of the Chinese regarding Hong Kong. You may also want to research the burning of the Chinese Imperial Library by the British. Don't think of it as a library. Think of it as the very ancient memory of an entire cultre. Perhaps comparable to the burning of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the pulverising of the Rosetta Stone...

Nobody has any obligation to publish your letters. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I don't know where you live, but it is never easy to get a letter to the editor published. I know peope who are full professors at major academic institutions who cannot get their letters published. Here are a few tips... 1) keep it brief. More than a hundred words and they start thinking about the cost 2) keep it on point. Don't rave about your ideas. Address the article that you saw in their paper and do it directly. 3) be respectful. Nobody wants to give you a hammer to hit someone else over the head 4) know your subject and quote respected sources Canadian newspapers are genuinely interested in divergent points of view from knowledgable advocates. We are a culture that prides itself in its diversity. They cannot afford to publish the opinions of cranks. Yes there are a lot of newspapers run by people whom you might think are biased against your point of view. Find the ones who are not and make your home there.

Dancer, I cannot believe that you posted this. His pet cause? What that might have been? Might it have been the same sort of cause that Itzhak Shamir and Itzhak Rabin murdered people for? Might that have been the same cause that these two scalliwags might have set off a bomb in the King David Hotel? Were they thinking about India when they did that? This post does not serve you well, Dancer. Not at all.

We have freedom of speech with respect to government. Try shouting things about Israel any lunchtime at the corner of Bay and King in Toronto and you'll find out what free speech means in Canada damned soon.

What can I say. There are so many ways to say hello in a welcoming way.

How did Synagogues get into this? Good grief. I agree with FTA Lawyer - the system works most of the time. The problem is that when it doesn't work, ir destroys lives. Why isn't that something worth worrying about? We have only so many years on this planet. What can be more precious than that? Shouldn't we be worried if those years are compromised wrongly? How much more simple can this be?

You are right there. But the veneer of civilisation is thin. Make no mistake about it.There are forces in North America who would have this very same reasoning applied. Do not think for a moment that we are free of these ideological zealots. We have mullahs too.

I don't agree that Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the world. There are much bigger ones. I do agree that Israel has a lot to answer for at the world court. Too bad there isn't one. Too bad that the members of the UN Security Council don't understand how important a world court would be to world peace. But then why would they care as long as they have nuclear weapons and the world sucks up to them? We need a world court.

Kief halik.

Yeah right. I'm sure there's a buck to be made by paying me

I was watching PBS this afternoon and I saw a very interesting discussion of US Evangalism and rapture. This in fact is the fundamental basis of much of the support that Israel enjoys in the Bush doctrine. Of course this requires that all Jews either convert to Christianity or be condemned to the everlasting flames of hell following the great Armeggedon that some half starved half wit came up with before history became a science. Anyways, this guy named Rosenberg came on. I can't remember what American Jewish group he represented, but he started to talk about how he thought it was important for the Palestinians to have a viable state, not for the sake of the Palestinians, but because he thought it was the only way that Israel could have peace and that the world's Jews could have a sanctuary. Too bad more people don't listen to this guy.

Storm at Sea, I understand. But we are talking two ships, not an entire battle group. Under Maritime law, these are exigent conditions and they only apply until the storm has passed. Thanskgiving turkey is another thing altogether. It does not matter why they refuse access. It's their harbour. Get used to it. Again, I have to ask. Why is it that you expect China to grant unlimited access by US warships to Hong Kong harbour? Would you grant unlimited access to the port of New York by Chinese warships on Chinese New Year? What am I missing here? This is a very strange discussion.

Fine. Why not work towards that?

Bill C, this is a terrible tale. RRIFs should not be locked in, and neither should RRSPs. The fact that it was an insurance company that snookered you is very telling. Insurance copamies want to guarantee income for themselves while giving very poor guarantees to their customers.

Did somebody fart?

Mild, isn't it?

You're right. I am having a problem comprehending what's being said. Why don't you explain it to me? Why would China grant access to Hong Kong harbour for 9 US warships? This is not a right, but a priviledge. Why don't you tell me in simple terms what the problem is?

Under maritime law permission must be granted only under mayday conditions. Was every single one of these ships sinking?

Rules are power. I'm glad we agree.

I like this idea. Pay by the bottle. Works for me.

Yeah. Like we're all running down there to pay two miullion dollars for a flu shot. Get a clue.

I did. What grounds do you have for saying US warships must be granted access to Hong Kong harbour?

Rules have their own power.

Must? How so? Huh?

I think the important part of this discussion is that, after the expiry of the British Lease on Hong Kong, The Chinese have sovereign rights to the port. You can sling mud at the Chinese, and I am not going to say that I support everything they do, but this is maritime law. Anybody who might think otherwise needs to review the conditions that lead up to the Hong Kong lease. This is British Imperialism at its nadir. If I were China, there is no way I would want a US warship in any harbour that belongs to me. The bombing of the Belgrade embassy has only given them an excuse. Why would anybody grant rights to US warships unless they had some reason to do so? The tone of your post is that the US has some sort of god-given right to put its warships anywhere it wants. Is that what you are trying to say?