Moonlight Graham

this will probably make Vermont healthier, so i'm happy for them. May start a bit of a domino effect ala Saskatchewan as Goodman states.

Exactly. The PLO did this during the 1993 Oslo Accord negotiations, as you posted.

Is Queen Elizabeth a Canadian citizen? I would think she is but am not sure.

The monarch isn't foreign. The Queen is OUR Queen, her title is the Queen of Canada, but she is Queen of many states.

AIPAC and the Israel lobby have elected US officials by the balls. AIPAC is highly organized and can mobilize its members to direct political donations and votes to whichever candidate/party acts on their demands the most. Add to that the fact that many very powerful private US citizens and members of the US government are (or "were") members of AIPAC and/or the Israel lobby.

I think we should pledge to the flag more often. I don't have a huge problem with "god save the Queen". Why: As Canadian scholar/author/professor Rand Dyck explains, "since the Queen represents the whole state and its people, oaths to the Queen are really pledges of support for the Canadian political system" and the state/people of Canada, and that "'God save the Queen' really means 'God help us govern ourselves'". He also explains that "to put the Queen's picture on stamps/coins & courtrooms etc. is not to glorify her personally, but to recognize her as a unifying symbol of the state". She is akin to being the physical embodiment of the state and its people. To cheer her is to cheer for Canada, not really the woman herself. I see the Queen/monarch as more of a figurehead or a symbol of Canada. The monarch technically has some political power, but its largely by convention and the monarch/GG acts on the advice of the PM, only not doing so as a much-needed check on the vast power of the PM. I care little either way about the fact that she recently woo'd Obama. What she does personally i don't much care, she still symbolizes Canada, I don't need her to kiss our ass.

ding ding! winner.

Right back at ya sister!

jdg, "Creatures of the UN", i don't quite agree with that assessment looking at the developing countries you're referring to. You hit on a good point, but i think these low-development countries are creatures of their circumstance much more so than the UN. Post-WWII the European colonial empires fell, thus many former colonies became independent. They are independent in that they are their own sovereign states, but certainly the negative effects of colonialism still impact them, even those with many rich natural resources, and what some call "neo-colonialism" still keeps most post-colonial states under the controlling grip of richer developing countries, including their former imperial metropoles. From a Realist or power-politics perspective of international relations, this really comes down to richer, more powerful states exuding their control over weaker states to maximize their own self-interests. International agreements/policies, whether from international orgs like the UN or WTO, or from bilateral agreements between states, all greatly are controlled by the big players at the expense of the weaker states. The more powerful states control many of the policies that come from the UN, indeed they virtually control the UN. The great powers coming out of WWII were the ones who created UN, its Charter/rules etc., its organs, its concept of "human rights", the UNSC etc. In short: the poor developing countries rely on the richer countries for much economic, militarily, political aid etc. so the powerful states have the weaker ones by the balls. Rich states can manipulate weaker states to vote the way they want in the UN GA, or wherever else, just like they can control the weaker states in many matters outside the UN. It's a all a game, and the big boys are in it to win...and they're up by 40 touchdowns.

Excellent analysis, Bonam.

i'm sure he does. go to his website and ask him yourself. I say if the last section of the Bible mapped out the human genome 4000 years before we even knew what a human genome was, then i'd be impressed and fall at the feet of God. Until then, illogical stories about ark's and parting seas, whose only explanations are that "some person wrote in a book that 'God did it'" doesn't impress or convince. A being of higher power than us may likely exist, God may even exist, but that stuff is campfire stories. I don't need that stuff to be a loving and happy human being. Believe what you want.

- " ", Matthew Good

Of course it is. It's a historical set of documents at the very least.

No they aren't, but years from now, when the coalition is gone from Iraq (whenever that is), Iraq will be given the choice to ask the U.S. to remove it's bases. It may become a political situation where the US holds the bases over Iraq's head for purpose, thus making it costly in some way (ie: foreign aid, military equipment etc.) to ask thus a thing. However, Iraq would still be free to ask for the bases to be removed. If the US refuses, well, i hear there are some experienced insurgents in the area...

Let's flip that last paragraph around on you. Just because you didn't see American's/westerners jumping and celebrating in the streets from our militaries blowing up innocent Muslims, doesn't mean some don't love it. I know personally, or have heard of others i don't know personally, who want to "bomb them all" and hate all the Muslims over there, terrorists or civilians. Some of them are "Christians". If you gleefully celebrate the death of a human being, or wish someone dead as "justice", you are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most of the what Jesus preached was forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. That's Christianity! The Lord's Prayer, the prayer Jesus taught his followers and which most Christians say over and over, says "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us". Why do these Christians go to church every week, yet apparently don't even listen and follow what is being preached? Sounds like a fine waste of a nice Sunday. I think this Sunday there's swath of people who need to hit the confession box and confess their sins.

Who is "we"? I'm not a Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Israeli. I'm a white Canadian with European roots who doesn't give a hoot whether the final deal ends up with Israel getting 90% of the land or 10% land, and for the Palestinians vice versa, as long as there's peace i'm happy. I'm just calling it as i see it based on the history. I never said Israel wants "to seize land across the 1967 Lines just for the hell of it". Your words in my mouth, same with your claim of my "supposition". In 1948 & 1973 Israel was attacked. In 1967 they launched a pre-emptive attack against mobilizing Arab countries. Israel defended itself, moved into the occupied land. They remain where they are for both security reasons as you infer, and because much of the land they still occupy they see as part historical Israel. That's why they've build settlements in WB, Gaza, Golan Heights, yada yada. It stakes a claim on the area, making it harder for Palestinians to lay claim to it in any negotiations. The Palestinians/Arabs want similar, at least in territory. Many Israelis would like most if not all of what they consider to be "Israeli land", and many Palestinians want most or all of what they see as "Palestine". Israel is in WB partly for security reasons, yes, but to say it's not their choice to be there is illogical. They have free will. That doesn't mean i'm making a judgment call on the choice, heck i'd probably do the same were I them. But it seems clear why they're there. I agree that many Palestinians wish all Jews to leave and to gain back the territory they once had, and it seems this sentiment is stronger (or in a greater %) among Arabs/Pals than of Israelis' wish to have all of what they once had thousands of years ago. Israelis, generally speaking (they're are many different viewpoints on both sides of course), seem more willing to share some of the land than Palestinians. But now both have to be realistic knowing neither is going away, and to cut a deal that all sides can live with. Tne biggest problem, IMO, are the radical "spoilers" on both sides who don`t accept any concessions, ie: Arab rocket fire from Gaza into Israel despite Israel conceding it to the Palestinians in 2005, + Arab/Pal terrorists, Israeli thugs etc.

Agreed, i was just pointing out the situation following the Six Day War. As i said, agreements and events since them have left the above places in different hands or disputed/occupied claims.

I think that's a very inaccurate way to think of the Palestinian people, and their "cause". Most of them aren't terrorists, many wish no death to Jews nor want to push Israel into the sea. More importantly, no organization, group, charter, agreement, or leader represents all Palestinian peoples or has any power to established when and whether they "exist" or not. They exist because they are a nation of peoples, similar to how Jews are nation of peoples, with or without any state.

Palestinians are members of a nation, not just people who live in territory or a nation-state (as they were or wish to be). Of course they existed in 1967. And of course many of them would also claim that much or all of then-Israel was theirs too, however legitimate or not that claim is.

I think similarly. The problem with Bonam's analysis is that it's thinking in 21st century earth tech/sci-fi terms. The future of human technology will be very different than Star Trek. Alien probes would likely appear invisible to us. If it is visible to us, it could be just one probe of many, or one that sends out smaller probes. I find it extremely unlikely that any alien probe from an alien species with the technological capability to come this far would ever be detectable by our comparatively primitive technology, unless it malfunctioned or they wanted us to discover it.

This is true now. But after the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank (Jordan ruled), Gaza (Egypt ruled), Sinai peninsula (Egypt), and the Golan Heights (Syria). UNSC Resolution 242 states the "the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". and demands: Of course, many different agreements between the different states + the Palestinians have been enacted since then, possibly making some of 242 moot, but others use it as precedent.

You're a troll. A grumpy old man, unhappy in his life, who constantly trolls these forums doing his best to be ass to anyone in order to feel better of himself. Amoral self-interest maybe you'd call it? Too bad, you're an intelligent and informed guy, who without the spike rammed up his ass I would very much enjoy debating with. When you're done being an SOB hit me up and i'll be glad to debate with you. Until then, i'm done. I truly wish you the happiness you're looking for, good luck.

You didn't even read my post properly. I was speaking future hypothetical. Both sides have committed much ethnic killing, obviously. Keep trolling for those contradictions.

oh i agree. i never said the rapist didn't have to face justice for the crime

I just argued the Palestinians SHOULD resist, only with non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, Gandhi-style. Gandhi was not a pacifist. What would the international reaction be right now if the Israelis mowed down a nation of peacefully protesting Palestinians, none of whom used terror tactics? Would be interesting to see that one play out. Jews, fleeing Nazi-fied Europe, now committing ethnic mass slaughter? At least would be better than what the Pals have been doing for the last 100 years, which has barely left them with jack all.