Peter F

So its up to the USofA to respect us more, for the sake of the English-speaking world. And because they don't its Canada's fault. If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

They are not attempting to live for free. They have legitimate grievances against us white men and are allowed to persue them to resolution. No matter what their culture is. What stick do they carry? They have a little bit of political power? Is that what you mean by 'stick'? We'd need quite a few pretty fat carrots to buy them into dropping the Treaty rights they have. As a white man doing his very best to live for free, I am ok with that. Take note that in order to make that fat offer there is no requirement to first determine whose culture is superior to whose. Such a buyout will result in the extinguishment of treaty rights making the Indian Act moot. We can do that no matter whose culture is superior to whose. So you have, yet again, failed to justify the need to determine that Natives have an inferior culture, or why - if they do - it is necessary to point that out to them. As for this allowing natives to 'move on and better themselves', I can only say Who-Died-and-Made-You-Kingshit? You're just another guppy in the pond like the rest of us, hotshot.

Ok. Well, Im at a loss to understand the point ot the thread. Typically it has evolved into why doesnt Canada respect Canada more . and that could be because 1. the US couldn't possibly respect Canada more or 2. no one cares if the US doesn't respect canada more. My own belief is 2.

Well if they have different cultures, then it could very well be that one of those groups has a superior culture to the other. Are we not to determine which of the two has the inferior culture, then for the sake of progress and equality, and for thier own good; have them abandon the inferior culture and assume the superior? We should be doing the same to Natives - why not them? What treaty was signed with Asian-Canadians? If there was a legally binding agreement between the two party's - then yes. Didn't think that, did ya? Bullshit. Natives are not living neolithically anywhere. Your assumption about natives living neolithically is entirely wrong. There is no point in discussing who's culture is superior to whose when it comes to determining public policy. The indian act oversee's treatly obligations. To dump the indian act you must dump the treaty's. Whose culture is inferior or superior has no bearing on the matter.

I would have as many as my XX partner would allow. In my case thats two. And the choice had nothing to do with immigration. Immigrants may control your procreative activities but they don't control mine. Thats where my XX partner comes in.

Relax, I agree with you. We shouldn't be shoving our morals/ethics/ways down the throats of the people of Afghanistan or anybody else for that matter. I suggest DogOnPortch and jbg believe that the war in Afghanistan is directed towards shoving western ways/morals/ethics down primitive Afghan throats...and I suggest that they believe that is a good thing and they think thats the point of the American invasion and ISAF presence. I think they are wrong. Normally, we in the west have no right to intervene on another states purely internal matters. Wether the Taliban rule Afghanistan or Warlords rule Afghanistan or the Afghan King rules Afghanistan or Democracy rules Afghanistan is something best left to Afghanistans to figure out through civilized action or civil war. Its up to them. However, once the actions/inactions of a state have effect on other states well other states are going to act. As the USA did. As Canada can also if it feels it must and has the means. The morality of helping peaceloving Afghans against tyrants is certainly laudable but not necessarily reason enough. If it were Canada would have shipped the CAF in when the Ruski's invaded. But we didn't and for obvious reasons: Power politics has bugger all to do with morality. Morality as motivation in regards to international strife has a habit of blowing up in the moral party's face. I suggest that the proof of this is that if the USA had not of invaded Afghanistan - Canada certainly would not have. Sure you can do those things if you accumulate enough power. The powerful can create any rights they like. See Bremner in Iraq, or Stalin, or Lenin, or Ghengis Khan, or Julius Ceaser and the list goe's on and on and on... Sure. Carry on. Apparently you got 3 years left to complete the job.

The original title of this thread is: Why doesn't the US Respect Canada More? or What is the Right Question? I suggest the Right Question is: Why doesn't jbg respect Canada more? and only he can answer it.

I do not think natives are inferior either. I agree that they are people just like everyone else is people too. I disagree that the Indian Act pre-supposes Natives are inferior and by extension there is no requirement to have the constitution to be modified to do what it already does. Natives are culturally different than us non-natives though, less so now than in the past to be sure. 'right' what wrong? Are we moving on? Is there a requirement to move on? Are they required to 'move on'? I think the Asian-Canadian fishermen on the Fraser River don't like seeing others legally able to fish where they are not. The same probably applies to non-Asian-Canadians on the Fraser River or any other river for that matter. So what? Did the Crown sign Treaty's with Asian-Canadians on the Fraser River? That the Indian Act does a dis-service to Natives? Thats fine with me. I will let the Natives who disagree argue otherwise. and I still don't see what the question of 'Superior' culture has to do with anything you've mentioned here.

Sorry. I thought the important issue outlined in your original post was about wether one culture is superior or better to another and why we can/cannot discuss that. If your intent was to discuss the indian act then how does the original post relate to it?

yah...so you say...

The Anti-christ I think. It's a good comparison and after Mr Bush is gone is the next best thing.

This is funny! jbg will be the ultimate arbitre of what their way of life is that must not be changed! I suspect, though, that he is talking about the Taliban and their way of life, as opposed to non-taliban and their way of life. Not that it matters one whit to the Taliban , or the non-taliban for that matter. Their 'way of life' will continue as they wish it to continue, and evolve, no matter what the west or anybody else tries to impose on them. Poppy's were not always a big cash crop. At one time fruits did well for exports. But war has a habit of changing things in ways no one could imagine.

Hmmm. Food for thought. I wonder what conditions are required to stem the flow of Afghan immigrants?

First off, it is allowed. People say it all the time. I don't think anyone has disputed that culture A can be more 'advanced' than culture B. Though I would expect one to point out where that advancement is. North American native cultures were neolithic at contact while the contacting European cultures were coming out of the Late middle ages and entering the Rennaisance. European cultures were far more technically advanced compared to native American cultures. I don't think anyone can dispute that. However, the idea that culture A is 'better' than culture B because of its many advancements is bunk. I often wonder what is the point of saying 'my culture is better than yours'. I am reminded of the more technically advanced Europeans sailing confidently into the Arctic and dying to a man of starvation and exposure, while the technically inferior Inuit carried on with thier 'not better' culture for year after year after year. I think the claiming of culture A being 'better' than culture B is intended solely to indicate the claimants superiority. It may not be racist but is certainly bigotted.

Our boys and girls are fighting and dying for the people of Afghanistan. Are these people not worthy of immigration? Besides, Omar was - what...let me look it up...born in Toronto. He didn't immigrate at all.

It goes to show that Khadr is Canadian. It may go to show that ability to play hockey should be part of an immigration screening process though.

uh huh. Any act is justified as long as it passes the Taliban test. Since the Taliban will never compare favourably with anything, then all acts may be disagreeable but fair. Sorta like the Pirahna brothers. "I understand he nailed your head to a coffee table" "Well, yes, he did do that" "And he also nailed your wifes head to the table too" "Oh yes. He was a cruel man, but fair" I suggest you get your head out of the gutter.

Take it up with the CIA! The people that really really wanted to find the stuff! DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD

The only recommendations on how to handle child soldiers are not recommendations at all. EDIT to add link: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and thats it for 'recomendations'. Article 6.3 and 7.1. The Protocol is aimed at getting parties to armed conflict to not use child soldiers. There is nothing about what is done with them if gotten ahold of other than the two articles mentioned above. Of course Terrorists are not signatory's. Canada is a signatory so artlcles 6.3 and 7.1 apply. In the OK's case, 6.3 is moot since OK is not within Canadian jurisdiction. 7.1 states that signatories shall co-operate in implementation of the protocol, including the rehabilitation and social re-integration of persons who are victims of acts contrary to the protocal. The USofA is certainly not fullfilling the requirements of 7.1 and Canada is certainly not fulfilling the requirements of 7.1 which requires the two nations to cooperate on rehabilitation and reintigration of the child soldier. I wonder, too, under WhiteDoors concept of criminal action in a battle, would not every child-soldier in fact be a criminal? When would a child-soldier not be considered a criminal? EDIT: The Protocol above refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 40 of the convention needs be quoted at length I think Canada and the USofA are both signatories to this convention but the USofA has never ratified apparently.

Sorry DogOnPortch, That stinks of conspiracy-theory; We know he had them because we never found them. The eighteen-wheelers burried in the desert would leave behind some trace; The people who drove them, the people who buried them, the people that loaded them, the people that chose the spot etc. I realize that the 18wheeler example is just that - an example. There is no 'secret' way of hiding all that VX without leaving a memory trail. The WMD's were destroyed in the 90's just like Saddam Hussien said. Nobody believed him, naturally enough.

Omar Khadr was not captured wrapped in explosives. He was wearing no bombs. He is not nor has he ever been a suicide bomber. He is charged with murdering an American soldier. That is the only killing he is accused of. He has not killed any innocent people. There is no charge by the US army that Omar killed anyone else in the process of {allegedly) killing the SSF soldier. In other words there is no evidence to support your contention that Omar Khadr is a killing machine. My 'outrage' if you want to call it that, is directed towards the cooked up legal system that treats 15 year olds as 'killing machines' because they were found in a dusty battlezone with an AK47 laying nearby. My 'outrage' is directed towards yourself and others who are outraged that the 15 year old, abandoned by his mother on the other side of the world and left in the guardianship of terrorists, didn't do what a normal 15 year old Canadian would have done: Told everyone he depended upon for his existence to kiss his arse, and set off on foot for the nearest Canadian Embassy. I am outraged that the outrage expressed towards this kid is seriously misdirected.

Geneva conventions do not say what you think it does. The Geneva conventions say a child soldier is anyone under the age of 15 partaking in military operations. There is no other qualification. The idea that there is a legal distinction based upon the childs motive is, to put it mildly, a complete fabrication.

Good point. What is it that makes a kid a child soldier?

Americans probably consider the source then turn back to the job at hand Wendy Mesley?

No I didn't say that. But I agree with it. Child soldiers are not indoctrinated to kill innocent people; they are probably indoctrinated to kill guilty people. Now you and I both know they indoctrinate to kill innocent people, but the child is convinced he is or is supposed to, kill guilty people. Doe's he know they are innocent? Of course not. The child soldier is convinced his targets are guilty...and it would be very easy to convince the kid that a soldier from faraway lands is guilty...particularly if the kid is an orphan. Damn right its child abuse. Doe's the psychosis develop from killing innocent people only?