AngusThermopyle

I don't think any reasonable person would even attempt to deny this. The problem however lies in what the specific definition of "fair" is. Do you think it is "fair" to essentially create a ruling class of elites based upon genetic heritage? Do you think it's "fair" to give one group a blanket veto power that can be held over the heads of the rest of the populace? Do you think it's "fair" that some in this country should be immune from the law? If all that was sought was "fairness" then I really dont think anyone would have any objections at all. However when this one group starts to act in a ridiculous manner (such as claiming that 110%-125% of availlable land is theirs) that normal reasonable people start to object. Dislike it as you may but the fact is that the Native population has contributed very little in actual self work and effort to build this Nation into what it presently is. No matter how you may loath Canada it is widely considered to be one of the better countries existing in the world today. This is not through any concerted effort by the Native population, in fact, quite the opposite.

I have no doubt they will win. The current Political/Social climate being one of apeasement at all costs, whether right or wrong. What I was wondering about was your statement that the entire area is Radioactive. As I stated the entire Earth emits radiation, some areas more so than others. As such stating that "the entire area is radioactive" is meaningless unless you can provide some form of reading. If you produce numbers showing levels to be three or four times the norm for the area then your statement is worthy of consideration. A simple blanket statement on the other hand really doesn't say anything and merely serves to drum up a knee jerk reaction amongst readers of the post. I'm not trying to be confrontational with you, I just want you to know why I asked what I asked. (Edited to add the letter "m" to the word "for" so it would read "form")

Where or how do you come up with this none-sense? So according to you there was no war or strife, no famine and starvation, total equality between all the tribes. What a steaming moist pile of dung! I guess the practice of sending the old off to die was just a myth. I guess infant mortality rates were super low and Dr. Spock would have been out of buisness. I guess a broken leg or other such injury actually wasn't an almost sure fire death sentence. They were hunter gatherers, most tribes had no concept of farming and crop rotation. As stated earlier, they used the land until depleted then moved on to do it again. You know; every one tied sticks to dogs backs, loaded up their crap and off they went. The wheel being so high tech other civilizations had only just begun to use it thousands upon thousands of years before. You really have a fuzzy Utopian view of Native life don't you. Too bad it isn't grounded in fact or reality, just wishfull thinking.

I think part of the problem (if you want to call it that, no problem as far as I'm concerned) is that many Canadians do not regard him as a fellow citizen. Merely a member of a hostile parasitic family who are taking advantage of Canada's lax immigration standards relating to those from "troubled" parts of the world. I consider him and his family to be openly identified enemies of our country. That they are supported and even encouraged speaks volumes about our current system and the social beliefs fostered by it. At what point do Treasonous hostile actions and attitudes supersede citizenship? I believe this whole thing being brought up by Dion is no more than a futile "Hail Mary" pass, designed to portray him as a champion of the Canadian people. He needs something to bolster his image after the huge success (sarcasm) he just experienced.

Could you elaborate a little please? I don't have the background info required to fully understand what you are saying.

And the relevance of this statement is what exactly?

So which band or bands was/were occupying the Alberta tar sands region? Which band used to frolic in glee-full bliss harvesting lollipops and stalking the wild Gummi Bear on this territory? A significant chunk of Canada's wealth comes directly from this area, do we owe that too. Have we deprived the Natives of their right to drill for oil and set up their traditional refineries? For all intents and purposes Canada"s natural wealth was non existant before the white man came along, found it, developed it and established markets for it. Or will you now tell me that if left alone a stone age culture that had not even discovered the wheel and still believed in Polytheism could have done so?

So you are saying that 20 years of service to this country and it's people is not a form of payment? Are you ready to join the forces, spend years overseas in hostile lands? Didn't think so' It's easy to give something you don't personally own or possess, its a hell of a lot harder to make personal sacrifices for others you don't even know. I know you wont agree but personally I don't owe the Natives a fricken thing. I have contributed more to this country than any Native playing toy soldier in his surplus store combats ever will thank you. When you can show the tangible contribution you personally have made to the betterment of this country then you can lecture others on what they "owe".

Irrelevant point. The "Feds" are merely politicians, they will do what they consider to be expedient and in their best interests. Rather than enforce the documentation to the letter and risk further confrontation they will give concessions. Further to that, they believe the Canadian public to be docile and non-offensive in nature, as such they will risk offending the Canadian Public before they will risk further, even rampant lawlessness from Natives. So as you can see, looking at it realistically, whether the "Feds" negotiate or not can not be taken as iron clad proof as to the veracity of Native claims.

And will all us "Whitey's" have to pay for perpetuity in response to what a hand full did? Is this some sort of collective Flying Dutchman thing? If thats the case then good luck, you can only impose guilt on people for so long before they get tired of it. If all you've said about the schools turns out to be true then what do you think the result should be? Do you think it will be the usual solution? More concessions, more land and more money. Is that the solution? For perpetuity?

That sounds good though a little basic. What of services such as postal, currencies, that sort of thing? These are some of the hallmarks of sovereignty, social services, immigration boards, such things are other hallmarks of a sovereign nation. Accepting social assistance from another nation is not counted amongst them. What will be interesting is to see how serious these people are about sovereignty. Will they renounce all the infrastructure they now utilize and develop there own health care system amongst other things, or will they still want to use the existing systems and thus only be pretend sovereign.

Could you provide more information please. How many rads per hour of exposure can one receive in this area now? You are aware that the entire earth emits radioactivity are you not? We are also subject to Solar Radiation on a daily basis. This is why I'm interested in what the total count is now as compared to previous emissions for that area. From a practical standpoint, preliminary exploratory testing has previously not increased levels of radioactivity in the area's being tested. This is why I'm curious as to how the levels could have increased in dramatic fashion due to exploratory tests in this instance. Or are the levels congruent with natural radioactive emissions?

I think your statement sums up the situation quite nicely.

Would this not imply that they also be self sufficient? Would not declarations of Sovereignty furthermore support the position of self sufficiency? According to the definitions of Sovereign that I've read it would appear to be so. How do you reconcile self determination with continued use of the infrastructure developed by a Government they claim is not valid in relation to them?

That statement would tend to indicate sovereignty. If this in fact is the case when will they start to behave in such a manner, other than flounting Canadian laws? Sovereignty Implies self sufficiency, not just the right to self government. So, when are these supposed sovereign nations actually going to start being sovereign and say goodbye to the social infrastructure created by Canadians and their government?

It actually was the worlds first assault rifle. One thing the Germans could never be faulted upon was their superlative and innovative engineering.

Hmmm. Your source is Mohawk Nation News? This would be the same Mohawk Nation News that posts articles about "The Red X" and his intergalactic travels and adventures? His trips to the third dimension (why not all the other dimensions, why only the third?) and his universe spanning (though "staticy") telepathic communications whilst being tortured in a dungeon by guys who were black Cowboy hats, tight black uniforms and Jack Boots? Sorry if I find your source of information to be somewhat unreliable, in fact, down right ridiculous. How about a more credible source that doesn't dabble in Fantasy?

Did you know that the Mafia used various names and phrases to refer to their "buisness" practices. Naming an illegitimate organization does not automatically confer legitimacy on such an organization. As far as I understand it, this area is still in dispute with no firm decision having been arrived at yet. If this is the case then how can this organization legitimately levy the collection of funds from Developers? Without sanction and legitimacy the resulting actions would appear to fall squarely under the title of extortion. Just because these people say it is theirs does not automatically make it so. Now for Posit. If the Dr. from Toronto is merely a rabble rouser as you imply, even though I presume he is an actual Canadian citizen. What does that make these so called "Mohawk Warriors" who come up from New York?

Actually your last post is the first time you've attempted to answer that question. I spent 6 months in Rwanda, witnessed Genocide with my own eyes. During my 6 months in Yugo I once again witnessed Genocide, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale than that which occured in Rwanda. Once you've seen it you most certainly remember and recognize it. This would appear to be a rather specious argument designed to disguise an ulterior motive. It would be far easier to identify actual bodies than to attempt identification by reliance on possibly altered documents, DNA doesn't lie. Further, are you going to tell me that a group that does not recognize Canadian law or the church is going to decide to obey both these laws and the church when it comes to these matters? I find your reasoning to be rather convoluted and suspect as regards these matters.

So what would you call all these so called "Mohawk Warriors" who come trotting across the border every time they think they can stir the pot?

Once again, I must ask. Why has no one ever exhumed even one of these sites? Do they really not care enough to do so? This has to be one of the purest examples of unsubstantiated opinion that I've ever heard. Give some actual facts to back up your words please. At present they stand merely as examples of unfounded ramblings.

I suppose a graveyard could be considered a mass grave of a sort. How many bodies are in these graveyards? If it were thousands why has no one seen fit to exhume these graves so far and get an accurate count? Is it because no one, including Natives, is interested enough to do it? I find that rather hard to believe. This is not even in the realm of speculation. It's just pure opinion with no basis in fact, inspired by what would appear to be nothing more than malice and ill will.

I haven't seen or heard of any developers saying that, personally. Could you tell me where this information is available? It must be available somewhere as you appear to have this info.

This is a little confusing as it has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. It seems instead to be rather snide and juvenile.

Hmmm. So if driving a car to work kills a tree, how many does burning a massive pile of tires all day kill? Or how many does burning a bridge kill? Or how bout a large building? I find it very unusual that you would attempt to justify vandalism and a rather large contribution to pollution by comparing it to driving a car to work. You must be joking. Right?