-1=e^ipi

If you want to go that far back then it is probably important to mention that Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine until it was transferred in 1954 for administrative purposes. The people on the peninsula are primarily ethnic Russians and the vast majority of communication is done in Russian. Now you could go even further back and claim that Crimea should belong to nether the Russians nor the Ukrainians, but in fact the Crimean Tartars (who were mostly deported by Stalin). Or maybe you want to go even further back, and claim that Crimea shouldn't belong to the Crimean Tartars either, since the Mongols invaded Crimea in the 13th century. Instead, Crimea should belong to the Byzantines (who no longer exist since the turks took over most of their lands. So in this case, which country should be considered the successor of the Byzantine Empire? Greece or Turkey?). Or perhaps, you should go even further back, to the 2nd century, when the Romans controlled Crimea. Or perhaps this isn't far back enough, since the Romans stole the territory from Ancient Greece. So we should go back to the 2nd century BC and claim that Crimea belongs to the Greeks. Or perhaps, this isn't nearly far back enough. Maybe we need to go back 30,000 years, when the land was inhabited by Neanderthals instead of Humans. So maybe Crimea should belong to the Neanderthals and Humans should not be allowed to inhabit Crimea at all. So depending on the point in history you pick, you can make a case that Crimea should belong to Ukraine, Russia, the Crimean Tartars, Mongolia, Turkey, Greece, Italy and the Neanderthals. Sort of puts things in perspective and shows how absurd this approach is. Or, you can simply support the right to self determination of the Crimean people, and let them decide. You are creating a red herring here. I agree that the referendum is biased and not a fair referendum. Yet you keep trying to bring this up and imply that anyone who supports the right to self determination of the Crimean people somehow thinks the referendum is fair. Why don't you just admit that you don't support the right to self determination of the Crimean people?

Imperial Japan was never about world domination. Establishing an empire that controlled the Asia-Pacific area, sure. But not the entire world. ISIS on the other hand, does want world domination. And not only that, they think that it has been prophetized to occur in the islamic texts and that it is their duty under god to take over the world.

I don't agree. For one, it is expensive. Secondly, what exactly would the end goal be? Thirdly, (and this is the most important) ISIS would benefit from NATO invading Iraq and Syria. They would claim that the crusaders are invading Muslim lands and use various parts of the Quran and other Islamic texts to justify their actions and get more recruits. The best solution would have been to avoid the ISIS situation in the first place by not idiotically funding Islamist rebels in Syria. Unfortunately, we cannot change the past. As it stands, it is a far better option to let regional powers (Turkey, Kurds, Shia Iraqis, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) deal with it. Not only is it a cheaper option, but if ISIS is fighting against primarily muslim countries rather than primarily non-muslim western countries then it becomes much harder for them to justify their actions and use theology in order to gain more recruits. Didn't they change their name to just 'Islamic State'. Their goal is much more than an Islamic state for Iraq and Syria. They want to create a global Islamic Caliphate and impose Sharia on everyone.

I agree. The Crimean referendum wasn't a proper referendum. However, the West and the Western Ukrainians could have taken the position "Look we respect your right to self determination, but do not recognize the results of the referendum due to the circumstances in which they took place. If the Russian troops leave and peace is restored, we will allow for a future referendum that will allow the people of Crimea to determine to future of Crimea". Instead they took the position "We do not respect the results of the referendum, nor will we respect any future results because we do not recognize the right to self-determination of the people of Crimea due to the Budapest Memorandum. Crimea is and will always be part of Ukraine and any domestic protests against this will be seen as terrorism and foreign aggression". The Crimeans had no choice for a 'fair referendum' thanks to the West. It was either have a biased referendum and then join Russia, or wait for the Ukrainian military to invade Crimea and oppress linguistic minorities. The West could have avoided the current scenario in Ukraine for a more peaceful situation if they took the former position. Instead they took the later position so many people have died unnecessarily.

As I've said in other threads (particularly threads discussing first nations issues) I care more about the morality of a position than the legality of a position. 1. The Crimeans should have the right to self determination. What some deal between Kiev and Moscow 2 decades ago says will not change my position on whether or not the Crimeans should have the right to self determination. Similarly, I don't think some British Monarch from 2 centuries ago had the right to impose racist laws than apply to Canada today. 2. As for breaking 'international law'. Look at the UN charter. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml The second purpose is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" According to the UN charter, people have the right to self-determination.

Actually, 1.5 years ago I predicted Islamists taking over Syria if western governments were dumb enough to fund Islamist terrorists in order to wage a proxy war against Russia. Apparently, according to various people in this thread, Putin did. Putin elaborately planned all the events leading up to the annexation of Crimea and now the war in Eastern Ukraine despite all the unpredictable events like the overthrow of the government in Kiev, western intervention, etc. Apparently, Putin has some psychic power to see into the future. *sarcasm* I agree that 10-20 years is a reasonable time scale of military acquisition. So it is only necessary to reasonably predict possible scenarios over the next 20 years, not 'next several decades'. So let's agree upon that at least. Sure, non zero, but not really significantly different from zero. Who is going to invade Canada in the next 20 years? Realistically, no one (and the burden of evidence is on the people that wish to suggest otherwise). Are there direct threats to Canada? Sure. Islamist terrorist attacks being the biggest threat. Are there threats to our allies? Sure. South Korea is threatened by North Korea, Japan is threatened by China, Eastern Europe is threatened by Russia, the middle east and North Africa is an absolute mess, etc. Let's just be realistic about this and get over the traditional concept of the primary function of the military being about protecting the territorial integrity of a country from foreign threats. Not a big fan of cliches but 'If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?'.Just because other countries do it, is not sufficient justification for Canada doing it as well. Also, the situation in Canada is very different from other countries. If anything Canada is an exception to the rule in that we can get away with a much smaller military than in other parts of the word due to our geographic location.

The existence of the Budapest Memoradum doesn't change the fact that Putin didn't not plan to annex Crimea a year ago because the events that would need to occur for that were too unpredictable. Also, do you think the Crimean people have the right to self determination?

Come on. You really think Putin predicted the violent protests in Western Ukraine followed by Western support for these protests, followed by the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, followed by the new government in Ukraine being hostile to Russian-Ukrainians so much so that a separatist movement would develop in Crimea? That's too absurd.

But whether or not a threat is credible and the probability associated with that credible threat is relevant. Please explain what entity you think has a significant probability of invading Canada and why spending 1-2% of GDP is a reasonable cost for insurance against this possibility. Tell me, do you think spending 1-2% of GDP as 'pink unicorn insurance' is reasonable in case magic pink unicorns appear from nowhere and invade Canada? Isn't it better to be prepared than to not be prepared? If you want to advocate spending 1-2% of GDP on military, please provide better justification than just 'well it's insurance'. Spending 5% would also be 'insurance' would it not? So why not 5%? 0.3 % would also be insurance. So maybe 0.3%?

He has no direct control, which is why he wants to turn Ukraine into a 'federation' via the negotiations with the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. He basically wants Eastern Ukraine to have some sort of veto over whether or not Ukraine can join the EU & NATO or not. And I'm not joking about Crimea. That was not Putin's original intent when the Russians put pressure on the Ukrainian government 1 year ago to continue with the Ukraine-EU association agreement.

No, his goal is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or the EU.

That was 80 years ago. Please understand that the world today is very different from 80 years ago. The moral of the story is that military spending advocates throughout the western world will continue to use WW2 as justification of increasing military spending regardless of the political situation of the country, and they will try to associate dissent with nazi supporters. Canada in 2014 is very different from Europe in 1939. How hard is that to understand? You never know when a giant pink unicorn will appear out of nowhere and invade Canada with magical rainbow farts! Does that mean we should spend money on magical pink unicorn insurance? Your position is basically an extreme version of the precautionary principle. The probability of an outcome is relevant in decision making, not just if the outcome is a possibility or not.

Defending Canada from what? Defending us from what???? No one is going to invade Canada. Be realistic here. Canada's military is basically charity to other countries and its purpose is offensive not defensive.

Putin's goal from the beginning was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the EU. That's why Russia initiated the entire conflict a year ago when they pressured the Ukrainian government to halt the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Of course the west didn't help the situation when they blindly supported the protesters in Western Ukraine, even as they included various fascist groups and violently overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev (despite that government making various concessions to the protesters). The west didn't help the situation when the west was completely hypocritical by supporting the protesters in Western Ukraine as freedom fighters but condemning counter protests in Eastern Ukraine as terrorists. And of course the west didn't help the situation by denying the rights to self determination of the Crimeans or the Eastern Ukrainians. There is plenty of blame to go around, be it to Russia, to the West, to the Western Ukrainians or to the Eastern Ukrainians. Putin never planned to annex Crimea. The Russians simply took advantage of the situation after the unexpected overthrow of the government in Kiev. Putin's goal remains preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and the EU. This is the main reason he doesn't want Eastern Ukraine to separate from Western Ukraine. Because he wants to use Eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip and make Ukraine into a 'federation' that is incapable of joining NATO or the EU.

So your entire 'rebuttal' to me pointing out that ISIS and other Islamist groups are not Arab Nationalists is that 'well there was a bunch of western propaganda 70 years ago and during the cold war'? How does that make sense? Uhh, no. Western governments were stupid enough to blindly fund the 'rebels' in Syria in the first place in order to wage a proxy war against Russia.

But the thing about the Kurds splitting is that Turkey will never allow it because of the significant Kurd minority in Turkey. Iran will probably opposite it as well.

Uhhh... what about the numerous historical examples of various Islamic Caliphates that lasted centuries? The most recent one being the Ottoman Empire that only collapsed after the first world war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate

Sunni disenfranchisement in Syria and Iraq is certainly a contributing factor to the growth of ISIS, but to suggest that it is the main cause of ISIS or that the goal of ISIS is to represent these Sunni Muslims and create a new country out of the Sunni majority lands of Iraq and Syria is ridiculous. If they wanted to just create a new state out of Sunni territory then that is one thing. But their goal is world domination as it is supposedly prophetized in the Quran and the Hadith. They want to create a new Islamic caliphate that will eventually take over the world. And they are not alone. The Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and many members of the ruling party in Turkey also share this goal. If the goal really was 'just create a Sunni state' then why is ISIS trying to take over Western Syria, Kurdish territory in Iraq, and Shia territory in Iraq? Why do they consider the Shia to be Kuffar that should be killed? Why are they trying to commit genocide of the Yazidis?

How do you misunderstand what is going on in the Middle East this badly? Arab Nationalism was relevant in the second half of the 20th century, especially in the 60s, 70s and 80s. What do you think the Ba'ath Party is? Sadam Hussein, Bashar Al-Assad and Hosni Mubarak are all Arab Nationalists. Arab nationalism is in decline. To suggest that the growing threat of ISIS or the Arab spring are a result of Arab nationalism is to suggest something that is very far from the truth. ISIS and other Islamist groups (like the Muslim Brotherhood) reject nationalism completely. These groups want to abolish borders and nations in order to unite the entire world under a global caliphate.

Argus, I don't understand your constant cold-war like paranoia with respect to Russia. Nor do I understand your desire to put Canada more into debt with unneccessary military spending. I think that the 2% GDP military spending pledge makes about as much sense as the 0.7% GDP aid spending pledge and Canada should reject both of those pledges. The current situation in Ukraine is the result of poor diplomacy on all sides and could have been avoided with proper diplomacy. Unfortunately, numerous people have unnecessarily lost their lives as a result of the poor diplomacy.

Anyway, just to clarify, I don't really advocate the implementation of such an immigration restriction. I was more interested in how many people would be strongly opposed to it and what kind of reasons they would give. Would people claim that such a restriction is immoral because it goes against 'human rights' or would people claim that such a policy shouldn't be implemented because it would be ineffective? Would people have a position that is consistent with their position on the current requirement of immigrants needing to pledge alliegence to the Queen in order to obtain citizenship?

Yes, you understand the concept of a tautology. Congrats. What is your point?

Uhhh, why is this a reply to a quote of me? Did I advocate any of these things? All I did was try to sarcastically point out the lack of reproductive rights that men have relative to women in most of the West. Under the current laws in most parts of North America, if an underage male gets raped by an adult female and the adult female gets pregnant, once the underage male gets older he will be forced to give child suport to his raper. How is that moral or fair? No. Who is this 'whomever' you speak of?

Yes, gender 'equality' and feminism at its finest. Everyone is equal, some individuals are just more equal than others.

I'll help you with that. There are zero angels. In that case, to be consistent, would it also make sense to abolish pets? If a person with down syndrome has a net cost to society, then why not a cat? So if it is immoral to not abort a down syndrome fetus, then is it also immoral to keep a household pet?