Arm guards and we'll shut border: Mohawk Warriors

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

WTF is wrong with these frigggen Mohawks,

Is that a serious question?

It is on reserve land. I wouldnt call their outrage uncalled for. The gov knows how to handle this. Its called MONEY.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is that a serious question?

It is on reserve land. I wouldnt call their outrage uncalled for. The gov knows how to handle this. Its called MONEY.

Dude, is this a serious question?

Really, money is the way to solve the problem? It has worked so well so far eh.

As for if it is on reserve land or not means nothing. I am quite sure that the land where the border crossing is located is probably owned/controlled by the government not the native reservation.

Even if it was owned and controlled by the natives it does not grant these native groups to dictate to the government how it should implement federal border control laws and policies.

It would be no different if the government wanted to exproriate land from a private land owner to build a border crossing, or if some farmer had his land all the way around a current border crossing.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Dude, is this a serious question?

Really, money is the way to solve the problem? It has worked so well so far eh.

As for if it is on reserve land or not means nothing. I am quite sure that the land where the border crossing is located is probably owned/controlled by the government not the native reservation.

Even if it was owned and controlled by the natives it does not grant these native groups to dictate to the government how it should implement federal border control laws and policies.

It would be no different if the government wanted to exproriate land from a private land owner to build a border crossing, or if some farmer had his land all the way around a current border crossing.

It does if it was a part of the Treaty. You may remember that these treaties were the way that the country was founded in the first place... the same country that wants to disregard the treaty.

I'm all for re-negotiating the treaty, and disbanding the idea of Native Reserves in the first place. But if you are going to be very strict about border security because you believe the idea of Canada is truly important, then you should probably want to respect the treaty rights. If you think that Canada should serve the people who live there, then perhaps you shouldn't be so strong in your wish to protect the agents of the government from the people they supposedly "serve".

[DESS]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

My question is relevant because your assertation of what the definition of "a soldier's purpose" is, is either worthless or correct depending on your background.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think your opinion falls into and the first two don't dount.

My question is especially relevant because you are arguing the point with a man who was once a soldier himself.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think HIS opinion falls into and the first two don't count.

You don't have to be an expert on the subject to have an opinion, but a little exposure to reality goes a long way in being more correct than incorrect.

I've already addressed your point in a previous post. Here are my thoughts on an army's role. I don't need to wear a uniform to see the obvious.

Originally Posted by DESS

I propose that an army's primary role is to stand in a line and look menancing. I mean this in a figurative way. No country wants to be invaded, which is a key reason for building an army - defence/deterrence. Armies/countries like to display their power (eg North Korea's Nuclear testing) in a menacing way. I have a large army so don't invade/threaten me or I will kick your ass. I have a nuke so don't invade me or I'll drop da bomb on you. North Korea has the bomb so it is very unlikely anybody is going to invade them any time soon. They are standing in a line and looking menancing and it is deterring aggression towards them. Again, the primary purpose of a military, IMO.

The OKA example was a literal interpretation of the stand in a line and look menancing, but it was following the same global logic as above.

I didn't think I needed to cite sources for you on such a basic and obvious concept. And we certainly don't need a professional soldier to help us with that.

As for the opinion of a professional soldier, btw, bfd. I don't mean that as a disrespect to him, but I don't see how his opinion on matters such as these is any more valid than mine. I'm sure he knows a million things about battle strategy, use of fire arms, etc. that I don't have a clue about, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

In fact, if you've ever spent any amount of time talking to Americans in forums about the occupation of Iraq, the soldiers that have been there always have the most biased view of all. They'll say things like "we're doing a lot of good work out there" and "I've lost some good friends fighting for our freedom" etc. But what they miss a lot of the time is the broader issues, like the fact that they are a party to an unprovoked attack and occupation of a foreign country. I always take what soldiers say with a grain of salt.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It does if it was a part of the Treaty. You may remember that these treaties were the way that the country was founded in the first place... the same country that wants to disregard the treaty.

I'm all for re-negotiating the treaty, and disbanding the idea of Native Reserves in the first place. But if you are going to be very strict about border security because you believe the idea of Canada is truly important, then you should probably want to respect the treaty rights. If you think that Canada should serve the people who live there, then perhaps you shouldn't be so strong in your wish to protect the agents of the government from the people they supposedly "serve".

Well is that what the treaty says? That border crossing has been there for decades, so I am pretty sure the border crossing is allowed to be there.

They are not disputing the fact that the crossing is there, they are disputing the fact that the officers are being armed. I am going to venture a guess that the treaty is silent when it comes to arming Border Services Officers.

This is what they are saying.

"Their biggest fear is that because of the animosity that exists right now, that one of them young people that has guns in there [and] three weeks of training, probably no psychological testing either – that one of them is going to lose it in there and kill one of our people," said Cheryl Jacob, district chief at the Akwesasne Mohawk Council.

They're so nasty and harassing our people that we can almost feel ... their finger being itchy on the trigger," said John Boots, a Mohawk from Akwesasne. "That's how bad those people are. The customs officers."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...r-guns001.html

These people just need to STFU and follow the rules and the laws like all the other Canadians that use the border crossings.

[CaptainCrunch]

No Treaty gives you the right to threaten federal property or federal employees or act live a raving band of barbarians.

The Native community whether they like it or not are still a part of Canada, and still subject to her system of laws.

The fact that the warriors are threatening public property, run the biggest smuggling ring of guns and every thing else possible and have once again armed themselves to me means that they are a very real threat and need to be dealt with.

[mykalberta]

The band doesnt have a problem with the border crossing, it has a problem with guns at those stations. I think its crazy as well but they might have a point.

Keep in mind the story came from the Vancouver Sun and if its anything like the Calgary sun, the story is very biased one way while omitting facts that would benefit the other.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have more problems with guns in the hands of untrained "Warriors". Besides the guns on customs agents is the law, and aparently the Mohawks are trying to demonstrate exactly why they need them.

[Knalus]

Look at what we are actually losing:

http://www.economist.com/world/ameri...=hptextfeature

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The band doesnt have a problem with the border crossing, it has a problem with guns at those stations. I think its crazy as well but they might have a point.

Keep in mind the story came from the Vancouver Sun and if its anything like the Calgary sun, the story is very biased one way while omitting facts that would benefit the other.

It came from many sources, I posted a CBC source just above.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Look at what we are actually losing:

http://www.economist.com/world/ameri...=hptextfeature

EVERY PERSON traveling out of Canada should have a passport. Quit whinning and get the damn travel document, we have no right of entry into the US and if all they are asking for is a passort which is quite easy to obtain than count ourselves lucky.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

EVERY PERSON traveling out of Canada should have a passport. Quit whinning and get the damn travel document, we have no right of entry into the US and if all they are asking for is a passort which is quite easy to obtain than count ourselves lucky.

Correction, it is you who believes "we" or in this case "you" have no right to travel.

Correction, you do not need a Passport to travel. That is just the most common form used and the most advertised.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

EVERY PERSON traveling out of Canada should have a passport. Quit whinning and get the damn travel document, we have no right of entry into the US and if all they are asking for is a passort which is quite easy to obtain than count ourselves lucky.

Why? So the state can track us, deem if we are "worthy", then make a decision as to what we are doing? You do realize that the people making those decisions are no better than you and I are, and may disagree with you as to why you should be given the oh-so generous privilege of actually *gasp* traveling to the states. We just didn't know how good we had it before, when this wasn't important, and we bragged about it to our European friends. Because we didn't know how good it was, we have rightfully been stripped of such an honor, as we did not properly respect such things. It's really our fault, for letting this sort of thing happen.

Only the last sentence isn't sarcasm, in case you were wondering.

BTW, our European friends DID see the value in it, and now no documentation is needed whatsoever once you enter the EU. They consider it progress. I agree with them. If that's progress, what we have is considered...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I never took it as disrespect. And your right, the civilian body dictates policy to the military (more often to disasterous results then positive ones) however, I have always mandated that anyone that wants to lead a country, or be thought of as commander in chief should have some time in uniform, because more often or not the people in civilian authority have no idea of ...

Isn't that why they have generals and military advisers?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Isn't that why they have generals and military advisers?

Sure, but they don't always give the best or even good advice. A true leader that wants to lead a country should have a decent knowledge or experience in terms of military matters

Just my two cents.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure, but they don't always give the best or even good advice. A true leader that wants to lead a country should have a decent knowledge or experience in terms of military matters

Just my two cents.

It's kind of strange to think that very few of the last few presidents have military experience. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Bush Sr. and Eisenhower.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's kind of strange to think that very few of the last few presidents have military experience. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Bush Sr. and Eisenhower.

Kennedy

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Tower

Correction, it is you who believes "we" or in this case "you" have no right to travel.

Did you read my post? Because with this remark it sure doesn't seem like you did. I said we do NOT have a right of ENTRY into the US. Unless you are a US citizen you do not have any right what so ever to enter the United States, it is a privilege for them to let you into the US just as it is for any other non Canadian entering Canada. I said nothing about no right of travel.

Correction, you do not need a Passport to travel. That is just the most common form used and the most advertised.

Again, re-read my post, where did I say you NEED a passport to travel? I said EVERYONE SHOULD have a passport to travel. Besides, there is not that many countries left where you can travel to without a passport, a few, but very little.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Why? So the state can track us, deem if we are "worthy", then make a decision as to what we are doing? You do realize that the people making those decisions are no better than you and I are, and may disagree with you as to why you should be given the oh-so generous privilege of actually *gasp* traveling to the states.

Do you think your entry into the US or Canada can only be tracked if you have a passport? Thes bolded part....this is the second time you have said people in power are no better than you or I. WTF does this have to do with anything? This is why I think you are a anarcist. You don't like it that someone or anyone else has more power than you. Deal with it, it is life and it is how we maintain a civil society.

A passport is one of the most secure travel documents. It allows us o know who is coming and going out of our country, it is not about tracking your movement, that can be done easliy enough other ways, unless yu are providing fraudulent documents indicating you are someone else.

BTW, our European friends DID see the value in it, and now no documentation is needed whatsoever once you enter the EU. They consider it progress. I agree with them. If that's progress, what we have is considered...

If you think they are making progress, there is just as much data to suggest they are moving backword. They have no idea who is in Europe now and I would never advocate the same system in North America as is in Europe.

[peter12]

Oh goodness, the paranoid and delusional libertarian theories of the adolescent.