The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[Richelieu]

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry.

I do get hungry you know.

Why?

Because on what grounds could you claim title to the land?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As it wouldn't be the first choice of most Albertans either.

However, there is a similar very small percentage of people in both provinces who feel we would be better off together on our own. Of course, some of them think that Washington, Oregon and maybe Idaho would join us, so I suppose that tells you how grounded in reality they are.

Although it is ridiculous - the point here is that it's even more viable an OVERALL option that a sovereign Quebec. Seriously; Quebec is a novelty act worth absolutely nothing on its' own. Even oil "rich" Alberta would be on precarious enough a future with its limited (although comparitively broader) industry

Canada is fricking Canada.. let's make the out Ontario influence through a new right together

[DinoDoc]

Does anyone want to guess how long until Zylka gets banned again? My guess is 30 minutes.

[Zylka]

FAT RABBIT

[Ben Kenobi]

Naw, Ming's on the prowl.

10 at most.

[DinoDoc]

Zylka removed it.

[Zylka]

Attack the message, not the picture the messenger attached.

[Dylan Baker]

I found it a candid and revealing look into the state of Canadian affairs.

[Zylka]

Dylan is my friend

[Ben Kenobi]

Really, we don't need people exposing the Canadian mystique.

[Zylka]

[Mr. Harley]

Zykla - Can I see what would have got you banned, puh-lease.

Lord of the Mark - Excellent analysis of International Law. However, International Law is based on maintaining the status quo. There are so many artificial boundaries because the people drawing the boundaries didn't give a damn about the people living there. In fact, International Law and the precepts BEHIND it have given us most of the insurgencies and genocides since WW2, and has given us a fair number of wars. It is the de facto way things are settled, but to say it "works" depends on how you define that. Ask the Tutsi in Rawanda, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka (where India intervened on very thin pretensions in the interior affairs of a sovereign state, very similiarly to numerous US interventions in Central America).

Havel permitting the break-up of Czechoslovakia is a better model. "The rights of the governed...", etc. Yes, I know most countries pay lip service to that at best, including the US. Oligarchs, Religious leaders who feel they are RIGHT, and dictators aren't going to subscribe to this, and neither are majorities who control areas that really are ethnically and geographically seperate. Look at the Kurdish portion of Iraq (another artificial creation post-WW1 by the Brits, I've known high school students who could have done a better job of drawing borders) and how the Shia leadership wants to control that portion of Iraq. I guess I'll never be a good leader, the desire for power and control over others is something that I have never had an emotional connection to.