Given the recently leaked discussion about a false-flag attack to start a war with Syria, we're talking casus foederis here. Imagine the Turkish government pulls it off and invokes Article 5 of the NATO Treaty --- not a pleasant thought, is it?

Lunatics, everywhere!

That may true for some areas, but not all of them.
In fact, it depends on the Chief and how they lead their people.
Yes, they have social issues, and so do we off the reserves, but they are self governing and work every day to provide services for those in need. In my area, we have a great partnership with the First Nations. They are a vital part of our city.
The place where I see issues is when the government uses land, Such as with the NorthWestern Pipeline, and the First Nations are the first to stand up in defiance in defense of our environment -- I applaud them for that. Not to mention that the Gov. will change treaty laws at random to suit their needs. But that's Big Business, and they screw everyone, not just treaty law.

@lantern53

http://www.buzzfeed.com/joeflood/how-the-redskins-debate-goes-over-on-an-actual-indian-reserv

This says it better.

Quote:
People, Native American people in particular, in my limited experience, have the ability to ignore all manner of historical insults — like the Medals of Honor still on record for the soldiers who perpetrated the Wounded Knee Massacre, or the faces of U.S. presidents carved into a site the U.S. government took through warfare, forced starvation, and treaty violations. That resiliency, though, seems a pretty poor excuse for heaping on much smaller insults — like “Redskins” — and justifying them with “See? They’re cool with it.”

TPP is primarily a way of strengthening ties with counties that might otherwise be economically (and later otherwise) reliant on a stronger and more aggressive China. If these particulars are true, that's a shame because the treaty will not pass the Senate, nor should it. However, the Russian state is hardly a neutral party in this. They border the Pacific too, and you'll notice they weren't highlighted in red.

There are frequently "free trade" bilateral investment treaties signed behind closed doors. I protested the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in 1997 when I was in college, but it was the French in 1998 that eventually blocked its adoption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment

These are the worst examples of the oligarchy protecting its own interests and extending the status quo, keeping their corporate taxes low and their profits high through tax loopholes and the threat of legal action wherever safety or environmental concerns threaten the bottom line. This is why countries are going broke (including the USA,) not because of "foolish" government spending.

The issue is further complicated than you say though. The people claiming traditional rights to that land, which they claim was never given up, are none the less declaring Canadian citizenship, carrying Canadian passports and the vast majority receiving Canadian government compensation for existing treaties. It's not without reason that the majority of Canada sees the protests and has at least a few questions about the legitimacy of claims that the land neither does, nor ever has legally been a part of Canada.

Meet my demands or I'll die seems pretty stupid from the outside if their demands were say Let me Go. Their demands aren't that though, they're demanding basic human rights, to be treated like international law and the treaties we've signed require. There's a reason why Gitmo is located on Cuba, and it's not for the beaches. It's because if they were on American soil it would be easier to do something about this.

Wait till you read the Lissabon treaty.

When the US first follows up on Treaties that it makes with North Korea than maybe I'll give them credit enough that they can use to spy on me and others. The facts of the disputes between North Korea and the US are when the US gets more conciliatory they get more conciliatory, when we get more aggressive, they get more aggressive.

You can read it everywhere they'll write something about how North Korea is breaking it's treaties and defying the world, read down the page a bit and it'll tell you how the US first broke said treaty and allows countries to defy the world on Nuclear weapons constantly.

They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when they work so hard to destroy the world daily!

Far be it for me to defend Trump in any way, but he never said not to do business with China. His campaign against China is all about how the US is getting on tariffs, import/export duties, and trade treaties. I have seen his rants about China on talk shows previously and it is always the same - China negotiates deals with us very shrewdly and the US rolls over to their slightest demands.

It does symbolize things a bit doesn't it?

Seized by Israel when Syria and Egypt jointly launched an attack on Israel. Israel offering it in exchange for a peace treaty. It doesn't seem to purely exhibit one sided aggression from Israel, does it?

Are you kidding me?
Real life doesn't even have Elves, Dwarves, Wizards & Magical Beasties.
(or spaceships, or new worlds, aliens, or dragons and so on)
Real life history is about as dry as hay.

For me - I have little energy to spend in memorizing the ongoing mistakes of human history.

You're thinking, "But knowing our history lets us learn from our mistakes - It's so important"
Me: I will never have any influence, nor do I want to have, on the direction humanity will take. Some people make policy, laws, go to war, sign treaties, make deals etc. Those are the people that should benefit from human historical facts. I'm just a guy who doesn't want any part of it. So loosing myself in fiction works just fine for me - It's a lot more interesting to explore in one's mind the creative possibilities of something than to just regurgitate the facts that actually happened.

It's a dangerous world right now, to live without the protection of a government or a treaty with the government of your current location. Maybe someday it won't be, I know I hope for that.

But for a guy traveling in the domain of a foreign power, he wasn't very smart. The Bill of Rights applies to U.S. citizens. I don't know what sovereign associates of the State of Idaho get for protection.

I'm not sure there's a foreign country in the world where a U.S. citizen can act like that safely. And he claims to not even be one of those, so he's *really* going to have trouble.

I consider the taser largely irrelevant in this scenario. Getting tackled to the grown isn't a lot nicer. Until the world finally outgrows nationalism, he'd better pick a citizenship that will give him some backup in a government conflict.

Usually no one reads comments this far down, but I'd like for the pro-gun people to weigh in on these six specific policies, and see if maybe they still sound like reasonable policies to you guys. (Borrowing entirely from here)

1. Ban people on the terrorist watch list from legally buying guns.
   
2. Require background checks on every gun sale.
   
3. Ratify the UN Arms Treaty to tamp down on gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico.
   
4. Allow the public to access the FBI's database of guns used in Federal crimes.
   
5. Ban guns in bars.
   
6. Allow any business to legally bar people from bringing in firearms.
   

I love VS for these kinds of debates, but I see some straw-man arguments going on here.

First, not every Palestinian belongs to Hamas. In fact, the majority of the population does not belong to Hamas. Similarly, very few Germans were actually members of the Nazi party. German citizens backed the Nazis because they felt they were the best hope for getting Germany's economy out of the toilet, getting Germany out of what the citizens perceived as the unfair terms of the Versailles Treaty, and protecting Germany from (Nazi manufactured) external threats. Again, similarly, Palestinians back Hamas because they see Hamas as the best hope of dealing with Israeli oppression.

For 45 years the world (read: United States) has shown little interest in stopping the Israelis--who are supplied with arms and training by the United States-- from forcibly displacing people from their homes and relocating them to what Chomsky calls "the world's largest open-air prison."

How could the Palestinian people possibly expect to defend themselves against Israel in an open and conventional conflict? The Palestinian people back terrorism because it works--it forces Israel to the negotiating table. Consistently, these Israeli "flexing our big muscles" incursions and retaliations by the military have failed completely to stop rocket attacks, suicide bombs, etc. and at some point they must always go to the negotiating table. A side benefit is that the terrorist attacks and subsequent negotiations get the world's media eye focused on the region and what Israel is doing there.

So this talk about whether Hamas are terrorists or freedom fighters is besides the point. They're terrorists to Israelis and they're freedom fighters to the Palestinians. Israel and the U.S. are just as much terrorists as Hamas if not more so. You can watch Chomsky clearly explain why on this Sift: http://videosift.com/video/noam-chomsky-is-america-a-leading-terrorist-state

Second, let's look at the casualties from this latest conflict:
Israel: 3 Israeli's dead, 60 injured from shrapnel (all adults according to latest reports)
Palestine: 100s dead, including 26 children

Yet, Israel tries to spin its military campaign as one of self-defense. The balance of power is so skewed here it's comical.

If there is any hope for peace in this region, it will only come after the U.S. not only stops actively supporting Israel but openly condemns them as well. But that can't possibly happen without the U.S. looking supremely hypocritical about the actions it takes globally (for instance in Afghanistan) in the name of the "War on Terror."

From there, as others have mentioned, you have to stop the occupation and bring both sides together on equal terms. Yes, there will still be fanatics who will fight to the end. But they won't be finding the sympathy and support of the majority of the populace if that populace is no longer oppressed and instead is living in free and safe conditions. Without that popular support, those fanatics will be much easier to deal with than they are now. It's not going to be an easy road to peace because hatred has been bred into both sides so deeply. But I do think it is possible if only the U.S. government will get its head out of its ass.

My 2 cents, anyways.

EDIT: Please don't take this post to mean that I support terrorism in any form or think that it is justified by the Israeli occupation. I am only pointing out the historical fact that terrorism gives the Palestinians pretty much their ONLY bargaining chip at the negotiating table--the Palestinian leadership (whoever is in charge at the time, though it is currently Hamas) agrees to reign in the terror attacks in exchange for humanitarian aid such as food, building supplies, etc. In other words, it "works" in achieving short-term goals but clearly doesn't help achieve lasting peace in the region--which as others have pointed out Hamas doesn't really want anyway.